# Cl3537's Very Green 17G



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

*Tank Parameters March 3, 2019*


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Well, will you look at that :grin2:


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Immortal1 said:


> Well, will you look at that :grin2:


You and Greggz guilted me into posting it sooner than I planned.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

So this has not been a great week for my tank.

1) Today I woke up to find my recently bought (2 days ago) True Siamese Algae Eater dead in the Ranunculus in the front. He/She did not make the transition to my tank, TDS at fish store is twice what mine is and pH is degassed value. I did acclimate him but much like Otocinclus these fish are bred and shipped and are often very weak. My tank was too small for him anyway and I didn't see him eat any algae while he was in my tank. 

2) Yesterday I lost two Otocinclus that had been in the tank for months, I found one dead in my canister filter and the other was caught in the inflow filter tubing of my skimmer. My mistake I wanted better flow and left the sponge out of the inflow, didn't think my Otos would even fit in the opening he was folded and stuck in there, I was wrong.

I also found alive luckily 1 large Amano Shrimp, 2 missing neon tetras and a dead Espei Rasbora half eaten in the filter. My suction is clearly stronger than I expected and a sponge at all times is mandatory. All of those were sucked into the filter overnight when I just left the hose without the skimmer and sponge in the tank.

The Amano and neons are doing fine but I'll have to replace the Otos and the Espei Rasbora. Unfortunately Montreal is cold this time of year and none of the trusted fish stores have Otos in stock right now.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

I do like that first pic in this thread.

hat said, sorry to hear about this weeks issues.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Great looking tank. I say about few more months here at TPT and you will some how manage to get atleast 15 more species of plants in there. Have fun and enjoy the ride


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

I have been battling hair algae which you might be able to barely see if you blow up the pictures. I expect it is because of the sunlight coming in from the windows behind the tank(see March 1 shot). It was mostly concentrated in the right back corner on my Rotala Rotundifolia closest to the windows but no stem plant was safe from getting it a little. It is a tiny amount but seeing it at all bothers my OCD.


As a result of it I tried the following:

1) I upped CO2, before I had just inline diffusor and pH drop from 8.2 to 6.8. ~24ppm CO2 max(kh=5). Now I am running it to ph drop of 6.6(~38ppm CO2). Bubble rate is even lower but the inline diffusor now feeds into my Eheim Canister inflow and I don't see any microbubbles in the tank. I know this is not advisable, but I have yet see a shred of evidence that for my situation it will damage my BB or impellor. The small bubbles from <2bps don't seem to be collecting, no burping, and I doubt the BB would be affected anyway.
2) I dosed Excel at 2X reccomended Daily dosage for 4 days without seeing any results.
3) I made sure my lights are only on at 60% for 6 hours a day broken up to 4 hours and then 2 hours on a dimmer.
4) I have trimmed most of the worst of it from the Rotala and Ranunculus, but I would hardly have any plants left if I got all of it.
New Growth on Rotala seems Algae Free for now but nothing is getting rid of it off old Rotala and Ranunculus. I put foam mats blocking the sunlight from behind the tank but ultimately I'll have to move it to another room where it won't have the problem.
5) On suggestion at the LFS I bough 4 Clithon small size nerite snails(I already have two large ones) that supposedly eat hair algae. They don't seem to go on any higher stem plans even if they are smaller. They mainly go on wood, glass and low stems(rarely).

I am impatient and especially with two less Otos I don't see my cleanup crew handling this problem as such I decided to NUKE my tank.

A Few hours ago *I added 1.5ml/Gallon Excel*, I am running my outflow higher and into the centre of the tank and my Eheim nano skimmer on full blast near the surface for the next 24 hours for oxygenation. Hopefully I won't kill my shrimp or fish. @Deanna I hope your method works and doesn't kill my tank, so far no signs of distress from the livestock. The increased flow is amazing with my fish being blown around a bit.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Sorry about the fish loss. 1.6 ph drop Otos wont tolerate that for too long. Atleast in my experience, Otos are usually the first to show any ill response to co2. And your right about them coming in to LFS already have gone through major stress.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

KZB said:


> Great looking tank. I say about few more months here at TPT and you will some how manage to get atleast 15 more species of plants in there. Have fun and enjoy the ride


Well you guys and your amazing Red and Purple plants and dutch scapes make it very tempting.
The first idea I had was to just tie/glue some red plants to the wood, I don't want to break up the green lawn yet. Any suggestions? I get a lot higher PAR on top of the wood(100+ par) and it might even help reduce algae there.

I suspect for Reds I will need a better light though with better color rendition. While my $40 Chihiros A601 seems to have more than enough PAR it washes out Dark Green to lighter green and wouldn't do well for reds. Also I have no idea what the PUR values are (won't unless I shell out $200 for a Seneye Reef) but I doubt it would be great. But I could no doubt grow them on top of the wood without issue I suspect.

Bump:


KZB said:


> Sorry about the fish loss. 1.6 ph drop Otos wont tolerate that for too long. Atleast in my experience, Otos are usually the first to show any ill response to co2. And your right about them coming in to LFS already have gone through major stress.


Did you see a change in behaviour from them as a result of the changes in CO2?


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

there are red plants that aren't so light demanding. These are some, I am sure others will chime in and share more varieties. If you wanted to stick something on your wood near the light, there are many bucephalandras that show different colors when grown with high light.

