Consistency Deficiency

[Hufsa]

Black spray bar! Woo! 😍

Trimming took out a fair bit of plant mass, but a lot of what I removed was decaying because they're not satisfied with the Tropica ferts.
Im gonna switch to DIY ferts again as soon as I have made some new solutions. Ive tried dosing more of the Tropica, but it doesnt seem to help and the plants are really complaining.
The M. Guyana never says anything about anything as long as there is water in the tank, but even this one is looking thinner than usual and the older growth has been decaying a lot more than what is normal for it.
The Blyxa is still struggling with both immobile and mobile nutrient deficiency, which after removing the half dead leaves, leaves just those small sorry looking pale tufts. This one might die if it doesnt feel better soon, its growth has been stagnating more and more lately.
Crypts appear to be feeling better in coarser sand. They look to be recovering and im happy about that

I had some more issues with the black plumbing, my Plan A was to connect both spray bars to the Jebao pump. What I didnt account for was how hard this was to put together when working with extremely uncooperative "push fit" fittings. The pipes dont really fit the fittings at all, they can barely be seated into them. So ive been heating up the fittings to make them a bit wider. But it seems when they cool they shrink down a bit again. So getting it all assembled inside the tank was very hard, I couldnt do it. There are two(!) cross beams on this tank, so assembling the double spray bar manifold outside of the tank was not an option.
If I want to try this again then I need to widen the fittings another round 🥵
But I was fed up with that luminous grey bar in the middle of my view, so I just used the black bars the other way / plan B. So the Jebao is still running just the top spray bar, and the Ultramax is running the bottom spray bar.
The Ultramax IS having problems with air purging, but I found out why the flow seemed especially bad in the lower bar lately. Apparently this dum-dum removed the bottom spray bar for cleaning, removed the electrical tape that plugged up some of the holes because the glue was coming undone. And then just didnt plug those holes back up again. Too many holes = bad flow velocity. Stupid oversight, but at least my ego wont get too big 😁
Flow is better now with a new bar with fewer holes, but im still gonna take it out soon and plug up a few more holes. I wanna really get some ooomph through the flow in the lower back part of the tank. This water has to be pulled through a pretty thick (at times) mass of plants and around and under hardscape, so it needs to be strong enough.


The tank still has some cosmetic things that I want to improve on over time.
I cant really fill this tank all the way to the top, because at the top of the back pane (1), when the water level is at max, the silver inside of the aluminium frame of the tank is visible Its right on the back glass pane, so it cant be painted like the rest of the back wall. Its a real eyesore to me. Maybe the danes didnt think about it because they're often using 3d backgrounds inside the tank, which would hide this.
So im thinking of running a 5-10mm band of some kind of plastic wrap / surface coating all the way around the front of the tank glass right under the frame, so that I can conceal the front water line, but not have the silver stripe in the back visible.
The tank is also no longer level, I think the ancient floor has sagged a bit. So im thinking of draining most of the water out one day and releveling it again using the adjustable feet.
This tank is never gonna look completely sleek, because for some absolutely incomprehensible reason they decided to use GREY! silicone (3) to make the tank.
I dont know what kind of crack the danes at Akvastabil were smoking when they designed this tank
So the silicone lines in the back left and right are always gonna stand out against the black background like an eyesore.
One day I will replace this tank, and this time there wont be any compromises 😠 Black silicone, no frame to complicate everything, and no or very minimal crossbracing.

Left to do plumbing wise is making new black intake pipes (2), that should make the tank look even better.
I also wanna get a better, more minimal solution for the shrimp protection on the skimmer outlet and for the frogbit fences (4).


Im leaning towards replacing the current sand completely. Theres the question of the retained medication, but primarily I want something that is a bit better suited for the plants and isnt entirely reliant on snails to function ok.
Since that is gonna be a huge undertaking, and I dont want to do this kind of stuff very often, im planning to install a layer of calcined moler clay in mesh bags under the new sand. Plus potentially something with nutrients in it, but not too hot.
I think a substrate with high CEC and some nutrients might make things a bit easier for me.
Ive been very stubbornly trying to get only sand to work, and I still think it can be done at least in some cases.
I think it depends on the plant species chosen, the water composition, and the properties of the substrate.
But ive started wondering if I should try to make things less difficult for myself. Its not that I dont want to learn new things, and I quite like doing something even if its difficult. But I think there is a balance to be struck between a lot of struggling and learning, and maybe struggling a little bit less but still learning an ok amount. Because if theres too much struggling then no learning is really happening, and too much struggle isnt very fun to do for a long period of time 🙂
So I should give myself permission to make things a little bit easier for myself, even if it means I might miss out a bit on the cutting edge of testing what can be done. Theres probably someone more qualified than me to test stuff out anyway

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
Those are lovely little things <"https://www.planetcatfish.com/common/species.php?species_id=383">. If I ever seen any I'm going to buy them, if I can afford it.

