# EI dosing nitrate question



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

I want to make the leap into dosing ferts with the EI method. I have a couple questions before doing so though.

Firstly. I currently use root tabs because I have an inert substrate. Should I continue to use those in addition to EI or does EI eliminate the need for that?

2nd. My tap water already comes with about 15-20ppm nitrates and my tank is fully stocked with fauna. Its already a struggle keeping my nitrates under 40ppm despite the tank being heavily planted. Dosing even more nitrates feels like it would really be overkill. Can I just skip the nitrate day with the ei method or do I need to do some further calculations?


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Following for interest. Been thinking of switching to dry ferts lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Using EI doesn't eliminate the necessity of root tabs; think of the latter more as supplement to EI. You can skip it if you want, but having it is better.

You can leave out the nitrates if your tap water is already that high. Though, this does not eliminate the need for the other macronutrients (potassium and phosphorus), so be sure to add those (they are typically in a mixture with the nitrates, so when you say 'skip nitrate day', make sure that you are still adding these other two elements!)


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Darkblade48 said:


> Using EI doesn't eliminate the necessity of root tabs; think of the latter more as supplement to EI. You can skip it if you want, but having it is better.
> 
> You can leave out the nitrates if your tap water is already that high. Though, this does not eliminate the need for the other macronutrients (potassium and phosphorus), so be sure to add those (they are typically in a mixture with the nitrates, so when you say 'skip nitrate day', make sure that you are still adding these other two elements!)




Couldn’t he just dose potassium phosphate salts to cover both without adding nitrates?


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

Darkblade48 said:


> Using EI doesn't eliminate the necessity of root tabs; think of the latter more as supplement to EI. You can skip it if you want, but having it is better.
> 
> You can leave out the nitrates if your tap water is already that high. Though, this does not eliminate the need for the other macronutrients (potassium and phosphorus), so be sure to add those (they are typically in a mixture with the nitrates, so when you say 'skip nitrate day', make sure that you are still adding these other two elements!)


Estimative Index | Aquarium Fertilizer | Green Leaf Aquariums

Isn't the KNo3 just nitrates in this?

http://greenleafaquariums.com/aquarium-fertilizers-supplements/micro-macro-fertilizers.html

I think the K2So4 and KH2Po4 are the potassium and phosphorus right?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Tell us a little more about your setup:
- High or low light (PAR values would be great)?
- Photoperiod?
- Plant mass (lots of plants, or not)?
- CO2 level?
- Type of substrate?
- Type of filter and how often do you clean it?
- Good circulation (all plants swaying in the breeze)?


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Tell us a little more about your setup:
> - High or low light (PAR values would be great)?
> - Photoperiod?
> - Plant mass (lots of plants, or not)?
> ...


Medium/high light. Finnex 24/7 in 20gallon long. Probably in the neighborhood of 70 par


Photoperiod. I'm still working on that. Some people in another thread just told me 6 hours was plenty with an extended ramp up and down that happens with the finnex 24/7 but I've been trying to do 10-12 currently.

Lots of plants.


co2. I just try to keep the drop checker green so that's 30ppm I think.


ecocomplete substrate


aquaclear 50. I plan to clean it monthly but its barely over a month old so I've only cleaned it once.


No circlulation. I shoved a sponge into the hob filter to completely stop surface agitation. My betta hates any current and I was also having a huge problem with plants getting kicked up before they could root even with very light current.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

You probably need to find a way to establish sufficient circulation. Plants need to access the water column in order to absorb nutrients. It sounds like they have little access if there is no circulation. This means that they may be under-performing and not taking in all of the nitrate, let alone other nutrients, that they might. Lack of circulation also means that they may not be getting all of the CO2 that is available. I have read, here on the forum, that Eco-complete is not the best for planting (unless plants are able to root quickly) because it is so lightweight. Root tabs will help, but only because you lack the circulation needed for the plants to take full advantage of the water column. Normally, plants can be completely satisfied with water column dosing only. Are your fish thriving? Without any surface agitation, I’m wondering if there is enough gas exchange to supply plentiful oxygen.

I clean my filter weekly and am amazed at how much gunk accumulates in it. That gunk all converts to NH4/NH3, then nitrate. Try weekly cleaning to see if it helps with your nitrates. Additionally, Purigen will help to significantly reduce the nitrogenous organics that produce nitrate. It won’t remove nitrate that is already there, but it reduces the fish/food/decaying plant source of nitrates.

Having said all of this, 40 ppm NO3 shouldn’t hurt anything, but I do understand your desire to get it down. As others have said, you certainly don’t need to dose NO3 if you already have 15-20 ppm.

Answering some of your other questions:

KNO3 is what is usually used as the nitrate fertilizer, but the “K” indicates that it also has potassium in it. It is Potassium Nitrate. This is what you don’t want to add with your nitrates so high already.

Yes: K2So4 and KH2Po4 are the potassium and phosphorus and should continue to be added, along with traces.

Check your GH as well (API test kit ~$10). Your tap is probably fine, but it’s good to know.


----------



## kaldurak (May 2, 2010)

ashesarise said:


> Medium/high light. Finnex 24/7 in 20gallon long. Probably in the neighborhood of 70 par
> 
> 
> Photoperiod. I'm still working on that. Some people in another thread just told me 6 hours was plenty with an extended ramp up and down that happens with the finnex 24/7 but I've been trying to do 10-12 currently.
> ...


So I also have a 20g long and a finnex planted plus 24/7 CC. I also have decently high nitrate straight from the tap, 20 to 30 is what my test reads.

I run my light on max from 12noon to 5pm however I run my co2 from 6am to 6pm. I know that's different from the norm, but i get a good amount of sunlight in the room (nothing directly shining on the tank, but enough that I need co2 running all morning)

I couldn't imagine running a 10hr lighting period, personally.

I run an eheim canister for filtration, and an additional power head for co2 dispersal - my tank is not betta friendly concerning flow, but I am an underwater gardener first and a keeper of fish second at heart.

Based on my plant volume I dose 1/8 tsp kno3 on water change day only. On macro days I dose 1/32tsp phosphate and a heaping 1/32tsp potassium. 1/32tsp csm+B and flourish iron on micro days.

I get the tiniest amounts of a thread algae if I try extending my lighting on max, and so in the evenings I run the light at 10% brightness for my viewing pleasure. I *should* blanket my tank from 6am to noon so the ambient light doesn't throw off my tank, but instead I just turn on the co2 when I get up instead. Seems to keep everything in check.

I do not yet consider the tank to be heavily planted.

Added 2 pics - one of how bright the tank is with max light and the other at the light level I usually view the tank at. I'm not home except on weekends to really see the tank on Max.


















Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Darkblade48 said:


> Using EI doesn't eliminate the necessity of root tabs; think of the latter more as supplement to EI. You can skip it if you want, but having it is better.,,,


I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. If your dosing the water column via EI you would be dosing the full array of macro and micro. Using the root tabs in either case would not be necessary. The plants will take what they need from the water. Even Seachem that sells root tabs will tell you that you don't need both.

Root tabs would be beneficial only if your going away and wouldn't be around to dose the tank.


----------



## Cmors (Jul 22, 2017)

Based on your questions I'm going to suggest you go back to whatever dosing calculator you are using and run the numbers again based on the target numbers for EI. 

After choosing the ferts you want to use run each of them through the calculator and add up the total amount for the week. Based on the calculations, what is the total for week and does it match the recommendations for EI dosing. How many of the ferts are supplying potassium? When you sum the totals, do you meet/exceed EI recommendations?

Potassium Nitrate in the calc will tell you how much potassium and how much nitrate you will be adding. Same for mono-potassium phosphate. Add up what each is providing for the tank and compare to EI targets. Read up on what excess phosphate can/might do to your water quality. 

Some folks use potassium sulfate instead of potassium nitrate due to nitrate in the water supply/heavy bio load/heavy waste etc. If you are struggling to maintain a lower nitrate level already, perhaps you should consider this as well. 

If you want to use the root tabs, account for it in the totals for the week (this might be difficult/impossible to quantify) but know that EI dosing is talking about water column dosing.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

Cmors said:


> Based on your questions I'm going to suggest you go back to whatever dosing calculator you are using and run the numbers again based on the target numbers for EI.
> 
> After choosing the ferts you want to use run each of them through the calculator and add up the total amount for the week. Based on the calculations, what is the total for week and does it match the recommendations for EI dosing. How many of the ferts are supplying potassium? When you sum the totals, do you meet/exceed EI recommendations?
> 
> ...




Yikes! That went well over my head. I thought EI was just a brand of dry fertilizer Estimative Index | Aquarium Fertilizer | Green Leaf Aquariums

I didn't know calculators were a thing. I just looked into one and I have no clue what I'm looking at. I was just going to buy that stuff I linked and follow the directions on the site. I'm currently just using thrive for the water column and flourish for the substrate. The only reason I thought to switch to EI was to cut out the nitrates.... This is really really complicated isn't it? What the hell did I get myself into. I've already spent a good 200 hours and $800 on this so the sunk costs are keeping me going, but god damn. Thanks for dispelling my ignorance. I've been talking on forums and reddit about EI for over a week now trying to figure stuff out and people just kept linking that package on that site so that is what I thought it was.

Is there a book I can buy or online classes I can take or something? I've read hundreds of guides online now and this is the first I'm hearing of something like this. No idea how to process this information.

Bump:


kaldurak said:


> So I also have a 20g long and a finnex planted plus 24/7 CC. I also have decently high nitrate straight from the tap, 20 to 30 is what my test reads.
> 
> I run my light on max from 12noon to 5pm however I run my co2 from 6am to 6pm. I know that's different from the norm, but i get a good amount of sunlight in the room (nothing directly shining on the tank, but enough that I need co2 running all morning)
> 
> ...



Thanks! That is actually pretty helpful. I just may borrow your dosing schedule to check it out. Your tank looks to have almost exactly the same amount of plant mass mine does if not slightly less. This thread is the very first time I'm hearing anything regarding flow being beneficial to plants. Hopefully I'll be able to do without that.

Edit: aaaaand I just realized you weren't talking about http://greenleafaquariums.com/aquarium-fertilizers-supplements/micro-macro-fertilizers.html and I have no idea how to interpret any of that XD. I'll work on figuring it out.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

Deanna said:


> You probably need to find a way to establish sufficient circulation. Plants need to access the water column in order to absorb nutrients. It sounds like they have little access if there is no circulation. This means that they may be under-performing and not taking in all of the nitrate, let alone other nutrients, that they might. Lack of circulation also means that they may not be getting all of the CO2 that is available. I have read, here on the forum, that Eco-complete is not the best for planting (unless plants are able to root quickly) because it is so lightweight. Root tabs will help, but only because you lack the circulation needed for the plants to take full advantage of the water column. Normally, plants can be completely satisfied with water column dosing only. Are your fish thriving? Without any surface agitation, I’m wondering if there is enough gas exchange to supply plentiful oxygen.
> 
> I clean my filter weekly and am amazed at how much gunk accumulates in it. That gunk all converts to NH4/NH3, then nitrate. Try weekly cleaning to see if it helps with your nitrates. Additionally, Purigen will help to significantly reduce the nitrogenous organics that produce nitrate. It won’t remove nitrate that is already there, but it reduces the fish/food/decaying plant source of nitrates.
> 
> ...


My fish seem to be fine. All active, colorful, and no odd behavior aside from the betta building a bubble nest or the other fish attempting to spawn.

What would I do with my GH results? I just assumed it would be pointless for me because I'm already very well aware that my water would be classified well into the extremely hard category so I'd assume my GH would be off the charts.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

EI document

https://barrreport.com/articles/the-estimative-index-of-dosing-or-no-need-for-test-kits.38/


----------



## kaldurak (May 2, 2010)

ashesarise said:


> Yikes! That went well over my head. I thought EI was just a brand of dry fertilizer Estimative Index | Aquarium Fertilizer | Green Leaf Aquariums
> 
> I didn't know calculators were a thing. I just looked into one and I have no clue what I'm looking at. I was just going to buy that stuff I linked and follow the directions on the site. I'm currently just using thrive for the water column and flourish for the substrate. The only reason I thought to switch to EI was to cut out the nitrates.... This is really really complicated isn't it? What the hell did I get myself into. I've already spent a good 200 hours and $800 on this so the sunk costs are keeping me going, but god damn. Thanks for dispelling my ignorance. I've been talking on forums and reddit about EI for over a week now trying to figure stuff out and people just kept linking that package on that site so that is what I thought it was.
> 
> ...


Flow is very important. You want to see plant leaves just moving a little bit in all places in the tank. Think trees on a mild day just lazily swaying a bit.

That water flow is what's going to move nutrients and co2 to all applicable areas of the tank. Easy to see in mine when the co2 and the power head is running - looks like carbonated water circulating around my tank.

I turn off the power head at night and turn on an air pump connected to an bubble stone to oxygenated the water nightly.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## kaldurak (May 2, 2010)

And you have to keep in mind, EI dosing is *estimative* no two tanks are alike, even in the same house. The amount of plants, livestock, tap water conditions, sunlight, co2, type of substrate, etc etc - all have an effect on what you need or don't need to add to your tank.

