# Interesting Thread (Amano Tanks very low in nutrients)



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

I found this interesting thread in Plantedtank:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...mano-tanks-very-low-nutrients-discussion.html


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

It is definitely interesting discussion pointing towards successful systems running leaner conditions. Too bad it got slaughtered by unconditional Witch-Hunt.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

I took part in that discussion over there. I will try to update my finding here if anyone is interested.

jB


----------



## MrSanders (Mar 5, 2006)

Jason i would for sure be intrested to hear more about your findings! I am one who has tried a lot of different ways of running my tank, and also one who was very frustrated when dumping everything that was needed into my didnt work out. "what the heck! they have EVERYTHING they need to grow, and a LOT of it and my plants still won't grow!!!!"

LoL I have since turned to a much leaner approach and have been seeing positive changes... I still have my share of issues and plant health isnt any where near what it could be, but so far things are getting better.

I need to hear of other findings of those who went the lean route, the issues they came across doing so, and what they found that fixed those. So please share away 


~Matt


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Jason Baliban said:


> I took part in that discussion over there. I will try to update my finding here if anyone is interested.
> 
> jB


Of course we are interested.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Let's look at this ADA CO2 product. Can it do 30+ ppm of CO2? Sure, for 60 seconds. So how come it works?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Jason, this is a topic that I find to be quite interesting. I'd appreciate hearing your experience here, since over at that "other fourm" the discussion tends to descend into a flame war even more quickly than it does here.

Something that I've suspected from my observations is that small, but frequently-dosed quantities of macros will more than meet the needs of the plants. Look at it sort of like the way Chevy builds cars. Large inventories of parts are no longer needed due to "just-in-time" delivery practices. As long as all of the parts make it to the factory, finished cars pop out the other end. If the factory is surging along at full capacity a sudden and unexpected shortage results in catastrophe. Recovery takes time, just like recovery from burned or stunted growth tips.

Look at nature. You'd be hard pressed to find a natural situation where there is anything near the concentration of macros that we typically use here in the US. Streams and rivers are usually almost devoid of macros. Substrates are a bit more rich (sometimes not much), but still, almost explosive growth is observed in many systems. We talk about "high light" aquariums, but the reality is that the intensity of direct sunlight in the tropics is virtually impossible to replicate. We tend to drive growth to unnatural rates with our Perrier CO2 habits, but even then, the actual quantity of nutrients that our plants consume isn't all that high.

Someday when I'm ready to risk the loss of my 'scape, I'm willing to try a setup with GH ~1, KH ~0.5, NO3 ~1, PO4 ~0.2 with continuous (infusion pump) dosing of minute quantities of macros. I don't think it would work as well in hard water, but I believe it might produce some surprising results. The only important nutrient concentration to avoid IMO is zero.

Honestly, it wasn't all that long ago that adding any NO3 or PO4 would have been regarded as foolish and ridiculous. They're waste products, even toxins, after all.

Forget algae. It seems evident that any method that results in healthy plant growth will restrict their growth.


----------



## artemism3 (May 21, 2005)

Jason, I too would enjoy following your results with this line of thinking! Please keep us up to date!


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Edward said:


> It is definitely interesting discussion pointing towards successful systems running leaner conditions. Too bad it got slaughtered by unconditional Witch-Hunt.


_Nitrates and phosphates don't cause algae, so go ahead and dump loads of them in, the plants will love it! But man I sure have a hard time growing some plants, I'll just stick to the easy ones. And sometimes my fish get sick, but I'm sure that's not caused by all the nitrates and phosphates. Oh and sometimes I get algae and sometimes my plants have problems but I'm totally sure that's normal and not caused by all the stuff I dump in every week._

My honest feelings, not trying to troll, I swear! :deadhorse


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Jason, feel free to post your findings. I also would love to hear them.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

guaiac_boy said:


> Something that I've suspected from my observations is that small, but frequently-dosed quantities of macros will more than meet the needs of the plants. Look at it sort of like the way Chevy builds cars. Large inventories of parts are no longer needed due to "just-in-time" delivery practices. As long as all of the parts make it to the factory, finished cars pop out the other end. If the factory is surging along at full capacity a sudden and unexpected shortage results in catastrophe. Recovery takes time, just like recovery from burned or stunted growth tips.


