phosphate with EI - higher than 3 ppm?

[JoshP12]

I gotta get in here too!

But of course ... < Everyone is right >.

Following on from discussions in this thread Lean dosing pros and cons ..I cut my ei dosing by 50% to see what effect, if any, it would have.

Woohoo!! Trying crazy things! I love it.

Did you also cut GH (Ca/Mg) and KH in half? It is quite possible that for your water, there is a higher requirement on water column dosing targets to provide balance in the nutrient acquisition model. This does not rely on Leidbig's Law where the substrate could actually top up any "driven" growth (the other half of your EI dose) through the roots. It relies on Coulomb's Law which is the backbone of ANY water chemistry argument. It could also be related to inertia ... the plants have been operating a certain way for months? They need time to adapt. Maybe keep the 1/2 EI dose for another month and see if the tank crashes. If it recovers, then we acknowledge these things are living and need time to adapt.

There is another piece ... did you replace the K from KNO3 that you have lost from 1/2 EI? GH and K are all positively charged ... and a massive change (1/2 the K ... which depends on your "booster" if you use any) could have skewed this as well.


It seems that we are in search of the ideal nutrient acquisition target parameters.

We have them:

1) GH and KH should be tied closely in source water (tap or well) --> If Ca and Mg are extremely unbalanced like 100Ca/1Mg then you need to turn to a local who has used the water and has had success OR you need to be the local who has success. But as long as its not too bad, you can probably get away with a little Mg or let your substrate take care of it .. but if you don't fix it, your substrate will get gassed soon ESPECIALLY if you drive growth with water column dosing.

Call low <3 for both ish, moderate 3 - 7?, high 8+?

2) High GH/KH higher dosing (Full EI). Moderate GH/KH moderate dosing (1/2-1/3 EI). Low GH/KH lean dosing (Less) <--

3) The rest is CO2 and light

4) You can alleviate CO2 demand from free CO2 by using Urea, glut ... different plant choices

5) You can dose EI in soft water ... but then you need GH booster --> there is no choice. Try it.

To utilize any precipitate into the soil, you need microbial assemblage in place - time - that's another piece of nutrient acquisition model. So on Day 1, you can't expect precipitated iron to be "available" until the critters at the rhizosphere assemble.

We can be cheeky too:
High GH/KH higher dosing (lots of fertilizer).
Moderate GH/KH moderate dosing (a moderate amount of fertilizer).
Low GH/KH lean dosing (a little bit of fertilizer) <-- assume the bottles dosage is a little bit ... double it for moderate ... triple it for lots.

This is the advice that we need to give: Copycat a fertilizer, dose as per the bottle and the latter recommendations for 1 month, get CO2 so fish aren't dying, focus on flow (buy into a standard system or DIY), maintenance and enjoying your tank.


Josh

 

[John q]

Woohoo!! Trying crazy things! I love it.

Haha, not exactly living life on the edge. I figure we have to try things out and see what happens, good or bad, its how kids learn, its how we progress.

I'll admit some points above went over my head, but appreciate your input. I'll give you the parameters from my water report regards gh ~ kh and include what I add. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Average water report amounts:

Calcium 6.61 mg/l
Magnesium 1.18 mg/l
Alkalinity 13.8 mg/l
Hardness Clarke 1.47

What I add weekly:

Magnesium 0.64 dgh (from ei dosing)
Calcium via calcium chloride 0.29 dgh

Substrate is inert gravel 25kg with a small amount of cheapo clay balls 5l mixed in. I added 4 osmocote root tabs to this Substrate 3 or 4 months ago. Tanks been running 15 months.

Ph drop is 1, dc lime green. Flow around the tank isn't ideal, so counteract this will low level lightning.

Cheers.

 

[JoshP12]

Very soft water @John q !

I mean there is so much to consider and pin point - without sitting in front and watching for nuance on species, it’s hard to think. I remember lots of Barr’s threads in the states where he says, let me just come over and I’ll fix your tank. And for his local group, that’s exactly what he did.

There is a lot of intuitive responses that people make in a system which is based on experience.

