MichaelJ
Member
I tend to agree. I hope as time goes by we will be able to tell more from this experiment. I sort of like what’s going on in D though
Cheers,
Michael
-
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 experiment 23b
- Thread starter _Maq_
- Start date
-
- Tags
- algae fertilization
Cheers,
Michael
_Maq_
Member
Yes, this experiment is quite untidy bunch of contradictory and surprising events. Seeking "compromise" and attempting to check multiple variables at one strike, it made me try conditions which I'd seldom check otherwise. It's been broadening my horizons rather than sharpening my insight.
But why "questions to you, Maq"? Why not questions to all of us?
Andy Pierce
Member
D has the least algae, but I kind of like the plants in B. Low pH is going to be a problem though.I tend to agree. I hope as time goes by we will be able to tell more from this experiment. I sort of like what’s going on in D though
John q
Member
I'm open to the question mate suprised you doubted me. 😁
MichaelJ
Member
Yes that did occur to me, but below 4pH seems crazy even with the high dose of NH4. Well, I guess I might have learned something new today
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
I just think there are too many parameters in play here... I try to retain an open mind however.
Hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes... Somehow I wish all the tanks would be like D and the only difference would be the NH4NO3 dosing.
Cheers,
Michael
John q
Member
I've honestly no preferences to either tank, all look good in my eyes, all have faults. I'm more open minded than most, even hoping tank C will stop looking like shite 😁
_Maq_
Member
I quite believe the stems of R. wallichii I chose for tank D were stunted already. It sometimes happens with this species - it quits growing while looking ok. In fact, the tops are stunted.
NH4NO3? I've been dosing NH4HCO3 during this test.
Anyway, if I increased solely nitrogen, deficiencies of other nutrients would likely get pronounced.
Well, this experiment is nearing its end. I'm going to wait about a week to see if plants suffer in pH<4. Otherwise, I don't expect any interesting events.
Here are some points which stroke me as interesting:
(1) Ammonia toxicity. In tank A, it took two weeks before pH fell below 7, and ammoniacal nitrogen was present in very high concentration. Yet plants did not show any noticeable harm.
(2) Algae. New dust algae indeed appeared, in the order B > A > C > D. This order did not follow nitrogen (and phosphorus) dosing but the remaining macro- and micro-nutrients.
(3) Plant growth. Remarkably, plant growth was not slower in tank D despite truly low doses of nitrogen and phosphorus. Conversely, higher doses in other tanks seem to be wasteful. This suggests that light and/or CO2 were limiting factors of growth.
(4) Micronutrients. Iron deficit was noticeable in tank A while pH remained above 7. Otherwise, no lack of micros occurred.
(5) Unchelated micronutrients seem to work well as long as pH remains within acidic range.
(6) Micronutrients. Increased dosing in tank B did not cause any positive or negative effects.
(7) Nitrification. Delayed start of nitrification in tank A suggests that other than "usual" strains of nitrifiers had to proliferate upon very high concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen.
(8) Nitrification seems to proceed even in strongly acidic environment.
(9) Nitrification was strong without any filtration.
(10) Cryptocorynes did not melt despite strong pH decrease.
(11) Cryptocorynes remained dwarfed despite rich fertilizing.
(12) Vallisneria and Sagittaria kept on growing and proliferating through runners in strongly acidic conditions. (The question of their ability to grow in pH < 4 remains open.)
(13) Ammannia stunted for unknown reasons (as usually).
MichaelJ
Member
My bad. I meant NH4HCO3.
I would agree, with the one caveat that all the tanks are acidic soft water tanks.
Yes, that is one that goes against my belief... @John q have showed similar with his soft water and epic Vals. You will find more than a couple of posts where I claim (from "experience") that Vals will struggle in soft acidic water.... not so in general apparently!. Now, if I would go pick up some Vals they would probably grow like crazy in my tanks
Heisenbug!Either way, that is probably mostly of academic interest as hardly anyone run their tanks at such a low pH. But of course, will be interesting to see.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
John q
Member
I'd tend to agree with the points you made.
We shouldn't however forget the prediction you made about tank B, or C as is was labelled back then.
Hard to tell for sure off the last set of pictures but to me the Corymbosa looks fairly healthy in tank b, possibly the healthiest of all 4 tanks? Tonina looks ok ish, wallichii seems to be improving, possibly the best of all tanks?
So would it be fair to say that ei levels of ferts doesn't kill plants?
Ignoring the Corymbosa ( assuming the pictures are realistic) and wallichii, then yes I'll accept plant health in tank d looks the best.
Hope you keep up with the experiments maq, I've enjoyed the updates.
_Maq_
Member
Let's reduce it to the question of high potassium dosing.
In my previous experiments, I've recorded problems with potassium. I've mentioned it several times on this forum and received many reports, often fairly well documented, that contradicted my findings. So, yes, I'm much more reserved in this question.
