# High nitrate questions



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

I havent done any testing of my tanks in forever but I was testing nitrate in my shrimp tank last night and decided to test some of the other tanks at the same time. 

The shrimp tank had no measurable nitrates---good. 

The 29 gallon tank with EI dosing and Aquasoil and CO2 with T5HO lights ( 3 x 24W ) had very high nitrate readings---dark red on the API scale ( I think it said 100--but it was the highest reading )

This is the dosing I use--I add 1/16 tsp of epsom salts when I dose micros ( CSM+B ) I use Green Leaf dry ferts

*20~40gal
*50% H20 change-weekly
1/4 Tsp-KN03 3x a week
1/16 Tsp-KH2P04 3x aweek
1/2 Tsp-GH booster once a week 
5ml or 1/16Tsp-Trace 3x a week
_Optional_
1-2ml-Fe/Iron 3x a week

Its stocked with 13 Harlequin rasboras, 5 three line corydoras, 3 red clawed macro shrimp ( one that is VERY berried ) and 2 fat otos. 

This tank has always been a nightmare for me to keep algae away. Currently I have brown algae everywhere, green dust on the glass and green spot algae on some crypt leaves. I recently upped the lighting to the current levels. Before, it had 2 double strip T5NO fixtures. The brown algae is new, the others have always been present--along with BBA from time to time. None of my other tanks have any algae to speak of. I thought I would try to put the plants in overdrive and eat up the nutrients. Obviously with this much nitrate the plants arent using it all. 

I use the same tap water to change the water in the shrimp tank as I do this 29 gallon. I changed the water last night and Im gonna skip the KNO3 this week and check the nitrate before the next water change. I honestly havent tested for nitrate in the tap, but if the shrimp tank tests at zero I would think the tap is close to that. I do have a lot of floating plants in the shrimp tank to keep the water clean though. 

Any additional thoughts?


----------



## HolyAngel (Oct 18, 2010)

nope, sounds like you have it under control, you need to limit the amount of kno3 you're dosing so that it falls in line with how much the plants are able to take up/water changes.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

You had a chance to control the algae with the 2 T5NO lights, but I doubt that you can with a 3 bulb T5HO light. That is just too much light for a 29 gallon tank. Nitrates don't cause algae blooms. Excessive light will cause algae blooms.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

I have the same setup as you do: 29g with 3 24w T5 HO lights, aquasoil with a light stocking of 8 danios. The only algae I get is a little gsa on the glass when I overfeed. 

The difference is that I don't dose nearly as much as you do. Only K, micros and iron are dosed in small quantities on a regular basis. Excessive nutrients, particularly N and P *CAUSE ALGAE*. This website is perhaps one of the only places where people are naive enough to keep on dumping in massive amounts of ferts despite having algae issues.

I would recommend you give your filter a good cleaning, do one extra large water change and only dose K and micros for a week or two. Keep your lighting the same, but cut the photoperiod down by an hour or two until you get the algae under control.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

If adding nitrate or phosphorous caused algae blooms, all of our tanks would look like bowls of pea soup.

There is such a minute amount of protein in algae (It's mostly water. When you hear claims that chlorella, etc. are high in protein, it's because it's something like 40% by dry weight.), that 1ppm can probably grow enough algae to coat everything in your tank.

You can try cutting the N if you think it will help. Just watch your plants and make sure they don't start "yellowing" out. It's possible the fish are producing enough nitrogen via ammonia to keep them fed. 

The amount of nitrate you are dosing can never produce 100ppm nitrates unless the water isn't being changed or the NO3 is coming from some other source. You're only dosing about 20ppm each week.


----------



## tharsis (Oct 9, 2009)

snausage said:


> The difference is that I don't dose nearly as much as you do. Only K, micros and iron are dosed in small quantities on a regular basis. Excessive nutrients, particularly N and P *CAUSE ALGAE*. This website is perhaps one of the only places where people are naive enough to keep on dumping in massive amounts of ferts despite having algae issues.


oh man this should be good


----------



## coil1002 (Jun 18, 2011)

just tagging along


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

Sharkfood said:


> If adding nitrate or phosphorous caused algae blooms, all of our tanks would look like bowls of pea soup.
> 
> There is such a minute amount of protein in algae (It's mostly water. When you hear claims that chlorella, etc. are high in protein, it's because it's something like 40% by dry weight.), that 1ppm can probably grow enough algae to coat everything in your tank.
> 
> ...


 
I do a 50% water change weekly. The only other sources would be Aquasoil ( its been in this tank since January ), fish poop and fish food. I dont think I overfeed, all of the flake or pellet food is gone before I turn the filters back on--I do drop in a sinking wafer or two every night or every other night for the Corydoras and shrimp.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I suppose the sinking wafers could do it, but that's assuming that they aren't getting eaten, which is unlikely if you have shrimp and Cories.

I still suspect the test kit.

I don't have any experience with Aquasoil, but I've heard it will leach ammonia for several months. 7 Months seems like an awfully long time though.

Maybe it's a perfect storm of all the previously mentioned factors.

Honestly though, with 50% water changes every week, the fert input should never result in higher than around 40ppm, assuming the plants don't use any of it. If you graph out the function of the inputs with water changes, you get a line with diminishing returns, such that the resulting concentration will always stay just below 2x the weekly input.

Again, if you want to stop nitrate for a week and see if the levels decrease, I doubt that one week will hurt the plants much. There will still be some nitrogen compounds in the water, even if it's lower than optimal. I'd dose K via some other compound though. It's been my experience that potassium deficiency pinholes can appear fairly quickly under high light.

It's just hard for me to believe there's 100ppm of nitrate in a planted tank. Especially under such intense lighting. This is why I suspect the test kit.

BTW I tried adding pure KNO3 to a test sample, and it didn't register on my API test. I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn from that, but it sure took me by surprize.


----------



## Kathyy (Feb 22, 2010)

You aren't limiting NPK or micros or light. Suspect the tank needs more CO2 and if there is too much light you aren't going to be able to get enough into the tank without gassing the animals within. Cut back on the light period, shade the tank and use less nitrate.

EI is a guide, not an absolute. I cut back on my nitrate and add potassium instead and am going to up the potassium even more next time I fill the pill minder up. Why I still need the phosphorus I don't know but the tank is better off keeping that amount up there.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

Plants need phosphorous just like the other nutrients. I think that heavily stocked or fed tanks probably don't need as much N, but I don't feel from my own experience that dosing 20ppm anyway is going to hurt anything either.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> Excessive light will cause algae blooms.


^ this

I'm no expert, but i think light is the problem. I follow the exact same dosing regimen as you do on my 20 Long. I've had a battle with algae for a long time....actually gave up on BBA and decided just to coexist with it.:icon_conf. 
The only thing I cut back on was my photoperiod from 12 hrs to 8 hrs. Everything else stayed the same(water changes, Ferts, CO2, etc). This solved my problem....well at least there is only BBA on my driftwood now. Before I had staghorn algae everywhere and BGA on the glass. 

There's a part of my tank that gets very little light...as you can see there is *NO algae* at all on the part of the driftwood that gets little light....And a bunch on the part that is under direct light. 










Algae free :hihi:


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Really, the question about whether high NO3 and/or PO4 will cause algae has been answered many times by many people. As Sharkfood noted, we who use an EI fertilizing method would all have algae infested tanks if NO3 and PO4 caused algae problems. Continuing to debate the issue is non-productive.

I would never claim that it isn't possible to have a high light tank, even a 3T5HO lighted 29 gallon tank, with no algae problems. I would certainly argue that most people will have algae problems with that much light. All we try to do is point out ways to tilt the odds more in our favor.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

I thought the KNO3 dosing according to that regime was a bit excessive, I have 0 NO3 if I don't dose, and I maybe have to add 1/8 - 1/4 tsp weekly to get 10-20 ppm NO3.
I had algae problems *before* dosing KNO3


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

BlueJack, your blue jd doesn't mess with the plants?


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

NO3 doesn't cause algae...for sure I can testify to that. I'm running about a constant 80ppm nitrates on my tank...not a spec of algae on my plants except spot and dust algae on the glass.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

sevenyearnight said:


> BlueJack, your blue jd doesn't mess with the plants?


Not yet, but he's still a juvenile...4-5 inches now. We'll see what happens as he gets older.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> I have the same setup as you do: 29g with 3 24w T5 HO lights, aquasoil with a light stocking of 8 danios. The only algae I get is a little gsa on the glass when I overfeed.
> 
> The difference is that I don't dose nearly as much as you do. Only K, micros and iron are dosed in small quantities on a regular basis. Excessive nutrients, particularly N and P *CAUSE ALGAE*. This website is perhaps one of the only places where people are naive enough to keep on dumping in massive amounts of ferts despite having algae issues.


Either that or they are wise enough and have tested using a reference control tank to know the other sites are full of beans.

If what you say is in fact true, then how much N and P is excessive? At what ppm will you induce algae.

You brought it up, you need to pony up here and ANSWER THIS QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. 

Then you need to explain why other can do this same ppm and NOT get ANY algae.

These are the results, we KNOW how much we have added to these tanks in terms of N and P.

We do not why many other folks get algae and like to correlate nutrients to their woes, this myth has gone on for 20 plus years and was falsified 15 years ago resoundingly and is well accepted, even among research(see Bachmann et al 2002 for for a reference).

So answer me ......why can I and many many others do this without issue, yet you cannot? Oh my, you mean there might be things like light and CO2, general care, water changes, sediment types that might a dependency?

Who could have guessed that?:tongue:

Good grief.

You do NOT do test by saying here's our agenda, let's see what facts we can find to support them.

We go here's the facts, let's see what test we can do to verify them and observe. Can we falsify the hypothesis that N or P cause algae independent of the other variables like light or CO2??

This is why PMDD was falsified long ago, the assumption was CO2 was NOT dependent, when in fact, it was highly dependent. Adding to the issue, CO2 is a tough one to measure and the non limiting(eg* independent*) CO2 ppm is different for every plants as well as the light compensation point. 

Without a truly independent test, you can confirm nothing about nutrients and algae.

I've addressed this issue several times with you, if wish to state/repeat the same myths, perhaps you need to prove this to yourself and ask why do these other folks this, and not get any algae issues?

Is it some sort of lying and conspiracy going on??:tongue::icon_idea

Come on, back up what you say, you failed to do this many times and I've called you out on it plenty thus far.

It's not personal, it's the topic that matters and support your contentions.

You simply have not done so.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sevenyearnight said:


> I thought the KNO3 dosing according to that regime was a bit excessive, I have 0 NO3 if I don't dose, and I maybe have to add 1/8 - 1/4 tsp weekly to get 10-20 ppm NO3.
> I had algae problems *before* dosing KNO3


I still think the poster who stated the CO2........was on the mark.

This bugger is a PITA.

You can rule out light, you can rule out nutrients.
These can be made independent and we can test and measure these with reasonable methods.

Not so with CO2.


What is a non limiting amount for CO2?
30ppm?

This too is an assumption, a guess.

Maybe it's 45ppm for S. belem, or 57ppm for Erios.
I do not know.

What is the toxicity level for fish and CO2?

How do we test CO2 for the entire light cycle and where do we measure in the tank?

Does CO2 ppm change over what time scale? light? Nutrients?

CO2 we can say is the main link and is the least stable of the parameters we add.

If we limit say PO4 strongly, this is predicted by Liebig's Law of the minimum, that adding more and more CO2 will not help. However, if you add lots of PO4, then some other nutrient, or CO2 will now become limiting. Liebig's Law also predicts this.

When folks limit say N or P, they often limit nutrients a little bit more than the CO2. So plants still grow...........and not much if any algae.
But not as fast as with the more nutrients and more CO2.
In otherwords, they have dependency on nutrients and CO2, whereas a reference tank does not have CO2 limitations no matter what the PO4, independence in the methods.

This is the error that the folks that believe the old tired myths and dogma make and then read it, accept it as truth and never question it, even when faced with a tank full of plants and nutrients, CO2 and no algae.

I guess you can believe in the tooth fairy, I prefer to believe in the Truth Fairy.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

Well, I think everyone doses too much as well.

My formula is to dose 1/.1/1 ppm of NO3/PO4/K per day and PPS Pro micro once a day. I change 20% water per week. CO2 is at 20ppm

I've been doing this for 3 years and waste 1/2 my plant growth every two weeks and can breed any kind of fish you can think of.

RTP


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

:flick:You just got told...now tell your friends


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> I still think the poster who stated the CO2........was on the mark.
> 
> This bugger is a PITA.
> 
> ...


I meant excessive for my tank with low light and low CO2 to reach 10-20 ppm NO3. I most certainly had algae before I dosed KNO3, so with my limited understanding, I wouldn't believe that high levels of NO3 exclusively would cause algae problems since that was the opposite of what happened in my tank. I do occasionally have nitrates as high as 40 ppm, still no algae.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

ray-the-pilot said:


> Well, I think everyone doses too much as well.
> 
> My formula is to dose 1/.1/1 ppm of NO3/PO4/K per day and PPS Pro micro once a day. I change 20% water per week. CO2 is at 20ppm
> 
> ...


The object of EI dosing is to dose "too much" of everything, so nothing being dosed can ever be limiting the plants growth rates. If that is what you refer to, you are right.

As far as having 20 ppm of CO2 goes, it is nearly impossible to determine that you have 20 ppm and not 40 ppm or even 10 ppm, so I doubt that you are dosing 20 ppm. How are you measuring it?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> Either that or they are wise enough and have tested using a reference control tank to know the other sites are full of beans.
> 
> If what you say is in fact true, then how much N and P is excessive? At what ppm will you induce algae.
> 
> ...


You are the plant guru so far be it from me to say anything but excessive nitrates is a proof of bad plant growth!

In my research, I dose at 1/.1/1 ppm of NO3/PO4/K per day. I test regularly for NO3/PO4/K and use the rule 20ppm/2/ppm/20ppm. Any result above that rule is a warning that something is wrong. I doesn't mean that I am dosing too much. What it means is that the plants are not uptaking enough! 
In my work, there is a definite correlation between poor plant growth and excess NO3- in the water column.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

Jeffww said:


> NO3 doesn't cause algae...for sure I can testify to that. I'm running about a constant 80ppm nitrates on my tank...not a spec of algae on my plants except spot and dust algae on the glass.


Bear with me for a moment:


Here's a video of the oldest goldfish ever (approximately 44 years old at the time of this recording): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3Fpt4tspc

It looks like he's living in a 5 gallon tank. 

So is this evidence that a large fish that requires a lot of oxygen and produces a ton of waste will be better off in a tiny aquarium? No...... but luckily the owners haven't spent much time on aquarium forums writing articles and posts about the myths of overstocked tanks. Now, I'm not accusing you of anything whatsoever, but I think it's better to base your actions on common sense instead anomalies and forum posts.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Either that or they are wise enough and have tested using a reference control tank to know the other sites are full of beans.
> 
> If what you say is in fact true, then how much N and P is excessive? At what ppm will you induce algae.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's possible to ascertain what specific levels of nitrate and phosphate induce algae growth and I've never claimed to know this. But it certainly isn't a myth that excessive NO3 and PO4 will cause algae in an aquarium and I think most people would agree that 100 ppm of NO3 is excessive (except perhaps those whose reputations or finances are dependent upon KNO3).

Similarly, you can't tell me the specific levels at which NO3 and P04 would limit aquarium plant growth, nor why people who maintain a fraction of the NO3 and PO4 levels recommended by EI get excellent results while using high light. 

So why not ditch the dogma and admit that their are negative consequences, one of which is algae, of over fertilizing an aquarium?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ray-the-pilot said:


> You are the plant guru so far be it from me to say anything but excessive nitrates is a proof of bad plant growth!
> 
> 
> > I am not a guru of any sort.
> ...


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

ray-the-pilot said:


> In my research, I dose at 1/.1/1 ppm of NO3/PO4/K per day. I test regularly for NO3/PO4/K and use the rule 20ppm/2/ppm/20ppm. Any result above that rule is a warning that something is wrong. I doesn't mean that I am dosing too much. What it means is that the plants are not uptaking enough!
> In my work, there is a definite correlation between poor plant growth and excess NO3- in the water column.


I've had similar experiences, but I find that peak health and growth occurs when NO3 is in the range of 5-10 ppm. I think this is largely explained by aquasoil, which basically dose all the fert work for you.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> Bear with me for a moment:
> 
> Now, I'm not accusing you of anything whatsoever, but I think it's better to base your actions on common sense instead anomalies and forum posts.


You never answered the question I asked you, nor is this "abnormal" nor is unethical or bad or risk involved

This is hyperbole and avoiding the question. If you wanna debate, you HAVE to do better than this weak argument that cannot win on it's merits alone.

Try again, this time, attempt to answer the question, where's my bad results, algae etc?

Where's your good results for that matter?
How many fish have you bred?


----------



## studentclimber (Apr 11, 2011)

Just to weigh in a little on this. Algae is usually the result of a combination of factors. One is daily thermocycling, the tank gets a little warmer during the day than at night during the summer. Lets face it, that's to be expected (but it also helps drive the proliferation of Cyanobacteria AKA algae). 

Nutrients play a big role as well, most temperate lakes go through what is called spring bloom every year, this is due to the upwelling of nutrients that is driven by the temperature change. Realize too that this water coming from the bottom of the lake is also high in CO2, because despite decrease in respiration due to the extreme cold the aquatic life has still been slowly chipping away at the oxygen in this water all winter and releasing CO2. It is when this water that is loaded with nutrients and CO2 is heated up and exposed to light that this bloom occurs.

So you need to balance light, temperature, and nutrients to get rid of it. The high nitrates may not be a result of a true over fertilization. It may be the result of combining a fish load with fertilizers that are placing too much of an emphasis on nitrates. If your fish are providing the nitrates, then you need your ferts to emphasize phosphorous and the other trace elements the plants need. Be careful too, as I an sure you are aware many of these can be toxic in high levels.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

snausage said:


> Bear with me for a moment:
> 
> 
> Here's a video of the oldest goldfish ever (approximately 44 years old at the time of this recording): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3Fpt4tspc
> ...


