Hi.

I had some nutrient deficiency recently. My rotala macrandra had its leaves schriveled together and almost all new growth were small leaves. My pink plants were coming out green and the green plants came out whitish. Some of the plants started to grow downwards!

Adding to the tank 3x week:
1/16 tsp KNO3
1/8 tsp K2SO4
4ml TMG

My watersource contains:
5ppm NO3
34ppm Ca
7ppm Mg

Preassure CO2, 2x18w T8 and 2x24w T5, 30 Gallon tank.

I had REALLY high phosphates but ive taken it away and only add 0.02 tsp once a week.
Below is a picture of what it looked like (sorry its so big).
What was I (am I) doing wrong?

Do this, add more CO2 and direct it at the Plant with some current, CO2 mist particularly.

Add the PO4, KNO3, TMG, GH booster at standard EI levels.
(you can do the PMDD style like I suggested on the EI thread and dose it daily via liquid)

Check your KH also, it might have gone up.

Direct the CO2 mist right at the plant.

That will ensure good CO2 and nutrients.

Then wait about a week or so.
It should grow back.

Regards,
Tom Barr

If we were to find out that our tap water contained every single nutrient needed by the plants in the ppm's that would be achieved by a single EI dosage of ferts, would we just assume there was no need to fertilize at all? Of course we wouldn't if we were doing any serious thinking. The plants use up the ferts as they grow, so we have to continue to dose ferts to replenish them. So, if your tap water has 5 ppm of NO3 and 1 ppm of PO4, just ignore that completely and go ahead and dose per the EI recommendations. At worst you will have a slightly elevated level of ferts - not a problem in any way. If you still are not convinced, then just consider the tap water to be the first of the 3 doses of ferts the plants need for the week. Then after a day, start dosing per the EI recommendations.

Thank you for the suggestions. But can anyone say what makes my plants do this? What is the deficiency? Personally I think it was low GH (Ca) and high phosphates making this. Reverting to EI might (ok it probably would ) fix the problem, but wouldnt teach me anything.
Also, I cant use mist. I have plenty of water-movement in my tank. I use a filter designed for 140+ Gallon aquariums in my small tank (the spraybar fills the whole backside).
Im trying to fix this problem myself by adding different nutritions etc one at a time but some help to point me in the right direction would help Im going to add more TMG (2x dose) this week.

Sintei,
If you want to learn you should read the Newsletters. One of the first things you'll learn is to NEVER blame stunted or irregular growth on high Phosphorous. PO4 is normally used to fix these problems. You should always start fixing deficiencies by adding more of the macros. That's because plants contain mostly macros C, N, P and K. Therefore deficiencies in these components will have a much greater affect than anything else. There could also be a combination of things since many of the nutrients have a coupling effect. Additionally, a deficiency in one specie may look differently than in another. Also in many plants, deficiency in one element often resembles deficiency of a different element (for example N deficiency can result in yellow leaves but so does Fe deficiency. Calcium deficiency can look like Boron deficiency ) so few people bother to catalog every deficiency in every plant. Most would much rather spend time looking at the plants and designing scapes than troubleshooting. Chuck Gadd's site is the only once that has a comprehensive list of deficiencies:

Nutrient Deficiency in a Planted Tank

He hasn't bothered to update it for quite a few years though. So just follow the EI dosing, make sure your CO2 is good and ignore what your water report says. The dosing schemes provide for everything you need. What you'll learn is that dosing EI frees you from ever worrying about deficiencies so you're able to concentrate on other things, like reading the Barr Newslettershttp://www.barrreport.com/images/smilies/cool.gif


Cheers,

Ceg4048, thanks for the reply. Obviously I dont misstrust Barr and his ways since Im a lifetime member. However, Ive used EI before with BBA up to my ears. Ive had good CO2, high nutrient levels etc. (No livestock, so I could push CO2). It didnt work for me. With smaller nutrient levels ive managed to keep it AWAY.
Obviously im going to UP the ferts untill the problem is resolved. But If i could keep them down and only UP, lets say K, then i would be happy.
Im only looking at my waterreport to tell me my Ca and Mg ratio. And to tell me if I really need a GH boost.

But BBA is never a nutrient issue
Ever..........you might slow the growth some, but it because you limit the plant growth via nutrient limitation thereby reducing CO2 demand.


So...........if you are limited with say K+, or Ca++, or NO3..............then adding more CO2 is not going to do anything.

Your limiting rate step is still the K+ etc........not CO2.
This can relieve some CO2 stress by using PO4, K, NO3 etc as limiting nutrient.

