EI dosing, non CO2 methods, test kits, you name it.

[Tom Barr]

Mark, the plant is Rotala variety "Green".
It's a fast growing weed that Amano often uses and makes nice groupings.
You prune the "shape" by topping and then wait for the new growth to appear to get those nicely planted shapes.

It's much easier than you might think if you have seen it done a few times.

Basically like a hair cut or prune a hedge.
You do not poull out the hair or the hedge, cut them all a certain height to achieve that look!
That would be way too much work!

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Kora]

Dear Tom,

I would like to know more about the NH4 vs. NO3 relations.
Some plant geeks here about (e.g. the esteemed "Mr Green Reef" Harald) are positive about the superiority of NH4 fertilization and better plant growth - and therefore in the end also in algae control.

On the other hand I read in one forum discussion (if I understood it right) that you postolate that algae might be less well equipped to process NO3 because them needing more energy for it but higher plants. Therefore NO3 is to be prefered. And not only because you think that a surplus of NH4 will wake up dormant algae spores.

Some here say high NO3 levels will stunt plant growth (but I couldn't find out what "high" means to them), not promote it.

Some here say that levels usually maintaned by E.I. will lead to curling and stunting of plants. These people are very proud of their skills to prevent any such occurence, it's their gardeners pride to never see a curling leaf. A lush growth is not enough for them.
E.g. Ingrid tried to get an statement out of you regarding this; it was lost in translation.
See also in APC the thread by "kekon".

Regards,
Kora

____________________________

Ich würde gerne mehr über Vorteile/Nachteile der NH4 Düngung gegenüber der mit NO3 erfahren.

Einige Könner hier (z.B. uns Harald) sind überzeugt davon, dass NH4 als Dünger überlegen ist und besseres Wachstum erzielt. Und dadurch wiederum auch Algen besser in Schach gehalten werden können.

Von Dir las ich (vorrausgesetzt ich habe es richtig verstanden), dass Du meinst, dass Algen in ihrer Einfachheit schlechter mit NO3 zurechtkommen, da es Energie kostet, es zurück in NH4 zu verwandeln. Was sie im direkten Vergleich mit Pflanzen, die sich diesen Energieverlust besser leisten können, den Kürzeren ziehen läßt. Und weshalb man NO3 als Dünger vorziehen sollte.
Und nicht nur, weil Du meinst herausgefunden zu haben, dass NH4-Überschuss den Algensporen als Wecksignal dient.

Einige hier wiederum sagen, dass hohe Konzentrationen von NO3 zu Wachstumsschwierigkeiten führen (allerdings weiß ich nicht, was sie mit "hohe" konkret meinten), anstatt ihn zu verbessern.

Die selben sagen, dass die Nährstoffkonzentrationen, die man normalerweise mit E.I. erreicht, dazu führen, das Pflanzen verkümmern. Diese Leute sind stolz auf ihr gärtnerisches Können, jegliches verkrümmte Blatt oder verkümmerte Triebspitze verhinden zu können; nur üppig wachsende Pflanzen zu haben reicht nicht. Dazu war es, dass Ingrid eine Stellungnahme von Dir erhofft hatte; es ging leider im Übersetzungskuddelmuddel unter.
Dazu auch der Thread im APC Forum von "kekon".

 

[Pflanzenfreund]

Hallo Kora

Irgend wie klappt das mit dem Zitat nicht deswegen schreibe ich so...

Also nach meinen versuchen erscheinen verkrüppelungen an der Ammannia bei No3 werten über 10mg/l ausserdem wird ab 5mg/l No3 die Ammonium aufnahme gehemt.

Ich dünge auch ausschließlich mit Ammonium und habe keine Algen aber ein prima Pflanzenwuchs.Auch die po4 konzentration halte ich bis 0,1mg/l meistens 0,084mg.

 

[Tom Barr]

Dear Tom,

On the other hand I read in one forum discussion (if I understood it right) that you postolate that algae might be less well equipped to process NO3 because them needing more energy for it but higher plants. Therefore NO3 is to be prefered. And not only because you think that a surplus of NH4 will wake up dormant algae spores.

Some here say high NO3 levels will stunt plant growth (but I couldn't find out what "high" means to them), not promote it.