Do you need photographic proof? I can provide it. The thing with using individual tanks as examples to the contrary is possible. If the assumption were singly "Nitrates cause algae" and a tank with ludicrous amounts of nitrates was successful then that single assumption is false. If the assumption was "Nitrates and X, Y, Z factors together cause algae" then this single tank wouldn't be a good example as I'd have to prove all three X Y and Z false. 

As for whether or not my fish are okay? I dunno, I've spawned otos (I've had eggs but no fry) and my other fish are all fine and dandy and are always showing spawning behavior. 

And anomolies? What do I have? Magic water? I've gotten plants from all across the nation and in one or two cases all the way from Asia, I've had the chance to encounter every algae out there and it hasn't taken claim of my tank. I've even seen images of my own water under a microscope. There's TONS of algae: clado, volvox, spirogyra, diatoms, oedogionium, you name it I have it. But the thing is all the growth is limited to the microscopic level meaning that if I ever went out of whack with my dosing I'd have an algae fest right away, but I don't


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> ray-the-pilot said:
> 
> 
> > You are the plant guru so far be it from me to say anything but excessive nitrates is a proof of bad plant growth!
> ...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> I don't think it's possible to ascertain what specific levels of nitrate and phosphate induce algae growth and I've never claimed to know this.


You made the claim, not me.

Heck, make something up:hihi:
Then test it!

See if it's true versus merely assuming it is a fact.



> But it certainly isn't a myth that excessive NO3 and PO4 will cause algae in an aquarium and I think most people would agree that 100 ppm of NO3 is excessive (except perhaps those whose reputations or finances are dependent upon KNO3).


You say this, but WHERE is your support and evidence?

Excessive(what does this mean in the real sense?) or that it poses any sort of real testable risk associated with NO3 from KNO3 dosing?

Is anything above bare min growth Excessive?
What would be a good standard to compare to?

What is the point where N (critical) occurs? Does this change with plant species? Is there ANY potential for CO2 dependency?

How do explain 15 years worth of NO3 levels way above non limiting without algae, without any issues to livestock?

They where just lucky??:flick:
This Falsifies your claim.

Look, you have to let the claim go, it's that simple, you do not wish to provide support for your contention, you appear to have no intent of testing this, so how can you convince anyone anything by simply saying it's a myth?

Semantics is not going to explain away basic verified results.
You cannot argue that these observations are not facts. 





























All tanks with excess NO3/PO4, FE, etc.
Where's this claim?

Why do not I have bad results?
Why do others not also have bad results?

Why might you have bad results, but not someone else?

Maybe it's not the method, rather, the light and CO2?



> Similarly, you can't tell me the specific levels at which NO3 and P04 would limit aquarium plant growth, nor why people who maintain a fraction of the NO3 and PO4 levels recommended by EI get excellent results while using high light.


Yes...... I can and will.










For ranges A
Severe Limitation will occur for PO4 as SRP at around 50ppb for weedy macrophytes, Milfoils, Hydrilla etc....this means they need a continuous supply, or a higher ppb/ppm dose
This means they will only grow at 20% the full max if the PO4 was added to non limiting levels. 

For ranges B, this is a wide range, 20-80% reduction vs a non limiting supply, for PO4 as SRP, this is about 100-200ppb or 0.1ppm to 0.2ppm PO4.

For C, it's about .2ppm to .4ppm. 

For D, it's .3-.4ppm to about 50ppm as far as I know............maybe higher. 

For E, stress, this is likely salt stress ranges, so very high indeed.

Clearly, way beyond any PO4 dosing errors.

Since you avoided my question (once again :wink and seem to refuse to cough up any REAL debate, I'll waste no further time on this.
*
I am not making the claim that PO4 or NO3 cause algae, the burden of proof is on you.*

I have provided, as I have for the last 15 years, the facts that this claim is false, and folks far more clever than you have presented similar arguments, all have failed. I need no more defense that this. A hypothesis is made, like excess NO3 or PO4 causes algae, well, then we go about testing this, when we can show examples where this is not the case, independent of other factors, then this hypothesis must be rejected.
*
If you do not understand this, you need to read up on testing and hypothesis.*




> So why not ditch the dogma and admit that their are negative consequences, one of which is algae, of over fertilizing an aquarium?


I'm afrid you never answered the questions I poses, why if what you claim is true, then where is my algae?

If what you say is true, then I should be able to repeat the test and get algae, and yet I do not and I KNOW I'm adding high ferts well beyond any algal limitation.

What range of PO4 does it take to limit algae?

Do you know?

You keep talking about it is not true but it's painfully clear you have no knowledge or have offered any debate other than semantics.

You offer not test, no results, no examples, no hard data of any sort.

If we use Ole and Troel's table of light and CO2, we can see that for ALL CASES, there is still plant growth, the rates changes, but there's still some growth, like the above graph, there's some growth even at very low nutrients. 

The question is, at what point is growth non limiting and thus independent of nutrients?

Only then can you test things like light and CO2, which, is exactly what Ole and Troels did for the test done at Tropica in the table, otherwise it would confound the CO2 and light usage by plants.










Bachmann et al, 362 Lakes and they found no relationship between trophic nutrient status the presence of aquatic plants:

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf 

So both in aquariums and in Lakes where plants are present(they also measure periphyton as well floating and submersed species), plants, not nutrients, define the systems.

Simply because some growth occurs at less than full EI does not imply that full EI is risky or bad in any way. that is an assumption on your part that you have never once so far, backed up with a single lick of support.

Myself?

I've offered plenty of results, references and frankly the facts.
You'll have to do much better than this to debate me on this topic.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> > ray-the-pilot said:
> ...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jeffww said:


> Do you need photographic proof? I can provide it. The thing with using individual tanks as examples to the contrary is possible. If the assumption were singly "Nitrates cause algae" and a tank with ludicrous amounts of nitrates was successful then that single assumption is false. If the assumption was "Nitrates and X, Y, Z factors together cause algae" then this single tank wouldn't be a good example as I'd have to prove all three X Y and Z false.
> 
> As for whether or not my fish are okay? I dunno, I've spawned otos (I've had eggs but no fry) and my other fish are all fine and dandy and are always showing spawning behavior.
> 
> And anomolies? What do I have? Magic water? I've gotten plants from all across the nation and in one or two cases all the way from Asia, I've had the chance to encounter every algae out there and it hasn't taken claim of my tank. I've even seen images of my own water under a microscope. There's TONS of algae: clado, volvox, spirogyra, diatoms, oedogionium, you name it I have it. But the thing is all the growth is limited to the microscopic level meaning that if I ever went out of whack with my dosing I'd have an algae fest right away, but I don't


I'm afraid we are arguing with belief, not rationality.

I will continue to question the facts and claims.
I have not stopped for 15+ years, I do not plan to stop for the next 15 years


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks Tom for all the knowledge you provide!


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

This thread has an example of overdosing on the extreme side and no ill effects.


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/fertilizers-water-parameters/133921-epic-successful-failure.html


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

@shane3fan: Looks like you won't get any good info out of this post and you'll just have to do some independent research. I suggest googling 'algae bloom' and 'eutrophication'. The general info provided by unbiased and credible sources will inevitably mention that an increase in nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphate, cause algae in freshwater ecosystems. 

Now of course an aquarium is different from a natural ecosystem, but that doesn't make processes like the nitrogen cycle irrelevant either. So just use your head, test, observe, etc and the algae will eventually be under control. 

Another thing I would recommend is making sure that you remove all the decaying organic matter from the tank. Adding a bag of Purigen also never hurts.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> So what does excess NO3 look like?
> 
> I dose 45 ppm a week of NO3 and here's *what my fish and tanks look like*:


And then.........



plantbrain said:


> snausage said:
> 
> 
> > plantbrain said:
> ...


----------



## Aphotic Phoenix (Apr 5, 2010)

snausage said:


> This website is perhaps one of the only places where people are naive enough to keep on dumping in massive amounts of ferts despite having algae issues.


In comparison to where? Aquatic Plant Central? UKAPS? Plant Geek? Aquatic Plant Enthusiasts? Pretty certain people advocate the use of ferts in all of those forums too. Fact of the matter is there are a lot of people who dose ferts with no ill effect.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

HA--wow, this thread got way out of hand. My original post wasnt actually looking for an answer to my algae as much as it was looking for ideas of why the nitrate levels would be so high. The algae conversation was secondary and I do appreciate all of the thoughts and comments on that subject. 

I plan to test the tank again before the next water change and see how it is after a week of no KNO3 dosing. I feel comfortable that the test was fairly accurate since my 'control' tank ( shrimp tank with no dosing and very light bio-load ) tested at zero nitrates with the same test at the same time using the same method as the tank that is in question with the 100ppm result. Still doesnt explain why that tank was sooo high though. I dont doubt that the 100ppm tank would be fine--I have a couple of gravid ottos, a berried red claw shrimp and the Harlequins are voracious eaters ( I call em litle pirhanas ) and a picture of health. 

As a measure of algae fighting I removed one of the bulbs last night and raised the fixture a few inches above the water surface. I also added a wad of frogbit and dosed the tank with Excel. The tank doesnt 'look' as good to me without the intense light, but I will get used to it and be happy with it if the algae goes away and the plants have good growth. I still had pearling blyxa and stauro 049 after raising/reducing the light. I know pearling isnt the end all indication of happy plants, but it sure doesnt hurt.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

snausage said:


> @shane3fan: Looks like you won't get any good info out of this post and you'll just have to do some independent research. I suggest googling 'algae bloom' and 'eutrophication'. The general info provided by unbiased and credible sources will inevitably mention that an increase in nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphate, cause algae in freshwater ecosystems.
> 
> Now of course an aquarium is different from a natural ecosystem, but that doesn't make processes like the nitrogen cycle irrelevant either. So just use your head, test, observe, etc and the algae will eventually be under control.
> 
> Another thing I would recommend is making sure that you remove all the decaying organic matter from the tank. Adding a bag of Purigen also never hurts.


The scale of a lake and our aquariums is quite different. For one, we're only putting out about 10% the amount of LUX from our little lights compared to the force of the sun. In addition the amount of nutrients required to cause eutrification is really tiny...yes, really tiny. If you ever go to a lake bring your water test kit. You'll find that the nitrates, phosphates, and whatever else you take will be shockingly low. I'd be surprised if it even read on our kits! Eutrophication just can't be applied to the scale of a fish tank, no matter how hard you try. 

You should just do what you want. In the end you'll get rid of algae but it depend on what cost: time most importantly. Lessening your light is the first step. Cranking up the CO2 is another good move. 

Oh and where are your nitrates coming from? I'd try vacuuming the substrate if I were you. If I don't vacuum for awhile my nitrates get out of control.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> The scale of a lake and our aquariums is quite different. For one, we're only putting out about 10% the amount of LUX from our little lights compared to the force of the sun. In addition the amount of nutrients required to cause eutrification is really tiny...yes, really tiny. If you ever go to a lake bring your water test kit. You'll find that the nitrates, phosphates, and whatever else you take will be shockingly low. I'd be surprised if it even read on our kits! Eutrophication just can't be applied to the scale of a fish tank, no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You should just do what you want. In the end you'll get rid of algae but it depend on what cost: time most importantly. Lessening your light is the first step. Cranking up the CO2 is another good move.
> 
> Oh and where are your nitrates coming from? I'd try vacuuming the substrate if I were you. If I don't vacuum for awhile my nitrates get out of control.


 
Substrate vac isnt really an option. I have wall to wall plants with no real open areas except for under the driftwood. I would have to tear the tank down to vacuum the substrate.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

Jeffww said:


> The scale of a lake and our aquariums is quite different. For one, we're only putting out about 10% the amount of LUX from our little lights compared to the force of the sun. In addition the amount of nutrients required to cause eutrification is really tiny...yes, really tiny. If you ever go to a lake bring your water test kit. You'll find that the nitrates, phosphates, and whatever else you take will be shockingly low. I'd be surprised if it even read on our kits! Eutrophication just can't be applied to the scale of a fish tank, no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You should just do what you want. In the end you'll get rid of algae but it depend on what cost: time most importantly. Lessening your light is the first step. Cranking up the CO2 is another good move.
> 
> Oh and where are your nitrates coming from? I'd try vacuuming the substrate if I were you. If I don't vacuum for awhile my nitrates get out of control.


I agree that you may not be able to directly apply all of the principles of eutrophication to an aquarium. However, my point was more that ecologists accept the fact that excessive N and P are a primary cause of algae. This was discovered and verified by actual scientific research. If the aquarists' anecdotally based conclusion that N and P do not cause algae were true, it would mean that decades worth of research performed by Ph.ds was flat out wrong. So I really don't see how anyone who believes in the veracity of the scientific method could possibly think that N and P do not cause algae.

I also agree with your statement about light and nutrient in natural conditions. The water analyses of several South American rivers that contain large, healthy populations of aquarium plants show that the nutrient content is generally very low, with TDS often reading well under 70 ppm. So, theoretically, if high light and limited nutrients were causes of limited plant growth and algae blooms, these waters would only be able to sustain very small amounts of plant growth, but that simply isn't true.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

snausage said:


> I agree that you may not be able to directly apply all of the principles of eutrophication to an aquarium. However, my point was more that ecologists accept the fact that excessive N and P are a primary cause of algae. This was discovered and verified by actual scientific research. If the aquarists' anecdotally based conclusion that N and P do not cause algae were true, it would mean that decades worth of research performed by Ph.ds was flat out wrong. So I really don't see how anyone who believes in the veracity of the scientific method could possibly think that N and P do not cause algae.
> 
> I also agree with your statement about light and nutrient in natural conditions. The water analyses of several South American rivers that contain large, healthy populations of aquarium plants show that the nutrient content is generally very low, with TDS often reading well under 70 ppm. So, theoretically, if high light and limited nutrients were causes of limited plant growth and algae blooms, these waters would only be able to sustain very small amounts of plant growth, but that simply isn't true.


I would assume that those rivers also have very high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide due to the surface disturbance and air/water exchange. This is of course just an assumption.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

shane3fan said:


> I would assume that those rivers also have very high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide due to the surface disturbance and air/water exchange. This is of course just an assumption.



CO2 in lakes is actually a lot lower than in our tanks. Remember, it's not being increased by giant tanks of co2. However, because a lake is so large there are massive variations. Temperature actually has an effect on gas content on this scale. Deeper, cooler waters have more DO and CO2 than shallow, warm water etc.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> CO2 in lakes is actually a lot lower than in our tanks. Remember, it's not being increased by giant tanks of co2. However, because a lake is so large there are massive variations. Temperature actually has an effect on gas content on this scale. Deeper, cooler waters have more DO and CO2 than shallow, warm water etc.


yeah, I was referring strictly to the rivers you mentioned with large populations of aquatic plants--the more stagnant ( relative to the fast flowing rivers ) lakes I would agree have lower CO2 levels.


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

Jeffww said:


> CO2 in lakes is actually a lot lower than in our tanks. Remember, it's not being increased by giant tanks of co2. However, because a lake is so large there are massive variations. Temperature actually has an effect on gas content on this scale. Deeper, cooler waters have more DO and CO2 than shallow, warm water etc.


Read this SCHOLARLY reviewed article on CO2 saturation in lakes. I don't think this is close to concluding the argument, but nevertheless it provides evidence that freshwater lake systems do in fact have high levels of carbon dioxide.








http://www.nd.edu/~underc/east/publications/documents/Cole_94Science.pdf


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

The answer to your question, "Why do I have high nitrates?" Is a simple answer that you already identified. If you dose KNO3 according to that regime, you will have high nitrates.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

My stupid question that's related to the topic is, does it matter that the source of high nitrate and phosphate in our aquariums, at least one in which we add them, is predominantly inorganic while sources in a naturally occurring body of water the sources are more likely organic? Would higher levels of organic material lead to algae? That is making the assumption that high levels of the two contribute to algae in natural systems. Not that I'm claiming they do since I have no idea. I, by the way, am one of those who adds NO3 and PO4 with a pretty free hand to my tank with no algae issues to speak of.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Higher Thinking said:


> Read this SCHOLARLY reviewed article on CO2 saturation in lakes. I don't think this is close to concluding the argument, but nevertheless it provides evidence that freshwater lake systems do in fact have high levels of carbon dioxide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading the actual data and not the abstract, you'll find that the amount of CO2 actually there is miniscule. These measurements are of micro atmospheres. These are TINY amounts of CO2. The reason they said "large amount" is because over the several hectare size of the lakes, large amounts of co2 are sequestered/released from the surface. Please actually read the article before basing claims off of it. 

Here...let me do a quick calculation for you: 

Say we have exactly 30ppm CO2 in our water. Now if you know chemistry there's a simple equation to turn concentration into partial pressure. 

The equation is: 
Partial pressure = concentration x henry's constant 

Now we have to find the concentration. I'm going to change ppm to molarity: 

30ppm is in g/g so 30 grams of co2 per million grams of water. Which equates to: 

.682 mol CO2/ 1000L of water 

or .000682M or less annoyingly 6.82 x 10 ^ -4 M CO2. Phew 

Now we need Henry's constant. Henry's constant unfortunately is very variable. So we need to take the constant of CO2 29.4 atm-L/mol at RT STP. So an elevation of 0 and room temperature which is arbitrarily 25C which is pretty much aquarium temperature. 


Now let's math: 

PCO2 = .000682 * 29.4 
=~.02 *atm *of co2. You'd be right except we're talking about MICRO atm so let's multiply by 10^6 and what do we get?? 

