• 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 low-tech troubles

I think it's time for me to thin out my low tech tank and add more challenging stems!
Now we're talking! 👍 ... I am going to be glued to your Journal when you document your progress!


Nice results @_Maq_ ! Would be absolutely fabulous if you could flesh out what you did here to obtain and maintain this. Many of us low-techies could really learn a lot from this. I personally haven't had much luck with challenging stems yet. I only did one experiment last year with pretty scrawny stem clippings though... I attribute the failure to the quality of the plants (plants arrived almost frozen and hardly any roots) and the fact that the tank was still transitioning between "traditional" and very lean dosing regimes. Everything else in the tank is doing well though including Buces and most Crypts that are not going through a midlife crisis.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Would be absolutely fabulous if you could flesh out what you did here to obtain and maintain this.
1682797874300.png
The pics were taken in Vermelho.
Branco is currently heading to indicated values (encouraged by @Hufsa ) from this. (Reminder: Branco is the tank where I'd recently pulled out the Cryptocoryne spiralis Tiger.)
 
View attachment 204630
The pics were taken in Vermelho.

Thanks @_Maq_ - some additional questions specific to the Vermelho tank:

How often and how much water do you change? I assume you're using remineralized RO(DI) water (Ca + Mg + some source of CO3 for that little spike of alkalinity/KH).

How often is the NPK fertilizer dosed? Do you divvy it up with small daily doses or do you just add the whole dose weekly ... i.e. after WC / front loaded?

Similar to the question above, how and what do you dose for traces/Fe?

What's the length of your photoperiod ? ... and a harder question; do you have a PAR reading? if not, how would you characterize your light levels?

Do you pay any special attention to the spectral distribution of your light source?

What do you use for "permanent aeration" ? .... and how would you characterize the flow - as in distribution of nutrients - in the tank?

Thats it for now... The devil is in the details as the saying goes... 😈 :)


Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Noted that V is that it is super soft water. At least thats good to know that Cuphea thrives in such conditions.
However, I can't replicate it in my tank (I use tap water, and I want to keep a shrimp cleanup crew which requires a higher gH than that).
 
some additional questions specific to the Vermelho tank:
The maintenance schedule is the same for all Portugals:

By default, I change 30 liters (out of 70 net content) in 10-12 days period. Yet there's often something in some tanks that makes me doing larger or additional WC. This discussion evolves from a few pics where (almost) everything seems to be perfect. In actuality, I have to admit, I quite often struggle with more algae/microbes than I'd like to or less than perfectly clear water (not outright a bloom, still a sign of some problem). In such instances, WC is the default action. So, frankly, nothing is perfect.

I front-load all macros with WC. If I change 30 liters, I add 30/70 of the amount indicated in the chart. Therefore, the real concentration of all nutrients (esp. NPK) is always lower than that. This possibly makes my plants grow even slower but I'd like to stress that nutrient lack or imbalance is not my issue. In this respect, I've already found almost ideal numbers (for lean & softwater conditions - it seems that outside of this area the rules may be different, see Estimative Index).
Disclaimer: Ammannias are an exception, they obviously suffer from some kind of imbalance in spite of much effort. And my Cryptocorynes and Bucephalandras remain dwarfed - healthy but small.

Micros: I dose them in identical fashion like macros, except not with WC but some 7 to 9 days later. My reasoning is to avoid "meeting" phosphates with trace metals as much as possible. That's why the delay; by that time, much of phosphorus is already consumed by plants (I suppose).
I don't use any chelates. I'd like to stress that FeCl3 works even in basic pH. The problem is that some plants can utilize Fe in such conditions, and others can't. I do not attempt to help it with chelates, I simply accept the fact that given species can't survive in such conditions (which effectively means elevated bicarbonates). You can overcome this issue with CO2 injection and strong chelates but that's not my business.
Dosing: Regular amount of micros in 10-12 days period is [mg/L multiplied by x/70, where x stands for liters WC]: B 0.00130, Fe 0.01675, Mn 0.00577, Zn 0.00131, Cu 0.00038. I don't dose Ni & Mo. (This is tripled in Branco - it's always tied to phosphorus dosing.)
Stock solutions are separate for each nutrient, so in case of need I can dose individual elements. It has never happened in Portugals, yet. No conservation agents needed since they're stable mineral salts.