Some here say that levels usually maintaned by E.I. will lead to curling and stunting of plants. These people are very proud of their skills to prevent any such occurence, it's their gardeners pride to never see a curling leaf. A lush growth is not enough for them.
E.g. Ingrid tried to get an statement out of you regarding this; it was lost in translation.
See also in APC the thread by "kekon".

Regards,
Kora

____________________________

Hallo Kora,

I think I made it fairly clear as far as NH4 dosing vs NO3 dosing in several articles.
Krombholz and Gerloff, 1966, shows that several species of aquatic plants had their maximum growth rate at 20-30 ppm, and then the curve flattened out till about 80ppm NO3 and very slowly declined.

I have no such curling of leaves in any tanks.

If we assume that high NO3, say 30ppm NO3 causes curling and that it is due to high NO3(30ppm), then how can we accept that if there is none present?

It has to be due to another cause, correlation does not imply cause!
This is the hobby aquarists undoing, they use circumstantial evidence to imply cause.
The research suggest otherwise on top of that.
Farmers have excellent growth with plants with more, not less fertilizer.

Small amounts of NH4 dosing can and does work, I've done this very effectively, several friends have as well. But it is "playing with fire", NH4 is highly toxic, about 300-15000X more than NO3.

I think it is rather odd to suggest high levels of NO3 are bad, toxic etc, yet dose something far far more volitile as NH4.

It is the most toxic nutrient and used used at high levels(5ppm) to kill plants as herbicide enhancer for weeds!

NH4 can burn plants, NO3?
No.

Ozimek also showed that at levels higher than 0.5ppm, NH4 uptake is higher for one species(Elodea, hardly representative for all 300+ species of aquatic plants, but I'll assume so for now), but at less than 0.5ppm or close, the rate of NO3 uptake was higher.
Both started out with 2ppm of NH4, but as the levels of one dropped, the NO3 started being used.

But I'm not much on evidence in research alone, I have to see for myself.

So we started doing a lot of NH4 dosing back about 10 years ago.

Some questions:
So is the NH4 being converted to NO3 via bacteria?
Hard to say........
Using NH15 and NO315 stable isotopes in several systems receiving sewage wastewater, the answer was yes(Reddy, 1984), most of the N taken in was converted first by bacteria, then assimilated by the macrophyte plants.

We need to address the form of N that the plant actually is getting vs the bacteria conversion to NO3.

Adding NO3 removes that issue, but some NO3 is removed in deeper sediments via NO3=> N2 gas.

Again, stable isotopes can answer such questions.
Such cycling questions in wetlands and the plants there are well researched.

An aquarists' tank needs to address how much is being fed.
We can dose NH4 a number of ways, NH4 inorganic, organic sediments, and via bioloading.

We can also mitigate the higher levels and dosing routines, even up to 0.5ppm, to 0/8ppm NH4 per day by doing flow through water changers, or large daily water changes.

Less light also mitigates algae blooms via NH4 as well as good ample stable CO2.

However, if you keep adding progressively more and more NH4, you will get algae.
Don't believe me?
Try it and prove it to yourself on a small test tank(without fish!!).

Ammonium sulfate works well.
Then repeat with Ghost shrimp by adding progressively more and more shrimp until you get an algae bloom.

NH4, not NO3/PO4 is why we get the algae blooms, GW is easy to induce via high light and NH4 dosing.

This can be done in a small tank for anyone to see.

Small careful dosing, or underdosing of N can work well, but many are not careful.
The other problematic issue with NH4 dosing, it's removed so fast it's hard to measure uptake and a residual in the tank or in a lake.

It's cycled so fast when at lower levels it's gone before you can measure it.
The same is true for iron(Fe).

If someone wants to debate that high NO3, say 30ppm causes issues, they need to address their other parameters that might confound things and they need to give a specific data point.

Saying general things such as "excess" or "high" NO3 cause X, Y or Z, are meaningless otherwise.........they are non specific and shows that the person has not tested the levels.

If you have not tested the other parameters, nor NO3, you really cannot say much about the effects and potential causes. :idea:

This is not a "personal" attack, rather, this attacks the idea about plants, some seem to confuse that, and I no longer post at APC due in part to this and their site owner supported that :roll:
If folks want to engauge and learn about plants, they need to stick to that topic, not personal attacks when they cannot offer support for their ideas.

That is very bad and unproductive.

I offer support from: research, from my own test, hard data, detailing out the methods and assumptions to answer such questions, repeated testing and from other folks for confirmation.

