Maq's experiment 23b

[_Maq_]

Dear colleagues,
let me invite you to collaboration on my upcoming experiment.
My workshop looks like this:

Four tanks, each 20 litres net, arranged to maintain identical conditions regarding lighting, temperature, etc. The only difference is mineral composition of water:

My method of mineralization is called, if I’m not mistaken, “front loading”. I’m adding 50 % of indicated minerals in 8-day intervals while performing 50 % water change. As a result, actual concentrations (esp. N, P & K) are slightly lower.
I’m dosing micros usually two days before water change. I’m not going to discuss the amounts of micros because I’m of the opinion that this is strictly individual and visible symptoms are our sole clue. However, I always dose micros identically in all tanks at the same time.
Chemicals used: KOH, KH2PO4, NH4HCO3, MgSO4, MgCl2, CaCl2. Micros: FeCl3, MnSO4, ZnSO4, CuSO4, H3BO3.
Projected plant species:
monocots: Cryptocoryne wendtii Rubella, Egeria densa, Sagittaria platyphylla, Vallisneria spiralis, Tonina fluviatilis.
dicots: Ammannia pedicellata Gold, Bacopa lanigera, Hygrophila corymbosa siamensis Brown, Hygrophila lancea, Rotala rotundifolia Orange Juice, Rotala wallichii.

Now, what is the aim of this experiment?
The tanks are called A – lean, B – moderate, C – Barr, D – insane.
As you can see, NPK dosing is sharply increasing from A to D, and all the nitrogen is in ammoniacal form! So, the first aim is to see what such an insane amount of nutrients (eq. 46 mg NO3 per litre in D) will do. Will the plants grow faster, better? Shall they get damaged by ammonium (“ammonia burn”)? Will there be more algae in more fertilized tanks (with ammonium)?
I don’t know. I’ve never tried such truly insane amounts of nutrients.
At the same time, this design is also focused on K:Mg:Ca ratios, which we’ve discussed quite recently in another thread. As you see, the amounts of Mg and Ca are identical in all tanks, while K is increasing (maintaining fixed ratio with N and P). Will we encounter signs of deficiency of K, Mg, or Ca in any tanks?

An important question for Estimative Index users: Is the mineral composition of the tank C acceptable to be called "Barr – Estimative Index"? Of course, with the exception of ammonium (eq. 16 mg NO3 per litre). Dosing ammonium instead of nitrates makes the point here, because EI users never dose ammonium and maintain that ammonium causes algae.

I promise that I will not call the results of this experiment a proof of this or that. Rather, let’s take them for indications, suggestions, broadening our understanding of aforementioned questions.
Your opinion and suggestions are warmly welcome! Please, take part in designing this experiment as useful as possible.

 

[Myrtle]

Personally, I'm more fascinated by your insulation; it looks surprisingly attractive!

 

[Tim Harrison]

Nice looking experiment and thanks for sharing it here @_Maq_ .
Just for clarity's sake, are the tanks A-D, sequentially left to right?

 

[John q]

Fantastic test set up you have there @_Maq_ and look forward with an open mind to see this develop.

With regards to tank C being true to ei dosing.. some of the ratios are a little high (nh⁴) and some are a little low (k) when compared to mg levels. I think tweaking the nh⁴ to 3 mg/l and upping the k to 11 mg/l would bring the percentages n/p/k/mg more inline with ei.

Obviously I won't suggest you add 18 ppm of co2 into tank C 😉

Glad your taking the time and sharing these tests with us mate.

 

[MichaelJ]

let me invite you to collaboration on my upcoming experiment.

Nice setup. I believe these are non-CO2 tanks?
I assume your going to populate the EC and pH with measurements.

Will be interesting to follow.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Wookii]

Interesting experiment @_Maq_, looking forward to seeing the results.

I personally believe that ammonia can lead to algae (though more than happy to be proved wrong - I have no ‘skin in the game’), but that it is not long run average levels of ammonia that cause this, but rather sudden increases that algae can take advantage of.

With that in mind it would be interesting to see the effects on tank A (Lean dosing) if, at the end of the experiment, you make a step change and switch the dosing up to match that of tank D (Insane dosing) for a week or two?

