# I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.

I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.

I don't get people who change water yet have a heavily planted tank; then add minerals/fertilizers after they have done water change.




Discuss.


----------



## Filete (Dec 31, 2009)

You missed the watts per gallon to your list,
this one will spark some good posts...


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

Filete said:


> You missed the watts per gallon to your list,
> this one will spark some good posts...


:icon_mrgr I will leave this one to you.


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.


It's about control... My tap water is >35* gh (i gave up testing at 35), so if i want to keep anything beyond african cichlids, i need to cut back on my hardness



> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.


?? What does one have to do with the other? 1 inch per gallon is a stocking guideline to keep people from grossly overstocking their tanks with fish, fertilizers make plants grow. Am i missing the connection?



> I don't get people who change water yet have a heavily planted tank; then add minerals/fertilizers after they have done water change.


You do realize that there is more than just ferts in the water, right? There's buildup of things like nitrates and organic compounds/proteins that need to be taken out of the water or they could become hazardous to the life in the tank. Again, it's about control... I want to know exactly how much of each fert, or how much of each compound is in the water, otherwise my animals may die.




> Are people really that blind?
> 
> Discuss.


I think you need to take a step back and realize that you can't just stick a goldfish in a bowl and leave water in there and expect the fish to survive indefinitely. A lot of the statements you make seem to be blissful ignorance of the complexity of a planted system (combined with an arrogance that seemingly comes from your internet anonymity).


----------



## jwm5 (May 9, 2010)

what do you want discussed? I am sure there are reasonable answers that can be listed for all of the things you don't get. Just because they run their tanks differently than you do doesn't make it any less right.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


Most use partial RO, like 75%/25% or whatever depending on the water in their area. Idk about adding minerals to that... I do not, but some do based upon what they get from locale to locale. It's to have the parameters where the fish/plants will be comfortable most likely.

The water changes are to control the amount of ferts in the water, EI for instance is _Estimative_, there has to be more of a control there. You could end up with too much of one or too little of another. In natural conditions water is always being changed, new nutrients brought in, old crap & more being taken out etc...


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.


I myself don't use RO water, but I think they are trying to control the amount of minerals in the water and use pollutant free water, while being specific on how much and what minerals get to be in the water. Sometime people has water so hard it is liquid rock they have to use mineral free water because it is softer, but they add some minerals back because the inhabitants need it.



> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.


Well, I think ammonia and nitrite can be the problem. People also don't want to crowd their fish and stuff. Too much can be a bad thing, I don't think fish poop enough NPKFe etc to sustain an artificial enclosed environment like a tank.



> I don't get people who change water yet have a heavily planted tank; then add minerals/fertilizers after they have done water change.


 Well any type of build of of anything is bad. If the goods aren't absorbed completely and continue on eventually there will be a buildup of either the pollutants, fertilizers, etc. which may lead to toxicity in an artificial enclosed environment like a tank.


Well anyways, that's my perspective on things.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


OP, your post is deliberately inflammatory. If you have a question, ask it. There are many reasons people do things the way they do(several of those reasons have already been given).

Just because you don't understand it, don't treat other people like they are stupid. Condescension will get you no where and generally land you the title of "Troll" on the internet.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

redfalconf35 said:


> ?? What does one have to do with the other? 1 inch per gallon is a stocking guideline to keep people from grossly overstocking their tanks with fish, fertilizers make plants grow. Am i missing the connection?


 
There is no need discussing aquarium system with you until you understand the connection between these two.

I'd suggest you read up on ferts and fish waste.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> There is no need discussing aquarium system with you until you understand the connection between these two.
> 
> I'd suggest you read up on ferts and fish waste.


Wow. Maybe you should start explaining your take on these things?

He could have easily said the same thing to you. You smell very similar to a troll.


----------



## Stemwinder (May 29, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> There is no need discussing aquarium system with you until you understand the connection between these two.
> 
> I'd suggest you read up on ferts and fish waste.



Don't be such a jackass. This forum has lots of good people willing to share their knowledge. People like you contribute NOTHING to the forum. Jerk.


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> There is no need discussing aquarium system with you until you understand the connection between these two.
> 
> I'd suggest you read up on ferts and fish waste.


R U SRS? Okay, there may be an ancillary connection between ferts and fish waste, but i've never heard of anyone saying "I really need to dose ferts, but since i followed the 1" per gallon rule, i'm not going to." It's something that gets adjusted when you optimize your fert routine. Yeah, there are some nutrients added by fish waste, but honestly if you're running a non-low-tech setup, it still needs to be supplemented. There are plenty of people on this forum who are over the 1" per gallon threshold and yet still dose ferts.

I'm also gonna make a suggestion... you need to read up on how to post on an internet message board without sounding like an arrogant know-it-all. If you really feel the need to continue calling people out with statements like "Are people really that blind?" and "There is no need discussing aquarium system with you[...]", then I and many others will quickly black-list you for pissing us off.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> There is no need discussing aquarium system with you until you understand the connection between these two.
> 
> I'd suggest you read up on ferts and fish waste.


I'd respectfully suggest YOU read up on ferts and fish waste. In general, those who have tank meant to grow plants faster (high light, Co2 enriched tanks) will require much more fertilization than fish waste alone can provide. 

Your next question... "Well why not just add more fish?" 

Response? To get the ferts out of the fish waste that some high light tanks would need, you'd have to add an inordinant amount of fish to the tank. They'd be stressed for lack of space and the tank would be unattractive. Much easier, and intuitive to simply add ferts to the tank to allow the plants and fish to both thrive.

I don't get people who ask questions they THINK they already know the answer to just to hear themselves talk and try and prove the rest of the world agrees with them.

Discuss.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

There are stickies on most of these subjects for a reason, and plenty of full blown articles to read as well. Try to research the answers your self. The answers are in this forum some where. But then again ignorance is bliss.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

To answer most of the posts above.

minerals and RO water: water is considered too hard if it contains too much minerals; so some people use RO/tap water mix to reduce the hardiness(minerals). Yet the same people would add minerals to their tank after because lack of minerals, etc. Do you not see the irony?

Note: this does not include people with tap water hard as liquid rock that would kill fish right away if not diluted, which I've never seen.


1 inch per gallon and fertilizer: fish produce waste, in turn gets turned into nitrate and phosphate, and other things. The most common fertilizer used are nitrate and phosphate.
If someone who believes too many fish = too many toxins, then why are the same people adding fertilizers (which are toxic to fish)? Does it not sound strange to you?

lastly, about water change and fertilizers/minerals: people do water change to get rid of excessive nitrate/phosphate/minerals that are toxic to the fish; then why are people adding fertilizer/minerals back into the tank after they have done a water change?

And some basic information:

fish waste --> nitrate & phosphate

plants absorb nitrate/phosphate + minerals under the right light and co2, and turn the toxins into biomass.

at the end of the day, the toxins are converted and taken out of your tank in a different form (trimmings). therefore, with enough plants with enough growth factors, it is possible to never change water as long as the absorbtion is quicker than the production.


----------



## Elohim_Meth (May 8, 2010)

One other aspect. Fish waste are organic. Minerals that we use for fertilization are inorganic. Organics can't be used by plants directly, without first being recycled with bacteria. Algae can consume organics, at least BBA and BGA which are myxotrophic.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess you have it all figured out. Lets here it then. Apparently you know exactly why people shouldn't use RO water, or do water changes, and apparently justwant to ridicule those who are less knowledgable.

I am going to suggest that first off your tone towards the rest of the forum members severly makes turn for the better and secondly, that you start backing up that bark you have.

