Fert deficiency - Alternanthera reineckii

  • Get the NEW AquariaCentral iOS app --> http://itunes.apple.com/app/id1227181058 // Android version will be out soon!

JAY973

AC Members
Dec 24, 2005
1,133
13
38
NJ
P stellata was another, and yet here I manged to grow it and many others at very low Ca+ levels. Adding more Ca+ will not hurt, but it's not the reason/cause for the tip issues, that's CO2.

Regards,
Tom Barr
Tom,

I after reading through the thread none of it made much sense and there didn't seem to be any conclusive evidence or study except that adding Ca did work for Jay.

I have Pogostemon stellatus and it has no signs of Co2 deficiency (if that's what we are saying is the likely cause), which I recently trim before the pic. in the 1st post.

This pic shows it behind the blyxa much bigger yesterday when I trimmed it.


If you share your method of measure Co2 accurately I'll attempt to measure mine. My regulator is on a Milwaukee controller being diffused in a MD1000 reactor. I don't trust my needle valve enough to run without the controller as sometime the bubble rates appear to change, but once the PH target is met it turns off with whatever Co2 still in the reactor still diffusing.

So you are saying the drop checker has a +/- of 10ppm Co2 discrepancy? Which would imply that with 4dk solution 30ppm expected target I can be at 20-40ppm instead.

BTW this plant didn't do well when there wasn't much of a plant mass either it's not like it was added after the tank was established. (just for the record)
 

JAY973

AC Members
Dec 24, 2005
1,133
13
38
NJ
I had the same plant in the 90g no ferts or Co2 lights where 2x54w Glo and the Alternanthera reineckii although not going to win any awards was doing a lot better than in 120g.

Plants on the right new growth was slow but wasn't the mess it is now.
 

plantbrain

AC Members
Apr 27, 2001
1,988
2
0
Davis, CA
www.BarrReport.com
Tom,

I after reading through the thread none of it made much sense and there didn't seem to be any conclusive evidence or study except that adding Ca did work for Jay.

I have Pogostemon stellatus and it has no signs of Co2 deficiency (if that's what we are saying is the likely cause), which I recently trim before the pic. in the 1st post.

This pic shows it behind the blyxa much bigger yesterday when I trimmed it.


If you share your method of measure Co2 accurately I'll attempt to measure mine. My regulator is on a Milwaukee controller being diffused in a MD1000 reactor. I don't trust my needle valve enough to run without the controller as sometime the bubble rates appear to change, but once the PH target is met it turns off with whatever Co2 still in the reactor still diffusing.

So you are saying the drop checker has a +/- of 10ppm Co2 discrepancy? Which would imply that with 4dk solution 30ppm expected target I can be at 20-40ppm instead.

BTW this plant didn't do well when there wasn't much of a plant mass either it's not like it was added after the tank was established. (just for the record)
the problem is you tradxe off KHJ accuracy for loss of pH accuracy with the drop checker.

You also really lose a lot of the response time.
Drop checkers(DC's), have about 2 hour delay, many have trouble treading the colors, you have 3 basically, yellow, green and blue, not much in between.

Plants make a good indicator of something "Right"

You can EASILY rule out an issue with Ca++ by simply seeing if someone has low Ca++ and no such issues, or ask someone to confirm if your hypothesis is true or not. If you have stunting already.......then you cannot do the test, you have some dependency already and it's likely CO2.

It;s only when the plants are growing well and with folks that can lower/add Ca++.

Then they can test and see, since with nice good growth, they have a reference control.

They can test that specific issue and if they get no response, they cannot say why the plant is that way in your case, but they can say why it is NOT.

I've had CO2 issues stop adding gas. Stunted smaller tips growth was common. P stellata got monsterous prior. Same with the other psecies listed.

I've gone through this maybe 5-6 times, all with the same result and conclusion. I tried all sorts of ratios and chemicals, I was never once able to induce stunting. So have other folks.

I have had CO2 issues, and then got these same exact stunting patterns.
I have also reduced the light intensity, which also lowers CO2 demand, and such issues have gone away as well.

Good quality CO2 equipment, a good vernier caliper handle ona Swagelok or even better, an Ideal needle valve with the same handle type, a good in line check valve with MPT or FPT 1/8" threaded fittings post solenoid (get a good solenoid as well, Burket's etc) Nice dual stage regulator etc.

Go high grade there with CO2, low intensity but wide good spread and high quality light.

I think many just go a little too cheap with CO2, and often assume too much about their measurements of CO2. I wish I had an easy solution for everyone.

However, I really do not for accuracty measurements. Some are very $$$, or very imprecise. Depends on the types of alkalinity in your tap water. If it really was all bicarbonate for everyone, that would be the pH/Kh chart pretty good. Most measure KH only once in a great while when something is very wrong typically, few measure it often.

You could do it without all RO and then add bicarb as your only source of alkalinity, that should be pretty accurate in a very well mixed system depending on WHERE you place the pH probe.

Think about it this way, you calibrate the pH probe correct?
You can calibrate and confirm a test kit say for NO3 by making a known stock solution and measuring that over the desired range(say a 5 ppm and 20ppm solution of NO3)

So.......how might you do this for a CO2 measurement and get say a 10ppm and 40ppm standard solution of CO2?


Not so easy.......

O2 is easier and more used, reliable etc, but not CO2 so much.
I measure both, but they instruments I use are several thousands of dollars. Yes, I wanted to know that bad. :hitting:
So, then I have this nice techy stuff, I still have to figure out a calibration method. So I got some known %gas and made sealed bubbling chambers and pH probes with known KH reference cells.

