# What’s the most difficult plant you’ve grown low tech?



## Virtus (11 mo ago)

Look, your bike is broken. Just get a car! 😂 

Also, posting to follow.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Virtus said:


> Look, your bike is broken. Just get a car! 😂
> 
> Also, posting to follow.


HAhahahaha at this point I feel like you’re just following me around the forum to post bike and MTS jokes 😂😂😂

Since you’re here you might as well share, what’s your most demanding plant, for this brief window while you’re still low tech? 😂 How is it doing?


----------



## Virtus (11 mo ago)

LidijaPN said:


> HAhahahaha at this point I feel like you’re just following me around the forum to post bike and MTS jokes 😂😂😂
> 
> Since you’re here you might as well share, what’s your most demanding plant, for this brief window while you’re still low tech? 😂 How is it doing?


The gig is up ha.

I've purposefully targeted "easy", low maintenance plants so far. Probably the most difficult that I have is DHG. I knew that it wasn't going to carpet without CO2 so with those expectations I'd say it's done decent. Some clumps have remained green and some have some browning; doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason that I can tell though. It sort of just exists in my 75g but in the 20 long I've got 3-4 areas where it's started to throw off runners and additional growth. It seems to be mostly the browning clumps that are throwing off the runners; I can't decide if that makes sense or not ha.


----------



## Death_by_Dinosaurs (11 mo ago)

I grow sword ferns low tech, but those are pretty easy too. I’ve also only had them a few months, so I suppose time will tell if they do well.
Wow that was quite a rhyme.


----------



## Kitsune (9 mo ago)

I have a Rotala wallichii in my low tech ... it's growing, very slowly, but it's growing.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

This is a tough one, because as discussed "Growth" is subjective. I would say most stems known for needing injected co2 will show some form of stunting/deficiency without it. 

If you want to go Dinky+, then use dirt. I don't like dirt and I will never use it again, but a good dirt mix will provide co2 from the decomposing organics. Dirt has been shown to broaden plant selection that wouldn't do well in low-tech since you can go above the naturally occurring 3ppm of co2.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Virtus said:


> The gig is up ha.
> 
> I've purposefully targeted "easy", low maintenance plants so far. Probably the most difficult that I have is DHG. I knew that it wasn't going to carpet without CO2 so with those expectations I'd say it's done decent. Some clumps have remained green and some have some browning; doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason that I can tell though. It sort of just exists in my 75g but in the 20 long I've got 3-4 areas where it's started to throw off runners and additional growth. It seems to be mostly the browning clumps that are throwing off the runners; I can't decide if that makes sense or not ha.


I think it does make sense, many plants try to reproduce as a last ditch effort at survival when the mother plant is struggling. My vals both did the same thing, the ones I received melted but their runners survived and thrived. 

Carpet in low tech is definitely something not even I would strive for... you’d probably get coverage eventually, but not lush and thick like people like their carpets


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Death_by_Dinosaurs said:


> I grow sword ferns low tech, but those are pretty easy too. I’ve also only had them a few months, so I suppose time will tell if they do well.
> Wow that was quite a rhyme.


Hahahah plant poetry! Yeah swords are standard low tech plants but still cool if they seem to be thriving ♥ Swords are a little hoggy I found, mine was struggling at my initial low fert regime... now it’s looking happy.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> This is a tough one, because as discussed "Growth" is subjective. I would say most stems known for needing injected co2 will show some form of stunting/deficiency without it.
> 
> If you want to go Dinky+, then use dirt. I don't like dirt and I will never use it again, but a good dirt mix will provide co2 from the decomposing organics. Dirt has been shown to broaden plant selection that wouldn't do well in low-tech since you can go above the naturally occurring 3ppm of co2.


You didn’t answer the question tho 😅 for the purpose of this exercise let’s define growth as ‘looks good enough for you to be happy with it’. Like some of mine are somewhat stunting but not to the point where I feel they’re not an overall positive addition to the tank. Others stunted in such a way that they looked like Charlie Brown’s proverbial Christmas tree and I got rid of them, even though they were ‘growing’.

I might try bags o’ dirt under my substrate in some magical future beautifully scaped longer and shallower tank. The idea does appeal to me. But for now I got what I got 😅


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Kitsune said:


> I have a Rotala wallichii in my low tech ... it's growing, very slowly, but it's growing.


Oooooh wallichii!! Now we have something interesting!! Tell me about your setup? Age, light, tank size, flow, parameters? Ferts? ♥

I really really don’t mind slow growth. My lobelia cardinalis is growing at half a snail’s pace. But it looks perfect. Twice the benefit, I don’t have to trim it!!! I don’t get it when people are like ‘but with CO2 your plants can grow five inches in a day!!!’ Like omg who wants that?!? 😂


----------



## Kitsune (9 mo ago)

Age is about half a year, plant is in there for 3 months and needed one month to start growing, it's a 30l Dennerle Cube with the Dennerle corner filter (plus the bio extension) on 75% speed without the spray bar, ferts is a few drops of Tropica Premium nutrition once a week and a dash of Tropica Specialized Nutrition every 2 weeks, plus a few crumbs of left over Root Sticks in the ground here and there. Light is a cheap 20 bucks chinese LED I found on Amazon. I would guess at most 600 - 700lm and that's already a stretch 
I tried baby tears for fun and they disintegrated within 1 month. 

Parameters? Honest answer? Don't know, never measured. Told you I'm ultra lazy when it comes to low tech ... this fox here only knows ultra engaged all-the-tech or meh-lazy 
I can measure them on the weekend if you want to.

With very slow I'm really talking about 1 inch a month. The Cabomba is growing waaaaay quicker.


----------



## Tessa (Dec 8, 2015)

This was years ago but pogostemon helferi grew really well in my large low tech tank - until an apple snail decided it was tasty and mowed it down 

Right now I have rotala indica bonsai in my low tech betta tank and it's doing okay. Slow growing but strong healthy plants.


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

eriocaulon cinereum, rotala wallichii, ludwigia cuba, ludwigia palustris, tonina fluviatilis, marsilea hirsuta, cuphea anagalloidea. 
I dont have pics of everything but here are a couple.

























these days the vase is horribly neglected and needs a good re set. ton of green water but no algae on plants, grows the cleanest plants ever.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Kitsune said:


> Age is about half a year, plant is in there for 3 months and needed one month to start growing, it's a 30l Dennerle Cube with the Dennerle corner filter (plus the bio extension) on 75% speed without the spray bar, ferts is a few drops of Tropica Premium nutrition once a week and a dash of Tropica Specialized Nutrition every 2 weeks, plus a few crumbs of left over Root Sticks in the ground here and there. Light is a cheap 20 bucks chinese LED I found on Amazon. I would guess at most 600 - 700lm and that's already a stretch
> I tried baby tears for fun and they disintegrated within 1 month.
> 
> Parameters? Honest answer? Don't know, never measured. Told you I'm ultra lazy when it comes to low tech ... this fox here only knows ultra engaged all-the-tech or meh-lazy
> ...