In the meantime, us "non educated blind people" will sit back and wait.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

Well if that is what your ideals are I'm not sure why you care about how other people do things to their tank, it not like they are mass killling stuff or like an oil spill. It's their money they're gonna be wasting on ferts and minerals and water, so yea. They are happy with the results they've been doing, they are just looking for the wellbeing of their plants and animals by providing enough space, nutrients, etc... 

You do what you believe in as long as it has the plants and animals best interest in mind. If fish provided enough stuff for my plants, believe me I wouldn't be buying ferts. In the first place I didn't want to buy ferts cuz it expensive! But my plants kept dying, so I finally sunk in and bought the ferts and now I couldn't be even happier.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

jargonchipmunk said:


> I'd respectfully suggest YOU read up on ferts and fish waste. In general, those who have tank meant to grow plants faster (high light, Co2 enriched tanks) will require much more fertilization than fish waste alone can provide.
> 
> Your next question... "Well why not just add more fish?"
> 
> ...


You are talking about a totally different topic regarding not enough fertilizers. 

My post is directed at those people who keeps fish stock at a minimum and claim it to be better for fish since the water is more clean; then add fertilizers not knowing it has the same effect as fish waste.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

No answer will be good enough for the OP....don't feed the troll.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> You are talking about a totally different topic regarding not enough fertilizers.
> 
> My post is directed at those people who keeps fish stock at a minimum and claim it to be better for fish since the water is more clean; then add fertilizers not knowing it has the same effect as fish waste.





Elohim_Meth said:


> One other aspect. Fish waste are organic. Minerals that we use for fertilization are inorganic. Organics can't be used by plants directly, without first being recycled with bacteria. Algae can consume organics, at least BBA and BGA which are myxotrophic.


This.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

Eden Marel said:


> Well if that is what your ideals are I'm not sure why you care about how other people do things to their tank, it not like they are mass killling stuff or like an oil spill. It's their money they're gonna be wasting on ferts and minerals and water, so yea. They are happy with the results they've been doing, they are just looking for the wellbeing of their plants and animals by providing enough space, nutrients, etc...
> 
> You do what you believe in as long as it has the plants and animals best interest in mind. If fish provided enough stuff for my plants, believe me I wouldn't be buying ferts. In the first place I didn't want to buy ferts cuz it expensive! But my plants kept dying, so I finally sunk in and bought the ferts and now I couldn't be even happier.


 
well, you are right, it's other people's money to waste. 

I was just trying to point out some obvious contradictions. 

I wasn't trying to say adding fertilizer is bad; I was just saying adding fertilizers then tell people they can only have 1 inch fish per gallon is retarded; or for that matter, change water to remove fertilizers/minerals, then add fertilizers/minerals again...why?

That's all.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

Tell you what, you try out your methods and show us some pictures of your tank. 

There is a reason that 99% of us follow the same or similar methods. It becasue they work.

While your theories may not be wrong, there is a better way, and then there is the best way.

The reason I dose and change water the way I do is because I have studies my fish and my plants and I know the perfect amounts of 'stuff' that I want to control for my tank. And it is a little different in each tank. I could just let me fish crap all over the place and hoe that everything is the perfect ratios for optimal growth and fish life, but it wont be. OR I can test my water, and make adjustments and changes when necessary.

Go ask Tom Barr or Mr. Amano why they do it this way...


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

Elohim_Meth said:


> One other aspect. Fish waste are organic. Minerals that we use for fertilization are inorganic. Organics can't be used by plants directly, without first being recycled with bacteria. Algae can consume organics, at least BBA and BGA which are myxotrophic.


fish waste are organic, which bacteria turns into nitrate, which is the most common fertilizer added.

minerals are not used for fertilization. Yes, they are iorganic, but they are not fertilizers; they are just minerals, calsium and magnesium mostly. 

fertilizers and minerals are completely different.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> fish waste are organic, which bacteria turns into nitrate, which is the most common fertilizer added.
> 
> minerals are not used for fertilization. Yes, they are iorganic, but they are not fertilizers; they are just minerals, calsium and magnesium mostly.
> 
> fertilizers and minerals are completely different.



::don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll....:angryfire, darn it, I can't help myself::


Eh, for the record, the term "fertilizer" is a broad term that applies to macro and micro nutrients, referring to any soil amendment(or water amendment) whether organic or inorganic.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

Well for the minerals, if someone is using 100% RO water the minerals are essential. And the dose, some people who still want minerals may use less dosage. There are also minerals made for soft water fish, minerals for neutral fish, and minerals for hard water fish. 

As for ferts, the ferts people add are inorganic so they are available quickly by the plants and you know how much of which element you just added. 

The organic ferts made by animals take longer to be available and you do not know exactly how much of which element is in there.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

> My post is directed at those people who keeps fish stock at a minimum and claim it to be better for fish since the water is more clean; then add fertilizers not knowing it has the same effect as fish waste.


I have never added Nitrates as a fert. I don't think that is a common practice. 

Unfortunatly that is untrue. I use Cleated Iron, potassium sulfate and Metricide (liquid carbon), all are non toxic and not found in fish waste. It does not have the same effect of fish waste at all, not to mention my plants absorb ALL of it in a few days.

You really need to read up on ferts, and maybe even some basic Chem. No offense, but you are digging your heals in the ground on assumptions that have been proven wrong, or theories that have been proven ineffective.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

EntoCraig said:


> Tell you what, you try out your methods and show us some pictures of your tank.
> 
> There is a reason that 99% of us follow the same or similar methods. It becasue they work.
> 
> ...


You are right. Everyone has their own method and should be respected.

But I can't help it but noticing some redundancy in the current system.

For instance, is dosing every day really necessary? Why do I need to change water to get rid of nitrate/phosphate, then re-add it again after?

IMO, Tom Barr/Mr. Amano, etc, do it this way because they would make a lot less money selling fertilizers if people stop the double dosing routine.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> You are right. Everyone has their own method and should be respected.
> 
> But I can't help it but noticing some redundancy in the current system.
> 
> ...




Stop making assumptions and take your own advice...go read and learn. There are reasons for EI.

I would be happy to educate you if you weren't so closed off to hearing the answers.


Edit: And for the record, Tom Barr doesn't market aquarium products. He doesn't sell fertilizers. In fact, I'd be willing to say that Tom Barr has done more to SAVE people money/make growing plants easier than any one else in the hobby. 

You *really* don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

EntoCraig said:


> I have never added Nitrates as a fert. I don't think that is a common practice.
> 
> Unfortunatly that is untrue. I use Cleated Iron, potassium sulfate and Metricide (liquid carbon), all are non toxic and not found in fish waste. It does not have the same effect of fish waste at all, not to mention my plants absorb ALL of it in a few days.
> 
> You really need to read up on ferts, and maybe even some basic Chem. No offense, but you are digging your heals in the ground on assumptions that have been proven wrong, or theories that have been proven ineffective.


What you are adding are minerals, which according to me is not fertilizers.

Guess I should clarify this. 

To me, fertilizers are nitrate/phosphate, all things produced from organic matters. 

Iron, calcium, potassum, carbs, etc are considered minerals, not fertilizers.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> You are right. Everyone has their own method and should be respected.
> 
> But I can't help it but noticing some redundancy in the current system.
> 
> ...


That may or may not be true. This is why you should study your own tank perimeters and dose with what you know to work. I use far less then the recommended amount of Cleated Iron, but I double or even triple does on Metricide. 