Ludwigia sp red
Red tiger lotus
AR mini
Ludwigia Gladulosa


----------



## Ken Keating1 (Nov 22, 2017)

Nice looking tank and great start on your tank journal!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> A Few hours ago *I added 1.5ml/Gallon Excel*, I am running my outflow higher and into the centre of the tank and my Eheim nano skimmer on full blast near the surface for the next 24 hours for oxygenation. Hopefully I won't kill my shrimp or fish. @Deanna I hope your method works and doesn't kill my tank, so far no signs of distress from the livestock. The increased flow is amazing with my fish being blown around a bit.


Report back, after Wed, and let us know how the hair algae is doing.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> 1) I upped CO2, before I had just inline diffusor and pH drop from 8.2 to 6.8. ~24ppm CO2 max(kh=5). Now I am running it to ph drop of 6.6(~38ppm CO2).


How are you measuring your pH? Liquid test or calibrated probe? 

The reason I ask is that you have something odd going on with your numbers. At KH of 5 your degassed pH of 8.2 seems unusually high. I would expect it to be somewhere around 7.6, based on ambient CO2 in the atmosphere. If you look at others with similar pH, you will see what I mean.

I would take a glass of water and let it sit out for a couple of days, and then test again. And if you don't have a calibrated probe, I would get one. 

Do you use a drop checker? While they aren't highly accurate, they do provide a visual indicator to confirm what you are seeing with your measured values.

As to ferts, l don't have any experience with Thrive. If you are going to try and take this tank to the next level, I would highly recommend getting dry ferts so that you can control the ratios. Looks to me like PO4 is light in relation to NO3, and B is very high compared to everything else in the micros. 

Of course, that depends how far you want jump down the rabbit hole. 

I also have no experience with your light. One thing to keep in mind is that a 17G tank is not very tall. This has a huge effect on PAR, as the light is very close to the substrate compared to other tanks. Have you looked up the light to see if someone has posted PAR values at various depths? I would want to know what I am dealing with, as too much light is a prime cause of hair algae (and low CO2).

You mention that the flow is blowing the plants around. IME, that is not what you want. Good flow is a wide gentle flow. Do you normally have some surface agitation? Is so, that is good. You want high oxygen levels, as it allows you to take pH down further safely with CO2. 

But all that said, the tank looks like a very nice start. Now it's tweaking things here and there to get a better balance. With the plants that are already affected, I would let them grow a bit. You said the new growth looks good and algae free. Let them get a bit taller, then remove the infected portions and replant. 

Good luck and good to see you start a journal. I look forward to seeing how things progress from here.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> How are you measuring your pH? Liquid test or calibrated probe?
> 
> The reason I ask is that you have something odd going on with your numbers. At KH of 5 your degassed pH of 8.2 seems unusually high.


I don't beleive the error is with my measurement of pH, I will get a Marine pinpoint soon to check but my measured values are inline with the city reports. Greater the error in Kh is more likely, I don't think one should assume that everyone's Tap water fits the theory for RODI water with Carbonate equilibrium. I could have other forms of buffers or basicity in my water that raises my pH in addition to Carbonates.



> Do you use a drop checker? While they aren't highly accurate, they do provide a visual indicator to confirm what you are seeing with your measured values.


I run CO2 24/7 my pH doesn't fluctuate except after a water change so I don't see a need for a drop checker.
I will get a pH probe just to check my water pH more accurately, but I am still more basic than carbonates alone so I have to get advice on whether that is likely to underestimate my CO2 from ph drop.

While I could beleive my pH drop range could be 6.5 - 6.7 given the accuracy of the API test that really doesn't change things much for me in terms of having enough ppm CO2 for my plants which could be in the 30 - 50ppm range roughly.



> As to ferts, l don't have any experience with Thrive. If you are going to try and take this tank to the next level, I would highly recommend getting dry ferts so that you can control the ratios. Looks to me like PO4 is light in relation to NO3, and B is very high compared to everything else in the micros.


I agree I want to order dry ferts, if you can show me a table of EI Micro dose targets that would be helpful I didn't find a reference. I know my Phosphates are low so I am trying to source Potassium MonoPhosphate in Canada or wait for my uncle to bring me dry ferts from NilocG.

Do you suggest these or somewherelse? EI based NPK + CSM+B - NilocG Aquatics

The Boron is a bit high because I am not dosing Calcium as it is already in my water at 31ppm I could add a bit of Ca and Mg which would put me closer to other people's ratios but not sure it will make a differece unless I see Ca2+ deficiency or Mg2+ deficiency. I am also not sure of the EI targets for Mg2+, Ca2+.



> I also have no experience with your light. One thing to keep in mind is that a 17G tank is not very tall. This has a huge effect on PAR, as the light is very close to the substrate compared to other tanks. Have you looked up the light to see if someone has posted PAR values at various depths? I would want to know what I am dealing with, as too much light is a prime cause of hair algae (and low CO2).



I don't have my own measured par values I estimated them from here.
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/1112802-%5Breview%5D-series-chihiros-led-affordable.html

12" from substrate is 130par I run mine at 60% dimmed which is 78par. But I am actually 13 - 14 inches from my substrate so a little less than that so I guesstimated 65PAR at centreline and less in the corners. The raised wood would likely be in the 100+ par range.



> You mention that the flow is blowing the plants around. IME, that is not what you want. Good flow is a wide gentle flow. Do you normally have some surface agitation? Is so, that is good. You want high oxygen levels, as it allows you to take pH down further safely with CO2.


Thanks will keep that in mind.



> But all that said, the tank looks like a very nice start. Now it's tweaking things here and there to get a better balance. With the plants that are already affected, I would let them grow a bit. You said the new growth looks good and algae free. Let them get a bit taller, then remove the infected portions and replant.