Well the cabomba is a cabomba. All the frillies are just explosive in growth. I think it doesn’t cost them much to pop out those fans of super skinny leaves. 

1 inch a month is totally cool if it’s looking good and not deteriorating in any way. My L cardinalis grows like that. I’m super happy with it. They can’t all be hornwort. 

I would like to know the parameters and see a pic if it’s not trouble? Also temperature? 

I got gifted some ‘hairy’ rotalas, Vietnam and orange juice I think, and they did NOT grow well for me.... they didn’t die, but they were definitely, as ☄ puts it, ‘Charlie Brown’s Christmas tree’ type growth. Tank was still really young then tho, no idea if that makes a difference.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Tessa said:


> This was years ago but pogostemon helferi grew really well in my large low tech tank - until an apple snail decided it was tasty and mowed it down
> 
> Right now I have rotala indica bonsai in my low tech betta tank and it's doing okay. Slow growing but strong healthy plants.


Oh man that’s the saddest when they end up as snacks 😑 glad to see your indica is going well. I still have hopes for mine. It’s a little bipolar, goes through spurts of enthusiastic growth and stunting.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

plantnoobdude said:


> eriocaulon cinereum, rotala wallichii, ludwigia cuba, ludwigia palustris, tonina fluviatilis, marsilea hirsuta, cuphea anagalloidea.
> I dont have pics of everything but here are a couple.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok now we’re talking ♥

May I know more about the vase specifics? No filtration? Is that an active substrate? Around two gallon? Water stats? Temp? To what do you attribute such great growth?

I see a lot of plants there are in rings, do you drop them in there to grow out? I want to know everything about this jar, this jar is low tech goalz ⭐


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

LidijaPN said:


> Ok now we’re talking ♥
> 
> May I know more about the vase specifics? No filtration? Is that an active substrate? Around two gallon? Water stats? Temp? To what do you attribute such great growth?
> 
> I see a lot of plants there are in rings, do you drop them in there to grow out? I want to know everything about this jar, this jar is low tech goalz ⭐


yep no filiter, active substrate yes, tropica soil. just under two gallons I think.

this was in tap water,
super high gh. high kh
not really much ferts that I remember, but plenty of ammonia leaking from substrate, ammonnium is a very good fertiliser. that's why people see huge growth spurts with new soil that gradually wear off.
temp, pretty low. in the UK without a heater.

now the the vase runs super softwater, ~30 tds. no remineraliser, no ferts just soil.
it grows rotala macrandra well, wallichii, cuphea, tonina, all that well. now it's just got a ton of green water algae but still has the plants. plants grow clean still, but poorer form due to being completely smothered by other plants. might do a reset soon.

I'm sure you've seen already, but check out sudipta's tanks if you wann, those are legendary.

those plants are just in ceramic rings to move easily. it lets me observe plants well and move them around. I still keep buce in these rings in my high tech.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

plantnoobdude said:


> yep no filiter, active substrate yes, tropica soil. just under two gallons I think.
> 
> this was in tap water,
> super high gh. high kh
> ...


Haha I’m actually doing the same thing with my AR while it’s converting so I don’t have to dig it up later. So they draw nutrients that the substrate releases into the water?

Yeah it was Sudipta’s thread here that made me think of all this. Feels like there is a lot more possible in low tech than people usually credit it with. Although Sudipta and you are both using active substrate so we could call it ☄’s ‘dinky +’, no CO2 but nutrients in the substrate. We did have a thread where the general conclusion was that it doesn’t matter if you feed plants through the water or through the substrate but maybe in these sorts of cases it does matter somewhat.

You seem to have the same approach, cool temp, not much fertilizer but active substrate. I can’t replicate the cool temp right now but I wonder if that’s part of the key, that it slows down the plant’s metabolism enough to let it grow ‘low and slow’ without stunting or dying in low CO2 conditions.

Also interesting that it worked for you regardless of kH and gH. Why would you say the soft water is growing algae? I really expected my jar to grow algae but nothing so far. I wonder if the super crappy light is protecting it.

What’s your light? Sudipta ran very strong light from what I remember.

Also did you have any plants that failed to thrive in those setups? If everything always grows for you, we have to consider the possibility that you’re just magic somehow 😂


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

LidijaPN said:


> which leads me to believe that it’s not just a matter of CO2, or poor light, because these two things have been constant throughout


You can't be sure that CO2 level is constant without controlled CO2 injection which maintains some constant level. For example, temperature affects plant grow rate and amount of CO2 in the water: higher temperature stimulates plants to grow faster, increasing CO2 demand, and simultaneously reduces CO2 solubility, decreasing amount of available CO2. Most people have heaters in their tanks, very few have coolers. Another issue is that typically in low tech tanks amount of CO2 is not enough in general, so plants compete with each other: one plant starting to grow faster means that others will get less. Water movement also affects amount of dissolved CO2. These are just the most obvious possible factors, for sure there are more of them.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Oso Polar said:


> You can't be sure that CO2 level is constant without controlled CO2 injection which maintains some constant level. For example, temperature affects plant grow rate and amount of CO2 in the water: higher temperature stimulates plants to grow faster, increasing CO2 demand, and simultaneously reduces CO2 solubility, decreasing amount of available CO2. Most people have heaters in their tanks, very few have coolers. Another issue is that typically in low tech tanks amount of CO2 is not enough in general, so plants compete with each other: one plant starting to grow faster means that others will get less. Water movement also affects amount of dissolved CO2. These are just the most obvious possible factors, for sure there are more of them.


Yep I’m definitely starting to think that lower temperatures are hugely helpful to growing low tech plants.

For my personal tank the temp has also been pretty steady from the start, at 25C. I don’t heat it to that, that’s what my room temperature is at. Plant competition could be an issue since they are a little crowded in there.... flow has been more or less the same from the start.

What’s the most advanced plant you’ve grown in low tech?


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

LidijaPN said:


> Haha I’m actually doing the same thing with my AR while it’s converting so I don’t have to dig it up later. So they draw nutrients that the substrate releases into the water?


well, they do eventually grow roots that make their way into the substrate so I'd say both.



LidijaPN said:


> Although Sudipta and you are both using active substrate so we could call it ☄’s ‘dinky +’, no CO2 but nutrients in the substrate.


slightly related, but in my high tech. I have several species that do worse in soil. cuphea annagaloidea (this one is a supposed root feeder.), rotala macrandra, do better in sand...



LidijaPN said:


> We did have a thread where the general conclusion was that it doesn’t matter if you feed plants through the water or through the substrate but maybe in these sorts of cases it does matter somewhat.


well, my current stance on this has to do with plant nutrient regulation in plant leaf, vs roots.
it is quite obvious that plant roots are very good at regulating nutrient uptake, this can help mitigate toxicity of nutrients.
many hobbyists dont think twice about adding root tabs that contain serveral thousand ppm of iron, nitrogen, whatever. roots are in *DIRECT *contact with this. yet you can have no stunting in such scenario. try and touch similar levels in the collumn? well, then you will have catastrophic issues, stunting, toxicity, nutrient lockout the whole thing. the leaf has much less autonomy to regulate nutrient absorption. now, this might seem as a bad thing, but this should also mean that plants can uptake nutrients with much less 'resistance'. so, if you are able to dose nutrients in very good ratio at how much your tank needs, then it is a great thing to have leaf feeding. if you don't have the time to maintain collum values? lean collumn, rich substrate very few plants will have an issue.