The best thing you can do is test and heavily document your methods. That way others can follow your path if it does work as good as you think it should. this is how I created many of my own methods, modified others based on my tank needs and experiences.

I am not saying your thoughts are incorrect, but I do think you may be missing a few pieces to the puzzle. Only experience and test can confirm that or not.

So get at it and write some article with some solid evidence.

Good luck with your tanks and any testing you do!


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> You are right. Everyone has their own method and should be respected.
> 
> But I can't help it but noticing some redundancy in the current system.
> 
> ...


Minus the last paragraph, you have a (relatively) well reasoned post... Dosing every day isn't really necessary in many cases. It is, however, in certain cases. And that's the point of EI dosing, to start at overkill, and work down to a level of ferts that works well for your situation. That may be daily dosing or it may be 2x a week, or even less.

Why get rid of the nitrates/phosphates? The ferts need to be in balance with eachother and with the amount of CO2 and light. If the nitrates and phosphates aren't being used to the full amount, then they need to be dialed back in order to not cause issues. Sure, you could increase the lighting, CO2, and other ferts to match the amount of nitrates and phosphates, but what is easier? Throwing away a few pennies worth of nitrates and phosphates with your water change, or buying new lights, more co2, and finding some other ways to insert the other ferts that don't include adding more nitrates/phosphates?


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> What you are adding are minerals, which according to me is not fertilizers.
> 
> Guess I should clarify this.
> 
> ...


You can say that, but it doesn't make it any more true. Fertilizers are amendments added to the water for the benefit of the plants.

It's not an opinion thing. It's a word. It has a meaning. Minerals can be a more descriptive word, but just because something is a mineral doesn't make it a fertilizer, and everything that's a fertilizer isn't a mineral.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

nerzaa said:


> What you are adding are minerals, which according to me is not fertilizers.


 i did not no you were such a well respected authority when i comes to aquariums and fertalizers. "according to me" does not back up anything, no evidence, no proof, no testing your theory, no nothing. you cant show me a picture of a butterfly and tell me its a horse with out backing up your claim.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

Trolls make me sleepy


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

EntoCraig said:


> I have never added Nitrates as a fert. I don't think that is a common practice.




Just so you know, nitrates are the top fertilizer added. Plants use more nitrogen than any other fertilizer, and the typical form is from nitrates. Potassium nitrate is the chemical most often used.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

jmhart said:


> Stop making assumptions and take your own advice...go read and learn. There are reasons for EI.
> 
> I would be happy to educate you if you weren't so closed off to hearing the answers.
> 
> ...


 
I ain't making assumptions. I am making observations. 

Why do you do weekly water change to get rid of things that are inside your fertilizer/mineral solutions then re-add them after?

Tell me this is not redundancy.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

EntoCraig said:


> Unfortunatly that is untrue. I use Cleated Iron, potassium sulfate and Metricide (liquid carbon), all are non toxic


FYI Metricide IS TOXIC!!


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I ain't making assumptions. I am making observations.
> 
> Why do you do weekly water change to get rid of things that are inside your fertilizer/mineral solutions then re-add them after?
> 
> Tell me this is not redundancy.



It is, but it's efficient redundancy. Why do you drink water when you're just gonna pee it out again?

i refer to my previous post:


> Why get rid of the nitrates/phosphates? The ferts need to be in balance with eachother and with the amount of CO2 and light. If the nitrates and phosphates aren't being used to the full amount, then they need to be dialed back in order to not cause issues. Sure, you could increase the lighting, CO2, and other ferts to match the amount of nitrates and phosphates, but what is easier? Throwing away a few pennies worth of nitrates and phosphates with your water change, or buying new lights, more co2, and finding some other ways to insert the other ferts that don't include adding more nitrates/phosphates?


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

jreich said:


> FYI Metricide IS TOXIC!!


Maybe for you  If dosed Correctly it is amazing stuff, in my experience. 

This is another great example on how everyone has different opinions and experiences.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

nerzaa said:


> I ain't making assumptions. I am making observations.
> 
> Why do you do weekly water change to get rid of things that are inside your fertilizer/mineral solutions then re-add them after?
> 
> Tell me this is not redundancy.


 you do water changes weekly to reset the amounts of ferts in the tank, so when you start dosing again the foling day you can be sure your not over dosing anything. that way you will know about how much stuff is in the tank and know how much you need to add.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I ain't making assumptions. I am making observations.
> 
> Why do you do weekly water change to get rid of things that are inside your fertilizer/mineral solutions then re-add them after?
> 
> Tell me this is not redundancy.



I don't think you know enough about EI, it's methods and meaning, to accurately place any judgement on it's practices. For starters, you seem to think that EI is the one fertilization method than anybody uses, and you think it's dumb. That right there tells me to you lack the fundamental knowledge of planted aquaria to have a constructive conversation about it. Secondly, you don't seem to know the motivation behind EI.

It seems to me that you read a paragraph, or maybe half a paragraph, about aquarium fertilization and decided that you knew better...without actually reading the entire article and learning anything. 

I really will be happy to discuss it with you, but you attitude needs to change, because as it stands its quite obvious you have no interest in learning anything.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

EntoCraig said:


> Maybe for you  If dosed Correctly it is amazing stuff, in my experience.
> 
> This is another great example on how everyone has different opinions and experiences.


 i meant its toxic to humans and if i'm not mistaken it says that on the bottle...
do i need to find the MSDS papers for you?


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreich said:


> i meant its toxic to humans and if i'm not mistaken it says that on the bottle...
> do i need to find the MSDS papers for you?


:eek5: You tell me now? I think i need some ipecac! :hihi:


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

jreich said:


> i meant its toxic to humans and if i'm not mistaken it says that on the bottle...
> do i need to find the MSDS papers for you?


Oops I miss-read your post  yes it can be toxic if ingested or left on the skin to long. It is a medical sterilizing agent. My brother in med school with a bio-chem background got me onto this stuff. He is always trying to find cheaper/alternative ways to make ferts for me


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

EntoCraig said:


> Maybe for you  If dosed Correctly it is amazing stuff, in my experience.
> 
> This is another great example on how everyone has different opinions and experiences.


Jreich was merely pointing out that it is indeed a toxic chemical...but at the levels we use it in aquariums it's quite safe. 

However, Metracide, as a brand name, is used to sterilize equipment in hospitals, so I can assure you that it's quite toxic.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

inhaling it can be harmfull also fyi...


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

I'm tempted to close this trolling thread but maybe somebody can learn from it.
Quite frankly, your attitude is very off-putting but your 'questions' or rather the topics you raise are legitimate.

Plant fertilizers or nutrients come in 2 categories, macro (N,P,K,Ca,Mg) and micros (Fe,Cu, etc...). They all are elements + Carbon plants need to grow and keep the photosynthetic process going.

And I do have tanks where I do not change the water and tanks where I change every week. Do you want to know why? One is a low-tech/low light tank and the other is a high tech/high light tank. The one big important factor you left out of your ramblings is the *LIGHTS*. Light drives the system. 

Low light tanks will have slower growing plants and less risk of algae. In a high light tank, plant will grow faster ONLY IF nutrients and CO2 are abundant. If not, plants will die and algae will thrive. And frequent water changes is a must in this system to get rid of any excess nutrients and any bio-waste that may trigger algae.

So it's really up to the aquarist to choose which path they want and not ridicule them like they don't get it. It might be the other way around in this case.

my 2 cents.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

jmhart said:


> Jreich was merely pointing out that it is indeed a toxic chemical...but at the levels we use it in aquariums it's quite safe.
> 
> However, Metracide, as a brand name, is used to sterilize equipment in hospitals, so I can assure you that it's quite toxic.


