I'm picking because you flat out stated something that is false (twice) as a "magical" reason why your method works.
Plants vs. algae
- Thread starter The Plantman
- Start date
I'm picking because you flat out stated something that is false (twice) as a "magical" reason why your method works.
Lessy take a long look at that one:
You been to my house when I was not looking? hehe
I have 170 Cards in here, 10 L filamentosus, 400-500 Fire and Cherry shrimp, 4 Chocolate emperor plecos, a goldy toe, a vampire, 6 P leopardus, and 5 Checker board cichlids, I feed heavily(the source of the nutrients from fish waste. It's very dense, there's plants, so you cannot see them all, but this is merely one tank.
Got plenty of others.
The sediment is ADA aqua soil, it's loaded with most things, but has aged and loss most of the N. I dose a total of 45 ppm of NO3 as KNO3 per week and about 15ppm PO4, and about 2 ppm of Fe as proxy for all traces, K+ I suspect is about 40ppm or so.
If you think this is light/lean dosing........you are certainly entitled to your own opinion there.
You do huh?
Do you even know how to run a standard curve for a test for NO3?
Know what a reference standard is?
I maintain a residual of about 20ppm or so for NO3.
It might float around from 10-15ppm up to 30ppm depending on which year, plant biomass how might CO2 is etc. I use to take samples and freeze them, then test a calibrated test kit and do a time series all at once to make testing simpler and easier.
I use to use Lamotte and Hach kits back in the day, I use a lab spectrophotometer these days.
You too funny........
Too many assumptions my friend.
Way too many.........
I don't know, maybe growing plants and not worrying about algae?
hehe
Yep, that's me, you got me.
haha
I know not only which are important, I know which each does, and without the help of google or the web. I can estimate and model what the ppm's will be, as well as having had a long long path with testing and methods. I test more than most anyone , but that's my day job, I do not wanna come home and repeat testing over and over, that's too much labor.
Been there, done that, sure do not need to further.
did the ground work for the testing and to confirm the model.
Now I no longer to do testing further.
Yea, me too, come over an teach me?
Tell me how to recreate this 1600 Gallon example above that I did, the client wants another.
Bottom line: anyone needs to be careful rushing to judgment and making assumptions. If what I've stated is wrong, false, whatever you wanna claim.......writing that, yelling, bold type etc.........does not make it so.
Results, data, good logic, testing to confirm and double check(including the test methods) things will, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Many folks think and assume correlation implies => cause. It does not.
Where's my algae?
See any issues with my plants?
Fish?
I breed discus, Angels, shrimps, tetras, catfish, cichlids etc etc ........
Very long list.
Maybe 300-400 species of plants?
I'd suggest a the Tropica article again, I do not think you read it.
Read all the stuff there.
For algae, google scholar will let you quickly know for the species common in aquariums, the abilities of algae to sequester nutrients and storage and their K 1/2 constants.
A good paper on nutrients and aquatic plants relative to the natural water ppm's and trophic state:
http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty Pubs/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf
Might help you put a few things together and look at things much more broadly.
If you are still unconvinced, then ask yourself how can I grow all these plants so well? where's my algae?
Am I really this lucky?
Might drag me to Vegas if so.
I put little faith in luck, but a lot into Statistics.
Regards,
Tom Barr
plantman, there is lots of toms thoughts here... www.barrreport.com
surely you can find a whole lot more of how and why things work there than he could post here in response to your thread. he has done more testing with more testing equipment than probably anyone on this forum and the proof is on his site. he simply states he doesn't test his tanks all the time (i'm assuming) because he has a very in depth understanding and has created methods that work without the necessity.
hope that helps.
surely you can find a whole lot more of how and why things work there than he could post here in response to your thread. he has done more testing with more testing equipment than probably anyone on this forum and the proof is on his site. he simply states he doesn't test his tanks all the time (i'm assuming) because he has a very in depth understanding and has created methods that work without the necessity.
hope that helps.
I knew where this was going after trying to read the first post...
It was an easy decision for me... UNSUBSCRIBED
:grinno: (i guess not since i posted again tho), darn, trolled again:nutkick:
It was an easy decision for me... UNSUBSCRIBED
:grinno: (i guess not since i posted again tho), darn, trolled again:nutkick:I see green bloom algae in the 3rd picture and what looks like brush algae in the 4th.
I will go to the links and read my brains out!
My assumptions are all based on my on personal experiences with two small (compared to yours) tanks.
I love sites like this because you run into people with a lot of experience but you also run into people that are just full of it, you know? Clearly you have a lot of professional experience but I also know what has worked for me in the past and I have duplicated it.
