# Is this calcium deficiency?



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

well, is it? If not, then what. New leaves pale and wrinkled

Bump:

Bump:

Bump:


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

What are you fertilizing? Any improvement since then?


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Lol thread resurrection. Nice. My struggles with this tank are very well documented. I've gotten some decent advice and some lousy advice. I don't mean any offense to that. Nothing really has seemed to work though. I'm either very stupid, or there's just something minor going on that is causing major issues. I'm doing everything as "right" as I can, and the stupid option is likely not the culprit. 

EI dosing with GLA ferts, as well as GH booster and iron chelate. 

75 gallon tank 
Floramax substrate with MGOCPM base layer (substrate swapped to this combo in May '15)
Eheim 2217 canister filter (running now for about 5 years).
50% weekly water changes weekly using a mixture of mostly RODI with just enough tap water to bring me to 6 dKH and 6 dGH. I've come to the conclusion this is not calcium deficiency. 
Co2 injected (20# tank, Concoa 312 regulator)
Lighting is 2x54 watt t5ho (giesemann midday and aqua flora bulbs) 8 hour photo period. I actually run two 2 bulb fixtures one front one back, and each gets 4 hours run time with no overlap. So while there are 4 bulbs, only two at a time ever run. 

The sunset hygro pictured above was eventually removed entirely. My troubles have only worsened. While a couple species seem to flourish and do very well, all of the red plants in particular look terrible. Wrinkled brown leaves, ultra slow growth, and worst of all the tank is CONSTANTLY covered in BBA and cladophora, as well as thick green spot algae on the glass. 

Some notes. Everyone keeps telling me "your co2 isn't dialed in that's the problem". I'm not real sure how to better dial it in. I inject into a cerges reactor for 100% dissolution, and the reactor effluent is fed directly into a powerhead which disperses it very well with gentle and even flow throughout the tank. Leaves are swaying all over with a nice easy surface ripple. Drop checker is lime green, not quite yellow. Fish don't gasp. Co2 comes on an hour before lights on and goes off an hour before lights out. Not real sure what else to do with that. It's all being run textbook. 

Either way. Not necessarily given up on the tank. Still feed the fish, trim and throw away plants, water change, dose. But ran out of ideas on why some plants just look like absolute garbage. 

The ones I'm struggling with are
Ammania gracilis
AR
ludwigia peruensis
Nesaea golden 
Red myriophylum



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charlie25 (Oct 10, 2015)

when something isnt right do a big water change, might be nothing but i've found this method works for me


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

I do big water changes weekly. Often times more than 50%. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

What ppm for each macro and micros? And how old is the tank?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bpb said:


> The ones I'm struggling with are
> Ammania gracilis
> AR
> ludwigia peruensis
> ...


These are some of the plants most sensitive to micronutrient toxicity. If you can show us pictures of the kinds of deformed growth, it'll be easier to identify what kind of toxicity. 

Ammannia's (the Nesaea is actually an Ammannia) are most sensitive to toxicities, as are AR. The others I've no experience keeping so can't offer any experience with those.

The best course of action is to do major large water changes and cease dosing micronutrients (CSM+B) and then observe plant health improvements.

Also, what you're observing is not directly relate to CO2. However, higher levels of CO2 increase the speed of plant growth and thus nutrient uptake. This helps reduce toxicity of micros since they are being taken up at a faster rate. However, low CO2 does NOT cause these kinds of symptoms. This is a myth that needs to die (along with your Hygros).


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Truth be told it's been a week since I've touched the tank. Busy work and family week, but I will try to cease the csm+b dosing. I've read about its toxicity before. I also need to order more excel also. 

I don't have a means of testing potassium and iron, but my nitrate hangs out at around 20 ppm, po4 at around 2 ppm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk









Cladophora all over the substrate









Twisted Ammania gracilis growth. Stunted









Deformed ar growth









Bba covered and brown/green colored L. Peruensis which should be red

















Bba covered old leaves of the Nesaea and stunted curly growth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This tank I've had since 2007. Eheim filter purchased in 2010. I recently drained it and put this substrate in May of this year but the filter is quite mature. 6 months with this substrate. Plants vary in age. The A. Gracilis is about 2-3 weeks old. The rest several months


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

There is a fert deficiency list around somewhere that has pictures of various 
deformeties related to nutrients being low and I believe that I have seen that type
on that thread. Also there was a mention on Doctors Foster & Smith's about excess nutrients in the micro category causing stunted growth in one plant by actually blocking
up-take of other nutrients. But since I have little experience/w deformed growth and
limited experience/w deficiencies except for one plant mostly I'll focus on light.
The plants that are red need more than 4 hrs of that level of light.
A red plant growing only green is a symptom of that.
But also you may want to check out Hoppy's T5 chart on the thread "lighting a tank
with PAR" to see if your fixtures are on there. The Clado needs very high light to get
started usually so there is something wrong in your lighting system that is a big
contributing factor in all of this. IMO...


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Photoperiod is 8 total hours. Two 2-bulb fixtures 4 hours each. Tank gets full 8 hours though. Just split for coverage reasons. A single fixture doesn't provide the front to back coverage I need. And running them both for 8 hours is too much.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

It's a micronutrient toxicity, not a true deficiency. Manganese is the likely culprit. Massive water change is prudent, then dose no trace elements (macros should be dosed) and observe plant health carefully. When a deficiency is spotted, determine which one and dose according to the deficiency.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Ideas on the bba and cladophora?

