P.P.S. and dosing regimes generally

dazzer1975

Prolific Poster
Apr 22, 2006
41
0
6
46
Rochdale, sadly
Wahey LOL

Actually a superb fish forum I go on Tropical Tank Forum has a buy and sell section and I tried instigating a plant swap section a few months back and I managed to give away a load of plants, cuttings etc and it died a death once all my plants had gone. A lot of people were more interested in selling their plants as opposed to just sending the cuttings off to help out fellow hobbyists etc.

I had actually lost that link, nice one tom cheers.
 

dazzer1975

Prolific Poster
Apr 22, 2006
41
0
6
46
Rochdale, sadly
Just thought I would update with progress.

Algae has for all intents and purposes dissapeared, I cnat find any bright green hair algae anyway, nice one Tom thanks for lighting and dosing and water change regimen you ste me on.

I am also seeing better growth too and I am using less nutrients and shorter photoperiod.

Amazing stuff, jesus, just absolutely highlights to me how it isnt all about cramming as much light into your tank as possible, it was suffering badly when I did that.

And that is without using the excel (it arrived this morning along with some bacopa australis)
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
Well,
Just stay on top of things, and repeat.
It's old hat after a few months/weeks.

Then you can get back to what you had originally wanted to do with the scape and gardening.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
Well understanding each part and the rates to achieve a goal is important.

Carry on and on about just one aspect, say nutrients, is foolish. Whole plant responses are more than mere nutrient physiology alone.

These can be explored but taking it with the context of light and CO2 in critical manner really let you see what affects occur when you go to these extremes, whether they be nutrients, light or CO2.

Unfortunately, many folks simply have not done this and seem to ignore or only give minor credence and lip service without actually having done it.
I tend to very synthetic and a posterior in my approach. See Kant for more references there.

So unless you experience it, it's difficult to broaden the mind and see if such things are really what they appear to be or not. Having varied lighting and various set ups over the years, I've found out a lot about lighting.
Likewise, I am obsessive about CO2, more so than about anyone else.

Nutrients are just part of the picture.
Still you need to have them stable when you approach the other issues, Likewise for the nutrient exlporations, you musty have a good ahndle on the other lighting/CO2 to have good observations.

Too many aquarist do not have these down packed. so they are lead to believe the wrong thing when they have issues.

Once you master one part and make some safe assumptions, then you start exploring the upper and lower ranges of CO2/light and can see how these affect the RGR of many plant species.

Mistakes can become useful as you know what happens when you run off of CO2, or do not dose for a week, or add too much light, or do not add mulm from the start or enough plants.

You start to figure out why and have a nexus of information that explains why aquatic plants grow and why algae grows.

I've been at that stage several years ago, but I'm learning a lot more and have much further yet to go yet.

As you learn more, you have larger questions and such trite arguments as to a nutrient dosing routine being better or worse is inconsequential as long as they some how supply enough nutrients for a given rate of growth.
Getting someone else to see this and acknowledge it is tough.

So what drives such gowth besides the nutrients? How is CO2 accurately and decisively measured?

PPS does not talk about that. Nor does PPS measure the lighting, just responds to it.

You can rapidly figure out who is really looking into things deeply and critically and re evaluating methods and assumptions, not just hyping their own method, I have many and can use everyone well. It gets back to each person's goals and habits. That allows me to help anyone with any method.
I do ask them to look at the trade offs to achieve their goal, but this is much more fair critical look rather than hype.

I've actually done the test and explore these ranges from near nothing to toxic levels if I could find them (without just being plain silly). I've not met anyone really in the hobby than thinks and approaches things to that extent.
I knowe of no one that has a PAR meter, nor an O2 meter other than George Booth and myself.

Two of the most basic things needed to do evalutions for aquatic plant growth.

I have a crotchety prof that teaches the Advanced Crop Physiology graduate course here at UC Davis. I made a very good arguement and he agreed with me about aquatic plants and roots and allocation of resources based on environmental changes. Other papers got ripped to shreds in the class, not mine:) He found it very interesting to use Aquatic plants as a model for resource allocation/partioning.

He agreed with me and I agree with him. Ole and Troels from Tropica also, the folks at IFAS also. UCSB as well.