Anyways … I’ll attempt some potentials:
1) if root tabs have nutrients: root tabs re-establishing equiblrium with new water column dosing - all ratios will be off for short term, will fix with consistency in a month
2) if root tabs are gassed: you also have stored nutrients to consider from the EI - maybe without the root tabs you literally need that nutrients.
3) did drop checker lighten up when you eased off nutrients?
4) stores nutrients can only top off imbalance for so long … was GSA instant or a week later?

All I got for now!

EDIT:
Ok an edit lol!

There is a thought here: suppose that PO4 is interacting … those root tabs are releasing nutrients - those free nutrients are leveraging leisbig on the plant … it is possible that demand from these nutrients are skewing the balance and (instead of PO4 driving nutrients via leidbig, the plants machinery is being bottlednecked by a “suppression-effect” from the phosphate so phosphate in excess is locking down another nutrient set - an element of that set is the bottleneck for leidbig)

Now, since your co2 flow is not good - this alleviation on root tab leech is allowing something perhaps to drive leidbig … and co2 demand … eh voilla GSA, a “co2-related” algae.

I am more confident in the latter part of this message than the first stuff in the post.

A way to illustrate the above is by dosing heavy heavy heavy in the water column, observing growth rates, then stop dosing entirely and notice growth rate. I did this a few times and noticed an increase in growth rate from a clean column …. Counterintuitive that ADA system grows just as a fast EI … thinking of how much free N in system.

We have 2 things happening: stuff interacts, stuff drives growth. If you alleviate an interaction, you influence a driver. That driver will always influence co2 demand - always. And that’s why we point to flow and co2 all the time regardless of dosing method or ideology.


1 more edit:

I reckon that with active substrate (nutrient rich soil) same tank same situation etc — there wouldn’t be GSA. The inertness with only root tabs is leading to this “extra attention” with water column dosing. No no that’s wrong since it’s likely the co2 being the downfall … UNLESSSS the root system under Acidic conditions could get co2 from the substrate 😉.

 

[erwin123]

I'm not dosing full EI either. Interestingly I'm finding that L. Pantanal (one of those plants that supposedly loves EI) grows ok even if you are not dosing EI.

While it certainly grows well in EI as Tom Barr has shown, I am suspecting that it turns red because of high light, not high water column nutrients...

 

[Happi]

Dear members,

These precipitation doesn’t always show up as a cloudy water and the physical evidence is there, but you cannot see it because it gets lost in the substrate, Filter media etc. have you ever seen the brown/yellow color which looks like its sticking to the filter/media and same can be observed around the edges of the aquarium around the soil. In some cases the precipitation and oxidization can be found on the plant leaves as well. Mn and Fe are usually found in the higher amount in the substrate because both are highly precipitated and oxidized in the water. They will become more available to the plants in highly acidic soil and most likely remain in oxidized state in alkaline based substrate. This is also true for most of the other heavy metals which are oxidized/precipitated, But Fe and Mn are some of the major one when it comes to micronutrients. Under acidic environment or In such case, you are less likely to experience an Iron deficiency because Iron can be directly uptaken by roots from the substrate even if it were to be less present in the water. It will also release into the water but the process is rather very slow.

Plus the need for iron by the plants are not to the level that we are dosing in our aquariums, I never had to cross 0.1 ppm Fe from DTPA weekly. If you had an Iron deficiency during this time then its rather due to low Mn or Mg, and other micronutrients. For those who test for iron especially after adding DTPA Fe, they will find that their test kit is still reading high amount of Iron, this is because DTPA is quite stable and need for iron by the plants is not that high, the only time they will see a huge drop in Iron is because its either precipitated or oxidized, but never fully used by plants. In most cases plant have to put additional energy to extract iron from EDTA/DTPA unlike Fe gluconate and this is less available to algae at this time, but once these chelation are broken, the iron is more available to both plant and algae. Next time you add 0.5 ppm of DTPA vs EDTA vs Fe gluconate, you will find that EDTA and Fe gluconate are rather quickly gone. I have had more algae problems while using Fe gluconate or EDTA compared to DTPA, likely due to few reasons:

• Its not oxidized or precipitated as easily under my water condition
• Its less available to plants and algae
• Algae struggle to use it while plant will use their energy to use it
• Or the amount I use is what plant truly needed and excess Fe wasn’t occurring

High light have a tendency to break down the Iron and chelation at much faster rate and this results in more Iron being available to plant and algae, it also become more prone to Precipitation and oxidization during this time especially If the water is rich in CO3 and O2. Iron gluconate for example will results in cloudy water more often compared to EDTA/DTPA under such scenario. Under high lights especially those with UV around 100-400 nm will quickly break down these chelation’s.


