Caliban's AquaOpti 85L

[KingKoopa512]

I'm just curious about your statement iron is under utilised. As a learning exercise what have you seen that makes you think this might be true?

In a way. Nutrient dosing is something I haven't really had to worry too much about in the past as my early tanks would use low lighting and one or two species of plant that did well.

My last tank had a soil substrate that had lots of clay pellets underneath. Perhaps I have been getting away with things because of the micronutrients in the soil and the extra iron from the clay. I'm finding nutrient balance a bit harder in this tank. Either that or I am overthinking things and just need to go full EI on the micros but I am a bit worried about potential toxicities at the moment.

I kno how you feel cali. Over thinking an forgetting alot of simple thingns..I did the same . Tank is looking nice though

 

[Caliban07]

I mean we use the term. Prodominent root feeding plants with high macro needs.

In terrestrial plants the term is not used as much in US because of best management practices. The southern US has been consious of point and non point source pollution to all bodies of waters.

I think its a case of right plant wrong place. Heavy root feeders we deal with are probably often in wrong substrate or parameters compared to where it came from. Environmental and cultural factors will change uptake and translocation ability that is proven.

So Diana Walstad presents great cases that some plants prefer to take certain minerals through their roots whilst others through their leaves.

This might be so but are you saying environment and cultural factors will change the plants ability to uptake certain nutrients or translocation in a negative way or their abilities to uptake nutrients will change from roots to leaves if required and the method of translocation as a result will change?

 

[flchamp89]

In a negative way primarily.

 

[Caliban07]

In a negative way primarily.

Ok thanks. Last question. How much of an issue do you think this is in aquariums that receive water column dosing and have substrates with some cation exchange capacity?

Here are the pictures.

View attachment 293238

View attachment 293239

View attachment 293240



I think it's become clear that the dwarf sag will serve no purpose in this tank. They are WAY to big to achieve the desired effect. Should have done my research [emoji23]

 

[flchamp89]

Thats million dollar question. Guys like us have no way to prove how great eco is for example. How do we measure it. We cant copy each others tanks either. I think its certainly not an excact science.

So does a substrate like eco cause high tds? I dont know. Thats why we also have those no water change ever threads.

Use my tank. I think youll agree that what I call heavily planted. Most peoples heavily planted is not what I think is heavily planted. So is tds a bigger issue in my tank or less planted one. Keeping in mind im putting more nutrients in mine. Tough... Because so many variables. That's what I love about the hobby.

 

[Caliban07]

Sorry I lost the other pictures

 

[flchamp89]

Well helferi not super fast. You can tell its not quite settled. Ive never owned sag. So you tell me but I would think it has a primary and secondary root stystem like some monocots. If so it can take in much more nutrients both through roots and stems.

 

[Bert2oo1]

She's looking mint! Loving the plant choices. Also loving the info from Flc, very interesting.

I've come to think that EI isn't as good as it's made out to be to be honest. I mean if you are really heavily planted with mature plants I think it works great but I feel the dosage rates when your plants are just starting to grow can be pretty excessive. However they state that over dosing nutrients doesn't cause algae. I'm not sure if I agree. When plant mass is low algae tends to be more of an issue. Once everything becomes over grown the algae tends to not be as bad.

I feel there is a reason they say plant heavy. By heavy they mean heavy. Most of the tanks I've seen the pro's start have almost every inch of substrate covered in plants. So that to me means you want maximum nutrient uptake to take the edge off the high levels of nutrient dosing.

 

[TMaier]

I have had this dwarf sag "like" forever and it has that look to it all the time.

I bought it at about 2" high and now it's about 14".

 

[Caliban07]

Well helferi not super fast. You can tell its not quite settled. Ive never owned sag. So you tell me but I would think it has a primary and secondary root stystem like some monocots. If so it can take in much more nutrients both through roots and stems.

First time for me too. This might be why it does well in low tech tanks?

 

[flchamp89]

I hear its user friendly I wanted it instead of my parva. Maybe better i didnt. Lol. I hate to trim

 

[Caliban07]

Thats million dollar question. Guys like us have no way to prove how great eco is for example. How do we measure it. We cant copy each others tanks either. I think its certainly not an excact science.

So does a substrate like eco cause high tds? I dont know. Thats why we also have those no water change ever threads.

Use my tank. I think youll agree that what I call heavily planted. Most peoples heavily planted is not what I think is heavily planted. So is tds a bigger issue in my tank or less planted one. Keeping in mind im putting more nutrients in mine. Tough... Because so many variables. That's what I love about the hobby.

