Should be tonnes of BGA on the chart (I haven’t looked at the chart much!) but none.
However I believe most hobbyist will learn and enjoy more by ignoring the charts and theories, look at the plants and crack on!
Don’t get me wrong testing is interesting and can be part of the the hobby but it is not the be all and end all. Often the OP will end up down a rabbit warren of testing and chasing water parameters when the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.
I'm afraid that especially for newcomers sticking to the certain ratio between for example NO3 and PO4 will be highly misleading because of far more variables taking part in healthy plant growth. Not to mention that "widely acclaimed" NO3/PO4 ratios make people scared of Phosphates. Vast majority of plant keepers I know think that high Phosphates may cause algae, which is not true - In NPK this is a second most important fert for plant growth.What spurred me on to start this thread was the huge problems newcomers have to our hobby.
Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.
Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, with indiscriminate testing. That's very different to what you are doing in trying to understand what's happening in your tank and investigating a particular issue.I am not in favour of indiscriminate testing. It has to be based on sound reasoning. And that's where a basic understanding of aquarium science comes in very handy.
They do, have a look at , <"From Reef to...">. An issue for me would be that I like ferns, mosses, epiphytic Aroids and floating plants, which means that I need some iron (Fe) in the water column. Also iron availability within the substrate is <"entirely straightforward"> and introduces a lot more <"shades of grey">.Plants can obtain iron from both a suitable substrate and the water column. But, algae depend on availability of iron in the water column.
That is the heart of the matter for me. I agree, but with the proviso that it only helps if you have <"test results you rely on">.Any guidance for people starting out in aquatics has got to be a good thing. If that means doing a few simple tests, isn't that time well spent?
.......OP tested for everything under the sun, gave up and bought plastic plants. Is not happy with their planted tank experience and is never seen on the ukaps forum again. Don’t get me wrong testing is interesting and can be part of the the hobby but it is not the be all and end all. Often the OP will end up down a rabbit warren of testing and chasing water parameters when the answer was much easier and to solve to begin with.....
It honestly <"is the answer">. Watch the plants, have plenty of plants, some with the <"aerial advantage">, have <"plenty of dissolved oxygen">.It is back to a <"picture being worth a thousand words">.Let me guess: keeping high plant mass and most of the problems will resolve for themselves (assuming we are feeding our plants).
Substitute "penguins" and "ggplot2" for the duckweed index and that is the data visualization of the nutrient status of the tank.....I usually start any data exploration with <"ggplot2">. Not very aquatic plant related, but I like <"Palmer Penguins"> as a start, have a look at the graphing options it just makes visualising multifactorial data so much easier, you can just slice and dice the data visualization with ggplot2 .
With a large enough sample size and carefully chosen variables, I think we could build a predictive model of BGA development.
The essence of this new thread (the one you are now reading) is the importance of getting the optimum ratio of nitrate to phosphate in order to prevent outbreaks of algae.
It's a bit vague but I have the BGA and I've measured:Hi Folks,
Are we making progress? We started out discussing the nitrate : phosphate ratio and some people are gathering data, which may, or may not yield useful results. We've touched on iron and a little bit of stuff on lighting. But, to be fair, that was me going off at a tangent. At the outset of this thread, I commented:
I've just had a thought - if the plants are absorbing ammonia and nitrite, where is the nitrate coming from? Is it purely from the filter? If it's the latter, is biological filtration inside a filter such a good idea? I guess heterotrophic bacteria consuming organic waste (detritus) on the substrate produce ammonia but isn't this taken up by the plants just like ammonia excreted by fish? I'm overlooking the obvious, presumably?
You’d form some hypotheses, drawing on the variables that we know influence algae development. I’d say that’s the easy part. Harder will be to quantify some of them. How, for example, do quantify different amounts of red, blue and white light into one variable? The stats would be a predictive model using something like logistic regression of DFA. Sample size is usually between 15-20 X number of variables being examined in the model - so sizeable.Hi @hypnogogia
How would you envisage doing that? Which variables would you suggest? I'm definitely interested in your idea but the practical implementation of producing a predictive model is going to need some serious statistics, isn't it? I'd rather we just throw a few ideas around, which is what I hoped this thread and the thread below would kick-start:
It's a bit vague but I have the BGA and I've measured:
Phosphate 0.05-0.1 on JBL
Nitrate 10 API