Assuming you consider adding aquasoil based on growth or is it more based on time ? Also how much aquasoil do you add ? Thx
Its a mix of both. Time-wise, I can only add when stuff is being up rooted. Blood vomit grows really fast in fresh aquasoil for example, I think they double in mass every 3 weeks or so. So if there is a patch I want to propagate or see plants that are not growing as great as before I will enrich the patch. On the opposite, I'll avoid enriching areas where I'd rather the plants grow more slowly (i.e. the patches of Elatine triandra).
@Dennis Wong your recent posts remind me of something that I used to say all the time.
When people see a beautiful underwater garden and wonder why theirs doesn't look anything like that.........truth is that likely they are just working harder at it than you. You are a testament to that.
Great series of posts these past few months with loads of useful insight..........and inspiration!
Keep up the great work.
Thanks man. I think hard work is one part, but where to apply that effort is even more important. I've been on forums/groups for years and I see folks chasing things that will not bring them any closer to having better aquariums. There are many small things that experience folks know and discount that the less experienced ppl are easily fooled by.
An example:
New hobbyist reads that nutrients are important for plant growth, and also that nutrients can cause algae. He starts a new tank, and immediately gets hit by diatoms and plant adaptation shock. Immediately spends time and money trying to "dial in his nutrients" to XXX accuracy, thinking that it will solve the issue. The thing that the tank actually lacked was tank maturity, and the ways to manage how a new tank settle in isn't particularly dependent on nutrient values per se. This hobbyist can chase the wrong direction for a long time and build up all sorts of weird pre-conceived notions about how to start a tank from this single experience.
Another common example that also took me a long time to observe and articulate:
Many folks suffer from poor growth due to unstable nutrient levels, not a lack of nutrients per se. In the many years I spend reading forum posts and replies, this is still very very rarely mentioned as a cause. Even till today, on this very forum, I see folks always recommend adding more nutrients when there is any sign of deteriorating growth. Its always more, not more stable, or other methods to improve plant growth such as removing old growth or compacted root zones. Among aquasoil tanks, enrichment and clearing old growth is still super rarely mentioned.
If anything, most of the aquarium hobby is still as nutrient centric (and not in the correct way) as years before.
I think a lot of these issues also come from the limitation of hobbyist tools. If hobbyist can't measure nutrient levels accurately - why would anyone think of nutrient stability as being an issue at all ? If CO2 could never be measured accurately, who could really say that 40-50ppm of CO2 makes a big difference to some species vs 30ppm or 20ppm. Until I came along, I never saw anyone dispute the saying that "drop checker green = 30ppm of CO2."
Think about the time before PAR meters was a thing that at least a handful of hobbyists can afford. Light discussion was vague and largely speculative. I remember reading the walstad book, and she did some primitive test talking about light and growth with no measurement of PAR levels at all. [1][her book has many other terrible examples of how NOT to conduct experiments]. I think she demonstrates how going deep in the wrong direction yields no results - yet the baffling with bullshit is enough to win over generations of walstaders.
1
I have no answer for the