No PAR reading. Lighting is not my "hobby". Lighting consists of three LED GU10 bulbs 8.4 W 806 lm 6500 K. I'm illuminating from 8 to 12 and 14 to 17 o'clock (winter time), i.e. seven hours. Not all bulbs are on the whole time, so it varies from 8 to 25 W, the average is 17 W.

Aeration: This pump with venturi, positioned in the middle of back side and pushing water with air bubbles to the front side. This makes the water moving quite well in the front half of the tank. The rear part, usually planted more densely, well... moving slowly.

Bottom line: Mineral nutrition is the easier part. I'm "educated" by Marschner. My issue is the microbes (incl. algae). They attack (and sometimes cause losses on plants) and retreat apparently independently on my action. The fact is, these tanks are still relatively young (10 months).
 
Bottom line: Mineral nutrition is the easier part. I'm "educated" by Marschner. My issue is the microbes (incl. algae). They attack (and sometimes cause losses on plants) and retreat apparently independently on my action. The fact is, these tanks are still relatively young (10 months).
Just to play devils advocate here, how did you rule out for certain that your microbe and algae issues are not influenced by the former?
 
how did you rule out for certain that your microbe and algae issues are not influenced by the former?
Honestly, I didn't.
We all know that algae may appear almost anytime, anywhere. Also, experience showed that prospering plants are the best defense against algae. Therefore, whatever makes plants happy works against algae. The crux of the matter is to make and keep plants happy. And in that there are imperfections. Broadly speaking, I always succeed making a tank healthy, but ... there's something which can get my tanks occasionally out of balance and troubles follow.
Would the tanks be more resilient against such instances if I changed mineral nutrition? I doubt it. I do follow some rules (ratios) almost invariably, while as a whole, there are significant differences among my tanks. Yet the microbes/algae issues happen everywhere.
I'm inclined to believe that it's mostly connected with introducing new plants and/or replanting them. That means new input (of whatever it might be), and disturbing the substrate. (Incidentally, a moderate white-green bloom followed introducing burrowing snails in Azul. Also in Branco, but there, as you could have seen, I managed to do much bigger assault on the substrate than snails could ever do.)
And we are back to ... as you named it ... dreaming of sand. :lol:
 
Thanks for all that @_Maq_ a couple of comments/questions below:

The maintenance schedule is the same for all Portugals:

By default, I change 30 liters (out of 70 net content) in 10-12 days period. Yet there's often something in some tanks that makes me doing larger or additional WC. This discussion evolves from a few pics where (almost) everything seems to be perfect. In actuality, I have to admit, I quite often struggle with more algae/microbes than I'd like to or less than perfectly clear water (not outright a bloom, still a sign of some problem). In such instances, WC is the default action. So, frankly, nothing is perfect.

I front-load all macros with WC. If I change 30 liters, I add 30/70 of the amount indicated in the chart. Therefore, the real concentration of all nutrients (esp. NPK) is always lower than that. This possibly makes my plants grow even slower but I'd like to stress that nutrient lack or imbalance is not my issue. In this respect, I've already found almost ideal numbers (for lean & softwater conditions - it seems that outside of this area the rules may be different, see Estimative Index).
Disclaimer: Ammannias are an exception, they obviously suffer from some kind of imbalance in spite of much effort. And my Cryptocorynes and Bucephalandras remain dwarfed - healthy but small.