Thanks for the positive feedback. 

Overall though I blocked sunlight from behind the tank and I am relatively certain that was the start and end of my algae problems. I have to move the tank sooner rather than later, for now I put foam mats behind the tank to block sunlight.



> Good luck and good to see you start a journal. I look forward to seeing how things progress from here.


Thanks for your feedback I appreciate your detailed comments.


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

CO2 levels and ph in many rivers and lakes swings wildly based on abundance of submerged aquatic vegitation, algae, and daily sunlight levels whose par far exceeds pretty much any aquarium, so I'm not sure I buy this certainly better for fish and plants theory.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5268/IW-3.4.604 example but you can find many studies...


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Wobblebonk said:


> CO2 levels and ph in many rivers and lakes swings wildly based on abundance of submerged aquatic vegitation, algae, and daily sunlight levels whose par far exceeds pretty much any aquarium, so I'm not sure I buy this certainly better for fish and plants theory.
> 
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5268/IW-3.4.604 example but you can find many studies...


It is known that shrimp prefer stable hardness and TDS.

Not sure what I was supposed to get out of your article? please copy/paste the part that supports your point. Flora and Fauna in nature adapt to wildly changing temperatures and water conditions, but LFS tank bred fish are not usually grown in high tech tank conditions and not used to the swings but of course they do adapt. 

I haven't seen a study on mortality rates and life expectency of fish in aquariums at varying co2 levels, an argument can be made either way, lower co2 higher o2 at night stressing fish less or fluctuating co2/o2 stressing fish more I don't think there is a clear answer. 

For plants much like EI ferts in my mind, it is better to have a non limiting concentration of co2 to support growth all the time instead of having it fluctuate but I have yet to see an article comparing the growth rates in the two scenarios. I think most people with larger tanks save money on CO2 by using an on/off period and assume the potential difference in growth rates(if any) is not worth the expense, with a small tank I have a choice.


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

For the shrimp I'm sure the stable kh/gh levels are far more important than the actual ph / co2 levels. Though if the ph is way out of range from what they can survive in that's certainly an issue. The plants are putting out co2 at night not taking it in mostly... in nature the ph /o2 levels are dropping over night and co2 rising while with a timer for co2 it's kind of the opposite though o2 levels are probably still rising during the light cycle. I personally try to keep more wild type fish and shrimp than line bred /hybrid stuff so who knows really... but that's more of a personal preference. I mostly don't inject co2 on my shrimp tanks besides the one in my journal but 1.5 ph swings didn't stop them from breeding at all (neos seem fine with it for sure, babaultis also prolific... red tigers just not as prolific whether I do co2 or not...)

Most things that will eat enough algae to keep hair algae under control will also outright eat your plants 

It's probably pretty hard to do a good study on it I suppose.

I like your tank though it looks nice.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> How are you measuring your pH? Liquid test or calibrated probe?
> 
> The reason I ask is that you have something odd going on with your numbers. At KH of 5 your degassed pH of 8.2 seems unusually high. I would expect it to be somewhere around 7.6, based on ambient CO2 in the atmosphere. If you look at others with similar pH, you will see what I mean.
> 
> I would take a glass of water and let it sit out for a couple of days, and then test again. And if you don't have a calibrated probe, I would get one.


After your comment I had a look at my numbers again and looked at the municipal water report from the station ~<1km from my house which I trust over API kits.

It still isn't a problem with the pH which is pretty much consistent amongst stores, hobbyists, municipal testing and my own tests.
The problem isn't the error in the pH (Muncipal says average 8 and high of 8.2) but it could be the error in API kH test.

The Municipal report says carbonate hardness ranges from 112 - 129. The range of kH could be 6.27 to 7.22 not 5 that I have gotten repeatedly.

At my pH of 6.6 and a kH of 7.22 I could be at 54 ppm CO2 just using the exact formula from the Tom Barr chart.
On the other hand I could adjust my pH to the 'expected' ph7.79(kh=6.22) and end up with a low of 36ppm.

Time will tell if I have anymore fish deaths, but for now I'm not blaming CO2, I've got a lot going on in my tanks at once(Glut bomb, left sponge off inflow) and I've never seen gasping fish but who knows.

Do you have a reference for pH versus kh at ~3ppm CO2 that you mentioned?

I derived the formula from 
3*kh*10^(7-ph) The formula Tom Barr used for the kh, ph, CO2 chart.	

Where did you get your Ph vs Kh values?


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

Is dissolved co2 test (https://hannainst.com/hi3818-carbon-dioxide-test-kit.html) likely to be thrown off by the same things that might affect alkalinity tests? I can't afford a coulometer or at least I won't spend that much.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Where did you get your Ph vs Kh values?


Zorfox Calculator. But I wouldn't be too focused on this number. With our methods of measurement, we really don't know our true CO2 concentration. 

Mine calculates to 120 ppm. I highly doubt it. The important thing is to have consistent measurement of pH, so that you can hit a target that is the best for plants and fish. In this hobby, relative values are more useful than absolute values.

And keep in mind KH can change with seasons or other events. So keeping an eye on it is good practice. I control mine by dosing into RO so it never varies.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Zorfox Calculator. But I wouldn't be too focused on this number. With our methods of measurement, we really don't know our true CO2 concentration.
> 
> Mine calculates to 120 ppm. I highly doubt it. The important thing is to have consistent measurement of pH, so that you can hit a target that is the best for plants and fish. In this hobby, relative values are more useful than absolute values.
> 
> And keep in mind KH can change with seasons or other events. So keeping an eye on it is good practice. I control mine by dosing into RO so it never varies.