A couple of other queries:

1. Do you have the facilities to measure the ammonia remaining at the end of each week immediately before the water change? It would be interesting to see the consumption of ammonia on each tank.

2. Have you measured the PAR values in each tank?

 

[_Maq_]

Just for clarity's sake, are the tanks A-D, sequentially left to right?

The pic is almost a year old. The stuff remains the same, but the plants are long gone (to other tanks of mine). Normally, yes, I name them A to D from left to right.

I assume your going to populate the EC and pH with measurements.

Yes. I'm measuring temperature, pH and e. conductivity in five days intervals, mostly.

it would be interesting to see the effects on tank A (Lean dosing) if, at the end of the experiment, you make a step change and switch the dosing up to match that of tank D (Insane dosing) for a week or two?

It seems doable. But one never knows what the test itself will bring... so, I'll keep that in mind, no warranty.

Do you have the facilities to measure the ammonia remaining at the end of each week immediately before the water change? It would be interesting to see the consumption of ammonia on each tank.

I happen to own spectrophotometer which years ago belonged to Tom Barr personally. No kidding. So yes, I am able to measure ammonium and nitrites, while nitrates I measure electrochemically. Two or three years ago I was very much in cycling the tanks, made many many measurements. Now, I'm a bit lazy, frankly...

2. Have you measured the PAR values in each tank?

No. As you can see, the place is arranged in a way which should provide the same lighting to each tank. Beyond that, I know nothing.

some of the ratios are a little high (nh⁴) and some are a little low (k) when compared to mg levels. I think tweaking the nh⁴ to 3 mg/l and upping the k to 11 mg/l would bring the percentages n/p/k/mg more inline with ei.

THANK YOU. So, at least one suggestion to C - Tom Barr tank:

• decrease ammonium to 3 mg/l (which is eq. 10.3 mg/l NO3)
• increase potassium to 11 mg/l.

What do you think about it?
PLEASE, I beg you all, esp. Estimative Index performers - do suggest what concentrations you find "true" EI.

 

[Andy Pierce]

I do EI, but the idea is to have the plants use up the nutrients. That can't possibly happen with "usual" EI fertiliser concentrations if you are not injecting CO2 gas. If you're not injecting CO2, then EI concentrations designed for CO2 injected set ups also count as D) insane.

 

[MichaelJ]

What do you think about it?

I am surprised no one speaks about traces here. How much are you planning to dose in each tank?

Not sure about the rationale with tank D - the only insane thing about it is probably the NH4 bit (77.6% of 13.6 == 10.5 ppm of N). Expect for the N, for many people using straight tap and injecting CO2, the levels in D are not insane (except for the Ca and Mg levels actually - see below).

Overall I think there might just be too many parameters in play here. And whatever the outcome, it can probably only be judged in the context of very, very soft and likely acidic water with low alkalinity - which is far, far less common among hobbyists than we might think - 7 ppm of Ca and 3 ppm of Mg are just not very realistic conditions for most hobbyists.

I think tank A might be a bit too lean and B more in line with lean (with my recent change to K:Mg my own lean tank is actually fairly close to B).

Just curious, how do you know the hydroxide (HO-) amount?

Anyway, I appreciate this experiment, I just hope we can draw some meaningful conclusions from it.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[xZaiox]

Overall I think there might just be too many parameters in play here.

I really appreciate your effort to test things in the hobby @_Maq_ , but I agree with @MichaelJ on this point. I wonder if it might help to set a less open goal with this experiment? You're testing rising ammonium levels, but at the same time adjusting the levels of other parameters.

If the goal is to test the mg/ca/k relationship, then it may be best to leave ammonium at a fixed dosage.
If the goal is to test how tolerate plants are of ammonium (or at what point algae may be induced), then it may make more sense to leave the mg/ca/k at a fixed dosage.
If the goal is to test ratios vs EI, then it may make more sense to ignore the mg/ca/k relationship for the EI tank and dose it at 30ppm of K, 10ppm of Mg etc. Although I recognise this isn't with CO2, so I guess the ratios of EI should be adjusted down.

I'm also unsure why the bicarbonates and hydroxide is changing? There just seems to be quite a few different variables going on. 😬 I recognise that you've been in the hobby way longer than I have though, so I may be missing something

 

[_Maq_]

I do EI, but the idea is to have the plants use up the nutrients. That can't possibly happen with "usual" EI fertiliser concentrations if you are not injecting CO2 gas.