A preliminary explanation might be that in my practice, water is generally very soft. Which means that K, Mg & Ca content is low. Upon such conditions, increased potassium content has made problems. Possibly, the situation is different in "Barr's" system, where all these nutrients are in huge overabundance. That suggests confirmation of Barr's thesis that if all is in excess, ratios (among them) are much less important.
Obviously, then, today I would not argue the way you quoted. This question requires far more research.
_Maq_
Member
Yes, several reasons somehow combined.
Firstly, the plants have got overgrown for the space. And I don't want to do any 'weeding' because it would create inconsistency. Beside that, it seems unlikely to deliver any more revelations. In general, this has been a test of negative proofs, so to speak. Plants survived in a more or less healthy state whatever we've invented to kill them, and now remains only a fairly impractical question whether they can grow with pH<4.
Secondly, my Czech publisher showed some inconvenience with this experiment, for two reasons: They rather don't like discussing publicly my work before an article is published in their magazine, and they suggested that with this test I've deviated from the schedule of experiments we had settled on before.
And I agree.
So, my next test (which I'm about to begin within a few days) will be an example of simplicity: I will document signs of K, Mg & Ca deficiency on as many species as possible. This time, no play of 'ratios', but (near) absolute deficiency. The aim is to get some pictures for a sort of 'atlas' of signs of nutrient deficiencies of common aquarium plants.
xZaiox
Member
I still think that this is possibly more relevant with some specific species than others, there definitely appears to be some species that prefer a lower potassium environment, while others prefer a higher level.
Andy Pierce
Member
_Maq_
Member
Generally, I believe our tanks are run by microbes. So I keenly observe anything that can be observed and tell us something about them. Among others, the speed with which snail (and fish) poops disappear.
Insufficient oxygen may be a reason for feces accumulation, definitely. Then there may be a more 'sophisticated' reason - nutrient imbalance. Feces are rather poor in key nutrients, mainly nitrogen, phosphorus, and micros. It's just carbon. Unlike plants (and animals, to a degree), unicelular organisms can't escape Redfield ratio. Per 106 atoms of carbon they need 16 atoms of nitrogen and one atom of phosphorus. And full scale of micronutrients. So, in generally poor environment, microbes cannot utilize 106 carbon atoms from feces because they don't get one atom of phosphorus (or another nutrient in relevant amount) simultaneously.
Such is my reasoning, but actual results are scarce. I always try to keep my tanks well-oxygenated. And mostly quite poor in nutrients - no excess like E.I. Still, feces sometimes accumulate, and other times don't. I've tried bacterial inoculations. Sometimes it works, other times the result is either non-existent, or outright negative - blooms, algae.
During this experiment, feces appeared in all tanks, but nothing to write home about.
I really don't know. But one day, when I grow a big guy, I'll get to the crux of it!
I can add that potassium can be dosed in concentrations which are just a fraction of magnesium and calcium. While I admit that high levels of potassium are often harmless, that does not mean they are needed. Plants truly possess mechanisms to take up potassium preferentially. And I've never encountered problems with potassium while keeping N : K ratio 4 : 1 [molar].
(Disclaimer: But I can't keep healthy Cryptocorynes and Ammannias.)
xZaiox
Member
I think that unless you're dosing miniscule amounts then you can likely look elsewhere with the cryptocorynes - since I've lowered my potassium to 5ppm, my cryptocorynes haven't cared at all. Although I do recognise there are many different types of subspecies... the ones in my tank are: Cryptocoryne Wendtii Green, Cryptocoryne willisii, Cryptocoryne undulatus 'Red', Cryptocoryne Petchii.
These species above haven't cared moving from 30ppm of K to 5ppm. I can't comment on the Ammannias though, as I've never attempted to grow them.
MichaelJ
Member
I've been on the low K regime for a while - almost two month now, so it's still a bit early. My lean tank is 10 ppm Ca, 5 ppm Mg, 1 ppm K. My shrimp tank 21 ppm Ca 7 ppm Mg 4 ppm K. I can't really claim as a whole that my plants are in better shape, but they are definitely not in worse shape. One thing I noticed is that my swords have been putting out a ton of runners recently... and my Bucephalandras are looking better than ever.... coincidence? maybe. Also, my huge Java Fern in my lean tanks seems to be doing fine with the very low K... That's sort of a myth buster for me personally - I was always taught or under the impression that Ferns needed a lot of potassium (don't ask me why that would be the case...). Anyway, over the years I've become a strong believer in not adding more of anything than necessary to my tanks - while trying to ensure the plants are not tethering on outright deficiencies. Its probably much easier to follow this approach in low-tech tanks.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
jaisol
Member
I was wrong, when I water my garden tubs I get algae, my tubs have very little plants at the moment, and I expected Algae WELL DONE MAQ So far no algae in my tubs
So far no algae in my tubs