LidijaPN said:


> Why would you say the soft water is growing algae?


nothing to do with it to be honest, my high tech soft water and is pretty much algae free. prolly just new soil, and too little plant mass.



LidijaPN said:


> I wonder if that’s part of the key, that it slows down the plant’s metabolism enough to let it grow ‘low and slow’ without stunting or dying in low CO2 conditions.


High temps (within aquarium ranges) increase plant metabolism with enzyme activity and what not. lower will do the opposite. in turn reduces lower co2 demand, nutrient uptake and such. its easier to keep the tank stable. lower temps also allow more co2 to be diffused in to the collumn.



LidijaPN said:


> Also interesting that it worked for you regardless of kH and gH


I'd say this is to do with ammonia based fertiliser. I seriously doubt anyone could achieve the same result with inert substrate and no3 dosing.



LidijaPN said:


> What’s your light? Sudipta ran very strong light from what I remember.


it varied from high to low, only thing that changed was growth speed and colour mostly. I used mostly Led, some aquarium, and ikea lamp, sometimes supplimented with nice amount of sunlight.

anyway, enough talk about the optimal feeding of aquatic plants, time to have some pizza.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

plantnoobdude said:


> well, they do eventually grow roots that make their way into the substrate so I'd say both.
> 
> 
> slightly related, but in my high tech. I have several species that do worse in soil. cuphea annagaloidea (this one is a supposed root feeder.), rotala macrandra, do better in sand...
> ...


On to optimal feeding of aquarists 😂


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Another thing I wonder about is people’s experiences with the same plant in low vs high tech. Like I always thought my tank wouldn’t be able to grow AR or AR mini because every time I saw a post about AR it was a curled algae covered mess and ‘help!!! My AR is dying!’ So I thought man it’s tough even for the high tech people, I’ve got no hope. 

Anyway two different people ended gifting me AR cuttings regular AR emersed on the one side, and tank grown AR mini on the other. Both haven’t been with me more than a month but seem to be doing really well so far. Maybe they’re not as radioactively magenta as they’d be in a high tech tank, but they’re clean and growing...

So I was wondering, since AR grows kinda slow for a stem, and is prone to getting algae-smothered, is it perhaps easier to keep it steady in a low tech setup which is less likely to struggle with massive algae outbreaks?


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

"Looking good enough to be happy with it" is going to be different for everyone. Right now, with my freshly replanted tank, I can say all of the following things:

My Ludwigia Super Red has discoloration in the flesh between the veins on new growth. It's growing fast, but doesn't look as good as it could. I'm not happy with it.

My Barclaya Longifolia is throwing off new leaves every day, but there is some curling of the lead edges. I'm not happy with it.

My Homalomena Silver has some brown discoloration forming on the edges of the leaves, which doesn't really match any of the "known" deficiencies. I'm not happy with it.

My HC Cuba has never grown very deep roots, and floats out of the substrate whenever it gets more than a half inch or so thick. I'm not happy with it.

My Anubius has always grown algae on older leaves, but the new ones look amazing. I'm not happy with it.

See what I mean? Only you can say if you're happy with how something looks.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jellopuddinpop said:


> "Looking good enough to be happy with it" is going to be different for everyone. Right now, with my freshly replanted tank, I can say all of the following things:
> 
> My Ludwigia Super Red has discoloration in the flesh between the veins on new growth. It's growing fast, but doesn't look as good as it could. I'm not happy with it.
> 
> ...


Yep, and that is totally fine. We’re all different and looking for different things.

If you’re worried about imprecision in information exchange, you can post pics like people above... then everyone makes up their own mind about what’s ‘good enough’.

So what’s the most difficult plant you’ve grown in low tech and were still happy with how it looked? 😊


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

LidijaPN said:


> Yep, and that is totally fine. We’re all different and looking for different things.
> 
> If you’re worried about imprecision in information exchange, you can post pics like people above... then everyone makes up their own mind about what’s ‘good enough’.
> 
> So what’s the most difficult plant you’ve grown in low tech and were still happy with how it looked? 😊


I've never had a low tech tank with plants in it. I tried it, and started running CO2 within the first 6 months because the plants didn't look as healthy as they should.

The last freshwater tank I had with no CO2 was a 90g Cichlid tank where I intentionally grew algae on the rocks for the cichlids to pick on. I used rock that would typically be found in a saltwater tank to create a reef-like look to it. That was an awesome tank with really colorful fish, but not a planted tank.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jellopuddinpop said:


> I've never had a low tech tank with plants in it. I tried it, and started running CO2 within the first 6 months because the plants didn't look as healthy as they should.
> 
> The last freshwater tank I had with no CO2 was a 90g Cichlid tank where I intentionally grew algae on the rocks for the cichlids to pick on. I used rock that would typically be found in a saltwater tank to create a reef-like look to it. That was an awesome tank with really colorful fish, but not a planted tank.


....but the algae looked good at least? Cool cool  That’s something!


----------



## Blackheart (Jul 5, 2011)

Amazon Swords. Back when I first had my tank setup, I had a huge ruffled amazon sword. I used to dose Seachem Iron and Flourish and it used to grow really good and large. It would sprout new leaves at least 2 or 3 times a week! After I tore my tank down during a move, I reset it up later with some different swords. Well, I don't really dose anymore and they just kind of sit there. It's quite small compared to the one I used to have. They do sprout new leaves, but definitely not weekly.

Other then that, everything else grows regardless of whether I dose or not. Obviously they just grow better.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

I'm kinda in the same camp as @jellopuddinpop where I usually went for the big guns (co2) pretty quickly. I did search the Asteroid Archives (which is pretty extensive) and found this setup without co2. I dosed EI and Excel on this one. So you have Rotala R and Riccia.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

Going back to the original question; how can i say what is the most difficult plant growing in my low tech tank? I mean if it grows it isn't difficult; and if it doesn't grow then it is difficult 
--
You've seen these pictures before but as a reminder three low tank. The first two have been setup for around 33 months and the last a bit over a year so all are fairly stable with steady growth.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jake21 said:


> Going back to the original question; how can i say what is the most difficult plant growing in my low tech tank? I mean if it grows it isn't difficult; and if it doesn't grow then it is difficult
> --
> You've seen these pictures before but as a reminder three low tank. The first two have been setup for around 33 months and the last a bit over a year so all are fairly stable with steady growth.
> 
> ...


I really love those top two tanks 🤩

Hahaha true, if it grows it’s not difficult for you I guess... but, like, there are plants where people tell you ‘oh that won’t grow without CO2’ and then you randomly try and it does. Weirdly someone from a lfs insisted limno sessiliflora won’t grow without CO2..... lololol. That thing would grow in the toilet bowl I think.

Is that bolbitis third pic bottom right?