And the GSA for that matter considering how I'm running 2 ppm phosphate


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

It's probably growing on the toxicity-affected leaves. Once plants are growing healthily under optimal conditions, remove the affected leaves.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm not overly hopeful but I'll certainly give it a try. Will also likely do another peroxide/excel treatment to set the algae back a bit. At some point when everyone keeps saying the same two things, you just stop seeking advice. 

Do a water change
Dial in co2

I've been keeping planted tanks for about 6 years now. I do large weekly water changes. Have been doing so for a long time.

In my years of research and practice, I'm not sure how to further "dial in" the co2. Nobody has any answers specifically, just that arbitrary response which is of no help. I'm not understanding how my co2 can be "dialed in" better? Run it longer? Run it shorter? Gas the fish? What? Already using an efficient reactor and a top end regulator they doesn't leak and have ideal display tank flow, so I'm just not sure the people telling me to "dial it in" really have any idea what they're suggesting, and just copying what they're reading others say without actually reading my posts. 

Anyhow. Rant over. Thanks again for responding and actually reading through my post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

bpb said:


> Lol thread resurrection. Nice. My struggles with this tank are very well documented. I've gotten some decent advice and some lousy advice. I don't mean any offense to that. Nothing really has seemed to work though. I'm either very stupid, or there's just something minor going on that is causing major issues. I'm doing everything as "right" as I can, and the stupid option is likely not the culprit.
> 
> EI dosing with GLA ferts, as well as GH booster and iron chelate.
> 
> ...


 Some big changes in appearance from photo's posted just two month's ago .
I might wonder what it is I'm doing differently now, than then when according to previous post's/pictures, growth was good.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

The only other thing I can think of is to ask whether you're dosing KSO4, which is not always included in an EI regimen. It's possible that between your tap water, KNO3, and KH2PO4, there's not enough potassium. Not terribly likely, but it happens, and you've worked through the common solutions.

My interpretation of "dialing in" CO2, when problems arise, is to gradually increase CO2 - over days - until the fish start showing signs of distress or any other change in behavior, then back it off a bit. While this may not apply to your case, people often think they're adding more CO2 than they actually are, regardless of what a drop checker might seem to tell them.

Diagnosing toxicity with authority, basing the diagnosis on a limited amount of research data and a fairly small pool of anecdotal evidence and testing, and still not reliably pinpointing the specific element(s) that are actually toxic, bothers me a bit. That being said, in my opinion, there *is* evidence to suggest that this is sometimes the case, and that the culprit hides in the standard CSM+B micro mix. So reducing the micro dose is an option, too.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

I can try to bump up the co2 a tad but I am running it to the point that my fish were gasping and I literally backed the needle valve down about 1mm and they stopped. I can try to raise it further to see if they can tolerate it. Funny...if you look at the downoii, s. Repens, bacopa, crypts, rotala, lobelia, ect you'd never know there was a complaint. Lightening fast growth, huge leaves, great color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Would be interested in nitrogen level's considering your previous testing resulted in fairly low level's.(according to previous post's)
Would want to see level's at near 20 ppm to 40 ppm by end of the week before water change.
Can increase surface ripple which would allow you to increase CO2 a bit more without harm to fauna.
I too doubt toxicity issue, but might wonder how consistent they are when mixing the micro mixes for sale and or Macro's for that matter. 
See your post's from 5-13-15 "sunset hygro growing tremendously fast,6 to 7 inches in five day's Pink/red in color."
Daily excel dosing as you were/are? might also be of benefit as you were able to eliminate BBA according to previous post's.
Nutrient's in soil may be less than initially,and so more in the way of water column dosing is needed.
Would be dosing full EI for 60 to 80 gal tank.
My two cent's.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm at about 20ppm now. I got a newer test kit. I think the old one was expired or faulty. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Got called away from my desk for a moment.
I manage to grow Ammannia Gracilis,ludwigia repens,Echinodorus Indian red,and crypt wendtii red in NON CO2 tank with three 32 watt t8 bulb's and one finnex planted plus over 80 gal tank .Light's sit directly on the tank,and are on for eight hour's each day.
The Ammannia Gracilis took a couple month's to take but is approaching the surface and is bright pink to red nearer the surface.Ditto for Ludwigia repens.
The echinodorus india red is red.
The Rotala macrandra is mostly orange and is struggling.
I dose ..
3/4 tsp KNO3 once a week
1/2 tsp KH2PO4 once a week
1/2 tsp K2SO4 once a week
1/2 tsp CSM+B TWICE a week.
Other plant's include Water sprite,Anubia,lace java fern,Crypt balansae,Hygrophila Pinnitifida.
Should think with CO2 and or excel, I could get faster growth but then I am fairly pleased with the way thing's are going now, and I have zero issues with algae since removing the four 54 watt t5'S I was expierimenting with a few month's back.
Like you,,I could not tolerate the light bleed from the T5's which needed t be nearly ten inches off the surface of the tank to keep algae at bay (Hair,BBA)
Mostly on filter tubes.spray bar's,and hardscape,with hair alage on tops of plant's nearer the light.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bpb said:


> I can try to bump up the co2 a tad but I am running it to the point that my fish were gasping and I literally backed the needle valve down about 1mm and they stopped. I can try to raise it further to see if they can tolerate it. Funny...if you look at the downoii, s. Repens, bacopa, crypts, rotala, lobelia, ect you'd never know there was a complaint. Lightening fast growth, huge leaves, great color.


It's not directly related to CO2. You can have both high light and no CO2 and the plants would grow well. Without algae. The reason why you see algae when CO2 is low? Because of micronutrient toxicity which damages plant health which allows algae to establish. This is why ADA doesn't inject more than 30ppm of CO2 in their tanks, because the water is not a toxic, heavy metal soup. They also don't start CO2 before the photoperiod; it's started simultaneously with the lights.