So in short, its ~ 40% WC every 10-12 days. Water remineralized to your GH/KH targets + front loading of all NPK targeting the volume of water you change. Very similar to my own approach. So, as you say, the real concentration is always lower than what we, who are using this dosing approach, state as our dosing targets and certain minerals may even be depleted by the time we get to the next round of dosing. Of course, it makes it hard to clearly state our actual weekly dosing relative to the tank volume, which is the commonly expected (EI/dosing bottle) way of specifying fertilizer amounts. When I say I target 1.25 ppm of N for instance, I rarely mention that I only dose that once every two weeks (10-12 days is my target as well, but recently its been more like 12-15 days) and only target my 35% WC water with the 1.25 ppm and not the whole tanks volume. So translating that into a weekly dose equivalent relative to the tank volume it would come out as 1.25 / 2 * 0.35 = 0.22 ppm + whatever is residual in the tank, which theoretically could be zero, as we don't know the exact uptake across minerals. The good thing about this approach I believe, is that we never have to worry about accumulation from the fertilizer we actually dose, and we are probably closer to what the plants actually need. A bad thing about the approach is that we don't know if we are tethering on a knifes edge when it comes to providing for our plants... of course, we use our eyes and we can take corrective action when we see deficiencies as we can be almost certain its lack of essential minerals - doesn't matter which mineral, just raise the dosing target of say N and let everything scale accordingly to maintain ratios. My own two weeks 35% WC and dosing cycle seems to work well for the plants and plant mass in both my tanks.

Micros: I dose them in identical fashion like macros, except not with WC but some 7 to 9 days later. My reasoning is to avoid "meeting" phosphates with trace metals as much as possible. That's why the delay; by that time, much of phosphorus is already consumed by plants (I suppose).
I don't use any chelates. I'd like to stress that FeCl3 works even in basic pH. The problem is that some plants can utilize Fe in such conditions, and others can't. I do not attempt to help it with chelates, I simply accept the fact that given species can't survive in such conditions (which effectively means elevated bicarbonates). You can overcome this issue with CO2 injection and strong chelates but that's not my business.
Dosing: Regular amount of micros in 10-12 days period is [mg/L multiplied by x/70, where x stands for liters WC]: B 0.00130, Fe 0.01675, Mn 0.00577, Zn 0.00131, Cu 0.00038. I don't dose Ni & Mo. (This is tripled in Branco - it's always tied to phosphorus dosing.)

Ok, so that sounds to me that you are dosing traces 3 days before WC essentially, targeting the most recent WC %... Is that enough time for uptake ?... that would be my worry. I get the precipitation concern but waiting 7-9 days seems a bit overly cautious for such low levels of P, but since you're not using any chelates it might be necessary...I don't know, I am just curious. And why no molybdenum (Mo) ?

Stock solutions are separate for each nutrient, so in case of need I can dose individual elements. It has never happened in Portugals, yet. No conservation agents needed since they're stable mineral salts.
so in case of need I can dose individual elements
Except for Fe and possibly Mn, how can you tell if you need more of some particular element? ... in general, can we tell from our plants if we are low on Mo,Zn,B or Cu... all elements that are usually only present at the parts per billions level - some being fractional ppb, especially in very leanly dosed tanks?

No PAR reading. Lighting is not my "hobby". Lighting consists of three LED GU10 bulbs 8.4 W 806 lm 6500 K. I'm illuminating from 8 to 12 and 14 to 17 o'clock (winter time), i.e. seven hours. Not all bulbs are on the whole time, so it varies from 8 to 25 W, the average is 17 W.

So I gather that the intensity of the light is somewhere medium perhaps towards medium-high? Hard to quantify, I know. Why do you use such a short photo period? CO2 vs O2 optimization and slowing the plants metabolism comes to mind... and why the break between 12 and 14 ? I personally never understood the photoperiod break idea. Anyway, never mind the fact that most of our plants originates from around the equator, but with a 7-8 hour photo period I wouldn't be enjoying my tanks nearly as much as I’m doing with my tanks 12 hour photo period.