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> I'm kinda in the same camp as @jellopuddinpop where I usually went for the big guns (co2) pretty quickly. I did search the Asteroid Archives (which is pretty extensive) and found this setup without co2. I dosed EI and Excel on this one. So you have Rotala R and Riccia.


That’s a really nice arrangement ♥ Riccia looking pretty lush AND staying attached, aw yeah. Do you know what the temperature was in that tank? Any inhabitants?


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Blackheart said:


> Amazon Swords. Back when I first had my tank setup, I had a huge ruffled amazon sword. I used to dose Seachem Iron and Flourish and it used to grow really good and large. It would sprout new leaves at least 2 or 3 times a week! After I tore my tank down during a move, I reset it up later with some different swords. Well, I don't really dose anymore and they just kind of sit there. It's quite small compared to the one I used to have. They do sprout new leaves, but definitely not weekly.
> 
> Other then that, everything else grows regardless of whether I dose or not. Obviously they just grow better.


Yeah swords are really gluttonous. Mine are always hungry.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> That’s a really nice arrangement ♥ Riccia looking pretty lush AND staying attached, aw yeah. Do you know what the temperature was in that tank? Any inhabitants?


Thanks, this was a along time ago, so back then I was following all the rules and using a heater so I'm sure it was between 75-78. I found some other pics and had guppies and shrimp, snails in there. I also had changed the layout from a full riccia carpet. So I guess I was happy with the way the Riccia looked, although it still looks nicer IMO with co2, but that comes with a downside too. You'll never guess what it though.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Thanks, this was a along time ago, so back then I was following all the rules and using a heater so I'm sure it was between 75-78. I found some other pics and had guppies and shrimp, snails in there. I also had changed the layout from a full riccia carpet. So I guess I was happy with the way the Riccia looked, although it still looks nicer IMO with co2, but that comes with a downside too. You'll never guess what it though.


OOoh I’m curious now about the mystery downside!! Looks just TOO darn good? 😂

I know that riccia when super lush/thick tends to shadow out its own roots and they die and it detaches and floats to the top... which I’d find infuriating... did you have a different mystery downside in mind? ⭐


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

riccia is an absolute weed in high tech. to the point that for many people its seen as a pest!


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

I think you are talking about the Hygrophila Pinnatifida; but there are several plants bottom right.



LidijaPN said:


> Is that bolbitis third pic bottom right?


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jake21 said:


> I think you are talking about the Hygrophila Pinnatifida; but there are several plants bottom right.


oooh it's pinnatifida? Is that a small tank or a large pinnatifida? I had the feeling they were usually smaller.... and usually attached to wood or stone like epiphytes? That one seems to be growing from the substrate? Can they go both ways?


----------



## Kitsune (9 mo ago)

LidijaPN said:


> oooh it's pinnatifida? Is that a small tank or a large pinnatifida? I had the feeling they were usually smaller.... and usually attached to wood or stone like epiphytes? That one seems to be growing from the substrate? Can they go both ways?


Small? Mine were like 20cm (8") when I got them, they grow up to 40cm (16") 
Can be put in ground, on wood, on stone, even emersed! Extremely versatile plant.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Kitsune said:


> Small? Mine were like 20cm (8") when I got them, they grow up to 40cm (16")
> Can be put in ground, on wood, on stone, even emersed! Extremely versatile plant.


Oh wow!! Had no idea they got so massive!!


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

LidijaPN said:


> oooh it's pinnatifida? Is that a small tank or a large pinnatifida? I had the feeling they were usually smaller.... and usually attached to wood or stone like epiphytes? That one seems to be growing from the substrate? Can they go both ways?


Hygrophilia Pinnatifada can get enormous. I just updated my journal last week, and you can see mine in the back right corner. I took out a full paper grocery bag full.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jellopuddinpop said:


> Hygrophilia Pinnatifada can get enormous. I just updated my journal last week, and you can see mine in the back right corner. I took out a full paper grocery bag full.


That sounds overwhelming 😳 Thank god I don’t have CO2 so mine will probably stay reasonable 😂


----------



## Kitsune (9 mo ago)

It will grow slower, but most likely not smaller.  
I have the feeling in low light it grows not as wide, though. Beautiful plants, I really really like them.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Kitsune said:


> It will grow slower, but most likely not smaller.
> I have the feeling in low light it grows not as wide, though. Beautiful plants, I really really like them.


So many people have called them monsters and said they hated their fast spread and sticky roots hahah. But I find it really cute yeah. Mine is still just a tiny baby cutting.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

They can be planted; the tank is small (5 gallon) but in my 40B they are easily 16 inches high.



LidijaPN said:


> oooh it's pinnatifida? Is that a small tank or a large pinnatifida? I had the feeling they were usually smaller.... and usually attached to wood or stone like epiphytes? That one seems to be growing from the substrate? Can they go both ways?


----------



## Jaguar (Oct 13, 2011)

Kitsune said:


> Small? Mine were like 20cm (8") when I got them, they grow up to 40cm (16")
> Can be put in ground, on wood, on stone, even emersed! Extremely versatile plant.












Here's a cutting of mine pushing 14" 
I don't grow anything fancy in general, most difficult thing I've got in low tech is probably stuff like myrio or rotala wallichii because the fine leaves collect organic waste and grow algae so easily.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Jaguar said:


> View attachment 1041903
> 
> 
> Here's a cutting of mine pushing 14"
> I don't grow anything fancy in general, most difficult thing I've got in low tech is probably stuff like myrio or rotala wallichii because the fine leaves collect organic waste and grow algae so easily.


Oh wow that’s a big boy hygro ⭐


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> OOoh I’m curious now about the mystery downside!! Looks just TOO darn good? 😂
> 
> I know that riccia when super lush/thick tends to shadow out its own roots and they die and it detaches and floats to the top... which I’d find infuriating... did you have a different mystery downside in mind? ⭐


Before ADA was a household name, Amano came out out with a series of books called Nature Aquarium World. The books features aquariums with live plants as no one had ever seen them before. It was pure eye candy and one of the most featured plants was submersed riccia. As you know from the other thread it was Amano that introduced pressurized co2 to planted tanks and the benefits of course was lush growth, but with that came alot of pearling. Well riccia is a prolific pearler. If your running co2 and your riccia isn't pearling something is wrong. 

Anyway the attached pearling in hi-tech lifts the riccia from the stone and it's more likely to float to the surface than in low-tech. So as is the case in this hobby somethings that make good eye candy aren't necessarily easy or practical to do long-term. So there you have it, some history and a low tech advantage, assuming you could get submersed riccia to grow well in low-tech.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Before ADA was a household name, Amano came out out with a series of books called Nature Aquarium World. The books features aquariums with live plants as no one had ever seen them before. It was pure eye candy and one of the most featured plants was submersed riccia. As you know from the other thread it was Amano that introduced pressurized co2 to planted tanks and the benefits of course was lush growth, but with that came alot of pearling. Well riccia is a prolific pearler. If your running co2 and your riccia isn't pearling something is wrong.
> 
> Anyway the attached pearling in hi-tech lifts the riccia from the stone and it's more likely to float to the surface than in low-tech. So as is the case in this hobby somethings that make good eye candy aren't necessarily easy or practical to do long-term. So there you have it, some history and a low tech advantage, assuming you could get submersed riccia to grow well in low-tech.