Everything makes sense now. Low CO2 doesn't cause algae. Micronutrient toxicity does. High GH (Ca and Mg) helps to offset the toxic concentrations by crowding out the heavy metal cations. High light reduces micro-tox by increasing absorption rate. Low light and high concentrations of heavy metals causes toxicity because the metals are not being used by plants... and high CO2? As long as there is also high light, it increases the rate of metal uptake, thus reducing toxic concentrations.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's not directly related to CO2. You can have both high light and no CO2 and the plants would grow well. Without algae. The reason why you see algae when CO2 is low? Because of micronutrient toxicity which damages plant health which allows algae to establish. This is why ADA doesn't inject more than 30ppm of CO2 in their tanks, because the water is not a toxic, heavy metal soup. They also don't start CO2 before the photoperiod; it's started simultaneously with the lights.
> 
> Everything makes sense now. Low CO2 doesn't cause algae. Micronutrient toxicity does. High GH (Ca and Mg) helps to offset the toxic concentrations by crowding out the heavy metal cations. High light reduces micro-tox by increasing absorption rate. Low light and high concentrations of heavy metals causes toxicity because the metals are not being used by plants...


 High light and no CO2 to match light energy is recipe for disaster.
Low light ,NON CO2 tanks seldom see algae with moderate to large plant mass.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bpb said:


> I'm at about 20ppm now. I got a newer test kit. I think the old one was expired or faulty.


20ppm of NO3 is enough. Know that you can limit plant growth by limiting N, P, K, or CO2. If your plants are growing faster than you'd like, you can slow their growth by limiting one of these nutrients. However, certain plants will prioritize utilizing specific nutrients like Hygrophila's preference for potassium. Thus, if keeping Hygros, it's best not to limit potassium to control growth or obvious potassium deficiencies will occur (pinholes of older leaves.) Limit phosphorus instead, or even simpler, limit CO2. Your fish will also thank you for it.

Bump:


roadmaster said:


> High light and no CO2 to match light energy is recipe for disaster.
> Low light ,NON CO2 tanks seldom see algae with moderate to large plant mass.


You're operating on the old paradigm, which is, and has always been, flawed. If you reread the reasons why, and take the time to really understand, then you'll see why for yourself.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I operate under tried and true fact that light is the driving force in planted tank.
The more light you use ,the more demand for CO2 and nutrient's.
Plant's have no choice in this.
Once you understand this,,all thing's become easier.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> I operate under tried and true fact that light is the driving force in planted tank.
> The more light you use ,the more demand for CO2 and nutrient's.
> Plant's have no choice in this.
> Once you understand this,,all thing's become easier.


 Everything you just stated is true: plants use light, CO2 and nutrients. However, considering your previous reply, you're implying that this has something to do with turning a tank into an algae infestation, which by itself, is not causal. High light and low CO2 alone will not cause algae for the aforementioned reasons.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Separate to the light level and co2 debate. I've recently read some studies which I cannot cite, and seen videos suggesting that red plants need more blue light to develop a deeper red color and grow healthier, due to the red photo pigments absorbing more blue light than green pigments do? I've considered swapping out one or two bulbs for a 10k, thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

Raymond S. said:


> ...mostly I'll focus on light...
> 
> But also you may want to check out Hoppy's T5 chart on the thread "lighting a tank with PAR" to see if your fixtures are on there. The Clado needs very high light to get started usually so there is something wrong in your lighting system that is a big contributing factor in all of this. IMO...


I agree that clado tends to come from highER light, but I can vouch from my own tank that I get a bit of clado here and there with medium level lighting. Just thought I'd throw that out.
Reducing your light 20% won't make clado just disappear. I pull some out every week.

As for feeling like no one is listening. I'm sorry to hear that. A common struggle with forums like this is people skim and skip most of what you post sometimes, and rush to a simple answer, instead of taking the time to read a longer thread. But don't give up on us yet, some of us are listening. roud:


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bpb said:


> Separate to the light level and co2 debate. I've recently read some studies which I cannot cite, and seen videos suggesting that red plants need more blue light to develop a deeper red color and grow healthier, due to the red photo pigments absorbing more blue light than green pigments do? I've considered swapping out one or two bulbs for a 10k, thoughts?


Not true. It's is specifically red spectra that induces anthocyanin production.


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

bpb said:


> ... I've considered swapping out one or two bulbs for a 10k, thoughts?


I'd encourage the OP to feel free to experiment to see what works if you have the time and money to invest. Even if red pigment isn't increased by the use of a 10k, perhaps it could give some other benefits? I find that despite potent claims being made in the forums of what does and doesn't work, it is often more enjoyable when you have the money, to just try things out to see what happens. Experimentation is fun for me at least.


----------



## Termato (Apr 12, 2012)

> Lighting is 2x54 watt t5ho (giesemann midday and aqua flora bulbs) 8 hour photo period. I actually run two 2 bulb fixtures one front one back, and each gets 4 hours run time with no overlap. So while there are 4 bulbs, only two at a time ever run.


Are both of these 6,500K? I know the giesemann is 6,000K which is fine. If you have anything below 6500K I'd recommend something between 6,500k - 10,000K. Here is an article by Colorado State University about light quality and how plants use it.

Also, you could try reducing light exposure down to around 7 hours if nothing else works (just a thought and I know I hate to reduce light exposure time)



> Red and blue have the greatest impact on plant growth. Green light is least effective (the reflection of green light gives the green color to plants). Blue light is primarily responsible for vegetative leaf growth. Red light, when combined with blue light, encourages flowering.


