Amano Tanks very low in nutrients - Discussion requested.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by CmLaracy

So far with my setup, I've found great growth in all my plants (healthy and fast) with 0 algae (except a little bit of GSA on the glass), 0 NH4, and 0 NO2.

It's really been simple so far:
4wpg of Metal Halide
30-40ppm CO2
Aqua Soil of course
6-8mL of Potassium and Trace everyday in the form of Brighty K and Green Brighty Step 1
Absolutely no dosing of N or P
and 20% WC every other day from a well with a pH of 6.8 (*first month, everyday)

I've found no need at all to dose N or P, and I have a strong feeling that the Aquasoil takes care of it for me. All I need to dose is K and Trace.

For me, I think the largest contributor to my extremely low algae is the water changes. For the first month I did 20% WC's EVERYDAY and never saw a hint of algae during the almost non-existent Nitrogen cycle. My NH4 never went past 3ppm's and my NO2 never went past 1ppm. Never saw a hint of Diatoms, BBA, BGA ect ect. The water changes were always done right before or after the photoperiod, with dosings of K and Trace following directly after.

Keep in mind, 4wpg in a 40g 75p is a lot of light, and this is also my first tank... Maybe I got lucky, but I'm not really one to believe or rely on luck, I think this method has some validity to it when compared to Amano's low water column nutrients that were evident in his previous and current scapes. I hope this helps some, IME, a little bit of work goes a long way in this hobby. WC'S!!



Chris Laracy

Ask your self why then, why does this work and why does this + EI also work?

The only thing you are limiting is N and P.
And you are only limiting it in the water column only.

You are not limiting plant growt5h nor algae growth in either case.

You still have to dose the water column also.
You just do not need to dose N and P.

However, there's no observation that suggest that adding N and P as well harms a thing.

Also, folks that use ADA's liquid line, you are adding N and P.
I know because I did the full analysis and had a an independent lab verify my results.

ADA loyalists have a particularly bad habit, they do not test nor know what it is they are adding to their tanks.

All you know is what is written on the sides of a bottle or box, with some nice little poem to make you feel better.

Much like the Dupla loyalist 20 years before them. But many did start testing, at least here in the USA and Canada, and DIY ferts and testing began much more, leading to PMDD.

And curiously, to Seachem's , Kent's, Tropica's Plant nutrition ........even ADA's addition of N and P liquid ferts.

I'm not clear why folks have so much trouble realizing that nutrients can be obtained from the sediment as well as/or the water column.

If you look at the evidence, they clearly do both.

As far as adding PO4 and NO3 to an ADA sediment tank, with high light/CO2/ADA AS, I've been doing this for well over 2 year + years and have never had any associated algae issues, same as with EI.

EI can and should be modified to suit your tank's need anyway, you can reduce or lower N and P if you wish, or if high NO3 is in the tap, or if you have a high fish load etc.

While doing this helps, adding more does not induce algae of any sort.
Same deal with adding way too much ADA ferts.

Simply because you measure something in the water column does in no way imply that it's not available to the plants, they have roots.

I've never met a single hobbyist to date that has measured their sediments other than Jamie, but he did not measure for plant nutrients, only elementals and that was over 10 years ago.

Sort of like Kasslemann showing lots of charts and data about how little nutirents are in the wilds where she found these sword plants, yet never discussed nor tested the sediments.

Sediment testing tends to be more important than water column testing in field aquatic plant research as well as dry weight tissue analysis(these are things I do/have done my research on in part).
Clearly, the plants are getting nutrients from somewhere, not that they do not "need" much.
Also: we do not add CO2 in natural locations, the growth rates using CO2 are 10X higher than that in the wild. Folks seem to have the temptation to equate nature with our tanks and the belief that horticulture and nature are the same, they are not.

So if you scale things up correctly, adding 0.1 PO4 ppm from the wild vs 1 ppm in our tanks with PO4 seems logical and reasonable.
Same for Fe, NO3 etc.

And yes, those large frequent water changes do help a lot , especially when starting up the tank. So what do they export and what do they add?

Organics can be addressed via adding carbon, zeolite for NH4, what's left?
CO2 and simply fluffing the leaves up with current, removal of spores etc.



Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by CmLaracy

Oh yeah I know it's not anything new, but I'm just reassuring people how easy it is, and how successful it is. I really just watch the plants and dose accordingly with lots of WC's, high light, matching CO2 (Barr stated that CO2 limits are directly related to amount of light plants can use), ADA AS II, and strong filtration. Very simple, very effective, and most importantly no algae and dosing of N or P!

the only thing that might turn people off is that you do need some diligence to do large water changes everyday/every other day.

