Now we're talking! 👍 ... I am going to be glued to your Journal when you document your progress!I think it's time for me to thin out my low tech tank and add more challenging stems!
Would be absolutely fabulous if you could flesh out what you did here to obtain and maintain this.
View attachment 204630
The pics were taken in Vermelho.
The maintenance schedule is the same for all Portugals:some additional questions specific to the Vermelho tank:
Just to play devils advocate here, how did you rule out for certain that your microbe and algae issues are not influenced by the former?Bottom line: Mineral nutrition is the easier part. I'm "educated" by Marschner. My issue is the microbes (incl. algae). They attack (and sometimes cause losses on plants) and retreat apparently independently on my action. The fact is, these tanks are still relatively young (10 months).
Honestly, I didn't.how did you rule out for certain that your microbe and algae issues are not influenced by the former?
The maintenance schedule is the same for all Portugals:
By default, I change 30 liters (out of 70 net content) in 10-12 days period. Yet there's often something in some tanks that makes me doing larger or additional WC. This discussion evolves from a few pics where (almost) everything seems to be perfect. In actuality, I have to admit, I quite often struggle with more algae/microbes than I'd like to or less than perfectly clear water (not outright a bloom, still a sign of some problem). In such instances, WC is the default action. So, frankly, nothing is perfect.
I front-load all macros with WC. If I change 30 liters, I add 30/70 of the amount indicated in the chart. Therefore, the real concentration of all nutrients (esp. NPK) is always lower than that. This possibly makes my plants grow even slower but I'd like to stress that nutrient lack or imbalance is not my issue. In this respect, I've already found almost ideal numbers (for lean & softwater conditions - it seems that outside of this area the rules may be different, see Estimative Index).
Disclaimer: Ammannias are an exception, they obviously suffer from some kind of imbalance in spite of much effort. And my Cryptocorynes and Bucephalandras remain dwarfed - healthy but small.
Micros: I dose them in identical fashion like macros, except not with WC but some 7 to 9 days later. My reasoning is to avoid "meeting" phosphates with trace metals as much as possible. That's why the delay; by that time, much of phosphorus is already consumed by plants (I suppose).
I don't use any chelates. I'd like to stress that FeCl3 works even in basic pH. The problem is that some plants can utilize Fe in such conditions, and others can't. I do not attempt to help it with chelates, I simply accept the fact that given species can't survive in such conditions (which effectively means elevated bicarbonates). You can overcome this issue with CO2 injection and strong chelates but that's not my business.
Dosing: Regular amount of micros in 10-12 days period is [mg/L multiplied by x/70, where x stands for liters WC]: B 0.00130, Fe 0.01675, Mn 0.00577, Zn 0.00131, Cu 0.00038. I don't dose Ni & Mo. (This is tripled in Branco - it's always tied to phosphorus dosing.)
Stock solutions are separate for each nutrient, so in case of need I can dose individual elements. It has never happened in Portugals, yet. No conservation agents needed since they're stable mineral salts.
Except for Fe and possibly Mn, how can you tell if you need more of some particular element? ... in general, can we tell from our plants if we are low on Mo,Zn,B or Cu... all elements that are usually only present at the parts per billions level - some being fractional ppb, especially in very leanly dosed tanks?so in case of need I can dose individual elements
No PAR reading. Lighting is not my "hobby". Lighting consists of three LED GU10 bulbs 8.4 W 806 lm 6500 K. I'm illuminating from 8 to 12 and 14 to 17 o'clock (winter time), i.e. seven hours. Not all bulbs are on the whole time, so it varies from 8 to 25 W, the average is 17 W.
Yes, it can happen. A few months ago I diagnosed lack of phosphorus. Unfortunately, it took a while until I recognized it. Since I dosed N & P in textbook 16 : 1 ratio, I came to conclusion that a share of phosphorus gets unavailable to plants. Precipitating with iron? Possibly. Since then, I've adjusted my N to P ratio to 14 : 1.we don't know if we are tethering on a knifes edge when it comes to providing for our plants
Neither do I. I've chosen such a rhythm and it seems to work well.waiting 7-9 days seems a bit overly cautious for such low levels of P, but since you're not using any chelates it might be necessary...I don't know
Mo & Ni are needed in such tiny amounts that impurities in other chemicals plus pollen cover their demand sufficiently. Such is my belief until someone proves me wrong.And why no molybdenum (Mo) ?
I can't. In fact, I wonder if I've ever seen deficiency of Zn, Cu & B. Some time ago, I've posted a question in this forum whether anyone had ever detected deficiency of any of these nutrients. No replies...how can you tell if you need more of some particular element?