I still believe limiting Nitrates and Phosphates is the cause of my algae dying, but I do not know why. I’ll read your links and see what new things I can learn.
Thanks,
Shawn
I will go to the links and read my brains out!
My assumptions are all based on my on personal experiences with two small (compared to yours) tanks.
I love sites like this because you run into people with a lot of experience but you also run into people that are just full of it, you know? Clearly you have a lot of professional experience but I also know what has worked for me in the past and I have duplicated it.
I still believe limiting Nitrates and Phosphates is the cause of my algae dying, but I do not know why. I’ll read your links and see what new things I can learn.
Thanks,
Shawn
i must say, i am impressed. you're coming along nicely in a fairly short amount of time. your tanks are beautiful, yes, but your philosophies (although working out beautifully for you currently) were indeed flawed. it takes a good person with an open mind and not too much pride/ego to come to terms that his/her way is not the only or right way. i hope you learn a lot, and stick around for quite some time.
welcome to the site... and the never ending learning adventure that is planted tanks.
take it easy big guy.
welcome to the site... and the never ending learning adventure that is planted tanks.
take it easy big guy.
Yes, very true, some are full of it, but I'm not one of those folks.
Initially some think so after falling for the general dogma that strongly prevails within this hobby.
A good myth is a very hard thing to kill.
If you see the tanks in person, there's not a lick of algae, well, you might find a tiny itty bitty some somewhere, I'm far from a perfectionist for photo shoots, tanks are typical of what we might see walking by at any old point in time.
You also should not place too much judgment in a a photo, rather, what you see in person. In otherwords, I'm an aquarist, not a photographer/scaper. I lack the passion for that aspect. But still like to have some sense of design and thought process.
Many assume what you have observed.
Question is, if you make a hypothesis: say:
If low/lower ppm's of either NO3 or PO4, or both = less algae, then how might you test this?
Don't you need a control for a reference?
How might you do this?
Should the light be the same?
CO2?
Are you sure you have measured both etc?
Do you even need to do a reference?
The answer is yes to most of these.
The aquariums I have are actually references.
I can louse things up any number of ways, but if the rest if the parameters are truly independent, then if I add high NO3 or PO4, or both, then I have essentially falsified this hypothesis where high/excess PO4 or NO3 or both = algae(called the "null" hypothesis in this case).
The only logical conclusion is to accept the "Alternative" hypothesis, that something else is causing algae.
Now there might be indirect effects from NO3 or PO4 or both. But in and of themselves, they cannot possibly cause algae blooms in well planted tanks.
What can be occurring is that when you limit one parameter, say PO4, this slows the overall growth rate of the plant, this is the "bottle neck" now. If you add more, say 2ppm suddenly, then you might switch from being PO4 limited, to say CO2 limited. Now the plants do not grow well and algae is the following stage.
If you mess with CO2, you can induce many different species of algae.
This is fairly well known and understood.
Liebig's law of the Minimum is well founded and explanatory here.
Take a good look at this concept, but also.....include CO2 into this model, since it's limiting in aquatic systems, but rarely limiting in a terrestrial system.
If you strongly limit PO4, this reduces the demand by the plant for CO2.
the bottle neck is PO4 now, which a plant can handle much better than say CO2 limitation.
This alternative hypothesis matches the observations of many aquarist over logn time frames and with many different aquaira. There might be other reasons for algae and issues.
Lets look at light this time:
Light is where all growth begins and starts, so if I chose less light=> I also have less CO2 demand and also,=> less nutrient demand. As long as I am above the light compensation point, which is about 12-25 micromols for most aquatic plant species, this holds true.
So from a management perspective, whether I want to eradicate/control algae bloom/frequencies/reduce the chances..........or I want to ensure I have optimal CO2 and have the most wiggle room with the least amount of stress to fish, I'd chose lower light intensities.
Since light is low, the growth and trimming demands are less, and CO2 is much easier to manage. Good things. Cost less also.
Since growth, light and CO2 are easier, this also means that dosing is also easier and less critical should anything go awry. We are human, we mess up, we make plenty of mistakes, perhaps we have kids etc.....do not get around to it, lazy, neglectful, long list of excuses, have we.
So what about nutrients?
How can we make them more resilient and easier?
Well, rich sediments, say DIY soil/worm castings works very well, ADA aqua soil looks nice if you like brand name stuff(I like it), this provides a back up source for nutrients in case we forget to dose the water column or leave for a 2 week vacation etc.
So sediment and the water column both work together synergistically.