Others seems to feel they can bully others and claim their "belief" alone is reason enough.
I do not try and use belief and marketing words to understand plants. So if folks want to do that, I do not bother.

If not NH4, which is to date the only nutrient I've found as have many others that can induce algae, what then is inducing algae?

We can effectively rule out NO3, PO4, Fe, K+ etc.
By falsification, we are only left with NH4 which relates to bacterial cycling, Light intensity, CO2 as these all influence the rate of uptake for both algae and plants.

So while NH4 is a trigger, there are other factors, beside one mere parameter that need to be addressed, otherwise you compare apples to oranges.
A high light system is not as resilient as a lower light system for example.

So the likelyhood you might get Green water algae in a lower light system is less.

Leave no stone unturned.

Make sure you look at everything you can possibly think of before running off claiming excess K+ causes stunting or that "excess" causes algae blooms. That is how myths are born in the hobby, correlation does not imply cause.

I've narrowed things down by ruling out things one by one, a rather slow, but thorough process.
Then you look at interactions such as adding more less light, more less CO2 etc.

Not a single aquarist I've met has even measured light, the main input of energy using PAR meters.

Claus, Ole and Troels do not count though
But we agree, it's the hobbyists that don't.


Regards,
Tom Barr

---

Ãœbersetzung:


Hallo Kora,


Ich denke ich habe meinen Standpunkt zur NH4 Dosierung gegenüber NO3 Dosierung in einigen Artikeln verdeutlicht. Krombholz und Gerloff, 1966, haben gezeigt, dass unterschiedliche Wasserpflanzen ihre optimale Wuchsgeschwindigkeit bei 20-30 mg/L NO3 hatten und danach die Kurve flacher wurde bis zu einem NO3 Gehalt von 80 mg/L und danach langsam abnahm.

Ich habe keine verkrüppelten oder verformten Blätter in meinen Becken.

Wenn wir annehmen, dass hohe NO3 Werte, sagen wir 30 mg/L NO3, zu Wachstumsschwieirgkeiten führen, wie kommt es dann, dass bei mir keine vorhanden sind?

Es muss sich demnach also um einen anderen Grund handeln. Korrelation impliziert keine Kausalzusammenhänge. Es liegt hier an den Beobachtungen der Hobby Aquarianer, die ihre Indizienbeweise oder Beobachtungen mit Kausalität gleichsetzen. In der Wissenschaft wird dies gerade so nicht gemacht.
Bauern haben ebenfalls exzellenten Wuchs durch mehr Dünger und nicht weniger.

Kleine Mengen an NH4 können bei der Düngung sehr wohl funktionieren. Ich habe dies auch sehr effektiv betrieben, viele Freunde ebenfalls. Aber es ist ein „Spiel mit dem Feuer“, NH4 ist sehr giftig, ungefähr 300-1500 mal so hoch wie NO3.

Ich finde es aus diesem Grund sehr merkwürdig hohe NO3 Werte als schlecht darzustellen aber dennoch das viel schädlichere NH4 zu dosieren.

Es ist einer der giftigsten Stoffe und wird in höheren Konzentrationen (5 mg/L) dazu eingesetzt Unkrautvernichtungsmittel noch effektiver zu machen.

NH4 kann bei Pflanzen zu Wachstumsschwierigkeiten führen, NO3 jedoch nicht.

Ozimek zeigte, dass bei Werten höher als 0,5 mg/L NH4, die NH4 Aufnahme für eine Art (Elodea, nicht gerade reprasentativ für alle 300+ Wasserpflanzenarten, jedoch nehme ich dies jetzt mal an…) höher war.
Aber bei Werten kleiner als 0,5 mg/L war die NO3 Aufnahme höher.
Beide Tests wurden mit 2mg/L NH4 angesetzt, aber als der Wert gesunken ist, wurde das NO3 ebenfalls genutzt.

Ich bin jedoch nicht jemand, der nur allein auf die Forschung vertraut, ich muss die Sachen selber sehen.

Wir haben aus diesem Grund vor ca. 10 Jahren damit begonnen sehr viel NH4 zu dosieren.

Einige Fragen diesbezüglich:

Wird das NH4 durch Bakterien in NO3 umgewandelt?
Schwer zu sagen….