Thanks I was hoping for the formula used but I can check my calculations with his tool.

Your comment and another thread made me look more carefully at Tom Barr's chart, I won't even use it as a reference anymore.
It uses this formula 3*kH*10POWER(7-ph) and assumes that you have only Carbonate hardness so it overestimates CO2 and badly overestimates CO2 at high kH. Nothing new here Tom Barr mentioned most of this over the years you probably read it before. You can overcome this somewhat by using tank pH

The reason it is so far off in high kH water is that it assumes that your pH to start with is consistent with only the Carbonate Equilibrium in distilled water but in unsoftened water this becomes more of a issue the higher the kH. The harder the water and if its unsoftened, the better chance there is other buffers in there phosphates, silicates, borates etc which will give you too high a kH from testing and much too high calculated CO2.

Just as you pointed out above my water if it had no other buffers in it at kh=5 and assuming 3ppm of CO2 from atmosphere should be ph=7.7. 7.7 to 6.7 would give me 30ppm. But I am not at 7.7 I am at 8.0 and sometimes higher.

Or assume the correct hardness of my water is kH=7.22- 6.22 (from Municipal Water report) then starting pH of my water would be as high as 7.86 still not 8 - 8.3. Today it was 8.0 from API test and the Kh~5.25 on one test(20ml), 4 and 4 and 4 on subsequent 5ml tests, just useless.

Tom Barr cannot think of a case where his method could understimate CO2, https://barrreport.com/threads/adas-real-co2-levels.10547/ well in my case it could I have added basicity which I can't explain.

Ph Error, Kh Error, Atmospheric Pressure differencesfor CO2 dissolution, additional acids and bases and buffers in tank and tap water. There are way too many sources of error here which just makes even the 1PH drop method inaccurate as well but its better than blindly using the chart. 

I beleive you all that now that using the pH drop as a rough guide and adjusting based on fish and plants is unfortunately the only way to go without expensive lab equipment and testing.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Ph Error, Kh Error, Atmospheric Pressure differencesfor CO2 dissolution, additional acids and bases and buffers in tank and tap water. There are way too many sources of error here which just makes even the 1PH drop method inaccurate as well but its better than blindly using the chart.
> 
> I believe you all that now that using the pH drop as a rough guide and adjusting based on fish and plants is unfortunately the only way to go without expensive lab equipment and testing.


That's what I was getting to in my original post. I may not have worded as well as I could have.

And here's the other wild card. I have tested the API pH kit numerous times vs. a freshly calibrated pH probe. For me, it was a ball park at best. IMO, getting to the right consistent pH drop is too important to rely on the test kit. 

As always, just based on my personal experience.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> That's what I was getting to in my original post. I may not have worded as well as I could have.
> 
> And here's the other wild card. I have tested the API pH kit numerous times vs. a freshly calibrated pH probe. For me, it was a ball park at best. IMO, getting to the right consistent pH drop is too important to rely on the test kit.
> 
> As always, just based on my personal experience.


There is some error the pH assume +/- 0.2. I also am getting 4 for kH but it could be 7.
I can't nail down kH accurately without an expensive test kit (lamotte) or just using RODI water.

But what is the right CO2 level? So for now lets say my pH drop is at lease 1.2 and could be as much as 1.6. 
Can I be sure I am at 30ppm+?

Then of course how do I even know 30ppm is necessary for my system? I doubt MC, PE and RR need it and that is mostly what I have.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> There is some error the pH assume +/- 0.2. I also am getting 4 for kH but it could be 7.
> I can't nail down kH accurately without an expensive test kit (lamotte) or just using RODI water.
> 
> But what is the right CO2 level? So for now lets say my pH drop is at lease 1.2 and could be as much as 1.6.
> ...


If you are only getting an error of +/1 0.2, that is pretty good for the kit. I follow a lot of journals here, and all of the better ones use a calibrated probe. Even a 0.2 difference makes quite a difference in my tank, albeit my tank is being driven pretty hard.

But to the larger point, I understand your frustration. Without expensive test equipment, you will never your exact CO2 concentration. However, it doesn't matter. 

There is only one way to know what is necessary for your system, and that is trial and error. Takes some time and carefully watching the plants. That is the "art" part of the equation. 

Then once you find a pH drop that is the best for YOUR tank, the next step is finding a methodology to accurately get there on a consistent basis. In my tank, if I see anything wonky, the very first thing I do is take a very close look at pH drop, and make sure it is where I want it to be.

And that goes back to the drop checker. I keep one in my tank, just as a visual indicator. If I walk by and it's just green or blue......uh oh, something is going on I better take a look at and get it figured out.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

cl3537 said:


> There is some error the pH assume +/- 0.2. I also am getting 4 for kH but it could be 7.
> 
> I can't nail down kH accurately without an expensive test kit (lamotte) or just using RODI water.
> 
> ...


You don't. But that dirty dastardly algae will tell you if you dont have enough. That and questionable plant growth. Like @Immortal1 just said in my other thread. A "3 way teeter totter" of co2, ferts, lights. 

It's good that you went down that rabbit hole and figured out the chemistry for us but now that you have, it's time to come back to the living. 

