MichaelJ
Member
I reported this
EDIT: On 2nd thought, it is quite possible this wasn't meant the way I read it.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Maq's experiment 23b
- Thread starter _Maq_
- Start date
-
- Tags
- algae fertilization
EDIT: On 2nd thought, it is quite possible this wasn't meant the way I read it.
Cheers,
Michael
plantnoobdude
Member
I don't understand what it's saying?
John q
Member
I'm assuming it's in relation to his early post saying.
Again, I'm assuming he now accepts adding NH4 alone doesn't cause algae.
Possibly a bit confusing to some in the manner its worded, but if I'm correct? Maybe wasn't meant obnoxiously. 🤷
_Maq_
Member
That is exactly my guiding principle as well. I believe aquarists generally over-pollute tanks with everything imaginable, not only nutrients.
But maybe I'm biased, over-enthusiastic. This experiment made me try dosing nutrients in excess. It was quite a new experience to me. I expected some negative effects, yet they did not appear. And apparently some of my observations made in generally 'lean' routine do not fully apply to 'abundant' conditions.
I'm sorry for that because it means that part of what I had considered solved is in fact still open.
I still believe minimalist approach is generally more 'healthy'; it's a bit closer to natural conditions, more eco-friendly, cheaper and less demanding for materials and technology.
Yes, but do we really need CO2 injection?
I love the reflection @_Maq_ 😃
Put your last post in the opposite order
Have you done tests where CO2 has been dosed in excess (CO2 injection)? (I dont think I need to remind anyone here that carbon is a nutrient, the most significant one)
Is it not possible that things you consider solved could also in such cases be still open, and need further investigation?
To view it in a slightly novel way, imagine that your experiments have been under very strong nitrogen limitation. All of them, no matter if nitrogen was to be tested or not.
It could influence the results, could it not?
Its lowering the potential of everything when this cornerstone is in such low supply.
Now swap the word "nitrogen" out for "carbon" 😁😘
Put your last post in the opposite order
Have you done tests where CO2 has been dosed in excess (CO2 injection)? (I dont think I need to remind anyone here that carbon is a nutrient, the most significant one)
Is it not possible that things you consider solved could also in such cases be still open, and need further investigation?
To view it in a slightly novel way, imagine that your experiments have been under very strong nitrogen limitation. All of them, no matter if nitrogen was to be tested or not.
It could influence the results, could it not?
Its lowering the potential of everything when this cornerstone is in such low supply.
Now swap the word "nitrogen" out for "carbon" 😁😘
_Maq_
Member
Definitely so, but I'll happily leave this research to others.
I'd rather not discuss my objections to CO2 injection in the public.
MichaelJ
Member
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
For me it was always mostly a livestock consideration and to a lesser extent about the plants. My plants did well when providing an over-abundance of fertilizer (mid EI levels) and they are doing well and somewhat better, I would say, with my current lean approach... but dialing down the amount of minerals and chemicals I am adding have indeed created conditions in my tanks that are far closer to the natural softwater habitats where pretty much all my species originates from. Not only that, but it's also been a boon for my maintenance routine. I pretty much only change about 35% water every 10-14 days (recently its been more like 14 days...) and I only dose fertilizer once with the WC (I use 100% remineralized RODI water). That's it, no visible algae, no visible accumulation of dirt etc... Its a bit ironic that this is not much different - on the face of it - from what I cluelessly would do 25-30 years ago in the planted tanks I would occasionally keep back then, but those tanks would quickly go downhill - dying plants, algae in abundance - why? poor choice of fertilizer (i.e. whatever flashy bottle my LFS would sell me), terrible dosing regime and unsuitable (very hard) tap water parameters was probably the main reasons my planted tanks would fail miserably in the past.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
_Maq_
Member
THIS is the grand question.
Recently, one of my tanks shows signs of this kind of trouble. Remarkably, water is not perfectly clear. Some GDA on sides, some flocks of algae on some plants. And their health is less than optimal. Six weeks ago I've planted some tissue culture Ludwigia Pantanal, Rotala Florida, and Ludwigia senegalensis. The former two are struggling, melting, hardly growing. In a tank next to this one, with similar water parameters (very soft, lean, acidic) these very same plants remain healthy and grow well. Water is crystal clear, and no algae except BBA on Araceae.
Obviously (or at least very likely), this is not a question of nutrition. Neither lighting, WC neglect, temperature, aeration, CO2 content - that's all identical. And, by the way, a few months ago I struggled with the same situation, but in reverse - in the tank which is now perfect.
What is the reason, then? I strongly suspect there are microbes there at play. For reasons unknown to me, they begin proliferate, settle on the plants, open ways for algae and fungi to colonize and damage plants. But why? How can I control these events?
I suspect that touching the substrate - typically, when I introduce new plants - might be the trigger. Otherwise, I'm lost. And what's the solution? Intensifying water changes sometimes works. Sometimes. I've tried bacterial inoculations (to outcompete algae and fungi), as well as the reverse action, killing them by hydrogen peroxide. Results are mixed, ambivalent, no discovery.