Like I dose lower kno3 because my tap has a decent amount in it already. And I could easily slow down my tank a lot just by lowering the light intensity. In fact it's Easier to run lower levels of light for longer periods of time than to run crazy high light for short periods. In my exp. Again, every tank is different.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Frank158 (Oct 1, 2013)

@ashesarise

EI is not hard or complex. It's actually pretty easy once you've done some reading and research. It basically goes like this.

Dose NPK and co2 in enough quantities so none run out or become the "limiting factor"

Perform a 50% water change once a week to reset the tank as far as concentrations of NPK go so no need to be constantly fretting about testing water for concentrations once you get it running right.

You have high nitrates from the tap so just re-read @Cmors reply.

Cheers


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

kaldurak said:


> And you have to keep in mind, EI dosing is *estimative* no two tanks are alike, even in the same house. The amount of plants, livestock, tap water conditions, sunlight, co2, type of substrate, etc etc - all have an effect on what you need or don't need to add to your tank.


Good post, agreed, and little understood. 

You need to think of EI as a starting point. Very few successful planted tankers that I follow actually dose EI levels. It's adjusted over time, based on close observation of the tank/plants and how they react to changes. 

Sounds complicated? Yeah, it is. If it was easy every tank you see would be in full glory. The point is the optimal dosing for your tank isn't found in a chart or calculator. It takes some trial and error. 

In my opinion, don't worry too much about the actual numbers. Could be less nitrates, could be more nitrates (and everything else), pay attention to the plants and see what brings out the best in them. In my case it's usually more of everything, but each tank is different.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

kaldurak said:


> Flow is very important. You want to see plant leaves just moving a little bit in all places in the tank. Think trees on a mild day just lazily swaying a bit.
> 
> That water flow is what's going to move nutrients and co2 to all applicable areas of the tank. Easy to see in mine when the co2 and the power head is running - looks like carbonated water circulating around my tank.
> 
> ...


Any idea what I'd need to have appropriate flow for a 20 gallon long?

Edit: I unbaffled my aquacelar 50 hob and I got a Koralia 240. Hopefully I made the right choice.


----------



## Cmors (Jul 22, 2017)

As others have stated, this isn't horribly complicated. Now that you have a little better grasp, read the EI report and read threads here on this site. Once you think you understand go back to the calculator and start punching in numbers. Set a plan and stick to it for a week. Watch the plants and the algae, watch the tank for another week and make an adjustment.

Read more, get comfortable and read more. You'll be hard pressed to find a book that explains everything, these forums have a TON of insight and a lot of helpful experienced people. 

Some topics to read up on:

EI method
Solution dosing/dry dosing
Plant health/plant species 
CO2 and light levels. 
Algae types.

You've already invested...keep going and figure out what your tank needs. The payoff is a beautiful healthy tank. It's worth it when you can see the results.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

ashesarise said:


> Any idea what I'd need to have appropriate flow for a 20 gallon long?
> 
> Edit: I unbaffled my aquacelar 50 hob and I got a Koralia 240. Hopefully I made the right choice.




You said it’s an AquaClear 50, right?

Try mounting it on the side rather than the back, to get a nice side-to-side circular flow. It might be enough without the power head, but it’s still good to have on hand just in case. I keep two wavemakers on hand just in case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

varanidguy said:


> You said it’s an AquaClear 50, right?
> 
> Try mounting it on the side rather than the back, to get a nice side-to-side circular flow. It might be enough without the power head, but it’s still good to have on hand just in case. I keep two wavemakers on hand just in case.
> 
> ...


I agree. If you use an adequately sized filter flow is not something you usually have to worry about on most tanks, certainly not on a 20g. Power heads generally are just overkill IMO and not necessary as people add them to eliminate flow as one of the possible problems. 

I liken powerheads to root tabs. They are redundant to filters as root tabs are redundant to water column dosing.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

ashesarise said:


> What would I do with my GH results? I just assumed it would be pointless for me because I'm already very well aware that my water would be classified well into the extremely hard category so I'd assume my GH would be off the charts.


If your GH is low, that would be a problem. Too high can also be a problem, but it would have to be very high and that is not likely with most tap water. If you already know your water is hard, you don't need to test if it's something that over-complicates things.

Regarding the complexities of dosing, if your goals are simplicity, you don't need to get into all the individual ferts and calculations. Keep using the Thrive. They have two that you should use, one is for macros and the other is for micros. Just be aware that you will be dosing things you don't need, such as nitrates and [probably] phosphates. So, those may be on the high side (which won't hurt) in order to ensure other nutrients aren't limited. EI is just a way to ensure that no nutrient is limited. The RotalaButterfly calculator can help you with those two products and, as I recall, Thrive has EI dosing recommendations.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

asteriod said:


> I agree. If you use an adequately sized filter flow is not something you usually have to worry about on most tanks, certainly not on a 20g. Power heads generally are just overkill IMO and not necessary as people add them to eliminate flow as one of the possible problems.
> 
> I liken powerheads to root tabs. They are redundant to filters as root tabs are redundant to water column dosing.



My filter does not seem adequate. no matter how I position it I have a good 70% of my tank where the plants are not swaying at all. I see bubbles moving all over the tank, but the plants only sway directly next to the filter.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

ashesarise said:


> My filter does not seem adequate. no matter how I position it I have a good 70% of my tank where the plants are not swaying at all. I see bubbles moving all over the tank, but the plants only sway directly next to the filter.




Where is it mounted? On the back or the side of the tank?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ashesarise said:


> My filter does not seem adequate. no matter how I position it I have a good 70% of my tank where the plants are not swaying at all. I see bubbles moving all over the tank, but the plants only sway directly next to the filter.


There is nothing to this "the plants need to sway thing" why? It takes far less flow to move dissolved nutrients around the tank then it does to take plants to sway. If you have bubbles moving all around the tank you have enough flow for delivery.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

asteriod said:


> There is nothing to this "the plants need to sway thing" why? It takes far less flow to move dissolved nutrients around the tank then it does to take plants to sway. If you have bubbles moving all around the tank you have enough flow for delivery.


Because that is what I was just told in this thread. So they were wrong?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ashesarise said:


> Because that is what I was just told in this thread. So they were wrong?


Thread responses are opinions and user experiences. Just because someone is using a powerhead and or their plants are swaying doesn't mean it's necessary for a planted tank. You have to decide for yourself what you need based on the totality of what you've read.

One of the leaders in the planted tank space is ADA. Aqua Design Amano. They have large tanks (6 feet) with one filter and no power head. They don't even make them. 

There are many misconceptions and myths in the hobby.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ashesarise said:


> Because that is what I was just told in this thread. So they were wrong?