20,000 micro atms of co2. Ten times the amount in these lakes. Hmm....High levels are relative. High co2 in a lake isn't much in an aquarium. Just like with eutriphication a lot of excess nutrients probably isn't a lot in our aquariums. You can't scale big things down to our little glass boxes. It just doesn't work. Just like you can't call a garden a forest you can't call a glass box a lake.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> Reading the actual data and not the abstract, you'll find that the amount of CO2 actually there is miniscule. These measurements are of micro atmospheres. These are TINY amounts of CO2. The reason they said "large amount" is because over the several hectare size of the lakes, large amounts of co2 are sequestered/released from the surface. Please actually read the article before basing claims off of it.
> 
> Here...let me do a quick calculation for you:
> 
> ...


DUDE.... I have no idea if any of those equations are correct or not and Im not going to give myself a headache researching them---I do have to laugh about 'Henry's constant' being _variable_---lol.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

shane3fan said:


> I would assume that those rivers also have very high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide due to the surface disturbance and air/water exchange. This is of course just an assumption.


The data I've seen shows that most have co2 levels within the range of 2.5-15 ppm.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

snausage said:


> The data I've seen shows that most have co2 levels within the range of 2.5-15 ppm.


The more I thought about my assumption, the more I thought it could be incorrect. I am still pretty certain that the disolved oxygen numbers would be higher than what we see in our tanks, but Im not sure about the CO2 levels. 15ppm is still a fairly high number if you arent talking about pressurized CO2.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

shane3fan said:


> DUDE.... I have no idea if any of those equations are correct or not and Im not going to give myself a headache researching them---I do have to laugh about 'Henry's constant' being _variable_---lol.


Many equations in physics and chemistry are dependent on pressure and temperature, even the size of molecules. These "constants" are called constants because they are uniform throughout the species. They vary on the temperature and pressure. And don't worry you don't have to research them...I used the same methods as they used in that article which I'm guessing you read.


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't see any benefit to comparing aquariums to natural bodies of water. Even low levels of CO2 or nitrate or phosphate in a lake are not likely to bottom out due to the volumes involved. And even when they do, plants still have access to nutrients through the natural substrate they are rooted in. Some do use a nutrient rich substrate in aquariums, most don't. I believe, if one could keep nutrients in slight excess of demands it would be adequate to maintain a plant dominated aquarium, doing this in reality is almost impossible due to changing biomass and the limitation of our test kits. And in light of the fact that people keep algae free tanks when nutrients are far in excess of apparent demand, why bother? When most studies look at natural bodies of water, algae blooms, and eutrophication, they are almost invariable considering bodies of water in a steady state that are inundated with periodic pulses of nutrients. One should also consider the number of natural systems that are plant dominated with "high levels" of nutrients.


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

Jeffww said:


> Reading the actual data and not the abstract, you'll find that the amount of CO2 actually there is miniscule. These measurements are of micro atmospheres. These are TINY amounts of CO2. The reason they said "large amount" is because over the several hectare size of the lakes, large amounts of co2 are sequestered/released from the surface. Please actually read the article before basing claims off of it.
> 
> Here...let me do a quick calculation for you:
> 
> ...


Before you get in your feelings and get all upset realize that I never made any comparison between aquariums and lakes, did I? All I said was that this article provides research that shows that lakes are in fact supersaturated with CO2. This was in response to people saying that due to them not being fast flowing rivers they would have very low levels. I think that levels that are 10+ times the atmospheric content would be reasonably called high levels. 

NOT TO MENTION I acknowledged that this does nothing for the actual argument but rather gives insight into a specific aspect of one's comment.

As to the debate at hand, nobody has yet shown any negative evidence with regards to over doing nutrients. If I can keep an algae free tank dosing EI (well with all honesty I do have some spot algae on my bacopa and anubias) while never having to run tests, my fish are healthy, my plants are flourishing, then why not?!?!? There has yet to be any consequences. Are all this cases a phenomenon? All I know is that I give myself the best chances for success and I have yet to have someone post that they have properly done EI dosing without light or CO2 limitations and produced an algae outbreak. I myself am new to this dosing regiment having only done it for about 4 months, but all algae I had previous to that is gone. Woohoo for that! So if it works then where is your EVIDENCE to the contrary?!?


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Higher Thinking said:


> Before you get in your feelings and get all upset realize that I never made any comparison between aquariums and lakes, did I? All I said was that this article provides research that shows that lakes are in fact supersaturated with CO2. This was in response to people saying that due to them not being fast flowing rivers they would have very low levels. I think that levels that are 10+ times the atmospheric content would be reasonably called high levels.
> 
> NOT TO MENTION I acknowledged that this does nothing for the actual argument but rather gives insight into a specific aspect of one's comment.
> 
> As to the debate at hand, nobody has yet shown any negative evidence with regards to over doing nutrients. If I can keep an algae free tank dosing EI (well with all honesty I do have some spot algae on my bacopa and anubias) while never having to run tests, my fish are healthy, my plants are flourishing, then why not?!?!? There has yet to be any consequences. Are all this cases a phenomenon? All I know is that I give myself the best chances for success and I have yet to have someone post that they have properly done EI dosing without light or CO2 limitations and produced an algae outbreak. I myself am new to this dosing regiment having only done it for about 4 months, but all algae I had previous to that is gone. Woohoo for that! So if it works then where is your EVIDENCE to the contrary?!?


If you've read what I've written. I do agree that high nutrients isn't an issue. I have 80ppm nitrates and I'm going strong. What I was addressing is that some people were applying lake concepts: eutriphication to our tanks. It just doesn't work. I was responding to your failure to actually read the article you referenced. You claimed that lakes had a "high" amount of co2. That doesn't make sense. If all lakes had this level of CO2 then there is no high. If you measure our tanks and compare them to lakes they certainly don't have comparable amounts.


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

Jeffww said:


> If you've read what I've written. I do agree that high nutrients isn't an issue. I have 80ppm nitrates and I'm going strong. What I was addressing is that some people were applying lake concepts: eutriphication to our tanks. It just doesn't work. I was responding to your failure to actually read the article you referenced. You claimed that lakes had a "high" amount of co2. That doesn't make sense. If all lakes had this level of CO2 then there is no high. If you measure our tanks and compare them to lakes they certainly don't have comparable amounts.


Right, there is no comparison. When I said high, I did fail to specify that it is compared to atmospheric content. I figured that the article would be evident of what I was referencing. It appears this conversation through typing is causing some misunderstanding. I made this note because it was noted that lakes would have lower levels due to being stagnant (as if it was unable to equalize with atmospheric concentrations). The evidence I presented showed it to be the contrary, that actually the water can off-gas to the atmosphere. I think we are on the same page as each other but just don't know it yet.


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

Jeffww said:


> If you've read what I've written. I do agree that high nutrients isn't an issue. I have 80ppm nitrates and I'm going strong. What I was addressing is that some people were applying lake concepts: eutriphication to our tanks. It just doesn't work. I was responding to your failure to actually read the article you referenced. You claimed that lakes had a "high" amount of co2. That doesn't make sense. If all lakes had this level of CO2 then there is no high. If you measure our tanks and compare them to lakes they certainly don't have comparable amounts.


As to my input on the high levels of nutrient that was not aimed at you. I tried to separate the two points with paragraphs, but I guess that failed to work. I was just chiming in what makes sense to me on the overall discussion. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

Settle down girls, settle down...


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

xmas_one said:


> settle down girls, settle down...


hahahaha


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I think that horse is still breathing? So.....

Eutrophication in natural bodies of water becomes a problem when the resulting plant growth and algae bloom literally choke the water. In our tanks, an algae bloom is what natural bodies of water routinely have - the norm. We aren't satisfied with that norm since we want to be able to see the plants and fish, in their actual colors, not through a haze or covered with green stuff. Also, natural bodies of water get an order of magnitude more light than any of our planted tanks because the sun is really bright. And, normal plant growth in natural bodies of water is something we would consider unacceptable in our tanks (usually). All of that is to say that what causes eutrophication in natural bodies of water (eutrophication means an excessive amount of fertilizer in the water) is irrelevant to our algae problems. On the other hand my tanks probably compare very well with natural bodies of water eutrophication, as far as excess plant and algae growth is concerned.:hihi: But, I'm not typical.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

shane3fan said:


> My original post wasnt actually looking for an answer to my algae as much as it was looking for ideas of why the nitrate levels would be so high.


A few things came to mind as to why this might have happened. The first and most likely reason is an inaccurate test.

-residual chemicals from a previous test may have interfered with the results.
-the sample may not have been representative of the whole tank. Some parts of the tank are higher in organic compounds than others.

Also,

Reading test results can be difficult. Determining orange from red can be like determining green from yellow in our drop checkers. Since everyone's eyes percieve color differently its not the easiest thing in the world to do. Heck, one of my best friends sees green grass as the color brown! Try putting a white sheet of paper behind the results to make it a little easier.

Does alkalinity and other oxidants in the water affect these nitrate test results? I'm not sure but I thought I would propose the question.

All in all though, nitrates are a non-issue. I know you're not worried about this but to make you feel extra comfortable here's some interesting facts.

blue-gills have lived in 8,690ppm NO3 for short term exposures with no ill effects
catfish have lived in 90ppm NO3 over 140 days with no ill effects
Even the wimpiest of fish...salmon/trout and their fry, that need pristine waters to live in, can do well in waters up to 44ppm NO3


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I'm curious to see what your nitrate readings are over the next week or two. If they're going to stay high without the dosing, you could save a few bucks by holding back on the NO3. Most of us dose NO3 because it would bottom out otherwise, and use EI because it's easy.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> snausage said:
> 
> 
> > plantbrain said:
> ...


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> ray-the-pilot said:
> 
> 
> > You are the plant guru so far be it from me to say anything but excessive nitrates is a proof of bad plant growth!
> ...


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that that tank has been up for around 2 years now... there is even a journal about it on this forum. And I'm pretty sure he "mows" every couple weeks or so, seeing as how he has been selling the staurogyne repens from that tank for awhile now.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

VeeSe said:


> I'm pretty sure that that tank has been up for around 2 years now... there is even a journal about it on this forum. And I'm pretty sure he "mows" every couple weeks or so, seeing as how he has been selling the staurogyne repens from that tank for awhile now.


 
yep--Ive got some Stauro from that tank in one of my tanks. Not a spec of algae when I got it.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ray-the-pilot said:


> How long has this tank been in continuous service like this? Is it 1, 3, 5 years?


5 years now, ask Hoppy, he's seen this tank over the years, ask him if he has ever once seen any algae or any issues.

Maybe we are all lying? A vast conspiracy? :hihi:

hehe



> How many generations of cardinals have lived in this tank planted like this?
> This tank looks pretty new.


Well, I have most of them from when I set up the tank, but I've added a few here or there over the 5 years.

I do not breed cardinals, whenI get them so cheap, there's not much labor vs effort and they'd ALL GET EATEN in this tank anyway, I remove the Sturisoma fry as the eggs hatch for this reason as well, but they are 20$ ea, not 99 cents and not as common. So they are worth the efforts.

Since you wish to discuss genetics and generational aspects, the RCS have been breeding like flies for about 3 years straight now.

Shrimp are more sensitive to environmental parameters than most any fish, so they make a good "canary", they also have shorter generational time frames, so we can measure things like fry and have high no# of them in a test and a plentiful supply.

There is no evidence that ferts like NO3 cause any harm at 100ppm NO3.

Bummer........you can keep trying, but the facts are the facts:wink:
I think it would be better if you question the advice that claims all this FEAR, rather than results I and many others have long noted.

Questions are good, but a good question is even better:icon_idea
Ponder this for awhile.



> Can you show me photos of a tank after 1 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo 24 mo. With details of what you did every week?


Can you give me all your details what you did every week and every photo from every tank you have ever had?:tongue:

Why not look the darn sucker up in the tank photo journal here?:hihi:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals-photo-album/59705-toms-180-wood-scaping.html

It ain't like I keep this stuff a secret or anything.



> My experience is that growing plants is not that hard. Mowing plants is where the work is.


Yes!!!!

But.........we experience and watching others do it, you can see it's not as evil as you think.

Check out the thread I linked to, you'll note I removed the HC and went with Starougyne for this reason, it's great, easy to mow etc.

HC is a PITA to mow at this scale and I really do not get the same $$ from it and it does not provide the cover for the shrimp like this, nor roots as well.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

shane3fan said:


> yep--Ive got some Stauro from that tank in one of my tanks. Not a spec of algae when I got it.


After a big mow, any old leaves often get a little algae on them, mostly BBA but not much, then new growth comes in free of any algae.

I think this is due to the plants giving up and removing the resources in the leaves and putting them into new growth, this is likely why most plants get algae on older leaves.

So we go in and trim, or in the case of a carpeting plant, the BBA will be buried under the new growth and non visible after 2-3 weeks anyway.

So trimming addresses any algae issues.

As long as algae never attacks new and/or healthy growth, it is not an issue.
Some old ratty shaded leaf that's been stressed good? Sure.


----------



## Higher Thinking (Mar 16, 2011)

ray-the-pilot said:


> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> > ray-the-pilot said:
> ...


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> 5 years now, ask Hoppy, he's seen this tank over the years, ask him if he has ever once seen any algae or any issues.
> 
> Maybe we are all lying? A vast conspiracy? :hihi:


Yes, I have seen the tank for a few years now. As I recall the only algae problems it ever had was when you were away for several days, or weeks, and the circuit breaker tripped, leaving all of your tanks without power for many days. But, even then I can't recall seeing algae in that particular tank.

Wire my payoff to my Cayman Island account.:hihi:


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> The object of EI dosing is to dose "too much" of everything, so nothing being dosed can ever be limiting the plants growth rates. If that is what you refer to, you are right.
> As far as having 20 ppm of CO2 goes, it is nearly impossible to determine that you have 20 ppm and not 40 ppm or even 10 ppm, so I doubt that you are dosing 20 ppm. How are you measuring it?


I measure CO2, three different ways.
First I calibrate my tanks by adding a known amount of CO2 to the tank. The change in pH is directly the result of CO2 and can be used to estimate the CO2 concentration. 
Next I do a four parameter titration for CO2. This involves a titration of a tank sample to a ph of 8.5 with NaOH to find the concentration of CO2. Then a back titration to 4.5 and a boil out of the sample to remove excess CO2. 
Then I do a second back titration with HCl to find the non specific alkalinity. I subtract out the non specific alkalinity (on a molar basis ) and find the CO2 concentration, kH, total alkalinity and non specific alkalinity.

Finally, I use a calibrated drop detector to monitor my CO2 controller. 

When all three agree, I am pretty sure based on scientific evidence, that my CO2 is 20 +/- 2ppm. 

How sure are you of the CO2 in your tank?


----------



## DvanK (Feb 27, 2009)

ray-the-pilot said:


> I measure CO2, three different ways.
> First I calibrate my tanks by adding a known amount of CO2 to the tank. The change in pH is directly the result of CO2 and can be used to estimate the CO2 concentration.
> Next I do a four parameter titration for CO2. This involves a titration of a tank sample to a ph of 8.5 with NaOH to find the concentration of CO2. Then a back titration to 4.5 and a boil out of the sample to remove excess CO2.
> Then I do a second back titration with HCl to find the non specific alkalinity. I subtract out the non specific alkalinity (on a molar basis ) and find the CO2 concentration, kH, total alkalinity and non specific alkalinity.
> ...


Holy cow I think i just learned something here I just wonder what.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

ray-the-pilot said:


> I measure CO2, three different ways.
> First I calibrate my tanks by adding a known amount of CO2 to the tank. The change in pH is directly the result of CO2 and can be used to estimate the CO2 concentration.
> Next I do a four parameter titration for CO2. This involves a titration of a tank sample to a ph of 8.5 with NaOH to find the concentration of CO2. Then a back titration to 4.5 and a boil out of the sample to remove excess CO2.
> Then I do a second back titration with HCl to find the non specific alkalinity. I subtract out the non specific alkalinity (on a molar basis ) and find the CO2 concentration, kH, total alkalinity and non specific alkalinity.
> ...


I know I don't know how much CO2 is in my tank, except that it may be between 20 and 50 ppm, or a lower range if I use a different KH solution in the drop checker. However, I'm not even using CO2 at this time.

Your testing may be able to give you that accuracy, but that's beyond my knowledge to judge. For sure, that method is beyond the capability of virtually everyone who comments here.

Just to annoy you a bit more, :hihi: ,we now know that the concentration of CO2 in a typical planted tank varies around the tank, being very low right next to fast growing plants, and high close to the point where it is introduced into the tank. Also, it varies as the plant mass changes and as the water circulation in the tank varies, due to plant growth. (This was demonstrated to me by Tom Barr when he first started using his $2000 CO2 probe, making me wonder if it would ever be possible to characterize the CO2 concentration in a planted tank.)


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Higher Thinking said:


> ray-the-pilot said:
> 
> 
> > plantbrain said:
> ...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Hoppy said:


> Yes, I have seen the tank for a few years now. As I recall the only algae problems it ever had was when you were away for several days, or weeks, and the circuit breaker tripped, leaving all of your tanks without power for many days. But, even then I can't recall seeing algae in that particular tank.
> 
> Wire my payoff to my Cayman Island account.:hihi:


You ain't suppose to mention that last detail

And remember, I'm mean and hateful shallow shell of a man.
And that's my "good qualities".


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ray-the-pilot said:


> I measure CO2, three different ways.
> First I calibrate my tanks by adding a known amount of CO2 to the tank. The change in pH is directly the result of CO2 and can be used to estimate the CO2 concentration.
> Next I do a four parameter titration for CO2. This involves a titration of a tank sample to a ph of 8.5 with NaOH to find the concentration of CO2. Then a back titration to 4.5 and a boil out of the sample to remove excess CO2.
> Then I do a second back titration with HCl to find the non specific alkalinity. I subtract out the non specific alkalinity (on a molar basis ) and find the CO2 concentration, kH, total alkalinity and non specific alkalinity.
> ...


You should be able to use a RELATIVE pH movement to suggest a CO2 range.
I agree with this approach, but it does not give you an absolute quantity.
Relative? Yes.

It can have issues, since tap water and the additives vary from sources.
But overall, with watching and observation, one can do this. The impatient will falter and suffer however.