Budget. Mostly because of budget. There's a war, an inflation, and I'm a poor guy. Another reason: It works just fine. In my practice, I have not noticed anything suggesting that my results could be better with longer photoperiod. But I've got no exact evidence, of course.Why do you use such a short photo period?
Neither did I. Except budgetary reasons. At that time - around noon - some light reaches my tanks anyway.I personally never understood the photoperiod break idea.
These words should be carved in stone. Or better, make a permanent headline in this forum.We should have more of these conversations here on UKAPS fleshing out more of the nitty gritty details... Especially from people that can elaborate on the how's and why's ... We can all learn a lot from that, even if it not always will apply to our own tanks.
Diana Walstad advocates a break. The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod. After the CO2 has re-equilibrated, turning the lights back on gives another 4 hours of productive photosynthesis.I personally never understood the photoperiod break idea.
I use such a split lighting regimen in my low-tech Shrimphaus. The other big practical advantage since I work not-from-home during the day is that the tank is illuminated for me to enjoy before leaving for work, and is also illuminated in the evening when I have returned from work, without an overly-long total daily photoperiod. I don't know if I really believe the whole CO2 regeneration thing but I definitely enjoy seeing the tank lit up.DW:
A midafternoon siesta mimics the natural condition - a temporary overhead clouding during a summer afternoon. [...] plants are competing for an ever dwindling supply of CO2. Algae, which is more adept than plants in taking up CO2 gains an advantage. [...] The Siesta Regimen gives plants the long daylength they need and saves electricity. It provides light when plants have enough CO2 so that they can actually use the light. Finally, it reduces algae's "afternoon advantage" over plants.
Pleeease, let's talk seriously.Diana Walstad
Pleeease, let's talk seriously.
The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod. After the CO2 has re-equilibrated, turning the lights back on gives another 4 hours of productive photosynthesis.
What’s you take @_Maq_ ?Thanks Andy I actually this an idea lot - if it works! I can definitely fit in a couple of hours of darkness in the late afternoon I mostly enjoy my tanks in the early afternoon and later in the evening.
The reasoning seems sound. The problem is that whenever Diana Walstad says that anything is "tested", "verified", "confirmed", I don't believe her a word.What’s you take @_Maq_ ?
So if you have water movement that becomes irrelevant? The tanks at home have a siesta, the ones in the lab. don't. It doesn't see to make a lot of difference.The idea is that in a low tech setup the plants will essentially consume all the available dissolved CO2 in the first four hours after the lights come on, meaning additional lighting after the first four hours isn't useful. Taking a photoperiod break allows the CO2 to accumulate from bacterial digestion of organic material stimulated by oxygen produced by the plants during the initial 4 hour photoperiod.
No idea. If someone had an accurate way of measuring dissolved CO2 in the 0-10 PPM range it would be nice to see whether the graph presented is reproducible science or not.So if you have water movement that becomes irrelevant? The tanks at home have a siesta, the ones in the lab. don't. It doesn't see to make a lot of difference.
If you knew the dKH of the tank water you could use the pH to give you a measure of the CO2 : O2 ratio. There is some discussion of this in <"Maxing CO2 in Low Techs"> where @BigTom turned the filter on and off and measured pH (in a tank with <"some dKH buffering">.If someone had an accurate way of measuring dissolved CO2 in the 0-10 PPM range it would be nice to see whether the graph presented is reproducible science or not
That was my conclusion as well. I <"wrote this in 2013"> and I haven't seen anything to <make me change my mind"> since.I would (and do) make sure there is always a "flow on" situation in the tank, because the diffusion rate of CO2 in water is so slow that without any flow I would worry plants will rapidly exhaust their local dissolved CO2 and diffusion won't be able to effectively replace it.
The advantages to having a large gas exchange surface area is that levels of dissolved gases (both CO2 and O2) <"track atmospheric gas levels">. I'm much more interested in maintaining <"dissolved oxygen levels somewhere near 100% saturation">, but it is a <"negative feedback loop">, with lower CO2 depletion leading to greater levels of photosynthesis, leading to higher DO levels. All I need to do is make sure that the <"level of Liebig's limiting nutrient"> never gets low enough to halt plant growth.........I think there are 2 main points, one is that you will have considerable fluctuations in CO2 through the photo-period, as the plants utilise the available CO2 dissolved in the water column, you can minimise this by having a large gas exchange surface, so that both oxygen and CO2 levels will more closely mirror atmospheric gas levels............