So it's gotten a long way from simple hobby level stuff.
Still, the CO2 meter has been calibrated and the results are very different from what folks expect.

I've also used a similar approach at the same time with O2 meters, using the Hach LDO meter methods. I also data log CO2 over the 24 hour period as well as O2.

This way we can get a complete picture.
I do not like to assume I know more than I do, but at some point you have to stop cutting bait and fish.

More next post.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

plantbrain

AC Members
Apr 27, 2001
1,988
2
0
Davis, CA
www.BarrReport.com
I had the same plant in the 90g no ferts or Co2 lights where 2x54w Glo and the Alternanthera reineckii although not going to win any awards was doing a lot better than in 120g.

Plants on the right new growth was slow but wasn't the mess it is now.
So less light and no CO2..........why do you think the plants are not having any issues based on my prior post? I too have had nice color and nice growth in non CO2 lower light tanks with this plant.

You can easily rule out ratios or absolute Ca or nutrient issues, but.......they will not be highlighted since you have less light and are more CO2 limited/light limited here.

If you have stable CO2(low, med or high), then you will be fine. Hard to measure CO2 to see if it is stable, but you can safely assume it is in the non CO2 tank.

Plants can and do adapt to CO2 concentrations, they make more or less Rubsico to take up more or less depending. If the CO2 goes up and down a lot during the light cycle, this makes it tougher for the plant.
The nutrients will NOT matter if there are not enough reduced carbon skeletons to assimilate the nutrients into more complex chemicals and tissues. So you get new growth tip stunting mostly.

More light = more CO2 demand = more nutrient demand.
What happens if the CO2 demand is not adjusted to the lighting(say CO2 is limiting)? Wasting your light for one........and the nutrients......

Honestly , at the end of the day, many hobbyist just use the eyeballs to adjust the CO2 and do so slowly, patiently and incrementally.

With a vernier handle, you turn the best guess to say 25.
Wait, observe fish good and make sure there's zero sign of respiration stress. This can be helped along much better with good current, but not so much that you break the surface, some rippling is good. Do not worry about losign alittle bit of CO2, you can simply add a bit more, worry more about makig sure there's high good O2.

So you have some starting point.
Then you slowly adjust the CO2 up a tick mark on the handle.
Wait 3-4 days, adjust a tad higher, and wait and watch.
Be patient here.

No rushing, impatient folks gas/kill their fish.


You should be able to dial in a good range between no fish issues and healthly plant growth. If you use lower light, this is even better, since CO2 demand is reduced. So this target is even easier, larger, and you place less CO2 respiration stress on the fish. It takes some time and watching, but a good plant aquarist should easily be able to do this over time.

Most do this at some level anyway, the ppm's are really sort of arbitrary at the end of the day for many. We also have issues with folks not measuring the light in terms of PAR, so there's really not consistency in the units of light measurement, watts/gal never did anyone a favor really.

Every tank I own and have set up is under 2w/gal, and yet I seem to do pretty good with colors and growth and plant sales:eek:. If you can measure all 3 things collectively well, then you can understand a lot more.

But a 300$ light meter? 2000$ CO2 meters?
Not things folks have at the hobby level really, the light meter is somewhat resonable if you do a group buy and share. Many clubs like ours has a "club meter".

I think if you can upgrade to decent valve and check valve combo, you should be able to do this method, and you could also try adjusting the pH controller down say 0.05units and watch at each incremental step for 3-5 days etc.

These are relative adjustments, you are simply adding a bit more CO2 in a controlled manner even if you do not know the absolute concentration. With less light, you should hit this range sooner than with higher light.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

JAY973

AC Members
Dec 24, 2005
1,133
13
38
NJ
Tom...

The easy thing to do is to pull out the plant and just grow what works, but where is the challenge and the lesson learned in that. (I won't be buying PAR meters or any other expensive devices....LOL) I do however have every intension of doing a couple of upgrades to my Co2 equipment which are long over due.

Thanks for all the information I hope to apply it with some success.
 

plantbrain

AC Members
Apr 27, 2001
1,988
2
0
Davis, CA
www.BarrReport.com
Tom...

The easy thing to do is to pull out the plant and just grow what works, but where is the challenge and the lesson learned in that. (I won't be buying PAR meters or any other expensive devices....LOL) I do however have every intension of doing a couple of upgrades to my Co2 equipment which are long over due.

Thanks for all the information I hope to apply it with some success.
Well, you can simply use relative measures, which is my point really.

1.
So for lighting: use metal screen to layer much like layers of shade cloth on nursery plants in a garden.

2.
CO2: vernier caliper handles my incremental adjustments easier.

3.
Trim and prune to maintain the general biomass total.


I'm not suggesting folks run out and have to buy any of this techy test stuff, to the contrary........I suggested using EI decades ago to avoid testing test kits etc, because......like any pragmatic person.......it does no one no good if they don;t use it to begin with:cool:

It's(feet dosing) a relative measure but something we can know and estimate using water changes.
CO2 and light are tougher there.

But all 3(ferts.CO2/light) can be done via the plants and relative measures and there are good examples of this as well.

But......we learn very little in the hobby as whole from that. We cannot verify or test many ideas and assumptions. So myths are harder to kill.
This does no one much good.

Not everyone will test or verify, but some will. What is ironic are folks that want to claim to know and have not tested or verified. If you don't do the work to show and illustrate it, you cannot say much.
Some seem to think they can and this spreads myths.

It's not just in their hobby either, it's quite common.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store