Depends on who you ask.

I'll give you my take, but it's only from my personal experience.

To me, good flow is often misunderstood. You want a good gentle wide flow, moving the water in some type of pattern so it circulates throughout the tank. In my tank spray bars are aimed up at the surface (ripples/oxygen), so the water flows across the top, down the front glass, then across the bottom to the back of the tank, where the filters are. When I vacuum most of everything that accumulates is right at the bottom back of the tank.

I see some tanks with plants swaying wildly about. Some plants flat out don't like it, and some types of algae thrive in the high flow areas. My plants much prefer a gentle soft flow. 

At one point, I had four power heads in my 120G because I read that's what you should do. Eventually I started removing them one by one, and now have zero. Each time I removed them the tank was better. Less algae and happier plants.

Now I do run three filters, so those alone create a good wide gentle flow. But even still, I recently increased the size of the holes in my spray bars to ease the flow a bit more. In my tank, I don't want plants swaying around. The plants do better for me without it.

Again, just my own observations, your mileage may vary.


----------



## ashesarise (Sep 13, 2018)

[


asteriod said:


> There are many misconceptions and myths in the hobby.


Tell me about it. As someone new, I have no idea what to listen to and what to filter out. Everyone seems to know what they are talking about and I'm just inclined to listen. Everytime I get told to do something, I'm getting pushed another direction a few days later. This is like the 10th time this has happened to me and it has barely been over a month. The powerhead seems like overkill to me and I don't think my fish enjoy it very much. I think I'll return it.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ashesarise said:


> [
> 
> Tell me about it. As someone new, I have no idea what to listen to and what to filter out. Everyone seems to know what they are talking about and I'm just inclined to listen. Everytime I get told to do something, I'm getting pushed another direction a few days later. This is like the 10th time this has happened to me and it has barely been over a month. The powerhead seems like overkill to me and I don't think my fish enjoy it very much. I think I'll return it.


Well, the good news is successful tanks exist with many different parameters and equipment. You don't need to hit a "bullseye. I'm just saying that things like power heads just aren't necessary in most tanks. Why have more equipment in the tank then you need to? Your tank is a normal size it's not some strange footprint that would not allow nutrients to flow form one end to the other.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

The reason for the plants swaying advice is because if you see all of your plants doing that, it means water is flowing everywhere and delivering nutrients. Like stated, it isn’t the end all be all, but it’s sound advice for being as certain as you can that the plants aren’t sitting in dead spots imo.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

varanidguy said:


> The reason for the plants swaying advice is because if you see all of your plants doing that, it means water is flowing everywhere and delivering nutrients. Like stated, it isn’t the end all be all, but it’s sound advice for being as certain as you can that the plants aren’t sitting in dead spots imo.


That IMO is exactly the myth that is spread. What dead spots? Most tanks are a few feet big in the shape of a rectangle. How can dissolved nutrients not be spread around the tank? It's pretty much impossible. Look at this video from the ADA Gallery. Look at the plants


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

asteriod said:


> That IMO is exactly the myth that is spread. What dead spots? Most tanks are a few feet big in the shape of a rectangle. How can dissolved nutrients not be spread around the tank? It's pretty much impossible. Look at this video from the ADA Gallery. Look at the plants
> 
> ADA Gallery - January 2011 - YouTube




Oh I completely understand what you’re saying. And tanks done by professionals or people on that level are going to be so well tuned, it’ll leave some of us with jaws on the floor wondering how it was done. But hasn’t it been well documented that flow can have a big positive impact when it comes to keeping tanks clean and free of major algae problems? I know there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but would it be easier on most people to make sure things are flowing well? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ashesarise said:


> Tell me about it. As someone new, I have no idea what to listen to and what to filter out.


Yeah no doubt it can be confusing. 

I think one of the issues is that some folks provide advice based solely on whatever they have read. You know, eager to let you know how knowledgeable they are. Yet in reality they have no practical experience with the advice they are giving. 

Dead spots are a good example. How many have actually tried both high flow and gentle flow? Then observed and took detailed notes on multiple species and how they reacted with each. I doubt there are too many. 

Yet dead spots are often cited as some type of bogeyman. Not saying they couldn't be an issue, but IMO having the right amount of flow is much less important than most think. And there are dozens of things way more important to focus on to become successful. If you got problems, I very much doubt adding a power head will cure them. At least not that I have ever seen.

Here's my advice. Look through the journal section of this site. Find some tanks that are similar to yours. Focus on tanks that have similar goals to yours, are well documented, with plenty of pictures so you can see what they have accomplished. Read those journals thoroughly. Reach out to those folks with questions. Start a dialogue. 

My experience has been that folks here are more than happy to share their experience, and they are easily your best resource.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

It has been shown that leaves benefit the more contact they have with nutrients. A prime example of poor nutrient distribution can occur especially with CO2. Dead spots often exist, but they may not be completely dead. A drop checker is an excellent way to measure dead/low spots. A dc placed near the surface will often show a wide disparity in CO2 levels from one placed near the substrate. This is an example of how important circulation is and how often we fail to ensure it. 

You don't need to set up a whirlpool, just be sure that water is moving through out the tank, either by observing swaying plants, bubbles or CO2 dc's. A dead spot means that those leaves are not accessing nutrients and detritus is likely accumulating in that area. Your plants will still be ok, but wouldn't you rather be sure of maximizing your growth rather than minimizing it? If you can't get complete circulation with your filter, try a wave-like pump such as the Hydor Koralia's ...and I agree with those that say to avoid powerheads, which create a too-focused stream.

I would advise against trying to duplicate ADA's tanks. you are more likely to fail than succeed. They are constantly monitoring, trimming, optimizing nutrients etc to keep those tanks at display-capable levels. Without a great deal of experience, that is difficult to achieve. As @Greggz mentioned, shoot for something that you see here on the forum, that you like, and start with that.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

varanidguy said:


> Oh I completely understand what you’re saying. And tanks done by professionals or people on that level are going to be so well tuned, it’ll leave some of us with jaws on the floor wondering how it was done. *But hasn’t it been well documented that flow can have a big positive impact when it comes to keeping tanks clean and free of major algae problems?* I know there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but would it be easier on most people to make sure things are flowing well?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In a "fish tank" that would be more true, as your trying to move solid waste into the filter since they are usually fish heavy. BTW this is where the whole 10x turnover thing comes from. Again 10x turnover isn't a problem but you don't need it. In a planted tank the main filtration is the plants and bacteria within the tank not the small amount of space in the filter so the extra flow needed to move waste into the filter is not a "key" issue IMO. Algae is controlled with healthy plants. Healthy plants don't need to dance in the wind.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> A drop checker is an excellent way to measure dead/low spots. A dc placed near the surface will often show a wide disparity in CO2 levels from one placed near the substrate. This is an example of how important circulation is and how often we fail to ensure it.