Wow we’re racking up those low tech advantages ⭐⭐⭐ Very cool, thanks for sharing that ♥


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> Wow we’re racking up those low tech advantages ⭐⭐⭐ Very cool, thanks for sharing that ♥


Sure

Personal side note, I still remember I was on a business trip and had some time to kill so I went into a Barnes & Noble and started reading the Nature World Books. It got me hooked and I've been in the hobby every since.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Sure
> 
> Personal side note, I still remember I was on a business trip and had some time to kill so I went into a Barnes & Noble and started reading the Nature World Books. It got me hooked and I've been in the hobby every since.


I understand it was quite the game changer at the time. It’s funny how one guy’s idea of what a perfect tank looks like has transformed into, like, practically everyone’s idea of what the perfect tank looks like.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> I understand it was quite the game changer at the time. It’s funny how one guy’s idea of what a perfect tank looks like has transformed into, like, practically everyone’s idea of what the perfect tank looks like.


Yeah, I've spoken with many in the hobby that state same thing I did. It was really eye candy if you've seen the books and Amano's background was in photography so the combination of the two resulted in some amazing images. The hobby has grown tremendously since his books and aquascapes have accomplished some crazy stuff, again with very good photography and of course co2.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Yeah, I've spoken with many in the hobby that state same thing I did. It was really eye candy if you've seen the books and Amano's background was in photography so the combination of the two resulted in some amazing images. The hobby has grown tremendously since his books and aquascapes have accomplished some crazy stuff, again with very good photography and of course co2.


Just when I start to think I actually really like you, you have to throw in that word again 😂


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> Just when I start to think I actually really like you, you have to throw in that word again 😂


Sorrrrrrry LOL. A tank I did not long after reading his books around 15-17 years ago:


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Sorrrrrrry LOL. A tank I did not long after reading his books around 15-17 years ago:


That is very beautiful. Are those white cloud minnows?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

LidijaPN said:


> That is very beautiful. Are those white cloud minnows?


Thanks, those are actually Gold Tetras. If you don't know the story the gold coloring is actually caused by an enzyme in a layer of it's skin that protects it against a parasite that it's very prone to. It gives it a gold dust appearance. I don't know if this fish is still sold, but from what I understand the gold coloring only appears in wild caught ones.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Asteroid said:


> Thanks, those are actually Gold Tetras. If you don't know the story the gold coloring is actually caused by an enzyme in a layer of it's skin that protects it against a parasite that it's very prone to. It gives it a gold dust appearance. I don't know if this fish is still sold, but from what I understand the gold coloring only appears in wild caught ones.


Oh yeah I think I heard of those- if you breed them the babies come out silver, not gold?


----------



## Johntheskier (Feb 7, 2020)

LidijaPN said:


> The idea does appeal to me. But for now I got what I got


That is a great outlook to have in a hobby that can be a bottomless abyss of money.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

LidijaPN said:


> Oh yeah I think I heard of those- if you breed them the babies come out silver, not gold?


Yes the gold part is not natural but an enzyme they absorb from their native habitat.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Johntheskier said:


> That is a great outlook to have in a hobby that can be a bottomless abyss of money.


I find it to be a bottomless abyss of money anyway 😂 I don’t know how the fancy setup people keep up 😅


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jake21 said:


> Yes the gold part is not natural but an enzyme they absorb from their native habitat.


Sort of like poison dart frogs aren’t poisonous when you keep them at home!


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

LidijaPN said:


> Sort of like poison dart frogs aren’t poisonous when you keep them at home!


Drat - i was going to get some for my annoying sister but now i guess it would be pointless.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jake21 said:


> Drat - i was going to get some for my annoying sister but now i guess it would be pointless.


Yeah bummer. It would be such a stylish murder.


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

LidijaPN said:


> I find it to be a bottomless abyss of money anyway 😂 I don’t know how the fancy setup people keep up 😅


I rationalize it by taking a look at the overall expense for the year, and what I'm missing out on by spending free money on that.

I've mentioned it before, but I have a very high pressure, high intensity job. I haven't been able to take a good, relaxing vacation in well over 10 years, so now I take my vacation time a few days here and a few days there throughout the year. I rationalize that the money I spend on my tank is normally the slush fund that people use to go on vacation. I don't take vacations, so I spoil myself with a planted tank instead.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jellopuddinpop said:


> I rationalize it by taking a look at the overall expense for the year, and what I'm missing out on by spending free money on that.
> 
> I've mentioned it before, but I have a very high pressure, high intensity job. I haven't been able to take a good, relaxing vacation in well over 10 years, so now I take my vacation time a few days here and a few days there throughout the year. I rationalize that the money I spend on my tank is normally the slush fund that people use to go on vacation. I don't take vacations, so I spoil myself with a planted tank instead.


That definitely makes sense. I think a lot of people use tanks to soothe their frayed nerves.


----------



## CGY_Betta_Guy (Jul 26, 2010)

in that case I should have 100+ tanks then.....


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

CGY_Betta_Guy said:


> in that case I should have 100+ tanks then.....


Never too late 😂


----------



## Johntheskier (Feb 7, 2020)

I justify it as money that I'm not spending in a bar. And the time I justify as time that I'm not watching sports on TV. My family is very supportive of my fish habit because of those reasons. And of course because the "fishies" are really pretty!


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

LidijaPN said:


> What’s the most advanced plant you’ve grown in low tech?


How do I know it is "advanced"? It either grows or it doesn't. 🤣 Micranthemum tweediei (Monte Carlo), I guess? It grows, but quite slow. Or may be Rotala rotundiifolia or Pogostemon stellatus - both of these grow like weeds. At the same time some plants that are supposed to be easier just don't grow in my tanks at all, e.g. Java fern or Vallisneria - probably they vastly prefer water with more than 2 dGH. If someone knows soft water red(-ish) plants from Asia that have a chance to grow under medium light without CO2 - I'm all ears.  Except for Cryptocoryne wendtii and Rotala rotundiifolia. I've tried Rotala wallichii and Hygrophila pinnatifida few years back but didn't have success with them. But back then I had even softer water, may be should try again...


