_Maq_
Member
SEE POST # 67.
-
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
_Maq_
Member
Day 05. Micro dosing:
B - 0.30 µM, which is 0.00324 mg/l, in the form of H3BO3
Mn - 0.15 µM, which is 0.00824 mg/l, in the form of MnSO4
Zn - 0.05 µM, which is 0.00327 mg/l, in the form of ZnSO4
Cu - 0.02 µM, which is 0.00127 mg/l, in the form of CuSO4
(Iron tomorrow.)
B - 0.30 µM, which is 0.00324 mg/l, in the form of H3BO3
Mn - 0.15 µM, which is 0.00824 mg/l, in the form of MnSO4
Zn - 0.05 µM, which is 0.00327 mg/l, in the form of ZnSO4
Cu - 0.02 µM, which is 0.00127 mg/l, in the form of CuSO4
(Iron tomorrow.)
John q
Member
Are you keeping all the tanks on the same levels of micro dosage? If so then surely the orange tank test isn't a true representation of "non lean dosing".
If the plan is to increase fe alone in tank B then all the other micros would need scaling up accordingly.
If the plan is to increase fe alone in tank B then all the other micros would need scaling up accordingly.
_Maq_
Member
I'm still hesitant to make any conclusions about dosing micros.
The doses above are calculated to represent plants' consumption if plants take up 10 µM of phosphorus (which is 0.95 mg/l PO4). That's quite a big 8-day consumption for a low-tech tank, with temperature about 18.5 °C. Don't you think?
Then you say that I should increase all micros proportionally to iron. Why? It's obvious that most of iron will be lost in precipitates (and available as a long-term reserve). Do you want to suggest that identical share of other micros - let's say, boron - will be lost, too? I don't think so. Each and every micronutrient follows its own rules. All I can do is to maintain an environment somewhere between sufficient and toxic for all of them. Iron is not toxic, so I'm not afraid to overdose a bit. Yet iron is also scavenger of phosphates and other metals due to adsorption. So, even iron should be presumably dosed with caution, after all. (That's the reason I've opted to dose iron separately, one day after the others.)
In the end, all I can do is to seek visual symptoms for any deficiency (or toxicity).
I agreed to offer you precise numbers on my micro dosing because you demanded it and I want to be "honest & serious". Yet I still maintain that these numbers make little sense. With this much phosphates and bicarbonates, I'll have to dose to overcome losses. Probably many times more than the plants' actual consumption. How many times? For each nutrient individually? Who can tell?
John q
Member
Yes I think that's a big consumption in a low tech tank, I'm not arguing that point.
For the record I dosed about 15% of ei in my non co2 tank, even now with gas injection I don't adhere to the high numbers often quoted when we mention EI.. so definitely not an ei fan boy.
But that's another story.
For credibility is the simple answer.
If you're going to the trouble to test out a system, then follow that system in full, not just part of the system.
Let's say all the plants perform badly in tank B, what have we learned, can we deduce that ei doesn't work, or high levels of k inhibit mg uptake? The lard it on brigade will cry foul that you only followed the macro part of the recipe, whilst withholding micros. The lean dose crowd will proclaim a triumphant victory.
The upshot will be that we don't move forward, we'll be exactly where we were when marcel, sol, happi and numerous others whose names I don't know first started these debates many, many years ago.
I'd personally like to advance past this constant cycle of one camp calling out the other, who knows maybe combined wisdom will eventually lead us to nirvana. 😁
Obviously this is your test Maq, just thought I'd add my thoughts.
_Maq_
Member
OK. Your credibility argument is sound. Though I do not care much for parties. (I do care for K:Mg:Ca ratio, and to dismantle/verify "ammonium the algae trigger" thesis.)
So, let's assume I'll follow EI micro recipe in tank B - orange. Will you help me and suggest "average" numbers?
John q
Member
Sure, not perfect but should keep the wolves from the door.