I'll keep everyone updated on it in this thread!

I agree with everything here, but not dosing N or P.
While not "needed", doing so does no harm.
If you use the ada brighty 2-3, shade/brights etc you are adding N and P.

Tropica also sells liquid ferts due directly to a conversation Claus had with me some 10 years ago in SF.

I really have trouble understanding why N and P are so evil in some many folk's minds.............

You still have plenty there, it's just in the sediment, but it's not limiting algae.

If you honestly believe this, turn the CO2 off.
If the algae are truly limited via the water column for N and P, then doing so will not induce any algae. CO2 should no affect anything because algae growth is determined by the most limiting nutrient.

Try it, put you money where your mouth is.


The other issue that I really do not understand is why folks think dosing K and traces daily, is somehow fun/okay, but not dosing N and P is some how a huge burden off the shoulders of dosing?

You are already dosing a couple of things, what's one more?
I do not get that part.

Not much difference.
You do frequent water changes, so nothing will build up either.

That's one reason,(dosing errors) ADA suggest folks to do this. They will care for the tanks more and have less unknowns.

Seems that many folks follow the method blindly without testing and understanding it.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[fishscale]

Can you really blame Amano? It would be pretty difficult for him to make a living if he knew the secrets and told everyone. Maintaining secrecy gives him an edge with his products.

[cjunky]

I would like to throw my own observations in to this discussion.

first a side note...Its been said that i don't do hobbies, I do obsessions. Since asking a few questions about planted tanks a few months ago I now have 5. My wife is a woman of great patience

Across my 5 tanks I have varying substrates, some I add ferts to, some I don't and they all produce different and equally interesting results. Here is some high level info and the results.

My original 1.5 yr old laterite based planted 180L tank -
I only add nutrafin plant gro to this tank (contains nitrogen, iron, manganese and zinc). No C02, 96W of light from T5 PowerGlo tubes.

Results: Moderate but sporadic plant growth and many issues with various algaes (due to nutrients bottoming out).

My 65L previous hospital tank
Laterite, Flourish Excel, Flourish, 2x11W PL Lamps, DIY CO2

Results: Strong plant growth minor BBA issues (why I started dosing excel on top of CO2) and some issues with diatom algae growth around the more dense areas of vegetation - I cant clean there without disturbing the plants. My baby plecs love it though so I'm not bothered.

My 360L main planted project I started after reading this forum
AS Amazonia, AS Powersand, Flourish, Seachem trace elements, canister CO2, 172W T5 lighting (an upgrade from the tanks original 92W which didnt give me good results).

Results: Excellent plant growth, no algae issues even though I'm adding ferts.

My New 90L shrimp species tank
AS Amazonia, DIY CO2, No additional ferts, Sponge filtration, 156W (arcadia 90cm luminaire).

Results: 3 weeks into cycling, tanins in the water make judgment difficult but foreground hairgrass is forming a nice carpet. Some early signs of diatom algae and hair algae already.

My new 22L hospital tank
AS amazonia, 11W light (spare left over)and water

Results: less than 1 week into cycling from day one there is a HUGE spike in nitrites and ammonia - I saw this with my other AS tanks, as cycling goes on I will see this become a huge spike in nitrates and then level off.

I didn't/don't see much in the way of additional nitrate leaching into the water column from any of my AS tanks other than this huge initial spike in nitrites and ammonia. I'm an ex biochemist so I'm vigilant and persistent when it comes to testing my water - besides it gives me a chance to play with test tubes

Read what you will into my observations, it didn't intend to start out as an experiment into different substrates and different fertilization methods, it just sort of happened that way.

Tom & all the other "gurus": Thanks by the way for fueling my latest obsession

Regards

Marc

[CmLaracy]

Originally Posted by plantbrain

I agree with everything here, but not dosing N or P.
While not "needed", doing so does no harm.
If you use the ada brighty 2-3, shade/brights etc you are adding N and P.

Tropica also sells liquid ferts due directly to a conversation Claus had with me some 10 years ago in SF.

I really have trouble understanding why N and P are so evil in some many folk's minds.............

You still have plenty there, it's just in the sediment, but it's not limiting algae.

If you honestly believe this, turn the CO2 off.
If the algae are truly limited via the water column for N and P, then doing so will not induce any algae. CO2 should no affect anything because algae growth is determined by the most limiting nutrient.

Try it, put you money where your mouth is.


The other issue that I really do not understand is why folks think dosing K and traces daily, is somehow fun/okay, but not dosing N and P is some how a huge burden off the shoulders of dosing?

You are already dosing a couple of things, what's one more?
I do not get that part.

Not much difference.
You do frequent water changes, so nothing will build up either.