Reducing lights and increasing the CO2 is doing few things:

• CO2 reducing the PH of the water, less oxidization
• Chelate Iron is less prone to Precipitation with lower lights

The hypothesis about GSA stop growing simply by increasing CO2 and PO4 is assumption based rather than being scientific. This hypothesis is same as when someone says “Nutrients doesn’t cause algae” while scientist grow algae using these same nutrients in the lab. As mentioned earlier, if you are relying on Co2 and high PO4 fixing your GSA and ignoring other factors then you are not thinking outside of the box.

algae needs the same nutrients as plants do in order for them to grow, weather its Macro or Micro Nutrients, they are all needed, if plant can thrive and grow in 0.1 ppm Fe, so can the algae. If I were to add the Macro at 30 ppm NO3 and not adding any Micro called Mo, the plant will struggle. If I were to add 0.01 ppm of this Micro called Mo, the plant will grow, the more Mo you add, the more Nitrogen becomes available to algae and plants, while some of the Mo will be oxidized.

If user was to add 0.5 ppm Fe and add 0.05 ppm Mn, they will experience what we call Fe deficiency quite often, not because they lack Fe, but rather they are lacking Mn, if user were to add 0.5 Fe and 0.25 Mn, they will not experience such scenario but could experience good plant growth along with Algae and in most cases the Fe and Mn is oxidized or precipitated quickly. if user were to add 0.1 ppm Fe and 0.05 Mn, they will quickly learn that their plant are not iron Deficient even when few days pass by, sometime even a week depending on all these above scenarios as well as their water parameters.

In my case, GDA/BBA for example grew the best when i do heavy trimming, increasing the CO2 at this point wont make a dent in it and never did, until plant mass increased again and GDA/BBA slowly decline. in this case, the trimming just released several nutrients back into the water that encouraged or favor the GDA/BBA. Assumption #1 : Naw, it can’t be the nutrients, gotta be a CO2 issues. Assumption #2: gotta be the Nutrients, because nothing else was changed and only plant were trimmed and its known fact that plant release nutrients into the water when you trim them. If I were given a choice, #2 made more sense to me and this scenario can be repeated again over again and the results were constantly.

Let’s take my aquarium for example, I can induce different kinds of algae simply by changing the dosing while making no changes to the CO2 or lights, no GDA when DTPA Fe used at 0.1 ppm weekly, some GDA when EDTA-DTPA were combined, more GDA when EDTA alone was used. More GDA and fuzz algae appeared when Fe gluconate was used. So what does this has to do with Co2? Nothing. Does it have to do with the nutrients then? Yes

Do I get GSA in my tank? Never, even at 0.1 ppm P weekly there is no sign of GSA. Maybe its because my water parameters have all these nutrients in adequate quantities, proper balance, which are less prone to all these above scenarios? Yes, very likely

Then how do we stop algae or prevent it? Its not about GSA only, we are talking about all kinds of other algae’s as well. If you already fixed your CO2 or Light issues, then you need to understand how Nutrients works and interact with each other’s and how it could influence the plant growth and algae growth. If you are not willing to get out of the CO2 and lights bubble then you are not going to progress in the hobby. if You already spent maybe 10 years struggling with algae then you will continue to do so for another 10.

Nutrients Interaction, this is not a hypothesis and its true at least according to the scientist:

https://www.nutriag.com/wp-content/uploads/mulders-chart.jpg

in case if anyone is interested in making Spirulina Algae:

Algae Media

Algae Research Supplier produces nutrient solutions and medias that grow various algae including: Spirulina, Nannochloropsis, Chlorella Vulgaris, and more

algaeresearchsupply.com

 

[Happi]

@John q

if these are your water parameters then you are lucky to have such soft water without using RO.
so your tap water have the following:

Ca 6.6 ppm
Mg 1.18 ppm

correct me if am wrong, but you are adding 2.8 ppm Mg weekly from MgSo4, adding 2 ppm Calcium from Cacl weekly at water changes?

