Re: Antagonists (trace/macro elements)
bonklers said:
Thanks for your input Tom.
So if I understand correctly, you see no reason to believe in a "golden ratio" between P and N.
Maybe after a trip to the hashish bar
Ratios do not matter till things become limiting.
Let's say if I have good healthy tank, with the EI parameters as my start position and from here on, gradually increasing only my NO3 level, this won't cause algal outbreak?
I've gone to 75ppm NO3, I did this for 3 weeks, I did not get any algae.
I maintained everything else in a stable range. I typically have 20-30ppm.
Beyond this range NO3 starts to be a fish issue, like NH4/NO2.
This is a wide range(10ppm) target to hit and teaspoon measurements can hit to about 2ppm +/- with NO3 and KNO3.
I do
not know at what range many of the upper ranges are truthfully till you get poor plant growth, inhibition or algae. They are quite high and rather impractical as very few people would ever add that much, even if you messed up a lot, whicgh many do, they are rather surprised that the plants still do well and they have no algae, I've seen 5-8ppm of PO4 for example.
These ranges are very well in the excess ranges..........
> If this is corrent, then the upper limit of the water parameters you suggest >(in your first reply) comes from the thought of having more excess will be >waste of money instead of being afraid for algal outbreak? I would love to
>test this out, unfortunately I don't have a healthy thank to mess with.
Yes, save your $, namely with traces(macro's are cheap)...........I describe how to do that and maximize the $ there.
Yes, , in order to test properly, you need a healthy tank to begin with.
That is why many don't believe it and argued about it. But I did have healthy tanks and the curiousity to see what might happen by doing this.
I knew I could a water change, trim and remove the algae, I got quite good at dealing with algae long before this.
I believe he was one of the first ppl who introduced Redfield Ration (RR) in my country
, or at least one of the first groups who actually used it. It's a very popular method to get rid of algae. BTW it's also possible to have a good RR with excess of N and P (
Charles Buddendorf at NO3 15ppm and PO4 1ppm). Ofcourse the general advice is to keep the NO3 and PO4 as low as possible while having a good RR.
You see, that bugs me. Why say something you have not investigated?
They are talking smack. They don't know and I know they don't know.
This is why I become very contentionist with people often times.
I've done the research and tried this out, I know the results.
If someone wants to disagree with me that obviously has not done the research and has no practical experiences..............I'm going to give them crap about it.
With the poor accuracy from the test kits ppl are using these days (
accuracy of different brands of NO3 test), I don't really believe they are having the RR they're aiming for, let alone 7 days a week.
You are wise and looking at things well my friend.
One point in time is rather
useless, a
rate or a
peroid of time is much more useful, many
blocks of the time peroids are useful as well.
That takes time though. and you need good test kits and calibrate the test kits as well.
So one says he has a great tank thanks to RR with minimum P and N, while in reality he still has excess of them.
Well, we really don't know what they are doing, I will not speculate too much there. I can guess based on the plant health though that the needs are being met for a given light intensity. That I can do.
Whether the nutrients come from the substrate or the water column or from fish food is another matter.
This is why I don't bother to try it out because it'll cost me inaccurate test kits, time and headache. This is when I accidently met the EI method, at that time it sounds like a method for lazy aquarists
.
Some disagree with you though........they believe water changes are hard and not needed and they can dose based on their cheap test kits and calibrate them enough to make them useful. This takes much more skill, but some claim it's easier for them. Personally I think a light vacuuming and big water changes removes more junk and build up and keeps the tank as clean as possible and everything in inorganic plant bioavaliable form.
Getting folks to buy and use test kits is a very difficult issue.
I like testing and have some awesome lab equipment.
But few get into this hobby to test water.
They get into to grow the plants.
But many folks tried the test kit and chase methods in the past and many had trouble. Some have come back to it and calim they have something all new. But we repeat things and reinvent the wheel.
I'm guilty of this assumption myself with CO2, others have suggested higher CO2 rates in the 30-40ppm ranges but at the time I started arguring for higher CO2, the typical advice was 10-15ppm.
KarenRandall remined me not very long about this as I was tootin my horn about that. I'd figure out what someone and many before me already had.
I admit my booboos and do not act like I invented it. But I did reconfirm it independently.
Along the way I foundf many other new things that were not figured out in the hobby.I knew that was not enough except perhaps in a low light tank with a poor test kit(if was more likely).
I did not trust anything. I went through every component in the planted tank.
I already had excellent working knowledge of the SW and FW systems, water treatment education, then I went back to college and did that route.
I know my weeds.
Though I shouldn't talk so negatively about the RR-method, because there are lots of ppl who's having green/lush tanks out of it (blame it on the accuracy of the test kits!
) while I'm for ever stuck up with my algae farm.
Well, if you ask for help, we can fix that and then you can bother them.
Getting rid of algae is something I've done for many folks for many years, I have a extremely high success rate and not just with a few types of algae or with one particular method, I do Reef tanks, FW non CO2, ponds, lakes, CO2 enriched tanks, anything with plants in it.
I don't know anyone that can do that and move from each field easily.
Also, just because they have a nice scape does not imply their method is better or worse.
I can force any method to do well, especially if that's the only way I have available to me or know about.
I did a lot of picking on the macro marine algae planted tank, the method still need work IMO.
But I did it, and I do not think anyone else will get to that level with that many macro algae species for quite some time.
Amano said he thought that planted tank styles have all been done, he's overlooked 500 species of marine plants.
I'm going to enter the 25 gal marine tank and see what the hell he does.
I doubt I'll have the cold water tide pool macro algae tank done in time.
It's a 40 gal cube.
If you want to fix or improve your tank, you tell me what your goal is.
Then when you do, let me discuss something with you. I would like to get the report done in Dutch. I will work something out with you to do this.
I hate language barriers and it is a goal of mine to have these ideas expressed in every language.
I greatly admired Dutch tanks in the growing up. Now it's something to be able to help folks there and in Germany (I'm looking for a German speaker as well) today and help focus on the plant's needs and not deal with all these other assumptions.
We create assumptions and barriers, we build these into our methods, but that is not necessary............the same is true of life.
Regards,
Tom Barr