Focus but not overly obsess over any one too much. If you dont need 30ppm, that's perfectly fine as long as you can see that the plants are happy.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Wobblebonk said:


> For the shrimp I'm sure the stable kh/gh levels are far more important than the actual ph / co2 levels. Though if the ph is way out of range from what they can survive in that's certainly an issue. The plants are putting out co2 at night not taking it in mostly... in nature the ph /o2 levels are dropping over night and co2 rising while with a timer for co2 it's kind of the opposite though o2 levels are probably still rising during the light cycle. I personally try to keep more wild type fish and shrimp than line bred /hybrid stuff so who knows really... but that's more of a personal preference. I mostly don't inject co2 on my shrimp tanks besides the one in my journal but 1.5 ph swings didn't stop them from breeding at all (neos seem fine with it for sure, babaultis also prolific... red tigers just not as prolific whether I do co2 or not...)
> 
> Most things that will eat enough algae to keep hair algae under control will also outright eat your plants
> 
> ...


Thanks for the kind words.

The SAE I had was an interesting fish(for the 2 days I had it) but I don't think it is well suited for my 17g and I've heard they can dig up carpet like MC. Would it start eating my plants after it ate all the algae? (not sure maybe). I can't keep small shrimp with the betta (well not going to chance it).

My comments about co2 are more a matter of convenience in a small tank, I don't have an expensive regulator, don't need a solenoid and my 5Lb CO2 tank last 9 months and costs $11 for a fillup. While 24/7 CO2 may be marginally better for plants/fish (debateable) not having to worry about solenoid failure and gassing my fish or having massive algae issues from CO2 being off are big plusses for me in favor of 24/7 CO2.


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

No the SAE won't really, but they only seem to like hair algae when they're young for me. Kind of get too big for a 17g in the long run imo. Mine just want regular fish food now as adults... though the tank they're on doesn't have a tremendous amount of hair algae anyhow.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Wobblebonk said:


> Is dissolved co2 test (https://hannainst.com/hi3818-carbon-dioxide-test-kit.html) likely to be thrown off by the same things that might affect alkalinity tests? I can't afford a coulometer or at least I won't spend that much.


Don't know but I would highly suspect its accuracy have to look it up or ask Hanna.

Bump:


Wobblebonk said:


> No the SAE won't really, but they only seem to like hair algae when they're young for me. Kind of get too big for a 17g in the long run imo. Mine just want regular fish food now as adults... though the tank they're on doesn't have a tremendous amount of hair algae anyhow.


The one I bought died after 2 days no idea why. I have a bit of hair algae I wanted to get rid of, it is mostly brown now but still on some of my plants.
I wonder about getting another one, I never saw the first one eating any hair algae, the otos seem to do a better job at that but not sure they can get off all the tough hair algae.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

*TC s. repens not much growth in 5 days*









5 days I see minimal growth so far but there is some. I read it takes a while for s repens to acclimate and grow roots before the leaves grow. Very leggy, want to chop the top and replant but I think I should let the plants get healthy roots before I do that. I read you should cut when stem is at least 5cm and remove all but top pair of leaves to replant and then replant so only the top pair of leaves is above ground and remove the leaves on the stem below ground. Really wasn't a nice pot of s. repens but it just arrived in the store but who knows how long the distributor had it for.

Less GSA though from Excel bomb though .


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

@Deanna Excel Bomb 1.5ml/gallon seemed to work!

Although a few larger clumps of hair algae I removed, I couldn't tell if they were brown or dark green but the smaller ones all look brownish now.
Definitely a reduction, no new hair algae seen on new growth and less green spot algae as well even on old leaves, which is a bonus I wasn't expecting.

Would you reccomend an inline UV sterilizer?


----------



## AguaScape (Oct 28, 2018)

Deleted Post


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> @Deanna Excel Bomb 1.5ml/gallon seemed to work!
> 
> Although a few larger clumps of hair algae I removed, I couldn't tell if they were brown or dark green but the smaller ones all look brownish now.
> Definitely a reduction, no new hair algae seen on new growth and less green spot algae as well even on old leaves, which is a bonus I wasn't expecting.
> ...


Good, but remember: it only kills the current hair algae load. It doesn't solve the long-term issue, which is where the healthy tank/plants take over. However, I think it does give some breathing room until you reach that state. Even then, it is not uncommon to have your tank become unbalanced for any number of reasons (constant experimenting, in my case, for example). When that happens, hair algae is always ready to step in to take advantage of it. The one-time glut treatment tames it again.

Re; UVS: I always recommend a high-end (level one) UVS. They provide benefits to the plants and fish.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> Good, but remember: it only kills the current hair algae load. It doesn't solve the long-term issue, which is where the healthy tank/plants take over.


I will and thanks for your post it was the best solution to my problem. I have put foam behind my tank to block sunlight and hopefully that is all that was needed.



> Re; UVS: I always recommend a high-end (level one) UVS. They provide benefits to the plants and fish.


Do you have a suggestion for an inline one for a 17 gallon tank with a filter that puts out a max of 117gph (likely much less)?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> My Ph is still around 8.0 it isn't a faulty test, and it still doesn't fit the 'theory' if it was just RODI water and Carbonate Equilibria at Kh=5 but that should be the norm, municipal Tap water is rarely 'RODI water with carbonates added'.
> 
> If we are going to advise others that point has to be explained better, and the first thing is I'm not going to reference that Tom Barr chart anymore. I still strongly urge against assuming a faulty pH test when tap water is more acidic or basic than expected from 'Carbonates Equilibria'


Your reading may be correct. But many times it isn't. Often here someone gets a calibrated probe and finds their liquid test was off. It can be as simple as ones interpretation of color. 