I would be very happy if they start spawning for real later on, and the fry would survive.

I'm pretty sure <"they will spawn for you">, <"https://www.planetcatfish.com/commo...d=140&username=mummymonkey&species_id=383#140">. Raising them may be a bit more difficult.

cheers Darrel

 

[_Maq_]

Perhaps we've been there already, but still... Are you not going to consider reverse osmosis? Given all the diligence and effort you expend on (not only) nutrient adjustments, wouldn't it be really much better to begin with pure water?
Clay in mesh bags: Clay particles can be incredibly small. So small that even bacteria may struggle to pass between them. I mean, mesh bags will not prevent clay particles from passing through.
Clay: Clays swell in water and create a mud. I've experimented a bit with powdered clays and came to an opinion that making a layer consisting solely of clay is not a good idea. Instead, I've got better results by adding some 5 per cent (by volume) to sand. I repeat, the clay will swell and 5 % is more than enough! (I liked the blend of 90 % sand, 5 % clay and 5 % peat. Plus some powdered Fe2O3.)
All my attempts to create a substrate better than pure sand went to nowhere, ultimately. They probably did no harm but I really can't point to any improvement. In fact, several years ago I spent quite a time labouring with substrates. I've got tired of it, I haven't detected any benefits.
Too soft a sand: You know that my thoughts move in a similar direction. Mainly out of desperation from my lack of success with Crypts. So I seriously consider replacing my sand 0.6-1.2 mm by 1.4-2.0 mm (the same I have in Micurins). But while I have clear signs that my substrate is deeply anoxic, plants' roots are still long and healthy, snow white.
If we suspect that poor oxygenation of our soft-sand substrate has anything to do with our difficulties, you'll hardly improve it by clay addition, I'm afraid. And the last warning: Corydoras + clay in substrate = troubles.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Are you not going to consider reverse osmosis? Given all the diligence and effort you expend on (not only) nutrient adjustments, wouldn't it be really much better to begin with pure water

I think in @Hufsa 's case it is pretty much RO water out of the tap.

cheers Darrel

 

[Hufsa]

Perhaps we've been there already, but still... Are you not going to consider reverse osmosis? Given all the diligence and effort you expend on (not only) nutrient adjustments, wouldn't it be really much better to begin with pure water?

If I had the money I probably would have one 🙂 But, as Darrel says, my tapwater isnt that bad, so I doubt it would make or break the tank success for me. It would be more of a luxury thing. Maybe sometime in the future 😊

Clay in mesh bags: Clay particles can be incredibly small. So small that even bacteria may struggle to pass between them. I mean, mesh bags will not prevent clay particles from passing through.
Clay: Clays swell in water and create a mud. I've experimented a bit with powdered clays and came to an opinion that making a layer consisting solely of clay is not a good idea. Instead, I've got better results by adding some 5 per cent (by volume) to sand. I repeat, the clay will swell and 5 % is more than enough! (I liked the blend of 90 % sand, 5 % clay and 5 % peat. Plus some powdered Fe2O3.)

Oh but this isnt "clay" clay 😊
These are hardened porous grains, "calcined diatomite", it doesn't go soft or dissolve in water. It has a massive CEC from what I understand, but it will "never" break down, just the CEC will eventually become somewhat exhausted. Its the same stuff they sell for bonsai tree soil mixes, pink kitty litter, and some types of absorbants for chemical spills. I got a bag of this stuff called Ikasorb 1030 for a great price. It says 100% calcined diatomite, non toxic, chemically inert etc. The grain size is 1-3mm too which is pretty much perfect. For anyone interested theres already a lot of threads on "kitty litter" here on UKAPS.

So I seriously consider replacing my sand 0.6-1.2 mm by 1.4-2.0 mm (the same I have in Micurins).

I think the snails will give your substrate a real boost 😊 Its possible you wont have to replace it, 0.6mm and up is not super fine after all.

 

[bazz]

Good morning Hufsa,

Are you not going to consider reverse osmosis? Given all the diligence and effort you expend on (not only) nutrient adjustments, wouldn't it be really much better to begin with pure water?