Benutzt man NH15 und NO315 stabile Isotopen in unterschiedlichen Systemen, die mit Abwasser versehen werden, ist die Antwort klar „Ja“ (Reddy, 1984). Das meiste des N wird von den Bakterien umgewandelt und danach von den macrophyten (höheren Wasserpflanzen) aufgenommen.

Wir müssen also in diesem Bezug die wirkliche pflanzenverfügbare Stickstoffquelle betrachten gegenüber der Menge N die von Bakterien zu NO3 umgewandelt wird.

Bei der Zugabe von NO3 wird dieses Problem umgangen, jedoch wird einiges an NO3 in tieferen Sedimentschichten von NO3 zu N2 Gas umgewandelt.

Wiederum können stabile Isotope diese Frage beantworten.
Solche Fragen in Bezug auf Zyklen in Feuchtgebieten und den Pflanzen dort sind sehr gut erforscht.

Ein Aquarianer muss bei seinem Becken die Anzahl des Futters bedenken.
Wir können NH4 in unterschiedlicher Form dem Becken zuführen. NH4 anorganisch, oragnische Sedimentanreicherung und durch Fütterung.

Wir können dennoch höhere NH4 Werte von 0,5 mg/L bis hin zu 0,8 mg/L pro Tag fahren, wenn wir täglich Wasserwechsel betreiben oder die Strömung durch einen Wasserwechsel leiten.

Weniger Licht mildert ebenfalls Algenblüten im Zusammenhang mit NH4, ebenso wie eine konstante großzügige CO2 Versorgung.

Dennoch wird man Algen bekommen, wenn man mehr und mehr NH4 seinem Becken zuführt.
Ihr glaubt mir nicht?
Probiert es selber an einem kleinen Testbecken aus (ohne Fische!!).

Ammoniumsulfat ist hierfür sehr gut.
Dann wiederhole den Versuch mit Algengarnelen, in dem du immer mehr von diesen dem Becken zuführst bis du eine Algenblüte induzierst.

NH4, nicht NO3/PO4, ist der Grund für Algenblüten. Grüne Schwebealgen (Grünes Wasser) ist leicht mit NH4 und viel Licht herbeizuführen.

Dies kann ebenfalls in einem kleinen Becken realisiert werden, damit sich jeder davon überzeugen kann.

Sehr vorsichtiges Dosieren, oder eine Unterdosierung mit N kann funktionieren, jedoch sind viele nicht sehr vorsichtig.
Die andere Problematik mit NH4 Dosierung liegt darin, dass es so schnell vom System aufgenommen wird, so dass es schwer Messbar ist. Dies gilt sowohl für Aquarien wie auch für Seen.

Es wird so schnell umgewandelt, dass es bei geringen Konzentrationen sofort verschwunden ist, bevor man es messen kann.

Das gleiche gilt für Eisen (Fe)

Wenn jeman darüber Diskutieren möchte, dass hohe NO3 Werte, von sagen wir mal 30 mg/L Probleme verursachen, müssen sie ebenfalls ihre weiteren Parameter überprüfen, die ihre Beobachtungen beeinflussen können und genaue Daten geben.

Durch allgemeine Aussagen wie „ein Überschuss“ oder „hohe“ NO3 Werte verursachen X, Y oder Z sind unter diesen Voraussetzungen bedeutungslos.
Sie sind nicht genau genug und zeigen nur, dass diese Person nicht wirklich die Werte getestet hat.

Wenn man hierbei nicht die anderen Parameter testet, oder nichtmal NO3, kann man keine wirklichen Aussagen über die Effekte und Kausalzusammenhänge machen.

Dies ist kein „persönlicher“ Angriff, es ist eher so, dass diese Unterstellungen einen Angriff auf das Verständnis über Pflanzen darstellt, einige scheinen dies etwas zu verwechseln. Aus diesem Grund schreibe ich auch nicht mehr bei Aquaticplantcentral.com, da der Seitenbetreiber genau dies unterstützt hat. Wenn Personen sich mit Pflanzen beschäftigen und etwas darüber lernen wollen, müssen sie sich auf diesen Bereich auch einlassen und keine persönlichen Angriffe starten wenn sie keine eigenen Beweise für ihre Ideen haben.

Das ist nämlich sehr schlecht und unproduktiv.

Ich habe Rückenhalt durch Forschung, meine eigenen Testsreihen und Fakten, die genau die Methoden herausstellen und die Annahmen vieler beantworten. Wiederholte Tests von auch weiteren Personen untermauern dies.