Element ppm
Fe 0.41
Mn 0.09
Zn 0.06
B 0.05
Mo 0.01
Cu 0.01
_Maq_
Member
Now, assuming that I do not dose "full EI" but only 1.71 ppm PO4 and 15.63 ppm 'NO3'... should I multiply the numbers above by any factor, p.e. 5/6? Like you said - to keep the wolves from the door...
EDIT: Probably useless, as my WC period is eight days instead of seven.
EDIT: Probably useless, as my WC period is eight days instead of seven.
Last edited:
John q
Member
Lol, I think the fe proxy of 0.41 is a half way house between the levels of No3, Po4 and K that's doesd in the tank.
Leave it as is, or as near to it that fit's in with your mixes.
Leave it as is, or as near to it that fit's in with your mixes.
_Maq_
Member
Not an easy task, dosing micros. I've developed certain routine, based on Marschner's numbers and presumed losses. With Marschner data, we can derive plants' consumption quite reliably. It's the losses which pose questions. I should stress that in my case, without filters, these losses are not permanent. Precipitates sedimentate into the substrate and form a reserve, which may be activated. Yet here, too, estimates are difficult. Does it happen quickly, easily? Or rather the contrary? I have no idea.
Yesterday, @John q persuaded me to follow Estimative Index pattern for dosing micros in tank B - orange. With bleeding heart, today I dosed these amounts, many times higher than I'm used to, and many many times more than the plants can possibly assimilate to their benefit. I fear it'll kill the snails, and damage or outright kill the plants.
Here you can see the sum of what I dosed yesterday and today (except phosphates, of course, they serve just as a proxy for calculations):
It's a new experience to me. I admit I'd never know until tried in vivo. At the same time, too many variables entered this experiment. Among others, I believe micros can influence substantially the microbial community. Unlike higher organisms, unicellular microbes need a complete set of enzymes (incl. micronutrients) in every cell. We may say that they depend on micros more tightly. Shall they proliferate? At the same time, they are pretty sensitive to overdosing (boron!). Will they die-off and pollute the water with organics? (In my opinion, it's the organics which cause the algae outbursts.)
What if tank B suffers from algae outburst? If algae remain in moderate amount in tank A, we may suggest that plentiful micros in B played a role. That would be something of a result. But what if algae proliferate in both? Shall we read it as a result of ammonium dosing, or general over-abundance of nutrients?
Stunted tops or chlorosis would be even more difficult to interpret. Discerning iron deficiency from magnesium deficiency is often hard. Stunted growth may be caused either by lack of some micronutrient, or by overdosing (toxicity), or by nutritional imbalance (admittedly, not all would agree on the latter).
Too many variables. I'll have to wait and see, nothing more, I'm afraid.
Yesterday, @John q persuaded me to follow Estimative Index pattern for dosing micros in tank B - orange. With bleeding heart, today I dosed these amounts, many times higher than I'm used to, and many many times more than the plants can possibly assimilate to their benefit. I fear it'll kill the snails, and damage or outright kill the plants.
Here you can see the sum of what I dosed yesterday and today (except phosphates, of course, they serve just as a proxy for calculations):
It's a new experience to me. I admit I'd never know until tried in vivo. At the same time, too many variables entered this experiment. Among others, I believe micros can influence substantially the microbial community. Unlike higher organisms, unicellular microbes need a complete set of enzymes (incl. micronutrients) in every cell. We may say that they depend on micros more tightly. Shall they proliferate? At the same time, they are pretty sensitive to overdosing (boron!). Will they die-off and pollute the water with organics? (In my opinion, it's the organics which cause the algae outbursts.)
What if tank B suffers from algae outburst? If algae remain in moderate amount in tank A, we may suggest that plentiful micros in B played a role. That would be something of a result. But what if algae proliferate in both? Shall we read it as a result of ammonium dosing, or general over-abundance of nutrients?
Stunted tops or chlorosis would be even more difficult to interpret. Discerning iron deficiency from magnesium deficiency is often hard. Stunted growth may be caused either by lack of some micronutrient, or by overdosing (toxicity), or by nutritional imbalance (admittedly, not all would agree on the latter).