Total:
Ca 8.6
Mg 3.98

what are you using for N,P,K and Fe/traces and at what ppm? looking forward to work with you on this one.

 

[erwin123]

Happi, what do you think about freezing ice cubes of Fe (DTPA or EDDHA) and inserting into the substrate (where they may slowly release into the water column), rather than dosing Fe directly?

I tried ice cubes with EDDHA-Fe and I didn't get water staining that is usual with direct dosing of EDDHA into water column, so it seemed to work for me.

 

[Happi]

Happi, what do you think about freezing ice cubes of Fe (DTPA or EDDHA) and inserting into the substrate (where they may slowly release into the water column), rather than dosing Fe directly?

I tried ice cubes with EDDHA-Fe and I didn't get water staining that is usual with direct dosing of EDDHA into water column, so it seemed to work for me.

I don't see why it wouldn't work, with such method it would be almost similar to using osmocote except that it could be released back into the water rather much quickly. it would be hard to predict how much will be released back into the water though. but we do know that it will go through several different scenarios from precipitations/oxidization and how it will become available to the plant roots depending on your Soil/Substrate PH. bacteria will also play an important role to break it down and bacteria would love to use that additional iron in the soil. actually most people use such product made by ADA that adds some source of Iron in the substrate which helps to boost the bacteria which does most of the nutrients work in the soil and how it becomes available to the plants. I strongly believe it is based on Iron Oxide but am not 100% certain on this one. Iron gluconate is another good option for you if you want to explore by adding it to the roots or under the substrate.

 

[erwin123]

Thanks for your views Happi. EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink (even touching the ice cubes stains my hands red). According to the internet even 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink.

So my thinking is that if I use ice cubes and the water doesn't turn pink, it means that at least some of the Fe is being retained in the substrate.

 

[Happi]

Thanks for your views Happi. EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink (even touching the ice cubes stains my hands red). According to the internet even 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink.

So my thinking is that if I use ice cubes and the water doesn't turn pink, it means that at least some of the Fe is being retained in the substrate.

I use to dose 0.02 fe weekly from EDDHA without tinting my water. In some cases I combined it with DTPA, something like 0.08 DTPA, 0.02 EDDHA weekly if you want to experiment. 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will certainly tint the water

 

[erwin123]

I use to dose 0.02 fe weekly from EDDHA without tinting my water. In some cases I combined it with DTPA, something like 0.08 DTPA, 0.02 EDDHA weekly if you want to experiment. 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will certainly tint the water

Yes, I froze 0.1ppm worth of EDDHA-Fe in ice cubes and inserted deep into the substrate - didn't tint the water which is why I believe that most of it didn't leak into the water column.

 

[John q]

Thanks Josh, very informative post, also made a good observation that I'd completely overlooked.

3) did drop checker lighten up when you eased off nutrients?

Yes it did, about 10 days after reducing the ferts I came home to a yellow drop checker. My assumption was the filter needed cleaning and had reduced surface agitation, hence co2 wasn't gassing off the same. I cleaned the filter, which to be fair wasn't that bad and angled outlet up a tad.
Interestingly I had to up the bubble rate slightly last week due to dc colour being more green than lime green.

I think my assumption as to cause and effect in this instance was flawed.

4) stores nutrients can only top off imbalance for so long … was GSA instant or a week later?

I'd say it was a week in when I first noticed the spots appearing.

A way to illustrate the above is by dosing heavy heavy heavy in the water column, observing growth rates, then stop dosing entirely and notice growth rate.

Sounds like an experiment I'll have to try at some point.

reckon that with active substrate (nutrient rich soil) same tank same situation etc — there wouldn’t be GSA. The inertness with only root tabs is leading to this “extra attention” with water column dosing.

I've no doubts the plants would grow better in soil only substrate. I really struggled getting Blyxa to take hold in gravel alone, it was only when I enriched the area where its planted with clay that it started to flourish and multiply.

correct me if am wrong, but you are adding 2.8 ppm Mg weekly from MgSo4, adding 2 ppm Calcium from Cacl weekly at water changes?