Do you honestly do the 4 step alk measurement? I've done it a few times, marine water samples........in the lab.......but unless the samples where sealed, they can degas. Don't you mean a pH of 8.3 and not 8.5 for the NaOH endpoint (typo)?

How many times do/have you done this? It's a lot of work and unless you have a lab set up and burrets, the chem set up typical of university or private lab, few folks really would ever do this. We got this stuff at the lab, but I rarely ever use it myself. I want more in situ measurements in real tanks without having to grab samples and sealed bottles, that's a PITA and a one time sample only. Meters make a much better data logger which is important with respect to CO2 vs a one time measurement. We want to know what the CO2 is doing all day long. It's not a bad check if you are willing, but your methods of sample collection and preservation are critical there. You made no mention of this. 

Drop checkers are lousy, color resolution gives too little, too much and somewhere near just right. Not particularly accurate and offer a narrow range really. 

You are best off with relative pH drop, degassed non CO2 enriched sample left for 24-48 hours. Then use that as a relative measure for pH and drop with only CO2 gas.

Still, 20ppm I find quite limiting for virtually every tank I've seen that is doing well. 

Another way we can check our CO2, is a complete RO/DI water change, and do this 2-3 times, then add some sodium carbonate to get 35.72ppm of carbonate hardness and use the pH/KH table. This should be fairly accurate.


Yet another way is to use sealed chambers with a pH meter+probe and withdraw a sample and allow it equilibrate and have an air gap similar to a drop checker, but instead of color solution, use a sealed gasket and pH probe to measure the pH in the Calibrated KH solution reference water. Then you can pull a sample of water of interest via a syringe from any location in the aquarium with a tube and then take your sweet time measuring CO2 and have it be highly accurate.

There's a delay.......but the reading will be precise.

Another way is to make a reference cell for a flat tipped pH probe using a suitable gas permeable membrane and then construct a membrane seal and add a KH reference liquid inside the cap for the pH probe tip. Since the KH solution volume is tiny(only 300-400uL) and the distance is tiny(under 1 mm) and surface area is high, the rate delay is minimized and can stabilize rapidly(under 1 minute).

I'd still say for most folks, using the relative pH scale is better, and then watch the plants.

If you have never seen non limiting CO2 for a particularly plant species.........then how would you ever know you have enough? You'd have no reference to compare that too.

That is really what we are interested in.......and we should look for, then after you have a reference planted tank, then.........go about measuring light, CO2, nutrients etc..........

Not .............assuming that the measurements are correct and why don't the plants look great etc........that is backwards. Good growth etc............then....... see what is producing it. Then confirm with others who have used the same methods and species. Then try and use those same parameters to see how well the model works.

You need a growth reference that is non limiting, not an assumption that it is non limiting. I assumed 20-30ppm was non limiting a long time ago for most light intensities hobbyist might ever use, I do not feel that way 15 years later.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

This thread has become so overanalyed that it would scare the average hobbyist away. I understand that their is a huge difference in opinion when it comes to the ideal conditions in which plants will thrive but to the average hobbyist this would make it seem that you have to be a chemist or have a PHD to keep a planted aquarium. I know that some of you have way more knowledge than most when it comes to planted tanks but at the same time this isn't going to help out the so called novices in the hobby. I do know that the pictures of Plantbrains tanks look beautiful so he must be doing something right. Thats not to say that someone else that does things differently can't have an equally beautiful tank. The majority of the people on this site are still learning the ends and outs of this wonderful hobby and I would hate for someone to read this and be discouraged from getting involved in the hobby because they feel they don't have enough knowledge. Anyways back to the arguement at hand.............


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

ua hua said:


> This thread has become so overanalyed that it would scare the average hobbyist away. I understand that their is a huge difference in opinion when it comes to the ideal conditions in which plants will thrive but to the average hobbyist this would make it seem that you have to be a chemist or have a PHD to keep a planted aquarium. I know that some of you have way more knowledge than most when it comes to planted tanks but at the same time this isn't going to help out the so called novices in the hobby. I do know that the pictures of Plantbrains tanks look beautiful so he must be doing something right. Thats not to say that someone else that does things differently can't have an equally beautiful tank. The majority of the people on this site are still learning the ends and outs of this wonderful hobby and I would hate for someone to read this and be discouraged from getting involved in the hobby because they feel they don't have enough knowledge. Anyways back to the arguement at hand.............


The in-depth conversations are what make this forum so awesome!! roud: Not understanding something isn't always such a bad thing. If you're having trouble with a topic you can always "google it" for more insight. I'd rather read about specific examples and data, than read the haphazard "IMO" post.

I think the complexity of this hobby is what attracts us. It's like running your own personal space station.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

BlueJack said:


> The in-depth conversations are what make this forum so awesome!! roud: Not understanding something isn't always such a bad thing. If you're having trouble with a topic you can always "google it" for more insight. I'd rather read about specific examples and data, than read the haphazard "IMO" post.
> 
> I think the complexity of this hobby is what attracts us. It's like running your own personal space station.


I have no problem with an in depth conversation. I would challenge you to "google" the subject at hand and find the vast opinions on the subject. The internet is full of opinions but that doesn't nescessarily make what you read to be the actual facts. There is more than enough specific examples and so called data about the subject that are far from factual info. For years it was said that excessive nutrients would cause algae and many have found that to be the complete opposite. The fact of the matter is that the average member here has the lack of knowledge to understand the complexities of the subject at hand. Now that being said, I'm all for the in depth conversation but sometimes it can be a little intimidating for someone with less experience. This hobby can be as simple or complex as you make it.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I agree with ua hua that just because someone has found a way that lets him do good consistent planted tanks doesn't mean that there are no other ways to do that. What it does mean is that you can copy that person's methods and stand a good chance of having the same success. All of us need to find a "system" that fits our needs and abilities, but it is a lot easier if we start by copying as much of the "system" used by someone who is successful as we can, and deviating from it where we need to, hoping that the success will still follow. And, it isn't at all necessary to know the scientific details of why something works, just that it does work. The details just make it more fun (sometimes).


----------



## Aspencer (Jun 24, 2011)

I also agree...as a new person to the hobby, you read many things you do not fully understand but as you read more, you comprehend more, then read more...knowledge just keeps building...I do not understand a lot of the discussion but it is in my mind and then new information I get in the future will help me decode this information...knowledge is a continual process...I am a high school teacher 8^)


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ua hua said:


> The internet is full of opinions but that doesn't nescessarily make what you read to be the actual facts. There is more than enough specific examples and so called data about the subject that are far from factual info. For years it was said that excessive nutrients would cause algae and many have found that to be the complete opposite.


This falsies the claim that Excess PO4 or in this case NO3, poses any sort of risk.

The rest of the conversation is just tangential. The results speak for themselves (they are not up for debate, as long as the methods are sound), it's always easier to test and falsify something versus showing definitive cause.

We can very very easily tell and add "excess" NO3 via knowing the tank volume and the weight of KNO3.

This is EXTREMELY easy to do and test.

Any and every dosing method available...........has examples of abject failure.......and success.

clearly there are other issues, such as CO2 and light which are much larger players in success/failure.

But no one frigging wants to talk or discuss those:icon_idea
They just wanna cry about nutrients and blame them for everything, even thought there's no evidence this is the case. I disagree, I think the average hobbyist can test and prove this to themselves, even the newbies.

I am not guilty till proven innocent. I am innocent till proven guilty. The approach the Law uses and the falsification here is not different. We can see this as a jury in a court case, no reason it cannot apply here.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, some folks claim they have issues due to excess nutrients from dosing.
I've challenged this for a good 15 years and never have I once even had someone come remotely close to showing that it's true. 

Why? The principle of falsification. I can show with almost absolute certainty that the reason CANNOT be high NO3 for failure. Falsification does not imply cause or that something is true, it only test what is *not true with an extremely high degree of likelihood*

Even Einstein stated all his life's work could be falsified and proven untrue by one experiment that falsified his theories. 

Why NOT test something to see if it's true or not? Why NOT question things?
Newbie or intermediate of advance aquarist? I was not privy to ferts that much when I noticed an issue with Excess PO4 and a lack of algae in my tanks.

Over time, I learned more. We do not enter into this hobby with a lot of knowledge, we all start at the same place.

Still, if I stated that Excess NO3 at 40ppm caused algae, and 5 other folks said they added this amount and had no such observations/results........I'd have to recant and look at my methods.
Because I likely overlooked something:wink:

Semantics will NEVER change the facts or results. Semantics are used to defend one's ego and promote denial. Sometime it works:hihi: Not on me..........but perhaps on others.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Did the notion of high PO4 & NO3 cause algae comes from algae blooms in the ocean due to agricultural run offs?

This maybe be true with some species of algae and phytoplankton in the ocean, it may not be true with the species of algae in the aquarium.

The problem might be stereotyping algae in some general group. If A affects B then A must affect C which isn't always the case.

If you don't want high NO3 in your tank, don't dose too much, or do a water change. It's as simple as that. I target 5ppm of NO3 & PO4 every time I dose 3 times a week. Works fine for me.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

Canuck said:


> I don't see any benefit to comparing aquariums to natural bodies of water. Even low levels of CO2 or nitrate or phosphate in a lake are not likely to bottom out due to the volumes involved. And even when they do, plants still have access to nutrients through the natural substrate they are rooted in. Some do use a nutrient rich substrate in aquariums, most don't. I believe, if one could keep nutrients in slight excess of demands it would be adequate to maintain a plant dominated aquarium, doing this in reality is almost impossible due to changing biomass and the limitation of our test kits. And in light of the fact that people keep algae free tanks when nutrients are far in excess of apparent demand, why bother? When most studies look at natural bodies of water, algae blooms, and eutrophication, they are almost invariable considering bodies of water in a steady state that are inundated with periodic pulses of nutrients. One should also consider the number of natural systems that are plant dominated with "high levels" of nutrients.


Firstly, a lot of people on this website use nutrient rich substrates like aquasoil and MTS. The original poster mentioned that he uses aquasoil in the tank with severe algae problems.

Secondly, why can't we apply the data from natural bodies of water to our aquariums? It's done all the time. For instance, many aquarists find that a balanced N ratio is necessary to prevent algae, which is both explained and supported by the 'Redfield Ratio'. Moreover, aquarists will tend to keep fish A in water warmer than 80F and fish B in water cooler than 80F due to temperatures found in fish A and fish B's native habitats. There must be thousands of similar examples of aquarists trying to tailor their tanks' parameters to those found in the native waters.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> Did the notion of high PO4 & NO3 cause algae comes from algae blooms in the ocean due to agricultural run offs?


This is based on findings in both marine and freshwater environments.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> We can very very easily tell and add "excess" NO3 via knowing the tank volume and the weight of KNO3.
> 
> This is EXTREMELY easy to do and test.
> 
> ...





plantbrain said:


> Well, some folks claim they have issues due to excess nutrients from dosing.
> I've challenged this for a good 15 years and never have I once even had someone come remotely close to showing that it's true.
> 
> Why? The principle of falsification. I can show with almost absolute certainty that the reason CANNOT be high NO3 for failure. Falsification does not imply cause or that something is true, it only test what is *not true with an extremely high degree of likelihood*
> ...


You have framed the argument backwards. If excessive N and P did not cause algae, the the sciencedaily.com article on algae blooms would not state:

_Some algal blooms are the result of an excess of nutrients (particularly phosphorus and nitrogen) into waters and higher concentrations of these nutrients in water cause increased growth of algae and green plants._

Nor would excessive N and P be sited as causing algae by several other credible sources like government agencies, universities etc.

What I've been arguing throughout this thread _is that the hard science currently points to excessive N and P as causes of algae_. Therefore, repeatable experiments using accepted statistical models must show that excessive N and P DO NOT cause algae. Only then could it be argued that excessive nitrogen or phosphorous do not cause algae. However, I am not aware of any credible or accepted research that proves this. 

The anecdotes in this thread that supposedly prove excessive N or P do not cause algae are meaningless. The rigors of the scientific method were not applied and they aren't provided by credible sources. Just because Tom Barr posted pictures of apparently algae free tanks with 45 ppm of NO3 proves nothing, _especially given that the one picture is a tank that he clearly does not own, nor maintain_. If I were to distribute pictures of myself walking upside down on a ceiling, I wouldn't expect scientists at NASA to start rewriting the laws of gravity. Likewise, an intelligent person reading this thread shouldn't believe that excessive N and P do not cause algae.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

snausage said:


> What I've been arguing throughout this thread _is that the hard science currently points to excessive N and P as causes of algae_. The rigors of the scientific method were not applied and they aren't provided by credible sources.


Back on Tom's first post he sited _Bachmann et al 2002_ as a reference. The study states(among other things) that typical trophic state indicators(specifically high P) were otherwise not good predictors of algae or plant biomass.

Most of the studies that I've seen correlating N and P to algae blooms where done in the 60's-70's.....it's now 2011. At one point in time scientists(stretch of the term) believed the earth was flat and the sun was 17 miles away. As new information becomes available you should re-evaluate your old ideas.

It may not be as simple as just N and P amounts, but a complex relationship between interrelated biological, geological, and physical processes that cause these blooms.


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> <comments deleted by dwc13>
> 
> I am not guilty till proven innocent. I am innocent till proven guilty. The approach the Law uses and the falsification here is not different. We can see this as a jury in a court case, no reason it cannot apply here.


 
Hopefully I'm not the only one who has felt overmatched during part of the course of this disucssion.

In life, there are very few absolutes without an exception. Therefore, it is substantially easier to prove an exception that precludes establishment of the rule (without exception), rather than conclusively establish a rule that precludes exception. In the scientific community, one who advances a position must defend it and prove to others that his/her position is not just supportable based upon appropriate sampling, testing, and analysis, but that the result can also be consistently duplicated by others employing the same criteria and methodologies. For practical purposes, however, establishing a broader rule is beyond the capabilities for most of us from a background and resource perspective. 

It may well be both Mr. Barr and snausage -- referring to them because they had the most posts in this discussion -- are both right and wrong with respect to some of their respective positions. Perhaps there is a variable that cannot be adequately measured, is presently unknown, or whose relationship and interaction with other variables is not fully understood at the present time that is responsible (perhaps in part) for seemingly incompatible results. All you have to do is take a look at the often conflicting, continuously changing news from the medical community with respect to what one should/shouldn't eat for improved health to conclude nobody really knows the full and complete story yet. I suggest the same holds true when it comes to a planted tank. There are still things to be discovered and learned. 

From my perspective, the bottom line for most of us is to do what one needs to do in order to be satisfied with the results, allowing us to be able to enjoy this great hobby. If that means flying in the face of conventional wisdom and prevailing thought, so be it. 

BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to Civil Forfeiture laws. This is an exception to the rule, at least in the US.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

dwc13, your signature leaves the most amusing imagery of storing "bathroom waste" in an electronic file in a folder titled "Toilet" or something like that.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

I'm curious as to how many of these algae-free high N and P tanks have an algae eating clean up crew, and if so, what species, how many, etc. I think that's a fairly important variable to consider. I wonder of any are fauna-fallow.


----------



## Aphotic Phoenix (Apr 5, 2010)

sevenyearnight said:


> I'm curious as to how many of these algae-free high N and P tanks have an algae eating clean up crew, and if so, what species, how many, etc. I think that's a fairly important variable to consider. I wonder of any are fauna-fallow.


I would think that most certainly do have a "clean up crew" of sorts, but such a crew is there for minor/normal levels of algae, not problematic levels. Plus not all algae consuming critters eat the same types of algae. 

My 6.6 gallon low-tech but fertilized tank has 3 Amano shrimp (one large female, 2 smaller males), and 5 or 6 Clithon corona (very small nerites), plus some random pond, ramshorn, and MTS snails and is algae free save for some barely noticeable green fuzz on some stems in the lowest flow area of the tank. The amanos really aren't that interested it that either: they seem to prefer snatching drowned bugs, and searching the substrate for missed foodstuffs. XD


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

sevenyearnight said:


> I'm curious as to how many of these algae-free high N and P tanks have an algae eating clean up crew, and if so, what species, how many, etc. I think that's a fairly important variable to consider. I wonder of any are fauna-fallow.


Bladder snails (kinda like pond snails but not as prolific), ramshorns and a team of 5 otos in a 60p. That's about it...


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

snausage said:


> Firstly, a lot of people on this website use nutrient rich substrates like aquasoil and MTS. The original poster mentioned that he uses aquasoil in the tank with severe algae problems.


So should we take this as evidence that Aquasoil causes algae? I've had high nitrates in my tank without algae, but I didn't have aquasoil. This argument of course is false, but is is the same sort of logic you seem willing to apply. I agree a higher proportion of people on this website (and similar websites) use more nutritious substrates. It's a technique that is steadily growing in popularity for good reason. But based on the advanced nature of debates like this (yourself included), I don't think you could typify them as the average hobbyist. Most also use water column fertilization. Many don't use test kits. Many run algae free tanks. I find it hard to believe they by chance, they hit upon some magical amount of ferts, that prevents algae.



snausage said:


> Secondly, why can't we apply the data from natural bodies of water to our aquariums? It's done all the time.


There is a difference between using the data from waterways and treating our aquariums like natural waterways. Most aquariums wouldn't represent more then a mud puddle, you won't find many mud puddles with stable ecosystems that you'd want to keep in your living room. In general, most natural waterways do not represent anything that the average aquarist would want in his livingroom.



snausage said:


> For instance, many aquarists find that a balanced N ratio is necessary to prevent algae, which is both explained and supported by the 'Redfield Ratio'.


A balanced N ratio definitely doesn't preclude having an algae free tank, but this also suggests that both N and P are at excess measurable levels. If they are in excess what stops algae growth? Excess is excess, maybe this is just my own failing, but I've been able to starve plants quite easily, I've never been successful starving algae. In fact, my own observation is that most of the common algae's can be induced by limiting nutrients. I can have good luck when I carry my rabbits foot, it doesn't mean the rabbits foot is the source of good luck.