I think EI idea is to provide nutrients in excess, so that deficiency of any nutrient cannot happen. Of course, without CO2 injection, plants will use much less of it. What remains the same is that plants have to cope with such a "strong" solution.

I am surprised no one speaks about traces here. How much are you planning to dose in each tank?

See original post. I do not aim at any target concentration, I take it for senseless.

Not sure about the rationale with tank D - the only insane thing about it is probably the NH4

There are two arguments concerning ammonium. Firstly, people fear of ammonia burn. Secondly, many say ammonium causes algae. My observations in this respect are invariably negative, I dose ammonium regularly and none of these issues happen. So, the only way to check is to dose insane amount of ammonium - and see what it would do.

whatever the outcome, it can probably only be judged in the context of very, very soft and likely acidic water with low alkalinity - which is far, far less common among hobbyists than we might think

You should consider that I do not inject CO2. Therefore, to keep plants which require acidic water my water simply must be soft with very low alkalinity.
I cannot fully emulate water with both higher alkalinity and acidic pH - for that, CO2 injection is necessary.

I think tank A might be a bit too lean

Perhaps if you draw your experience from CO2 supported tanks. I regularly dose amounts like that. And some species truly love it.
Anyway, the aim is to check the extremes.

Just curious, how do you know the hydroxide (HO-) amount?

Check the list of chemicals: KOH + KH2PO4.

 

[_Maq_]

I wonder if it might help to set a less open goal with this experiment?

Well, I perform experiments regularly, one after another. This is not my first take on K:Mg:Ca ratios, I probably know the result and visible signs we can expect. Neither is this my first experience with dosing ammonium; the difference here is that I want to push it to the extreme.

If the goal is to test the mg/ca/k relationship, then it may be best to leave ammonium at a fixed dosage.

I still believe these two can be combined. I might be wrong, but I expect that the visible results of both will be clearly separated. Ammonium is supposed to cause ammonia burn and algae. While incorrect K:Mg:Ca ratios cause growth defects. I know what it looks like, I've posted pics of that even here in another thread.

I'm also unsure why the bicarbonates and hydroxide is changing?

I'll use NH4HCO3 for dosing ammonium. Nitrification is a big "eater" of alkalinity, so this is sort of attempt to keep pH roughly the same in all tanks.
Hydroxide: I'll use KOH & KH2PO4 for potassium dosing.

 

[Wookii]

Firstly, people fear of ammonia burn.

This is typically on invitro plantlets, so if ammonia burn is being tested, it would be key to include plants at that stage of development in each tank - one pot would be sufficient for all tanks. Mature stems are likely to be a lot more robust. Bucephelandra can also shed leaves when exposed to excess ammonia, (or at least that is the unqualified theory) so including a Buce plant in each tank might be an interesting addition.

It is also worth bearing in mind the ammonia burn also seems to happen more in newly set-up tanks with fresh aquasoil, where the ammonia levels at the substrate level, and within the first centimetre or two, could be a lot higher than your tank D dosing levels. Also along the same line, is the substrate in your tanks mature - or will you be starting all of them 'afresh' with new substrate? Using tanks with mature substrate with a microbial assemblage already used to dealing with elevated ammonia levels may affect the experiment. A clean slate with fresh sand in each tank would be the ideal starting point.

In terms of EI dosing, I don't think anyone would recommend dosing typical EI levels of nutrients in a low energy tank - 1/4-1/2 EI levels for low tech would be more typical. That said, I don't think you should adjust anything for your experiment as it would be interesting to see results at 'full' EI levels.

 

[xZaiox]

Well, I perform experiments regularly, one after another. This is not my first take on K:Mg:Ca ratios, I probably know the result and visible signs we can expect. Neither is this my first experience with dosing ammonium; the difference here is that I want to push it to the extreme.

I still believe these two can be combined. I might be wrong, but I expect that the visible results of both will be clearly separated. Ammonium is supposed to cause ammonia burn and algae. While incorrect K:Mg:Ca ratios cause growth defects. I know what it looks like, I've posted pics of that even here in another thread.