Total:
Ca 8.6
Mg 3.98

Thanks Happi, always appreciate the input.

Yes you're correct the 2ppm of calcium (Cacl) goes in with the water change and the 2.8ppm magnesium (mgso4) is added weekly with the Macro solution.

what are you using for N,P,K and Fe/traces and at what ppm? looking forward to work with you on this one.

KNO3, KH2PO4, MGSO4. Edta trace + dtpa 8% fe.
Ppm are.

No3 13.38, K 12, Po4 4.35
Fe 0.45 Edta 0.14 dtpa.
Zn 0.06, B 0.06, Mn 0.1, Mo 0.01.


It's a 240l tank with a healthy fish load. Only have about 30w of light over the tank which I guesstimate to give 20 ~ 25 par at substrate.

 

[JoshP12]

Thanks Josh, very informative post, also made a good observation that I'd completely overlooked.

Can't take credit.

Read and think about every single one of @Geoffrey Rea 's journals <-- the time you spend there is worth it's weight.

Yes it did, about 10 days after reducing the ferts I came home to a yellow drop checker. My assumption was the filter needed cleaning and had reduced surface agitation, hence co2 wasn't gassing off the same. I cleaned the filter, which to be fair wasn't that bad and angled outlet up a tad.

This is your proof mate. Your GSA was extremely likely "largely influenced" or "more heavily associated with" (caused is a hard word to use) by poor flow/distribution and since it is the gas we carry in our flow, CO2.

The reason is that you have localized "high CO2 - excess" from yellow DC but the plants aren't healthy ... has to be distribution.

In the event we want to use a different argument, we can. Recall it is "largely influenced but we can't say for certain" ... Phosphate is a big body guard in the water chemistry world ... less of him, the little guys aren't suppressed (either + stuff or - stuff) ... those other stuff MAY now skew the balance of leidbig and lead to an inability to meet the demand of ANOTHER nutrient -- which is likely CO2 (because it's the most important!!!! -- why? mostly carbon).

The details of this stuff is simply that ... details. Fundamentally, Coulombs (stuff interacts with stuff ... + and - are adorned onto stuff and we use the concept of + and - to predict how that stuff interacts) and Leidbigs (plant growth is bottlenecked by the limiting nutrient -- of the bunch that we need).

In my eyes, those are the explanations to your observation. I also have to say that both of my explanations use the framework that I proposed in that everyone is right thread that I posted earlier. Your situation was tough to rationalize since my heart thought you had harder water ... then it would be obvious. In soft water, the exercise becomes tougher - but the piece of the puzzle was you admitting your flow/distribution was bad AND the DC changed color. These are the informations that people with experience get by taking a "look" at a tank in real life.

On a differnet note, you saw leidbigs in action!!!! You pulled off N and P etc and used less CO2!!!! This is why we need not turn CO2 on before lights. You see, there are no customers for CO2 with lights off, so you begin to gas your fish with a "lower" injection rate than you could possibly have by turning it on at lights on. Plummet that pH FAST, CRANK those lights -- stable system. High localized CO2 due to high injection rate, High consumption due to high light, High bufffer on screwing up CO2 application. If your injection is low and you have long ramp, then at peak "plant machinery", your injection rate won't be able to keep up.

Try this: inject CO2 1 hour before watch carefully, cut the CO2 at lights on and take pH measuremnts every 30 minutes ... and watch the plants ... correlate the pH with the plant behavior ... and you will notice how they behave when the Co2 is used up etc. To really see this stuff you need high light ... otherwise, the effect is too "slow".

And if you are really keen, crank the temperature leaving all else constant ... observe DC change color ... it is WAY to cool. The other, which you illustrated, is surface agitation, same thing ... watch it change color ... watch the plants.

Green doesn't mean you have 30 ppm co2. How much CO2 is in the system?

CO2 in system = CO2 injected in = CO2 being used by plants + free CO2 in system

You see, there is hidden CO2 ... and free CO2 is only important since some species require more to assist with acquisition of CO2 over the leaf and/or -- + to keep up with metabolic rates that are largely influenced by N/P in system 🙂.