Personally, I run all 6,500K lights as they are cheaper to run. You normally don't want to run red lighting as red plants will reflect it. You can add red lighting to already existing blue lighting, but I would strongly advise against using a red spectrum lighting as the main source. Plants will readily take in blue and violet light much easier (unless you have blue or violet plants).

Also about this:


> Solcielo lawrencia: Not true. It's is specifically red spectra that induces anthocyanin production.


I can't say I have found proof of this. I actually found proof that it is blue light which encourages anthocyanin production. I've also found this to be true from experience in my tanks. For example, in this study (PHOTOREGULATION OF ANTHOCYANIN PRODUCTION IN RED-LEAF LETTUCE WITH BLUE LEDS IS AFFECTED BY TIMING AND LEAF AGE ), blue light was proved to increase production of anthocyanin.



> Removal of the blue light resulted in a decrease in anthocyanin concentration to the same level as the red-only control within 72 hr...
> 
> ...The addition of blue light (440 nm) after 14 days resulted in anthocyanin concentrations increasing from <50 µg/g FM to > 800 µg/g FM at 16 DAP. Removal of the blue light at 16 or 18 DAP resulted in a decline in leaf anthocyanin concentrations comparable to red light (660 nm) alone (Fig 1). There was an increase anthocyanin in the red (660 nm) only 126 treatments that was likely due to light pollution into the chamber at 14 DAP. This declined to a baseline concentration of less than 200 µg/g FM at 18 DAP. This data strongly suggest that continuous exposure to blue light is required to maintain anthocyanin production in the leaves.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Wikipedia would have me believe that the green spectrum is predominant for anthocyanin.

It was my understanding that a plant is green because it absorbs red and blue spectrum's of light, and reflects the green spectrum. Thus, a red plant doesn't absorb the red spectrum, but reflects it. So a red light doesn't help a red plant to grow, but more red light does mean more red light being reflected.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

It's red spectra that induces the production of anthocyanins, not just provide red light for the plant to reflect.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Ok, but can you cite some reference?

I'm not in the habit of believing everything I read.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

How to increase Redness in Aquatic Plants? - Page 4 - aquapetz.com


----------



## Termato (Apr 12, 2012)

I can't agree with your statement that it's the red spectra that stimulates anthocyanin production because the article I posted disproves that. In this scenario you have posted here, it would best be represented in a statement that says "(A combination of blue and red) OR (Full spectrum) light induces anthocyanin production." It's quite unfortunate that the article I posted didn't have a blue spectrum test to display the raw data like it did for the red. Based on what you posted though (and the article linked within it), I think it's possible to say that a mixture of both spectrums is what stimulates this production. It has clear results from a mixed spectrum. If you're able to find actual statistical proof of red spectrum stimulating anthocyanin production by itself than I think we could say your statement is accurate. Otherwise, I have to disagree.

*The algae issues*

If the bulbs being used are 6,500K and you are getting algae than it's too much light* in comparison to the available minerals. There has to be an imbalance somewhere, otherwise you wouldn't have an issue. As recommend, you should keep doing your Excel treatment and I think you should also shorten the light exposure (temporarily). I don't know much about finding missing micro nutrients so I can't really say anything about that.

This argument about spectrum doesn't seem to be the issue to me because you are running ~6,000K bulbs. The plants will grow under these conditions, but the colors wont be ideal. This isn't the issue at hand imo.

*108W of light running 8 hours a day on a 75 gallon tank.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

No, the FS LEDs are the same as the 6500K LEDs except it has a red phosphor instead of a yellow one. There is still a 450nm blue spike in the spectrum which only reduced slightly between these two LEDs. Thus, the main difference was the increase in red spectra and a slight decrease in 450nm blue.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

The problem with empirical evidence is that it's basically just a theory, not a fact. You conducted an uncontrolled experiment with which observation determined an outcome. The fact that the experiment was uncontrolled is it's biggest hindrance.

You linked this PDF at the other forum, but there is no mention whatsoever about anthocyanin.



> The relative effectiveness of the various portions of the spectrum was red, blue, white, and green, with red light causing significantly higher yields and the lowest yield being obtained under green light. Thus, when light intensities are equalized in quantum terms, the relative efficiency of different wavelengths in increasing yields in hydrilla appears to follow the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll.


So basically, everything we know about chlorophyll. Throw lots of red and blue at it. But again, there's nothing there describing anything about anthocyanin.



> The red light effect in decreasing stem elongation and promoting branching suggest that the red portion of the visible spectrum may be responsible for the growth habit of hydrilla in forming a dense canopy at the water surface where these wavelengths are more available. In deeper waters, lower light intensities and green wavelengths may promote internode elongation with a limited amount of branching which in effect causes hydrilla to elongate toward the water surface where more light is available for photosynthesis.


Red light _*may*_ do these things. It's just a theory, and further testing is needed to be conclusive. There's also no before and after images to observe changes, nor any discussion regarding color changes. It may very well be that the increased red light and the effect it has on the growth pattern of hydrilla causes a secondary effect on anthocyanin. It could simply be that the increased branching allows for increased absorption of the green spectrum. And thus in hydrilla, to produce red coloration requires plenty of red spectrum for optimal growth, which allows increased resources for the production of anthocyanin. And of course, with the increased red spectrum, as anthocyanin production is increased there is increased red spectrum for reflection, which further enhances the visible effect. But it's just wild speculation.

Wild speculation is interesting in that it provides plenty of opportunity for further testing, but it is not fact.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Audionut said:


> The problem with empirical evidence is that it's basically just a theory, not a fact. You conducted an uncontrolled experiment with which observation determined an outcome. The fact that the experiment was uncontrolled is it's biggest hindrance.