I'm pretty confident that in over 1200 messages that your tap water parameters have been discussed in great detail but I don't have the time to read through it all again right now , but I can't help thinking that there is maybe something undetected in there somewhere that is either hindering plant growth and/or benefitting algae. I'm not sure if your water is tapped straight from a fjord or from a municipal water company but maybe it could contain levels of for example, Sodium Hydroxide.
We can all see you are doing everything right and your aquarium looks lovely, just marred by the BBA of which is evidently causing you some heartache.
There has to be a logical explanation and you have everything else covered.
We are all gunning for you and your journal is a source of bittersweet entertainment, I always make a coffee to sit down with when I see the words 'Consistency Deficiency'
Cheers!

 

[_Maq_]

"calcined diatomite", it doesn't go soft or dissolve in water. It has a massive CEC from what I understand

Diatomite is a powder consisting of dead diatom frustules. It's amorphous silica, and as such, it possesses no CEC. Its cleaning and absorption properties are entirely physical (it is indeed chemically inert). Frustules are bizarrely shaped and granules made of them are thus very very porous. That's why it 'sucks' and 'traps' all liquids in dry environment. It's beneficial in soils because it holds water, and that's the only reason some bonsai and home plants keepers use it.
Diatomaceous earth is widely used for filtration of liquids (in specially designed filters). Sometimes it's called 'bacteria trap' because bacteria get stuck among frustules' irregularities. Another use is an eco-friendly pesticide. It kills insects, because microscopic frustules enter and damage their breathing organs, and it kills/repels snails because its sharp edges wound snails.
I think with granulated diatomaceous earth you gain nothing good except relatively light porous silica. It cannot be even considered a bacteria friendly (porous) substrate.
I do not recommend it.

Edit: Granulated diatomaceous earth has been used to trap and transport infamous Zyklon-B.

 

[Hufsa]

Diatomite is a powder consisting of dead diatom frustules.

This isnt a powder though? 😵

It's amorphous silica, and as such, it possesses no CEC. Its cleaning and absorption properties are entirely physical (it is indeed chemically inert).

🤔 Clearly I need to look into this further. Maybe I got entirely the wrong idea from those kitty litter threads. @dw1305 could you enlighten me?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Maybe I got entirely the wrong idea from those kitty litter threads. @dw1305 could you enlighten me?

I think it is <"apples and pears"> territory and the issue is probably the difference between Danish moler clay and diatomite.

My understanding is that the <"Danish Moler"> contains smectite clay as well as diatomite.

....... Moler is a unique mixture of diatom shells and smectite clay used as an absorption agent in an unlimited array of applications ranging from cat litter to soil amendment to steel making .....

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is from the clay, not the diatoms. <"Cations and Cation Exchange Capacity - Qld | Fact Sheets | soilquality.org.au"> .

....... The CEC of soils varies according to clay content, the type of clay present, soil pH and organic matter content. Pure sand has a very low CEC, less than 2 meq/100 g. Clays such as kaolinite have a CEC of about 10 meq/100 g, while illite and smectite have CECs ranging from 25 to 100 meq/100 g. Organic matter has a very high CEC, ranging from 250 to 400 meq/100 g. In most soils, CEC ranges from around 50 in high clay content soils to 1 in pure sands.......

Diatomite comprises <"the frustule of diatoms">, and they are silicon dioxide (SIO2), and don't have any CEC, just like the "pure sands" mentioned above.

cheers Darrel

 

[Hufsa]

I think with granulated diatomaceous earth you gain nothing good except relatively light porous silica. It cannot be even considered a bacteria friendly (porous) substrate.

I think it is <"apples and pears"> territory and the issue is probably the difference between Danish moler clay and diatomite.

Gawd dangit

One of the few times I dont spend months researching something before going to the next step, it of course turns out to be a total swing and a miss
Serves me right for reading lightly thorough threads 🙁

Oh well.. It was almost too good to be true anyway. Cheap and good?! Yeah, as if!
I think I kept the receipt so I can probably return this huge bag if I cant think of another good use for it 🙂

Maybe I should just go for Tropica soil in the mesh bags. Its just a decent chunk of money for a tank this size 😕 And I want something that can be good for a few years at least, or can be replenished a bit.
I dont like ripping the entire tank out so I dont want to be locked into doing that every year to maintain good growing conditions.
DIY solutions are of course cheaper, but carries more risk of choosing the wrong product and not having good results, or worst case having very bad results.
The "tested/safe" products that are commonly available in the UK might not be available here at all.