People say oh I grew so and so with only 10 ppm in the column ... what about roots acquisition? What about biological maturity in system ... the plant can move the gas from substrate evolved by bacteria and in turn oxygenate the bacteria ... symbiosis. This is system thinking and is what I am trying to pitch with the framework I proposed. I mean - growing under lower CO2 is obvious when you see the influence of "stuff in the column!!".

Everyone is right.

Cheers!

Ok and edit!

Sometimes you just need more co2 because the genetic machinery of some species are so heavily influenced by each N/P that is forced into the system (remember N and P aren’t “curated” by the plant and the plant cannot moderate how much of them go in and out - they are force fed by the water column) so here’s the winner: some people say “the plant looks better under higher GH” well … perhaps this is because Ca snd Mg interact with and suppress the “ability for N and P to get forced into the plant” …. And what does that do? It reduces the overall demand on CO2 … necessarily free co2 … and there you go.

You don’t have to kill your fish to get pretty plants.

All plants can grow under EI … ever seen a tree? It gets its EI from roots. A way to illustrate is to keep the column clean except micros daily. Lower co2 observe growth rates. Crank co2 observe growth rates!!!

 

[John q]

Read and think about every single one of @Geoffrey Rea 's journals <-- the time you spend there is worth it's weight.

Definitely, I think I'll have to touch base and re read these threads.

The reason is that you have localized "high CO2 - excess" from yellow DC but the plants aren't healthy ... has to be distribution.

Wouldn't disagree with that assumption in general, but I would question as to why the green spot only appeard after lowering the ferts.

If I'd have kept the dosing regime unchanged then the co2 levels wouldn't have spiked, no gsa. Surely the primary cause here was fertiliser related. Or am I missing something 🤔

Thanks again for input, always appreciate the lessons, observations.

 

[JoshP12]

Definitely, I think I'll have to touch base and re read these threads.

Wouldn't disagree with that assumption in general, but I would question as to why the green spot only appeard after lowering the ferts.

This is a question on the ecological stability of your tank. An appearance of algae is a “knock back” on the history — if your tank was very dirty, I reckoN BBA and if young, staghorn.

The presence of lower order algae (not green etc) has to do with how “bad” the maturity is + how “unhealthy” the plants are.

If I'd have kept the dosing regime unchanged then the co2 levels wouldn't have spiked, no gsa. Surely the primary cause here was fertiliser related. Or am I missing something 🤔

To say a primary cause is futile. Was it the nutrients which exacerbated the issue from co2 and flow distribution - maybe.

If your flow was bang on, would you have the issue - probably not.

Is it nutrients? Is it co2? Chicken egg? It’s both. And that’s why forever you will have the EI camp and the anti-EI camp - unless we accept a marriage of the two: coulomb+ leodbig in conjunction.

Thanks again for input, always appreciate the lessons.

🙂 happy to give a lens.


Side note: cut your lights further and you will fix the algae but you will be growing under darkness — you may struggle to hit LIght compensation point of plants but who cares about that - you will be decreasing the rate of photosynthesis and necessarily oxygen evolution to the system - cut the oxygen, cut the microbiology — is it more stable? Algae buffers the system — nutrients sequestered keeping your inhabitants safe. Are plants better? Yes. That’s why it’s a knock back in history …


Edit: the presence of those other algae etc also has to consider oxygen strain on system, etc so it’s not just mature ness - it’s a matter of decomposition rate vs what the bacteria can handle with their own leidbig being oxygen etc

Edit again! One could make an argument with the latter on oxygen FOR ei dosing. And the argument is sound - but it’s economic balance (for the heslth of livestock - no livestock crank that needle wheel) … is the influx in co2 demand worth the strain it puts on plants vs the influx in light pushing co2 —- the kicker is that the plant cannot filter N and P but it can filter light

And I think @erwin123 suggested this above where he mentioned coloration being largely influenced by light more so than N … yep for sure … @Happi also suggested this in a thread I think.

Easy fix - just turn red. But how does it turn red? Reduce chlorophyll - this is where N comes into play - this is increasingly challenging if you dose high N …. The plant doesn’t NEED to filter out light since it is force fed N —> why don’t the roots force feed - plant chooses what to transport up … via rhizosphere interactions and soil and the structure of a root.

High light and low N - blood red.