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

Oso Polar said:


> How do I know it is "advanced"? It either grows or it doesn't. 🤣 Micranthemum tweediei (Monte Carlo), I guess? It grows, but quite slow. Or may be Rotala rotundiifolia or Pogostemon stellatus - both of these grow like weeds. At the same time some plants that are supposed to be easier just don't grow in my tanks at all, e.g. Java fern or Vallisneria - probably they vastly prefer water with more than 2 dGH. If someone knows soft water red(-ish) plants from Asia that have a chance to grow under medium light without CO2 - I'm all ears.  Except for Cryptocoryne wendtii and Rotala rotundiifolia. I've tried Rotala wallichii and Hygrophila pinnatifida few years back but didn't have success with them. But back then I had even softer water, may be should try again...


you might try barclaya longifolia or some of the dwarf lily.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Oso Polar said:


> How do I know it is "advanced"? It either grows or it doesn't. 🤣 Micranthemum tweediei (Monte Carlo), I guess? It grows, but quite slow. Or may be Rotala rotundiifolia or Pogostemon stellatus - both of these grow like weeds. At the same time some plants that are supposed to be easier just don't grow in my tanks at all, e.g. Java fern or Vallisneria - probably they vastly prefer water with more than 2 dGH. If someone knows soft water red(-ish) plants from Asia that have a chance to grow under medium light without CO2 - I'm all ears.  Except for Cryptocoryne wendtii and Rotala rotundiifolia. I've tried Rotala wallichii and Hygrophila pinnatifida few years back but didn't have success with them. But back then I had even softer water, may be should try again...


Yap, red tiger lotus is doing good for me, as well as althernathera reineckii. I also got some baby crypt crispatula tonkinensis which can come out very purple, we’ll see if it does. There are also red swords that might work? But I don’t have them personally. Like melon sword etc.

My ludwigia meta is very freaked out right now but I’m still holding out hope it will readjust.

I sort of thought most plants liked lower kH? Val hates it? Maybe that’s why my red val is melting.......

Monte Carlo is definitely a big win in low tech.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

My kh is 3 and val grows like crazy:


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

jake21 said:


> My kh is 3 and val grows like crazy:
> View attachment 1042180


So NOT a kH issue then.... 😂

I wonder if there are arcane connections I just don’t know about, like ‘if kH is under 3, it needs such and such amount of calcium....’ or ‘if light is this strength AND kH is low, it uses more micronutrients’ 

Because for literally every ‘rule’ there’s someone who can show you a tank successfully doing the opposite....


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

LidijaPN said:


> I sort of thought most plants liked lower kH? Val hates it? Maybe that’s why my red val is melting.......


I think you are confusing low KH and low GH. AFAIK most plants prefer low KH but they need a reasonable GH (=Ca + Mg) to grow well. In theory there can be lots of Ca and Mg in the ground, so rooted plants can get these elements just from substrate, not from water, but I don't think this works in practice in our tanks - if substrate is full of Mg and Ca then they start to dissolve into the water and GH increases. With 1 dGH (and neutral substrate) even Rotala struggles. I'm preparing water from RO and experimenting a lot with ultra low KH and GH (originally started for chocolate gouramis, now more out of curiosity). Currently in my main tank dKH=0.25, dGH=2.55. Red tiger lotus grows great with root tabs.

PS. I also use Excel which AFAIK Vallisneria doesn't like much.


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

Oso Polar said:


> I think you are confusing low KH and low GH. AFAIK most plants prefer low KH but they need a reasonable GH (=Ca + Mg) to grow well. In theory there can be lots of Ca and Mg in the ground, so rooted plants can get these elements just from substrate, not from water, but I don't think this works in practice in our tanks - if substrate is full of Mg and Ca then they start to dissolve into the water and GH increases. With 1 dGH (and neutral substrate) even Rotala struggles. I'm preparing water from RO and experimenting a lot with ultra low KH and GH (originally started for chocolate gouramis, now more out of curiosity). Currently in my main tank dKH=0.25, dGH=2.55. Red tiger lotus grows great with root tabs.
> 
> PS. I also use Excel which AFAIK Vallisneria doesn't like much.


what is the dosage of micros in these tanks?
I believe the reason people see the need for that much ca/mg is because of it's antagonistic relationship with micros, as per mulders chart below.
*





More reasons for soil testing


Improper pH and higher than adequate nutrient levels are reasons for regular soil testing.




www.canr.msu.edu




*








I know people that have had tanks at ~0.5gh 0kh and the best plants you've ever seen, ludwigia, ammannia, pantanal, rotala you name it. The Ca "deficiency" may just be nutrient blockage and or micro nutrient toxicity.

my main tank is currently at 7ppm Ca, 3ppm Mg. something like 1-2gh I guess.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

I'll find out next year when i setup my low ph tank for some not common species of apisto; kh will be sub 1 to achieve stable ph between 4.5 and 5.5 and i suspect gh will run around 1.


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

jake21 said:


> I'll find out next year when i setup my low ph tank for some not common species of apisto; kh will be sub 1 to achieve stable ph between 4.5 and 5.5 and i suspect gh will run around 1.


why not go for a kh of 0?


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

plantnoobdude said:


> what is the dosage of micros in these tanks?


In ppm, weekly:
B 0.007659
Ca 0.061615
Cl 0.506123
Co 0.000216
Cu 0.004271
Fe 0.140834
K 0.135113
K2O 0.16284
Mg 0.048412
Mn 0.01642
Mo 0.000792
N 0.030808
Na 0.057214
Ni 0.000004
NO3 0.135553
P 0.001936
P2O5 0.004401
PO4 0.005721
Rb 0.000011
S 0.122042
V 0.000003
Zn 0.02263

This above is from the mix of Flourish + Flourish Trace though in practice I divide it in 7 and dose micros daily, not weekly. Just listed weekly dose because this seem to be more common.

And the main water used for water changes:
NO3 4.03
PO4 1.34
K 4.03
Ca 10
Mg 5
S 13.56

Ca 10 + Mg 5 = dGH 2.55

Water change - 50% weekly, probably even slightly more.



plantnoobdude said:


> I know people that have had tanks at ~0.5gh 0kh and the best plants you've ever seen, ludwigia, ammannia, pantanal, rotala you name it. The Ca "deficiency" may just be nutrient blockage and or micro nutrient toxicity.


I seriously doubt micro nutrient toxicity theory. Nutrient blockage - quite possible at such low levels of nutrients, I guess, that's why I'm experimenting a bit with Ca:Mg:K ratio.  Didn't see much change though until I increased water hardness. Plants didn't like water below 2 dGH except for some heavy root feeders which didn't care (red tiger lotus, some crypts) and, mysteriously, subwassertang, which grew crazy fast. For others it was usually a recipe for growing dwarf varieties of plants.  Or plants that were just sitting there - not dying, but not growing either. Necrosis and white leaves for some others. This is going from 0.5 dGH gradually to 2 dGH. I have slightly more now but I don't see difference anymore with my plants.

Are these tanks you refer to used CO2 (or used continuous water change - which is pretty much the same in effect)? CO2 somehow makes it easier for the plants to consume everything else.



plantnoobdude said:


> my main tank is currently at 7ppm Ca, 3ppm Mg. something like 1-2gh I guess.


1.67 dGH.


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

plantnoobdude said:


> why not go for a kh of 0?


Same question. I add a bit of KH to get 0.25 dKH just to feel better that it is not zero but water is FAR from pH 4.5-5.5, it is > 6, I didn't measure it in quite some time. AFAIR it was something like 6.4 or so. You'll not get such low pH without CO2 injection or some acidic buffer (e.g. peat). But peat will bring your kH to zero, so what's the point of adding it?


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

plantnoobdude said:


> why not go for a kh of 0?


Well kh below 1 include the option of 0 - i'll probably go 9:1 ro/tap which would leave a kh around .3 for stability but i might just use pure ro water.