Ill need to give it some more thought I guess Lord knows I already do enough thinking, why not add some more 😂
Entertaining suggestions



Yesterday I started the process of moving the shrimp out of the main tank. Time will tell if this was a bad choice or not

You may remember I mentioned a while back I got a bottle of that slightly nasty algaecide from the US (Busan 77 or what its called). Or if you rather prefer blissful ignorance, the more friendly sounding name "API Algaefix".
Shrimp are an absolute no-no with this one.
I dont remember exactly who wrote it, (it might have been Tom Barr) but "shrimp will turn inside out". 😳 Not my idea of a good time.

My line of thinking (which I will admit im feeling a little bit shaky on in this specific situation), is that if im going to use this algaecide then I dont want to use it after the new sand has been put in the tank.
Im done with replacing sand because of "bad stuff" like medications and treatments getting stuck in the substrate.
So if I want to use the algaecide to really gain an upper hand on the thread algae situation (combined with other efforts), I will want to do it before that new sand.
And if so, the shrimp need to live elsewhere for a while. I dont have the equipment or space to set up a third tank, so thats why they kinda have to go in the quarantine tank.
The medications im planning to use for deworming the new quarantine fish dont hurt shrimp, and the shrimp gotta be out of the main tank temporarily. At least I think it will be temporarily.. 🤔
I suppose I feel bad that they will be present for a couple of rounds of dewormer 😓 But other than that it shouldnt be too bad for them I think.
The quarantine tank is pretty nice, with dim light and tons of roots under the thick canopy of emersed plants. Leaf litter and gentle flow, low levels of fertilizer etc.

Im wanting to use at least a week or more to make sure ive gotten all the shrimp out of the main tank. So im not in a hurry with this. Would rather do it slowly and do it right.
Or even not at all if I change my mind.
I have been on the fence about the shrimp (keeping Neocaridina at all) for a while.. Almost posted them for sale a couple of times, but I didnt feel like the group was healthy enough to confidently sell to anybody.
They're doing much better now though, I found the first litter of new shrimplets when I was catching them yesterday. Good news because it means ive corrected what was bothering them. Slightly annoying news because it means I need to hunt down a whole litter of shrimplets to get out of the tank. No rest for the wicked I suppose 😅
And they do help clean the tank. That is very needed right now.

Just been toying with the idea of getting something like tangerine tigers for a while. Or some other kind of hardy caridina.
It would mean I dont have to remineralise much, and softwater shrimp would fit better with the softwater fish and plants I already have.
We'll see 😊

 

[_Maq_]

Maybe I should just go for Tropica soil in the mesh bags.

Hufsa, I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure if I can understand your (latest) plan.
Do I gather correctly that:
(1) You want to get rid of your current substrate because you believe you had kind of 'poisoned' it?
(2) You are aiming at a bit coarser upper layer?
(3) You want to try a substrate with significant CEC (or rather: adsorption capacity)?

 

[Hufsa]

Hufsa, I'm a bit confused.

Me too friend, me too 😅

Do I gather correctly that:
(1) You want to get rid of your current substrate because you believe you had kind of 'poisoned' it?

Its possible that its "poisoned", but I dont really know for sure yet. I would have to test it by adding just one or two sand snails to the tank to see if they do ok.
To be specific, this is something that has happened to me before, and it left me unable to keep sand snails. Every time I tried to add any to the tank they immediately grew listless and died.
Changing the substrate fixed the problem immediately.

(2) You are aiming at a bit coarser upper layer?

Yes. I think plants may grow a bit better if I have a substrate that doesnt go quite so low into the mm sizes. My current sand is said to be 0.1-0.5. I checked another bag of this sand to see where the grain distribution was, and there are hardly any 0.5mm grains. There were so few that im not even sure why they listed it on the bag. The sand was about 50/50 split between 0.1-0.2 grains, and 0.3-0.4 grains. I suspect that especially the former portion of the sand is why the plant roots might find it a bit too dense. Sand snails may allow my substrate to go back to its former functionality, but I cant help but wonder if it would be even better if it wasnt quite so fine.
I know what you think about substrate "breathability" (using this word for lack of a better one), so I dont expect you to agree. But there are a lot of others who grow very nice plants who say that this does factor into root health.

(3) You want to try a substrate with significant CEC (or rather: adsorption capacity)?

