If Liebig's law of the minimum was true, why would deficiencies still exist? Thought experiment

[Dennis Wong]

thank you folks for contributing, I haven't have time yet to read through the fine print but I do see many useful points ~

I have not yet studied Mulder's chart to any great extent.
On the other hand, my key observation has been this: Do folks that obsess over these charts have results better than folks that do not seem to have any knowledge about it? From my observations, it seems no. If so, there are more impactful angles to approach/optimize the craft.
Do folks that spend days on their Excel sheets charting nutrient ratios and optimizing their trace ratios to XXXXX accuracy have better results than folks that approach dosing in a more rough manner. If the answer is also no, then it also shows that effort is best directed elsewhere.

Looks like the start of a great article Dennis. Haven't seen Liebig's law discussed like this in a long time. Back in the day Barr would cite this often and there was plenty of discussion about it.

This last part caught my eye. I've been thinking recently about temperature spikes and microbial imbalance.

I am guessing that large temperature swings can affect beneficial bacteria. I noticed for a while when I was not heating my incoming RO water I would get some problems especially if the source water was really cold. And also plant metabolism slows/rises with temps which could be another issue.

In your experience is temperature stability important? Or something not to really worry about?

And do you think there is an optimal temperature? Or Optimal range? If so what?

I haven't had much chance to experience cold spikes in water as I live in warm climate country.

On temperature - I've tried setups where I chilled the tank for half the day, so the tank has a night time temp of 23C/73f and a day time temp reaching 30C/86f. Such tanks did better, plant growth wise, than tanks that ran a constant 30C/86f. So in the limited circumstances I've seen, spending some time in the optimal range is better than say being too warm all the time.

I think given the tropical selection of plants we use in aquariums, 22-24C/ 72-75F is optimal for a large range of species.

For warm tanks, microbial maturity is reached faster, however, algae also happens faster if triggered.
Things happening faster makes a huge impact on hobbyist experience, as it affects maintenance cycles and reaction times. i.e. if an algae problem could be solved by 1 big water change a week, if the same problem happened at 2X speed, the aquarist need to be able to execute remedial action twice as much/fast. Hotter systems, and fast growth tanks easily lead to runaway algae problems for aquarists that cannot execute remedial actions to match. For experienced folks, slightly warmer temps and fast growth systems can deliver faster results - i.e. cycling tank faster or plants growing in faster.

 

[Naturescapes_Rocco]

If so, there are more impactful angles to approach/optimize the craft.

I totally understand your logic, but I think you're approaching it one-sided! Not everything is about what is most efficient or "optimal".

This goes for life, as well as this hobby.

Do folks that spend days on their Excel sheets charting nutrient ratios and optimizing their trace ratios to XXXXX accuracy have better results than folks that approach dosing in a more rough manner. If the answer is also no, then it also shows that effort is best directed elsewhere.

Again, the assumption here is that just because something isn't optimal or efficient, we shouldn't do it (or instead we should do things that are more optimal). This logic is a modern Western ideal, focusing on growth and results rather than a holistic view of the thing as a whole.

It's not always about results, sometimes it's about the journey/experience, and everyone's preferences are different! There's no right way to do anything, certainly not in this silly hobby of ours. The second we imply there are truly "better" ways to do something, we've lost the plot.

Dennis, I LIKE approaching it through excel sheets and charting nutrient ratios. To some that might seem crazy or even ridiculous, but I genuinely love spending some of my free time focusing on solving these little biological puzzles through DIY dosing, measuring, charting, etc. It's my favorite part! I don't do it because it's efficient, but because I enjoy the challenge/understanding/experience of it all.

I never tell beginners that the methods I use are "best" or even "easy", because they're not. If we focus on the most "optimal" solution for something, we often miss out on other aspects that can be good, too.