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

Oso Polar said:


> I seriously doubt micro nutrient toxicity theory. Nutrient blockage - quite possible at such low levels of nutrients, I guess, that's why I'm experimenting a bit with Ca:Mg:K ratio.  Didn't see much change though until I increased water hardness. Plants didn't like water below 2 dGH except for some heavy root feeders which didn't care (red tiger lotus, some crypts) and, mysteriously, subwassertang, which grew crazy fast. For others it was usually a recipe for growing dwarf varieties of plants.  Or plants that were just sitting there - not dying, but not growing either. Necrosis and white leaves for some others. This is going from 0.5 dGH gradually to 2 dGH. I have slightly more now but I don't see difference anymore with my plants.


well, I believe toxicity+nutrient blockage is happening at the same time in all our aquariums. whether you see the effects or not is dependant to your tank values. for example in a EI dosed tank with high gh 1-2ppm Fe from csm+b might not be an issue, but try that kind of dose in my tank? things would crash! 
The needs for Ca/Mg are quite low in our tanks, 
see this chart based off of the critical concentration based of off elodea nuttalli (diana walstad)








so roughly 3ppm Ca for every 16ppm N (70ppm No3)
1.5ppm Ca for 35ppm No3
0.75ppm Ca needed for 18ppm No3
which is why I believe what you're seeing is toxicity. the increased amount of Ca/Mg inhibits uptake of micros at toxic levels.



Oso Polar said:


> Are these tanks you refer to used CO2 (or used continuous water change - which is pretty much the same in effect)? CO2 somehow makes it easier for the plants to consume everything else.


yes, they used co2. but not continuous water changes, in fact very few water changes.

Happi-singh
some pics if you want.



jake21 said:


> for stability


stability of what? any peat you have will rapidly absorb 0.3 Kh anyways.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Oso Polar said:


> I think you are confusing low KH and low GH. AFAIK most plants prefer low KH but they need a reasonable GH (=Ca + Mg) to grow well. In theory there can be lots of Ca and Mg in the ground, so rooted plants can get these elements just from substrate, not from water, but I don't think this works in practice in our tanks - if substrate is full of Mg and Ca then they start to dissolve into the water and GH increases. With 1 dGH (and neutral substrate) even Rotala struggles. I'm preparing water from RO and experimenting a lot with ultra low KH and GH (originally started for chocolate gouramis, now more out of curiosity). Currently in my main tank dKH=0.25, dGH=2.55. Red tiger lotus grows great with root tabs.
> 
> PS. I also use Excel which AFAIK Vallisneria doesn't like much.


Hmmm I’m definitely still trying to work these things out. My gH is just under 7 for my shrimp and snails so I doubt that’s what the plants are missing... 

Someone told me that low kH can be problematic in a low tech heavily planted tank, because plants can use the kH in a pinch as a source of carbon.... not sure if that’s a theory worth experimenting with.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

plantnoobdude said:


> what is the dosage of micros in these tanks?
> I believe the reason people see the need for that much ca/mg is because of it's antagonistic relationship with micros, as per mulders chart below.
> *
> 
> ...


How does one use this table in practice? Looks super interesting but I wouldn’t know where to begin....


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

LidijaPN said:


> How does one use this table in practice? Looks super interesting but I wouldn’t know where to begin....


this post by @MoreliaViridis describes how I use it. It might not always work, as nutrients interact differently in water vs soil, but it is useful.








120L(32gal) plant torture tank


Emerse waterboarding tank R. macrandra bangladesh and R. indica transitioning nicely Elatine triandra Pretty cute Cuphea red cross doing absolutely well at 0 ferts Almost no leaf twisting no stunting. And I do nothing here. I've grown them that nice only once in 120L. Very difficult plant...




www.plantedtank.net


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

plantnoobdude said:


> for example in a EI dosed tank with high gh 1-2ppm Fe from csm+b might not be an issue, but try that kind of dose in my tank? things would crash!


Not because of *toxicity* of Fe though - because of its competition with other ions in lean environment. Real toxicity for plants IMHO is a big myth - all invertebrates and fish will be dead long before plants.



plantnoobdude said:


> 0.75ppm Ca needed for 18ppm No3
> which is why I believe what you're seeing is toxicity. the increased amount of Ca/Mg inhibits uptake of micros at toxic levels.


Well, going by this logic plants should have grown better at 0.5 dGH? I assure you, they didn't. None of them did. 2 dGH was universally better (or not worse) than 0.5, micros stayed the same all the time.



plantnoobdude said:


> yes, they used co2. but not continuous water changes, in fact very few water changes.


Yeah, CO2 is a thing! I just mentioned continuous water changes because fresh water also brings CO2 with it.
For some time I lived in quite a hot place (Dominican Republic) without AC, so water stayed quite hot always, at least 26 C (~79F) and higher - usually higher. CO2 alone made a difference between plants dying and happily growing.


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

LidijaPN said:


> Hmmm I’m definitely still trying to work these things out. My gH is just under 7 for my shrimp and snails so I doubt that’s what the plants are missing...


GH - water hardness, Ca + Mg. Critical elements required by plants as well as animals, different ones prefer different levels of it but for most plants - bigger is better (within reasonable bounds). Not so for animals, each one has its own optimal range. Many can adapt with slow change but fast water hardness change can kill fish (shrimp etc.) because it disrupts osmotic balance.



LidijaPN said:


> Someone told me that low kH can be problematic in a low tech heavily planted tank, because plants can use the kH in a pinch as a source of carbon.... not sure if that’s a theory worth experimenting with.


KH - alkalinity/acidity, it affects pH. In a tank with zero KH pH will fluctuate more, for example, as you describe "plants can use the kH in a pinch as a source of carbon" and pH will temporarily drop somewhat. Now, who cares about some pH drop? May be some African fish or shrimp from high KH/high GH water will care, I've no experience with them - but they'll not have zero KH in their tank in the first place. Plants seem to grow better with low KH. Typical fish seem to not care about small pH fluctuations in the acidic range and even then pH can be maintained stable without KH - by buffering substrate, driftwood, peat etc. And IMHO pH fluctuations will be way bigger in high tech tank with massive CO2 injection during the day and zero CO2 at night. Still, people do it, seemingly without bad consequences.


----------



## MoreliaViridis (May 19, 2021)

Sticking to ratios can definitely work. 
But I find following ratio is unnecessarily restrictive or often times just don't work at all.

I know my tank does not work if I follow marschner ratios....GSA and white tips everywhere.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Oso Polar said:


> GH - water hardness, Ca + Mg. Critical elements required by plants as well as animals, different ones prefer different levels of it but for most plants - bigger is better (within reasonable bounds). Not so for animals, each one has its own optimal range. Many can adapt with slow change but fast water hardness change can kill fish (shrimp etc.) because it disrupts osmotic balance.
> 
> 
> KH - alkalinity/acidity, it affects pH. In a tank with zero KH pH will fluctuate more, for example, as you describe "plants can use the kH in a pinch as a source of carbon" and pH will temporarily drop somewhat. Now, who cares about some pH drop? May be some African fish or shrimp from high KH/high GH water will care, I've no experience with them - but they'll not have zero KH in their tank in the first place. Plants seem to grow better with low KH. Typical fish seem to not care about small pH fluctuations in the acidic range and even then pH can be maintained stable without KH - by buffering substrate, driftwood, peat etc. And IMHO pH fluctuations will be way bigger in high tech tank with massive CO2 injection during the day and zero CO2 at night. Still, people do it, seemingly without bad consequences.