Again, thanks for all the info. We should have more of these conversations here on UKAPS fleshing out more of the nitty gritty details... Especially from people that can elaborate on the how's and why's ... We can all learn a lot from that, even if it not always will apply to our own tanks.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
we don't know if we are tethering on a knifes edge when it comes to providing for our plants
Yes, it can happen. A few months ago I diagnosed lack of phosphorus. Unfortunately, it took a while until I recognized it. Since I dosed N & P in textbook 16 : 1 ratio, I came to conclusion that a share of phosphorus gets unavailable to plants. Precipitating with iron? Possibly. Since then, I've adjusted my N to P ratio to 14 : 1.
waiting 7-9 days seems a bit overly cautious for such low levels of P, but since you're not using any chelates it might be necessary...I don't know
Neither do I. I've chosen such a rhythm and it seems to work well.
And why no molybdenum (Mo) ?
Mo & Ni are needed in such tiny amounts that impurities in other chemicals plus pollen cover their demand sufficiently. Such is my belief until someone proves me wrong.
how can you tell if you need more of some particular element?
I can't. In fact, I wonder if I've ever seen deficiency of Zn, Cu & B. Some time ago, I've posted a question in this forum whether anyone had ever detected deficiency of any of these nutrients. No replies...
Why do you use such a short photo period?
Budget. Mostly because of budget. There's a war, an inflation, and I'm a poor guy. Another reason: It works just fine. In my practice, I have not noticed anything suggesting that my results could be better with longer photoperiod. But I've got no exact evidence, of course.
I personally never understood the photoperiod break idea.
Neither did I. Except budgetary reasons. At that time - around noon - some light reaches my tanks anyway.
I think it was Wetzel in his Limnology who described the fact that water plants photosynthesize most intensely in the morning, even when provided with stable levels of light and CO2.
I believe evening lighting for display is physiologically fairly worthless.
We should have more of these conversations here on UKAPS fleshing out more of the nitty gritty details... Especially from people that can elaborate on the how's and why's ... We can all learn a lot from that, even if it not always will apply to our own tanks.
These words should be carved in stone. Or better, make a permanent headline in this forum.
 
I personally never understood the photoperiod break idea.
Diana Walstad advocates a break. The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod. After the CO2 has re-equilibrated, turning the lights back on gives another 4 hours of productive photosynthesis.
DW:
A midafternoon siesta mimics the natural condition - a temporary overhead clouding during a summer afternoon. [...] plants are competing for an ever dwindling supply of CO2. Algae, which is more adept than plants in taking up CO2 gains an advantage. [...] The Siesta Regimen gives plants the long daylength they need and saves electricity. It provides light when plants have enough CO2 so that they can actually use the light. Finally, it reduces algae's "afternoon advantage" over plants.
I use such a split lighting regimen in my low-tech Shrimphaus. The other big practical advantage since I work not-from-home during the day is that the tank is illuminated for me to enjoy before leaving for work, and is also illuminated in the evening when I have returned from work, without an overly-long total daily photoperiod. I don't know if I really believe the whole CO2 regeneration thing but I definitely enjoy seeing the tank lit up. ;)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-05-01 13.43.45.png
    Screenshot 2023-05-01 13.43.45.png
    127.9 KB · Views: 76
The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod. After the CO2 has re-equilibrated, turning the lights back on gives another 4 hours of productive photosynthesis.




Thanks Andy I actually this an idea lot - if it works! I can definitely fit in a couple of hours of darkness in the late afternoon I mostly enjoy my tanks in the early afternoon and later in the evening.
What’s you take @_Maq_ ?


Sorry the editing on this post is terribly messed up - when quote I have to spend eons editing to make sure it formats the right way. Not sure if it’s a website issue.

Cheers,
Michael.
 