I'm also not sure why or how the Redfield Ratio explains or supports this. The ratio was developed from the average relative nutrients in marine phytoplanktion (algae). Its true this ratio is more or less shared with freshwater vascular plants but its also the same for freshwater algae on average. The ratio gives a quick method for calculating a non-limiting fert mixture but not much beyond this. And I would suggest the study of ecological stoichiometry, which looks at how plants and animals survive on food and in environments where nutritional availability differs from there physiology would suggest the Redfield Ratio is of limited benefit. Though I'm very interested to hear how it might be useful.



snausage said:


> Moreover, aquarists will tend to keep fish A in water warmer than 80F and fish B in water cooler than 80F due to temperatures found in fish A and fish B's native habitats. There must be thousands of similar examples of aquarists trying to tailor their tanks' parameters to those found in the native waters.


There is a limit to this argument, aquarists do try to tailor certain water parameters to the species (plant or animal) but there are a lot of limits to this. No one attempts to recreate ratios of water volume to plant and/or animal biomass in natural systems and this is probably the first and most important step in recreating a natural system.

With respect,

Dave


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

snausage said:


> This is based on findings in both marine and freshwater environments.


We're talking about pretty high levels then? (enough to kill fish).

You're leaving out a major, I mean major factor when you're talking about algae and not high nitrates... That is sun light! If you provide that amount of light and nutrients, yes algae will bloom, plants too.


----------



## 150EH (Dec 6, 2004)

Heat and low oxygen levels are big factors in this as well.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

Canuck said:


> So should we take this as evidence that Aquasoil causes algae? I've had high nitrates in my tank without algae, but I didn't have aquasoil. This argument of course is false, but is is the same sort of logic you seem willing to apply. I agree a higher proportion of people on this website (and similar websites) use more nutritious substrates. It's a technique that is steadily growing in popularity for good reason. But based on the advanced nature of debates like this (yourself included), I don't think you could typify them as the average hobbyist. Most also use water column fertilization. Many don't use test kits. Many run algae free tanks. I find it hard to believe they by chance, they hit upon some magical amount of ferts, that prevents algae.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like you.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

BlueJack said:


> It may not be as simple as just N and P amounts, but a complex relationship between interrelated biological, geological, and physical processes that cause these blooms.


I'd agree, but also human induced issues like removal of the macrophytes or stabilization of the water table. Older studies lacked macrophytes and where cold northern lake studies with few plant,s and deeper lakes where macrophytes could not root except a shallow ring around the edge.

So such data skewed things, eg Philips et al 1978.

He measured P in the water column and this included the phytoplankton fraction of P, whereas he did not measure the submersed plant P. When the plant P was added to the data, there was no longer any correlation between trophic state and macrophyte presence/absence. The METHODS skewed the results.

I think UF has the bets group and research for aquatic plants, they have a large grant for the Everglades, 7800 lakes, subtropical temps and sahllow lakes, perfect natural habitats for aquarium plant but also a real bad weed problem also. So it is also one of the top aquatic weed management research areas in the world. Periphyton as well, since it's the basis for the food chain in the everglades.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sevenyearnight said:


> I'm curious as to how many of these algae-free high N and P tanks have an algae eating clean up crew, and if so, what species, how many, etc. I think that's a fairly important variable to consider. I wonder of any are fauna-fallow.


This is not a requirement by any means, they are only icing on the cake so to speak. I ran several no fish or critter tanks in Flporida for a few months, thing went very very well indeed.

I was more curious about removing the NH4 fraction, as many suggest it is preferred, I found not horticultural evidence that that was the case. But it also addresses your question.......since there where no algae eaters, macroscopic anyways........and no algae and rich KNO3 dosing.......


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Canuck said:


> So should we take this as evidence that Aquasoil causes algae? I've had high nitrates in my tank without algae, but I didn't have aquasoil. This argument of course is false, but is is the same sort of logic you seem willing to apply. I agree a higher proportion of people on this website (and similar websites) use more nutritious substrates. It's a technique that is steadily growing in popularity for good reason. But based on the advanced nature of debates like this (yourself included), I don't think you could typify them as the average hobbyist. Most also use water column fertilization. Many don't use test kits. Many run algae free tanks. I find it hard to believe they by chance, they hit upon some magical amount of ferts, that prevents algae.


Dumb Luck?:tongue:



> There is a difference between using the data from waterways and treating our aquariums like natural waterways. Most aquariums wouldn't represent more then a mud puddle, you won't find many mud puddles with stable ecosystems that you'd want to keep in your living room. In general, most natural waterways do not represent anything that the average aquarist would want in his livingroom.


Some do, Bonita springs, MG Brasil, Ichetcucknee springs, FL..... San Marcos river in TX, Pupu springs NZ, several in Australia and elsewhere. 

Been there and seen then, pretty darn cool. 



> A balanced N ratio definitely doesn't preclude having an algae free tank, but this also suggests that both N and P are at excess measurable levels. If they are in excess what stops algae growth? Excess is excess, maybe this is just my own failing, but I've been able to starve plants quite easily, I've never been successful starving algae. In fact, my own observation is that most of the common algae's can be induced by limiting nutrients.


Such heresy!
haha

I thought limiting nutrients cures cancer.



> I can have good luck when I carry my rabbits foot, it doesn't mean the rabbits foot is the source of good luck.


You need a horse shoe over you aquarium also.



> I'm also not sure why or how the Redfield Ratio explains or supports this. The ratio was developed from the average relative nutrients in marine phytoplankton (algae). Its true this ratio is more or less shared with freshwater vascular plants but its also the same for freshwater algae on average. The ratio gives a quick method for calculating a non-limiting fert mixture but not much beyond this. And I would suggest the study of ecological stoichiometry, which looks at how plants and animals survive on food and in environments where nutritional availability differs from there physiology would suggest the Redfield Ratio is of limited benefit. Though I'm very interested to hear how it might be useful.


The RR is about *the most abused concept* in aquatic biology. Algae researchers will tell you this also.

Many no nothings do not even realize that the ratio *is atomic, not mass.
* Charles, a Dutch feller who likes to suggest the RR means something I sent several emails to detailing this error, he 's never changed in 5+ years even though the error is painfully obvious. 

Still, the RR does not apply in agriculture/horticulture... and that is what we are trying to do here, not limit algae.

Liebig's law applies here, not ratios.



> There is a limit to this argument, aquarists do try to tailor certain water parameters to the species (plant or animal) but there are a lot of limits to this. No one attempts to recreate ratios of water volume to plant and/or animal biomass in natural systems and this is probably the first and most important step in recreating a natural system.
> 
> With respect,
> 
> Dave


You could do this for food and factor in a 90% waste factor for N and P, 10% retention for growth and maintenance of the organism. This is common for Trout farming in feed efficiencies.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> This is not a requirement by any means, they are only icing on the cake so to speak. I ran several no fish or critter tanks in Flporida for a few months, thing went very very well indeed.
> 
> I was more curious about removing the NH4 fraction, as many suggest it is preferred, I found not horticultural evidence that that was the case. But it also addresses your question.......since there where no algae eaters, macroscopic anyways........and no algae and rich KNO3 dosing.......


That's good to hear because I'm setting up a planted tank for my senegal bichir, and he will likely eat his algae clean up crew butt first.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> Firstly, a lot of people on this website use nutrient rich substrates like aquasoil and MTS. The original poster mentioned that he uses aquasoil in the tank with severe algae problems.


So does this cause algae too since it's rich and non limiting an dleaches into the water column??

How do explain oh..........the top 50 of the ADA contest winners?
Perhaps it has nothing to do with ferts, the sediments etc.......and more to do with CO2/too much light etc??

I measured the top USA winner in the ADA contest, light was 40-50micromoles, just like most of my own tanks, but a watt/gal rule was off, suggesting much higher light than was really there. 

Testing showed some surprises.




> Secondly, why can't we apply the data from natural bodies of water to our aquariums?


You can, if you use good applicable research, not northern lakes or LAKES with a small % of growing AREA for the plants. Or nutrient rich springs like I mentioned above to Dave.

Light is very different in these systems however. 
But there's no correlation in terms of nutrient sand presence, absence of macrophytes. You add more ferts, you get more weeds. 
This is why Florida has such a massive aquatic weed problem.

In Lake Tahoe, we have a bad weed problem as well, but mostly where boats traffic occurs and where a lot of warmer water and nutrient runoff from yards occurs. There's not much algae there and sure does not stop the weeds from growing. 



> It's done all the time. For instance, many aquarists find that a balanced N ratio is necessary to prevent algae,


This has nothing to do with the ratio and everything to do with the individual limiting factors as explained by Liebig;'s Law of the minimum.

You really need to learn this concept and understand it.
It is the basis for agricultural fertilization.

I can and have gone from 1:1 to 50:1 with N and P, never any issues as long as the absolute limiting individual ppms are maintained. Arnold Bloom is a prof down the hall here, he's the co-author of Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd edition, the most often used text for the college course work. Says in the book it's not a huge issue as long as extremes are avoided. and even then it's more about economics, since ag ferts cost a lot when you apply 10,000 acres. For us, there's no economic factor. 

Others have done nutrient experiments on aquatic plants:
http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

It was not until the N was at 80ppm, this is not NO3 mind you..this is N, so multiple by 4.4 = ~350ppm of NO3..........pretty darn juicy eh?

Heck, I only messed up and got to 160ppm, never saw any issues.

These are aquariums and aquarium plants.:thumbsup:
I know Paul Krombholz, the co author, he's still around. 



> which is both explained and supported by the 'Redfield Ratio'.


This is a very dated argument and wrought with issues within the aquatic biology field. One of the most abused of papers.

There's no support.

Ratio averages for algae: 1:14, fresh water macrophytes: 1:10.
Marine plants? Quite different........again.
These are just averages though and tells nothing of the relative rates of growth or optima.

You need some Liebig Law action for that.



> Moreover, aquarists will tend to keep fish A in water warmer than 80F and fish B in water cooler than 80F due to temperatures found in fish A and fish B's native habitats. There must be thousands of similar examples of aquarists trying to tailor their tanks' parameters to those found in the native waters.


Nature does not imply optima, if that was the case, we'd grow all the agricultural crops like their original plant ancestors where found, your tomato would be a tiny little Peruvian thing..........corn would be a small multi colors highly variable type from Michoacan Mexico........canola oil would not exist......and we'd have no domesticated livestock, chickens would be grow in jungles. 

The question is what is the tolerance and the associated risk of providing environmental conditions outside the native ranges. Many weeds are not weedy in their native ranges...........but where placed in a new environment, by say, humans, they get loose and rapidly invade new areas and displace native species and transform the ecosystems. 

Potamogeton cirspus is a weed I work with, it's from Europe but has gotten into virtually every state in the USA and Canada, we have in Lake Tahoe where is has rapidly expanded. It's also in the Delta where we have very high nutrients in the sediment & water column. Lake Tahoe many think is the ultra pure ideal lake, but it depends on WHERE in that lake you are talking about, the Rio *****, Brasil is not homogenous, nor is lake Tahoe, or the Delta of Sacramento River. 

I understand aquarist like to provide optimal conditions for the livestock, but nature is not always optimal, this is an assumption. But it's a starting point.....and we test and see from there. We do not draw a line in the sand and say nothing can deviate from this point. 

That is not rational nor wise, we change our view and theories based on new evidence and new conclusions that appear to be correct or at least more correct than the prior conclusion. 

Excess NO3 does not cause algae and excess PO4 both oevr a very wide range, do not induce algae or stunt plants or affect fish/shrimp.

The results and evidence clearly demonstrate this, regardless of what you *believe.*

Maybe we all are lying?

What are the chances of that?

Why not try and prove this to yourself? You are not going to convince me or have brought any thing new to the table, this is for yourself, not for me or the others here. This way you will know.

I already do........but........I still do not know why fully algae grows. I only know what does not induce it.

If you are honest and have curiosity/passion, you will pursue this path.
"Sewingalot" also thought the same thing as yourself FYI, many on these boards have and only later, after a lot of stubbornness, did they come around.

I'm stubborn myself, I understand and have question everything, even really basic things. I wish I was a little more gullible and accepting..... truthfully sometimes......... it'd be a lot easier:redface:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sevenyearnight said:


> That's good to hear because I'm setting up a planted tank for my senegal bichir, and he will likely eat his algae clean up crew butt first.


If you provided good cover plant will and hardscape wise, then RCS could make it and rarely provide some food for it. Some plecos also.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

i have made my peace with tom and found him to be a genuine person (as genuine as the internet can be).

the things he suggested to me made me think and rethink. do and redo. and lo and behold i was wrong. go figure.

that being said, low nutrients, excess nutrients, column, substrate, no matter what you're going to have algae whether you can see it or not.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> You have framed the argument backwards. If excessive N and P did not cause algae, the the sciencedaily.com article on algae blooms would not state:
> 
> _Some algal blooms are the result of an excess of nutrients (particularly phosphorus and nitrogen) into waters and higher concentrations of these nutrients in water cause increased growth of algae and green plants._


"Green plants", did you see that part?
Add more ferts, you get more Weeds.
This is an important aspect in the comment there.
They also state that "some" algae blooms.......



> Nor would excessive N and P be sited as causing algae by several other credible sources like government agencies, universities etc.


Where aquatic plants are present?
Or where there are none?

Something will grow there, but if no plants are there, then pea soup it is, I'll have me a nice hot bowl please.

Same with lakes where the aquatic plants where removed by humans. the clear nice lake is not algae cess pool and green pea soup. Then they come and want the plants back

This happens a lot in Florida and we hear it often.
If I had a nickel for every time...........



> What I've been arguing throughout this thread _is that the hard science currently points to excessive N and P as causes of algae_.


*
Where aquatic plants in sufficient densities are present?
This is the question, not just algae and nutrients alone.
*

Sorry, had to make that huge as this is the crux of the error that is leading you to a false conclusion and a bad methods/application.

This is a key aspect that is often overlooked. 



> Therefore, repeatable experiments using accepted statistical models must show that excessive N and P DO NOT cause algae. Only then could it be argued that excessive nitrogen or phosphorous do not cause algae. However, I am not aware of any credible or accepted research that proves this.


What is excessive N and P?

Plenty of folks already use EI and do not have algae.
As you mentioned, ADA also has plenty of tanks with and without algae blooms. As a matter of fact, the lower the nutrients, often times, we see more algae, not less.

There is a lot more to algae than nutrients.
And the observations and results by thousand's of aquarist round the globe illustrate this.

the principle of falsification already proves this cannot be correct where there is ample plant biomass and CO2 and light are sufficient and independent. The problem is, many have way too much light and poor CO2 measurement and management in this hobby, something I've long argued.
This confounding dependency leads many to blame the popular dogma: it's the nutrients fault.

It's not just with EI either..it's with ADA and any and every dosing method there is. All it takes are few cases to disprove the hypothesis that excess N and P, say 40 ppm NO3 and 4ppm PO4.......does not induce algae management issues over long time frames and on multiple tanks.
That evidence is already very very well supported.

What else ya got?



> The anecdotes in this thread that supposedly prove excessive N or P do not cause algae are meaningless.


They are the facts. They are observations, data points.
I've provided my methods and my light and my dosing and my CO2.......
I've provided long historical accounts of the aquariums(not just one or two).
So have many others.

I've provide pictures spanning 15 years.
So have many many others.

Are we all just "lucky" and therefore according to you, all just meaningless observations? You better take me to Reno baby, lucky 7 here I come!



> The rigors of the scientific method were not applied and they aren't provided by credible sources.


Does not need to be, it's common sense.
We add it and no algae.

You can keep on requesting more and more research till you are blue......
You are no longer being rational. 

Simply claiming it needs scientific proof does not imply it's meaningless, plenty of examples are like this with diet pills, just cause there's not a study on them, does not imply they work or not. Folks can try it themselves and see they do nothing.

We could say the same thing about light, folks do not need light to grow aquatic plants............because no one has done a "rigorous test" in the aquarium hobby:icon_cool

This argument is weak, if it was a snake it'd bitten you 20 times.

It's common sense, folks add and do not get algae.
Folks do not add any light, plants do not grow and rot away.

Straw man arguments like this are starting to get painful as you have not offered anything but semantical horse manure and no evidence/results for support.

I have and in both natural and aquarium settings. I have no issue debating, but at some point, it's waste, you just are not thinking clearly here.



> Just because Tom Barr posted pictures of apparently algae free tanks with 45 ppm of NO3 proves nothing, _especially given that the one picture is a tank that he clearly does not own, nor maintain_.


That was given to illustrate that it's not just myself, but plenty of others, including a winner of the AGA contest:thumbsup:
that does not discredit , that supports the observations that N and P excess does not induce algae.

Do you understand this very very basic concept?

Apparently not.

Maybe I'm lair, since this is now what you are implying, I'm just doctoring pics and lying to everyone, going across the world lying.......telling people at clubs........all across the land.........lies???

Hehe. :eek5:




> If I were to distribute pictures of myself walking upside down on a ceiling, I wouldn't expect scientists at NASA to start rewriting the laws of gravity. Likewise, an intelligent person reading this thread shouldn't believe that excessive N and P do not cause algae.


This logic is not intelligent.

That example would be doctored, a dozen or more folks on TPT have seen my tanks, SFBAAPS members have seen my tanks, SAPS members, SCAPE members. They have done the same test with nutrients. 

Maybe we all in cahoots?

Has this what your debating skills have distilled down to?
Suggesting someone being dishonest and doctoring and getting everyone else in on it as well?

Is that the best you can do? Perhaps there's hope for you, but not yet.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

nonconductive said:


> i have made my peace with tom and found him to be a genuine person (as genuine as the internet can be).
> 
> the things he suggested to me made me think and rethink. do and redo. and lo and behold i was wrong. go figure.
> 
> that being said, low nutrients, excess nutrients, column, substrate, no matter what you're going to have algae whether you can see it or not.