That's fair enough, I've learned a lot from you on this forum, so I trust that you know what to look for 😁 I'll be eagerly awaiting the results of the testing.

I'll use NH4HCO3 for dosing ammonium. Nitrification is a big "eater" of alkalinity, so this is sort of attempt to keep pH roughly the same in all tanks.
Hydroxide: I'll use KOH & KH2PO4 for potassium dosing.

Ahh, I missed this. Thanks for the clarification

 

[John q]

In terms of EI dosing, I don't think anyone would recommend dosing typical EI levels of nutrients in a low energy tank - 1/4-1/2 EI levels for low tech would be more typical.

My method of mineralization is called, if I’m not mistaken, “front loading”. I’m adding 50 % of indicated minerals in 8-day intervals

From what I can gather tank C will be around 25% el dosing.
If the target is say 10.3 ppm No3 and he's front loading 50% of this then there is only 5ppm going in every 8 days. I think this is a sensible amount.

Tank D is targeting 46 ppm No3, which when front loaded at 50% equates to a 23 ppm weekly addition, this for No3 is in line with true ei, although all the other nutrients are somewhat lacking.

 

[Nick potts]

I think EI idea is to provide nutrients in excess, so that deficiency of any nutrient cannot happen. Of course, without CO2 injection, plants will use much less of it. What remains the same is that plants have to cope with such a "strong" solution.

While true that the idea is to dose in excess, it is also true the full EI is designed specifcally for CO2 injected tanks, the levels are just not practical in a low energy setup and never would they be suggested as such

 

[Tim Harrison]

Just a thought, aside from light intensity the lack of CO2 could prove to be the limiting factor to plant growth in all tanks rather than nutrient status.
So it is entirely possible that plant growth in all 4 tanks will be very similar, perhaps including the lean one.

Non Co2 Methods

Non co2 methods for planted tanks

barrreport.com

 

[_Maq_]

While true that the idea is to dose in excess, it is also true the full EI is designed specifcally for CO2 injected tanks

Well, I've lived under an impression that Tom Barr repeatedly stated that the principle of his method is valid for low-tech, too.
Without CO2, plants will utilize less nutrients. However, do you think that the same amount of nutrients could harm plants kept in low-tech and be harmless to plants kept in hi-tech?
Seriously, dear colleagues, do you think it's possible?

Also along the same line, is the substrate in your tanks mature - or will you be starting all of them 'afresh' with new substrate? Using tanks with mature substrate with a microbial assemblage already used to dealing with elevated ammonia levels may affect the experiment. A clean slate with fresh sand in each tank would be the ideal starting point.

The substrate is matured. I believe it's better this way. Newly established tanks suffer from algae quite regularly. Who can tell, then, what is the result of using ammonium?

Tank D is targeting 46 ppm No3, which when front loaded at 50% equates to a 23 ppm weekly addition, this for No3 is in line with true ei, although all the other nutrients are somewhat lacking.

Not all. I keep N : P : K ratio constant - 14:1:4 [molar]. There's enough S and Cl there, and I'm planning to dose micros so as to avoid any deficiency. As a result, it's just Mg and Ca which might strike you as lower than ... um, standard?

 

[_Maq_]

So it is entirely possible that plant growth in all 4 tanks will be very similar, perhaps including the lean one.

Yes, you're right. And I hope to demonstrate during this experiment what already happened on several occasions - some plants actually grew better in "lean" than in "moderate" conditions.

 

[_Maq_]

Dear colleagues, I truly appreciate your comments, all of them. Yet for technical reasons, I cannot postpone this experiment for longer than a few days. Some plants are already waiting in provisionary conditions.
Let's focus.
Tanks A, B, and D are nothing but my experimental fantasy. I don't see much benefit in adjusting them.
Tank C is different in the sense that it aims to be considered "E.I.-like". For your convenience, the suggested amount of nitrogen in ammoniacal form is equal to 15.6 mg/l NO3. I believe this is quite "normal" concentration. Also phosphates are acceptable, I believe.
So, the real questions are:
(1) In Tank C - more or less potassium?
(2) In Tank C - more or less magnesium?
(3) In Tank C - more or less calcium?
Please, will you express your opinion on these specific questions?