And I mentioned leaving a glass of water out overnight to stabilize. Many times pH shifts over night. It's a method that has been used by fish keepers for generations. Sometimes CO2 dissipates, raising pH. Sometimes chlorine dissipates, lowering pH. So it's worth doing just to be sure the pH is not changing when exposed to the atmosphere. 

Again, not saying that is your case, but I have seen it be the case many times over. 

And a note on your calculated PAR value. I wouldn't be too confident that your PAR is 65. I have seen folks here take readings of LED lights at various power levels. The correlation to PAR is not a linear relationship. When you set an LED light at 60%, that is 60% of the range of the potentiometer, not PAR. I've seen many folks very surprised by the actual numbers. 

If you really want to dial in LED's, you really need to use a PAR meter to measure at various settings. Or find someone who has with the same light. 

And the reason I brought both of these up is that hair algae is usually related to too much light and not enough CO2. So those are the first things I would investigate. 

So I hope you understand I am only trying to help, and sharing my experience from my own tank and following countless others here.

And I fully understand it may be something completely different, but always best to look first at the most likely culprits.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Your reading may be correct. But many times it isn't. Often here someone gets a calibrated probe and finds their liquid test was off. It can be as simple as ones interpretation of color.
> 
> And I mentioned leaving a glass of water out overnight to stabilize. Many times pH shifts over night. It's a method that has been used by fish keepers for generations. Sometimes CO2 dissipates, raising pH. Sometimes chlorine dissipates, lowering pH. So it's worth doing just to be sure the pH is not changing when exposed to the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


I'm not challenging your experience or ability to grow plants. You certainly have a beautiful tank and I have read good posts from you going back years. You are also putting in effort to help determine potential sources of problems for me based on your experience so I do appreciate it.

In my case I think you missed the part about the window behind the tank (see March 3 picture), I am relatively sure that is the beginning and the end of my problems and once I move the tank the algae problem should go away. I didn't have any hair algae in the old location and was running with lower ferts(Tropica Specialized) and the 60% lighting, I didn't change much other than that. I already put foam behind the tank to block the sun but I can't block all of it. The problems started when I wasn't blocking the window light at all I was only using the semi opaque blinds.

Now to just solve hair algae I wouldn't be shelling out $120 for a American Marine PH Monitor and $230 for a Seneye Reef but I am super curious anyway and will hopefully use those tools in the future.

I don't think knowing my PAR better than my estimate of 65 +/- 20 is going to change much for me. I may need a better light to grow more demanding plants (or even S. Repens). This light is popular with this LFS as a great value light but I question if the PAR is enough in the corner where I am growing the S. Repens. I put a few stems in the middle of the tank just to see if it makes a difference. 

In addition knowing my pH drop better than 1.3 +/- 0.4 may not help me much either I still have the kH uncertainty and I'm not sure I can trust the pH drop(even if accurately measured) given the unknown basicity in my water. 

At this point going to pH 6.6 I am more worried about gassing my fish than not having enough CO2. If I had to estimate CO2 it would be 40 +/- 20 ppm CO2 but that has many caveats. 

In both cases it will still be trial and error dialing in lights and CO2 still too many unknowns.
Going to pick the monitors up tomorrow I'll report back what I find out.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Hello @cl3537, I don't think any of us that own a ph controller or par meter own them for the sake of dealing with algae. There are already infinite variables in keeping a planted tank. With a ph controller it offers us stable co2 conditions. Along with the ability to control and see our ph drop. Par meter helps us understand why we can or can't grow plants to their color potential. Just trying to take as much of the guessing game out of it. Simplify.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> In my case I think you missed the part about the window behind the tank (see March 3 picture), I am relatively sure that is the beginning and the end of my problems and once I move the tank the algae problem should go away.


You are correct, I missed that.

And yes, window light is quite intense.

Good luck and look forward to seeing how things go after the move.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

So I noticed a couple weeks ago that RotalaButterfly is calculating the Thrive dosage amounts wrong based on the label percentages.
I brought this up on Barrreport to Fablau in the RotalaButterfly support thread, and was dismissed as he used the numbers from the nilocg website and they 'must' have used a different calculation method.

Turns out it was a bad cut and paste and I had to chase Colin three times in e-mail then on facebook to get him to admit the mistake and fix it. He pasted the Thrive+ numbers into the Thrive description and that was copied to RB.

Still not completely fixed on the nilocg webpage, hopefully fablau will update Rotalabutterfly, I can't match the phosphate numbers calculated on his site still but the rest seem okay. Not sure what the species was that they measured for p2O5(PO4?) but its a start.









However that really changes my Boron:Calcium ratio now I have a ratio of 2000+:1 Ca:B in stead of 150:1 and thrive is the opposite of +B now it will be -B. The true amount if you dose the reccomended of Boron is 0.00422 ppm not 0.1215ppm!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> Do you have a suggestion for an inline one for a 17 gallon tank with a filter that puts out a max of 117gph (likely much less)?


See the UVS part of this post:
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1219658-need-help-upgrading-planted-tank-experts-advice.html#post10657138


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> See the UVS part of this post:
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1219658-need-help-upgrading-planted-tank-experts-advice.html#post10657138


I can't buy a Vecton discontinued production for North American plugs. There are high quality whole house sterilizers but they are large and run about $200.

I read here, How Aquarium & Pond UV Sterilizers Work | UVC Sterilization
the difficult to understand if an overpowered lamp wattage on a Category B would be enough.

It seems like this should be more than enough 9W my flow is likely 100gph or less so thats 11gph/watt and according to AAP this is a decent design.

