- 11 Jul 2007
- Chicago, USA
What I mean to say is that I dose anywhere from 40 to 60 ppm NO3 per week and so that is on top of whatever the tap water value is, which like you, I have no idea whatsoever what the that value actually is because neither of us test it or pay attention to the municipal water report NO3 data.SuperColey1 said:The answer is I'm not sure that 10-20ppm is the most one would ever need. I am taking that from what I have read from others on here and other forums that we all use. I have no idea. I add 2ppm nitrate a day and it works for me. How much is in the tap water? I don't know. How much of that ppm do the plants use? I don't know. How much is left over after my 10% water change? I don't know. What is my current ppm? I don't know. The shrimp are still alive so I guess its less than Tom's suggestion of 150ppm.
From the way you write are you saying you have 30-60ppm present or you add 30-60ppm weekly or 3x a week therefore allowing build up if it isn't used?
Andy check the arithmetic exercise I gave in my post on the previous page. A 50% weekly water change means that it is impossible to have a total NO3 value greater than the sum of the tap water value + the dosage level. Actually, in practical terms, there are two things that help me avoid toxic buildup. The first is that I do much higher volumes of water changes than 50%. My water changes are in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (although the more water I remove the more KNO3/KH2PO4 I'll add back.) Huge biomass means huge organic waste production. I get as much detritus out of the tank as I can and so that I'm removing a lot of water to maximize the detritus removal, stirring up the sediment, siphoning out whatever is suspended etc. Secondly I often do business trips for a few days so the buildup is consumed because I'm not there to dose for a couple of days. So in truth I have a real mania about cleanliness and so the things I do to satisfy that obsession in effect serves to mitigate the buildup even though I'm dosing massive quantities. I reckon if we focus more on cleanliness we'd have less algae, and healthier fauna. Toxic buildup wouldn't even be an issue. Dirty tanks kill more fish than nitrate buildup can ever dream of doing.SuperColey1 said:Do you not worry that if (for example) 30ppm was left over pre water change then 15ppm would be carried forward to the next week. Then the week after you end up with 22.5 after the water change and so on? Would that not equal incredible amounts after a year? Its a simple equation I am using and obviously doesn't include any other happenings within the tank. Is there something scientific that reduces/breaks down the nitrate over time?
Surely if someone were to keep dosing 30ppm more than their plants needed each week (and I understand that to know this we would need to know the plants uptake) then the left overs coupled with the next week's dosing would accumulate.
Exactly. I totally agree with this and I'm not slamming your particular objectives or suggesting that my objectives are more noble than yours. What I'm saying is that I've discovered that breeching the standard dosing limits can not only produce higher yields but that if executed properly (i,e commensurate CO2 levels) it actually produces occasional prettier foliage and often more unusual forms/colors than can be achieved with the standard dosages alone. Look at the evidence for yourself. These are life forms found only in the Delta quadrant of the mega-dosing galaxy and you're not likely to see these anomalies while fretting about PO4 or worrying about exceeding 10-20ppm NO3:SuperColey1 said:Yes I am quite happy to accept the rates of growth I have. Any faster and there would be no room for water I am not quite happy to accept certain levels of algae though. I am not happy to accept any (or at least not any amount that is visible) thus I battle with CO2 diffusion techniques and circulation issues time to time caused by the 'slow' rate of growth that I am quite happy with