Plantbrain
Active member
Did you do these treatments individually or in combination together?
If you had limiting PO4, adding more Fe and NO3 obviously are not going to help one bit.
If you had limiting Fe, adding more NO3/PO4 will not help either.
Light should be fine, optimal at 12 hours.
There is nothing gained by increasing it.
Plants and algae use dark cycles to do other processes, they do poorer when exposed to 24/7 lighting etc.
I'd suggest raising the NO3/Fe and just a little on PO4.
PO4 should be your "throttle".
You are also not really looking for a stable residual really, just a pulse of PO4 every 2-3 days etc(2x a week is plenty).
As far as nutrient ratios, this a poor notion, the tank is not a limiting system such as an oceanic pelagic gyre.
It is only under limiting levels will ratios apply.
Ratios are useful for dosing estimates, that's about it.
As long as you are at a NON limiting level for NO3, say 5 ppm vs 10 ppm, it does not matter. If the PO4 (inorganic) is at 0.1 or at 0.2ppm,
, in both cases you can have good growth and not too much issue in a macro tank. But the ratios are quite different.
Rather than ratios, it is far wiser to think it terms of limiting critical values. This is what aquatic researchers use for studying larger macrophytes, ratio are considered in natural system where inputs are limited and controlled by other forces(upwelling, nutrient runoff, stratification etc).
Our systems bob all over by comparision.
Well growing macros are great exporter, thus the focus should be on these plants/algae, not so much the nutrient water column parameters, which sometimes, and very often do not correlate well with growth.
There are testing issues for aquarists and that makes it far far worse.
How many of you calibrate your test kits?
Not many I'd suspect.
How many test several times a day?
Not many I'd suspect.
If you have organic matter, fish waste etc, it often is consumed and removed before you can test it.
That's just 3 testing issues that send many off the deep end and assume and make the wrong conclusions.
A test datum point, and a test kit is a dangerous thing if you your assumptions about it are all wrong.
Researchers calibrate test methods for a good reason, they then know the method is reading the correct measurements from the samples.
You need to make standard reference solutions and claibrate the test kit, you will fine that PO4 and NO3 test kits happen to be thwe worst in terms of accuracy.
Yet many base their water changes, skimmers, addition of PO4 removers etc etc problems etc, solely on an uncalibrated test reading.
If you use a test kit, use it right.
Otherwise you are just guessing and hoping it's right.
And........"Belief" is a poor standard to use in this hobby.
Regards,
Tom Barr
If you had limiting PO4, adding more Fe and NO3 obviously are not going to help one bit.
If you had limiting Fe, adding more NO3/PO4 will not help either.
Light should be fine, optimal at 12 hours.
There is nothing gained by increasing it.
Plants and algae use dark cycles to do other processes, they do poorer when exposed to 24/7 lighting etc.
I'd suggest raising the NO3/Fe and just a little on PO4.
PO4 should be your "throttle".
You are also not really looking for a stable residual really, just a pulse of PO4 every 2-3 days etc(2x a week is plenty).
As far as nutrient ratios, this a poor notion, the tank is not a limiting system such as an oceanic pelagic gyre.
It is only under limiting levels will ratios apply.
Ratios are useful for dosing estimates, that's about it.
As long as you are at a NON limiting level for NO3, say 5 ppm vs 10 ppm, it does not matter. If the PO4 (inorganic) is at 0.1 or at 0.2ppm,
, in both cases you can have good growth and not too much issue in a macro tank. But the ratios are quite different.
Rather than ratios, it is far wiser to think it terms of limiting critical values. This is what aquatic researchers use for studying larger macrophytes, ratio are considered in natural system where inputs are limited and controlled by other forces(upwelling, nutrient runoff, stratification etc).
Our systems bob all over by comparision.
Well growing macros are great exporter, thus the focus should be on these plants/algae, not so much the nutrient water column parameters, which sometimes, and very often do not correlate well with growth.
There are testing issues for aquarists and that makes it far far worse.
How many of you calibrate your test kits?
Not many I'd suspect.
How many test several times a day?
Not many I'd suspect.
If you have organic matter, fish waste etc, it often is consumed and removed before you can test it.
That's just 3 testing issues that send many off the deep end and assume and make the wrong conclusions.
A test datum point, and a test kit is a dangerous thing if you your assumptions about it are all wrong.
Researchers calibrate test methods for a good reason, they then know the method is reading the correct measurements from the samples.
You need to make standard reference solutions and claibrate the test kit, you will fine that PO4 and NO3 test kits happen to be thwe worst in terms of accuracy.
Yet many base their water changes, skimmers, addition of PO4 removers etc etc problems etc, solely on an uncalibrated test reading.
If you use a test kit, use it right.
Otherwise you are just guessing and hoping it's right.
And........"Belief" is a poor standard to use in this hobby.
Regards,
Tom Barr