Right, I posted that above. roud: MetriCide is a 2.6% glutaraldehyde solution, excel is the same thing, just less consecrated and more expensive.

The chemical compound itself is unnatural but its benefits are obvious. Metricide will kill viruses, algae, mold, fungus, and bacteria. Carefull usage wont harm your bactaria colonies. It can be used as treatment for the above as well, but be prepared to grow a new bacteria culture. Overdosning can harm some inverts and sigles celled organisms.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Temper temper everyone. If this goes off topic once more it goes in the trash bin and infractions will be handed out. 

Lets keep this discussion, albeit debatable topic, on track.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Here is my two cents:

RO water. I have used it to control the variables that may come from my tap water. I get high levels of nutrients from the local water supplier wells, especially after a heavy rain. RO water provides a baseline for me to control those variables.

Water changes. Used to control the environment that we are dealing with. High organics, protein films and if EI dosing (or some derivation of same), the water change is utilized to kind of reset the conditions in the aquarium and dilute high concentrations of things you don't need.

Now you can easily make the argment that people should just let the plants use these "left overs" and not do water changes. But how do you know when to dose again?? This is an experience thing. So......

Small things like controlled water chemistry and water changes help the newcomer (as well as old schooler) help control levels. Redosing after a water change is just to re-establish the nutrient loads.

Now, if you debate these topics, fine, but I have to tell you, your not going to convince most people here that you are right. These two things have been executed time and time again by many hobbyists.

Stabilty is the key. How you get to YOUR stability is your own method, but many of us have chosen ours and will continue to utilize same.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

I'm far from an expert but I have a couple of statements ;

As far as I know, Tom Barr and Amano are not the ones who make the most money from all of the ferts that we use in our planted tanks. Tom gives some awesome advice if you read around some of what initially comes off as an attitude. That is later revealed as just a blunt way of answering questions--not necessarily rudeness. I don't know the man personally, but the day he stops posting on this site will be a sad day for planted tank enthusiasts. He along with others post their results and methods on this site, not for monetary gain, but to enhance the experience of a planted tank for the rest of us. Well, that and to make some money selling plants 

The reason for the water change when using EI dosing is to remove the excess ferts and start the process over. You dose a little more than what the plants need but less than what hurts the livestock. This is done instead of wasting time and effort using inaccurate test kits. If you continued to dose in excess without changing a large portion of water to 'reset' you could end up with toxic levels of ferts.

I have no experience with RO/DI water other than using it to mix my fert solutions so I have no input there.


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

EntoCraig said:


> MetriCide is a 2.6% glutaraldehyde solution, excel is the same thing, just less consecrated and more expensive.


Are you saying that Metricide is holy water? LOL
(Sorry, couldn't help myself)


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

Jadelin said:


> Are you saying that Metricide is holy water? LOL
> (Sorry, couldn't help myself)


yes 

Its really good stuff when used correctly. 

and No.

Its not a cure all. Its nice but I don't neglect on my other ferts and stuff.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

I wish I was 16 and knew everything again. Grabbing my popcorn and watching this unfold. Thanks for the giggles.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

Gatekeeper said:


> Here is my two cents:
> 
> RO water. I have used it to control the variables that may come from my tap water. I get high levels of nutrients from the local water supplier wells, especially after a heavy rain. RO water provides a baseline for me to control those variables.
> 
> ...





Gatekeeper said:


> nerzaa said:
> 
> 
> > good post.
> ...



Even with high light one can still let the tank do its own thing. Higher light level just means there needs to be more plants in the tank to absorb all the extra nitrate/phosphate/minerals floating around.

Plus, imo it should work the other way around. The amount of biomass (plants) you have should drive the amount of light that is needed. Start with just enough lights for your plants, as plants grow and fill up, then switch to higher light.

It's easy for someone to start a tank that's half planted with high levels of light dosing daily ferts then find himself a tank full of algae.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

High lighting doesn't mean you need more plants to do it, in fact, its the opposite. More lighting means that the plants CAN absorb more nutrients.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

shane3fan said:


> The reason for the water change when using EI dosing is to remove the excess ferts and start the process over. You dose a little more than what the plants need but less than what hurts the livestock. This is done instead of wasting time and effort using inaccurate test kits. If you continued to dose in excess without changing a large portion of water to 'reset' you could end up with toxic levels of ferts.


I understand that water change is to reset things so the amount of ferts in the water can be controlled.

However, one can also achieve the same effect not resetting the water by dosing less frequently. Less work and less ferts dosing required.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

Well, for the sake of being constructive:

OP: I think you should read up a lot more on EI before you criticize it. It has a purpose. It's not the one and only dosing method. For starters, read this:

http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/EI.htm

James has a REALLY good summary that explains what EI is and why someone would use it, and then continues on with the methodology. I'm sure you'll have comments after reading that, and I'd be happy to address those, but I feel like you should read the fundamentals so that we can have a decent conversation about it.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

EntoCraig said:


> High lighting doesn't mean you need more plants to do it, in fact, its the opposite. More lighting means that the plants CAN absorb more nutrients.


You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.

I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.


Not all water is created equal. Your tap water might be perfect for the plants and animals you keep in your tank. However, the GH and KH of the tap water in someone else's water might need adjustments for their desired parameters.. and their desired parameters are in the best interest of the species they intend to keep. It's not just about adding minerals, it's about what we are NOT adding by using plain tap water as well. Chlorine, Flouride, etc.. When we use RO water and adjust it, we are ensuring the best environment for the animals and plants we intend to keep.



> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.


You assume that if I have 1" of fish for every 1 gallon I will have adequate nutrients for a heavily planted tank? You might want to blow the dust off your textbooks. Not all of us are growing plants to 'decorate' our fish. Many of us here are growing plants because we love the scenery it provides us with. We are careful and attentive to the plants and do more than just supplement them with 1" of fish waste per gallon. Do you honestly believe that our aquariums have even the tiniest bit of diversity compared to a stream/lake/pond? There are dynamics in water ecology that we can barely come close to in our aquariums. Of course we need fertilizers given the total lack of diversity in our tanks.



> I don't get people who change water yet have a heavily planted tank; then add minerals/fertilizers after they have done water change.


It's part of a very simple process you must have missed. We assume a given percent of nutrient assimilation as we dose our ferts/minerals throughout a week. Because we cannot be certain of the uptake of nutrients, we reset our tanks to a base nutrient level so that some nutrients aren't too scarce, others over-dosed. The intent is to keep a base level of nutrients available to our plants at all times. 



> Are people really that blind?


We aren't blind. We are dedicated amateur aquarists who gather here in the hopes of learning more. Furthermore, we aren't rude to the people that share an interest in this forum, and we expect new people who join to follow this most basic courtesy.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I understand that water change is to reset things so the amount of ferts in the water can be controlled.
> 
> However, one can also achieve the same effect not resetting the water by dosing less frequently. Less work and less ferts dosing required.



You can definitely do this. EI helps a person stay within an acceptable range of nutrients without requiring weekly/daily testing and without the use of expensive test kits. Dry fertilizers are a lot cheaper than test kits, so better to "waste" those than the test kits.


PPS/PPS-Pro and PMDD are two other methods that don't require the large water changes associated with EI, but they tend to require a bit more tweaking for individual tanks.

EI is easier for people that don't want to test or lack the knowledge required to interpret and react to those tests and what it means in regards to their water chemistry.