Agreed, can point out problems or confirm you are on the right track.



Deanna said:


> You don't need to set up a whirlpool, just be sure that water is moving through out the tank, either by observing swaying plants, bubbles or CO2 dc's.


Yeah there is fine line between good flow and mayhem. I see tanks with plants just being blasted with flow.....looks they can barely stay rooted. If flow is good then more must be better right? And believe me I went down that road, it's in my journal. Later realized I was doing more harm than good.



Deanna said:


> If you can't get complete circulation with your filter, try a wave-like pump such as the Hydor Koralia's ...and I agree with those that say to avoid powerheads, which create a too-focused stream.


Excellent advice. The Koralia's produce a wide gentle flow, as you say not focused. And generally a smaller model than you would think. Don't put your hand in front of it and think it's not doing anything. You won't feel much, but that is the idea.

You know it's funny Deanna, I was going to post some thoughts on this in my journal. Probably still will, as you can see, it's been on my mind.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> It has been shown that leaves benefit the more contact they have with nutrients. A prime example of poor nutrient distribution can occur especially with CO2. Dead spots often exist, but they may not be completely dead. A drop checker is an excellent way to measure dead/low spots. A dc placed near the surface will often show a wide disparity in CO2 levels from one placed near the substrate. This is an example of how important circulation is and how often we fail to ensure it.


The problem with your statement is "defining poor" It has has been shown that a simple in-tank diffuser is plenty to distribute co2 throughout a 4-6 foot tank. Doesn't matter if it's all ADA or not. I have done it so have plenty of other people. Unfortunately another myth that a tank that size requires a reactor. It's been done, over and over you can't say it hasn't



Deanna said:


> You don't need to set up a whirlpool, just be sure that water is moving through out the tank, either by *observing swaying plants, bubbles or CO2 dc's.* A dead spot means that those leaves are not accessing nutrients and detritus is likely accumulating in that area. Your plants will still be ok, but wouldn't you rather be sure of maximizing your growth rather than minimizing it? If you can't get complete circulation with your filter, try a wave-like pump such as the Hydor Koralia's ...and I agree with those that say to avoid powerheads, which create a too-focused stream.


It has already been mentioned by OP that he has bubbles everywhere but not swaying plants. So from his own observations the amount of flow needed to move bubbles around is less than to sway plants. This is more than adequate nutrient delivery. I've never used a power head or other water movement device and used filters on the small side and my plants pearl like crazy. There really is no basis for what your saying about the circulation other than it being your opinion. You need to be able to determine what's not sufficient which you can't do. 



Deanna said:


> I would advise against trying to duplicate ADA's tanks. you are more likely to fail than succeed. They are *constantly monitoring, trimming, optimizing nutrients* etc to keep those tanks at display-capable levels. Without a great deal of experience, that is difficult to achieve. As @Greggz mentioned, shoot for something that you see here on the forum, that you like, and start with that.


You know ADA is not just a gallery. They do seem to sell a few products here and there. When someone purchases ADA products they are not buying power heads or reactors from them even for their big tanks. ADA is a complete system. I don't think ADA is setting them up to fail by following their guidelines. I think if the system didn't work it would have been found out by now. In the gallery yes of course they have staff to brush away any algae etc. But if you watch the video there is pretty much no movement in the plants. And the co2 is delivered by a simple in-tank co2 disc. It's not smoke and mirrors. They are not replanting stems from a hidden tank that are swaying and putting them into an almost stagnant one. Your saying they are "monitoring, trimming and optimizing nutrients in their tanks" what's the difference if the nutrients aren't being delivered? That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

asteriod said:


> The problem with your statement is "defining poor" It has has been shown that a simple in-tank diffuser is plenty to distribute co2 throughout a 4-6 foot tank. Doesn't matter if it's all ADA or not. I have done it so have plenty of other people. Unfortunately another myth that a tank that size requires a reactor. It's been done, over and over you can't say it hasn't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bow to your greater wisdom.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Hey @asteriod. 

You seem to have some experience, you should start a journal. 

Any pics of your tank? Would like to learn more and see examples of your success. Sharing is a great way to advance the hobby, and we are all eager to learn.

IMO, plants swaying just a bit or not has really not much to do with the success of a planted tank. To me, too little is better than too much, but that is just my personal experience.

Looking forward to learning more and seeing your tank. Always interesting to see the methodology of others and the results.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I bow to your greater wisdom.


You could bow, just hold the sarcasm. :grin2:

Bump:


Greggz said:


> Hey @asteriod.
> 
> You seem to have some experience, you should start a journal.
> 
> ...


I'll have to get some pics up soon. I hope to be starting a new setup and will probably start a journal - thanks. 

Again, I'm not saying the gentle swaying is a bad thing, just saying as I think you've indicated it's not necessary for plants to receive adequate nutrient delivery. Of course if you have filter that is completely undersized for a setup that could be a problem, that's why I mentioned using an appropriate sized filter.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

This conversation made me curious, so I opened up a book I have on Aquarium Plants by Christel Kasselmann with the title _Aquarium Plants_. If you have this text I would recommend opening it up to page 14, section titled "Water" where the author discusses the influence that water movement, currents, hardness, pH value and nutrient composition have in influencing the growth of plants. The claims the author makes in this section are accompanied by citations to scientific studies that the reader can go to directly to verify. In other words, there is a chain of evidence, carefully documented by the author that allows the reader to verify and substantiate the authors own claims. This is what makes a person an expert ( a chain of verifiable evidence to support a claim)and allows them to be taken as such.

*Something I have learned after many years in fish-keeping, information from forums can be invaluable, but you must take what is given ( anecdotal claims of "x, y, z" ) and put them to the test by referring to specialized texts that only make claims if they have already passed beyond the anecdotal stage. These texts, when the science has not yet been verified through peer review and replication, will tell you "this needs more study" or the "dynamics of this is as yet unknown." The beginner is confused because he doesn't take that extra step to verify.

People on forums come together to share their anecdotal experiences and, when they want to take it beyond that stage, give supporting evidence to corroborate what they are saying from findings by experts. Experts being those who have the data that supports their claims. 

Nothing wrong with seeing yourself as an expert or "myth-buster" but, you cant be taken seriously by asserting that another's opinion is a "myth" when you have no evidence to support it.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

The evidence is in healthy plants that I have grown without any swaying what so ever. What are you talking about no evidence. Did you even read this thread? Did you look at the ADA video? You mean a book that is 20 years old trumps what they do? How are the ADA methods not evidence? I think they've earned the title of expert. So your saying the only way plants grow healthy is to view them physically swaying? Well thousands upon thousands of tanks would show evidence that this isn't true. 

