Just My Bad Luck Or Potential Advice To Noobs ?

[Dave Spencer]

You have obviously had great success with plants in the past, and from your attitude seems to be like that of the proverbial (or maybe not quite so yet) old fish keeper who doesn't do water changes and adds aquarium salt to his fish tanks, he is very experienced and has had great success relying on the look of his fish and his gut to tell him when to do a water change or add more salt.

I have been in this hobby two and a half years.

I have taken water from the water treatment plant where I work at a purity of 0.02 microSiemens and using just light, have grown algae in there to prove:

A: How powerful an algae trigger light is.
B: Algae grows in extreme nutrient limited environments, proving to myself that all the phosphate/nitrate haters are incorrect, and products such as Rowaphos are a waste of money.

I have purposely switched off the CO2 to one of my tanks, to prove to myself that BBA and staghorn are closely related to CO2 deficiency/instability. This test is repeatable, always with the same results. Leave the process for longer and spirogyra appears. Leave it even longer and you see the result in the OP`s tank.

Don`t presume to know my or how I run my tanks.

In other words, very unscientific, your methods have worked for you, but don't hold up to scrutiny.

So what observations have you drawn from your tank lately, or do you feel there are more answers in test kits and books.

I ask you, hopefully the last time - is there any specific evidence whatsoever you can see that would point to a carbon deficiency?

Experience, although limited admittedly. At least I have carried out my own experiments and observations to back up what I say.

Or is this merely a gut feeling you have from the pictures?

Also a gut feeling too. But that comes from looking at my tanks, not test kits and books. This is a hobby after all.

Because if it's just a gut feeling, I feel that advising somebody to invest in a CO2 system is terrible advice to give on a forum (with the evidence supplied).

And dosing liquid carbon in a 300l is cheap as chips?

Non-aquatic plants dying off.

The Vallis is one of the very true aquatic plants we have. The sword should be thriving under water as it adapts to the aquatic environment very readily. I also see Cabomba (aquatic) and what looks like Prosperpinica palustris (aquatic), so I have no idea why, after 30 posts, you still want to stumble down that path.

Maybe we haven`t seen all the plants in this tank, but the ones dissolving are aquatic.

Various environmental "shocks" that people have experienced (specifically relating to the vallis in this tank)….

So what about the other plants dying off? Environmental shocks is a little vague.

I take the time and trouble to find things out for myself. Whether they stand up to your scientific scrutiny is largely irrelevant to me. I know how to run a planted tank, and I know how to add plants without them dissolving. Good CO2.

Dave.

 

[aaronnorth]

Maybe along the wrong lines but if ammonia poisoning was viable would we not have to wait a wek or so before planting into fresh ADA AS?

No idea on the ppms but just a query

AC

i dont think the amount of ammonia released is that high. From what i have read, the max is 2ppm.

IMO it is down to either ammonia poisoning, or CO2. with daily dosing of liquid carbon on a low light tank, personally, i think CO2/ carbon is covered, hence why i suggested ammonia poisoning.

thanks.

 

[keenonfish]

Not sure if the fact there is no livestock in the tank has a relevance to the CO2 argument in this case?

 

[Dave Spencer]

IMO it is down to either ammonia poisoning, or CO2. with daily dosing of liquid carbon on a low light tank, personally, i think CO2/ carbon is covered, hence why i suggested ammonia poisoning.

thanks.

It doesn`t appear to be a lot of light Aaron, I agree, but I use 2 x T8 the length of my 240l tank, and can`t get by without pressurised CO2. I just think that plant disintegration of that kind is closely related to a carbon deficiency.

At the end of the day it is only my opinion, and one I have offered to the OP. But I am convinced it is down to carbon.

Dave.

 

[three-fingers]

I have been in this hobby two and a half years.

I have taken water from the water treatment plant where I work at a purity of 0.02 microSiemens and using just light, have grown algae in there to prove:

A: How powerful an algae trigger light is.
B: Algae grows in extreme nutrient limited environments, proving to myself that all the phosphate/nitrate haters are incorrect, and products such as Rowaphos are a waste of money.