Im not sure. My thinking was that if I am going to go to all this work to make my substrate a bit better for plants, it wouldnt be strange to consider also adding something that can hold a bit more nutrients for the plant roots.
More than what detritus enriched sands would be able to provide.
I know you also dont agree with that, but this too also have quite a few people who recommend it. It would be a part of trying to make the tank a little bit easier to manage when it comes to fertilizer.

Im still a card carrying member of Team Sand, so I would need to implement the enrichment in a way that doesnt ruin the benefits of sand. So minimal mess when replanting, and no mixing of the two substrates for example.

 

[Hufsa]

Yes. I think plants may grow a bit better if I have a substrate that doesnt go quite so low into the mm sizes. ... Sand snails may allow my substrate to go back to its former functionality, but I cant help but wonder if it would be even better if it wasnt quite so fine.

I forgot to add, before I decide on what grain size I want a new sand to be, I want to check with my inhabitants to make sure they will remain comfortable with my choice.
I wont use a sand with sharp grains in any case, but I do want the kuhliis and small corydoras to still be able to comfortably root through the sand. I dont want to compromise their wellbeing.
Since im a bit of a nutcase I have sieves of several sizes, so I can separate sand into specific ranges for testing. Yesterday I added areas of 0.5-0.6 and 0.6-0.7 mm sand to the quarantine tank.
I want to observe the corys interacting with these sizes for a bit, and see how I feel about it. The quarantine tank will get some new kuhliis too at some point, and I want to check how they feel about it as well.
I think this is a bit difficult area as the dwarf corys that I like are obviously very small, and such need even smaller grains than regular corydoras in order to be able to rummage and sift it.
But the plants might want the grains as "large as possible". And then my preferences to the aesthetics top it all off into one delicious packet of madness 😁

 

[_Maq_]

ad (1): Sounds unusual, but quite possible, I assume.

ad (2): About forty years ago, Barko & Smart did a lot of work in the field of keeping submerged plants in tanks for scientific purposes. They demonstrated and came to conclusion that pure silica sand is the worst substrate possible. Perhaps since then, in all scientific papers I had read, scientists keep their plants in soils. In mud, effectively, because soils are normally full of clays and clays swell into homogenous mud. That is what scientists do, in laboratories, so it's quite like our hobby. (Beside that, they almost invariably aerate their tanks.)
Yes, I do believe substrates are suboxic and anoxic except a thin (a few mm) uppermost layer. Yet you don't have to assume I perceive this issue in singular yes or no way. I too think a lot about optimal grain size and I quite believe that beside the question of oxygen penetration there are other variables at play.
You may recall I mentioned the crust covering my substrate in Portugals. I don't know what to think about it. And you know I've acquired Melanoides snails to do something about it. At the same time, I don't know if the crust is actually a problem, doing any harm. So, in the end, I'm pretty hesitant, just like you.

ad (3): Sand, no mess, no mixing. If that is the case, I'd draw your attention to iron infested sands. Oxidized iron creates iron (hydr)oxide brownish coating on silica grains. It sticks firmly to the grain, so it's no source of any mess, and such a sand looks more natural, not so crystal white (as you certainly noticed). Only in the deep, in suboxic and anoxic environment, it may dissolve and do something. Iron is ubiquitous in nature, and one of the peculiarities of pure silica sand is precisely that it deprives plants of this iron.
These iron coatings posses significant adsorption capabilities; they adsorb phosphates and transition metals (microelements). In oxic environment, while in suboxic conditions they dissolve. Plants are well adapted to this rhythm, indeed, they expect substrate to behave like that and possess strategies how to dissolve if required (exuding organic acids) or precipitate if required (exuding oxygen - avoiding toxicity).
Beside that, iron content is very efficient at preventing hydrogen sulfide toxicity because iron readily reacts with it to form iron sulfide(s) - pitch black compound, fairly stable and non-toxic.

 

[Hufsa]

I mentioned switching back to DIY ferts soon. On this note I would like to write down my observations, thoughts and ideas and see what other people think, maybe they have some suggestions for me.


Today marks exactly one month of dosing Tropica Specialised. Its given mixed results I would say. A lot of plants have been complaining about different problems, most notably increased chlorosis in most but not all plants.
Also there has been a fairly significant increase in mobile nutrient deficiencies, so old leaves have gotten ugly and deteriorated much quicker than usual. Ive noted that there has been a bit of a variation in the presentation of such mobile deficiency. To be specific, the oldest frogbit leaves went from looking ugly a certain way, into looking ugly in a slightly different way. I would speculate that this might be lack of a different macronutrient showing itself, but I dont see the point in trying to figure out which one when the overall fertilizer hasnt been working well enough. Gotta keep a firm eye on the big picture here.