Andere meinen sie können andere so lange mit ihren „Überzeugungen“ traktieren, bis diese geglaubt werden. Ich probiere nicht irgendwelche Glaubensüberzeugungen oder Marketingslogans für das Verständnis von Pflanzen zu nutzen. Wenn Personen dies aber benutzen, beachte ich diese nicht.

NH4 ist nach meinen Tests und der vieler anderer der einzige Nährstoff der direkt zu Algen führt. Welcher Nährstoff sollte sonst Algen hervorrufen?

Wir können effektiv NO3, PO4, Fe, K+ usw ausschließen.

Durch Falsifikation bleibt nur NH4 übrig, welches direkt mit dem Bakterienzyklus, der Lichtintensität und dem CO2 zusammenhängt, da all diese Umstände eine erhöhte Aufnahmerate bei Algen und Pflanzen beeinflussen.

Da NH4 der Auslöser ist, gibt es natürlich noch viele weitere Faktoren die in diesem Zusammenhang mit hineinspielen. Wenn man diese nicht beachtet wäre es so als würde man Äpfel mit Orangen vergleichen.
Ein Starklichtbecken ist beispielsweise bei weitem nicht so flexibel wie ein Becken mit weniger Licht.


Aus diesem Grund ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit „grünes Wasser“ in einem Becken mit wenig Licht zu bekommen sehr viel geringer.

Hierbei muss man alle Punkte beachten.
Stelle sicher, dass du alle möglichen Gründe mit einbezogen hast, bevor man zu Annahmen wie zuviel K+ führt zu Verkrüppelungen oder das ein „Überschuss“ an Nährstoffen zu Algen führt, kommt. Aus solchen Gründen entstehen neue Mythen in der Aquaristik. Korrelationen führen nicht zu Kausalitäten.

Ich habe die Dinge Punkt für Punkt eingegrenzt, ein recht langsamer Prozess, dafür jedoch sehr gründlich.

Danach habe ich einen Blick auf Interaktionen bezüglich mehr oder weniger Licht oder CO2 geworfen.

Nicht ein einziger Aquarianer den ich getroffen habe hat beispielsweise die Lichtleistung, durch ein PAR Meter, über seinem Becken gemessen.

Claus, Ole and Troels zählen hierbei nicht.

Aber wir stimmen in dem Bezug überein, dass die Hobbyaquarianer viele dieser Fehler machen.

Grüße,
Tom Barr

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

Not a single aquarist I've met has even measured light, the main input of energy using PAR meters.

It seems to me that many look on the quantity of light, but fewer people care for the quality of it...f.e. till now I never used T5 Lighting because I know the quality of fullspectrum-bulbs is not as good as it is in T8.

What do you think about this?

My favourite bulb is Osram 965 Biolight with the best Ra- known. I don´t know if this has an effect on healthy plant growth, but apart of this, it has an effect on the look-a-like of a tank, lit with it.

Do you care for the kind of bulbs used?

Greetings,
Mark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallo Tom.

Kein einziger Aquarist, dem ich begegnet bin, hat bisher den Energieeintrag des Lichtes in Par gemessen.

Ich habe den Eindruck, auf die Quantität (menge) des Lichtes wird schon geachtet, wenige achten aber auf die Qualität des verwendeten Spektrums, z.B. habe ich noch nie T5 Leuchten genutzt, weil mir zu Ohren kam, daß die Qualität gerade der Vollspektrum-Leuchtmittel nicht vergleichbar ist, mit der Qualität der T8 Lampen.

Welche Meinung hast Du hierzu?

Meine bevorzugte Röhre ist die Osram 965 Biolight mit dem bestmöglichen Ra-Farbwiedergabe-Wert. Ich weiß nicht ob ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Qualität des Lichtes und dem gesunden Pflanzenwuchs besteht, allerdings davon abgesehen, besteht ein Zusammenhang zum Erscheinungsbild des beleuchteten Beckens und meinen Augen .

Ist es Dir wichtig, womit Du beleuchtest?

Grüße,
Mark.

 

[Kora]

Hallo Tom,

es sind nicht meine Pflanzen die Verwachsungen zeigen (aber wie oben Pflanzenfreund sagt, bekommen seine Ammannia sowas ab 10 mg/l N03) und es wäre mir wohl auch egal, täten sie es bei mir. Es ist einfach das am lautest gehörte Gegenargument Deiner Kritiker.