I have purposely switched off the CO2 to one of my tanks, to prove to myself that BBA and staghorn are closely related to CO2 deficiency/instability. This test is repeatable, always with the same results. Leave the process for longer and spirogyra appears. Leave it even longer and you see the result in the OP`s tank.

Don`t presume to know my or how I run my tanks.

All very good and well, serious kudos to you for being so pro-active within this hobby, hence my earlier "Your method of deduction seems incredibly unscientific, which is very surprising considering the usual quality of your posts.".
None of this info is relevant to this situation however .
To use yet another analogy, this is like an ancient explorer saying "I've been to the top of mountains, been to every continent, sailed every sea - I've mapped them all - and I think the earth is flat".

So what observations have you drawn from your tank lately, or do you feel there are more answers in test kits and books.

Quite a few observations, not that it's relevant in the slightest.
Test kits are used along side other methods to make observations, books are used to document and back up observations.

I'll stop there as discussing it further would be irrelevant.

I ask you, hopefully the last time - is there any specific evidence whatsoever you can see that would point to a carbon deficiency?

Experience, although limited admittedly. At least I have carried out my own experiments and observations to back up what I say.

Saying you have experience isnt evidence.
You are not backing up what your saying with anything relevant.

Your answer to my question should have been "no".

And dosing liquid carbon in a 300l is cheap as chips?

You would think since the OP is already adding it that they have evaluated the two and chosen liquid CO2 instead of a larger one time investment in pressurised CO2.
Regardless, you have still given no evidence it would actually solve the problem
Worth a try if the OP has spare cash floating around (as pressurised CO2 is most of the time), but otherwise it would be a misguided purchase that could be a complete waste.

The Vallis is one of the very true aquatic plants we have. The sword should be thriving under water as it adapts to the aquatic environment very readily. I also see Cabomba (aquatic) and what looks like Prosperpinica palustris (aquatic), so I have no idea why, after 30 posts, you still want to stumble down that path.
Maybe we haven`t seen all the plants in this tank, but the ones dissolving are aquatic.

Really? Cabomba and P.palustris look normal to me. What sword?
Maybe your thinking of a different tank.

Environmental shocks is a little vague.

It's meant to be. It's a very vague term that covers a lot of potential issues that I don't understand fully enough with regards to specific species to go into, yet, anyway.

I take the time and trouble to find things out for myself. Whether they stand up to your scientific scrutiny is largely irrelevant to me. I know how to run a planted tank, and I know how to add plants without them dissolving. Good CO2.

Indeed much like that hypothetical old fish keeper I was likening your methods to.

So as it stands, the OP's tank should have enough carbon and there's other potential reasons for the plants dying off, yet you are still putting it down to a CO2 deficiency and offering no reasonable explanation as to why except to say that's you believe it to be in your experiance.

Fantastic. Enjoy your alchemy.

 

[Dave Spencer]

To be honest Three Fingers, all you are doing is giving out personal insults, without one single word of advice to the OP. We`ve all seen it before and know what it means.

All you have left are vague environmental shocks.



Dave.

 

[RadaR]

Funny thread.
Most common cause of melting plants is lack of CO2, IMO/IME.
Other cases I've seen are when emersed grown plants are adapting to submerged life, although that is not apparent here.

 

[three-fingers]

To be honest Three Fingers, all you are doing is giving out personal insults, without one single word of advice to the OP. We`ve all seen it before and know what it means.

All you have left are vague environmental shocks.



Dave.

I have advised the OP and given no personal insults .

Ammonia poisoning.
Non-aquatic plants dying off.

Along with the vallis suffering potential vauge environmental shock.

No evidence to support your carbon theory.

I think I'm done .

 

[SuperColey1]

I've commented on the sudden 'resurgence' of cycling a planted tank on this forum so I won't dwell on that. All I would suggest is to stop cycling and just let it run fishless while you figure out what is killing the plants.

It could just be the curse of Vals which many of us have

AC