About a week and a half ago (12.04) I increased the dosing to three pumps per day in the main tank, to see if an overall increase would do the trick. (So 42 ml weekly in a ~250 l tank). Previous numbers here.
So lately the tank has been getting;

N 2.251 (NO3 9.96)
P 0.168 (PO4 0.51)
K 1.73

Fe 0.116
Mn 0.066
B 0.007
Zn 0.003
Cu 0.01
Mo 0.003

It hasnt seemed to help.

There's been some notable differences between the main tank and the quarantine tank that im not sure what to make of.

The frogbit in the quarantine tank is pretty happy actually. I have recently removed all the oldest leaves of the frogbit, so the signs of mobile nutrient deficiency is not visible in these pictures (I gotta stop doing that right before pictures).
But running low there is not a bad thing, as I actually want the quarantine tank running a bit low on N and P. This means the plants are doing their intended job of stripping the water and buffering any differences between filter maturity and increases in livestock. The plants here are for utility only, unlike the main tank where optimal plant growth is wanted.


The Tonina was extremely pale a little while ago, but it seems to have come around now and doesnt look too bad in the newest growth.
Still, I can tell that the plants are bordering on chlorosis based on how easily it returns in the frogbit, and the appearance of the slower growing plants like Tonina.

Overall though, the fertilizer appears to be working decently well for this little tank. I wonder what the big difference is.
Its a pretty small tank with an actual water volume of about 40 liters. Almost all of the plants have access to atmospheric CO2, but so far only the frogbit is growing fast. (I think its grabbing most of the nutrients first to be honest).
If I calculate the fertilizer based on an actual water volume of 40 L, it gives us NO3 10.38, PO4 0.53, Fe 0.121. The main tank has targets set based on external measurements and not taking into account any displaced water or added water from canister filters, so im a little bit reluctant to draw conclusions based on a direct comparison. If we calculated the little tank based on the external measurements, the numbers above would be lower. But the main tank has more substrate and more plumbing and two large canister filters and a reactor. So idk about all of that, where it actually lands.
We could perhaps say that its likely somewhere close.
But the frogbit in the little tank looks pretty good, and the frogbit in the main tank looks very pale both in new and old leaves.
Im not sure what gives. Differences in competition from submersed plants perhaps?


What has been a success with Tropica ferts is that im pretty sure this means I can rule out any major issue with the autodoser and fertilizer making.
If my fertilizer issues had something to do with inconsistency or inaccuracy from the autodoser, switching to dosing manually should have made things a lot better.
Id like to take this moment to pat myself on the back as I havent missed a single manual dose Theres been one or two close calls where I had to dose after the lights had gone out for the day, but other than that I have been remarkably consistent 😁

I think I can only partially "rule out" an issue with fertilizer making.
This is because I havent been dosing the same amount of micros with Tropica as I have been with the DIY ferts.
So the comparison is not close enough to tell, if that makes sense.
I also dont see how I could compare these two directly to each other, as I would have to dose a very high amount of Tropica Specialized to get up to the DIY micro levels.
The amount of macros in the Specialized would be much higher than desired if I tried this.
It could be done by also using Tropica Premium (only micros and K), but I dont really want to buy a whole bottle of this just to test that out at this point.

There still might be a minor issue with precipitation in my DIY micro mixes, but I will try to iron (no pun intended) that out with this next batch.
Swapping tasty-for-microbes citric acid for less tasty acetic acid (vinegar), and seeing if the fuzzy bits stop appearing in the solutions.

My first thought with switching back to DIY is that I would like to go back to something close to the mix I have been running for a while.
As I have learned from our dear @KirstyF , the value of having a baseline to work from should not be underestimated.
Particularly I want to set the micros close to the "best working" recipe, that I used in december/january.
That was this;

0.42 ppm Fe (from DTPA/Gluconate 50/50)
0.21 ppm Mn
0.028 ppm Zn
0.028 ppm B
0.0085 ppm Cu
0.012 ppm Mo
0.00014 ppm Ni
Frogbit leaves were large and well shaped, not wavy. Lacked a little bit in overall color, no distinct pattern, if anything then slightly reticulated appearance.