Ah you must be in on the conspiracy as well:icon_cool
hehe

This where you are suppose to spill the beans, it's all an elaborate lie:thumbsup:


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

ill take my payment in whiptail fry please and thanks.


----------



## genomer (Mar 29, 2011)

It's been my experience time and time again that excessive light is the culprit in 90% of rampant algae growth. I've had tanks that were nutrient soup for all intents and purposes and I would have had to try to get any appreciable algal growth. I don't understand why so many folks obsess over dosing amounts and nutrient ratios; some of the threads here make my head spin. Dose plenty, provide plenty of CO2, and watch it with the lighting; nuff said!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> You should be able to use a RELATIVE pH movement to suggest a CO2 range.
> I agree with this approach, but it does not give you an absolute quantity.
> Relative? Yes.
> 
> ...


Well, I don’t believe in relative anything!
I calibrate my tank CO2 controller using CO2. The way I do it is by dissolving a weighed amount of CO2 in cold RODI water at a concentration of about 8,000 ppm. Then I “weigh in” various amounts of my 8,000 ppm solution that correspond to 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30ppm at the tank level using tank water. From the pH of my samples I can create a linear standard curve. I titrate the 20 ppm sample using the 4 parameter method. My lab is right here next to my office; so the sample exists for only a few minutes before I add NaOH to stabilize it. While I have burettes and stuff, I rarely use them since I do only mass titrations. This is more accurate but the real reason I use this method is because it means no glassware to wash at the end. Using the two methods together I have a certainty of better than +/- 2 ppm.
This is what I call a scientific process. You do your experiment and report the results in as much detail as possible so that others can do the same thing. 
Finally, this post is getting hopeless and I couldn’t find where you posted this so if you didn’t I apologize. You stated (I think) that you work at 50 ppm NO3- and what is the harm? You do know that the US EPA and the EU consider NO3- above 45 ppm a health risk and water at this level of NO3- is considered non-potable. It should be noted that water, even at the NO3- levels that I work at 10 -20 ppm, is considered contaminated by natural standards.
BTW my goal is not to have a garden or a zoo. My goal is to have as close to a natural habitat that I can make. My special interest is the Amazon biotype.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> If you provided good cover plant will and hardscape wise, then RCS could make it and rarely provide some food for it. Some plecos also.


Really? I would love to get some RCS! Are you sure he won't sniff then out and nom nom nom them, especially at night?


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

sevenyearnight said:


> Really? I would love to get some RCS! Are you sure he won't sniff then out and nom nom nom them, especially at night?


 
You could always turn your tank into a science experiment and report your findings after, say, 1 month. And if it doesn't work, blame Darwin and slow-evolving genetics for not providing the RCS with a better defense mechanism.

Just remember to overdose the number of RCS being added to your tank as part of your EI dosing regimen, preferably on Sunday after the 50% WC. :icon_mrgr 

How much easier could it be?!


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

dwc13 said:


> You could always turn your tank into a science experiment and report your findings after, say, 1 month. And if it doesn't work, blame Darwin and slow-evolving genetics for not providing the RCS with a better defense mechanism.
> 
> Just remember to overdose the number of RCS being added to your tank as part of your EI dosing regimen, preferably on Sunday after the 50% WC. :icon_mrgr
> 
> How much easier could it be?!


I'm glad somebody could lighten the mood in this thread. LOL


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

genomer said:


> It's been my experience time and time again that excessive light is the culprit in 90% of rampant algae growth. I've had tanks that were nutrient soup for all intents and purposes and I would have had to try to get any appreciable algal growth. I don't understand why so many folks obsess over dosing amounts and nutrient ratios; some of the threads here make my head spin. Dose plenty, provide plenty of CO2, and watch it with the lighting; nuff said!


Ditto


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

nonconductive said:


> ill take my payment in whiptail fry please and thanks.


Done


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ray-the-pilot said:


> Well, I don’t believe in relative anything!
> I calibrate my tank CO2 controller using CO2. The way I do it is by dissolving a weighed amount of CO2 in cold RODI water at a concentration of about 8,000 ppm. Then I “weigh in” various amounts of my 8,000 ppm solution that correspond to 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30ppm at the tank level using tank water.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> However, I am not aware of any credible or accepted research that proves this.
> 
> The anecdotes in this thread that supposedly prove excessive N or P do not cause algae are meaningless. The rigors of the scientific method were not applied and they aren't provided by credible sources.


I've asked for citations and you have not provided any specifically applied to your claims, not one in fact:thumbsup:

You demand rgoir but offer none yourself.
You offer no methods, no test we might do, no pictures to illustrate the points, nothing, nada, just semantics and dogma.

I on the other hand have provided a long list as have others also mentioned in this thread in support in their own tanks, that apply very specifically to plants, algae and toxicology regarding NO3.

I have shown numerous aquariums with breeding fish and shrimp.......lacking any algae, causing one poster to think the tank is "newly set up" even though the entire club help moved the tank over 2 years ago. I have sold thousands of plants out of this tank and others routinely, every month for years now.......and it still looks nice. Been doing this for a good 20 years with plants, 35 with fish. 

I KNOW how much based on the mass and volume of the tank I add of KNO3. I see no negative impacts, others have done the same test and also noted the SAME results. 

What have you done?
Parrot the rubbish off other web sites?

Why believe me?
Why not test this stuff yourself?


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

As I said earlier, my original question wasnt necessarily about the algae-as much as the high nitrate readings. 

Although Im still unsure of why the nitrate readings were so high, I thought I would share the results of light reduction. I raised the 2x24w T5HO fixture about 6 inches above the water surface and removed the single bulb 24W T5HO fixture completely. I had to reduce the CO2 dosing because ( I assume ) the plants werent using as much of it and the fish were gasping ( actually lost one Harlequin before I caught it. ) The plants have shown good growth ( maybe more than before? ) and the algae seems to be going away ( except for the green dust on the glass ). The only 'down' side of the light reduction has been that the tank isnt as bright as it used to be and it makes viewing the fish behind the driftwood more difficult. I will get over it if the plant growth stays steady and the algae subsides. I havent taken any water samples and I have not dosed any KNO3 since I posted this last week. I will be doing my normal 50% water changes tonight and I will check the nitrates prior to the water change.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

ray-the-pilot said:


> You are the plant guru so far be it from me to say anything but excessive nitrates is a proof of bad plant growth!
> 
> In my research, I dose at 1/.1/1 ppm of NO3/PO4/K per day. I test regularly for NO3/PO4/K and use the rule 20ppm/2/ppm/20ppm. Any result above that rule is a warning that something is wrong. I doesn't mean that I am dosing too much. What it means is that the plants are not uptaking enough!
> In my work, there is a definite correlation between poor plant growth and excess NO3- in the water column.


here is a good proof of overdosed nutrients, 80ppm of nitrate, everything else is dosed 2 times more than what EI recommend. co2 is also running very high, drop check yellow all day and no fish gasping. see it for yourself

watch from 2:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQImF2Sk78

that was my older tank.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Tom know's his stuff. Listen to him and you'll be able to grow weeds out your ears without a hint of research. That's what I did when I first started out back in early 2009. I didn't know anything about measuring statistical values of this and that.... I still don't. I'm a simple man. If there's a proven method that's been tried and proven, why not take it and use it to your benefit instead of trying to discredit it? 

If you're dosing the "recommended" EI values of NPK and micros for your tank and you're having algae woes, it aint the ferts!! It's your light/CO2. If you can't master that aspect of this hobby, you'll never overcome algae. NEVER! It's quite simple actually... This horse has been beaten to death: Lower your light output and use a drop checker (if anything) to dial in your CO2. No need for any scientific data and measurings of bla bla blah. 

I just ate 2 whole bags of popcorn to myself reading this entire thread. So much for going out to lunch.


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

happi said:


> here is a good proof of overdosed nutrients, 80ppm of nitrate, everything else is dosed 2 times more than what EI recommend. co2 is also running very high, drop check yellow all day and no fish gasping. see it for yourself
> 
> watch from 2:40
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQImF2Sk78
> ...


Those discus are so tiny. Arrrg! @ repetitive techno music


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

dwc13 said:


> You could always turn your tank into a science experiment and report your findings after, say, 1 month. And if it doesn't work, blame Darwin and slow-evolving genetics for not providing the RCS with a better defense mechanism.
> 
> Just remember to overdose the number of RCS being added to your tank as part of your EI dosing regimen, preferably on Sunday after the 50% WC. :icon_mrgr
> 
> How much easier could it be?!


Lol! I really like shrimp, but Mortimer (the bichir) is a very effective hunter. He found a grass hopper on the roof of one of his caves, once. I'm pretty sure I'd just be buying him snacks. I'll just stick with a BN pleco.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

sevenyearnight said:


> Those discus are so tiny. Arrrg! @ repetitive techno music


those discus are tiny because those are discus babies, they are only about 1-2 month old


----------



## sevenyearnight (May 1, 2011)

happi said:


> those discus are tiny because those are discus babies, they are only about 1-2 month old


 Yeah babies tend to be on the smaller side  They are so precious, with a very lovely home!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (Jul 5, 2011)

<<So how are weighing the gas might I ask??>>

First off, this post wasn’t meant to be a scientific paper only some information. As you said this is pretty much off topic but if you are interested in my research you can PM me and we can talk privately. Here are my responses to your questions in a short way.

<<So how are weighing the gas might I ask??>>
It is really easy. I make my CO2 concentrate in a seltzer siphon. I measure the internal volume and add enough RODI to fill it about 90% full. Then I take a charging CO2 cartridge, weigh it before charging and after charging and the difference is the amount of CO2 in the bottle.

<<Also, if the water is DI/RO, you cannot determine the CO2 via the pH KH curve, there's no KH and the scale becomes impossible to determine.
If you add say 20ppm of carbonate, then it's fine, but no KH is going to cause issues in measurement.>>
The primary standard is only for dilution. I do not measure the pH of this solution. I know the concentration of the primary solution. I use this to make my tank level references. These are made by diluting the primary reference with tank water (kH is about 4.0). It is the tank level samples that I use to measure the pH

<<So the samples are not sealed in otherwords..........and degas.....>>

Possibly but since I stabilize them with NaOH in less than 5 minutes and the levels of CO2 are small the amount of degassing is minimal. But as I said, the method is only accurate to +/- 2 ppm of CO2 so degassing may be part of that error.

<<But you have left out a few key details here.>>

True but as I said before, I wasn’t planning to give a paper.
---
<<Finally, this post is getting hopeless.>>

I agree and if you are really interested PM me and I can give you more information.

<<I questioned you because few bother to measure CO2 accurately and with a reference, you would be *the first person to make a known CO2 solution in some 15 years of posting on line I've ever heard of.*

Understandably, that alone peaks my curiosity: thumbs up:>>

Thanks for the thumbs up! Hey maybe I am wrong but I doubt it. I’ve been doing chemistry for over 30 years and this is my passion. As I said, I am sure that I can accurately measure CO2 levels. It is not accessible to most hobbyists but it is good for establishing a scientific basis for good growth conditions. 

<<This is the law for drinking water and applies to Human consumption, not fish, not plants, not shrimp........not natural water ways and not from KNO3 dosing.>>

<<All important oversights in your............what was it? Quest for the Scientific method? Okay, whatever.......>>

<<Who's standards? The Scientific method?>>

Well I could be wrong about this but I doubt it as well. Plants in natural water systems only rarely have a source of NO3-. Plants scratch out every bit of those valuable resources. P and N are rare in natural, uncontaminated water simply because these are so ravenously consumed by plants. I suppose you can find some exotic location that has a naturally high level of P, N but these are exceptions. I’ll just point out that sea water, the dumping place of all water systems has almost none of these.

<<For WARM water fish, they list a guppy, at about 800ppm of NO3 for a LD50.
Other citations drop in about this range, we do not use Trout or Salmon fry.......these are hyper sensitive cold water fish. For warm water fish, they are far far more resistant to NO3 and lower O2.>>

Hey I like your reference! Let’s use your really hardy guppy! He can live in almost anything from my youthful experience. OK his LD 50 is 800 ppm right! Well that means if you put 100 guppies in a 800 ppm NO3- tank half of them will die from the NO3-. That is not very good? Do you agree? The standard level of safety is usually at least 1/10 the LD 50 and in the pharmaceutical industry, where I work, the safety factor is 1/1000. But even if we go with 1/10 that means guppies can take only 80 ppm. That is pushing close to your 50 ppm and the EPA limit of 45 ppm. If those damn guppies can take only 80 ppm what can discus take?

<<Still, we can get an idea of the ranges comparatively and simply toss the fish/shrimp critter of interest and measure brood production and fry rearing, Any hobbyists can do this test.>>

True, but most hobbyists are really unsuccessful! And have you tested every kind of fish in your EI tanks. I’ve noticed that most of the tanks I see with long term success have only limited number of species that fit the EI mold. Maybe it is possible that there could be other successful plans? 

<<But you have assumed than nature = best for the critters, this is an assumption and a bad one at that.>>

No I didn’t assume this, you did. I only told you my goal. I am not looking for a zoo or garden. Plants and animals can grow faster, better, or whatever in a zoo or garden but they are not as interesting as seeing them in the wild. My goal is to see them in as close to the wild as I can make.

<<Amazon is a big big place and has a high diversity of habitats, it's not homogeneous, the water and the quality changes spatially and temporally a large amount.>>

So? I don’t understand your point? Can’t I pick the part of the Amazon I like?

<<Tell me more about your method for CO2, and a citation for the method.>>

It is my own method! PM me and we may talk


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ray-the-pilot said:


> <<So how are weighing the gas might I ask??>>
> 
> First off, this post wasn’t meant to be a scientific paper only some information. As you said this is pretty much off topic but if you are interested in my research you can PM me and we can talk privately.




Will do.



> Here are my responses to your questions in a short way.





> <<So how are weighing the gas might I ask??>>
> It is really easy. I make my CO2 concentrate in a seltzer siphon. I measure the internal volume and add enough RODI to fill it about 90% full. Then I take a charging CO2 cartridge, weigh it before charging and after charging and the difference is the amount of CO2 in the bottle.


Ahhh, this is actually a clever idea.



> <<Also, if the water is DI/RO, you cannot determine the CO2 via the pH KH curve, there's no KH and the scale becomes impossible to determine.
> If you add say 20ppm of carbonate, then it's fine, but no KH is going to cause issues in measurement.>>
> The primary standard is only for dilution. I do not measure the pH of this solution. I know the concentration of the primary solution. I use this to make my tank level references. These are made by diluting the primary reference with tank water (kH is about 4.0). It is the tank level samples that I use to measure the pH


Groovy, the paintball CO2 cartridges are a good idea.
I got them, but I use them for my bike tires for inflation.
A KH of 1 is fine also, as long as there is SOME buffer.



> <<So the samples are not sealed in otherwords..........and degas.....>>
> 
> Possibly but since I stabilize them with NaOH in less than 5 minutes and the levels of CO2 are small the amount of degassing is minimal. But as I said, the method is only accurate to +/- 2 ppm of CO2 so degassing may be part of that error.


If the samples are kept still and not shaken when taken from the tank, you likely are okay.




> Understandably, that alone peaks my curiosity: thumbs up:>>
> 
> Thanks for the thumbs up! Hey maybe I am wrong but I doubt it. I’ve been doing chemistry for over 30 years and this is my passion. As I said, I am sure that I can accurately measure CO2 levels. It is not accessible to most hobbyists but it is good for establishing a scientific basis for good growth conditions.


Yes, exactly.

The paintball thing is clever. I think hobby folks can make a reference CO2 solution using that.

I used a mass flow controller, Alicat, not cheap, so this is out of anyone's pricing. We had issues measuring the volume of flow of CO2 gas accurately, so we went to this.

But a small finite volume like paintball, cost 1-2$.
Unload the sucker in a sealed bottle, and you are done.
But.......what are good CO2 ppm's ranges for plants? Individual Species? Fish tolerances? 

We really do not have good answers to those.




> Well I could be wrong about this but I doubt it as well. Plants in natural water systems only rarely have a source of NO3-.




Every single natural system I've ever measured where plants are present has had plenty of NO3. It also depends on the time of the year/season when such measures are taken. Spring run off? The nutrients are loaded. Mid late summer? Pretty low. Springs? Extremely stable generally. 



> Plants scratch out every bit of those valuable resources. P and N are rare in natural, uncontaminated water simply because these are so ravenously consumed by plants. I suppose you can find some exotic location that has a naturally high level of P, N but these are exceptions. I’ll just point out that sea water, the dumping place of all water systems has almost none of these.


Aquatic weeds grow where nutrients flow. Pretty simple, they do not care the least whether the water column of the sediment or both.

You imply, but I doubt you are really suggesting that aquatic plants grow where there are NO nutrients?

Come on.......plants grow best horticulturally where there are good conditions(light/CO2 and nutrients). This is common sense.

Cannot worm around this one.



> Hey I like your reference! Let’s use your really hardy guppy! He can live in almost anything from my youthful experience. OK his LD 50 is 800 ppm right! Well that means if you put 100 guppies in a 800 ppm NO3- tank half of them will die from the NO3-. That is not very good? Do you agree? The standard level of safety is usually at least 1/10 the LD 50 and in the pharmaceutical industry, where I work, the safety factor is 1/1000. But even if we go with 1/10 that means guppies can take only 80 ppm. That is pushing close to your 50 ppm and the EPA limit of 45 ppm. If those damn guppies can take only 80 ppm what can discus take?


These have bred multiple times using about 40ppm dosing weekly:
Discus are quite easy to bred, I've done it a dozen or more times without even trying.

I do not even consider them a remotely difficult fish to keep or breed, just feed them, give them a good home, they do not care about the NO3.

Folks have long done EI dosing and never had any issues breeding or otherwise with Discus, 



















How many amazon fish have you bred?

I'd say shrimp are an order of magnitude more sensitive to environmentals and invertebrates are often used as bioindicators for nutrients in natural and man made aquatic systems. A highly inbred CRS is a good model.