Too many variables. I'll have to wait and see, nothing more, I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Thank you for allowing us to participate in your experiment Maq 🥰
In my eyes all the input and requests for modifications are because we are really eager to come along on this 🤓
Everyone is wanting the experiment results to be as informative as possible, and most people dont have the time and setup to do experiments like these, hence the requests 😃
Maybe the test goal has shifted slightly from where it started out, as others have said I think it is difficult to take very different methods and put them up to compare against each other.
Does one stay faithful to represent the methods as a whole, or does one adapt the methods so that just a few variables are present. And which parts would have to adapt. I dont think theres a perfect answer.
Im looking forward to seeing how things turn out
In my eyes all the input and requests for modifications are because we are really eager to come along on this 🤓
Everyone is wanting the experiment results to be as informative as possible, and most people dont have the time and setup to do experiments like these, hence the requests 😃
Maybe the test goal has shifted slightly from where it started out, as others have said I think it is difficult to take very different methods and put them up to compare against each other.
Does one stay faithful to represent the methods as a whole, or does one adapt the methods so that just a few variables are present. And which parts would have to adapt. I dont think theres a perfect answer.
Im looking forward to seeing how things turn out
Hope nobody takes offence, but I’ve yet to find which planted aquarium method requires 4.6 mg/L NH4+ (or 14.6 mg/L for that matter) to be dosed one time every eight days. Looking forward to any links. When it comes to aquariums, many of them with fish, it sounds like Animal Welfare would step in and discourage such practices.
Got to give it to Maq, "insane orange" and " moderate lean" are great candidates for political party names.
Hi all,
cheers Darrel
I've just had a Donald Trump flash-back or (even more worryingly), premonition.
cheers Darrel
Last edited:
_Maq_
Member
I greatly admire all your contributions. So inspiring, resourceful... Where would we be without you?
I said nothing
All characters and events in this show — even those based on real people — are entirely fictional...Maq, how many guesses do I get ?
MichaelJ
Member
Thank you for allowing us to participate in your experiment Maq 🥰
In my eyes all the input and requests for modifications are because we are really eager to come along on this 🤓
Everyone is wanting the experiment results to be as informative as possible, and most people dont have the time and setup to do experiments like these, hence the requests 😃
Maybe the test goal has shifted slightly from where it started out, as others have said I think it is difficult to take very different methods and put them up to compare against each other.
Does one stay faithful to represent the methods as a whole, or does one adapt the methods so that just a few variables are present. And which parts would have to adapt. I dont think theres a perfect answer.
Im looking forward to seeing how things turn out
I agree. With the recent tweaks to micros suggested by @John q and others in past posts for the "Orange tank", I think we are on track to get some good info from this experiment. How heavily we are able to draw hard conclusions is more questionable. At least I think we will be able to rise above anecdotal evidence which in itself if quite valuable in my opinion. I really have no clue about the "Insane tank" but I expect the other tanks to fare well (if not inundated by algae) as we all know you can grow plants under all these conditions. As for algae I expect A and B to have more due to the much higher NH4 load, if so, and how much more, that will be interesting to see. I think that was one of the theories that @_Maq_ wanted to test with this experiment... I don't know if that changed.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
_Maq_
Member
In tank A - insane, it seems that high concentration of ammonium rendered nitrifying microbes incapable effectively performing nitrification. That's not necessarily a bad news. Firstly, we can observe plants fed solely with ammoniacal form of nitrogen, which is normally impossible due to nitrification. Secondly, pH remains quite high, larger share of ammoniacal nitrogen remains undissociated, i.e. in the form of ammonia. We'll be able to observe presumed ammonia toxicity manifestations, like ammonia burn.
Tomorrow, 50 % water change, with front loading macronutrients - for reference see post # 67.
Probably on Tuesday I'll make new set of pics, and post them here, of course.
John q
Member
Out of curiosity did you test the N03 levels in any of the tanks?
_Maq_
Member
No. I happen to be very lazy and tired and actually busy Maq.