This makes dosing and nutrients less critical day to day.
Now, what about that pesky test kit thingy?
Well, like most breeders have long known before I, frequent large water changes, eg, Discus breeders. Since the water change affects things mathimatically as an infinite series of partial dilutions, we can estimate and model the build up nutrients via dosing/water changes.
Say I dose 20ppm of NO3 per week and do a weekly 50% water change, the model predicts 40ppm build up maximum possible. I might need more than 20ppm, but it'd have to be growing pretty fast to run out entirely, but it's still possible. So I dose about 30-45ppm per week, no tank goes through this much with sediment sources as well.
I've seen some pulses in a starved tank that took up to almost 8ppm, but this is only a temp case. 1-4ppm are much more typical per day rates, and they are linked to light and CO2, so you have a range, not a specific number if you generalize, this is for CO2 enriched submersed systemd.
So basically: you do a large water change, dose after, getting a known ppm via weight of the KNO3/KH2PO4 etc(use a dosing calculator if you lack the chem skills) and add/estimate the next 1-2 dsoes for the rest of the week till the next water change, this keeps things from running out and nothing from building up. It's simple and uses basic methods all aquarist are already are familiar with.
Now no test kits are needed.
Folks really do not like them, no matter how much preaching I say, they just will not do it, so a different management method is needed.
Still, if you folks want to use test kits, they can, but few keep using them, most start off using them, motivated then tire and lose interest.........
I hope folks use them to answer larger questions, not merely to monitor or avoid water changes(there are better methods for that). Calibration is critical though, many think they can just forgo this step and assume that the test kits are correct, however, this is false, this assumption assumes the test kit is correct/infallible. We have not shown or demonstrated whether or not the test kit is or not until we reference it against and known standard.
Otherwise, it's just a guess, this is more true for NO3 and PO4 test kits than say pH or Gh etc, but in general, it's wise, particularly if you want to rely strongly on the data, to calibrate. So it was hard enough getting folks to use the test kits, they are cheap and do not want to use nicer ones, or colorimeters either, now I ask them this next step and make a reference standard as well?
This is a lot more than many aquarist bargained for.
PITA.
But those are the trade offs, you cannot say and assume that the API or whichever junky 10$ kit you chose is accurate "enough". You just introduced some huge error with this assumption, as anyone that's tested these test kits with standards will quickly tell you.
So all these issues combine to cause problems.
1. Too much light=> more is better for light or I call it high light disease(HLD)
2. Poor assumptions with CO2/O2 and current and their measure
3. Nutrientcentric focus
4, Bad testing
5. No reference controls
6. The web, lots of information, but little knowledge
7. Myths: hard to kill
So those cause some issues for folks.
Poke around, read, ask, think about some of these questions. I'm glad you like plants and the hobby. There's plenty to learn. I still am learning and doubt that will ever stop.
Be careful to not assume more than you really know, ask yourself, can I really know this? Do I really understand this? How might I try and answer this question I do not know? Why does this hypothesis fail? Why might there be two seemingly different hypothesis and observations? What else is going on?
In this way, aquatic plants can open your mind.
I assumed initially that Paul Sears and Kevin where correct.
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html
This was about 1995-1996.
I came along and caused some issues that falsified it, I did not know it at the time. Steve Dixon tested my tap with a calibrated test kit. He did not believe it, so he bought a couple more high priced kits to check, and then a stanard set etc.
I had high PO4 in the tap, so the water changes I was doing added plenty, I'd added everything PMDD, but never tested the PO4, but I could grow awesome plants and no one else in our club could.
We started adding KH2PO4.
Around 1997, Claus from Tropica came over to SF and we discussed a few things, this actually led to the Fertilizer they now sell for macro nutrients way back then. Greg Morin from SeaChem also came out with SeaChem PO4 for planted tanks etc, due directly from what I and Steve had done.
Paul is a smart guy, very.
I came up with a modified PMDD+PO4 approach in 1996.
It's still up on the SFBAAPS site.
I did not like all the chem, ppm's and solutions with PMDD.
Took too long to explain. No one was testing etc.
So I assumed an upper bound for uptake rates using high light + high CO2, then found the minimum lower bound for under those high light/high CO2 scenario. If folks used less light, then they'd still have plenty, then EI sort of came about as a response to human behavior and management issues.
The concepts are not particularly mine exclusively etc.
PMDD uses the same dilution series in the bottom for Fe etc and other examples, the water change and dosing thereafter is not mine either.
I just argued for it as method based on hobbyists habits and management.
FYI...............
Regards,
Tom Barr