Leider kann ich nicht all Deine Berichte aus so vielen Jahren schon gelesen haben, also sei bitte nicht ungehalten, wenn ich Sachen frage, die Du meinst, dass ich sie wissen müßte.. Ich verstehe auch nicht immer alles. So wie jetzt auch -- und das liegt nicht an der Sprachbarriere, sondern an fehlendem Hirnschmalz. Isotope, ja?
Okay. Ich danke Dir für Deine wieder sehr ausführliche Antwort, leider habe ich selbst darauf nichts weiter zu erwidern. oO

---------------------


Dear Tom,

I personally have no problems with curling leaves or such, I don't care much either if I did. It's just the strongest objection heard by the critiques. Like "Pflanzenfreund" above who states he gets curling leaves with Ammannias if NO2 is higher than 10 mg/l.

I'm sorry but I find myself unable to have had read more than a very few of your articles, with them covering a lot of years and tons of information. So please, don't be impatient with my redundant questions. And I don't always understand everything you write. It's not necessarily the language barrier, but my missing grey matter. Isotopes, yeah? All right. I thank you for your detailed answer, but I'm afraid I find myself unable so formulate a suitable answer to it. oO

Regards,
Kora

 

[Tom Barr]

If curly leaves is all they have, that's not something called aesthetics and has virtually nothing to do with rates of growth, leaf length etc or other parameters used in Botany/Plant Science.

I need things I can measure and hard data points, otherwise you start taking about things that some aquarist "sees" and other sees something else etc.

Subtle aesthetics do exists, but as such, they are subtle, many things can and do cause subtle effects

Ruling those effects out is not easy, certainly not as as easy as mere correlation as many aquarist would like to suggest. I do understand the temptation to suggest cause and effect...........life would simple if that were the case.

Unfortunately, that is not the way the world works nor plant science.

Perhaps others do not desire a level of rigor, that is fine, but why do they care and say such things then? Once you accept that, then you must hold yourself to the same rigor that you hold others too

Hey, it's only fair.
But folks give me a hard time nonetheless, hehe.

Still, I do understand their points of view.
I thought like that many years ago.

Light influences everything in plant science. Then CO2, then nitrogen generally and so on down the line.

Adding to this, 300+ species of plants people really know very little about.

Still, most plants can be grown just fine without curly leaves at higher NO3 levels and without NH4 that's toxic to fish. So if that is truly causal, how can I grow these plants without curly leaves?

Ammania is a common plant that folks have curly leaves for many, yet we have grown it for years in the Bay area at higher NO3 and K+ levels without issues.

Some claimed that high K+ inhibits Ca uptake and caused stunting, this was resoundly falsified.
These were experienced observant good scapers.

Yet they were disproven................just because you are good scaper, does not imply you know how to deduce and rule things out effectively.

We have examples of healthy excellent growth at 50ppm of K+, 50ppm NO3. Erik Leung won a contest with over 100ppm of K and the center piece plant was Ammannia

Paul Sears, a PhD in organic chemistry suggested excess PO4 = algae.
He was wrong and made assumptions based on correlation, not cause nor tested the casual possibilities.
He's a smart person also.
Did a lot for the hobby and helped bring KNO3, K2SO4, DIY traces to the forfront in this hobby.

He often talked above my head and got me straight on some things, but the PO4 issue started right in front of my face and we checked it many times before confronting!!

I do not argue based on speculation, I make it clear if it's a possible cause, or correlation, speculation etc, oir that I'm not sure.

However, I know well what I do know.
Which is little

If you make a hypothesis, you need to test it and try and falsify it to show it's correct.
All I have to do is have a tank with out curly leaves and high NO3 to show that cannot be the cause.

It does not say what is the cause however, only what it cannot be.
Many misinterpret that part.

Fear not if you do not understand "stable isotopes" etc. It is just a tool used to follow an atom as it goes from Organic Nitrogen, to NH4, to NO2 and to NO3 and perhaps to N2.

Basically you can track as well as quantify the nitrogen as it's transformed by various plants, fish and bacteria in an aquatic ecosystem.

We can do this for Carbon, K+, Fe, P etc.
If you have a question, please ask.

If you need it in simpler terms, I can do that as well.
In person, such things are easily addressed.

After disproving most of the things we think it might be(high PO4 @ 3ppm etc or 30ppm of NO3), we are left with only a few possibilities left...............NH4 is one such nutrient.