It is the million dollar question. My thoughts are that I would expect a lot of the nutrients dosed in to the water column to find their way to the roots especially after some time.

 

[flchamp89]

I agree. Now how much?

 

[Caliban07]

She's looking mint! Loving the plant choices. Also loving the info from Flc, very interesting.

I've come to think that EI isn't as good as it's made out to be to be honest. I mean if you are really heavily planted with mature plants I think it works great but I feel the dosage rates when your plants are just starting to grow can be pretty excessive. However they state that over dosing nutrients doesn't cause algae. I'm not sure if I agree. When plant mass is low algae tends to be more of an issue. Once everything becomes over grown the algae tends to not be as bad.

I feel there is a reason they say plant heavy. By heavy they mean heavy. Most of the tanks I've seen the pro's start have almost every inch of substrate covered in plants. So that to me means you want maximum nutrient uptake to take the edge off the high levels of nutrient dosing.

I would also say that some pros dose very lean to begin with. Especially on micros. Only when the tank 'stabilises' do they begin to up the dosing game.

Thank btw. Dwarf sag has gotta go though. Not because it's being weird but because it's going to get LARGE.

 

[flchamp89]

I agree enjoyed talking with you. Your super knowledgeable I read everything you post.

 

[Caliban07]

I agree. Now how much?

It would make sense that cation exchange would be a function of plant uptake and photosynthetic rate so nutrients move as and when needed. Pulled from the sediment water solution and held in to the substrate. When exchanged at the root the space is made available for the process to continue. I think as long as this is happening the plant can decide where it would like to obtain its nutrients.

Still, there are enough fine aquascapes that have been grown in inert substrates to help falsify this hypothesis.

At least I have some new bedtime material to read through [emoji846]

 

[Bert2oo1]

I would also say that some pros dose very lean to begin with. Especially on micros. Only when the tank 'stabilises' do they begin to up the dosing game.

Thank btw. Dwarf sag has gotta go though. Not because it's being weird but because it's going to get LARGE.

My point exactly. I've been thinking about it a lot since I need to work out a new dosage for the new tank.

I mean think, the reason why you water change in a non planted tank is because of nitrate hits a high level it's unhealthy for fish and also you will end up with algae.

Now if your plants arnt taking in all this nitrate that your dosing/everything else surely it has to bring on algae over time. I tend to get algae before the second water change on the second week. Now that tells me there is a build up that isn't getting used.

I also don't agree with Barr with his 50% weekly water change. I bet they change the water more than once per week and are just saying 50 weekly because most people are lazy and don't want to water change more than once per week. Even 30% twice a week would be better in my opinion. The cleaner the water at all times the less chance of things falling apart.

I guarantee that these guys have a lot more money/equipment at there finger tips than people like us do. I'm guessing they would have full drip system/over flows for water changes and auto doses. The only time they would get the sleeves wet would be to spot treat any problems that arise or to have a trim session.

I couldn't see Barr standing there with a bucket and a hose that's for sure.

 

[Caliban07]

I have had this dwarf sag "like" forever and it has that look to it all the time. View attachment 293246

I bought it at about 2" high and now it's about 14".

Very interesting. When I purchased it the leaves looked like a buce's. Shiny and just beautiful. You have me thinking know. I suspect that was its emersed growth? The Prandtl boundary layer is known to thin in submersed leaves to help with gas transfer [emoji848]

 

[flchamp89]

My point exactly. I've been thinking about it a lot since I need to work out a new dosage for the new tank.

I mean think, the reason why you water change in a non planted tank is because of nitrate hits a high level it's unhealthy for fish and also you will end up with algae.

Now if your plants arnt taking in all this nitrate that your dosing/everything else surely it has to bring on algae over time. I tend to get algae before the second water change on the second week. Now that tells me there is a build up that isn't getting used.

I also don't agree with Barr with his 50% weekly water change. I bet they change the water more than once per week and are just saying 50 weekly because most people are lazy and don't want to water change more than once per week. Even 30% twice a week would be better in my opinion. The cleaner the water at all times the less chance of things falling apart.

Ive wondered the same

 

[Caliban07]

I agree enjoyed talking with you. Your super knowledgeable I read everything you post.

Thank you but really. I am no scientist. I just read everything and it's counter case. No offence to all you lovely people who make the time and effort to participate in my thread but I've been yearning for discussions like this for a long time. [emoji851]