I need an all-in-one fertilizer. Ideas please.

[sCeRaXn]

believe me, it would be best to start a new thread...

Sorry about that. Most forums that i visit usually want you to keep new threads minimal by posting questions in existing ones on the subject. If i cant find why i need with a little more research then ill make a new thread. My apologies.

Co2 enrichment does make up for more light(you got that part correct!), it also means that the algae, which are not CO2 limited like the plants, have less light as well, and will grow at a slower rate.
Adding to this, since CO2 demand is easier to achieve with lower light, so is.........fertilization. You get excellent growth, nice stable systems, healthy plants/fish, easier to care for than higher light systems, less waste for energy cost/electric bills/initial light hood cost etc.
Wasted lighting is the single biggest waste in the planted hobby as far as $$ and ecological footprint.






Regards,
Tom Barr

Does this mean that lower light setups need less co2 and ferts to maintain a healthy and steady growth rate? Should i try something like 15ppm co2 since i only have around 2wpg(probably less)?

I just bought these, no problems so far and seem very reasonable...definitely worth a try:
http://www.bobstropicalplants.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=540

I saw those but couldnt find any information on whats in them and how many should be used etc. Im nervous about adding stuff to my tank unless i know exactly what im adding. Ive been known to be a little too anal about stuff like that though :evil_lol:

 

[captmicha]

Today with PC, T5, no one in their right mind should use more than 1.5-2w/gal ranges.

Um, I'm not sure what PC (I Googled "PC light" ) is but does this 1.5/2w gal rule also go for compact fluorescent bulbs? I'm using a little over 4wpg right now. The spirals, not the bar type. I read that the spiral ones aren't as efficient as the bars. It's really not in my budget to buy any special lighting right now. CF will have to do for now, although I seem to get good results so may even just stick with them.

Oh, and I do have something to measure light with! Or maybe. I dunno how accurate it is, or how accurate it would need to be. Also, I think it measures in foot candles. Great for orchids but for aquatic plants I don't know, though I would probably be able to convert the reading into whatever unit is needed. http://cgi.ebay.com/3in1-Plant-Flow...365?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19c4f2cacd

 

[RNeiswander]

PC=power compact lights

 

[plantbrain]

Does this mean that lower light setups need less co2 and ferts to maintain a healthy and steady growth rate? Should i try something like 15ppm co2 since i only have around 2wpg(probably less)?

This should not be viewed this way, stick with 30-40ppm of CO2 as target, this is hard to accurately confirm(CO2 ppm's), so these ppm's are relative anyways.
According to the pH/Kh chart, some of my past tanks supposedly had 220ppm CO2.

My confirmed measures in my own tanks that have this amount of light = 40-55ppm and one tank has 60-80ppm.
This used a known reference to measure the CO2.

The reduced light means added stability for the CO2 and the plants, we should not try and limit CO2 so much however, this is the reason why many get algae. Too little and not enough stability of their CO2.
Adding to the problem, few can measure CO2 really well nor pay attention to it throughout the day and over time. We forget and if things look good, we do not bother.
When there's an issue, suddenly we pay attention.

I'd use relative measure, like the tank, algae and condition of plants growing at a non limiting reference, not the bare minimum/stunting ranges.
We should not set the bar low, rather, it should be set high and independent of other factors.

From that point...then you can progressively and slowly reduce, then bump back up to the next highest level once you notice any decline in plant health and growth.
This works with nutrients very well, and also CO2. It must be done slowly and you must observe closely.

Those that rush, end up causing issues for themselves. There needs to be some buffer zone also, there's not sense in trying to ride a razor's edge. Given the issues with measuring CO2, this is not the wisest approach.........

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[sCeRaXn]

This should not be viewed this way, stick with 30-40ppm of CO2 as target, this is hard to accurately confirm(CO2 ppm's), so these ppm's are relative anyways.
According to the pH/Kh chart, some of my past tanks supposedly had 220ppm CO2.

My confirmed measures in my own tanks that have this amount of light = 40-55ppm and one tank has 60-80ppm.
This used a known reference to measure the CO2.

The reduced light means added stability for the CO2 and the plants, we should not try and limit CO2 so much however, this is the reason why many get algae. Too little and not enough stability of their CO2.
Adding to the problem, few can measure CO2 really well nor pay attention to it throughout the day and over time. We forget and if things look good, we do not bother.
When there's an issue, suddenly we pay attention.

I'd use relative measure, like the tank, algae and condition of plants growing at a non limiting reference, not the bare minimum/stunting ranges.
We should not set the bar low, rather, it should be set high and independent of other factors.