----------



## anastasisariel (Oct 4, 2009)

Nerzaa, can you post some links to your tank/s?

What kind of plants are you keeping? Lighting?


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

jmhart said:


> You can definitely do this. EI helps a person stay within an acceptable range of nutrients without requiring weekly/daily testing and without the use of expensive test kits. Dry fertilizers are a lot cheaper than test kits, so better to "waste" those than the test kits.
> 
> 
> PPS/PPS-Pro and PMDD are two other methods that don't require the large water changes associated with EI, but they tend to require a bit more tweaking for individual tanks.
> ...


Testing is unnecessary. Plants/fish/shrimp will tell if nitrate/phosphate/minerals are in excess or deficiency.

Of course during the tweaking stage, you may experience problems with too much or too little ferts (algae boom, nutrient deficiency for plants, fish death due to excess ferts, etc); but once you find the balance, it's almost maintenance free. 

That's all. Have a good night.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

EntoCraig said:


> High lighting doesn't mean you need more plants to do it, in fact, its the opposite. More lighting means that the plants CAN absorb more nutrients.





nerzaa said:


> You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.
> 
> I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.


Actually EntoCraig is correct, assuming that the conditions in the tank, ie dosing, CO2, nutrients, etc. have been supplied to accomodate the plants.

I have seen plenty of low biomass tanks with high light and no algae. Its all a matter of balance, control and diligence.

biomass does not need to go up as light increases, nor is the opposite (less plants for less light). One plant on one side of the tank will not be affected by a plant on the opposite side of the tank. As long as nutrients are supplied, light and CO2, plants will grow.

I think you should consider what people are sayng here rather than just contradicting it because "you think so". You have yet to support any of the theory you are spewing. All I am reading is heresay and someone looking to pick a fight.


----------



## Chrisinator (Jun 5, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.
> 
> I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.


Well, duh! You forgot CO2!
roud:


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> Testing is unnecessary. Plants/fish/shrimp will tell if nitrate/phosphate/minerals are in excess or deficiency.
> 
> Of course during the tweaking stage, you may experience problems with too much or too little ferts (algae boom, nutrient deficiency for plants, fish death due to excess ferts, etc); but once you find the balance, it's almost maintenance free.
> 
> That's all. Have a good night.


I don't think I understand what you mean by balance....are you thinking that you can just dump in some fertilizers as soon as you set your tank up, and then never have to worry about it again?

I just don't think you get it and you have no interest in getting it.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> Testing is unnecessary. Plants/fish/shrimp will tell if nitrate/phosphate/minerals are in excess or deficiency.
> 
> Of course during the tweaking stage, you may experience problems with too much or too little ferts (algae boom, nutrient deficiency for plants, fish death due to excess ferts, etc); but once you find the balance, it's almost maintenance free.
> 
> That's all. Have a good night.


Isn't this exactly what EI is?

Once you find the balance, it's just a couple spoonfuls a week, & a water change that you can skip once in a while, or do on a different day.

I still think it's a troll. Probably someone from this board under an alias. It does have a familiar style of writing, & I only know of a couple who use "ain't" when they type here. OCD has it's finer qualities if used correctly.:red_mouth

For the record I do not prescribe to very many other conspiracy theories.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> Testing is unnecessary. Plants/fish/shrimp will tell if nitrate/phosphate/minerals are in excess or deficiency.
> 
> Of course during the tweaking stage, you may experience problems with too much or too little ferts (algae boom, nutrient deficiency for plants, fish death due to excess ferts, etc); but once you find the balance, it's almost maintenance free.
> 
> That's all. Have a good night.


I myself don't test often, but people test things like ammonia, nitrite, and nitrates to prevent the animals from getting sick or dying. I think the plants can handle it better. But if someone had a highly prized fish/invert or just plain loved their aquactic buddies they'll do anything to give them a happy life to the fullest extent. So they monitor the water so that their babies stay alive and live happily as long as possible. We are in control of their life.

In the nature, it is almost perfectly balanced. But in an artificial enclosed environment like a tank, people have to do things to mimic it.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

dirtyhermit said:


> Isn't this exactly what EI is?
> 
> Once you find the balance, it's just a couple spoonfuls a week, & a water change that you can skip once in a while, or do on a different day.
> 
> ...


It ain't me, I promise!


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> It ain't me, I promise!


You _definitely_ fit the bill. Just where have you been all day? Sewing I presume?:flick:


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

dirtyhermit said:


> You _definitely_ fit the bill. Just where have you been all day? Sewing I presume?:flick:


LOL. I'd tell you what I've been up to, but you'd never think of me the same way again. roud:


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

dirtyhermit said:


> I still think it's a troll. Probably someone from this board under an alias. It does have a familiar style of writing, & I only know of a couple who use "ain't" when they type here. OCD has it's finer qualities if used correctly.:red_mouth
> 
> For the record I do not prescribe to very many other conspiracy theories.





sewingalot said:


> It ain't me, I promise!



I started thinking that...it's just too crazy NOT to be on purpose.


I did that once on a board. It was a fan board for a band. I'd had a buddy that fancied himself as some kind of cover artist, and he made some really crappy covers of the bands songs, so I posted them on the board under an alias, and then went all trollish once people started hating on the songs.

It was April 1st, and it was awesome. 

Here's hoping tomorrow this will all be one big practical joke.


----------



## soccerpunkid (Dec 21, 2008)

HAHAHA.....
I very rarely post, and use this site as more of an encyclopedia more than anything.

With that said I've never seen a post like this, i've found this thread very entertaining. It seems you could give this person the meaning of life and he'd find a contradiction, and on the surface many of his opinions or observations are very rational. 

....but i have a few questions....
Why are you so demonstrative? ( i've read hundreds of posts and have never seen such contempt!)
The biggest question is.....do you keep fish?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

jreich said:


> i meant its toxic to humans and if i'm not mistaken it says that on the bottle...
> do i need to find the MSDS papers for you?


Yawn. I have schooled people on this topic over and over and over. Go ahead and search for it in this forum. 

Ah hell. I'll do it for you... 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/f...104038-metricide-14-replace-excel-dosing.html

Tell me again, how is Metricide bad for you but excel is some little toy. Just because Seachem is irresponsible and does not put the contents or dangers in clear labeling?


----------



## Craigthor (Sep 9, 2007)

nerzaa said:


> You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.
> 
> I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.


Quite the contrary, If you provide CO2 and Nutrients in excess you can control growth with light levels. You reduce the CO2 or Nutrients but keep really high light you will get an algae farm. 

Oh yeah, here is my half planted tank taht is dosed via EI dosing. I provide ample CO2 and Ferts and don't get algae!










But IF I slack on dosing Nitrates I get BGA, If I slack on CO2 I get BBA. I keep 115 inches of fish in 50g of RO water, dose EI with KNO3/ KH2PO4/ K2SO4/ Custom Trace Mix. My fish prodcue no Phosphates as they are feed strictly live foods, most prepared foods are too high in Protien for most fish if not choosen correctly.

So tell me why I don't have an algae explosion with all my fish and fertilizers added to the tank.

Looks like someone needs to learn to do some reaserch before asking stupid questions and not being able to back any of it up. roud:

Craig


----------



## Captivate05 (Feb 23, 2010)

anastasisariel said:


> Nerzaa, can you post some links to your tank/s?
> 
> What kind of plants are you keeping? Lighting?


I'd like to know this too.


----------



## Oreo (May 6, 2008)

Perhaps Nerzaa should post some pictures of her planted aquarium(s) so that the rest of us can learn how beautiful our own aquariums would look if we used her methods.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.
> 
> I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.



Look, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have tried to encourage you to show us results with numbers and pictures, but your stubbornness is just insulting. You keep telling us that we are all wrong and that we are going to have algae or dying plants, or the ferts are toxic, and this and that and all these secrets that you apparently know and the rest of us are blind morons. YOU ARE WRONG. Sorry, its true. I have high lighting and the the all the other crap everyone has been talking about and my tanks all look great. I have never had an algae bloom on any of these tanks, no water swings, no issues at all. I must be doing something right  NEVER had an algae problem. Some of my tanks are so heavily planted that the fish waste would NEVER cover the amount of food my plants need to flourish. Period.

If you think we are wrong you will have to prove it, with science. Document your findings with test#'s and pictures, becasue numbers and pictures don't lie.

No hard feeling, but with a closed mind attitude, you aren't going to get much help or respect from anyone here. I respect people who try new things, I encourage it. In fact I am currently doing a few unorthodox test on a tank myself. But you cant claim you are right with minimal facts to back it up, and tell everyone else they are being stupid by following other methods, which obviously work.

When are you going to show us a picture of your tank???


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

This is nerzaa's tank:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/planted-nano-tanks/108933-my-6g-fluval-edge.html


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

jmhart said:


> This is nerzaa's tank:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/planted-nano-tanks/108933-my-6g-fluval-edge.html


His tank looks good, but it is low tech with minimal plants.
His methods would not work for my larger jungle tanks.

My question is, how long has the tank been established?


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

1" per gallon or some other limited stocking guideline:
Good idea. Fish need oxygen as well as water to dilute the waste (ammonia, CO2 and others). Water can only hold just so much of everything. When the water is circulated there is excess (compared to light stocking levels). There is a cushion for emergencies. 

Power was out all day yesterday, and my fish are fine because I do not overstock. With power out there was just light through the windows, not really enough by itself for proper photosynthesis, and no water circulation.Oxygen and CO2 exchange happened just at the surface, yet my fish were not gasping at the surface when I came home. 

I do water changes to control and limit the build up of other things in the tank. Then I add back just the things I want. If my siphon could be set up to filter out and remove just those things I want to remove, and leave the good things in the water then I would not have to add back those good things.


----------



## Craigthor (Sep 9, 2007)

EntoCraig said:


> His tank looks good, but it is low tech with minimal plants.
> His methods would not work for my larger jungle tanks.
> 
> My question is, how long has the tank been established?


His tank is only a month old not nearly enough to be considered even close to established. Plants probably are still burning up there internal supply of food and have yet to show deficiencies.

Craig


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

Craigthor said:


> His tank is only a month old not nearly enough to be considered even close to established. Plants probably are still burning up there internal supply of food and have yet to show deficiencies.
> 
> Craig


That is quite possible. His tank is stocked pretty full, so the plants might be getting just enough to hang on. But without his tank parameters, and at least 3 months worth of pictures and tests, no one will ever know if he is right. My experience tells me it wont work, but I have been surprised before 

I am not trying to bash you NERZAA. If my comments offend you I am sorry, that is not there intention. But many of us have had well established tanks for years, and its really hard to listen to someone tell us we are ignorant, when this is your first shot at a planted tank and its only been up for a month and a half. When I first started I had a tank that I was doing the bare minimum on for a year. growth was good, plants and fish all survived. But I found better methods that allowed me to grow all kinds of plants quickly. there will be many plants that simply wont grow or even live on your method.


----------



## TheVisionary78 (Mar 6, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


Point 1: Agree
Point 2: Please clarify
Point 3: Disagree. Even with the best filtration water becomes poluted. Water changes are the means to fix this issue. Adding ferts after the water change is replacing what we have already taken out.


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

over_stocked said:


> Yawn. I have schooled people on this topic over and over and over. Go ahead and search for it in this forum.
> 
> Ah hell. I'll do it for you...
> 
> ...


You know, I just had a new bottle shipped to me yesterday. the label only says that it is an irritant. doesn't say anything about inhaling it, getting it on skin, etc. It says dont' drink it obviously and dont get it in your eyes. I spilt some on myself and the table and didnt notice any burning or anything. I dont think its HIGHLY toxic, but safe is better then the hosiptal I guess


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> I understand that water change is to reset things so the amount of ferts in the water can be controlled.
> 
> However, one can also achieve the same effect not resetting the water by dosing less frequently. Less work and less ferts dosing required.


I like this person, reminds me of a bag full of mice! Fun! LOL

I would really like to see this persons tank.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

nerzaa said:


> You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.
> 
> I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion.


Ohh!! Me pick me!!!

A)First, how might you define a high light environment?
How might you test and comapre that fairly across treatments?
B) Non limiting Ferts actually are used as a "control reference", so that we might test other things so that nutrients do not confound our experiments.
That is the entire idea about EI dosing, it's about plant growth, not fear of algae. It makes the dosing a known non limiting level so folks can then measure and focus on the other 2 biggies: light and CO2. A PAR light meter is effective for light, leaving CO2 as one of the more testy unknowns for most aquarist.

I've been doing what your hypothesis above claims for 20 years. I've not once found evidence that excess nutrients lead to algae, nor is that the case in lakes **where plants** and shallow water are present either.
You make a large assumption here, and that is always very dangerous because it sets up a test to falsify.

So: 

















ah heck, let's add some non cO2 where we dose KH2PO4/KNO3 and the ppm's are pretty high as well:









No water changes for 2 years........dosed 2-4x a month, NO3 have gone up to 50ppm, PO4 at about 4ppm. So how can both examples work and have such high ppms and no algae for years and in hundreds of examples? 

Let's look at the various goals folks might have with plants/aquariums.










1. With low CO2/low light, we do still have growth.
2. With moderate CO2/low light, we have nearly 4x the rate of growth
3. With high CO2 and low light, we have 4x the growth.

So that's low light, and this is low............about 24 micromoles which is close to the LCP for some species of plants.

The medium range of light is more common, this is a tad high, 89 micromoles for this matrix. So adding CO2 will give us a dramatic effect.

4. low CO2/Med light 3x more growth, but we use 3x more light, so we waste the energy we could have used by simply adding CO2. Low light use efficiency. 
5. Med CO2/Med light: again, here we have 3X more growth vs no CO2 added.
6. High CO2, low light: again, a little more growth etc.

At high light, 7,8 and 9.........we also get the same relationship.
At high light/high cO2, we see dramatic differences in growth rates.
15X more growth than lower light/no CO2.

Given this, do you or anyone think that this would also influence the rates of nutrient uptake? How about the relative % uptake of fish waste? 
Would you have a higher % removal of fish waste at lower light/no CO2 or at high light/CO2?

Management for keeping something barely growing at 1% can easily be met with fish waste alone. But, at 5-15X, this becomes more difficult. Different plants start to compete strongly for CO2 and nutrients with eachother, some are weak competitors, others are strong.

By adding CO2/nutrients, we prevent that and are able to garden far more species in excellent health.

We also get far more growth out of low light, with less algae and more horticultural goals, and it still is pretty easy and provides a good amount of wiggle room management wise.

Neither argument for either CO2 or non CO2 is applicable till you define the goal for yourself and the tank you wish to keep. Once that goal is set, then you apply the correct best management plan(BMP). Each has a set of trade offs and different rate of growth, but they all do grow plants.

Still, the focus is about plants, algae and it's cause/s are a different question entirely and much less is known, we do not know when the plant growth is the focus, excess nutrient do not encourage or otherwise induce algae blooms of any sort.

There is significant and a massive ample amount of evidence that falsifies such claims, whether or not you can do it does not dispute the evidence, there are after all, many way to messing something up. Unless you can provide a reference control example to begin with, a control for the test, then you cannot even do the test to begin with, you lack the control.

And if could, then.....well, you'd be part of the folks arguing that excess nutrients do not induce algae and are good for plant growth. I've seen 1001 people approach these issues the same way 15 years on line.

Some days folks will get over the myths.:icon_idea

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums (Feb 26, 2007)

And there you have it folks!  Awesome


----------



## Captivate05 (Feb 23, 2010)

Thank you Tom.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

Longest. Post. Ever. 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

The MAN! 

To be fair, I too, had ideas I was sure were close to right but I have a feeling I've been somewhat off track. I hope this person can keep an open mind and not religiously stick to her ignorant closed minded beliefs. I am just starting the EI method on a tank that has had small but frequent GSA and BBA algae out breaks. I have been running limited nutrients and unstable Co2. I believe I my have my Co2 problems behind me. I hope I can help prove Tom's method of non-limited nutrients will grow an algae free tank. I’ll keep you posted.

This is the starting point.












You make a lot of assumptions for someone who has not been in the hobby very long and your current tank although so far looks nice, is really just a very lightly planted aquarium (three plants) under what looks like very low light. I have seen from personal experience once a tank gets over a certain plant load no amount of fish is going to be able to supply the nutrients needed to support the plant life without the results being an algae filled tank.

I will be running non-limited nutrients under 1.8 watts of T-5 light in a 46 gallon Bowfront. In order to do this I will need to start 50% water changes per week as the tank will be saturated with nutrients and there is really no way for me to know just how much of each of those nutrients is being used up by the plants. So in order to not end up with a crazy amount of A or B, I will need to balance them out with said weekly large water change. This does not mean I have to stick rigidly to this plan. I can measure somewhat the tanks iron, NO3 and PO4 and adjust the dosing accordingly and possibly even drop how much water needs to be changed.

Do some reading and open your eyes.


Shawn

Like Tom has suggested use light as you’re limiting factor and have excess of everything else, Co2, nutrients.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

jmhart said:


> This is nerzaa's tank:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/planted-nano-tanks/108933-my-6g-fluval-edge.html


 
WOW! Just look at that massive plant load. LOL that also looks pretty new, I bet very little growth since it's been set up.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

Craigthor said:


> His tank is only a month old not nearly enough to be considered even close to established. Plants probably are still burning up there internal supply of food and have yet to show deficiencies.
> 
> Craig


I didn't know it was that young! I see melting and death in 2 weeks or less.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well,it is an issue of different methods for different goals.
The plants still grow for all the same reasons, just at different rates and none of it has a hill of beans to do with algae.

The methods would not work well otherwise, but clearly they do.

So it's a much safer assumption to make that algae is not induced by "nutrient excess". There is much more evidence that a higher CO2/light levels, that algae are induced in planted tanks when the ppm's are too low.........

I do not have to convince anyone(I already know), they must convince themselves of the evidence. This is of their own free will. Sometimes when a lot of folks hope on board, they reconsider, but suppose you where th eonly one that knew excess PO4 did not cause algae?

How might you convince the rest that you where correct?:icon_idea

Something to ponder...

This same type of thing is going on in the Neatherlands and has gone on in the USA, the UK, China, Japan, Australia and many places. Should we not question things? I think we should, but we should also look at the evidence as well and test the assumptions.

If you think something causes algae, then add it and see.
If you have any mastery, then you should be able to get rid of it fairly easily and repeat the set up and test again. Some balk at testing because they fear and also they simply lack the mastery to control algae anyway. Not the best folks to compare methods and differences between them.

You need to have mastered many methods to get any comparative sense.
You are also much more able to help more people since you have more methods available to achieve a wider range of management goals. 

And we all have different taste. Our taste also change, we might start out with non CO2, mostly because we are scared of CO2, do not realize the effect. Next we might find CO2, then get a bad case of HLD. After wearing ourselves out for a few months, years, we might revert back to low light/CO2, then might have a tank or two of non CO2.

Coming full circle. This person could help most of the folk's goals, whereas the one trick pony? You can only really help one type of goal. You limit yourself and never realize the trade offs or how it all fits together. This poster's thread is not so different from many I've seen and others I've addressed in the past, it might be to many of you:wink: 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

The Plantman said:


> This does not mean I have to stick rigidly to this plan. I can measure somewhat the tanks iron, NO3 and PO4 and adjust the dosing accordingly and possibly even drop how much water needs to be changed.
> 
> Shawn


Shawn is not that different in the idea and it's starting point, a different attitude, but the same questions nonetheless. His(Plantman, not Plantwoman, my assumption) tank approach used some of the older dogma, then convince him self that maybe that was not all there was to it. The evidence actually presents many more questions than answer, but as far as how to grow plants, this is a fairly well understood.

Still, it was not so long ago for many, so remember this when helping a newbie or someone else. Have some compassion. The idea is the thing to go after. They also must come to it on their own accord and convince themselves.

In a local club, when friends come over to see a tank, we can dump lot of PO4 in and folks can see the results right there. Pretty straight forward, but on the web? Tough to know what the heck and the web pulls in many wider ranging groups and people.

Heck, I got sue for poo pooing one fool.
Another sued someone in their country for something I said.
Some just cannot play nice. But there is some hope, but no need to take crap either. Need to see the intent, and I'll tell everyone, if they have ill intent, it always comes out later on. Often times, some of the more testy exchanges end like Shawn and everyone gains.

That is a worthwhile debate and exchange I reckon.
The same inner conflict occurs as well when you question things yourself.
And the end result is also worth while.




Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

The Plantman said:


> WOW! Just look at that massive plant load. LOL that also looks pretty new, I bet very little growth since it's been set up.


But......... that might be their goal.


regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> But......... that might be their goal.
> 
> 
> regards,
> Tom Barr


Tom, do you have a church? The "Church of Tom" LOL I'd be the first there! 

I think the difference with me (a man, Tom) is that I have always been after the truth of it, or the closest I could discover. I’ve always had an open mind regarding any ideas I have but I need to hear facts in order to alter my ideas which you so gracefully provided. Thank you. I really do enjoy trying to help people.

I think all we need to move forward intellectually is the ability to not cling to tightly to any knowledge you think may be right. It may need adjustment or it may be outright wrong. 

I think the OP was simply looking for answers but did not want to ask the questions because of a fear of some kind. I think the poster received lots of answers, quality info; she just needs to start digesting it. 

I say read, read and then read some more. Good luck with your tank. 

I feel like a virtual group hug!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Some are honest with themselves, in a logical philosophical way, some are ego driven to avoid mistakes, some simply do not know and try to cover up their ignorance. A wise person knows they are ignorant, but is wise enough to be aware of it and takes steps to avoid bad assumptions.

We are all of these things, but can focus & hone the more productive parts:icon_idea

This leads to a happier tank also.

Happy tank=> happy aquarist=> more success=> more popular hobby=> more folks involved in it. 

I honestly feel the non CO2, low input aquariums are some of the best trade offs for the hobby. But many see the faster growth, lush gardening, cannot wait/impatience, and get on the CO2 dope:tongue:

Like a well done sublime garden, non CO2 is really one of the last forays for the advanced gardener. 

Non CO2 methods: little or no dosing, just fish waste. Nice scaping is possible and pretty easy to care for over time. Water changes are not needed, testing is not needed, fish breed, plants do grow, the biggest PITA is feeding fish and adding water top off for evaporation.

How do I know these things?
Maybe because I have non CO2 tanks.

Ignorance works both ways, for the non CO2 only person, and for the CO2 only person as well. If you try both methods well and do it fully, then you can see both sides of the coin.

If not, you cannot say. You can only say what you think/assume you know.
I do not like that position
So I try it.

Do, then talk about it.
No do? No talk!!

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

The Plantman said:


> Tom, do you have a church? The "Church of Tom" LOL I'd be the first there!
> 
> I think the difference with me (a man, Tom) is that I have always been after the truth of it, or the closest I could discover. I’ve always had an open mind regarding any ideas I have but I need to hear facts in order to alter my ideas which you so gracefully provided. Thank you. I really do enjoy trying to help people.
> 
> ...


I've been accused of being upon a pulpit at times, and I can talk like that if you wish and give me 20%:icon_idea

Just remember to help others.
This helps the hobby and spreads it.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Oreo (May 6, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> Do, then talk about it.
> No do? No talk!!
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


That's sig-line material right there.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

I think the OP abandoned this thread....


----------



## EntoCraig (Jun 7, 2010)

And this is why everyone respects people like Tom. He has GREAT documentation, facts and #'s to back up his method. Plus those tank pictures just don't lie


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

over_stocked said:


> I think the OP abandoned this thread....


I feel bad for her.


----------



## Captivate05 (Feb 23, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> Tom, do you have a church? The "Church of Tom" LOL I'd be the first there!


LOL, me too!


----------



## Captivate05 (Feb 23, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


I like how you removed the "are people that blind" statement.

1. My well water changes every time it rains. I like the control RO and adding minerals give me, because I can't tell what my tap will pull today. 

2. As someone else on this forum said "There's a difference between a planted tank with fish, and a fish tank with plants".

3. My fish and shrimp like the clean water. They are happy after their weekly water change, and are spawning do to the cooler water hitting their tank, like a weekly rainstorm.

That said, I do have a tank that I don't fertilize or change water, or add minerals to. I do a weekly top off on my three gallon tank that has a few hardy plants and a female betta with RO water.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

over_stocked said:


> I think the OP abandoned this thread....


It's the idea, not the OP that matters.
Many have the same questions as the OP, they just have not voiced them.
So there's a much larger conversation than between myself and the OP.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


IDK why I'd want to discuss why you don't get people. I think that would be an issue to discuss with a therapist not an internet forum for planted tanks. :hihi:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

EntoCraig said:


> And this is why everyone respects people like Tom. He has GREAT documentation, facts and #'s to back up his method. Plus those tank pictures just don't lie


I think it's even more simple than anything there, folks have enough common sense to try it out themselves and see what they think. If they no try, they can no say:icon_idea

It should not be based on one person's tank, it should be based on a consensus where folks all try it and see for themselves, ask the basic questions about their own tanks, experiment, then reach their own conclusions.

This is all I ask of myself and others.
Same for the OP.

While many have nice examples of pretty scapes, many suggest there is a reason to why they have a nice aquarium. This seems logical at first, but many do not test the alternatives or their own hypothesis as to why they have success (or not). When someone comes along and does test, and falsifies their claims, even though they have a NICE pretty scape and example, it does not falsify the fact the tank is nice, only their claims as to WHY is the way it is.

Example 1: I can have my tanks above look that way, but suggest it is solely due to my water changes. I'd be wrong, but many would think I was right.

2. Suggest it's due to ADA As alone.

3. Suggest it's due to my spectrum of lighting

4. Suggest it's due to some magical Ratio of N or some whacko Ca:K ratio

5. Etc etc etc...........

Many would believe me and I'd have a nice example to illustrate.
But.............I have not shown that what I said is true. Nor have I tested a replacement series test. I cannot conclude those things are true at all, or even likely, without actually testing them.

Many try and make conclusions without testing, while at the same time ironically claiming people should test NO3, Ca++ carefully etc :tongue: Now why should I take advice from a hypocrite? 

Do as I say, not as I do? 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## msnikkistar (Mar 23, 2010)

nerzaa said:


> I don't get people who add minerals yet use RO water.
> 
> I don't get people who add fertilizers yet follows the 1 inch per gallon rule.
> 
> ...


I can understand why she/he stated minerals instead of fertilizers. But I think the OP failed to realize that both are one in the same. Most of the fertilizers we use in the hobby derive from minerals, but that doesn't mean they aren't fertilizers, because they are.

And I have to appreciate that the OP removed the "Are people blind" portion of his/her original post. Sometimes second chances are warranted.
_____________
To answer your original post....

I can tell you why I use RO/DI or Distilled water and then put in more "minerals" aka fertilizers. I could use my tap water and not put any additives to it, but then I couldn't keep blue tiger shrimp. My tap alone has a gH level of 10, kH level of 12, and a pH level of 8.2. And because of this, I use RO/DI or distilled water to bring all my water parameters into line that are optimal for keeping BTs. But because of this, my plants do not have the nutrients required for their growth. Therefore, I add "minerals".

I don't follow the inch per gallon tank. There are some of us here, that don't even keep fish in our tanks, just shrimp. Please don't assume that all of us want to keep fish, and follow this rule. I only added otos and cories to eat more algae and clean my gravel more. And I only have 7 of them in total in my tank. Fish aren't what I favor, shrimp are.

I do 20% weekly water changes, and a once a month 50% water change. This is to keep my water COMPLETELY clean and the quality of the tank up to my standards. I add ferts after each. Again, this is because I just removed whatever ferts were not used by my plants during the week, and resets it all.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> I didn't know it was that young! I see melting and death in 2 weeks or less.


a month past, all plants are growing well. 100% stock, no co2, no liquid/dry ferts, no water change.

Nesaea Red: 


















now what you were saying? you see melting and death in 2 weeks or less? you feel sorry for me?

you make me laugh.

full update:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/p...s-6g-fluval-edge-update-june.html#post1074491


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

nerzaa, many people have had success with many different methods. You might be successful with yours. However, for your own sake, you shouldn't shout success from the hills when the tank's a month old. Just sayin'.


----------



## nerzaa (May 22, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *nerzaa*  
_You go ahead and make a tank half planted and give it a real high light environment and dose daily. Then comeback and say the plants will just be able to absorb all that excessive daily ferts.

I will bet you anything it will have an algae explosion._




plantbrain said:


> ...
> And if could, then.....well, you'd be part of the folks arguing that excess nutrients do not induce algae and are good for plant growth. I've seen 1001 people approach these issues the same way 15 years on line.
> 
> Some days folks will get over the myths.:icon_idea
> ...


Frankly, I don't know what are you smoking. Your logic is so messed up and I find it impossible to keep up with the wall of text you wrote.

I'd be part of folks arguing that excess nutrients do not induce algae? ?

In my original post, I just said if someone dose daily (provide excess nutrients), that will result in an algae explosion!


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

This has gone on long enough. Nerzaa, you are more than welcome to participate in the forum and have a difference of opinion than many of the members. Some of your points are valid and I agree with you to a point. 

What is *NOT *okay is to insult other members, or to make illegal drug references if you don't understand what someone is saying. If you cannot abide by the forum rules you agreed to when joining, I suggest you find a different site to share your opinions.

Edit: As for the rest of you guys - let's try not to feed the trolls so much. And even if the poster is insulting, try to refrain from insulting them in return. This will only result in us having to take action since it is against forum policy to verbally abuse one another.


----------