That's one reason,(dosing errors) ADA suggest folks to do this. They will care for the tanks more and have less unknowns.

Seems that many folks follow the method blindly without testing and understanding it.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Well for one, I don't dose N and P because this is my first tank, and if I can, I'm going to dose what I need and then spend the money on a wider variety of ionic compounds when I see their respective deficiencies in my plants.... It's mostly an issue of wether or not it's necessary, and as soon as it becomes necessary, you'll see me dosing N and P because I let you all know.

And I never said that I'm not providing my plants N or P, I merely stated that I was not providing it with direct water column addition via dry ferts or ionic liquids such as brighty lights and shade. AS is full of both, and it seems to be more than enough right now, giving the plants root systems N and P, and slowly leaching small amounts into the water column, enough that I have not yet found it necessary to dose straight to the water column. I also have a small school (11) of Harlequins that are evidently provided small amounts of each. 5 ottos, and 2 SAE's as well. They're my N and P dose(rs).

Well than why do I dose trace and K? They're traditionally found in pretty low quantities in the aquarium, if I'm correct, and so I provide the plants with the amounts of each that they need during the photoperiod, and then go ahead and take out any excess with my daily 20% water changes.

Also, not once did I say that N and P were evil or not needed by the plants. Of course plants need them, but as of right now, dosing them would be unnecessary as my system already provides the plants with as much as they need of both. If my tank ever stops providing my plants with enough of each, I'll start dosing which ever are needed, if not both. Why spend the money if you don't need to?

Also, I don't dose either of Lights or Shade, as I know from testings that they have decent amounts of both. I dose Brighty K and Brighty Step one. I know step 1 may have some N and P, but not enough to call it significant dosing of each, I only add 6 mL of it a day, while I dose 8mL of K.

Ok, while writing this, I've thought of one maybe vaild and important point to be made on why my system is stable and healthy without direct water column dosing of N and P. While I have a decently high biomass, not huge, about medium I'd say; I dont have one stem in the tank(unless you consider HC a stem) and they are very large users of N and P, both of which provide most of them with their best color, an obvious fact showing they not only require them, but flourish with extra additives of each. So I can't validate that the method would work with a large amount of stems such as any rotala or ludwiga genus's.


Thanks,
Chris

[gmccreedy]

cjunky, ironically that of all your tanks, then one thats algae free and has the best growth is the one with the pressurized CO2.

In addition, your first tank spec, you claim algae growth as a result of nutrients bottoming out. This is contradictory to what Tom is stating since the lack of CO2 is your limiting factor and also your five tanks is a perfect example of his case in point. Lights drive growth, but CO2 must follow suit behind lights!



Now Tom,
Through your explanations here, I have read and cleared up in my mind alot of things I never really knew...however, question for you:

If Nutrients dosed to the water column are not "bad", then why reccomend WC's in the EI dosing method? Some methods, for exampl PPS Pro dose lean and do not reccomend WC's at all. However, even with the lean dosing, nutrients will still be in excess at some point if the plants do not uptake all that is dosed. Yet, they claim no WC's. EI enforces a strict regiment of WC's. So whats the catch here? What are you not getting accross?

This is not argumentative at all... I am merely probing your knowledge and experience to get a better handle on your logic.

Thanks in advance!

[cjunky]

gmccreedy, in the case of that tank, dont you think that the low light and low co2 balance out? my thinking was that the algae was due to low nitrate but some phosphates (mainly from fish food) etc.

after all we dont get co2 boosts in the real world, just that which other organisms produce..

i think with my new hospital tank ill balance the nutrients but add no co2. that should if you are correct show lots of algae ?

cheers

cj

[gmccreedy]

I am no light expert but lets see if I can rationalize it.

Well, its a 180 liter (48 gallon), whats the depth of the tank? 96 Watts can be very intense if the depth is not very high. Throw the WPG rule in the garbage and look at the facts... T5 fixture (very efficient) mixed with probably not alot of tank depth. Sounds like an efficient setup for optimal light distribution, so I could see your CO2 demands going up up up.
Just look at your 360. You have double the tank volume and double the light wattage. Their has to be some proportional exceptions here... but I would think that anything over say 40 watts on a 48 gallon is tetering on the Co2 demand.... This is assuming that your tank does not have some customized tank dimensions here.

And I never heard of phosphates causing algae (and I think Tom mentioned that here on a previous post as well). I have actually increased P for GSA at times (but still have no definitive answer if that works by my experiences at least)

[cjunky]

The tank dimensions are odd in both cases as both my larger tanks are corner tanks, so triangular rather than rectangular.