I tried some variations on this recipe after that. First I tried higher Mn (0.3), that lead to the frogbit growing out strongly pinched. Set the Mn level back to previous level.
Then I needed to remake the solutions because they ran out. I decided to round the numbers up to 0.5 Fe (roughly 1.19x for the rest). The plants didnt seem to like this quite as much.
So im thinking that I should go back to precisely those numbers, and reestablish a baseline of decent plant growth. After that I can revisit it and see if I want to try a tweak to something.
My first instinct would be to go straight from current dosing to the tweaks that I think might help, but this has shown to not be the best practice from my experiences so far.

When I can tweak something later on though, my thoughts are that I should shift my thinking from dosing mainly based on what we think the plants need, to dosing more based on how long things are sticking around in the water column.
In other words, I think precipitation and also a lack of precipitation, might be influencing more than we think of how an aquatic micro mix should be balanced.
For example, Fe, Mn and Zn precipitate fairly easily, while Boron does not precipitate as much.
I might also want to account for how well tolerated individual micros are, for example a low tolerance for excess Boron, and a higher tolerance for excess Molybdenum. But thats entering tinfoil hat territory, so ill keep it to myself 😉

If I can get the chlorosis levels in the plants back to how they were at their best point, I think "all the way there" on chlorosis might not be that far away.
I am still curious about why this little tweaking seems to make such a significant difference in my tank, and if there could be factors in my water supply that are making it this way compared to the forum average. But I digress.


Im toying with the idea of reducing the amount of Urea and Ammonia usage in my tank now that im remaking DIY ferts.
The link between "hotter" nitrogen sources and algae is fairly well accepted in the community, even if we dont all agree exactly how or why or in which circumstances it comes into effect.
My thread algae problem has raged on undeterred for quite some time. One thing that has not been tried is going back to a more stable NO3 based macro.
This is not because I think its impossible to run an algae free tank using Urea and Ammonia, but the consensus so far seems to be that doing that requires a lot of other things to be "just right".
Or at least you really have to know what you're doing.
..I rarely know what im doing 😁
So it doesnt seem entirely implausible to me that it has been making my thread algae problem a bit worse, or sustaining it somewhat.

To try to make sense of really complex and difficult topics like algae, I try to do something akin to a mental meta-analysis.
I want to see if I can find a pattern or something in common between the many many sources of opinions, information and user reports on the internet.
For green thread types of algae, my impression has been that they are associated with; instability, a volatile system, maybe one with a major source of organics perhaps (like a bunch of really problematic wood like that one thread on UKAPS that I cant remember..) Organics and ammonia are associated. Or a freshly setup system where the balance has not been established. High light seems to accelerate the issues (unsurprisingly), but lowering the lights alone wont cure it, unless the cause is one that would pass on its own with time, for example an immature system. Time makes the system more mature, lowering lights help with the extent of the problem, cause passes, algae recedes. There are more than a few user reports that go something along those lines.

My tank is not perfectly stable. But im not convinced that its unstable enough to alone warrant such a long running bloom of slimy green thread algae. I think there must be more than that alone.
Lets say the tank was running "stable enough" to use Urea as a N source earlier last year. But then the tank's balance shifted significantly enough last fall (from probably many small reasons combined to make a big one), and the thread algae got an upper hand. The tank has received a fairly substantial amount of maintenance and care lately, but still the thread algae seem to carry on mostly undeterred. Increased stability might have helped a little bit, but not nearly enough.
Many of us think that green thread algae can be difficult to get rid of once they have established themselves. I guess this is because they are quite similar to plants in their requirements.
The cause of my bloom does not appear to be something that is passing with time. Because then it should be starting to pass now.
So what is happening that is continuing to give the algae an upper hand in this system?
Speculation: Slightly too hot nitrogen source, "too hot" based on what my plants are currently able to utilise, and the plants are having some problems with chlorosis and CO2 stability, and especially the last one significantly influences their growth. Lowered plant growth = more potential for algae growth.

What im wondering is, if a "1-2 punch" comprised of a less potent nitrogen source, really strict stability management, coupled with careful treatment with the slightly nasty algaecide, will be enough to allow the plants to regain the upper hand.
(Thats not to say I have to stay with NO3 nitrogen forever. But, I would like to first get the tank running "pretty well" with minimal algae, before thinking about introducing it again.)

What do you think?

 

[erwin123]

Hufsa, I think you are being too hard on yourself, the tank and plant actually looks pretty good from the photos. As long as the plants are growing and not melting, I wouldn't be panicking about chlorosis or some off-colour leaves.

 

[Hufsa]

Hufsa, I think you are being too hard on yourself, the tank and plant actually looks pretty good from the photos. As long as the plants are growing and not melting, I wouldn't be panicking about chlorosis or some off-colour leaves.