Your don't actually believe everything you read in a book do you? Do you know how many things that are put out by periodicals in the aquarium space that are wrong. Its someone doing something and saying it works. How bout all the people not doing it and it works as well? Why don't you share the actual results of the 20 year old study. I'd like to see it and see if they compared it to plants without the same flow intensity hitting the plants.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

As I suspected another book talking mostly about what plants do in their natural environment and not in an aquarium. Although I don't put much stock in it, I think you better read the section about water again. First off no one is talking about stagnant water as the book compares moving water to. We were discussing the necessity for having to add power heads above and beyond normal filtration flow enough to get plants to sway. That was the basis of the discussion. 

In fact the section does mention that too much flow can be harmful. There are many other pieces of information that people no longer do or have discovered is not true since the book was written.

Here's some of my favorite passages from the book you referenced: Aquarium Plants - Christel Kasselmann

_"The majority of aquarium plants exist in stagnant or weak current biotopes. A smaller number are are found in fast-flowing waters with only a very few species being able to adapt to strong and ripping currents"

"...due to the fact that in stagnant water a surrounding zone low in carbonic acid will form around the plant due to the plant's respiration and assimilation, leading to a slowdown in growth. The positive effect of water movement is found in the destruction of this zone, thereby aiding diffusion processes. *The water movement only has to be strong enough to prevent the formation of such a zone low in carbonic acid around the plant. A further increase in water movement does not necessarily lead to an increase in the assimilation performance, but quite to the contrary, can again lead to an impediment of growth*."_

This all reads low flow, not power heads and swaying.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Discusluv said:


> *Something I have learned after many years in fish-keeping, information from forums can be invaluable, but you must take what is given ( anecdotal claims of "x, y, z" ) and put them to the test by referring to specialized texts that only make claims if they have already passed beyond the anecdotal stage. These texts, when the science has not yet been verified through peer review and replication, will tell you "this needs more study" or the "dynamics of this is as yet unknown." The beginner is confused because he doesn't take that extra step to verify.
> 
> People on forums come together to share their anecdotal experiences and, when they want to take it beyond that stage, give supporting evidence to corroborate what they are saying from findings by experts. Experts being those who have the data that supports their claims.


Here's the thing. There hasn't been, nor will there be, anyone conducting tests on my tank sitting in my den. And I haven't seen a single article that has been peer reviewed whose tests were conducted in an aquarium. 

I am not being argumentative, just realistic.

IMO, for our purposes, anecdotal evidence is about the best we have. Personally I put far more faith in someone who has actually created a thriving healthy planted tank than an "expert". 

In fact, many times some "expert" arrives on this site, cites all kinds of studies, and tells everyone they don't know what they are doing. And then when you ask to see a picture of the tank they disappear. Why? Because most of them have spent a lot of time reading, but haven't ever been successful at growing plants. 

To me, success in this hobby requires part science and part art. No two tanks are alike. And no "recipe" will be successful in every tank. The real key is being able to read the tank, notice subtle changes in plants, and fine tune everything for YOUR eco system. Try as some may, they won't find the answers on the web or in a book. 

It takes a lot of good old trial and error, which provides anecdotal evidence. And seen often enough, anecdotal evidence is valuable at the hobbyist level. Because, as I said, no one is conducting controlled scientific studies of aquariums. So we pretty much have each other and do the best we can.


----------



## rhiro (Sep 21, 2012)

You mentioned in your post that you are using Thrive. This is an all-in-one fertilizer which includes all your macro (nitrate included) and micro nutrients. This may be the reason your nitrates are at 40 ppm when including your tap concentration.

The following is listed on the sellers website: 1 pump(2ml) per 10g will add ~7ppm NO3, 1.3ppm PO4, 5ppm K, and 0.25ppm Fe

Essentially this is EI for a single dose. Depending on how often you dose and how much you dose is the key factor that you need to determine by watching how your plants react.

In general if you dose 1 pump for each 10 gallons then 1 dose/week = low light, 2 per week = medium light, 3 per week = high light. As stated these are just general guidelines.

Until you are more experienced I would continue with Thrive and test different dosing levels.

Your other alternatives is to buy the individual ferts and mix your own leaving out KNO3 or buy the individual K, PO4 and micro nutrients that for example Seachem sells under their Flourish line.

I am not aware of any all-in-one fert that excludes nitrates.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Discusluv said:


> This conversation made me curious, so I opened up a book I have on Aquarium Plants by Christel Kasselmann with the title _Aquarium Plants_. If you have this text I would recommend opening it up to page 14, section titled "Water" where the author discusses the influence that water movement, currents, hardness, pH value and nutrient composition have in influencing the growth of plants. The claims the author makes in this section are accompanied by citations to scientific studies that the reader can go to directly to verify. In other words, there is a chain of evidence, carefully documented by the author that allows the reader to verify and substantiate the authors own claims. This is what makes a person an expert ( a chain of verifiable evidence to support a claim)and allows them to be taken as such.


After reading the book a little further as I mentioned earlier and echoed by @Greggz the references are field observations from biologists and not conducted in the aquarium. There is no mention of co2 requirements for the extensive plant list that is contained in the book. We know it would be fairly impossible to grow some of these plants without co2 injection in the aquarium. The reason why is isn't there is because they are not injecting co2 into marshes and rivers in nature. In those environments the substrate (soil) plays are much larger role in nutrient delivery to the plants then it does in most aquariums especially hi-tech. 

Here is a passage from the book

_"The majority of aquarium plants are marsh plants which, in contrast to genuine aquatic plants, will in most cases develop a strong root system and extract most of their nutrients required for growth from the substrate"_

This is not true in most aquariums. So you could call the observation that hobbyists can't grow certain plants without co2 injection as anecdotal, but I would take that shared information much more seriously than a field study in a marsh/lake and equate that to a aquarium environment without co2.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Greggz said:


> Here's the thing. There hasn't been, nor will there be, anyone conducting tests on my tank sitting in my den. And I haven't seen a single article that has been peer reviewed whose tests were conducted in an aquarium.
> 
> I am not being argumentative, just realistic.
> 
> ...



I have had fish for 30 years, I would never claim that I am an expert. My observations in my tanks is in no way a definitive word on how something should be done. I can offer my experience and help to others. Share my opinions, but this is not science. Never will be. 

I stand by my recommendations to beginners, come here and get the anecdotal assistance-- go pick up your expert advice from texts that are scientific -based.