Terminator Compact Aquarium or Pond UV Sterilizer | Category B

CUV-109A AAP CUV-109A (Formally Via Aqua Terminator) 9 WATT QUARTZ UV STERILIZER (with HO UV Lamp) - $72.99

I won't buy it from AAP I am in Canada but saw it here https://www.aliexpress.com/item/SUN...ltraviolet-bactericidal-lamp/32847230351.html

Still have to check if it would be the same bulb included *9 WATT UV REPLACEMENT LAMP/BULB (G23/PLS 9 High Output); $16.99

My tank filter Eheim 2213 is rated at 116gph probably 100 at best through inline heater but its not going to be as powerful clearly as the higher quality ones very unclear if it could get to Level I with this but on a Watts/GPH more than enough. Dwell time not great its compact but my filter flow is low. Not sure this matters using it more as a clarifier than a for sterilization.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Hello, just a thought if are looking for just clear water instead of steralization. I would suggest to add purogen in your filter. It's a noticeable different in water clarity. Also much cheaper that a uvs.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

KZB said:


> Hello, just a thought if are looking for just clear water instead of steralization. I would suggest to add purogen in your filter. It's a noticeable different in water clarity. Also much cheaper that a uvs.


Brilliant Idea I will get some. I thought about it before and had some superstition it worked like Activated Carbon and might leech phosphates. Further reading here shows it just removes some organic waste and possibly Nh3 which is exactly what I want.

I have clear water, but at the moment I can get GDA(micro size) very easily on my glass if I increase light. It has been mentioned that excess ferts like in EI can cause that as well(Dennis Wong 2hr Aquarist), I bet Tom Barr would vehemently disagree.

Bump:

Bump:

Bump:


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> I can't buy a Vecton discontinued production for North American plugs. There are high quality whole house sterilizers but they are large and run about $200.


The TMC Vecton2 200, 8 watt (plenty for your tank), is available from AAP in North America but, as you said, you are looking at US $200. You connect them between your filter outflow and your tank. The level one and two competitors I've seen are all in that price range and they do come with the bulb. I'm not sure you'll get good quality for <US $100. They last, so far, 10 years, but you do have to replace the bulbs annually.

Can't comment on the Terminator, but it does look like it might be a Level one option.

If you have cloudy water, the Purigen should take care of it, as @KZB said. The high-end UVS are mainly for other aspects. Clearing hazy/green water is just a side benefit.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> The TMC Vecton2 200, 8 watt (plenty for your tank), is available from AAP in North America but, as you said, you are looking at US $200. You connect them between your filter outflow and your tank. The level one and two competitors I've seen are all in that price range and they do come with the bulb. I'm not sure you'll get good quality for <US $100. They last, so far, 10 years, but you do have to replace the bulbs annually.
> 
> Can't comment on the Terminator, but it does look like it might be a Level one option.
> 
> If you have cloudy water, the Purigen should take care of it, as @KZB said. The high-end UVS are mainly for other aspects. Clearing hazy/green water is just a side benefit.


I don't have cloudy water at all and my glass is sparkling, the Otos and nerites get rid of the little bit of green algae which might grow on the glass. The photos I have taken of the tanks at the beginning I barely do any maintenenance and I don't scrape the glass.

I would be using the UVS primarily as a clarifier and because it might prevent algae, the extra and side benfit is that it would prevent my fish from getting diseases and infections. I don't have a heavily stocked tank nor expensive or rare fish.

Ultimately I'd like to turn up the lights in my tank or get a more powerful light and at the moment increasing light intensity creates GDA or GSA or carpet green algae on glass or wood hardscape pretty quickly.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> I don't have cloudy water at all and my glass is sparkling, the Otos and nerites get rid of the little bit of green algae which might grow on the glass. The photos I have taken of the tanks at the beginning I barely do any maintenenance and I don't scrape the glass.
> 
> I would be using the UVS primarily as a clarifier and because it might prevent algae, the extra and side benfit is that it would prevent my fish from getting diseases and infections. I don't have a heavily stocked tank nor expensive or rare fish.
> 
> Ultimately I'd like to turn up the lights in my tank or get a more powerful light and at the moment increasing light intensity creates GDA or GSA or carpet green algae on glass or wood hardscape pretty quickly.


I would have reversed the UVS benefits, saying that parasitic and spore control is the main function with water clarification being secondary, but it's a matter of perspective.

I have moderately high light (80 PAR at the substrate), but my main problem is with the ~11-hour photo period which causes my occasional GDA/GSA headaches. It will be a constant battle where minimization is achievable with well-humming plants.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> I would have reversed the UVS benefits, saying that parasitic and spore control is the main function with water clarification being secondary, but it's a matter of perspective.


I know the point of reaching level 1 or 2 is to kill parasites. Far lower wattage/gph is required for clarification. I was just going to get it as another algae prevention tool but it sounds as if it doesn't really help with that except maybe in the case of BGA.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Does your Iron Precipitate look like this?


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

So S. Repens definitely growing now. Emersed leaves are yellowing or falling off in many cases but new larger healthier leaves are definitely visible now.
It just took almost two weeks to see obvious new growth, as others have described the plants need at least a week or two to establish roots.

Bump:









New Rotala Growth seems okay but from about a week ago I see white streaks (-Fe?), and lower down dead hair algae is not being removed quickly by my Otos or Amanos.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Got my par meter results are very close to my estimate. 60 +/- 5 par at the centre substrate directly under the light, 50 +/- 5 at the corner where the s repens is and these values are at 60% dimming.