Agree. 
There is one more advantage. When plants get more nutrients they take more and vice versa, regulating water column concentrations. This does not cause any problems. Getting PO4 and Mg in the morning before lights go on and using it up at the end of the day works well. When fish make more N plants will take it as a bonus. Plants are remarkably flexible in stretching and storing nutrients. So the risk of running low or too high is pretty limited with proper fertilization. As a test we run the same fertilization on aquariums with fish and without, under high light and low light. At the end of the day, week or month water column levels remain well balanced.

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

guaiac_boy said:


> I'm willing to try a setup with GH ~1, KH ~0.5, NO3 ~1, PO4 ~0.2 with continuous (infusion pump) dosing of minute quantities of macros. I don't think it would work as well in hard water, but I believe it might produce some surprising results.


 Have done this with tap and also with RO. A continues slow flow with dosing pumps making water of the recommended levels. I don't know why but it did not work well. Maybe something from the tap. Hopefully somebody will try. 


guaiac_boy said:


> The only important nutrient concentration to avoid IMO is zero.


Well, tests have shown that running low after lighting period does not cause problems. So if the dose is done before lights go on and plants have N available during the day they are fine. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

*Amano, Aqua Journal Vol.33*, pH 6.6, 20 ppm TH, < 1.0 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4

*Water values of selected biotopes:*

*Rio *****, Brazil*, pH 3.7 - 4.3, 6 - 9 uS, < 0.1 dKH, < 0.1 dGH, 0.26 dH Ca, traces of Mg, 0.35 ppm K, < 0.24 ppm Fe, 0 NO3, < 0.157 ppm PO4, 

*Rio Copal, Peru*, pH 6.0, 17 uS, 0 dKH, 0.12 dGH, 0.07 dH Ca, 0.05 dH Mg, 1 ppm CO2, 1.1 ppm K, 1.6 ppm NO3, 0 PO4, 

*Rio Tapajoz, Brazil*, pH 4.4 - 6.6, 10 - 16 uS, 0.15 - 0.4 dKH, 0.13 - 0.82 dGH, 0.21 dH Ca, 0.03 dH Mg, 0.71 - 3.5 ppm CO2, 0.5 ppm K, 0 - 0.3 ppm Fe, 0 - 0.08 ppm NO3, 0 PO4, 

*Rio Chinipo, Peru*, pH 7.2, 142 uS, 4.7 dKH, 4.9 dGH, 3.6 dH Ca, 1.3 dH Mg, 10 ppm CO2, 0.5 ppm K, 0.8 ppm NO3, < 0.7 ppm PO4, 

*Amazon, Rio Solimoes, Brazil*, pH 6.5 - 7.5, 10 - 127 uS, 0.6 - 1.8 dH KH, 0.64 - 1.27 dGH, 1.08 - 1.2 dH Ca, 0.03 - 0.14 dH Mg, 3.95 ppm CO2, 0.9 - 1.1 ppm K, 0.22 ppm Fe, 0.16 - 0.28 ppm NO3, < 0.145 ppm PO4, 

*Rio Ucayali, Peru*, pH 7.1, 154 uS, 3.9 dH KH, 2.9 dGH, 2.9 dH Ca, 0 Mg, 10 ppm CO2, 1.8 ppm K, 0.7 ppm PO4, 

(Aquarium Plants by Christel Kasselmann)


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

There was a recent article in the AGA journal about a similar South American river system. The water column was practically devoid of N and P, but both were present in larger quantities in the substrate.

We all know that inert substrates with "water column only" fertilization strategies can work just fine. Certainly many plants do well even without a true "root" structure. Despite this, you have to admit that there is a pretty good rationale behind "rich" ADA-type substrates and lean water column dosing.


----------