Last edited:
What’s you take @_Maq_ ?
The reasoning seems sound. The problem is that whenever Diana Walstad says that anything is "tested", "verified", "confirmed", I don't believe her a word.
I perform two-hour lighting break in the middle of photoperiod to save energy. Period.
 
Hi all,
The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod.
So if you have water movement that becomes irrelevant? The tanks at home have a siesta, the ones in the lab. don't. It doesn't see to make a lot of difference.

cheers Darrel
 
So if you have water movement that becomes irrelevant? The tanks at home have a siesta, the ones in the lab. don't. It doesn't see to make a lot of difference.
No idea. If someone had an accurate way of measuring dissolved CO2 in the 0-10 PPM range it would be nice to see whether the graph presented is reproducible science or not.
 
Hi all,
If someone had an accurate way of measuring dissolved CO2 in the 0-10 PPM range it would be nice to see whether the graph presented is reproducible science or not
If you knew the dKH of the tank water you could use the pH to give you a measure of the CO2 : O2 ratio. There is some discussion of this in <"Maxing CO2 in Low Techs"> where @BigTom turned the filter on and off and measured pH (in a tank with <"some dKH buffering">.

5cxa-jpg.jpg

In my low tech tanks, which have some water movement, a lot of plants and relatively soft water <"the pH is consistently well above pH7">, even immediately after the siesta, possibly because it takes a long time for the <"excess" oxygen"> (from photosynthesis) to come back out of solution.

I know that pH does dip below pH7, based on the <"state of the snail shells"> and <"shell attrition">.

cheers Darrel
 
Here is the inferred CO2 content graph from the @BigTom experiment:
View attachment 25694
I would (and do) make sure there is always a "flow on" situation in the tank, because the diffusion rate of CO2 in water is so slow that without any flow I would worry plants will rapidly exhaust their local dissolved CO2 and diffusion won't be able to effectively replace it.
The interesting bit relevant to the current discussion is how rapidly in the 'flow on' situation the CO2 is consumed after the lights come on and how rapidly it is regenerated once the lights are turned off. Lights on at 13:00 and after 3 hours of lighting by 16:00 the big CO2 drop has pretty much happend, with a slow drift downwards for the next 6 hours until the lights are turned off. It looks like the CO2 regenerates pretty quickly after the lights are turned off, although this wasn't the focus of the experiment (and these timepoints in the middle of night are inconvenient to sample). I could almost imagine from this data that if you did 3 hours of light on, then turned the lights off for 3 or 4 hours the levels of CO2 would recover such that they could be consumed again (but we'd need to see actual data) if there was a second photoperiod.
In short, the data is suggestive, but not definitive. A recording pH meter would help sort this all out.
 
Hi all,
I would (and do) make sure there is always a "flow on" situation in the tank, because the diffusion rate of CO2 in water is so slow that without any flow I would worry plants will rapidly exhaust their local dissolved CO2 and diffusion won't be able to effectively replace it.
That was my conclusion as well. I <"wrote this in 2013"> and I haven't seen anything to <make me change my mind"> since.
........I think there are 2 main points, one is that you will have considerable fluctuations in CO2 through the photo-period, as the plants utilise the available CO2 dissolved in the water column, you can minimise this by having a large gas exchange surface, so that both oxygen and CO2 levels will more closely mirror atmospheric gas levels............
The advantages to having a large gas exchange surface area is that levels of dissolved gases (both CO2 and O2) <"track atmospheric gas levels">. I'm much more interested in maintaining <"dissolved oxygen levels somewhere near 100% saturation">, but it is a <"negative feedback loop">, with lower CO2 depletion leading to greater levels of photosynthesis, leading to higher DO levels. All I need to do is make sure that the <"level of Liebig's limiting nutrient"> never gets low enough to halt plant growth.

A floating (or emergent) plant just gives you belt and braces, because it always <"has access to atmospheric CO2 (and oxygen)">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
Back
Top