Bump:


asteriod said:


> After reading the book a little further as I mentioned earlier and echoed by @*Greggz* the references are field observations from biologists and not conducted in the aquarium. There is no mention of co2 requirements for the extensive plant list that is contained in the book. We know it would be fairly impossible to grow some of these plants without co2 injection in the aquarium. The reason why is isn't there is because they are not injecting co2 into marshes and rivers in nature. In those environments the substrate (soil) plays are much larger role in nutrient delivery to the plants then it does in most aquariums especially hi-tech.
> 
> Here is a passage from the book
> 
> ...


The only expert you are is in your own mind. 
I would never take you seriously because you are rude and condescending to anyone that disagrees with you. 

Check your ego.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Discusluv said:


> I have had fish for 30 years, I would never claim that I am an expert. My observations in my tanks is in no way a definitive word on how something should be done. I can offer my experience and help to others. Share my opinions, but this is not science. Never will be.
> 
> I stand by my recommendations to beginners, come here and get the anecdotal assistance-- go pick up your expert advice from texts that are scientific -based.
> 
> ...


Go back and check who was rude. You were. I couldn't care less if you take me seriously. The fact that you attached a reference that is based on field research of swamps and you claimed it was scientifically valid as it relates to aquariums shows your level of expertise. You can't even admit that it was a poor reference you still convinced it's scientifically-based for aquariums. 

If you read the thread it was never about any absolutes of yes or no, it was about the wide parameters that tanks exist in and tanks don't need heavy flow. You simply didn't read the thread, thus the poor study reference.



Discusluv said:


> ...go pick up your expert advice from texts that are scientific -based.


If you truly want to help beginners, please recommend one that is scientifically-based for aquariums.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

There are examples in posts throughout the forum of your rudeness- you are constantly getting in disagreements with others because of your fragile ego. 
No one will be surprised to find out someone called you out on your rudeness other then you-- blow-hard's like you never have enough self-awareness to know how little you really know.
Time to hit the ignore button. You are so boring.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Discusluv said:


> I have had fish for 30 years, I would never claim that I am an expert. My observations in my tanks is in no way a definitive word on how something should be done. I can offer my experience and help to others. Share my opinions, but this is not science. Never will be.
> 
> I stand by my recommendations to beginners, come here and get the anecdotal assistance-- go pick up your expert advice from texts that are scientific -based.


Only 30 years? I got you by at least a decade.:wink2:

And I'm sure as heck am not an expert either. Struggling along playing whack-a-mole like all of us here.

But I still don't buy searching out expert advice from scientific tests. IMO pretty much a waste of time for beginners or anyone else. It either works in your tank or it don't. Why makes little difference to me. 

Personally have never read a scientific paper that had much validity in our hobby. In fact, if you search hard enough, you can usually find another one that says exactly the opposite. 

But we all have different beliefs, and won't agree all the time. If that's what works for you, I am glad to see it. As always, enjoying the discussion, and appreciate hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

asteriod said:


> Go back and check who was rude. You were. I couldn't care less if you take me seriously. The fact that you attached a reference that is based on field research of swamps and you claimed it was scientifically valid as it relates to aquariums shows your level of expertise. You can't even admit that it was a poor reference you still convinced it's scientifically-based for aquariums.
> 
> If you read the thread it was never about any absolutes of yes or no, it was about the wide parameters that tanks exist in and tanks don't need heavy flow. You simply didn't read the thread, thus the poor study reference.
> 
> ...


 I do not help people with plants-- I would never assume myself to be even remotely knowledgeable enough. But, for general aquarium husbandry, fish health, medications, disease. I have many scientific-based texts I recommend.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Discusluv said:


> There are examples in posts throughout the forum of your rudeness- you are constantly getting in disagreements with others because of your fragile ego.
> No one will be surprised to find out someone called you out on your rudeness other then you-- blow-hard's like you never have enough self-awareness to know how little you really know.
> Time to hit the ignore button. You are so boring.


Yeah and I'm rude. 

You just can't handle being handed your hat because you have more post than me. You came into this thread to try and prove me wrong. That was your only intention and it blow up in your face. Go read your 20 year old book with field references from 1950. Did they have fish tanks back then?


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Given everything in this thread, what’s the harm of having plants lightly swaying or dancing in a current? Not talking about blowing around or having sideways leaves, but you know just a small bit of movement.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

It blew up in my face? What did?
The only thing I was attempting to demonstrate is you are not an expert.
That I succeeded in doing.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Discusluv said:


> It blew up in my face? What did?
> The only thing I was attempting to demonstrate is you are not an expert.
> That I succeeded in doing.


The only think you accomplished is showing why you posted in the first place and exposing your inexperience. Everything I said was dead on and it was even backed by your study of plants in nature (albeit) not really applicable. 



Discusluv said:


> I do not help people with plants-- I would never assume myself to be even remotely knowledgeable enough. But, for general aquarium husbandry, fish health, medications, disease. I have many scientific-based texts I recommend.


I see you changed your post. So why enter the discussion if your not "remotely knowledgeable enough" it was about plants and flow. When someone attaches a study from nature, it's a clear sign they know nothing, which has been proven by your own post above and further indicates your motivation.

Bump:


varanidguy said:


> Given everything in this thread, what’s the harm of having plants lightly swaying or dancing in a current? Not talking about blowing around or having sideways leaves, but you know just a small bit of movement.


I never once said there was anything wrong with it, I simply stated it wasn't necessary for good plant health. I'm pretty sure I went out of me way to say that several times.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

varanidguy said:


> Given everything in this thread, what’s the harm of having plants lightly swaying or dancing in a current? Not talking about blowing around or having sideways leaves, but you know just a small bit of movement.


Nothing at all wrong with it.

Just try it with a little more, then a little less. See how the tank does with each, and find the best for YOUR tank.

Again, not really one of the most important things to worry about.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

asteriod said:


> I'll have to get some pics up soon. I hope to be starting a new setup and will probably start a journal - thanks.


I'm from Missouri, show me!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Maryland Guppy said:


> I'm from Missouri, show me!


That's funny MG, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Can't post pics now because (insert excuse), but will soon. Seen it many, many times. Usually never ever happens. Because they don't exist.

But maybe this time is different, we'll see......................


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> That's funny MG, I was thinking the exact same thing.
> 
> *Can't post pics now because (insert excuse),* but will soon. Seen it many, many times. Usually never ever happens. Because they don't exist.
> 
> But maybe this time is different, we'll see......................


I can't post pics now because (the dog ate them).

I think you have me confused with a biologist from Wisconsin or a someone who attaches 50 year old studies from rivers and lakes.