If I wanted to make art, is it not more "efficient" or "optimized" to just ask ChatGPT to make my art for me? For some, the experience as you go is as much of the enjoyment as the final result. I LOVE making my own fertilizers for 1/10th the cost of commercial ferts, despite the fact that it's easier to just buy premade ferts.

My point is, not everything in life is about optimization.

I've run failed experiments more times than I can count, but I still absolutely disdain the idea that "my efforts should be directed eslewhere" just because there's a more optimized way. Just because I can drive to the top of the mountain, doesn't mean that there isn't value in choosing to hike up the mountain instead, even if driving is easier, faster, or even safer!

 

[ElleDee]

(I started this last night and didn't finish.) To get back to Dennis's original line of questioning, I have my plants mentally sorted as relying on the substrate or relying on the water column and that gives them different amounts of resilience to different disturbances. This is not quite a root feeder/water column feeder thing, it's more about the interaction between a plant and my particular system (low tech, nutritive substrate, fairly lean water column with a pH that swings around 7). Some plants can get by on the water column alone and they can be trimmed and replanted at will, or just, like, jammed in between stuff somewhere and they can keep growing just as they were. They are the minority though and are invariably the equivalent to plants that can grow out the cracks in the sidewalk. Even if I put more nutrients in the water column, I think my higher pH would still be a roadblock for availability. (Could that roadblock be overcome with more frequent dosing or some other tweaks of strategy? Maybe, haven't investigated it fully.) My water column is just more difficult for plants, so those that do well are just very adaptable.

But plants that have fully developed roots can actively modulate the surrounding substrate (rhizosphere) to increase nutrient availability and carbon cycling by leeching organic acids, pumping oxygen, etc., which affects the soil water chemistry directly and also supports the development of plant-associated microbes that help with those things. This is a better strategy for more plants, but it's slower to get established and every time you sever a stem from its roots it's got to rebuild that connection to the substrate. (I assume this is less of a thing or a complete non-issue with CO2 injection?) I am not quick to trim for this reason, Sudipta Shaw mentioned that he avoids this in his AGA talk and I think it was the first time I heard someone else really talk about it. I will let certain (more fussy or recently added) plants have bare lower stems for a long time instead of just replanting the tops even though it looks very stupid. Uprooting rosette plants is even worse of course, but most people understand that they shouldn't be moved very often. I am guessing the mechanism is similar.

I also suspect that having a well developed rhizosphere helps greatly with the balance of the tank overall, but this is already getting too long. I also have a related pet theory that people who say that their low tech soils are becoming depleated after a few months are actually observing their new plants running out of stored resources.

I do strongly agree with @Naturescapes_Rocco's post above. I see the pursuit of optimization as part of Dennis's journey though, if that makes sense. And I certainly respect that he's in the industry and that is part of it as well - figuring out "best practices" and communicating them to as wide a market as possible is basically his whole brand. But I strongly believe that true success in the hobby is true compatibility between your tanks and your personality and circumstances, not being "the best" per se.

 

[Burr740]

Oh boy. Heres a couple quick thoughts, jmho of course

Mulders Chart is absolutely viable. Its just wrongly applied and can quickly lead down long imaginary rabbit holes to incorrect assumptions. A further confounding factor that is never discussed is how plants regulate their internal ionic balance. Most of these responses are passive

Anybody thats ran many real isolated nutrient experiments will see clearly that the presence of one thing can affect another

If <general> ratios didnt matter we'd all be dosing 40/40/40 and talking about something else
===
@Dennis Wong points about the momentum shift is, I believe just using different verbage to explain how plants adjust to changes. Good or bad changes. Tip stunting is the most common response to a change in nutrients or co2. It doesnt necessarily indicate theres a problem. Its the plant abandoning its existing growth and putting its resources to making new side branches that are better wired for the new conditions

Its why, as Dennis often alludes to, we cant aways judge what happens right at first when we try something. We raise or lower nutrients. Sensitive stems immediately stunt. Naturally, the logical conclusion is what we just did was bad. We know it for a fact because we just saw it happen!!