 

[Happi]

@John q​

if you really want to explore the Chemical and fertilizer side of the world, then I highly suggest making your own fertilizer from scratch which will give you full control over what you add in your aquarium. as of right now we can only modify what you got but results would be better when you have full control over all the nutrients. I have also suggested some area for improvement for TNC Trace Elements if you could get those chemicals. this recipe should work and we can improve it as needed. far as adding more K, we will see how plant react to this recipe first before we make additional changes to the K. if you are worry about dosing Urea then you can aim for 1 ppm N from KNO3, but the results will be different. I would recommend Tenso Cocktail over TNC if you can find it.

240 liter aquarium

Water parameter, keep this the same and no need to add more Ca or Mg
Ca 6.6 ppm
Mg 1.18 ppm

500 ml, 20 ml per 240 L

Stock Solution #1 (maintain 0.1-0.2 Fe total weekly)

24.33 grams MgSO4.7H2O
Mg 0.400000
S 0.527710

7.143 grams TNC Trace Elements
Fe 0.1
B 0.0125
Mn 0.0216 (try to raise this to 0.07 or so)
Mo 0.0017 (try to raise this to 0.004 or so)
Zn 0.0138
Cu 0.0027 (try to raise this to 0.006 or so)

3.75 grams DTPA Fe 8%
Fe 0.05


Stock Solution #2 (dose 2-3X week to maintain 2-3 ppm N)

21.62 grams KNO3
NO3 2.21
N 0.5
K 1.4

6.43 grams Urea CO(NH2)2
N 0.5

3.525 grams KH2PO4
PO4 0.41
P 0.133
K 0.168

 

[John q]

if your tank was very dirty, I reckoN BBA

10 pts to josh, it's a good assumption, the evidence of poor distribution was always the give away.

Is it nutrients? Is it co2? Chicken egg? It’s both. And that’s why forever you will have the EI camp and the anti-EI camp - unless we accept a marriage of the two: coulomb+ leodbig in conjunction

Goes back to your thread that everybody is right.

cut your lights further and you will fix the algae but you will be growing under darkness — you may struggle to hit LIght compensation point of plants but who cares about that -

On this point I have experience, I ran these tanks at 50% less light for 8 months and still had healthy plants, they NEVER reached lcp, I'd suggest lcp will come into play at some point, but most folks with purpose bought aquarium lights will NEVER and I repeat NEVER reach lcp.

Also should add reducing the lights would be the easy option. Rehab is for quitters...

you really want to explore the Chemical and fertilizer side of the world, then I highly suggest making your own fertilizer

@JoshP12 and @Happi My tanks at this moment in time are "ok" but they could be better. I consider these tanks as "test" tanks. I want to understand what's going on, or at least try to understand. Hence I'm quite happy to try things... Hence I value your input,... long story short I can't increase co2 distribution, even adding a maxspect jump is proving futile (long, deep tank... pita)


For me this is one big learning curve, which..? Hopefully I'll learn from and implement in the next tank. For now I experiment, see what happens... take advice.

Will source those chemicals @Happi and see what happens in the new world.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, does elevating levels of P04 reduce GSA.. lol..

 

[JoshP12]

Meanwhile back at the ranch, does elevating levels of P04 reduce GSA.. lol..

😂😂 … depends on the tank.

Give me all the details and I’ll tell you 😂😂😂😂.

If it was me 9 times outta 10, I’d run lean column and just turn up co2 and fix flow.

Can’t fix flow in current tank - spray bar with a massive turnover does the trick or 2x canisters.

For future, get better dimensions — ADA tank dimensions aren’t an accident. I’m stuck with a 65 gallon 2 foot tall and 18 inch deep tank. Never again. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Edit: you can see flow - you can’t see intermolecular interactions. You always want co2 in excess if you can - cleaning the column gives you a competitive edge in that game.

 

[Happi]

you don't need to turn your tank into tornado. you want gentle flow with high rate of GPH.

 

[Andy Pierce]

@JoshP12 and @Happi My tanks at this moment in time are "ok" but they could be better.

From the pictures the plants and fish all look fine to me. Is the complaint about GSA on the back glass (it's hard to tell in the photo)? If so, I'd scrape that down and do a water change and declare victory really.