It was never meant to be a controlled experiment since it's a live tank. However, the results speak for themselves. All other variables were tried (CO2, light intensity/duration, phosphorus, iron, temperature, etc.) and it was only the increase in red spectra that induced the production of anthocyanin which provided the intense red coloration which is clearly visible.



> You linked this PDF at the other forum, but there is no mention whatsoever about anthocyanin.


The purpose of the article was to explicate the shortened internode observation. Internodes shorten considerably under the increased red spectra.



> And of course, with the increased red spectrum, as anthocyanin production is increased there is increased red spectrum for reflection, which further enhances the visible effect. But it's just wild speculation.


There was a picture which shows just how dull the colors were under the same spectrum. This accounts for any differences in lighting influencing the appearance.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Everything you just stated is true: plants use light, CO2 and nutrients. However, considering your previous reply, you're implying that this has something to do with turning a tank into an algae infestation, which by itself, is not causal. High light and low CO2 alone will not cause algae for the aforementioned reasons.


 
You posted.. "that it is possible to have high light and NO C02"(your word's).
I stand by my assertion that this is false, and has easily been falsified by more folk's than you have hair's on your arm's.:x


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> You posted.. "that it is possible to have high light and NO C02"(your word's).
> I stand by my assertion that this is false, and has easily been falsified by more folk's than you have hair's on your arm's.:x


No, it hasn't been falsified. Neither you nor anyone else has ever set up an aquarium under these conditions. If you have, and noticed things go wrong, you assume it must be the light that caused it. I can guarantee that it wasn't the light that caused it. You, and others, noticed a correlation. However, correlation does not necessitate causation. Do you know what other variables could possible influence the outcomes?

This is why dogma can be so hard to shake, because you become blinded to all other possibilities, even when direct evidence is observed contrary to these views.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> No, it hasn't been falsified. Neither you nor anyone else has ever set up an aquarium under these conditions. If you have, and noticed things go wrong, you assume it must be the light that caused it. I can guarantee that it wasn't the light that caused it. You, and others, noticed a correlation. However, correlation does not necessitate causation. Do you know what other variables could possible influence the outcomes?
> 
> This is why dogma can be so hard to shake, because you become blinded to all other possibilities, even when direct evidence is observed contrary to these views.


 
Pfft!

You present no direct evidence of anything but your suspicion's or half baked theory's.No number's for toxicity issues you seem to be able to spot at a glance so other's might learn from your musing's.
Where is this direct evidence you speak of?

Note to other's... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,he is NOT the great OZ.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> Pfft!
> 
> You present no direct evidence of anything but your suspicion's or half baked theory's.No number's for toxicity issues you seem to be able to spot at a glance so other's might learn from your musing's.
> Where is this direct evidence you speak of?
> ...


I can ask you for direct evidence as well but it can't be provided. All you have to go on is what other people say. This is fine; advice/opinion is usually free. But you get what you pay for.

Now, while you deride my advice and make ad hominem attacks, you should be focussing your energies/emotions on the reasons _why_ you believe the things you believe. Why do you get emotional because you hear information that contradicts your beliefs? If you scrutinize them, you'll see you have no valid reasons to believe what you do. You read this and that, and you believe it because... ???

If you figure out why I believe the things I say, you'll quickly realize that the paradigm that you, and probably hundreds or thousands of others, subscribed to all these years have been erroneous. Ignorance perpetuates ignorance and I am saying 'no' to this.

Lastly, as far as direct evidence is concerned, if you've ever been to a lake or a river and saw submerged aquatic plants growing under the direct light of midday sun, and observed no algae but lush growing plants, then this is the evidence you should consider in the evaluation of your belief system. Do not disregard this using the excuse that it's not an aquarium so this does not apply. It very well does indeed apply. If you've ever kept a small container of submerged aquatic plants and placed it by the window sill and observed it pearling under the light of day, then this is also evidence that should be considered. Are these observations somehow anomalies? Are these plants somehow magical? How can they survive the 3000+ PAR of sunlight with very low levels of CO2 and still grow healthily? It's not magic.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Lastly, as far as direct evidence is concerned, if you've ever been to a lake or a river and saw submerged aquatic plants growing under the direct light of midday sun, and observed no algae but lush growing plants, then this is the evidence you should consider in the evaluation of your belief system. Do not disregard this using the excuse that it's not an aquarium so this does not apply. It very well does indeed apply. If you've ever kept a small container of submerged aquatic plants and placed it by the window sill and observed it pearling under the light of day, then this is also evidence that should be considered. Are these observations somehow anomalies? Are these plants somehow magical? How can they survive the 3000+ PAR of sunlight with very low levels of CO2 and still grow healthily? It's not magic.


Well, this is part of the answer to that:
Carbon dioxide supersaturation in the surface waters of lakes. - PubMed - NCBI

Supersaturation of CO2 in the large majority of worldwide lakes. There are a bunch of this type of paper floating around. I expect you've seen these?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

kevmo911 said:


> Well, this is part of the answer to that:
> Carbon dioxide supersaturation in the surface waters of lakes. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Supersaturation of CO2 in the large majority of worldwide lakes. There are a bunch of this type of paper floating around. I expect you've seen these?


And in water bodies that are not "super saturated"?


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

I have seen similar symptoms in my tank for reasons unknown... Every once in a while some new growth on some plants will be stunted and crinkled and I will get no red growth out of my red-colored plants. Then after a trim and a week wait all is well again and my plants grow nice red tips and look great.

I hypothesize that it is an imbalance of certain micros. Namely Mg, Ca, and sometimes I am led to believe K plays a part as well. Still have not been able to pin down the exact cause to be honest... I have cut back on CSM+B dosing for the reasons mentioned about its toxicity and leading to crap like this. Still dose a lot of iron though.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> And in water bodies that are not "super saturated"?