The 180L is about 60cm deep with the light another 20cm above that.

My reason for the thinking the BBA was a result of high phosphates came from reading the following page and a large volume of other forum threads which cited it as a source.

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_algae.htm

However ive just read toms post in the BBA thread on the 25th of jan and I cant fault his logic.

In the interest of not hijacking this thread any further ill save any further comments for a different thread or pm.

cheers

marc

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by fishscale

Can you really blame Amano? It would be pretty difficult for him to make a living if he knew the secrets and told everyone. Maintaining secrecy gives him an edge with his products.

Tropica, SeaChem, Kent, pretty much everyone, except ADA..........

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by CmLaracy

Well for one, I don't dose N and P because this is my first tank, and if I can, I'm going to dose what I need and then spend the money on a wider variety of ionic compounds when I see their respective deficiencies in my plants.... It's mostly an issue of wether or not it's necessary, and as soon as it becomes necessary, you'll see me dosing N and P because I let you all know.

Like I said, few newbies are going to test or know how to set up a test, heck, even seasoned folks have troubles.

And I never said that I'm not providing my plants N or P, I merely stated that I was not providing it with direct water column addition via dry ferts or ionic liquids such as brighty lights and shade.

Well, those do have N and P in them since you did not know.
So you are adding them to the water column without even knowing it.

[quote]
AS is full of both, and it seems to be more than enough right now, giving the plants root systems N and P, and slowly leaching small amounts into the water column, enough that I have not yet found it necessary to dose straight to the water column. I also have a small school (11) of Harlequins that are evidently provided small amounts of each. 5 ottos, and 2 SAE's as well. They're my N and P dose(rs).

Well than why do I dose trace and K? They're traditionally found in pretty low quantities in the aquarium, if I'm correct, and so I provide the plants with the amounts of each that they need during the photoperiod, and then go ahead and take out any excess with my daily 20% water changes.
[quote]

Daily 20% water changes?
You do more work than I.

Also, not once did I say that N and P were evil or not needed by the plants. Of course plants need them, but as of right now, dosing them would be unnecessary as my system already provides the plants with as much as they need of both. If my tank ever stops providing my plants with enough of each, I'll start dosing which ever are needed, if not both. Why spend the money if you don't need to?
Also, I don't dose either of Lights or Shade, as I know from testings that they have decent amounts of both. I dose Brighty K and Brighty Step one. I know step 1 may have some N and P, but not enough to call it significant dosing of each, I only add 6 mL of it a day, while I dose 8mL of K.

Ok, while writing this, I've thought of one maybe vaild and important point to be made on why my system is stable and healthy without direct water column dosing of N and P. While I have a decently high biomass, not huge, about medium I'd say; I dont have one stem in the tank(unless you consider HC a stem) and they are very large users of N and P, both of which provide most of them with their best color, an obvious fact showing they not only require them, but flourish with extra additives of each. So I can't validate that the method would work with a large amount of stems such as any rotala or ludwiga genus's.


Thanks,
Chris

Well, folks seem fretting over N and P a lot, yet give little thought as to adding excess K+ or Fe.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[fishscale]

Originally Posted by plantbrain

Tropica, SeaChem, Kent, pretty much everyone, except ADA..........

Regards,
Tom Barr

But none of those products have an aquascaper to go with the name. They also don't have the magic formula (because there isn't one), so listing the ingredients is fine. ADA does have an edge on the competition, doesn't it? It certainly commands a higher price.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by gmccreedy

If Nutrients dosed to the water column are not "bad", then why reccomend WC's in the EI dosing method? Some methods, for exampl PPS Pro dose lean and do not reccomend WC's at all. However, even with the lean dosing, nutrients will still be in excess at some point if the plants do not uptake all that is dosed. Yet, they claim no WC's. EI enforces a strict regiment of WC's. So whats the catch here? What are you not getting accross?

This is not argumentative at all... I am merely probing your knowledge and experience to get a better handle on your logic.

Thanks in advance!

I think you need to ask Amano then, David Oliver, and the Senske's as well then As well as the top 10 ADA winners.

We all do water changes, I'll discuss more later, gotta run.

Regards,
tom Barr

[gmccreedy]

Don't get me wrong...I am a huge advocate of water changes. Never would not do one, but just curious as the theory of the fert dillution.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by fishscale

But none of those products have an aquascaper to go with the name. They also don't have the magic formula (because there isn't one), so listing the ingredients is fine. ADA does have an edge on the competition, doesn't it? It certainly commands a higher price.

Merely having good nutrients/formula etc, does not imply a good scape.
You are making bad assumptions there.
Amano did excellent work prior to using ADA AS.

So has NBAT etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr