# When to know if you are over-thinking fertilization



## Jamo33 (Feb 18, 2014)

Just read this on your site. Funnily enough, I am now chasing down answers to my dosing regime for a fertilizer issue. In this case I do believe I have a few other issues, but a deficiency is one of them.
Thanks for all your help to the aquatic plant community.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Wow! What an excellent article. Really puts everything in much needed perspective for the newcomer ( like myself). 


I especially liked this quote: 

"_Humans gravitate towards tools and concepts that come readily to mind, and forums are the number 1 spot for availability bias and group thinking". _

After years of participating in numerous forums- there has never been a more correct assessment.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> Wow! What an excellent article. Really puts everything in much needed perspective for the newcomer ( like myself).
> 
> 
> I especially liked this quote:
> ...


This forum seems to be extra bad at not producing any kind of scientific testing or research to base their opinions on. I mean, it is just a hobby for most people and setting up laboratory style tests would require you to have no day job and hundreds of tank and parameter setups.
It's understandable but there is a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

I've never seen so much forum bashing. 



Discusluv said:


> Wow! What an excellent article. Really puts everything in much needed perspective for the newcomer ( like myself).
> 
> I especially liked this quote:
> 
> ...


This below post really cracked me up. 



Ddrizzle said:


> This forum seems to be extra bad at not producing any kind of scientific testing or research to base their opinions on. I mean, it is just a hobby for most people and setting up laboratory style tests would require you to have no day job and hundreds of tank and parameter setups.
> It's understandable but there is a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Sorry, you have no room to bash science.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

I am readily agreeing with the OP's assessment: Forums ( all forums where persons of like mind congregate- including this one) tend to engage in exactly what OP has identified in the above quote. I repeat it:

"_Humans gravitate towards tools and concepts that come readily to mind, and forums are the number 1 spot for availability bias and group thinking"._

I do not at all think this persons intent was to bash this forum- not at all. The above quote describes a human trait- a social manifestation that we, as humans, tend to do when we congregate in one space with others who share in like interests. 
Because of this, every group where like minds come together should continually evaluate to ensure certain tools and concepts ( using the OP's language) are not returned to continually (availability bias) in a way that excludes the possibility of other solutions. This leads to circular thinking because of the limits we allow in the scope of our questions. 

To conclude that the OP's suggestion was "forum bashing" is to shut down discourse and protect any prevailing "group-think" that may exist in the forum.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Ddrizzle said:


> This forum seems to be extra bad at not producing any kind of scientific testing or research to base their opinions on. I mean, it is just a hobby for most people and setting up laboratory style tests would require you to have no day job and hundreds of tank and parameter setups.





Asteroid said:


> I've never seen so much forum bashing.


It is just that, a forum.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly all reside here.
Our tanks are the science project providing our own research.
Few can call this hobby a "Day Job".

Some people are "My way or the Highway" and you have others continuing many myths.
Myth busters are not appreciated much.

Many try to offer advise based on what works for them, in their own tanks.
This is most likely the most common approach.
Almost every tank is different, even from the same tap water.
@Xiaozhuang has an excellent website that should be required reading before anyone purchases their first plant! >


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

@Xiaozhuang has just made me a new devoted reader.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Maryland Guppy said:


> It is just that, a forum.
> The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly all reside here.


That's exactly my point, if it wasn't clear. There can be no real scientific research with large sample sizes and high confidence levels. Hobbyists with the same parameters end up with different results based on their lifestyle, dedication and husbandry skills. 

That's why people who have the same situation say two different things so the best thing to do is go by the majority of user experiences. It is a hobby and a tank exists in ones home not in a laboratory.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Xiaozhuang said:


> I leave this here because I do think that a very part of the forum crowd is over-thinking fertilization.


Dennis I agree with you.

There are many posts that start with "What is my deficiency?". In most cases, nutrient dosing is the least of their worries. And diagnosing deficiencies without knowing every other thing about the tank is unlikely to get to the root cause. In most cases, a more holistic approach will provide better results.

You have to have light, CO2, and equally if not more importantly maintenance in correct balance before adjusting ferts will make much if any difference. Until you get the rest right, adjusting ferts is like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole. You most likely will never solve your problem.

I look at it this way. Take a tank like Burr's. I have seen him run his fert dosing in many different directions over the years. Almost no micros, lathering on micros. Almost no macros, lathering on macros. Yet somehow his tank always looks beautiful and plants are healthy. Why? Because he spends a great deal of time getting every other single thing right, with a great attention to detail. 

And that's what most don't want to do. They don't want to hear lower/raise your light. They don't want to hear clean your filters more, get your pH drop from CO2 more precise, get on a regular water change schedule, control mass and trim your plants more. Getting their tank uber clean would be the single best thing to help most, but it's easier to dose more/less of something/everything. 

Now all that being said, I do believe once you get things running well, experimenting with fert dosing can fine tune things. I've made a major change to my own dosing recently, with very good results. But that wasn't to fix a problem. That was to see if I could improve and grow in the hobby.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Now all that being said, I do believe once you get things running well, experimenting with fert dosing can fine tune things.


Once you have a tank full of large hungry healthy stems and little hardscape, that have been grown on EI, are filtering the water, preventing algae and supporting high light its easy to say "this works and it will work for you too".

If you don't have a tank full of lush healthy stems, haven't reached a happy medium, maybe you have more hardscape and less plants, maybe instead of thick stems you have a low demand carpet, and after months are still 'establishing' your plant mass, a much different approach may be required. Most likely lower light, lower ferts(especially with CEC substrates) and accepting lower growth rates(less algae too) as being optimal while you are establishing.

I just don't see that emphasized much around here, its often the opposite "I just haven't seen any examples of non EI tanks working".


----------



## redneck joe (Mar 13, 2019)

I've been on boating forums for years, and very similar to 'why won't my motor run' the (smart) responses are always:

Spark
Fuel
Compression



then one can fine tune but until then not much happens.


I'll read the link tonight. Wife is traveling so I'll just be boring myself.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Love the turkey baster/syphon method, I never used both at the same time but I will now!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

A nutrients dont matter article? Thought I was on barr report for a second...

:red_mouth


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Kinda takes me back to the pure premise of EI in that your not really worried about each and every quantity as long as something doesn't run out. In fact you could say testing is optional in many cases. This and good husbandry by keeping the tank low on organics is usually the most helpful to most hobbyists. of course the tweaking is always there as per @Greggz comments. 

Not to take anything away from OP, but I've always used a filter hose and extended my index finger below the opening to gently stir up debris/organics. Your finger allows you the dexterity to dig under rocks, scrape stuck on organics and then suck it up with the hose.


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

I love reading on this site. It is where I come to love planted tanks so much. The list of folks who have helped me along is lengthy. But I have to say it was Dennis’s compilations and no nonsense style that settled me down to just focus on the basics. All the things I studied on this site kinda just became clear and succinct. Each time I apply another principal my tank get a little better and I enjoy it just a little more. 

Signed,
A former obsessing nutrient freak


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

burr740 said:


> A nutrients dont matter article? Thought I was on barr report for a second...
> 
> :red_mouth


haha is that what they are saying over there these days ? I need to go check it out



Asteroid said:


> Kinda takes me back to the pure premise of EI in that your not really worried about each and every quantity as long as something doesn't run out. In fact you could say testing is optional in many cases. This and good husbandry by keeping the tank low on organics is usually the most helpful to most hobbyists. of course the tweaking is always there as per @Greggz comments.
> 
> Not to take anything away from OP, but I've always used a filter hose and extended my index finger below the opening to gently stir up debris/organics. Your finger allows you the dexterity to dig under rocks, scrape stuck on organics and then suck it up with the hose.


Yea, that is what Barr says frequently. I think as a whole the husbandry angle is under examined in most forums - its harder as well, as different folks have different practices and different styles of tanks can succeed under different approaches. 

On the topic of experience - online forums generally provide a very narrow slice of knowledge (not just in fertilization approach, but aquascaping, system design, water management, plant husbandry). I think that it is very valuable to visit other people's setups and see things "for real", and even better to see tanks across different countries. Or even try reading a non-English forum - English forums are very very singular in their approach. Many ideas are held sacred here because folks have not mastered any alternative. Again 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail". For example, the idea of having break neck CO2 levels as far as possible - whereas I have seen many tank layouts elsewhere that are much easier to manage using actually less CO2. Or the idea that nutrients can never cause algae, and hence no algae issue can be solved by reducing nutrients (whereas green dust is easily solved by having more lean NO3 levels in immatured tanks). 

If it was a newbie rather than me saying these statements, folks here would be fast to pounce on it in an instant - that's group thinking at work; most of the time its just folks repeating what they have read, rather than from actual mastery of technique. Folks that get their ideas rejected move onto forums that accept their ideas - so there grows another group that uses that technique instead, over time, groups refine their regulate their own population. If you want to get good at a range of techniques, it is good to seek out groups operating under different requirements, demands, and objectives. Travelling is a luxury - but being able to see tanks in an entirely different culture setting is a huge plus. For American style tanks (basically 95% of tanks in this forum), the ADA gallery (niigata/Japan) would be a good contrast.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

A bit of dissenting opinion and perspective:

Given that fertilization is just one of many aspects of planted tanks, we certainly need yet another AIO fertilizer, APT Complete (https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/apt-fertilizer.html), especially formulated and sold by the OP. Obviously, Seachem, API, ADA, Nclog Aquatics. GLA, etc. etc. do not adequately serve the needs of planted tank folks.

Being susceptible to forum/crowd mentality is indeed a human trait. Part of it is (justifiably) proudly posting pictures of gorgeous tanks: "Look, I can grow anything, why cannot you?". For some it sets the bar to reach for, for others, especially newcomers, it sets the expectations too high and becomes discouraging.

What might separate the North America from other parts of the world is the wide range of local water parameters, anything from 0 kH to kh/gH > 20, pH of 5 to pH of 8.5. We also have to deal with local water treatment plants and government regulations that add anything from fluoride to chloramine to our tap. Industrial and agricultural run-offs don't help either. Not all of us are blessed as the OP is.

With the majority of "interesting" aquarium plants originating from the Amazon Basin and Asia, known for their low pH and low mineral content, puts Americans' fascination with chemistry in a different light.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

OVT said:


> A bit of dissenting opinion and perspective:
> 
> Given that fertilization is just one of many aspects of planted tanks, we certainly need yet another AIO fertilizer, APT Complete (https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/apt-fertilizer.html), especially formulated and sold by the OP. Obviously, Seachem, API, ADA, Nclog Aquatics. GLA, etc. etc. do not adequately serve the needs of planted tank folks.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is anything here that I disagree with at all.. the states does have a wide range of tap water with its corresponding issues. Nor do I mention that another region's practices is better than another - if anything, my tanks are grown closer to the american style tanks than the ADA approach - which I have criticized separately, (but not here since no one uses it here anyway). Certain styles of tank is more easily done with certain methods - its a management choice more than anything. There is a line between thinking and over thinking something - and also tweaking things meaningfully and tweaking but not getting results, I'm merely highlighting the other side (since so many places are already nutrient focused).


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Xiaozhuang said:


> haha is that what they are saying over there these days ? I need to go check it out


I dont get on there much these days but you know, that's Barr's mantra, lol

Totally agree on the maintenance and husbandry aspect. Keeping a clean well-pruned tank will solve a myriad of issues. Too much bio-mass in the form of ratty old growth can stunt sensitive plants as fast as anything.

But I actually do think nutrients are a big problem for a lot of folks. Especially in the U.S. where we've been brainwashed to believe "too much" doesnt exist and the anwser to everything is raise, raise, raise. Combine that notion with a poorly balanced routine or unsuitable products and you have a recipe for trouble. It's crazy what some folks are dosing then wonder why X plant is stunting

But a person needs to have a clean, well-managed tank, along with good co2 before any talk of nutrients begins. Not necessarily nosebleed co2 (which has also been erroneously hammered into folks head to solve everything) but a solid 30-40 ppm, with adequate circulation and a good O2 level, and stable from one day to the next.


----------



## livebearerlove (Aug 20, 2013)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Travelling is a luxury - but being able to see tanks in an entirely different culture setting is a huge plus. For American style tanks (basically 95% of tanks in this forum), the ADA gallery (niigata/Japan) would be a good contrast.



Agreed. Makes me miss living in HK.


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

Husbandry. Yea that is close to where I am. I have water changes and a almost totally consistent feet schedule (automated). And 1 degree ph drop of CO2 an hr before 100% lights on. So I am seeing what was described and I fall into that category. Lots of ratty growth. Because I really don’t know how to trim properly. (Hint hint)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> But a person needs to have a clean, well-managed tank, along with good co2 before any talk of nutrients begins. Not necessarily nosebleed co2 (which has also been erroneously hammered into folks head to solve everything) but a solid 30-40 ppm, with adequate circulation and a good O2 level, and stable from one day to the next.


Well put Joe, and I completely agree.

I've said this before, but the most successful tanks I follow simply work at it harder (that includes you Dennis!). And that includes good old fashioned elbow grease. Uber clean conditions, managing plant mass and pruning well can make a world of difference. 

A quick example is Hygro Corymbosa compact. Left to grow for a long time, and it becomes a dense mass that traps detritus and basically starts choking on itself. Every so often it needs to be pulled and pruned, keeping only small plantlets and toss the main stems. Within a week beautiful new growth will explode. Probably something more of us should address in our journals on a plant by plant basis. 

Now as to other methods around the world, I have been researching them and trying to learn more. It has led me to much lower dosing levels, which so far I am very pleased with.

But here's the thing. When you study these methods, you need to consider EVERYTHING they are doing. Active substrates, plant species selection, source water KH, amount of light, plant management techniques, etc. etc. etc.

What most don't realize is that if you dose at ADA levels and don't have every other thing correct, the odds lean toward failure. So if you are going to try it, learn everything you can about it before you get started. It's also a balancing act, just of a different kind.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Well put Joe, and I completely agree.
> 
> I've said this before, but the most successful tanks I follow simply work at it harder (that includes you Dennis!). And that includes good old fashioned elbow grease. Uber clean conditions, managing plant mass and pruning well can make a world of difference.
> 
> ...


I read just about everything you, Joe, and Dennis write when researching several issues, you have a lot of experience and understand different systems. I can't help but admire and want to apply your methods to my tank.

Problem is the "problem tanks" that come here for advice are not established dutch tanks. They usually have larger hardscapes, and larger issues than dosing Ferts and almost all are not estabilished yet with plant mass. CO2 flow is I suspect the biggest issue yet its hardly ever mentioned. The margin for error in these tanks is much higher and some algae is to be expected especially if there is high light and medium/tall hardscape.

ADA tanks have a nutrient rich substrate, lower light levels, and generally easy to grow low demand plants and lower plant mass. I doubt those systems would be better off with EI dosing, probably much worse.

I don't see enough 'turn your light down', 'fix your flow', 'clean your tank', 'trim old growth' type of advice. Mostly its fitting everything to a fertilizer deficiency (Calcium, Magneisum, Iron, Phosphate, Nitrogen) and rarely a CO2 deficiency(via flow or otherwise).

When 20% of your tank is covered by a large piece of wood, and 40% is only a Monte Carlo carpet, the tanks needs for fertilizer are much different than a dutch with large hungry stems. But this is not emphasized so the trickle down from you gurus to the newbies rarely emphasize this, its just the usual mantra of check your pH drop, up your CO2, get your ferts ratios closer to EI.

I am currently trying to get my tank back on track, EI dosing(or close to it) was not the solution.

Since upping my ferts to EI and increasing CO2 I have seen nothing but semi unhealthy plants. EI didn't cause the problems but its certainly not solving them either.

Some people on these forums have tons of experience and are reasonably good at diagnosing problems, but this is not easy, and all the rest of us give advice that may be marginally helpful at best or at worse just a shot in the dark guess with often the focus in the wrong place due to lack of experience.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

cl3537 said:


> I don't see enough 'turn your light down',


what?? it's my signature!!  :tongue: :grin2:

||||||||||||
VVVVVVVV


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> I don't see enough 'turn your light down', 'fix your flow', 'clean your tank', 'trim old growth' type of advice. Mostly its fitting everything to a fertilizer deficiency (Calcium, Magneisum, Iron, Phosphate, Nitrogen) and rarely a CO2 deficiency(via flow or otherwise).


I agree with you.

Diagnosing deficiencies is tricky business. The thing is, it could be ferts......or more likely a dozen other things. 

That's why I believe the holistic approach is better. Each tank needs to be considered as whole, and in relation to the end goals. A low light low tech tank has completely different needs (light/ferts/CO2) than a tank full of fast growing stems. So you need to define your goals, and make every other decision based on those goals.

But one thing all tanks have in common is that maintenance can mean the difference between success and failure. Sometimes folks don't like to hear it, but if I have learned one thing along my journey, it's that uber clean conditions make everything about keeping a planted tank easier.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Uber clean conditions give you more wiggle room with everything. Higher light, more stock, less plants, etc. I disagree about the discussions with lighting. That has been discussed ad nauseam on the forum for as long as I can remember. Raise your light, shorten your light cycle, if you have two lights just run one or the second one only a few hours. Anyone who has been here a long time knows that. I am a big supporter of it and most of my posts when people have issues start with lighting. It still amazes me how people start up tanks, put very little plant mass in it and run a full lighting schedule of around 10 hours. When I mention they should start their tanks with carbon in the filter they think I'm crazy. 

At startup is when you need the uber clean conditions since the bio-filter is weak and the plants haven't kicked in yet. Carbon helps bridge this gap. It's just another weapon against algae.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

cl3537 said:


> ADA tanks have a nutrient rich substrate, lower light levels, and generally easy to grow low demand plants and lower plant mass. I doubt those systems would be better off with EI dosing, probably much worse.


I agree with all of the comments here, but this crowd is probably the more experienced crowd since I recognize many of the names. One thing that has changed since long time is that now ADA uses the Solar RGB LED on most of their setups - their light levels are not low; its definitely in the high range. I'm growing the Red Eriocaulon, blood vomit at tank corners using it in a standard 90p tank. Also, the main point as pointed out is the soil usage - which has its own long term management to-dos. Its actually less intensive and easier than relying on heavy water column dosing at increased initial cost (cost is low in Asia, so its the easy way out for entry level folks). 

For example in my hardscape focused tank below; 
priorities 
- slow down growth as much as possible to maintain the look, cutting moss is very troublesome; work on the tank is very troublesome as the hardscape is very close to front glass
- avoid algae on any surface
Choices
- slow growing, low demand plants
- soil only on elevated hairgrass area
- root tabs for the crypts
- super lean water column (5ppm NO3 in water column if not closer to 0)

It was an easy tank to maintain given that approach - often 30% water changes every 2 weeks, which is mainly done by siphoning substrate area, pruning only once a month or less. So much less work than any of my other stem focused tanks. And I could enjoy the manicured look for most of the 2 years that I maintained the tank ... it was almost low tech in nature. Wipe the glass once every 6 months if at all. Many folks would actually want a tank like this; if they knew how easy it was. (hard part is the initial hardscape work).


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Dennis there is one thing you can't teach in this hobby..........artistic vision. 

You clearly have it. 

Growing plants is one thing, creating what you are presenting above is another.

And it's strange, I have little desire to set up a tank in this style, yet I could stare at it all day. 

Stunning display.


----------



## Jamo33 (Feb 18, 2014)

This thread is headed towards one of the forums need to sticky threads. What people like me don't realise often enough is that they have simpler issues that originally thought. 
This isnt a one size fits all hobby and we cannot simply apply 1 2 and 3 to end up with a perfect tank. My tank for example has probably been set up for disaster from the start. Huge hardscape, slow growing plants and not great co2 circulation, thanks for the heads up @cl3537, and yet I still EI dose though it is clearly not needed. I believe this also falls under the forum group thinking, my case being "I need EI, look at all the success stories." 
To the forum gurus here, thank you for all you help truly. I love this hobby and it is fascinating to watch you guys with your tanks.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Xiaozhuang said:


> ... I think as a whole the husbandry angle is under examined in most forums - its harder as well, as different folks have different practices and different styles of tanks can succeed under different approaches.


I do agree on the husbandry issues. I don't know if it's under examined (probably is compared to fert dosing) or is it just that people "think" they do enough but in reality it's not. I do think this is tied to one's dedication to their tank and other than a subset of the forum that is very dedicated I think in the U.S. this dedication pales in comparison to Asia and S.A. 

There planted tanks/aquascaping is more a part of the culture than it is here leading to more dedicated hobbyists. This works its way to those who take it a step further and enter IAPLC and not only enter but finish toward the top. If you look at the entries to that contest there's usually only around 20 American entries and most don't do that well. This isn't by accident I think it's an indicator of how few take the hobby to that extreme. And that extreme requires knowledge, dedication and great husbandry.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Jamo33 said:


> I believe this also falls under the forum group thinking, my case being "I need EI, look at all the success stories."


It should probably be pointed out that few here dose strict "EI". It's kind of been evolving, and many are now dosing a pretty heavily modified version.

If you look at the Share Your Dosing thread, the majority who post there are dosing less NO3, more PO4, less K, and less Fe than recommended by EI. In some cases much less or more. And keep in mind those numbers need to be taken in context. Those tanks almost all have 100+ PAR, 1.2+ pH drop, and lots of fast growing stems.

Let's take a look at EI recommended micros. 1.5 ppm weekly Fe from CSM+B. That alone can create more problems than it solves. I don't think daily dosed custom micros are part of EI, let alone front end loading macros, both of which many of us have been doing for quite some time.

So my point is, the term "EI" is tossed around a lot around here. But IMO, it's really evolving from dosing more than enough of everything, to dosing the right amount of everything.

The tricky part is finding the "right" amount for each particular tank. Requires trial and error, time, and patience.......I know because I have been trying to find the right amount for three years now!!:grin2:


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

You know, much of this is Mom and apple pie to many of us. As I see many of us moving away from strict EI, as well as Dennis mentioning that he is below EI and the fact that ADA is below EI, gets back to his comments on how “group-think” tends to eschew those ideas that do not conform.

I bring this up because @Edward (albeit battling occasionally) has been ringing this bell for a long time. I was a firm believer that EI was the best way - and it does work, in fact - until he challenged me to test PPS. I wouldn’t go completely there but, about 6-7 months ago I did take him up on his challenge and I am now running at just under the clouds on nutrients (except CO2). I have seen no change in my tank (which was nearly perfect with EI, in my mind) having dropped to these ridiculously low nutrient levels (and still falling).

There is no doubt that all the non-nutrient aspects are a major contributor to my success and, because of the move away from EI, I have been able to maintain the appearance but with greatly throttled growth and, therefore, lower maintenance. We should encourage and be tolerant of all voices.

I also agree with others that have posted that ferts will probably always be the dominant discussion just because so many problems by new members are focused, usually incorrectly, in that arena and we do have to hold their hands to try to keep them interested in the hobby.

Again: @Xiaozhuang, great takeaway on the “group-think” challenge.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Greggz said:


> Let's take a look at EI recommended micros. 1.5 ppm weekly Fe from CSM+B. That alone can create more problems than it solves.


Since I have been very dedicated lately to measuring Fe uptake by plants this has been the largest eye opener.
Daily consumption has been determined @ .015ppm Fe this equates to .105ppm per week.

I refuse to speak about my macro dosing. >
At least I am targeting the needs of the plants!


----------



## Jamo33 (Feb 18, 2014)

Of course my aim would always be to dose what my plants need and find that perfect recipe. But as you said @Greggz that takes some time to dial in. I have been watching the share your dosing thread, I am very interested in it and wish I could contribute. But it's not worth it. For now I shall watch and absorb...attempt to put at least some of what I learn into practice.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Xiaozhuang said:


> I agree with all of the comments here, but this crowd is probably the more experienced crowd since I recognize many of the names. One thing that has changed since long time is that now ADA uses the Solar RGB LED on most of their setups


Yeah its 130 watt light(quite powerful compared to most LED lights) but what is the PAR at substrate or at hardscape level?, curious how high they hang them?



> For example in my hardscape focused tank below;
> priorities
> - slow down growth as much as possible to maintain the look, cutting moss is very troublesome; work on the tank is very troublesome as the hardscape is very close to front glass
> - avoid algae on any surface
> ...


What would be your PAR high and low in your tank? Curious as to what equipment you are using and if you need to use a powerhead.
I have a big piece of wood in mine and I suspect it is causing all sorts of problems with flow, inconsistent light intensity and it is a magnet for Algae as well. Hoping a powerhead will fix some of the issues.



> It was an easy tank to maintain given that approach - often 30% water changes every 2 weeks, which is mainly done by siphoning substrate area, pruning only once a month or less. So much less work than any of my other stem focused tanks. And I could enjoy the manicured look for most of the 2 years that I maintained the tank ... it was almost low tech in nature. Wipe the glass once every 6 months if at all. Many folks would actually want a tank like this; if they knew how easy it was. (hard part is the initial hardscape work).


I certainly would! I need to study this tank.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Let's take a look at EI recommended micros. 1.5 ppm weekly Fe from CSM+B.


I thought Fe was 0.75ppm(0.25 X3 classic EI) for EI where do you find those micro values?


> So my point is, the term "EI" is tossed around a lot around here. But IMO, it's really evolving from dosing more than enough of everything, to dosing the right amount of everything.


I don't think this hobby's understanding of precisely what plants need has really been advanced or evolved all that much.
There is a difference between actual uptake and optimal concentration levels and the former is much smaller than the latter. 
At this point what the trend I see in the dosing thread is some have correlated leaner dosing with better or similar health but it seems to be more of a trial and error approach with only correlation and not much understanding of causation.

The advancement in "group think" that is starting to emerge though is having too great an excess can lead to deleterious affects in some species and this contradicts significantly what Tom Barr has said for years and one of the pillars of EI theory.

We know excess of some elements can inhibit the uptake of other elements but I don't think that even this correlation is clearly proven yet or spoken often for most nutrient pairs or trios.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> I thought Fe was 0.75ppm(0.25 X3 classic EI) for EI where do you find those micro values?
> 
> 
> I don't think this hobby's understanding of precisely what plants need has really been advanced or evolved all that much.
> ...


Regarding Fe:
Colin & Zorfox still calc for 3 doses @ .5 per week.
Fab has rotala down to 3 doses of .2 per week for EI.
Edward dropped his way low quite some time ago for PPS Pro.

Unless precipitation is an issue water column can remain on the low side.

IMHO opinion leaner dosing of micro ferts shows great improvements.

Macro dosing:
My plants are total hogs, the ultimate of gluttony.
Especially since the soil is gone!
From week to week NO3 or PO4 takes a plummet, usually they take turns.
This caused me to make a separate bottle of NO3 & PO4 and to dose on the appropriate week only.
I cannot explain this one, would have to ask my plants and they can't talk.>

The Research:
The scientific end of this ain't never going to happen unless a bumper crop of something we grow can save the world!
The pillars ain't in all that great shape either!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Regarding Fe:
> Colin & Zorfox still calc for 3 doses @ .5 per week.
> Fab has rotala down to 3 doses of .2 per week for EI.


Rotalabutterfly was also at 0.5 Fe 3 times a week for many years.

It was not too long ago that they dropped it down to 0.2. Fab discussed this with Tom Barr on TBR, and he agreed that 0.5 was probably too much. 

And many of the old dosing charts (not calculators) that people find on line are also at 0.5 Fe.

I'm also not surprised on your macro usage. I might be considered lightly planted relative to your farming operation!:wink2:


----------



## OreoP (Aug 12, 2016)

Jamo33 said:


> Of course my aim would always be to dose what my plants need and find that perfect recipe. But as you said @Greggz that takes some time to dial in. I have been watching the share your dosing thread, I am very interested in it and wish I could contribute. But it's not worth it. For now I shall watch and absorb...attempt to put at least some of what I learn into practice.


When I first got into this hobby, I read and re-read treads from a few regular contributors. I took their methods as gospel and never achieved the success they did. It took me sometime but the bottom line in my opinion is "LISTEN TO YOUR PLANTS". Plant health and growth rate, minimal algae will be your ultimate guide to YOUR dosing requirements. And as mentioned many times in this thread - good housekeeping!! I was very surprised with the benefits of not only keeping the DT clean but also regular cleaning of the filters. Of course do not ignore lights and CO2!!


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Asteroid said:


> I do agree on the husbandry issues. I don't know if it's under examined (probably is compared to fert dosing) or is it just that people "think" they do enough but in reality it's not. I do think this is tied to one's dedication to their tank and other than a subset of the forum that is very dedicated I think in the U.S. this dedication pales in comparison to Asia and S.A.
> 
> There planted tanks/aquascaping is more a part of the culture than it is here leading to more dedicated hobbyists. This works its way to those who take it a step further and enter IAPLC and not only enter but finish toward the top. If you look at the entries to that contest there's usually only around 20 American entries and most don't do that well. This isn't by accident I think it's an indicator of how few take the hobby to that extreme. And that extreme requires knowledge, dedication and great husbandry.


I think aquascaping wise (with the hardscape focus) is a growing trend in the US, but will probably take some time to be become mainstream. Takes a critical mass for a group to form, then it becomes more of a norm - I know quite a few good aquascapers in the US. Some of the Asia side countries with a focus on wood working arts and crafts, bonsai, rock gardens, san-sui paintings took to the aquascaping scene a bit faster due to the similarities in the art forms. Easier access to hardscape in Asia also (but by PPP equipment could actually be more costly). 




cl3537 said:


> Yeah its 130 watt light(quite powerful compared to most LED lights) but what is the PAR at substrate or at hardscape level?, curious how high they hang them?
> 
> What would be your PAR high and low in your tank? Curious as to what equipment you are using and if you need to use a powerhead.
> I have a big piece of wood in mine and I suspect it is causing all sorts of problems with flow, inconsistent light intensity and it is a magnet for Algae as well. Hoping a powerhead will fix some of the issues.
> ...


For the ADA solar RGB They hang around 6-7 inches off the rim. Some folks took some readings, based on what I can eyeball, its definitely higher than 80 PAR at substrate for a single unit over a 90p tank. 

For that particular tank with wood, I'm using a single BML XB, a few inches off the rim - so light levels are pretty high as well.
I think whether flow is an issue or not does depend on what plants you are using in what spot. Deadspots work fine for plants that don't need much flow to grow. Detritus build-up is an issue, but that can be handled with light vacuuming at each water change. I used a single Ehiem ecco pro 300 on the tank - so it had barely 4x turnover (yikes).... 
Frankly, I think growing low requirement plants at slow speed allowed me to get away with slow flow, etc.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Dennis, that website looks very fancy but still lacks anything new, most of the stuff written in there is something folks already know or they have already heard of before. i noticed you have posted a picture of Barr in that article, i simply look at it as the way to get more attention from others to read that article. i am bit confuse by your article, i remember we had a chat once, where you quoted "you are on my side than i think and you are not a big fan of EI". i usually keep all the messeges saved in case i need a backup, i wont post it here as it would be against the rule but i would like to bring the facts on the table. the lean dosing people been trying to dose now days is nothing new either, its been around for long time now, people are switching back to it due to many issue they are having, most would already agree that it was never a CO2 issue, i however do agree Co2 and Lights are the 2 main components before anything else matters. 

Marcel Golias been talking about this in very dept and detail before anyone else ever did, if you google his work, you will see that all he got was hate and no one really agreed with him, i wont mention names but quick google search will get you there, i followed Marcel and worked with him side by sides and learned alot of stuff from him, he never got the respect he deserved from others, he only got banned from speaking the truth, i also got banned from saying the truth. 

we have quite a good examples of people who disagree but now they agree, i use to post stuff on facebook groups and challenge people on these topics, guess what, they did the same they did to Marcel, but now they fully support the idea, so what changed their mind? Vin Kutty is an good example and Marcel talks about his tank issue, he never fully believed it untill he started dosing differnt method and went lean. 

you can go back and look at my threads and threads from Marcel as well for more Validity. far as the the Nutrients goes, they have their role in excess or deficient, you cant tell if your plant are suffering from deficiency or excess as sympthoms are very similar, if your plants are not growing well at higher dosing then its clearly and sign of toxicity, toxicity doesnt come with roses growing on the plants, it just looks same as deficiency, lower the doses and watch those sympthoms dispears, other issues are how nutrinets are availble to plants, some of easy to obsorved and some are not, some can still goes deficient even if you dose higher as they react with other nutrients.

i will say good job on how the website looks


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Xiaozhuang said:


> I think aquascaping wise (with the hardscape focus) is a growing trend in the US, but will probably take some time to be become mainstream. Takes a critical mass for a group to form, then it becomes more of a norm - I know quite a few good aquascapers in the US. Some of the Asia side countries with a focus on wood working arts and crafts, bonsai, rock gardens, san-sui paintings took to the aquascaping scene a bit faster due to the similarities in the art forms. Easier access to hardscape in Asia also (but by PPP equipment could actually be more costly).


I agree 100% that it's growing in the US, just currently no where near those other parts of the globe. And yes that's what I meant by culture where bonsai/rock gardens, etc are very closely related and influenced the breakout. I believe that was Amanos influence into starting ADA. The popularity of aesthetically pleasing equipment (rimless tanks, hanging lights, etc.) are also putting the emphasis on design/aesthetics all the way around. I don't think these products would be sellable if aquascaping wasn't gaining in popularity. You wouldn't need them if you were just growing a salad bar of plants in the tank.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

there were many members who disagreed at first about higher dosing, but you can see how their dosing looks now.
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...eters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread-47.html 

Post #703, Predicted while back


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Marcel, Sol, Happy, et al, have never been banned from anywhere for expressing their ideas. Talk about revisionist history...

They wind up banned because they spend more time attacking others for not immediately jumping on board than they spend communicating their own ideas. 

And this is very unfortunate because those ideas are pretty good.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

burr740 said:


> Marcel, Sol, Happy, et al, have never been banned from anywhere for expressing their ideas. Talk about revisionist history...
> 
> They wind up banned because they spend more time attacking others for not immediately jumping on board than they spend communicating their own ideas.
> 
> And this is very unfortunate because those ideas are pretty good.


lol I was going to say the exact same thing. Way to go about squandering social media capital - and in fact damaging the very ideas one is trying to promote, the irony.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Xiaozhuang said:


> lol I was going to say the exact same thing. Way to go about squandering social media capital - and in fact damaging the very ideas one is trying to promote, the irony.



Hoppy, I believe, got banned for trying to sell his DIY par meter sensors.. Then a bit of over reaction to it..
Rob of "robotank" about the same thing..


Lets say it was an offense to the hands that feed planted tank.. 
Like no ebay links..


Can't argue..much.... THEIR sandbox their rules..This is not a democracy..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Hoppy, I believe, got banned for trying to sell his DIY par meter sensors.. Then a bit of over reaction to it..
> Rob of "robotank" about the same thing..
> 
> Lets say it was an offense to the hands that feed planted tank..
> ...


Just an fyi, Hoppy is not a part of this discussion, that's a whole different scenario. The other three's bannings have happened on various forums and most FB groups, which has nothing to do with the ptb here, but rather points to a repeated pattern of behavior


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

This thing really moved sideways. Problem is everyone has an agenda (or people fear they do) and don't trust their motive. Whether it's ego, sales, publicity, etc. it's all there in the posts.


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

@happi I partially agree with your statement about nothing new. But new info was not what helped me the most. I had read about a lot of what is on the site in some form or fashion here in plantedtank. This site kinda broke I’d now into a toddler level so I could get the whole concept in my head at one time and it was like the light came on. (Maybe it was lighting all along!). Each time I go there and read a new addition or re read an old one I connected the dots together about all the comment I read here. I spent 3x more time here that there partially because it is so quick and easy to consume the info on Dennis’ site and come away with a clear actionable item. 

I hate you have had an experience in the past like you describe. I have seen it happen here in the year I have been on. 

Everyone reading we all have to do more to focus not the things we agree on. However small those things are




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

burr740 said:


> Just an fyi, Hoppy is not a part of this discussion, that's a whole different scenario. The other three's bannings have happened on various forums and most FB groups, which has nothing to do with the ptb here







> Marcel, Sol, Happy, et al, have never been banned from anywhere for expressing their ideas.



opp's sorry thought it said hoppy.. My mistake.. 

large monitor tiny font (cheap excuse but better than old age) and it was for renting a PAR meter not selling them..

Didn't help to enter this topic on pg 4 after briefly reading post one..apologies..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> opp's sorry thought it said hoppy.. My mistake..



Yeah similar user names, I thought that was probably the case, only reason I brought it up...


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Marcel, Sol, Happy, et al, have never been banned from anywhere for expressing their ideas. Talk about revisionist history...
> 
> They wind up banned because they spend more time attacking others for not immediately jumping on board than they spend communicating their own ideas.
> 
> And this is very unfortunate because those ideas are pretty good.


Agreed.

At the end, it became almost comical. 

15 posts a day telling folks their only problem was micro tox. EVERY plant problem was micro tox. The funny part was that about half of those people were not dosing any micros at all. But that didn't slow it down. Now they did have other problems, but micro tox was not one of them. 

And there was merit in some of the ideas, but that got lost in the messaging and the constant arguing. That's why Sol lasted about a week here this last time. 

The one thing I have never understood is the anger some have if someone does not adopt their method. If I see a successful well presented tank, makes no difference to me what method they use. In fact, if it's different than mine, it makes me curious to learn more. And I have said many times, I don't necessarily recommend my dosing to anyone. With so many variables between tanks, your mileage may vary. 

Now as to lower dosing, I have been experimenting and so far have had encouraging results. But let's put this in perspective. Lower dosing for me is keeping 30+ ppm NO3 and about 10 ppm PO4 in the water column. Not exactly ADA or even PPS numbers. And I have lowered micros in relation to everything else, but .525 Fe weekly is not exactly lean either.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

burr740 said:


> Marcel, Sol, Happy, et al, have never been banned from anywhere for expressing their ideas. Talk about revisionist history...
> 
> They wind up banned because they spend more time attacking others for not immediately jumping on board than they spend communicating their own ideas.
> 
> And this is very unfortunate because those ideas are pretty good.


I usually don't attack first unless provoked by other members, but I have learned it was waste of energy to do so. I can see why Lawrence got banned as I was expecting that, I have yet to see a good reason why Marcel got banned, again find me a good reason or link, he was banned for sharing his ideas that most members here are using nowdays, he was banned because it was also against high dosing. Again quick Google search can reveal that. Anyways I have posted some recipes for people to try while back as am trying to help this hobby and hopefully the new generation will think differently.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> Agreed.
> 
> At the end, it became almost comical.
> 
> ...


You must be referring to lawrance, even i didnt support his ideas except few, if you go back and look at burr thread and reread my posts you will get difference answer than what you have stated here, remember I challenged you that you will soon will be getting leaner and leaner on your micros and that is exactly what you and burr just did, you can always go back and look at your own posts on how and where the higher micro started and how and where it started to get leaner, you can view some of my public recipes for comparison and we could even blend it with burr recipe to help the hobby further, I personally still think burr recipe can be improved further by reducing the amount of B and Fe, these two are only needed in such high doses if you really dosing very high po4 and calcium, I hope this could help.

I remember telling everyone to experiment first before coming to conclusion, looks like that's what people are doing nowdays


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

Time to close the thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

One thing I never understood is the fact there are successful tanks using both heavy and light dosing. Barr always pushed the limit with heavy and then you have your lean guys.

The problem is even if (devil's advocate) your somewhat better off with lean dosing, it's not going to work for everyone since everyone has a different amount of time they can spend on their setup. Dosing heavy might not optimize everything, but if it takes care of 90% of things it might be better than running short with a lean dosing program.

I could be wrong, but I think OP was alluding to that in his original post. That different approaches work for different people and different setups.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> I could be wrong, but I think OP was alluding to that in his original post. That different approaches work for different people and different setups.


I think Dennis was pointing out that there is too much emphasis on fert dosing.

Fert dosing is a small piece of a larger pie. 

Equally important are light levels, CO2 levels, and maintenance. But they don't get the attention that fert dosing does. 

IME, if the others are optimized, there is a much wider range of dosing that will produce good results.

For example, I was dosing micros at 1.05 weekly for nine months. Now dosing at exactly half that level. And not just micros, but macros too. 

But you know, I was very happy with the tank at the much higher dosing. No algae issues, good healthy growth, great colors. The jury is still out, but so far I think the tank might be just a bit better now. But we are talking shades of gray, not a dramatic difference. That's with two extremely different levels of dosing.

Now if I had too much or too little light, too little CO2, and slacked off on maintenance, the tank would be a disaster with either level. 

The point is that fert dosing is not the primary reason for the success of a planted tank.


----------



## redneck joe (Mar 13, 2019)

diverjoe said:


> Time to close the thread
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Agreed
Never knew fish and plants could cause this much drama.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

******* joe said:


> Agreed
> Never knew fish and plants could cause this much drama.


I get you feeling that way, but in comparison to other episodes this is nothing.

If you compare it to the days of the micro tox wars, this is only a skirmish at best. That was full on brutal warfare. I think the peak was around late 2015 early 2016. This is child's play compared to that.

And as sometimes happens, it drifts from the original topic of the thread, which is unfortunate, as I think it is a valid one.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Almost as annoying as "everything is a micro tox" issue is "everything is a Ca / Mg deficiency." There are some members regardless of how hard the water is. The reason someone has massive algae covering everything is because their micro mix lacks CA and/or Mg


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Asteroid said:


> Almost as annoying as "everything is a micro tox" issue is "everything is a Ca / Mg deficiency." There are some members regardless of how hard the water is. The reason someone has massive algae covering everything is because their micro mix lacks CA and/or Mg


My water has gH of 17 degrees and I still gH boost... Every tank is different, and if plants are showing Ca or Mg deficiencies than of course it will be recommended to gH boost, will that solve bad algae issues? No... not directly, will it help... likely yes, and it most certainly wont hurt.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Quagulator said:


> My water has gH of 17 degrees and I still gH boost... Every tank is different, and if plants are showing Ca or Mg deficiencies than of course it will be recommended to gH boost, will that solve bad algae issues? No... not directly, will it help... likely yes, and it most certainly wont hurt.


I'm not saying there aren't cases where you need the boost, but in the spirit of micro tox everytime it was the same with the Ca/Mg pushers. It was every single tank that had algae issues regardless of what/if any deficiency was shown. 

The vast majority of plants do fine with the small amount of Ca/Mg that is in tap plus micro. Again not saying it's never needed.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Xiaozhuang said:


> For the ADA solar RGB They hang around 6-7 inches off the rim. Some folks took some readings, based on what I can eyeball, its definitely higher than 80 PAR at substrate for a single unit over a 90p tank.


The lights look a little higher in the photos on your website in most of the tanks but scale can be deceiving I guess.
I am stumped, if they are running 80+ par and lean ferts, the amazonia must be a huge difference maker.
I have Tropica Aquasoil and I can't run my light at 80+ par at the substrate the hardscape would be at 120 - 200 in places and it will get algae easily with only a carpet and small stem plant mass tank.

I did notice some Iwagumi scapes where the rocks are really green at the ADA tank.

High Light + Lean Dosing(+aquasoil) = Slow Growth (and not too much Algae)?

I didn't think this was possible, but if you get as much N and P from the aquasoil as needed and just dose K and a little Fe. 
That is how they do it?

I'd love to get to a state where this is possible, I just bought the Twinstar 600s so I have the power to do it, but to stay algae free I suspect would require a whole new rescape and change in understanding of how to prevent algae. 



> For that particular tank with wood, I'm using a single BML XB, a few inches off the rim - so light levels are pretty high as well.
> I think whether flow is an issue or not does depend on what plants you are using in what spot. Deadspots work fine for plants that don't need much flow to grow. Detritus build-up is an issue, but that can be handled with light vacuuming at each water change. I used a single Ehiem ecco pro 300 on the tank - so it had barely 4x turnover (yikes)....
> Frankly, I think growing low requirement plants at slow speed allowed me to get away with slow flow, etc.


It would seem if the setup is done well, you can break all the rules, high light, lean dosing, limited water changes and maintenance and still low growth and little algae. I'd love to learn more how to setup a tank to succeed in that way.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Asteroid said:


> I'm not saying there aren't cases where you need the boost, but in the spirit of micro tox everytime it was the same with the Ca/Mg pushers. It was every single tank that had algae issues regardless of what/if any deficiency was shown.
> 
> The vast majority of plants do fine with the small amount of Ca/Mg that is in tap plus micro. Again not saying it's never needed.


EI dosing calls for gH boost... PPS calls for Mg dosing... Of course it will be constantly recommended. Plus its cheap and can't really hurt anything (unless you're dumping loads of extra K into the tank).


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Quagulator said:


> EI dosing calls for gH boost... .


Again, not trying to argue, but that is an untrue statement. I've been dosing EI pretty much from the beginning and have never used a GH boost. The standard EI Dosing guidelines were:

EI target ranges
CO2 range 25-30 ppm
NO3 range 5-30 ppm
K+ range 10-30 ppm
PO4 range 1.0-2.0 ppm
Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher
GH range 3-5 degrees ~ 50ppm or higher
KH range 3-5

If your water is very soft, generally you would add the boost, but it's not really part of standard EI dosing.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Asteroid said:


> Again, not trying to argue, but that is an untrue statement.


Then lets agree to disagree. I can go on the google and find an EI dosing regime that calls for gH boost and I can go and find one that does not....

I think Tom Barr himself calls for some sort of gH boost in EI? If my memory doesn't serve me wrong... 

Regardless, this is not the point of this thread  I was reluctant to get involved in it so far in... my mistake.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Quagulator said:


> Then lets agree to disagree. I can go on the google and find an EI dosing regime that calls for gH boost and I can go and find one that does not....
> 
> I think Tom Barr himself calls for some sort of gH boost in EI? If my memory doesn't serve me wrong...
> 
> Regardless, this is not the point of this thread  I was reluctant to get involved in it so far in... my mistake.


It's not a problem, we are discussing it (arguing in a good sense). Just saying it's not needed for EI if your water and/or micros are sufficient. It's conditional.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Asteroid said:


> It's conditional.


Yes


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Quagulator said:


> EI dosing calls for gH boost... PPS calls for Mg dosing... Of course it will be constantly recommended. Plus its cheap and can't really hurt anything (unless you're dumping loads of extra K into the tank).


If I've noticed anything in the share your dosing thread, its that Greggz and others are reducing K and Fe.
I simply have to question Tom Barr and his contention that K levels don't matter. 100ppm? 50ppm? 30ppm? 20ppm?

I get that dosing ranges can be much wider in a very healthy tank full of plants but if lowering Potassium allows for happier plants, its possible in a system with weaker/less established plants this could be even more the case.

Interesting thing about ADA vs EI on Dennis's site, the K ranges are quite similar in both unlike everythingelse.

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/fertilisers-how-to.html

EI dosage per week (ppm)
POTASSIUM (K) 20 - 30
IRON (Fe) 0.5 - 1

ADA
POTASSIUM (K) - 20 - 24
Iron (FE) 0.03-0.06


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

The K dosing would be the same since the AS isn't really providing any. It' a well know fact that when you use AS you can get away with just dosing K and micros usually for 6 month or so and still get that explosive pop that AS gives. Eventually you need to dose the column more as things run low.

AS contains FE so that's that, EI is not based on substrate support.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

cl3537 said:


> The lights look a little higher in the photos on your website in most of the tanks but scale can be deceiving I guess.
> I am stumped, if they are running 80+ par and lean ferts, the amazonia must be a huge difference maker.
> I have Tropica Aquasoil and I can't run my light at 80+ par at the substrate the hardscape would be at 120 - 200 in places and it will get algae easily with only a carpet and small stem plant mass tank.
> 
> ...


They replenish the soil now and then. They do have 1 or 2 tanks (older ones from what I saw when I visited) that has more serious dust on rocks. The rest of them are pretty clean. And also they can just replace plants that are not doing well - so pictures can be deceiving, they remove types of plants that are not doing well over time. ADA seem to have updated their fertilizer range (I'm not updated on that, but I think they have NO3 dosing now... not sure in what amounts).

Tank cleanliness plays a large role. My farm tank has 8 Tubes of T5 over a 47gallon - extrapolating from PAR tables that is nearer to 200 umols at the substrate than 100... that tank is dosed quite lean as well but just as spotless. Vin kutty came and saw that setup for himself - and we pretty much concluded that its more the effect of consistent plant upkeep (pruning, replanting) & maintenance (vacuum substrate now and then), consistency/quality of water parameters, biological stability of a matured tank - things that can be definitely replicated elsewhere with "some training and experience". Experience being to tell if a plant needs work done or prefers a certain spot rather than another. As some folks would say this is "no new information" - but then if you look at the state of their tanks, why are their results less impressive than some others. I do think that there are many finer points to plant husbandry - its just that it can be difficult to articulate or may be scenario/tank specific. I think that more light accelerates algae issues, but if you have very high light but no other triggers for algae, the tank will still remain clean. Similarly, if a tank has other fundamental issues (plant health, or not matured biological stability) - then having less light merely triggers the algae more slower, it doesn't solve the issue entirely. I guess this is similar for nutrients; higher NO3 for example exaggerates green dust algae issues, but if your tank has no algae triggers to start with, then you can run higher values if you want.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Asteroid said:


> The K dosing would be the same since the AS isn't really providing any.


ADA Aqua Soil Analyse - Aquascaping - Aquarium - Flowgrow

[2]ADA Aqua Soil and Power sand analysis(Barr) - ADA aqua soil Amazonia I

NH4-N: 262.89(mg/kg)
NO3-N: 9.19(mg/kg)
Olsen-P: 111.3(mg/kg)
X-K: 390(mg/kg)
Fe: 324.9(mg/kg)
Cu: 1.2(mg/kg)

[3]ADA Aqua Soil Analyse(Coring) - ADA aqua soil Amazonia I

NH4: 22.1(mg/kg)
NH4-N: 28.5(mg/kg)
NO3-N: 3.3(mg/kg)
P2O5: 20(mg/kg)
PO4: 26.8(mg/kg)
Mg: 50(mg/kg)
K2O: 80(mg/kg)
K: 66.4(mg/kg)
Fe: 160(mg/kg)
Mn: 36(mg/kg)

Low not nothing. Take this testing with a grain of salt.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

@cl3537

Do you really want to go there? You know what I mean. It doesn't provide anything significant. What do you think the first and most frequently added fert is with ADA? Brighty K.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Back to overthinking ferts...

Six of my tanks are basically the same set up as far as substrate, filters, type of light and par, CO2 levels and general flow rates. And they all get the same fert routine.

I have many of the same species in 2-3 different tanks. There's always a case or two where a plant simply wont do well in a particular tank or a particular spot. 

Two most recent examples, in one tank Limno belem drops lower leaves and grows small and colorless. In two other tanks it grows big and beautiful like its supposed to. Same ferts.

There's another spot where Gratiola wont budge a lick. It just sits there for weeks at a time slowly getting algae on the lower leaves. In two other tanks it grows fine. 

Same ferts. Same basic everything.

If I only had one tank I'd be chasing a fert problem. It'd be a logical assumption to make. But since they're all getting the same thing, and the plants are doing fine in other tanks - it cant be the ferts. Gotta be something else....

I used to dismiss what Dennis said about sometimes a plant just doesnt like a particular spot. To me that always sounded like just a handy explanation for when we have no idea what the problem is. 

But its absolutely true. Sometimes a plant just doesnt like a particular spot and it has nothing to do with ferts


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Plant - Plant - Allelopathy ??


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

What do you think the odds are if I tell someone their plant has bad feng shui and they should move it to another tank/location or up their husbandry game, that they just look at me like I'm an a-hole.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> If I've noticed anything in the share your dosing thread, its that Greggz and others are reducing K and Fe.
> I simply have to question Tom Barr and his contention that K levels don't matter. 100ppm? 50ppm? 30ppm? 20ppm?


I can only to speak to my reasoning for lowering K. In the past, I was raising the KH of my RO water to about 4 dKH. Using K2CO3 that meant a lot of K....50+ ppm. I tried many times to lower NO3 & PO4, as I just thought it should work. It never did.

So my theory is that maybe my high K values led to a need for higher NO3 & PO4 (Mulders Chart). So I decided to start lowering K and everything else at the same time. Things were going along well. 

Then I was having a discussion with Joe, and he mentioned that he had been speaking with Vin Kutty about a guy from Germany who keeps all his tanks with K lower than Mg with great success. So I said what the heck, I've gone this far, might as well jump further down the Rabbit hole. 

So then I started slowly lowering my KH and total K even further. KH now is just about 1 or so, and I am using MgNO3 instead of KNO3. So I REALLY lowered my K. At the same time I began lowering everything else in proportion, including micros. I figured the worst thing that could happen was going back to my old dosing scheme, which I was all in all I was pretty happy with. 

So far it has worked out very well. Biggest difference is nuisance algae like GDA on the glass is totally gone. I'm still paying very close attention to see if any deficiencies pop up, like what happened to Joe. 

You want to see something funny? I keep meticulous records of everything (which in itself would be a great topic for discussion). I posted this in my journal but I'll do it again here. This is my dosing over time. You can see my tank has been one long experiment.......and still is.

Also shows that the system can withstand some pretty wide swings in dosing yet somehow manage to do OK.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

burr740 said:


> But its absolutely true. Sometimes a plant just doesnt like a particular spot and it has nothing to do with ferts


Ahhhhh ...but WHY doesn't the plant like that particular spot? :smile2:


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Ahhhhh ...but WHY doesn't the plant like that particular spot? :smile2:


As mentioned by @Quagulator could be allelopathy (don't know if anything concrete on that for aquatic plants), shading, flow


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> Ahhhhh ...but WHY doesn't the plant like that particular spot? :smile2:


Could be light. PAR can vary quite a bit from side to side/front to back. Especially with LED.

Could be flow. A calm dead spot vs a high flow area. 

Could be shading/crowding vs a wide open spot. 

Could be what's in the substrate in that spot, vacuumed and clean vs detritus accumulation.

Could be some plants just enjoy driving you nuts, and they know how to do it!:wink2:


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

I vote for the last one Gregg. They have been watching me for years and know exactly what buttons to push to drive me nuts!


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

On the serious side I think the most likely issue is the shading. I think what the plant "sees" as shading is more extreme than what we might see.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Im fairly confident in my ability to recognize if a plant is being shaded or not, and to make a reasonable gauge of how much flow there is, or if something is too crowded. 

Of course I could have an overinflated opinion of my abilities. Wouldnt be the first time, just ask my last girlfriend...

Something in the substrate? Could be. 

I like bad Feng Shui more than anything. Until a more reasonable explanation comes along Im going with that.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Asteroid said:


> As mentioned by @Quagulator could be allelopathy (don't know if anything concrete on that for aquatic plants), shading, flow


Like many of us, I've tried to find substantial support to believe in allelopathy, in our hobby, before and can't even find verification that it even exists as a killer of algae. The concept is real, though. For the terrestrial plant world, look up the product "Tenacity' for use in lawns. It is surprisingly effective and is based entirely on allelopathy.

Bump:


Greggz said:


> Could be light. PAR can vary quite a bit from side to side/front to back. Especially with LED.
> 
> Could be flow. A calm dead spot vs a high flow area.
> 
> ...


Yup ..and that's what drives us nuts! We won't let go until we explore every possibility - at least twice!


----------



## Ventchur (Apr 29, 2018)

Sticky this? Amazing discussions inside this thread.


----------



## KayakJimW (Aug 12, 2016)

*Phtyoid melancholy*

I think I'll start a band with that name


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Greggz said:


> Could be light. PAR can vary quite a bit from side to side/front to back. Especially with LED.
> 
> Could be flow. A calm dead spot vs a high flow area.
> 
> ...


I could write a novel about many species and only a few would include a short sentence.

IMHO the heavy hitter would be shading and over crowding.

Being way more lax than many here I tend to let things go and see what happens.
I post the success stories and the failures, but I am quick to recover if need be!


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Asteroid said:


> On the serious side I think the most likely issue is the shading. I think what the plant "sees" as shading is more extreme than what we might see.


Oh yea. Definitely. My par readings with some "shade" was easily 40 off.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

FWIW:

My day job is selling farm inputs, and making agronomic recommendations to growers. 

This is for terrestrial crops, but similar things could be happening. 

If you plant corn, you want them all emerging within 48 hours of each other. That way you have a uniform stand - all the plants are at roughly the same stages throughout their lifetime. If you have a late bloomer - a plant who emerged late to the game, the other plants can sense the light being reflected off the smaller plant and they "see" that sucker plant as a "weed". Now, 2 things occur here:

1) The larger plants go into full throttle mode: They know there is a "weed" right next to them, so they put all their energy into growing up and above the "weed" so as to get ahead of it for light. They don't worry about the lower leaves or disease pressure, they only worry about achieving maximum physical size to "beat" the other, late emerging plant. 

2) That late emerging plant realizes the same thing - All the bigger plants around it are "weeds" so that plant tries it's hardest to keep up - but it never can, it's just too late to the party to keep up. In focusing all it's energy on growth, the little late emerging plant is prone to pick up diseases, and be hit hard by insects etc. because its "immune system" is taking a back seat while the "growth" is taking the lead role. 

This hurts both yield of the crop - because those plants are focusing all their efforts on growth vs reproduction, and it hurts quality because growth is their biggest worry, and immune response is of lesser concern. 

Maybe the same thing is at play with our plants? They are "sensing" all the pressure from surrounding plants and are not focusing on health, but rather upward growth only to "beat" the other species resulting in lower leaves being shed, nutrient requirements being altered, abandoning slightly damaged tissue instead of repairing it etc. etc. 

It should also be noted that when in full sun - no / low competition, plants will send out more off shoots instead of focusing on upward growth. I see this in a corn crop when the farmer plants at too low of a population - the corn will send out little sucker plantlets off the base - which are prone to disease and typically hurt yield instead of help. This means the farmer should have planted at a higher population to reduce plants sending out little suckers. Could the same thing be said with aquatic plants? Who knows, I'm just blabbering about atm. Think a standing, lone tree in a field vs the same species within a dense forest - VASTLY different growth habits.... Interesting to say the least.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

@Greggz I thought I would move this discussion here as we threadjacked dennis's thread.



Greggz said:


> I can only to speak to my reasoning for lowering K. In the past, I was raising the KH of my RO water to about 4 dKH. Using K2CO3 that meant a lot of K....50+ ppm.


I don't understand why the calculators (Rotala and Zorfox's) are stating Potassium in ppm is the same between KHCO3 and K2CO3 something I am missing but you should have half the potassium for the same carbonate so I'd use Potassium Bicarbonate if you could find it over Potassium Bicarbonate for sure.

However my preference if I ever do RODI is to to go to a Kh=3 and live with 25ppm of Sodium. Not sure why you don't want that level of Sodium in your tank?

Why kh=3? well S. Repens for one are stated to need a minnimum hardness and I wonder about other species. Plus for Shrimp and Snails the pH range seems a lot safer for them. I'd rather not go below ph=6.5.



> I tried many times to lower NO3 & PO4, as I just thought it should work. It never did.


That is a mouthful right there and looking at the chart at one point you had phosphate up to 18ppm!
According to Mulder's chart K inhibits NO3 and PO4 so its possible that is/was the problem.



> Then I was having a discussion with Joe, and he mentioned that he had been speaking with Vin Kutty about a guy from Germany who keeps all his tanks with K lower than Mg with great success. So I said what the heck, I've gone this far, might as well jump further down the Rabbit hole.


That is funny, "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy from Germany who keeps K lower than Mg with great success" 
Why K lower than Mg I don't get the relationship? (How high are Ca, Mg and K though?)



> So then I started slowly lowering my KH and total K even further. KH now is just about 1 or so, and I am using MgNO3 instead of KNO3.


Calcium Nitrate is readily available here maybe I'll use it in the future. I get what you are trying to do if you refuse to use Sodiam Bicarb.



> So I REALLY lowered my K. At the same time I began lowering everything else in proportion, including micros. I figured the worst thing that could happen was going back to my old dosing scheme, which I was all in all I was pretty happy with.


Biggest problem is it could take months before your plants really show deficiencies and by that time you probably have changed many things (added/removed plants) many other problems.



> So far it has worked out very well. Biggest difference is nuisance algae like GDA on the glass is totally gone. I'm still paying very close attention to see if any deficiencies pop up, like what happened to Joe.


I found the same thing as soon as I lowered my dosage GDA was reduced immediately. Dennis has talked about this on his website as well.
I was so nice to be in Tom's world were excess of everything had no negative effects but that was a bit of "ignorance is bliss".



> Also shows that the system can withstand some pretty wide swings in dosing yet somehow manage to do OK.


Once plants are healthy and robust they can have stores of nutrients saved up, they can be pretty resilient that is why it may take a lot longer to see deficiencies in some case. I guess countering that is you guys use such strong light so you are driving growth so fast those stores are depleted more quickly.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Good stuff @Quagulator, very interesting.

@cl3537 K lower than Mg was/is an experiment Vin and I were doing specifically for Lythracaea (ammania, etc). Based conversations with Hans-georg Kramer. Who is a biologist and also a long time hobbyists, wrote a book on the subject and also writes for a German mag which name escapes me atm. Expert plant grower.

There is another German scientist, Solinger, who's taken the research a step further and arrived at the same conclusions. Vin's had conversations with him also

Prior to this, Id already seen good results from lowering K levels, and I'd always had better results from high Mg.

Kramer's ratio, which a lot of Europeans follow, calls for 4-2:1 Ca:Mg, with K equal to or lower than Mg.

Why? Because in their experiments Lythracae has repeatedly been demonstrated to stunt/unstunt with K being higher/lower than Mg. 

NO3 being high or low, as is usually associated with stunting Lythracaea, becomes less important if that ratio is kept. Still needs to be low by U.S. standards, 10-20/week, but not as low as Dennis' levels. Also, having a low KH say 3 or less seems to mitigate the adverse effects of high NO3 (on Lythracaea)...up to a point.

Personally, Im not convinced there's any magic to keeping that exact K:Mg ratio. But Ive only tested it out with fairly high NO3 when my KH was still 6. But I do know that getting in the general neighborhood has been very good for everything.

I think most folks around here could benefit from kicking up the Mg a little bit, and keeping K in the same range as NO3 or slightly less (if dosing EI levels). At least something closer to that instead of larding on 50 ppm from pre-fab GH boosters because hey, K cant hurt anything right?


How's that for overthinking nutrients? :red_mouth


----------



## LRJ (Jul 31, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> @Greggz
> I don't understand why the calculators (Rotala and Zorfox's) are stating Potassium in ppm is the same between KHCO3 and K2CO3 something I am missing but you should have half the potassium for the same carbonate so I'd use Potassium Bicarbonate if you could find it over Potassium Bicarbonate for sure.


I had wondered about this as well, but I think what's going on is that the carbonate can take twice as many H+ ions as the bicarbonate, so it only takes half as much carbonate as bicarbonate to get an equivalent increase in KH. Half the potassium but 2x more bicarbonate than carbonate leads to the same change in K. At least, that's my understanding.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

LRJ said:


> I had wondered about this as well, but I think what's going on is that the carbonate can take twice as many H+ ions as the bicarbonate, so it only takes half as much carbonate as bicarbonate to get an equivalent increase in KH. Half the potassium but 2x more bicarbonate than carbonate leads to the same change in K. At least, that's my understanding.


I am so rusty these days of course that is it! 
The Carbonate <> Bicarbonate equilibrium below 8ph is predominantly Bicarbonate so dosing Potassium Carbonate gives you 2 molecules of Carbonate to 2 molecules of Potassium thus its about the same as using Bicarbonate at 1K to 1CO3 .


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> @Greggz
> However my preference if I ever do RODI is to to go to a Kh=3 and live with 25ppm of Sodium. Not sure why you don't want that level of Sodium in your tank?


In general most plants don't like salt. Now it would probably take much higher concentrations to be toxic, but I prefer not to add it. I use the RO system to remove the salt from my softened water, and don't want to add it back in. 



cl3537 said:


> Why kh=3? well S. Repens for one are stated to need a minnimum hardness and I wonder about other species. Plus for Shrimp and Snails the pH range seems a lot safer for them. I'd rather not go below ph=6.5.


I have no experience with shrimp, other than a few days before my Loaches devoured them. And I don't keep S. Repens, so can't say how low KH might affect it. I will say I don't have a plant so far that doesn't like the lower KH. Like Burr said above, in general might be a good thing for many species. My pH is at 5.70 during the lighting period. 



cl3537 said:


> That is a mouthful right there and looking at the chart at one point you had phosphate up to 18ppm!
> According to Mulder's chart K inhibits NO3 and PO4 so its possible that is/was the problem.


Now that was interesting period. I wanted to test the upper limits of PO4. Most things loved it for a while, especially Ludwigia. But I did find the upper limit. Suddenly things went south. Most notably was a beautiful group of L. Macranda Variegated. Went from red/pink to a complete loss of color in a day or two. Dang near killed it. I covered the whole episode somewhere back in my journal.

So I found a level where it was toxic in my tank, but it was far, far higher than I ever expected. 

And I do believe that my excess K led to the need for more NO3 & PO4.



cl3537 said:


> That is funny, "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy from Germany who keeps K lower than Mg with great success"
> Why K lower than Mg I don't get the relationship? (How high are Ca, Mg and K though?)


Burr covered this pretty well above. I don't mind trying new things, and I was already pretty close to being there, so it wasn't going much further. Like Joe said, I don't think there is any magic numbers there, more like general guidelines to explore. 

And so far results have been good, but watching things closely to see if anything changes. Have bumped up K by 5ppm last two weeks, and growth picked up. But not sure if that is a good thing or not. 



cl3537 said:


> I found the same thing as soon as I lowered my dosage GDA was reduced immediately. Dennis has talked about this on his website as well.
> I was so nice to be in Tom's world were excess of everything had no negative effects but that was a bit of "ignorance is bliss".


No question that is the biggest difference. I never had a big problem with GDA, but would wipe the front glass during a water change. I'm shocked at how clean it is staying now for weeks. 

Now I am well aware that this all might seem like an example of spending too much time on fert dosing. I look at it another way. I was dosing very, very rich levels for quite a long time, and was reasonably successful (by my standards!). One thing that has never changed is taking light, CO2, and maintenance seriously. IME, get those right and you have a lot more leeway to monkey around with fert dosing.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Greggz said:


> Now I am well aware that this all might seem like an example of spending too much time on fert dosing. I look at it another way. I was dosing very, very rich levels for quite a long time, and was reasonably successful (by my standards!). One thing that has never changed is taking light, CO2, and maintenance seriously. IME, get those right and you have a lot more leeway to monkey around with fert dosing.



Interesting that you mention this...
So, for the last few weeks I have been lowering the KNO3 dosing in my 75g and, to a lesser degree, the wifes 40g tank. For this week I was dosing 17ppm KNO3 total, down just a little bit from the 30+ that I used to dose. So, just for grins I test the NO3 level in her tank and my tank tonite - to my surprise both test tubes were still pretty red. Not dark red, but red enough. Decidec to test the tap water as well - get a light orange. So, the API test solution must be working to some degree. 



Looks like I will be headed even lower over the next few weeks :grin2:


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Quagulator said:


> My day job is selling farm inputs, and making agronomic recommendations to growers.
> 
> This is for terrestrial crops, but similar things could be happening.


Very, very interesting stuff. 

I've been saying for a long time that plants seem to enjoy a little elbow room between species. And after a good trim and reduction of mass, everything seems happier.

Never really thought of why, have just observed it. 

Maybe there is some correlation between your post and our aquatic plants. Great food for thought.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Wrong thread.


----------



## AguaScape (Oct 28, 2018)

@Xiaozhuang Thank you Dennis for linking your site. I never made the connection that you are Dennis Wong until I followed your link. Great read. I have read every word over the last few days. A lot of good sound advice there. Very well laid out site.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Xiaozhuang said:


> They replenish the soil now and then. They do have 1 or 2 tanks (older ones from what I saw when I visited) that has more serious dust on rocks. The rest of them are pretty clean. And also they can just replace plants that are not doing well - so pictures can be deceiving, they remove types of plants that are not doing well over time. ADA seem to have updated their fertilizer range (I'm not updated on that, but I think they have NO3 dosing now... not sure in what amounts).
> 
> Tank cleanliness plays a large role. My farm tank has 8 Tubes of T5 over a 47gallon - extrapolating from PAR tables that is nearer to 200 umols at the substrate than 100... that tank is dosed quite lean as well but just as spotless. Vin kutty came and saw that setup for himself - and we pretty much concluded that its more the effect of consistent plant upkeep (pruning, replanting) & maintenance (vacuum substrate now and then), consistency/quality of water parameters, biological stability of a matured tank - things that can be definitely replicated elsewhere with "some training and experience".


I have worked the last week or two on meticulous cleaning of my tank. Water changes every 3 days 50%+, weekly cleaning of the filter, , and comprehensive blow and vacuum of all plans and the substrate during WC. (thanks for the new method!)

Before I had a Chihiros A601 and running it at 100% gave me algae very quickly(within hours GDA on hardscape). GDA, GSA, and HA. I could get GDA on hardscape and glass within a couple of hours if I ran it at 100 par at substrate 150+ on some hardscape. Had to run it at 60% and get 50 - 60 par at the substrate.

Now running a Twinstar 600S at 70% which is the same/greater PAR(80 - 120 at substrate) or a bit higher, better spread, and I haven't seen any GDA or GSA in a while. 

Front glass is pretty clean I haven't had to clean it in days. I have never had less biomass in the tank as well as I did major trims as well.
Definitely seeing cleanliness being more important than adjusting ferts and even than adjusting light.

I'll be tearing down this tank, your Diorama scape has inspired me to try something similar in an an ADA 60p clone but certainly this thread was helpful thanks. Trying hardscape with lava rocks and spiderwood.


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

First, fantastic thread to all involved, this has easily been the best discussion I've read in the last year.
Thank you @Xiaozhuang for your efforts to _advance _the community as a whole (sorry, my puns are a terminal case) particularly to consider all the various causes of algae, instead of simply assuming that high light produces it. I'm now cleaning religiously compared with before and looking forward to improvement in things.
Thank you to @Greggz in particular for your religious data keeping for fertilization.
Thank you to @Maryland Guppy for the laughs.
@Asteroid and @cl3537 you're both relatively new to the community as far as I know but clearly you've been doing research, and have experience, your words show it, I'm looking forward to your contributions to the PT community in the next few years.
Thank you @OVT for saying it like you see it. We need people to be honest at times to help avoid "group think"/"crowd/forum mentality."
Thank you @burr740 for the historical perspective you bring and familiarity with Tom Barr's methods in particular, not everyone on this forum reads the report (or at least I know I would certainly benefit from spending more time there, but this is the forum I've called home).
@ipkiss congrats on your 1,000th post. I also laughed when you reminded people (post#26) that YOU remind people to turn down light at times when others don't think to. (though we can see in this thread that lowering light will reduce algae growth but may not remove the actual cause of it.
Thank you @Deanna for "There is no doubt that all the non-nutrient aspects are a major contributor to my success and, because of the move away from EI, I have been able to maintain the appearance but with greatly throttled growth and, therefore, lower maintenance. We should encourage and be tolerant of all voices."
Thank you @happi for being willing to dissent and avoid "group think" as well as being a long time member of the hobby who's got a historical perspective to offer.
Thank you @Quagulator for the very fascinating agricultural insight in post #91

I could go on, but this post is already very weirdly appreciative for the norm here. I know I'm not a recognized pro on the boards but that doesn't mean I'm not reading some of what most of you contribute, and you've all contributed to a fantastic community.

That having been said, @Xiaozhuang seems to be pointing to a general notion that I haven't seen stated quite this clearly: Algae is not caused by light, fertilizer or CO2, rather it is a "plant" that seems to opportunistically grow and feed on compounds produced via methods other than chemical fertilizers (urea/ammonia excluded?) but rather as a result of either plants leaching nutrients(?) due to some form of stress (of which many have been mentioned) or fish producing waste which can leach these particular waste nutrients. The various things produced by those processes I'll assume are much more organic in nature than our fert salts and likely tied to specific bacterial action as well. Algae is nature's process for cleaning up after fauna and flora waste. If we remove fauna waste products before they can feed bacteria (which may create by products which feed algae, not just nitrate) or algae, then we starve algae off.

Is that correct? (sorry for the lengthy/necro? post)


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks! But now I'm labeled for humor! >

Sometimes I calls um like I see um and it ain't so funny.

Dennis has taken the time to construct an excellent website.
As I have said before it should be a required read before ever purchasing plants.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Thanks! But now I'm labeled for humor! >
> 
> Sometimes I calls um like I see um and it ain't so funny.
> 
> ...


Humour is so important in life~ 
I mean joy is also important in the hobby. I think folks that spend time studying plant growth etc want to improve in general and thats a good thing, but I think most folks tend to be too harsh on their own tanks. Sometimes, we are really picking at small details whereas if most of the public saw the average tank here - they would be damn impressed. We should not let too much fault-finding and micro-management destroy the pleasure of owning nice planted tanks


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Xiaozhuang said:


> but I think most folks tend to be too harsh on their own tanks. Sometimes, we are really picking at small details whereas if most of the public saw the average tank here - they would be damn impressed. We should not let too much fault-finding and micro-management destroy the pleasure of owning nice planted tanks


It would be a lot easier if you would stop posting pics of your tank!:grin2:


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

Something we Really need is pics of tanks that are well maintained just before a haircut. Or showing what a clump of stem plants that are past just trimming and just need to be pulled and replanted with tops. Maybe a pic of the same thing everyday for a month or two showing the ebb and flow of “perfect”. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Blacktetra (Mar 19, 2015)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Humour is so important in life~
> I mean joy is also important in the hobby. I think folks that spend time studying plant growth etc want to improve in general and thats a good thing, but I think most folks tend to be too harsh on their own tanks. Sometimes, we are really picking at small details whereas if most of the public saw the average tank here - they would be damn impressed. We should not let too much fault-finding and micro-management destroy the pleasure of owning nice planted tanks


I fully agree with this. 75% of my time looking at my tank is spent figuring out what is happening, where I see growth, where I don't, how it looks, if I need to change something, and measuring how my battle with the 6 tufts of BBA is going (I could just spray with Met14 but then I wouldn't know if tank conditions were finally favoring plants 100%)
Then we have friends over and they say "wow, are those real plants!? That's fantastic" and I'm LEARNING to say thank you, instead of quickly showing them pictures that I see as goals to reach, explaining that my tank really isn't special. We could all be reminded how beautiful our tanks really are, and learn to enjoy them 90% of the time, rather than find something to fight with.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Blacktetra said:


> ...
> That having been said, @Xiaozhuang seems to be pointing to a general notion that I haven't seen stated quite this clearly: Algae is not caused by light, fertilizer or CO2, rather it is a "plant" that seems to opportunistically grow and feed on compounds produced via methods other than chemical fertilizers (urea/ammonia excluded?) but rather as a result of either plants leaching nutrients(?) due to some form of stress (of which many have been mentioned) or fish producing waste which can leach these particular waste nutrients. The various things produced by those processes I'll assume are much more organic in nature than our fert salts and likely tied to specific bacterial action as well. Algae is nature's process for cleaning up after fauna and flora waste. If we remove fauna waste products before they can feed bacteria (which may create by products which feed algae, not just nitrate) or algae, then we starve algae off


I'm not sure if this is coming from just years of observation or actual scientific data, but either way it really doesn't matter how you define "cause" it matters whats going on in your setup Reducing and removing organics is always a good idea in a dosed tank. The more that is removed the more wiggle room you have with light, stock, etc. 

So within the confines of an aquarium too much light brings out the algae to nuisance levels. The ability for a tank to grow algae is always there. The threshold is different in every tank for it to truly grow. Algae doesn't need much. If you put a tank out in the sun with no life stock or plants algae will still grow, just based on the available "nutrients in the water" and the spores that exists. The trick is to keep the spores, spores by learning the threshold of a tank.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

@Blacktetra i have written an algae article for my group page on facebook, maybe it could help answer some questions. if you read my article you will find that decaying plant only cause certain types of alages, BBA is the main one. i have also talked about how certain ferilizer, ratio etc cause certain types of algae

I also see people saying "HC is a good indicator of Co2" i have a HC that is growing Lush in Non CO2 tank, i can post pics at request, that tank is no longer setup as it was many years ago, but it should prove this HC and Co2 thingi.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

happi said:


> @Blacktetra ...
> 
> I also see people saying "HC is a good indicator of Co2" i have a HC that is growing Lush in Non CO2 tank, i can post pics at request, that tank is no longer setup as it was many years ago, but it should prove this HC and Co2 thingi.


I would like to see a pic if you wouldn't mind. If your using soil (dirt) and/or used DSM all bets are off.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Asteroid said:


> I would like to see a pic if you wouldn't mind. If your using soil (dirt) and/or used DSM all bets are off.


https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=652889&d=1468632519 

the tank was flora max and old ADA soil mixed, there is some minor GDA as well, but that's not important, neither is the soil in this case as we are trying to debunk this HC and CO2 theory.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Raj has pantanal growing low tech but that doesnt mean it wont care about co2 in any other tank. 

The game changes when we add co2. Plants adjust their inner workings based on what's available to them. When co2 is brought into the picture, it better be at a certain level, delivered efficiently, and stable from one day to the next.

Growing something low-tech one time proves nothing, and is really irrelevant to what happens in a co2 injected tank.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

happi said:


> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=652889&d=1468632519
> 
> the tank was flora max and old ADA soil mixed, there is some minor GDA as well, but that's not important, neither is the soil in this case as we are trying to debunk this HC and CO2 theory.


If it's actual soil of course it's important since there are a vault of plants that won't grow well without co2, but will grow with the co2 produced from soil.

Here's the thing. That looks good, but it's not really a myth since you could take 100 tanks here on TPT and they will have bad results growing HC without co2, but if you keep everything the same and simply add co2 the HC takes off and grows very lush. So at the end of the day, your trying to help the typical aquarist without the experience or dedication you might have. I have grown HC and Riccia (submersed) without co2 as well, but I still wouldn't recommend it to the community at large.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

while we are talking about algae, i can promise you that high light doesn't cause algae even under low nutrinet's or low CO2, i have repeated this test several times, long as the plant mass stays high, the article can explain it in much more detail. the other thing we have seen is that lights with full spectrum tend to cause more algae, this isn't a confirmed test but it appear as this is whats happening, say you have light with 100 Par that is rich in Blue and red Spectrum only and say light with 50 PAR and rich in Blue, Green, Reds. you are more likely to face algae issues with the 2nd one.

Bump:


Asteroid said:


> If it's actual soil of course it's important since there are a vault of plants that won't grow well without co2, but will grow with the co2 produced from soil.
> 
> Here's the thing. That looks good, but it's not really a myth since you could take 100 tanks here on TPT and they will have bad results growing HC without co2, but if you keep everything the same and simply add co2 the HC takes off and grows very lush. So at the end of the day, your trying to help the typical aquarist without the experience or dedication you might have. I have grown HC and Riccia (submersed) without co2 as well, but I still wouldn't recommend it to the community at large.


i was pointing toward the Articles where people say "HC is a good indicator of Co2" in your own statement you can prove it wrong.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

This is where "articles" conflict with actual real world aquariums and there's always "head-butting" going on.

Having enough plant mass to keep algae away is a non-starter. One it's very limiting to what you want to do within the glass box, and two most I would say the vast majority who startup tanks don't have enough plant mass for that to really work. So the light does become the larger issue. Put your tank out in the sun and let's see how much plant mass you need to keep it clean vs a tank under an aquarium light.

Bump:


happi said:


> i was pointing toward the Articles where people say "HC is a good indicator of Co2" in your own statement you can prove it wrong.


Yes I would agree with that, with a condition. The leaf size is larger with co2. >


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

burr740 said:


> Raj has pantanal growing low tech but that doesnt mean it wont care about co2 in any other tank.
> 
> The game changes when we add co2. Plants adjust their inner workings based on what's available to them. When co2 is brought into the picture, it better be at a certain level, delivered efficiently, and stable from one day to the next.
> 
> Growing something low-tech one time proves nothing, and is really irrelevant to what happens in a co2 injected tank.


Joe, i believe you are missing my point. i tried several other plants in that tank which suppose require less co2 and they did terrible but some how HC did well, what does this tell us? HC is good indicator of CO2?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

happi said:


> Joe, i believe you are missing my point. i tried several other plants in that tank which suppose require less co2 and they did terrible but some how HC did well, what does this tell us? HC is good indicator of CO2?


To me it proves HC is adaptable if provided with other favorable conditions, same thing with Raj's pantanal. But in a co2 injected tank, both are very sensitive to poor co2. 

By poor I mean low or unstable. Up and down levels are a big problem because the plant stays confused how to delegate their inner resources. Like producing rubisco to deal with low levels, which is an expensive enzyme to make. 

Say a tank has just enough co2 when it's freshly trimmed, but two weeks later when biomass has doubled and circulation isnt what it used to be, the plants have to switch gears which causes growth to stall for a while. Then about the time they are adjusting to lower levels, boom, here comes a good trim and cleaning and co2 is back in abundance again. Well the plants start adapting to that... again. Rinse and repeat.

That is what's meant by unstable co2, and some plants tolerate it better than others. The ones who dont tolerate it well can be described as "good co2 indicators."

Whereas in a low tech aquarium, the plants can adjust with high rubisco (etc) and cruise a long fine because nothing is really changing. But that's not the same as tolerating "poor co2" in a co2 injected tank.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

One of the most popular questions in the low tech/non CO2 injected forum is "can I grow dwarf baby tears without CO2"
My answer to them is that.. "Failure rate of HC without CO2 is about 95%, that's why you see few low tech tanks with them. However, the 5% that succeed will be quick to post their pictures and brag about their success. Be wary of folks that claim anything is possible, just to brag about their results and boost their ego."

Hairgrass, HC, I've grown them without CO2, but I won't ever recommend them to folks without CO2 without telling them the average expected outcomes.

















Even though I favor lean dosing myself, I find no need to constantly put down folks that find success with other methods. Its easy to see who is here to spread genuine knowledge openly, and those that are here just to place themselves on a pedestal.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

there were many people who thought they were spreading the genuine knowledge for the last many years, they ended up belonging to that 5% later on.

genuine answer about HC: HC never was or never is a good indicator of CO2, the pic i posted of the HC might even look better than most HC out there which are grown under CO2, this HC was grown from one small clump i put in the center and it spread quite well over few months, it was simple method: add a decent light and decent substrate, add few fish and shrimp, almost no surface movement and watch this guy grow without CO2


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Xiaozhuang said:


> One of the most popular questions in the low tech/non CO2 injected forum is "can I grow dwarf baby tears without CO2"
> My answer to them is that.. "Failure rate of HC without CO2 is about 95%, that's why you see few low tech tanks with them. However, the 5% that succeed will be quick to post their pictures and brag about their success. Be wary of folks that claim anything is possible, just to brag about their results and boost their ego." Hairgrass, HC, I've grown them without CO2, but I won't ever recommend them to folks without CO2 without telling them the average expected outcomes.
> .


This pretty much echos my thoughts from above. 



Asteroid said:


> ...
> 
> Here's the thing. That looks good, but it's not really a myth since you could take 100 tanks here on TPT and they will have bad results growing HC without co2, but if you keep everything the same and simply add co2 the HC takes off and grows very lush. So at the end of the day, your trying to help the typical aquarist without the experience or dedication you might have. I have grown HC and Riccia (submersed) without co2 as well, but I still wouldn't recommend it to the community at large.


Bump:


happi said:


> ...add a decent light and decent substrate, add few fish and shrimp, almost no surface movement and watch this guy grow without CO2


Now your going beyond stating that HC is simply a bad indicator for good co2. That simply does not happen in the vast majority of tanks, so it's just not good information to put out there in that form.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

happi said:


> genuine answer about HC: HC never was or never is a good indicator of CO2, the pic i posted of the HC might even look better than most HC out there which are grown under CO2, this HC was grown from one small clump i put in the center and it spread quite well over few months, it was simple method: add a decent light and decent substrate, add few fish and shrimp, almost no surface movement and watch this guy grow without CO2


That's not a genuine answer. It's like saying an olympic athlete only needs 400 calories a day because your uncle survived on that much for a year while in a coma. 

I just explained in simple detail why one has nothing to do with the other. In many ways a tank without co2 can be a safer environment than a high tech with "poor" co2.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

forget the HC and CO2 thingy and move on, no time and energy to waste on such a topic that's not leading anywhere, just like the "Nutrients Don't Matter Topic" in the past, at least that one is getting somewhere


----------



## diverjoe (Oct 21, 2016)

How important is husbandry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

diverjoe said:


> How important is husbandry?


Depends how long you want to keep her?>>>


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Even though I favor lean dosing myself, I find no need to constantly put down folks that find success with other methods.


Unfortunately others do. 

And IMO, it brings otherwise very interesting threads to a halt. 

It makes me really appreciate your optimistic good natured approach Dennis. I am certain you have the best interests of the hobby and hobbyist in mind. It's folks like you, Joe, Vin, and a bunch of others here that make this hobby a pleasure to be involved in.

So thanks for participating here. While unfortunately it got sidetracked, nonetheless I think this was a very good topic for discussion, with much to be learned.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

The thing I never understood about trying to prove for example lean dosing is better is that not everyone is going to be able (available) to run a tank that way.

Lean dosing would generally require more attention on a regular basis to the tank to prevent something from bottoming out. Many, probably most hobbyists don't do that. The regular forum members are not typical hobbyists. I think a big part of the popularity of EI is that you can run it heavy and it will generally work for most people and types of plants. Testing is somewhat optional and if you dose heavy your much less likely to run short of something if your away or busy. 

Dosing style is tied to type of setup and lifestyle and it's not one size fits all.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Asteroid said:


> The thing I never understood about trying to prove for example lean dosing is better is that not everyone is going to be able (available) to run a tank that way.
> 
> Lean dosing would generally require more attention on a regular basis to the tank to prevent something from bottoming out. Many, probably most hobbyists don't do that. The regular forum members are not typical hobbyists. I think a big part of the popularity of EI is that you can run it heavy and it will generally work for most people and types of plants. Testing is somewhat optional and if you dose heavy your much less likely to run short of something if your away or busy.
> 
> Dosing style is tied to type of setup and lifestyle and it's not one size fits all.



 Very much NOT one size fits all. Something I am learning over the last few months with regards to lean dosing... your bio load can have a dramatic effect on dosing. In my case, my weekly NO3 dosing was around 30ppm. Basic E.I. would be 7.5ppm, 3 times per week or about 22-23ppm weekly. For many tanks this can make sense. 



Right now my weekly NO3 dosing is 10ppm and I am thinking it will go even lower than that in the up coming months. Now, how could I possibly get away with that you wonder? I got a lot of big fish!!!


So, I guess my point is - there can be other factors that can effect your specific dosing for your specific tank. And I thought this hobby would be easy, LOL


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Immortal1 said:


> So, I guess my point is - there can be other factors that can effect your specific dosing for your specific tank. And I thought this hobby would be easy, LOL


That's funny Linn.

I remember when I got started, I read where someone said it takes a year to get a tank in good balance. I laughed to myself, and thought come on how hard can this be? Provide some light, inject some CO2, EI dose, and you will have instant beautiful underwater garden. 

Turns out I was naive. 

Almost four years later and I am still trying to get it just right!


----------



## OreoP (Aug 12, 2016)

Greggz said:


> Almost four years later and I am still trying to get it just right!


Just when you think you are approaching a "Burr" look, your setup throws yet another curve ball and Joe brings in HCl!!!

But that's what keeps me going with this hobby..the constant evolution.


----------