Well, I don't know enough to comment about streams at all, or the other 13% of lakes that aren't supersaturated. But you used plants with high PAR and minimal CO2 as evidence to support your claim, so I'm pointing out that the CO2 in their environment isn't quite so minimal, at least in some cases.

By the way, I didn't come up with the term "supersaturated". I'm quoting the paper summary.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

klibs said:


> Still dose a lot of iron though.


Extra iron can help offset toxicity of other micros by crowding them out. Plants really don't use much during the week.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

Okay, quick search shows that rivers and streams, in the US at least, contain between 2 and 3 times as much CO2 as lakes worldwide, which are already at 3X atmospheric levels.
http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.ed...cations/pdfs/Butman_NatureGeoscience_2011.pdf


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

kevmo911 said:


> Okay, quick search shows that rivers and streams, in the US at least, contain between 2 and 3 times as much CO2 as lakes worldwide, which are already at 3X atmospheric levels.
> http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.ed...cations/pdfs/Butman_NatureGeoscience_2011.pdf


Okay, so how does that explain the window sill plants?


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Okay, so how does that explain the window sill plants?


Don't look at me. You're challenging a longstanding assumption, and I'm just some guy trying to poke holes in it using evidence collected by people who - unlike me - know what they're talking about. I don't mean any disrespect, but it sounded - to me - like a pretty wild claim, so I'm questioning it.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

kevmo911 said:


> Don't look at me. You're challenging a longstanding assumption, and I'm just some guy trying to poke holes in it using evidence collected by people who - unlike me - know what they're talking about. I don't mean any disrespect, but it sounded - to me - like a pretty wild claim, so I'm questioning it.


"Longstanding *assumption*"

This is the key that I'm trying to point out; the assumption is erroneous.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> "Longstanding *assumption*"
> 
> This is the key that I'm trying to point out; the assumption is erroneous.


Yes, I used that word intentionally. That it's erroneous is a claim. So what evidence supports your claim? So far, it's been anecdotal, and anybody, given a few minutes with an internet connection, can poke some holes it. So I did.

If you want to convince people that your ideas about CO2 are legit, why not start a thread and discuss it? I think we've moved way off topic here.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> No, it hasn't been falsified. Neither you nor anyone else has ever set up an aquarium under these conditions. If you have, and noticed things go wrong, you assume it must be the light that caused it........................You, and others, noticed a correlation. However, correlation does not necessitate causation. Do you know what other variables could possible influence the outcomes?


The problem with making statements such as this, is that you label yourself as a hypocrite. You are guilty of the exact same flaw.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Audionut said:


> The problem with making statements such as this, is that you label yourself as a hypocrite. You are guilty of the exact same flaw.


I fail to see the hypocrisy or flaw in reasoning. Would you explain what you mean?


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It was never meant to be a controlled experiment since it's a live tank. However.................................


I'm sure you've got a perfectly reasonable explanation of why your uncontrolled experiments have merit, and others do not.

Perhaps it was a possible micro toxicity.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Audionut said:


> I'm sure you've got a perfectly reasonable explanation of why your uncontrolled experiments have merit, and others do not.
> 
> Perhaps it was a possible micro toxicity.


Why are you taking a personal issue with me? Why the negativity? Is it because of the red spectrum issue? (Please don't tell me you made that video.)

And lastly, don't deride my experiences because I didn't use controls. This is not a valid criticism considering it was never meant to be a controlled experiment. It's a live tank.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> And lastly, don't deride my experiences because I didn't use controls. This is not a valid criticism considering it was never meant to be a controlled experiment. It's a live tank.


That's fine, but you made these statements based on that uncontrolled experiment.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's red spectra that induces the production of anthocyanins, not just provide red light for the plant to reflect.


Presenting this as fact. 

On what planet do you deem it reasonable to present facts based on random correlation, and then have the audacity to attack others based on the same flaw of using random correlation to determine facts.

What facts do you have to consistently claim micro nutrient toxicity? Is it some random correlation with with terrestrial toxicity studies. The toxicity thread has gained traction, and now you appear to be on some toxicity crusade without any hard facts or data. The only thing you have is your own empirical evidence and the empirical evidence of others.

And yet.

When others decide to share their statements based on empirical evidence, all of a sudden you are holier then St. Peter, and start brandishing on about the flaws of their observations, to which you are guilty of yourself.




Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Why are you taking a personal issue with me?


Because I respect what you are trying to do. I respect you as a person, I just take issue with your methods. But I'm just some random dude on the net who only has a few random forum posts with which to make an opinion. So....................


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Audionut said:


> That's fine, but you made these statements based on that uncontrolled experiment.
> 
> Presenting this as fact.
> 
> ...


No, it wasn't solely based on this one change in lighting. It was also based on numerous other observations. The change in lighting was how I discovered it was specifically red light.

And yes, it's a fact that red spectra induces the production of anthocyanins. I don't know which wavelengths are most responsible or optimal but if there is limited red spectra, anthocyanins won't be produced in the amounts to make it pop.

Lastly, I never attacked you. Why you feel that way just because you disagree with a statement I made...? Don't take personal the beliefs you hold. Because when your beliefs are shown to be erroneous...


----------



## Termato (Apr 12, 2012)

This is not the thread to be discussing this. The original poster needs help with their plants and the tank. I've tried multiple times to bring the conversation back into the right area but people wont let it drop. Personally, I commented because I saw bad information being given and found good reliable sources which proved it wrong so I linked it. That's what you should do if you disagree with something. Find proof.. If you want to talk about these theories that are deep and side tracking, start a thread. If you disagree with a point, post a reliable source. There is absolutely NO point is bickering back and forth without proof. My 2 cents.