So you bounce between CO2 limitation and a nutrient limitation...........

It's only when you realize that providing non limiting conditions for all the nutrients, as well as CO2 do you get an algae free tank.

Everyone that fails at EI fails pretty much for the same reason and this one reason accounts for about 95% of all algae related issues: CO2.

I sound like a broken record but I've shown 100's of times that excess nutrients do not cause algae with good CO2..........the problem is that many assume they have good CO2.

Virtually every method to measure CO2 under shoots the ppm.
So they think they are fine there.

Or they have a method that they over shoot and gas their fish, then they are gun shy and never add enough thereafter..............

You should always adjust CO2 SLOWLY and carefully.
Plants are the gauge.

R macrandra is CO2 sensitive and will stunt like this with poor CO2, I've seen this perhaps 100 times over the decades.........I've never seen it stunt due to high PO4, NO3, fish loads, sediment types, high K+, high Fe/Traces etc etc.....

Ever............

I have seen it many times with CO2 however.

Many think they are doing great but really have not mastered CO2 fully.
When they limit PO4 or reduce their nutrients way down in effort to try something else, they happen upon secondary reduction oif CO2 demand and assuem that it's better to have limiting nutrients.

Too strong of a limitation, then they get algae and stunting............

You can grow and balance things that way, but until you have full mastery and control of CO2, you cannot suggest that limitation is the reason for algae control, you have confounding factors such as nutrient limitation which down regulates CO2 demand.

The test and data are not independent, they are dependent...........that makes figuring any thing out very difficult if not impossible and leads folks to make erronous conclusions.

Only by providing non limiting conditions for every thing except the nutrient of interest, can you fully test.

Be careful with CO2, figure out a way to add it faster and better to your tank, that is a very worth while endeavo for your tank/hobby etc, more than any other.

Regards,
Tom Barr

in which smallest concentration is the plants able to fullfill their needs, nutrient wise? Lets say K. If I have 1ppm left before I add more, is it sufficient? Does any of the nutrients we add change formation/compounds within different pH intervalls?

Edit: I have pH 6.81-82 throughout the tank right now in the middle of the day with a KH of slightly below 7 (calculated and tested around 6.7). Do I have low CO2?
I work at a pharmaceutical company with access to pH-meters which are calibrated each day. The readings are correct.
The KH is tested with a simple bought test from the aquatic store, but increased 2 times for accuracy. If I calculate the local waterparams in tearms of alkalinity i get the same number. This reading can be faulty, but shouldnt be.

//Nicklas

The smallest concentration?

Sounds like a simple question.
It's not and the answer is hardly "any".
That assumes a few things though.
1#, the nutrient is replentished rapidly and continuously.
Some tanks can have this via fish waste or tap etc as well as dosing, some have sediment sources as well.
2. Rate of growth is very very very important, some want faster growth for pruning and scaping, some want slower growth for lazier approaches, plants can grow very very very very slow if you want......I've seen Anubias plants 8 years old that grew a leave once every 1-2 years and they were fine and nice looking plants.

Rate of growth also implies nutrient demand for that rate of growth.

3. Light and CO2 also play huge roles in the rate of growth and the rate of nutrient demand.

4. How do we assess " nutrient demand"?
Luxury uptake is more than the plant really needs, but like us and a fat reserve, they use the excess for leaner times etc, how lean should a pklant get and how close to limitation do you want to be?

It's clearly not needed nor provides a more stable environment for the plant on a biochemical, enzymatic, molecular, ecological or physiological level.

But some seem to want to argue that they do
Even in face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and of course I'm the bad guy for pointing that out with the tidal wave of evidence from a wide range fields.

Self imposed barriers, assumptions and limitations.
I'm not sure why some folks put those upon themselves when it's clearly not required nor needed.

If you look at enzyme uptake, plants can and do adapt to various concentrations, especially K+. So at 1ppm, they have one type of enzyme transportor, at 10 ppm, they have another, at 0.1ppm, they have yet another.

It takes time for these enzymes to adapt and be "built". It takes less energy for the plant to take up the higher K+ concentration than the lower one.

We also know that higher does not influence algae.

Here's an example of graph used to show this for K+ in molecular plant science:




Regards,
Tom Barr

If I can rule out CO2 (well I have to, because I cant push anymore into my tank, and I do supply sufficient movement to supply O2 too) then left is nutrients. How come my plants start to grow downwards? Is it because my plants use too much energy using low concentrations-transporters? I thought it only affected slower growth rather than difformed growth.