In low-tech, these events are truly frustrating, because they can destroy within days what I've carefully developed for months. What is particularly irritating on these situations is that not only I have no control of them, but I can't even MEASURE what is going in the tank. Microbes are invisible beasts and reading their signals is very very difficult - at least for me.
So, not nutrition, not even my favourite ratios among nutrients are my prime concerns. Faults in this field are somehow detectable, understandable. We can test it and find a way out. But microbes, they are uncontrollable, unpredictable, prone to random behaviour (there's about a zillion of species...) - they are my MAIN topic.
MichaelJ
Member
@_Maq_, this is a really good topic. Often we see troubled tanks here on UKAPS where everything is seemingly done right (nutrients, water parameters etc.) but plants are still struggling... The microbial fauna and microbial ecosystem we have in our tanks is by and large a black-box to me. Other than planting densely, keeping my substrate undisturbed, providing good circulation around the tank and water parameters stable (broadly monitored with my TDS meter) I have zero additional clues about what I can do to maintain or improve the conditions - or what corrective actions to take if things begin to go sideways (other than increasing WC amount and frequency... which may or may not help). I do occasionally measure ORP/Redox in my tanks, but I have yet to fully understand my readings and implications.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
Andy Pierce
Member
It's also possible that tissue culture plants simply aren't very good (so it's not your fault). I've had some success with tissue culture plants, but I think plants from pots are much more robust. You could do a head-to-head of plants from tissue culture vs. plants from pots and see if that makes a difference.
As I have also grown (or killed) these same species, here are my notes on them:
(1) Ammannia Pedicatella is not easy to grow, and none of the tanks A-D had conditions that were optimal for the plant. They should grow pretty large with thicker stem and yellow colouration
(2) Rotala Orange Juice is nowhere close to orange in low tech (I mistook it for an Ammannia because of the pale colouration).
(3) Ludiwigia Pantanal and Ludwigia Senegalensis - I haven't seen any photos of this posted in the thread so I can't compare them to those in my tank - or have photos been posted but they are so different in appearance that I didn't recognise them?
(4) Rotala Florida - doesn't do well for me. internet says it needs harder water and is good with Seiryu stone.
_Maq_
Member
Yes, measuring redox is a way to get some clues, I believe. Unfortunately, my ORP probe seems to be defect, as it takes an hour to get the reading stabilized, and even then I don't know whether is returns true numbers or nonsense. I'm disappointed and haven't yet got the courage to risk investment in a new probe...😞
I agree, and I've encountered this issue clearly with Rotala indica - tissue culture plants don't grow and sometimes melt, while 'normal' plants live and grow. (Still, I struggle with this species.)
But this doesn't seem to be the case this time, because in the other tank these plants do fairly well. Well, Rotala Florida grows very slowly, but otherwise without issues.
I'm speaking about situation in other tanks of mine.
Rotala Florida preferring harder water? Hmm, that would be quite surprising.
Libba grows Florida pretty nicely with 50ppm Calcium.
Noted that your L. Senegelansis and L. Pantanal are featured in a different thread - will ask about them in that thread.
MichaelJ
Member
That's been my worry as well. My ORP meter (MW500) takes about 30 minutes or more to stabilize and that seems to be quite common. I keep my probe constantly submerged in a potassium chloride (KCl) solution when not in use. @jaypeecee originally got me into the ORP measuring and he is quite devoted to it as a means to gauge the health of his tanks. I hope he will chime in as he have a lot of experience and insights on this.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
_Maq_
Member
Is it? So my probe is not defunct, after all? Hmmmm
So do I.
I'd really LOVE to get enlightened in this respect. I believe ORP measuring bears some potential to better understand our tanks.
MichaelJ
Member
John q
Member
Lol, yes I suspect he's familiar with it 🤣
_Maq_
Member
Oh yes.
In fact, Marcel worked on this before we began collaboration, so this one is solely his own work.
I agree/believe that higher ORP signals lower oxygen demand and that is generally good situation. Lower organic content. But there's still a long way ahead to make some practical conclusions for tank maintenance. Namely, I don't know if abundant microbial population is 'good' or 'bad'. Let's look at it:
(1) It is good, because it ensures rapid decomposition (=oxidation) of organics. The place is cleaner and less friendly to algae.
(2) It is bad, because it means there's 'much to eat' in the tank, in other words, it's polluted.
What answer is correct? It depends, I'd say, but it's only a guess.
So, currently I struggle with thread algae and plant melting in one of my tanks. Am I to try to decrease microbial population by water changes and hydrogen peroxide (or UV-lamp)? Or should I rather introduce more 'useful' bacteria from some bacterial inoculation to let them decompose quickly whatever needs to be decomposed? Or should I go in another, quite different direction? I truly don't know.
MichaelJ
Member