*To the original poster, how are your plants and tanks doing?*


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Termato. I tend to fall in line with your sentiments. Occasionally when an informational spat breaks out in one of my threads I usually step back and watch it play out. Rather than getting involved in choosing sides on the matter, I can learn from what is reasonable, or confirm something I already suspected or knew. 

I haven't had the chance to change anything yet honestly. I made up 45 gallons of rodi water yesterday for a water change which will likely happen tomorrow. In the process of water changing I'll also take the time to trim away the bulk of the old growth on most plants and replant the crowns. This includes the green plants which are all doing very well. I will also be doing a peroxide/excel tank treatment to deal a heavy blow to the existing algaes. 

I've been trimming my plants via the methods suggested by a TPT member in this video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hSngM7OVpPc

This tank in particular has been a tremendous inspiration to me and represents the pinnacle of stem plant health and pruning excellence. 

I also have other things planned for the tank. I have purchased a 20 gallon high, HOB overflow, and return pump and will be running a sump at some point when I have time to do the plumbing. My canister just isn't powerful enough to handle the head pressure it is being expected of. My tank stand is extra tall so the head is nearly 6 feet on the eheim 2217. That combined with the fact that it's very old, and powering a cerges reactor, it is barely a trickle coming out the effluent line. I even removed the spray bar to take off some more back pressure. The koralia 750 provides all the display tank flow. I may use something more powerful eventually as well. I'll be running my canister filter intake and output in the sump once it's installed, for zero head pressure and better flow through the media, and I'll power the cerges reactor with the return pump which should be more than adequate. 

I'll keep the thread posted with updates. Debate on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Termato (Apr 12, 2012)

Yea, after Solcielo pointed out that the red spectrum plays a role in bringing out the red in the plants, I looked more into it and saw that the mixed and full spectrum lights are used among many of the aquarist who have red plants. I haven't found reliable sources on why, but potential reasonings have been brought up in this thread. For that reason, I am very thankful of the argument arising. I just think the argument got too far side tracked where it wasn't beneficial without substantial evidence. Maybe in the near future when one of us finds some good evidence, we can all come to a full understanding of the process that goes on with these plants. That's my end goal.

I'm really curious about your algae situation because I'm having some issues myself. I'm having a hard time balancing light, nutrients, and C02.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Termato said:


> I'm really curious about your algae situation because I'm having some issues myself. I'm having a hard time *balancing light, nutrients and C02.*


Actually, this is a huge myth that needs to stop. All you need to do is balance nutrients over a given period of time, which is the period between dosing. Provide more than sufficient light so that plants have enough energy, even if plants shade other plants or itself, so that the lower leaves don't die from light starvation. High light intensity is perfectly fine even without adding CO2. The issue will be with providing nutrients in optimum amounts. What is the optimum? That depends on the tank setup and the plants.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Actually, this is a huge myth that needs to stop. All you need to do is balance nutrients over a given period of time,


Carbon is not a nutrient?


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Life happened again this week and I was unable to work on the tank any. However. Tonight I did spend too much money on Black Friday sales on various hobbyist vendor sites. I've got a bunch of new equipment coming in the mail for my 90 gallon reef tank, and decided to go ahead and also stock up on excel while I was at it. For those unaware, Drs Foster & Smith are running a good sale on excel. Picked up 4 liters for about the same as id have paid for a gallon of metricide. Can't beat that. Big re-plant and water change coming next week. Probably late one night after work. Going to pull all the stems and replant only healthy tips. It's gotten too thick and dense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

bpb said:


> Termato. I tend to fall in line with your sentiments. Occasionally when an informational spat breaks out in one of my threads I usually step back and watch it play out. Rather than getting involved in choosing sides on the matter, I can learn from what is reasonable, or confirm something I already suspected or knew.
> 
> I haven't had the chance to change anything yet honestly. I made up 45 gallons of rodi water yesterday for a water change which will likely happen tomorrow. In the process of water changing I'll also take the time to trim away the bulk of the old growth on most plants and replant the crowns. This includes the green plants which are all doing very well. I will also be doing a peroxide/excel tank treatment to deal a heavy blow to the existing algaes.
> 
> ...


 
Me think's with better flow throughout the tank, that what CO2 is available will be dispersed throughout the tank better.
Nutrient's are easy to add as needed for perhaps increased volume with sump, and lighting is easy to control decrease/increase.
Getting the gas down and throughout before it want's to rise up and out as gasses do,is the tedious part.
If I had fishes,I might monitor the water closely when using peroxide .


----------



## BayazGouramiz (May 13, 2015)

Month old thread but oh well.

I'm just a novice here, and my tank isn't much better off atm, but I think your tank is just neglected.

The best way to get rid of the green thread algae is to use algae fix. Killed it in two days. The best way to get rid of GSA is by cleaning, and water changes. The best way to get rid of Blue/Green algae is my vacuuming substrate and getting a antibiotic from the pet store like tetracycline or the other one that starts with an E(petsmart), gone in 2 days, and no lame black out. Best way to get rid of staghorn or blackbeard is by overdosing excel and spot treating with h2o2. 

Your tank needs a serious cleaning. Vacuum the substrate, wipe the glass down, remove all dead leaves and dying leaves. Cut back excess long stalks, and replant only good portions, clean filters, and increase circulation. Until the physical requirements are met its impossible to tell what the chemical problem is. This will have to be repeated 2 times in a week to get back on track. Prolly around 3 cleanings in 2 weeks to get back to where the tank is clean. All plant material that is dead or floating needs to always be netted out. Do a water change with each cleaning, and make sure your Gh and KH is replaced if your tap is lower than your tank. Several water changes until tank is clean. 