Maybe I haven't explained my questions right.....

Re gH - yeah, what I meant was my gH is almost 7 so I doubt my plants are missing any Ca or Mg.... gH of 7 should cover it for any possible plant needs, right?

Re kH - yeah, my worry is not that pH will fluctuate. The person was saying more kH would be better in a crowded tank because if the plants have depleted all the CO2 that's naturally in there, since no additional CO2 is being added, they can, if they need to, use the kH to give themselves a bit of extra CO2.... but if there is no kH to begin with, they can't do that...? That was the claim.


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

MoreliaViridis said:


> Sticking to ratios can definitely work.
> But I find following ratio is unnecessarily restrictive or often times just don't work at all.
> 
> I know my tank does not work if I follow marschner ratios....GSA and white tips everywhere.


How did you come up with your fert regimes, just through trial and error? What was your starting point?


----------



## Oso Polar (Apr 22, 2015)

LidijaPN said:


> gH of 7 should cover it for any possible plant needs, right?


I believe so.



LidijaPN said:


> kH would be better in a crowded tank because if the plants have depleted all the CO2 that's naturally in there, since no additional CO2 is being added, they can, if they need to, use the kH to give themselves a bit of extra CO2.... but if there is no kH to begin with, they can't do that


AFAIK only some plants can utilize carbonates efficiently, Vallisneria is the famous example. Without CO2 injection the goal probably should be to maximize gas exchange with the atmosphere by increasing water surface movement and adding aeration - this will help to maintain CO2 levels in the water. Lighting period "siesta" may help as well.


----------



## MoreliaViridis (May 19, 2021)

LidijaPN said:


> How did you come up with your fert regimes, just through trial and error? What was your starting point?


I looked at bunch of numbers
Classic EI and ADA styles
APT series
Tropica
Seachem
Ferts from journals etc etc

And just went from there
Rest were just trial and error and more reading

Exact numbers don't really matter that much tho


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

MoreliaViridis said:


> Sticking to ratios can definitely work.
> But I find following ratio is unnecessarily restrictive or often times just don't work at all.
> 
> I know my tank does not work if I follow marschner ratios....GSA and white tips everywhere.


did you follow the whole thing down to N Fe?
that could've been a problem. I base my macros of marschner and for micros I just try to keep Fe:Mn at 2:1. and add the rest. 
for example 3ppm N (14no3) for 0.1 Fe dtpa weekly is what I've seen advised.


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

Oso Polar said:


> Well, going by this logic plants should have grown better at 0.5 dGH? I assure you, they didn't. None of them did. 2 dGH was universally better (or not worse) than 0.5, micros stayed the same all the time.


No, I'm saying that higher gh inhibited the uptake of too much micros, keeping plants healthy. I believe Ca-B balance is important in our tanks. and possibly other micros and Ca/Mg


----------



## MoreliaViridis (May 19, 2021)

plantnoobdude said:


> did you follow the whole thing down to N Fe?
> that could've been a problem. I base my macros of marschner and for micros I just try to keep Fe:Mn at 2:1. and add the rest.
> for example 3ppm N (14no3) for 0.1 Fe dtpa weekly is what I've seen advised.


The whole thing

But even if we disregard micros I have to dose much higher P compared to marschner..like much much higher.
I should be dosing 1.7N :1P currently. If I go higher then..say 3.5:1 I get GSA. 
AS should be old enough.

BTW I am not even sticking to 2Fe : 1Mn right now. I could probably use bit more Mn, but still that would be somewhere around 5-4.5:1.
Most plants actually don't show much difference. Current ratio is 5.7:1

Moment I go below 0.18Fe toninas and syns turn white...regardless of N or P.


See...there is so much diversity out there
Everyone has their own ratios or numbers and most of the times it just doesn't matter.
Good plant growers will always manage to grow good plants. 
Whether it be EI or ADA....marschner or whatever.


----------



## MoreliaViridis (May 19, 2021)

plantnoobdude said:


> No, I'm saying that higher gh inhibited the uptake of too much micros, keeping plants healthy. I believe Ca-B balance is important in our tanks. and possibly other micros and Ca/Mg


Ca blocking stuffs can happen I think
But if its growing good plants...does it matter?


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

Oso Polar said:


> I believe so.
> 
> 
> AFAIK only some plants can utilize carbonates efficiently, Vallisneria is the famous example. Without CO2 injection the goal probably should be to maximize gas exchange with the atmosphere by increasing water surface movement and adding aeration - this will help to maintain CO2 levels in the water. Lighting period "siesta" may help as well.


Does the siesta have any known downsides? How long do people usually make them?


----------



## LidijaPN (12 mo ago)

MoreliaViridis said:


> The whole thing
> 
> But even if we disregard micros I have to dose much higher P compared to marschner..like much much higher.
> I should be dosing 1.7N :1P currently. If I go higher then..say 3.5:1 I get GSA.
> ...


I’m really getting this feeling too, there are people with incredible tanks and there is no clear connection between their methods..... there are apparently loads of very different ways to grow great plants and a big part of it is a sort of alchemy where you ‘feel out’ what’s gonna work for you.

How often do you get a situation where a fert adjustment helps one plant in the tank but hurts another?


----------



## plantnoobdude (Jun 25, 2021)

MoreliaViridis said:


> The whole thing
> 
> But even if we disregard micros I have to dose much higher P compared to marschner..like much much higher.
> I should be dosing 1.7N :1P currently. If I go higher then..say 3.5:1 I get GSA.
> ...


your issue with tonina is interesting. at my tank when 6gh ~0.083 was the hard limit for Fe. now my gh is ~2 so I can probably go lower.
My new mix is super low,
0.025 Fe
0.0125 Mn
0.002 Zn
0.002 Cu
0.0005 Mo
0.0001 Ni
no B, I suspect this one goes through RO water and is causing me problems.... just a theory.



MoreliaViridis said:


> But if its growing good plants...does it matter?


no


MoreliaViridis said:


> BTW I am not even sticking to 2Fe : 1Mn right now. I could probably use bit more Mn, but still that would be somewhere around 5-4.5:1.


that is interesting, chelators used? I use dtpa for Fe and EDTA for Mn.



MoreliaViridis said:


> currently


again, interesting. my N is at 10:1 



MoreliaViridis said:


> The whole thing


calcium/ magnesium aswell? or were those still high at ~7gh.


----------



## AwwShucks (Jul 3, 2020)

Anyone wanna help me figure out why my supposedly "easy" plants are dying 🥲 my poor (and newer) Amazon Swords are getting holes and jungle val has never survived


----------