The researchers I've met over the years have all seemed very responsive and encouraging to the hypothesis I've presented about aquatic plant growth.
I did get ripped good when discussing Allelopathic chemicals and periphyton when I used some the data from Diana's book. The tabkle used no concentrations, used no hard data, yes + and -'s. Look at the editor listying there, George Bowes was the person that rip me, and he seems to know more about aquatic plants in terms of phyisology than anyone I've met to date. I had to admit he was right, I did come with a good response after the talk was over:mad: Hate that.



Regards,
Tom Barr






Regards,
Tom Barr
 

dazzer1975

Prolific Poster
Apr 22, 2006
41
0
6
46
Rochdale, sadly
Right then, well the algae dissapeared totally soon after I took on your tailored regime Tom, thanks a lot for that, it absolutely did the trick.

I thought I would post a couple of pics to show how the tank is coming


th_DSC02055.jpg

th_DSC02053.jpg

th_DSC02050.jpg

th_DSC02046.jpg


again, thanks for advice and conversation!
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
Once the hair grass grows in better, you'll like it a lot.
Use a comb to keep it groomed and clean.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

dazzer1975

Prolific Poster
Apr 22, 2006
41
0
6
46
Rochdale, sadly
Oh right a comb, wow excellent tip thanks for that, also noted your tip regarding hair drier onto surface of water when taking a shot of tank, these are amazing little things really and i wondered for ages how they got those ripples on surface of water LMAO

Anyway, thanks again for all your help.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
So how is the tank doing now?
Fish dead yet? :D

The giant behemoth 1600 Gallon tank has not lost any Altum Angels, Discus, tetras etc and is pure EI based dosing. The 350 Gallon is also a highly loaded planted tank with pure EI and has been doing well for several years with plenty fo so called sensitive wild caught Apisto's, rare plecos, cories, pencil, tetras/cards etc.

Folks that make such claims about the health of fish due to KNO3 dosing are full of baloney. I keep finding eggs and fish growing and breeding and living for years in such tanks.

You can tell in their behavior as well.
I've kept fish in non planted tanks for many years as well, I can see dramatic behavioral differences and eating changes. The tank is better, not worse.

Like Amano says: happy plants = happy fish.
But perhaps Amano and I are both wrong and we pollute the tanks?

You decide.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Sintei

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 8, 2006
92
0
6
Tom Barr;13726 said:
Folks that make such claims about the health of fish due to KNO3 dosing are full of baloney. I keep finding eggs and fish growing and breeding and living for years in such tanks.
Regards,
Tom Barr

Me too. And I even dosed outrageous KNO3 before, my apistos were happy and spawned.
 

Frolicsome_Flora

Guru Class Expert
Jan 12, 2007
351
0
16
47
Dorset, UK
I think very few aquatic habitats are totally devoid of flora, whether it be densely forested substrates or macroalgae beds. So I think by adding plants we're only adding to the natural balance of an environment.. sure, we add plants from different continents regularly that wouldnt normally grow together nor with the fish life we introduce, but all these species adapt to one another in a very short space of time. My theory is, if they werent supposed to be tank mates, they wouldnt survive.. and they do more than survive when we get it right, they flourish!
 

dazzer1975

Prolific Poster
Apr 22, 2006
41
0
6
46
Rochdale, sadly
Oh sorry, haven't been on in a while and thus didn't realise I had replies.

Obviously not scaped, but as you can see, I have some pretty dramatic growth considering the length of time this tank has been planted and how it looked when first planted (this pic was taken toward the end of december a few weeks after a heavy pruning)

th_DSC02085.jpg


This one was taken at the start of Jan/ mid jan (I have since cut it all right back so I can try and scape a little shape and texture into it as it grows into it)

th_DSC02180.jpg
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
While many/most systems do not have nearly the same plant/macro algal biomass, it definitely does help in balancing and maintaining a much more natural suitable place for fish/inverts etc, even if it's a long way off from the natural systems in most cases.

Horticulture can look nice and make our lives easier to management things like food production/agriculture/gardening/aquariums etc.
But we do not really do this for it being natural really, we try and invoke that, but it's not "natural". It's quite artificial. Most seem to think it's due to the better health for the fish etc, which is true.

Regards,
Tom Barr