I've came to the conclusion that tank cleanliness is as important as co2 and light. 

After that I'd stop dosing everything for a day or two then do a heavy water change, and start back with your EI dosing and weekly water change. Try and keep you GH above 5 and your kh above 2-3. This has been my problem. If you have soft water that is. Other than that I'd go off what the others have said. Best of luck to you, I know that I put other things ahead of my tank, because of all my hard work seeming to not pan out. It's very discouraging to try so hard and still have so many problems... Then the water change can wait, the dosing can wait, and cleaning the tank isnt really needed. Before you know it the tanks a mess... Then you look back and it nvr really was that bad, just not really nice like some others have.

Dont lose heart man you can do it. In two weeks your tank can be back to just a few deficiencies or toxicities and you can start studying and tracking what your doing so you can narrow it down. Best of luck to you man.


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

I've done a major restart on this tank. It was time anyway regardless of issues. Stem bundles had gotten too dense and kind of maxed out reasonable pruning amounts to look good. I also stocked back up on excel. No more 250 ml bottles. Bought a gallon. I've tested more as well and see that without dosing I'm maintaining about 20 ppm no3 and 2-3ppm po4. I've ceased dosing those as well as csm+b and things look infinitely better. Not perfect but better. Still struggling a bit to get great red coloration. Now I'm only dosing iron and potassium on opposite days, and excel daily. Blew through a 20# co2 tank 5 months. That seems fast. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BayazGouramiz (May 13, 2015)

bpb said:


> I've done a major restart on this tank. It was time anyway regardless of issues. Stem bundles had gotten too dense and kind of maxed out reasonable pruning amounts to look good. I also stocked back up on excel. No more 250 ml bottles. Bought a gallon. I've tested more as well and see that without dosing I'm maintaining about 20 ppm no3 and 2-3ppm po4. I've ceased dosing those as well as csm+b and things look infinitely better. Not perfect but better. Still struggling a bit to get great red coloration. Now I'm only dosing iron and potassium on opposite days, and excel daily. Blew through a 20# co2 tank 5 months. That seems fast.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How are you coming up with 20ppm? with the API master test? cuz if so I really need to get mine down. Nitrates are around like 80-160 all the time... I thought maybe the test was bad so I bought a new one and it says the same. So annoying. Time to get off my butt and do more testing after a water change etc. and test my tap again. My wife feeding the fish may be the problem. If it indeed is accurate.


----------



## isonychia (Nov 19, 2013)

BayazGouramiz said:


> How are you coming up with 20ppm? with the API master test? cuz if so I really need to get mine down. Nitrates are around like 80-160 all the time... I thought maybe the test was bad so I bought a new one and it says the same. So annoying. Time to get off my butt and do more testing after a water change etc. and test my tap again. My wife feeding the fish may be the problem. If it indeed is accurate.


Bayaz, have you calibrated your test kit?

As long as I can remember, even when I was keeping cichlids, I always had Nitrates read 80+ppm using the test kits (deep red color on card).

Before I started EI dosing in planted tanks my test showed the bright red color.

I followed this threads calibration steps 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...83545-calibrating-test-kits-non-chemists.html

What it showed me was my tests were reading TWICE the amount of nitrates that I actually had.

So if my tank water was reading 80ppm, I actually had 40ppm.

If I factor in the horrible color representation HUES on the card, I could be further off. The color for 20-80ppm is basically dark orange/red. There is no way the human eye can judge the color in the tube vs the color in the card. The red/orange tones in the 20-80ppm range are too close to decipher. If I factor in where to hold the tube when reading the color (close or away from the color card) I am further away from judging the ppm accurately.

iso


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

Yes it's the Api master kit. But I've been able to get readings lower than 20. The color chart is kind of bogus though as 2-3 colors look the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BayazGouramiz (May 13, 2015)

isonychia said:


> Bayaz, have you calibrated your test kit?
> 
> As long as I can remember, even when I was keeping cichlids, I always had Nitrates read 80+ppm using the test kits (deep red color on card).
> 
> ...


Thank you sir, I will use that to try and get this test calibrated.


----------



## mredman (Sep 4, 2015)

*API Nitrate test*

The API nitrate kit seems to be very inaccurate. It seems the color of your test water does not really match up to any of the reference colors on the chart.

Mike


----------



## bpb (Mar 8, 2011)

This nitrate test kit is decent enough. Fairly bottom of the barrel even by hobbyist standards, for above mentioned reasons of poor low resolution and difficult to discern colors in the 40-80 ppm range. Having used 4-5 different nitrate test kits, this one serves its purpose. Don't need it to have the ultra high resolution, and high range of my Red Sea pro nitrate kit for the reef tank (fantastic kit. Love it). The api kit is good enough tell you they're either too low (yellow), probably in the ballpark of where you want (light orange) or too high (red). You don't need pinpoint resolution and accuracy in this instance. I HIGHLY doubt you'd notice any difference in plant health by adjusting your spot check nitrate levels by 0.25 ppm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## crisp330 (Dec 1, 2011)

@bpb (OP) - Did you ever figure out the cause of your issues? My Ammania Gracilis and AR Mini look almost exactly like your pics on the first page. See mine here -- http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8...on/1078905-ammannia-gracilis-issues-help.html

I don't really have algae issues currently, but the growth (or lack there of) and curling/twisted leaves looks very similar. At this point I am leaning towards it being a micro toxicity.


----------