We proclaim to the masses "too much/too little <...> causes <...>!" Not necessarily! Often its just the plants adjusting to the change. Gotta ride it out and see what new growth looks like

That is why consistency is so important. And why trying one thing after another to "fix" a problem only cause more problems, because the plants stay in a constant state of trying to adapt. You can steal this analogy for your new article Dennis Might read better to US folks than calling it "momentum shift". If you dont write it, I will be soon. Ive got some stuff coming out but I try not to repeat things youve already covered so well.
===
Stable consistency is especially important with CO2. Primarily related to rubisco production which is how plants optimize themselves to the amount of co2 available. Its an expensive enzyme for them to make

Stable is far more important than how much when it comes to co2
===

Beyond the stability of co2, I believe co2 gets WAY too much emphasis and nutrients dont get enough. This is mostly from "experts" defending a method while refusing to see whats right in front of them. Hammering co2 co2 co2 for a decade. Im not talking about Dennis, not much anyway We're all guilty of it a little bit

Its not always conscious thing. Often somebody just doesnt know. Reminds me of my childhood pediatrician, everything I had that he didnt know was a "virus". Over the years it became a running joke with my parents and me. He wasnt trying to deceive, he just didnt know. And giving that answer simply wasnt an option. Human nature resists just saying we dont know

 

[JacksonL]

I think something I’ve learned through my newest tank being more problematic than previous systems, is not to get too hung up on a single ‘fix’ or approach.
If you think nutrient changes will fix your problems, or that CO2 optimisation is the key, then that becomes your hammer and every problem looks like a nail.
I have been fighting a BBA outbreak in my tank for the last few months and got quite caught up in it definitely being a nutrient issue.
I tweaked and changed things and couldn’t put a dent in it. It actually became a bit of a chore to maintain the tank, rather than the enjoyable process it normally is.
In the end, for my own sanity I just simplified things. I scrapped my DIY fertilisers for now, and began using APT 3. As a proven system, I figured I removed some unknowns. I stopped testing so often, just checking nitrate and phosphate at the end of the week. I actually lowered my CO2 levels and stabilised them with more surface movements. Instead of running at the upper limit and tweaking to keep fish safe, but plants happy I gave myself a large buffer. I turned the lights down 10% too. I slowed down and just did the daily maintenance I enjoy, trimming old leaves, removing algae from sections of the tank at a time and small cleaning tasks with my headphones on listening to tunes.
I am still unsure with what caused it, the tank is fairly new but not immature (5 months or so), so it really could have been anything. But I appear to be on the other side of the worst of it.
By stopping the ‘optimisation’ mindset, I seem to have steadied the ship and I am enjoying this tank more. Once I have it stable, I will see where it sits and may look at tuning it up, slowly.

 

[Kwyet]

It’s hard for me to stop tweaking things. The best thing that happened to my Dutch tank last year was the bathroom mold fiasco forcing me to stay out of the basement and leave it alone for weeks. All I did was go down to feed the fish briefly while the mold was present, and then do water changes using a siphon from the upstairs bathroom while the basement bathroom was being put back together (took forever). After that, of course there was trimming to do, but all of the algae problems were just gone. The plants were happy. It was a lesson for me!

 

[GreggZ]

If you dont write it, I will be soon. Ive got some stuff coming out but I try not to repeat things youve already covered so well.

Of all the things I have read recently this really caught my eye.

If you are writing something, I can't wait to read it.

Bring it on Joe!

 

[macek.g]

There are many charts and they are popular in different parts of the world.
I know of at least a dozen.

Source: Collective work edited by Prof. Dr. hab. Saturnin Zawadzki, 1999, PWRiL, Warsaw.

Legend
A - antagonism (negative interactions)
B - blockade or immobilization
P - co-precipitation
S - synergism (stimulation)






The famous Ca-B antagonism shown in Excel (although it does occur in this case)