Full tank shots can be deceiving 😅
Especially after a LOT of manual algae removal.
I forget to take "before" pictures, so the journal has given a better impression of the tank lately than it looks like in reality.
I think I havent presented very well just how many hours of manual algae pulling, scrubbing and rubbing individual plant leaves it takes, to get the tank to look just close to like how it used to look quite effortlessly.
The pictures may look similar but the effort required is really massively different.

But I will agree that my standards are high, probably higher than average
Ive got a few difficult factors like inert substrate, and im insisting on keeping some plants that are more demanding than average 😊 But those are my desires though, and I am getting closer and closer to ideal.
It just looks a bit hairy from the sidelines 😅 (And from here tbh 👀)
I was panicked when the buces were really melting wholesale, but they have stabilised a little bit and thus im not feeling very panicked at the moment 🙂
A bit tired from constantly having to put in so much work to remove the algae to be sure, but luckily not panicked 😃
The buces are still struggling, theres rhizomes and leaves melting which is very abnormal, and new growth is barely coming out and those leaves are very malformed for the most part.
But just because its not quite going to hell as fast as it did a few weeks ago, I feel like I have time to work on the problem.
I dont think lowering my expectations is the right direction for me to go in though. Being able to grow buce without melting and deformed leaves is not unreasonable for example, so accepting that would mean lower standards than average.
But I appreciate that you guys dont think it looks too bad 😊 I could try to be more selective with which areas I remove algae from. The stuff growing from the leaves might affect the plants and flow a bit, but its not nearly as critical to remove as the stuff that coats the intake mesh. So if I wanted to save some energy I could be more picky about that. And try to let the cosmetics go 🙂
That would also show better the extent of the thread algae problem.

@erwin123 what do you think about the proposed battle plan?

 

[_Maq_]

It would be very nice if you restrict your nitrogen source to nitrates and do no other change.
Like you said, there's commonly accepted opinion that 'hot' nitrogen somehow supports algae. Recently, I've run a test which was meant to say a word on this issue (among others). The result was inconclusive, I'd say. (But definitely no thread algae.) It would be great if more people actually toyed with nitrogen sources (unlike just repeating common wisdom) and presented their results.

 

[Hufsa]

It would be very nice if you restrict your nitrogen source to nitrates and do no other change.

You have my interest

If we are going to do this, how do you suggest it be done in a completely practical sense?
Should I make a DIY fertilizer that is "as close to" the running Tropica dose as feasible, but with only NO3 nitrogen?
The K might end up a bit different, but probably not enough to make the entire thing invalid, especially if I use some MgNO3 for the recipe?
The micros would need to be similar too, yes? Both in amount and relative strength of chelate (or not chelated).

I have checked the bottle of Tropica Specialised. There is roughly 100ml left in the bottle.
After I wrote the big post earlier today I gave the difference between the quarantine tank and main tank some more thought. Sometimes writing things in the journal helps make things a bit clearer.
I went and gave the main tank one more pump of fertilizer, making it 4 total as of today. Ill continue with 4 per day (56 ml per week) until the bottle runs out or I have made the new ferts and want to start those.
Thats about a week and a half or so of fertilizer left, not accounting for what the quarantine tank will take.

Maybe we can still learn something more from using the Tropica premade
If the main tank becomes more like the the quarantine tank with 4 pumps, that would be interesting. (Chlorosis wise especially).
It would be this;
N 3.002 (NO3 13.28)
P 0.224 (PO4 0.68)
K 2.307

Fe 0.155
Mn 0.087
B 0.009
Zn 0.004
Cu 0.013
Mo 0.004

I cant be bothered to work out the exact math but I think for reasons outlined earlier the main tank is running a leaner dose of Tropica than the quarantine tank.
If the chlorosis improves to the level of the quarantine tank with this increase in the main tank, it could mean that the practical effect of my previous 0.4~ something iron dosing has something lacking.
Whether that is too strong a chelate, not strong enough chelate, an issue with precipitation in the fertilizer solution, something else, I dont know.
But it would be interesting if 0.15 Fe through Tropica got us "close enough". Just because it highlights an issue with the DIY 0.4~.

We could also see if the thread algae increases with an increase in Tropica (and therefore ammonia) dosing

(Edit) I would of course NOT dose the algaecide then, otherwise the whole thing becomes fairly pointless

 

[_Maq_]

It would be this;
N 3.002 (NO3 13.28)

Do I suppose correctly it is a weekly dose?