From that point...then you can progressively and slowly reduce, then bump back up to the next highest level once you notice any decline in plant health and growth.
This works with nutrients very well, and also CO2. It must be done slowly and you must observe closely.

Those that rush, end up causing issues for themselves. There needs to be some buffer zone also, there's not sense in trying to ride a razor's edge. Given the issues with measuring CO2, this is not the wisest approach.........

Regards,
Tom Barr

Thanks for that wonderful and well put information. This actually makes me feel much better about things. On my last planted tank i kept reading how people suggest exact parameters for light, co2, and ferts for all tanks. So i spent more time trying to tune and perfect each parameter than i spent actually enjoying the tank. Hearing this from you makes me feel better because its actually how i would rather do things. From what im gathering, youre suggesting average target parameters, and then adjust ferts and co2 according to what the plants respond to instead of reaching that so called "perfect" condition? And that the target isnt to attain these perfect parameters, but to reach a healthy equilibrium between light, ferts, and co2 so that you can spend your time actually enjoying the tank while getting good growth and health from your plants?

Im a very scientific minded person. I actually enjoy seeing how things interact with one another. In my last planted tank i tended to go against my best instinct and overlook things that i thought were causing problems in order to maintain the parameters that everyone said were needed. In the long run it ended up causing me more problems than anything. However, that was my first attempt at a truly high tech planted setup so i didnt want to mess things up. This time around im going to follow my instinct and only change things according to what the plants respond to like you suggested. Thanks again for the info. It probably didnt seem like much to you, but it certainly put my mind at ease.

 

[plantbrain]

This is not an exact ppm..........it is much more helpful to think of a zone/range etc..........say 30-40ppm, or 1-5ppm or 0.2ppm to .8ppm etc.

This gives you a much easier target to hit.

I'd also not rely too much of testing unless you are REALLY into testing and like to run calibration curves aginst known standards, a cheap 10$ test kit is fien for general KH, GH type questions, but even the pH meter uses 2 poiint calibrations, but few bother with NO3 or PO4, which are 2 of the worst offenders in terms of accuracy.

We use standards for 10,000$ spects in the lab, but not for the 10$ cheesy test kit?
Those things are often way off.

So learn how to make calibration standard references, (Search for Hoppy and these terms) for NO3 and PO4.
Then get some decent kits, not the cheapest crap at a LFS. Lamott are good overall.

General hardness, Alkalinity and NO3 and PO4.
This might run 150$.
But the level and the quality........are worth it.

There is no perfect condition, well..........there is what I call a best management practice(BMP's). Low light, good rich CO2 and rich sediment and water column ferts, frequent water changes, cleaning filter, pruning, plenty of algae eaters, good current.

Regards

Tom Barr

 

[fishorama]

Thank you Tom Barr! for reinforcing what has "felt right" to me for a long while. I'm lazy as to testing unless there are problems. I have yet to go CO2,... maybe after I move to Cali...come on over & bring your par meter & spare plants, LOL. I think some of the "rules" are too rigid for me & my lowish light tanks & even my "higher w/g light" tanks. I don't want fast growth & lottsa maintenance, just a fairly pretty tank & neither plants or algae out of control, a "range of OK" is what I want.

 

[plantbrain]

Thank you Tom Barr! for reinforcing what has "felt right" to me for a long while. I'm lazy as to testing unless there are problems. I have yet to go CO2,... maybe after I move to Cali...come on over & bring your par meter & spare plants, LOL. I think some of the "rules" are too rigid for me & my lowish light tanks & even my "higher w/g light" tanks. I don't want fast growth & lottsa maintenance, just a fairly pretty tank & neither plants or algae out of control, a "range of OK" is what I want.

Most everyone is lazy regarding testing, few bother unless something is wrong and they expect some "sage" like diagnostic analysis from the data. Which is rarely, if ever....... the case.

The tropica article is good and well written.
Less light= less CO2 demand and less fert demand, this means much more wiggle room to dose and add CO2.
Sediment sources: easy over the logn term, back up for the water column as well.

Now this is pretty much what you are after, a lower light easier to care for tank, which is about 95% of the goals of most hobbyists with plants.

A few might want high light, but this does not last long.
Weedy growth or they waste the light limiting something else, one of the two..........there is no plant I cannot easily grow with 1.5w/gal to T5 Tek lighting, even 36" away from the bulbs.

After growing 300+ species, I think I can make this generalization safely.