Also, I forgot to mention, adding plant cuttings and dead leaves also induces algae spores to germinate.

These leach NH4 and organic N.
Stressed plants can also leach NH4 and organic N(which eventually turns to NH4).

We can take things many directions and make many assumptions, but it all gets back to the basics of what makes a plant growth and at what rate we want, as aquarist, to have the growth occur.

The rate of growth is very important when comparing non CO2 methods to CO2 enrichment, this changes the growth rate by 10-20X.

Likewise, limiting light can reduce the growths about this same range.
Limiting PO4 can do this as well and you can still have nice growth with low, sometimes very low NO3 levels with correspondingly low CO2 and light as well.

Such levels are found in nature, as well as richer nutrient rich high CO2 levels as well.

It therefore should not be of any surprise to aquarists that plants can do very well and grow well, but at different rates in many conditions, not just one mere condition that an aquarists happens upon and strikes a balance that does not include algae.

Mastery of one method to grow plants does not imply that other methods are "bad or worse" or that you are a master of every method.

The methods do not fail, they are successful, we do however.

You'll also note I do not dispute that other methods do and can work, I also suggest how and why and have explored them. Why? Because I've tried them and done it.

My issue is not to disprove someone's method, but to undercover the causes and similarities that link all methods together :idea:

From that viewpoint, we can decide what trade offs are best suited to achieve a aprticular goal, which might not include EI, or high light etc.

There is no method that achieves everyone's goals, however, the person certainly needs to define their goal before presenting any such argument suggesting that one method is more appropreiate over another for a given goal.

This is not personal, this is simply discussing a goal and the best way to get there.
If you only know one method, and their goal is different than yours, then it's tough.
If you know several methods and have done each well, then you are better able to offer the trade offs, and the tools needed to achieve that goal.

I would not ask a Rift cichlid expert how to bred Killifish for example.
I could ask someone about either fish if they had been successful breeding BOTH types of fish though.

They know both. Same deal here with the plants.
If you know both non CO2 and CO2 methods, rich or lean, adding ferts to the sediment or the water column, you are better able to offer several methods to help a new planted aquarist reach their goal.

Not just try to get them to use "your method".
I see many aquarists do this and then bad mouth other methods without basis, without support, etc. That type of attitude and approach does not help the hobby.
It just polarizes attitudes and misses real intellectual curiosity about plants.

Just keep in mind that method does not fail, we do.
Some are good at trying and not giving up, adjusting things etc, we also are trying to help folks via the web, we cannot see their tank, talk to them in person, see many common mistakes that we might in person, so it's expecting a lot to assume we can solve everyone's problem.
Many do not take the advice you give as well.

I've seen aquarist make failures for every method.
Does not imply the methods are bad however.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

Hallo Mark,
I focus on PAR units.

Otherwise, if the bulb color looks nice to your own sense of aesthetics, your own eyes, go with it.
It makes little difference to the plants or algae.

They care about PAR and duration/intensity/angle of incidence etc.
Other than duration, few aquarist even measure or consider these parameters.

I wish they would, PAR meters use to be 600-1500$, now a few companies make the water proof ones for 250$ or so.

Still, that's a lot of $$!.
But I'm willing to spend that(I have several of the more $$$ ones too :roll: before these came out).

Not everyone cares and it's certainly not required to have a nice planted tank.
Here's a tank with 2x 175 w of metal halide lighting I did about 15-20 years ago now before I went to college.

Back then, this tank exceeded most folk's goals, but not my own.
The color temp is 5500K in this system and most liked it, today many like 10,000K ranges.

I use a mix of 8800K and 5000K or a 6500K HQI.

But these are more personal preferences.
Also, careful when viewing pictures and things on the web, color on the screen is not true, nor ar photos!

They are just representations of reality.
Photos can be changed, lower lighting can enhance colors, higher light can wash out reds etc.

Seeing plants in person or using a colorimeter, pigment analysis are the better methods.
The only way I could ever judge a tank would be in person.
NBAT judge rules are nice and work well but are impractical for global contest etc.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

Here's a tank with 2x 175 w of metal halide lighting I did about 15-20 years ago now before I went to college.

Here in Germany, we only have Metal-halide lighting in 35, 70, 150, 250 and 400 Watt???