I think you can tell from my posts they are more hobbyist in nature and not inapplicable scientific babble that doesn't relate to aquariums.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

asteriod said:


> I never once said there was anything wrong with it, I simply stated it wasn't necessary for good plant health. I'm pretty sure I went out of me way to say that several times.





Greggz said:


> Nothing at all wrong with it.
> 
> Just try it with a little more, then a little less. See how the tank does with each, and find the best for YOUR tank.
> 
> Again, not really one of the most important things to worry about.


Exactly. So I don't think it's bad advice to tell someone starting out that the safe bet is to see if your plants are lightly swaying/moving/dancing in some flow. If they are, then that's enough flow and it shouldn't be their problem.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, gentlemen. I'm not trying to be crass, but it seems that this argument has been blown out of proportion.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

This all began with the OP’s interest in reducing the base nitrate level that comes from water sources and organic decomposition, which isn’t critical, but we can all understand the desire to do so. IME, there are only three ways to accomplish this: water changes, chemical media (such as Purigen) and/or plant consumption. Circulation, IMO (based upon studies I find acceptable and anecdotal evidence of mine and others that I respect), is critical to ensuring plant consumption, especially CO2, which is never provided in the substrate. So, how do we assure maximum consumption? Certainly, one aspect to the answer is to have uniform coverage of each leaf by water movement, i.e.; circulation around the entire plant.

The best evidence of this is when we see the plant leaf being moved. Bubbles are not as reliable because, if they are the ideal size for dissolution, they usually dissolve before they show us the full path of circulation. Filter sizing is a poor way to be sure of acceptable circulation. Filter manufacturers, to my knowledge, have never assured us that a correctly sized filter guarantees optimal circulation for delivery of nutrients. I believe that their only concern, regarding size recommendations, is to ensure optimal turnover rate purely for the purpose of ensuring recommended nitrogen cycling. 

However, because of our myth-buster, I am wondering if the nitrogen cycle isn’t, in fact, a myth. We are being asked to accept new ways to verify studies, such as implying that any study older than 20 years needs to be put out for Monday’s trash collection. I haven’t seen any re-certification of the nitrogen cycle studies of the 60’s and 70’s so, unless someone can show me studies conducted in the last 20 years (is that too long?) and not studies from those unreliable things called books, I might be willing to formally declare the nitrogen cycle to be myth.

Let me quote some people that I respect, regarding the benefit of swaying plants and how these sources are perpetuating the myth that we are assured exists;



burr740 said:


> Try to get enough current back there so that the aromatica's lower leaves gently sway





Axelrodi202 said:


> *The current flow is still sufficient, with all plants gently swaying.*


*



klibs said:



You should be able to see your more delicate plants gently sway in the current in the ideal situation.

Click to expand...




Hoppy said:



If you are using high light, you need to do everything you can to make sure the CO2 you have to be adding gets to all of the plants. The requires that you have very good water circulation in the tank, and slightly swaying plants is the easy way to see that you do. With lower light it is still a good idea, but not nearly as essential.

Click to expand...

From James' Planted Tank - Algae Guide
“If you can see all you plants gently swaying then your flow should be good.”

From https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/the-soil-substrate-or-dirted-planted-tank-a-how-to-guide.18943/
“Water flow just adequate enough to produce a gentle swaying motion in most of the plants is considered optimum.”

Of course, like just about EVERY aspect of living room hydroponics, there is only anecdotal evidence, including that of our new myth-buster. I ask that those that believe that the value of measuring circulation by way of observing plants swaying is a myth, to offer countervailing studies/support, so that we can all make our own decisions on which is the real myth.

For those offended by sarcastic approaches to life, there is nothing that I can find in the forum rules that prohibit its’ use and I believe it to be useful in causing declarations of omniscience to be reconsidered.*


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

So you Scoured the forum under the word "swaying" and offer more anecdotal evidence of people who have their plants swaying? LOL

Again, you continue to miss the entire point. I never said, swaying is bad, I simply said it's not necessary for the flow to be strong enough to make plants sway for them to grow healthy so I'm not sure what your trying to prove. So it would be a "Myth" that this type of flow is a necessity. 

I've said over and over that there are many ways to do things. So for example if G. Farmer says 10x turnover and ADA says 2x is sufficient is one of them wrong or more likely have both found success with both turnover rates? ADA uses/recommends in-tank disc diffusers for large tanks and many professionals use reactors. Is one of them wrong? 

When people still complain that dosing NPK causes algae all it takes is one tank with high levels and no algae to dismiss that notion. Do you have any idea how many tanks are run with either no filter (which I'm not recommending) or very little flow without any plant and/or algae issues?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

asteriod said:


> So you Scoured the forum under the word "swaying" and offer more anecdotal evidence of people who have their plants swaying? LOL


That’s exactly what I did and exactly what we all do when trying to decide how to approach issues. Interestingly, not a single reference recommending against the swaying aspect was returned in the searches, which is why I asked for others to try to find and post opposing comments. LOL

You stated to the OP that swaying benefits are mythical and that it is unnecessary to do it.


asteriod said:


> There is nothing to this "the plants need to sway thing"


 In fact, it may be necessary in the OP’s tank because, as we all agree, each tank is different. When you say


asteriod said:


> I've said over and over that there are many ways to do things.


 and then discount one way to do things, it leaves me wondering. 



asteriod said:


> ADA uses/recommends in-tank disc diffusers for large tanks and many professionals use reactors. Is one of them wrong?


The OP does not have an ADA setup and I, for one, was assuming that the OP did not want to change out his substrate for Aquasoil and the Aquasoil – for a time – can make up for a lack of good (non-defined word) circulation. Perhaps I was incorrectly assuming that you were suggesting that the OP switch to ADA products but, if you weren’t suggesting that, then why point him in that direction?

Where we do agree is that, although not an issue that was raised, there are many CO2 diffusion approaches. I, too, have tried most of them (in-tank, in-line and reactors) and they all work …with good (undefined word) circulation. For my part, I will continue to recommend swaying plants as the best way to verify optimal circulation, much in the way that EI is recommended to ensure optimal minimums.

I have watched many members make statements that start with “Do you have any idea how many tanks are …” and my answer is always: “No, I don’t, but neither does anyone else.” As you are sensitive to sarcasm, I am sensitive to such unprovable statements.

I think a lot of the dissension in this thread is due to the finality created by the written word in posts, email, etc. We would probably find that we agree on most of this if talking over a lunch.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

This thread is now locked and the few of you bickering like crazy get to be front and center - so the rest of the forum can see how crazy you're acting. Like whiny babies.

If you want to fight? Go somewhere else. Want to be straight-up dumb? Take it elsewhere. Want to have decent conversation, share and learn? Stick around.

So, so stupid when people act like this on a plant forum.


----------