I use those to test typically higher end dosing routines.
Here's the fry from those tanks along with some Fire shrimp:













> True, but most hobbyists are really unsuccessful!




Killers, we all are at some point in the hobby.



> And have you tested every kind of fish in your EI tanks. I’ve noticed that most of the tanks I see with long term success have only limited number of species that fit the EI mold. Maybe it is possible that there could be other successful plans?


Discus, Congo's, Rummy nose, Cards, rare plecos out the whazoo, Rift Cichlids, Apistos, CRS shrimps, Gar, Killifish, Any Tetra or south American fish, most any West African fish, SEA fish etc, Rose lines, Name some fish that interest you, I've likely had them in my own tank or a client's.

No really cold water fish though.

Got 480 Gal worth of tank at home, and take care of about 3000 Gallon of client tank. Plants? I am at about 340 species, I've mastered growing that no# of species. There are a few I have not grown, but I reckon with 300 +, I'm good to generalize.........




> Plants and animals can grow faster, better, or whatever in a zoo or garden but they are not as interesting as seeing them in the wild. My goal is to see them in as close to the wild as I can make.[/FONT]


In a tiny glass box? How can you argue that is the same or remotely even close? How much do you/we really know about that habitat also???




> So? I don’t understand your point? Can’t I pick the part of the Amazon I like?


Sure you can, but then it's a garden or zoo, not "nature".
With Biotopes, there's a lot of trade offs we accept because we lack the exact species, collections from those regions. We try and get close as we like to think we can. That's about all we can hope for most times. Even this is FAR removed from a natural aquatic system. Nutrients? WAY DOWN on the list of things to monkey with. Wiser to focus on good feeding and good O2 and big tank.

This is the point here in the OP's thread, high NO3, say 80ppm or so, have no observable adverse effect aNYONE has shown in the hobby with the fish claimed to be sensitive, (nor shrimp or plants.........)

You claim it's better? Fine, then prove it. I've offered plenty up here as far as examples. Your turn to show that my fish cannot breed or do well and that there is a REAL risk, this will be rather tough 




> <<Tell me more about your method for CO2, and a citation for the method.>>It is my own method! PM me and we may talk


Will do.

thanks


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

shane3fan said:


> As I said earlier, my original question wasnt necessarily about the algae-as much as the high nitrate readings.
> 
> Although Im still unsure of why the nitrate readings were so high, I thought I would share the results of light reduction. I raised the 2x24w T5HO fixture about 6 inches above the water surface and removed the single bulb 24W T5HO fixture completely. I had to reduce the CO2 dosing because ( I assume ) the plants werent using as much of it and the fish were gasping ( actually lost one Harlequin before I caught it. ) The plants have shown good growth ( maybe more than before? ) and the algae seems to be going away ( except for the green dust on the glass ). The only 'down' side of the light reduction has been that the tank isnt as bright as it used to be and it makes viewing the fish behind the driftwood more difficult. I will get over it if the plant growth stays steady and the algae subsides. I havent taken any water samples and I have not dosed any KNO3 since I posted this last week. I will be doing my normal 50% water changes tonight and I will check the nitrates prior to the water change.


The spread of light will be better if you raise it like you did.
Plants will use the CO2, but you can cure algae, you cannot bring a fish back to life.

Good current and lower light will make CO2 management much easier and less risk to livestock.

It takes some time for the tank to Right itself after CO2 stress.......and the plants should grow better and better with time.

Depends on the intensity of the problem(light- too much, CO2 , not enough).
Run the calibration check before you test the tank water with a standard reference.


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> Tom know's his stuff. Listen to him and you'll be able to grow weeds out your ears without a hint of research.


I haven't viewed this thread as whether or not Mr. Barr or any other poster "knows his (or her) stuff" as to the subject matter at hand. It is quite apparent from my perspective a number of very qualified people have offered their insights. What this thread has confirmed is that various posters have different opinions as to why something happens/doesn't happen. Furthermore, some can be quite steadfast in their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that -- we're not in North Korea. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it convict Casey Anthony. 

I have opted for a decidedly low-tech approach over the years and don't do EI dosing. That being said, I think underlying premise is fairly sound for plants, but I still have some concerns about potential negative implications on fish in the long run. I liken EI dosing (along with higher CO2 injection and lighting) to increasing current to a motherboard (for overclocking purposes). At some point, adding too much juice will result in a $200 paperweight. I can only increase the frequency, multiplier, and/or bus speed so much before the motherboard or processor (or both) becomes unstable or overheats/fails. I understand the 50% water change on Day 7 is supposed to reduce/reset the levels of nutrients in the water, but what if a good part of the stuff is absorbed by the substrate and continues to be released into the water over time (along with newly added dosings)? Are the fish (and multiple generations of offspring) completely oblivious of and unaffected by the significantly increased (and presumably constantly fluctuating) presence of the nutrients and CO2? Appreciate your thoughts on this. 




speedie408 said:


> I just ate 2 whole bags of popcorn to myself reading this entire thread. So much for going out to lunch.


Perhaps in the near future in an edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a leading team of researchers will detail their findings about a breakthrough popcorn regimen that is being hailed as one of the most significant advances in the treatment and cure of a disease previously thought incurable. Who knows -- you might just be on the cutting edge of medical research. On second thought, I probably have a better shot at throwing a 12 at the craps table 10 straight times.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

dwc13 said:


> I haven't viewed this thread as whether or not Mr. Barr or any other poster "knows his (or her) stuff" as to the subject matter at hand. It is quite apparent from my perspective a number of very qualified people have offered their insights. What this thread has confirmed is that various posters have different opinions as to why something happens/doesn't happen. Furthermore, some can be quite steadfast in their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that -- we're not in North Korea. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it convict Casey Anthony.
> 
> *Yes everyone has their own opinion, it's a public forum, what do you expect? You don't like my "insight"? That's because this is USA, we're free to say anything... well, almost anything.
> *
> ...


roud:


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> *My thoughts... Why don't you try doing EI before you try to pass it up as an "overclocked PC"? Plants are much different in many aspects than your motherboard or RAM analogy. They're actual living/growing organisms IIRC. You don't want to listen to folks who have been doing EI for years without fail? Tom's been laying it all out... haven't you been reading the whole thread?*
> 
> 
> roud:


 

"What we have here is a failure to communicate". I did not say I wasn't willing to listen to what others have said about EI dosing. I am not sure how you arrived at that determination. Contrary to what you think, I am not at all dismissive of EI dosing. I just don't do it. Simple as that. And BTW, I am an avid overclocker; a stable, overclocked CPU/GPU/APU/MB is the way to go. 

The point of my analogy was to compare/inquire whether there is some point at which the higher level (of current, nutrients/CO2) could have negative long-term implications (on CPU/MB, *fish*). I have yet to see the results of a comprehensive, long-term study about the effects of EI dosing on *fish* that is all-encompassing with respect to the various species of *fish*. My concern is based upon the knowledge certain *fish* are more susceptible to varying water conditions than others, be it temperature, PH, salt content, currents, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

dwc13 said:


> "What we have here is a failure to communicate". I did not say I wasn't willing to listen to what others have said about EI dosing. I am not sure how you arrived at that determination. Contrary to what you think, I am not at all dismissive of EI dosing. I just don't do it. Simple as that. And BTW, I am an avid overclocker; a stable, overclocked CPU/GPU/APU/MB is the way to go.
> 
> The point of my analogy was to compare/inquire whether there is some point at which the higher level (of current, nutrients/CO2) could have negative long-term implications (on CPU/MB, *fish*). I have yet to see the results of a comprehensive, long-term study about the effects of EI dosing on *fish* that is all-encompassing with respect to the various species of *fish*. My concern is based upon the knowledge certain *fish* are more susceptible to varying water conditions than others, be it temperature, PH, salt content, currents, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


I think you're missing the whole point of a "planted tank" here. The main focus of most planted tanks is on the plants themselves, not the fish. The fish are just ornaments. If one wanted to specifically raise fish for the purpose of breeding, many would prefer not to do so in a fertilizer doused "planted tank" for absolute best results. 

That being said, there has been no evidence of fish dying from dosing NPK + micros into planted aquariums that I've heard of since I've started this hobby. I'm sure many others can attest to that. I don't know of any scientific study, but I guess personal experience is not good enough for skeptics. There's been countless accounts of fish/shrimp breeding successfully in fertilizer dosed planted tanks of all sizes. Fish deaths caused by CO2 asphyxiation on the other hand, a dime a dozen. 

Simply put, if you follow the EI guidelines and dose accordingly +/- a few grams here n there depending on your plant/bio mass, tap water quality, modified regimen, it's a no brainer. It will not cause overdosing of ferts as long as you're resetting, hence the 50% weekly water changes. Nutrients being retained by the substrate is a good thing IIRC. That's why substrates that have high CEC are used widely in the aquatic plant society. Of course having excessive (overdosed) nutrient and CO2 poisoning is not going to be best for any fish/invert. That's why we focus on plants, and the fish merely being ornaments of the tank.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

tom that discus tank is awesome, and a prime example of how the discus cult is full of bs.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

dwc13 said:


> I liken EI dosing (along with higher CO2 injection and lighting) to increasing current to a motherboard (for overclocking purposes). At some point, adding too much juice will result in a $200 paperweight.


I thought about this all the time also. After many good discussions and some research I'm no longer worried about EI dosing levels being harmful at all. Here's why:

For the question about nitrates: sensitivity to nitrate is species-specific. For the most sensitive species you should keep levels below 44ppm NO3(Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals:2005). These species are usually cold water, glacier runoff streams, pristine conditions type fish(salmon, trout, etc). *Not* a good example since we mostly keep warm water species. 

Warm water species are much more tolerant of nitrates.These warm water species would be better examples for our aquarium fish. Some examples:
-The 96-hr LC50 (median lethal concentration) for fathead minnow(rosy-red minnow) larvae is 5,900ppm NO3 (Scott and Crunkilton 2000) 
-The lethal dose for adult and juvenile medaka (type of Killifish) is 440ppm NO3 (Shimura et al. 2002)
-The common bluegill was able to tolerate elevated nitrate levels during short-term exposures: a 96 h LC50 value of 8,690ppm NO3 (Trama, 1954)
-The channel catﬁsh Ictalurus punctatus was able to tolerate a nitrate concentration of 396ppm NO3 without aﬀecting their growth and feeding activity after an exposure of 164 days (Knepp and Arkin, 1973) 

With EI Dosing you're only adding 5-10ppm NO3 ever other day. Assuming you add that to your tank this week and none of you plants use any of it(not likely) you'll have only 15-30ppm. That amount is well within safe limits for cold water, hyper-sensitive fish (salmon, trout). What is more realistically going to happen is each day your plants will reduce that 10ppm NO3. Mine for example, cuts that amount in half by the next dosing. You'll more than likely have 5-20ppm in your tank at any given time.(high light/CO2 play an important factor in this rate of uptake) Still, very safe levels for warm water species. 

Phosphates, I don't think they're toxic at any levels. Maybe might mess with you digestive system at some extremes. (Hence, the use of Fleet Enema as PO4)

Potassium is also non-toxic at any levels.

Micros - non toxic at EI Dosing recommendations

I remember someone earlier made a statement about NO3 levels needed to be below 45ppm NO3 to be considered potable. That's true but if you drink 1 bottle of 60ppm NO3 water you're not going to die. Human toxicity chart-












dwc13 said:


> Are the fish (and multiple generations of offspring) completely oblivious of and unaffected by the significantly increased (and presumably constantly fluctuating) presence of the nutrients and CO2? Appreciate your thoughts on this.


I think for warm water species, if you can keep NO3 below 90ppm everything will be fine and dandy. Phosphate/potassium/micros are all non-issues. CO2 I'm still not sure of. I think if fish safety is at the top of your list then a fish only, or non-CO2 system might be best. But if you're about aquatic gardening, CO2 will just make things grow better.


----------



## GeToChKn (Apr 15, 2011)

According to my water quality report for my city, it contains 0.43 to 0.62 mg/L of Nitrates, so doing water changes, I would never be able to get rid of them. Would I better off not changing my water as much if I want to keep my nitrates down?


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

BlueJack said:


> I thought about this all the time also. After many good discussions and some research I'm no longer worried about EI dosing levels being harmful at all. Here's why:
> 
> For the question about nitrates: sensitivity to nitrate is species-specific. For the most sensitive species you should keep levels below 44ppm NO3(Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals:2005). These species are usually cold water, glacier runoff streams, pristine conditions type fish(salmon, trout, etc). *Not* a good example since we mostly keep warm water species.
> 
> ...


 
Appreciate your post, BlueJack. 

I hope the heading in Table 1 is a typo, because 1-44 ppm of nitrites will be harmful, and often fatal, to fish. BTW, what is the source for Table 1?


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

That table is for human consumption....less than 44 ppm is EPA standards I think..just wanted to show the effects of higher amounts. Not sure where I found it. Whenever I come across something interesting I usually "print screen it" and save it.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

oops...just re-read that...Heading is a typo but still gives results in ppm NO3, ya nitrites are baaaad


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

GeToChKn said:


> According to my water quality report for my city, it contains 0.43 to 0.62 mg/L of Nitrates, so doing water changes, I would never be able to get rid of them. Would I better off not changing my water as much if I want to keep my nitrates down?


mg/l = ppm
Your tap water contains less than 1 ppm of nitrates, based on that. Why wouldn't water changes reduce the nitrates in the tank water, not that it is necessary to do so?


----------



## GeToChKn (Apr 15, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> mg/l = ppm
> Your tap water contains less than 1 ppm of nitrates, based on that. Why wouldn't water changes reduce the nitrates in the tank water, not that it is necessary to do so?


I didn't know mg/l=ppm. lol.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

dwc13 said:


> Appreciate your post, BlueJack.
> 
> I hope the heading in Table 1 is a typo, because 1-44 ppm of nitrites will be harmful, and often fatal, to fish. BTW, what is the source for Table 1?


I have tested this a dozen or more times all the way to 160ppm NO3, this is complete and utter rubbish.

Plecos, tetras, Discus, Apistos and rams and some 30 or more species.

I never lost a one.
Done this for CRS and RCS and Amano's also. 
Same thing, at 160 ppm I could not rule out the losses for the Amano's, that was the only case, I only went to 60ppm for the RCS and CRS.


I use to dose even more in the past, never lost any fish, this is so easy to falsify and illustrate how far off the myth is it really has become an old silly game. Oeople are setting themselves up to be proven incorrect about this topic, painfully so.

This is not some new thing either, folks have messed up many times(read the examples of folks here in the thread........) and have made plenty of gross errors dosing KNO3 in the last 15 years, no one, not one....has ever killed or harmed their fish that anyone has been able to show.
*
This is something even a newbie hobbyist can test and falsify.*

Many have.

So do the dang test already. I and many others already know.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

dwc13 said:


> I have opted for a decidedly low-tech approach over the years and don't do EI dosing. That being said, I think underlying premise is fairly sound for plants, but I still have some concerns about potential negative implications on fish in the long run. I liken EI dosing (along with higher CO2 injection and lighting) to increasing current to a motherboard (for overclocking purposes). At some point, adding too much juice will result in a $200 paperweight. I can only increase the frequency, multiplier, and/or bus speed so much before the motherboard or processor (or both) becomes unstable or overheats/fails.


So less light, since it is the driver of all growth is a sound good piece of advice, but curiously, folks rarely offer this advice.
Then there's less demand for CO2 as well, and on down the line......less N demand.

Non CO2 methods I do and promote also.



> I understand the 50% water change on Day 7 is supposed to reduce/reset the levels of nutrients in the water, but what if a good part of the stuff is absorbed by the substrate and continues to be released into the water over time (along with newly added dosings)?


Not happening with most sediments due to low CEC(Sands, Flourite EC etc), with some(Soils with high clay content), perhaps, but those sites where loaded initially and it's only when those CEC sites are empty, can they be filled again. Thus they will end up in the water and exported or taken up by plant shoots instead of roots.



> Are the fish (and multiple generations of offspring) completely oblivious of and unaffected by the significantly increased (and presumably constantly fluctuating) presence of the nutrients and CO2? Appreciate your thoughts on this.


How many folks here are breeding multiple generations of fish in planted tanks? I've shown dozens of fish species I've bred in planted tanks and shrimp. You can ask for many generations, F1, F2, F20......and keep moving the marker back and back .....but this does not show that you are correct or that there is risk or not.

I have actually bred fish under these conditions......and continue to do so. So I have something much better than belief.

I have results that falsify the claims. Now folks can keep on demanding more and more data ( say like 10 generations worth of Fish before you think there's no effect), or demand some academic research paper protocol, but you have to make a reasonable cut off in both research and in this case here..........the fact of the matter is that all it takes is someone adding KNO3 to these levels and has long term healthy fish and breeding to falsify most of this. Others repeat the test and then report similar findings.....then we can toss the myth over the ranges tested, out the window.

Plenty of folks cannot breed fish even without plants, KNO3 and CO2. So if they lack that mastery, how can you or anyone else even begin to question, compare or debate the methods reading fish breeding?

You need competence in aquariums generally, and in fish and in plants and horticulture. Plenty of hobbyist do have these skills. 

Fact is, I'm breeding them and have many many many times under those conditions. That result is not going to go away no matter what is said further.:icon_idea

This is a very straight forward blunt thing.
I add the supposed toxins and have never found any risk associated with it. 
Others do this as well, they report the same results.

You?
Any of the naysayers here? *Have you tried testing this?* What are the results of your test on a planted aquarium? How many generations of fish livestock do you have? 

I actually have tested and seen the results. I do not NEED belief:wink:
I have something far better, applied highly specific results.

So do others.
Test and prove it to yourself.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

dwc13 said:


> "What we have here is a failure to communicate". I did not say I wasn't willing to listen to what others have said about EI dosing. I am not sure how you arrived at that determination. Contrary to what you think, I am not at all dismissive of EI dosing. I just don't do it. Simple as that. And BTW, I am an avid overclocker; a stable, overclocked CPU/GPU/APU/MB is the way to go.