And between 5.500 and 10.000 Kelvin there is a gap...we don´t have 8.800 Kelvin...how much are they in US? I would be interested in this light colour.

Kindly Regards,
Mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallo Tom,

das hier ist ein Becken, das ich vor 15 oder 20 Jahren eingerichtet hatte, bevor ich zum College ging, mit 2 x 175 Watt HQI-Belechtung

in Deutschland gibt es HQI-Beleuchtung nur in 35, 70, 150, 250 und 400 Watt???

Und zwischen 5.500 und 10.000 Kelvin klafft eine Lücke...es sind hier keine 8.800 Kelvin Brenner zu bekommen. Was kosten die in den USA? Ich wäre an dieser Lichtfarbe interessiert.

Herzliche grüße,
Mark.

 

[Tom Barr]

Many companies sell 6500K and a few sell 8000-8800K.
Reef users often used the 6500K with atinic.

Many are switching to 70-150, 250 HQI bulbs here though.

I like them much more, they are small and detract less from the tank, you can alos raise and lower them to influence the light intensity very easily!

They have poor spread over a rectangular area, reflector designs try to make up for that, so FL's are better suited.

I have over come that issue and use the MH's on a light tracking rail that moves back and forth slowly every hour or so. This allows the light to reach all the plant leaves and I can use less light and place it lower down on the tank.

This also looks really techy and cool.

I have a cube aquarium that will have one that moves in a circle every hour(I used a modified clock arm.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom!

Now, after all I tried to use enough light, without spending too much of the earned money on energy (I built huge Reflectors for FL´s, modified MH to use it in Halogen-Lighting systems which have much bigger reflectors), I´m about to use FL in form of Energy-Saving Bulbs in Full Daylight spectrum in 1500 Watt-Halogenlamps Crazy but fun!

Greetings Mark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Tom!

Nach allem was ich schon versucht habe um genug Licht bieten zu können, ohne mein Einkommen gleich ganz in Form von Energiekosten zu vergeuden (habe große Reflektoren für Neonröhren gebaut, HQI in Halogenstrahlern eingebaut, die vergleichsweise große Reflektoren haben), bin ich zur Zeit von der Idee besessen Energiesparlampen in großen 1500 Watt Halogenstrahlern einzubauen verrückt, aber es macht Spass!

Grüße,
Mark.

 

[Anonymous]

Another interest I have, are real natural tank layouts, like the Biotop tanks that occured in the Netherlands, which use one species plant per tank, a lot of wood and fallen leaves...do you have something like that trend overseas?

I know that AGA Biotop tank thing, but there appeared not really good layouts of that kind.

Regards,
Mark.

 

[Tom Barr]

I do this for all my tanks for fish, rarely will I use another species from too far away.

Single species or perhaps 1-2 are common, namely a foreground plant.
HC and hair grass, or another grass are popular etc.

Most have too much lighting here though.

Then they obsess about other countries' tanks and having the lower nutrients and CO2 and wonder why they have troubles wghen they add 2-8X more light :roll:

To have the same management and balance, you need to scale up the nutrients and CO2 to match the lighting. If that is too much work, then scale the light back, these people want both, which causes them issues.

Not one of them ever compares nor measures lighting.
I've never met nor heard a single person in the USA area that has measured lighting.

Not one after over 15 years.

Kind of lonely

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

I wish I could be more engaged in contact with you , but sometimes I don´t have enough energy to do a water-change .

At the moment there occurs a "problem" with my Lagarsiphon madagascariensis, it grows up to a length of about 10 cm, then the leaves form a knot and it thrives with other parts, looks a little bit like a christmas-tree .

I keep it under a 55 Watt DULUX-L Lamp (Compact Flurescent) in a 200 liter tank, the plant is situated in stream from the pump, 10 cm far away from the lamp and gets daily CO2, Fe, Easy Carbo, Kalium, PO4 and NO3. The tank has no heating.

Thank you very much for your interesting threads, I read everyone of them and try to understand, until I get phone calls that remind me of my daily job .

Greetings,
Mark.

 

[Tom Barr]

Here's some more for a tank I take care of.

And

Sorry for the bad photo's, I only have a few minutes to snap a shot!
This tank has standard EI and a heavy fish load.
Been running for about 4 years now.

The owner's staff have been doing better, the last clown was not good at adding the nutrients.
I'm switching to black Flourite in a few weeks to give a nicer look to the sediment.




regards,
Tom Barr