Ah, I like the car anaogly, but the PC stuff works too I reckon.




> I have yet to see the results of a comprehensive, long-term study about the effects of EI dosing on *fish* that is all-encompassing with respect to the various species of *fish*. My concern is based upon the knowledge certain *fish* are more susceptible to varying water conditions than others, be it temperature, PH, salt content, currents, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


Here's your study and detailed journal about the observations:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals-photo-album/59705-toms-180-wood-scaping.html

SAPS aquarium club, SFBAAPS aquarium club members have all seen this tank. 

Hoppy, has seen as well as dozen or more others the fry, hll, I got 60 eggs on the glass right now. I have sold about 200$ worth of weeds out this tank. 
Herd of Fire and RCS, wild caught rare plecos, Rams, Checker boards, Sturisoma, 300 massive Cards........

ADA AS, it's 5 years old now though, tested that also, still nice and rich, except for N, that was about 3 years ago. 

I dose the following 3x a week:

2 tsp of KNO3= 15ppm NO3 per dose basically.
1 Tsp of PO4= 5ppm PO4.
Lots of traces, about .5-.7 ppm as Fe as proxy for all traces
GH booster: 3-4 tsp after water change

Tap is high grade stuff, KH is about 1-1.5 and the GH is 2-3. NO3 and PO4? Absent for any of our purposes.

I've dose this same routine for about 5 years on this tank. 45ppm NO3 added per week, lower lighting(40micromol over the bottom), rich CO2, 60-80 ppm depending on where the probe or sample is taken). And the ADA AS........but I'll assume no N is from there at this point.

Looks good, breeds shrimp and fish and grows the snot out of any plant I put in there.

Maybe I'm just a good liar eh?
hehe, sometimes I could be if I wanted:tongue:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

nonconductive said:


> tom that discus tank is awesome, and a prime example of how the discus cult is full of bs.


That was one of the owner's goals.

He had some nice F1 angels that had never seen any other tank in the past. 
We measured many things and made some new methods for that beast.

Glad it is not my personal tank, it's a mother to scape and trim:tongue:


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

I personally love proving people wrong especially those snooty discus aficionados.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

I can't believe how many people can spew information that they them selfs, have never tried. 

I can't tell you how many times that I have "over dosed" my tanks with EI dosing. When I say that I mean, I might forget that I have already dosed that day for macros and then dosed again. Even micros. It has happened and more then one occasion. Way more then once. Heck, On Saturday(day before WC day), I give an extra full extra dose just encase my plants sucked one of them up. Just makes me feel better.

I have BN Plecos breeding, Pulchers, Rams, Rainbows, Corie's, Oto's and the list goes on. They are ALL breeding in my tanks. Even in my "low tech tanks", I am dosing full EI, even though I don't have to. No problems at all!

The ONLY over dose that I have ever seen in my tanks is CO2. That is the only thing that has ever killed my fish or shrimp. I can safely say that that was MY fault. I gassed them.

I don't understand how so many people are having problems with the easy part. Ferts.

All I can say is, Try it. See for yourself. Until then, you can't state anything. 

Try it. That's all folks.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

I am sorry. I did forget to mention one thing.

I was once in the same frame of thinking as many of you. So I do understand.

That's why I say, try for yourself. See for yourself.

I want to see nice healthy tanks in your journals!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

bsmith said:


> I personally love proving people wrong especially those snooty discus aficionados.


Well, it's not suspect to any one single group, rather in the hobby generally.

We all do it in some form or the other......belief sells after all.


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> I have tested this a dozen or more times all the way to 160ppm NO3, this is complete and utter rubbish.
> 
> Plecos, tetras, Discus, Apistos and rams and some 30 or more species.
> 
> ...


 
The heading from Table 1 mentioned nitrites and then inconsistently used "ppm of NO3" on line 2. Oops. For that reason, I called out the use of "nitrites" and the data from Table 1, while assuming it was for fish. BlueJack, who had posted the comment with Table 1, subsequently indicated it was for humans, not fish. What I did NOT say is those numbers -- if ppm NITRATE -- would cause death to fish. In fact, I didn't mention nitrates at all in my response to BlueJack's posting, other than indirectly by stating I had hoped the numbers from that table were not for nitrites (because if they were PPM nitrites, I wasn't believing any part of the table). 

In your response (above) you referenced NO3 levels, not that of nitrites. Perhaps you were doing so for my edification, as I had stated (in previous posts in this thread) that I had concerns with high nitrate/CO2 levels and their potential for long-term adverse impact on the health and well-being of fish kept in such an environment. That being the case, I thank you for your insights.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Dempsey said:


> I am sorry. I did forget to mention one thing.
> 
> I was once in the same frame of thinking as many of you. So I do understand.
> 
> ...


Belief is a powerful neurosis we have trouble overcoming.
It can hold sway over all of us at some point.

I thought the same things about NO3 and PO4 and algae and on and on.

But.....like yourself, I noticed there were no adverse reactions when I did added "excess" or messed up and added WAY too much.

A common mistake is TEAspoons vs TABLEspoons. Done this one.
Mixed up K2SO4 with KNO3, I was tossing in gobs of KNO3 thinking it was NO3.

I also had some dosing pump timer issues, they ended up dumping the 4 week's worth of ferts in one day and then left it there for 2 weeks till I got back.

Lost no fish.
Stat's, we see folks toasting their fish weekly on this and most active plant forums with CO2........but nothing with ferts.

But non CO2 methods are still rather unpopular on most forums and deemed less "advanced" or unable to make a nice aquascape. I think the ADA like tank I did above challenges that notion too.

Oh heck, why stop with only Freshwater?

Let's go to the marine side..........



















The Blue blur is a blue damsel.



















I do a similar thing here.

I do not go above 20ppm of NO3, as there is little need, but I went to 35 ppm a couple of times without issues.

PO4 was an entirely different animal in the marine side, about 0.4ppm seemed to induce diatom blooms, several others reported similar issues with their macro algae plant tanks.

Light is 2x as much also. NO3 can be fairly high as far as the fish are concerned..........but less so with noxious algae species. 
In FW system dominated by plants, there is no relationship with N and P and algae/dominance.

Seems top down control versus bottom up with the nutrients vs the plants themselves.

Still, this thread has taken it usefulness as far as it can go at this point and the OP questions have likely been much more than answered here, folks need to try it themselves if they have doubt.

Why trust me?

Test it yourself.


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> How many folks here are breeding multiple generations of fish in planted tanks? I've shown dozens of fish species I've bred in planted tanks and shrimp. You can ask for many generations, F1, F2, F20......and keep moving the marker back and back .....but this does not show that you are correct or that there is risk or not.
> 
> I have actually bred fish under these conditions......and continue to do so. So I have something much better than belief.
> 
> ...


 
I'm about evenly split (emphasis-wise) on fish/plants at the moment. I would describe my current iteration (@2 months old) of the low tech 45G aquarium as not nearly up to the beauty/sophistication (plant types, arrangement) of a planted tank that many on this forum maintain, but one with a considerably greater number and variety of aquatic plants compared with a "tank with plants". More than anything, the lower half is a obstacle course/maze which the Zebra Danios really enjoying racing throughout. I also have a low tech 20H tank that is being used to raise some juvenile White Clouds until they are big enough to successfully compete for food/space in the bigger tank. I try and keep things fairly simple with both setups so I have time for other pursuits and also because I loathe aquarium/plant maintenance. So no EI dosing/CO2 injection/high lighting at this point. But I am giving serious thought to starting up a 3rd tank that might be 180 degrees from what I have historically done. Hence, the questions on this thread and others on this forum. 

I've been breeding fish (not commecially) on and off for probably 20 years, with a few setups spanning a several generations (2 to probably 5 or so) of a species. I've had pretty good success breeding fish without any live aquatic plants (I started off and was fish-only for many years); also later with live aquatic plants in the tank, but no CO2 injection nor any consistent dosing regimen. Nothing complicated: fry from Cherry Barbs, Honey Gouramis, Zebra Danios, various Platys have all made it to mature adult fish in my tanks over the years. I've been able to breed Otos and Julii Corys, too, but thus far none of the fry have survived to adulthood. More "fry friendly" plants such as Wisteria or Java Moss probably would have helped. I also don't remove eggs or raise fry separately in another tank, which tends to reduce numbers. And unfortunately, more than a few fry have (inadvertently) met their fate via a siphon. 

Appreciate the advice from you (and others) on this issue. Next time I'm in Sacramento, a bottle of Sacramento's finest -- Rubicon Hop Sauce -- is on me. :biggrin:


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> That was one of the owner's goals.
> 
> He had some nice F1 angels that had never seen any other tank in the past.
> We measured many things and made some new methods for that beast.
> ...





bsmith said:


> I personally love proving people wrong especially those snooty discus aficionados.


you've got to admit they are some of the worst when it comes to holding onto garbage that should have been thrown out 10 years ago.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

snausage said:


> Firstly, a lot of people on this website use nutrient rich substrates like aquasoil and MTS. The original poster mentioned that he uses aquasoil in the tank with severe algae problems.
> 
> Secondly, why can't we apply the data from natural bodies of water to our aquariums? It's done all the time. For instance, many aquarists find that a balanced N ratio is necessary to prevent algae, which is both explained and supported by the 'Redfield Ratio'. Moreover, aquarists will tend to keep fish A in water warmer than 80F and fish B in water cooler than 80F due to temperatures found in fish A and fish B's native habitats. There must be thousands of similar examples of aquarists trying to tailor their tanks' parameters to those found in the native waters.


I think it not so easy to apply data from natural bodies of water where tides,rains,current's and runoff influence parameter's and nutrient's that may be present and closed systems (glass boxes of water).
Temp ranges you mention are a good example.
In the wild, or fishes native habitat,, suggested temps could reflect different times of the day or seasons depending on possibly when fish may have been gathered . Fish in the wild, can move from shallow warmer water to perhaps shady or deeper areas. Current,tides,and or rains which influence the envoirnment the fish are found in are not easily re-produced in the aquarium. We can try as you say, but many don't bother with respect to fishes. They buy fishes that are pretty, and appeal to them with sometimes little concern as to what temps,gh,kh,adult size,compatibility,etc. they are best suited to.
Is a pet peeve of mine.I wish there WERE thousands as you mention, that tried a little bit harder.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

snausage said:


> @shane3fan: Looks like you won't get any good info out of this post and you'll just have to do some independent research. I suggest googling 'algae bloom' and 'eutrophication'. The general info provided by unbiased and credible sources will inevitably mention that an increase in nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphate, cause algae in freshwater ecosystems.
> 
> Now of course an aquarium is different from a natural ecosystem, but that doesn't make processes like the nitrogen cycle irrelevant either. So just use your head, test, observe, etc and the algae will eventually be under control.
> 
> Another thing I would recommend is making sure that you remove all the decaying organic matter from the tank. Adding a bag of Purigen also never hurts.


Maybe not much good info out of this particular post #38 but plenty of very useful info from the thread as a whole.
I was well schooled on growing algae from an early age and thus gave up on planted tanks other than a few swords,crypt's in pot's in tank's housing large cichlid's.
Some forty years later with an open mind, (well almost) I have come to the conclusion that excess nutrient's were not the boogey man that plauged my effort's.
I owe much to the member's here and especially Tom Barr's NON CO2 METHOD and his words of encouragement.
Perhaps he could fool a few people some of the time, but not the number's of those here, and out there on the web who have applied the sound reasoning and science that has produced so many truly inspiring result's. 
Nobody is that good a liar.
I was a long time doubter but the last year has convinced me. Cheers!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

dwc13 said:


> I've been breeding fish (not commecially) on and off for probably 20 years, with a few setups spanning a several generations (2 to probably 5 or so) of a species. I've had pretty good success breeding fish without any live aquatic plants (I started off and was fish-only for many years); also later with live aquatic plants in the tank, but no CO2 injection nor any consistent dosing regimen. Nothing complicated: fry from Cherry Barbs, Honey Gouramis, Zebra Danios, various Platys have all made it to mature adult fish in my tanks over the years. I've been able to breed Otos and Julii Corys, too, but thus far none of the fry have survived to adulthood. More "fry friendly" plants such as Wisteria or Java Moss probably would have helped. I also don't remove eggs or raise fry separately in another tank, which tends to reduce numbers. And unfortunately, more than a few fry have (inadvertently) met their fate via a siphon.
> 
> Appreciate the advice from you (and others) on this issue. Next time I'm in Sacramento, a bottle of Sacramento's finest -- Rubicon Hop Sauce -- is on me. :biggrin:


I was near the Rubicon this week. No a good ride unless you brake a critical part in your group:redface: 

I've bred Cories, mostly C panda, some of the fry get eaten, but a few still make it in the larger community tanks.

I would speculate that Brood production will go way up in non CO2 species only aquariums.

This seems to be the case for shrimp, so if the livestock is primary, you might consider that and improve the on CO2 method and scaping skills you have. This would meet both goals, breeding and less things to go wrong.

So here I'm suggesting no EI or CO2.........if you can master multiple methods, then you have a higher chance of helping out more folks than a one trick pony. :thumbsup:

If you look at that Tropica article on light and CO2, plants will still grow in medium to low light without CO2 enrichment. Just at a reduced rate.

So if you want faster growth, then consider adding CO2, and dosing a fair amount more.

I keep large stocking loads with CO2 and dosing.........this is because I actually like fish and the aquascape, not just the aquascape.

Fish are never an after thought for me.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

nonconductive said:


> you've got to admit they are some of the worst when it comes to holding onto garbage that should have been thrown out 10 years ago.


And this thread is no different:redface:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

roadmaster said:


> I owe much to the member's here and especially Tom Barr's NON CO2 METHOD and his words of encouragement.


I am quite supportive of both the Sediment method for non CO2 methods as well, just like with CO2 enriched systems.........they both can be used in conjunction.

As well as to a high level with ADA products and tanks and scaping skills, they just take longer and there is more plant-plant competition for light/CO2 which are limiting in such non CO2 approaches. But the pay off is high and the stability and fish health(assumed for nutrients or not assumed) meets those goals much better than the CO2 enrichment methods.

You cannot have it both ways in other words, poo poo EI and dosing KNO3, but not poo poo CO2 enrichment and high light. This is not a holistic view and without addressing that.......the tail wags the dog.

I've made this same point in other methods which want to claim less is better, but then give high CO2 and high light a free pass, you cannot be all things to every goal and pick and chose like that. The general philosophy does not follow, it is cognitive dissonance/crazy talk.

EI is not appropriate if the assumption that less is better or where no CO2 and no water changes are applied.



> Perhaps he could fool a few people some of the time, but not the number's of those here, and out there on the web who have applied the sound reasoning and science that has produced so many truly inspiring result's.
> Nobody is that good a liar.
> I was a long time doubter but the last year has convinced me. Cheers!


The results do not require lying.
They are what they are.

This is a personal path to confront one's own bias and myths.
Only you can go down the path of your own free will. Some are not ready and some like their security with what they think right now.
Have patience, they often come around in due time.

Virtually everyone that knows that the N is not an issue here has also thought otherwise at some point:redface: So we have all pretty much been there.

This is why it's not a personal debate for me, I know what the other folks have thought and feel about it. Tis a debate from within. Nor is this hardly the first time I've had this debate, this goes back about once a year for the last 10-15 years. 

The folks debating might change, the arguments sure have not changed on the myth side of things. About every 2-5 years we get a new cohort of hobbyists on the forums. They are doomed to repeat the past history even if you point it out to them. Many have to make the same mistakes and challenge themselves and their own bias and myths to see if it is true or not.

This is good. This way they do not merely accept on blind faith.:thumbsup:


----------



## dwc13 (Dec 15, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> If you look at that Tropica article on light and CO2, plants will still grow in medium to low light without CO2 enrichment. Just at a reduced rate.
> 
> So if you want faster growth, then consider adding CO2, and dosing a fair amount more.
> 
> ...


 
Slow plant growth in the 45G is actually preferable from my perspective so I can reduce the amount of time spent on aquarium/plant maintenance. Right now I'm still learning about my new 2xT5HO light fixture and trying out various heights. Hoppy's chart served as a starting point. I am currently using 1 bulb with the light fixture @1" off the glass top. 

I quickly scanned a few postings/images from the link you had provided. Haven't had time to look at, let alone digest, the @45 pages of commentary. I have to say the 180G setup is quite impressive. I'm not sure I'll ever maintain a tank quite like that, but it's good to see a decent quantity of fish in a planted tank. The Dutch Aquariums, while beautiful in their own right, are just too boring IHMO. The piece of driftwood is outstanding and the price simply can't be beat. And having 200-300 beautiful Cardinal Tetras really makes things pop. However, it appears 95% of them need to go visit Jenny Craig. :biggrin:


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> I am quite supportive of both the Sediment method for non CO2 methods as well, just like with CO2 enriched systems.........they both can be used in conjunction.
> 
> As well as to a high level with ADA products and tanks and scaping skills, they just take longer and there is more plant-plant competition for light/CO2 which are limiting in such non CO2 approaches. But the pay off is high and the stability and fish health(assumed for nutrients or not assumed) meets those goals much better than the CO2 enrichment methods.
> 
> ...


Got spooked for a moment being relatively new to planted tanks by your statement above that EI is not appropriate for no CO2 no water change tanks, but as your non CO2 method explains, one can scale back the dosing to match the much slower rate of uptake and growth by the plant's and also forego water changes.(this still proves to be difficult for me:icon_roll)
Rather than dose dry fertz each day at full EI amounts, one can dose smaller amount's once or twice a week.
I am pleased with the result's I have managed to achieve, and I am slowly learning to recognize that although the plant's cannot speak ,they can tell much.
Have overdosed KNO3, and P, and trace as well, and being a non believer at the beginning,,, should algae have been the result,,, I would have chucked it all and stuck with my largely hardscape tanks and potted plant's.


----------