In the centre substrate at 100% 105 +/- 5 in the corner 80 +/- 5.
The wood can get up to 180 par in certain places at 100% where the green carpet algae grows.
PUR is lower than I expected only 60% the spectrum on this light is not great.

Probe is sensitive to tilt its hard to decide if the probe should be pointed towards the light or flush with the substrate when measuring the corners of the tank.

The Chihiros A601 has surprisingly good coverage for a 2X1 foot tank I didn't expect the Par in the corners to be only 20% less than in the centre this probably due to partial shading by the wood in the centre.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Also got my pH meter finally. API kit surprisingly accurate, but I have to leave the probe in the sample for 10 minutes or more for things to stabilize.
pH 6.8 it is annoying that if water evaporates and my outflow lily pipe is partially exposed out of the water ph raises from 6.6 to 6.8. Not sure how to deal with that except filling the tank almost to the top at all times.

Bump:









pH of my tap water is also indeed 8.0 so for me at least even my 2 month old expired API kit has surprisingly accurate pH . Can't say the same for Nitrate or kH but that is still TBD.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

*API kit not so accurate aroung 6.4 - 6.6 ph*

So I just happened to be lucky with the API kit for my tap water and degassed water(see above) but not so much with my equilibirum CO2 drop pH.
pH meter showing 6.44 API kit 6.6.

This is the equilibrium(I run CO2 24/7) if I keep the water an inch from the top. If the water level lowers to just below the top of my lily pipe output my pH is 6.8. A huge difference it is very sensitive to water level. I could envision bad things happening if I let the water evaporate too much .
@super_smirky asked for a picture of my CO2 setup. 

I run about 80bpm. First into a ceramic tube inline diffuser (cheap chinese one maybe costs 10 - 15$) (see below). Then into my Eheim 2213 as can be seen below. I have read the caveats with putting CO2 directly into the inflow of your canister but I discount them all due to my low CO2 rate (<1.5bps) and the fact they are already a fine mist from passing through my diffuser even before entering my filter. This solution works for me it may not work for everyone.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Hello @cl3537, I had an evaporation problem too. The change in ph drop from co2 is noticeable, like your experiencing. Now I keep a gallon jug of pretreated water in my aquarium cabinet. Just to top off during the week. It's enough to get me through the week before water changes. It's made a difference in keeping my co2 drop stable. Before I started using a ph controller it was worst, but now I have a controller. If I let the evaporation go, the time I reach my desired ph drop will vary. Doing the top offs I can keep my peak ph drop at a consistent time.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

*Plants Starving! NO3 depletion very quickly, mystery solved!*

Last night I got a new API kit my old one expired and I just couldn't trust my old API kit.
I was shocked by the results 0 - 5ppm NO3!!! I just dosed the night before and I expected some accumulation of 10ppm or so on top of that.
I also tested the old kit same results ?????!??!?!?!

All those deficiencies I thought were Micros were actually just because the plants were starving. My Rotala was looking terrible, S. Repens was yellowing and pale. Now I have been dosing close to EI levels for weeks where are all the nitrates going?

Here is the answer!!!










Water Lettuce (Pistia) similar to Frogbit and other floating plants can really take up a lot of nitrates. A few days ago it was covering half my tank and I removed a large portion of it. I removed more today. It was growing like crazy with longer and longer roots I may remove all of it at some point for now left 10 portions or so. Look at my poor Rotala underneath, spotty, brownish, leaves with holes and some leaves covered in GSA. Its only been 12 hours since I put a weeks worth of EI dosing in my tank and already the new growth looks better.

Oh and please don't look at the Clithon Nerites having sex they need their privacy. Those horny buggers are always on top of each other in the tank.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

KZB said:


> Hello @cl3537, I had an evaporation problem too. The change in ph drop from co2 is noticeable, like your experiencing. Now I keep a gallon jug of pretreated water in my aquarium cabinet. Just to top off during the week. It's enough to get me through the week before water changes. It's made a difference in keeping my co2 drop stable. Before I started using a ph controller it was worst, but now I have a controller. If I let the evaporation go, the time I reach my desired ph drop will vary. Doing the top offs I can keep my peak ph drop at a consistent time.


Well I finally see the limitation of 24/7 CO2 as without a controller and higher bps rate I can't do that. My evaporation isn't so bad even in winter in Montreal which is brutal cold and dry. If I fill with only a half inch to the top I should be able to stay above the outflow for a whole week. There has to be lily pipe outflows that extend lower into the tank that would prevent this problem altogether.


----------



## Wobblebonk (Feb 13, 2018)

I've never used these but... 
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LY3AANR/ref=sspa_dk_detail_4?pd_rd_i=B01M1O39BP
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Moaere-Glass-Lily-Pipe-Spin-Outflow-and-Inflow-for-13-17mm-Tube-Aquarium-Planted-Tank-Aquascaping/505146493?selected=true
If it has to be an actual lily pipe shape you could learn to blow glass :/


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Wobblebonk said:


> I've never used these but...
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LY3AANR/ref=sspa_dk_detail_4?pd_rd_i=B01M1O39BP
> https://www.walmart.com/ip/Moaere-Glass-Lily-Pipe-Spin-Outflow-and-Inflow-for-13-17mm-Tube-Aquarium-Planted-Tank-Aquascaping/505146493?selected=true
> If it has to be an actual lily pipe shape you could learn to blow glass :/


The inflow is fine its the outflow that is the problem I guess I could try to find a glass blower but the poppy outflows from jardli are 3 inches below the top of the glass that would give me another inch/ inch and a half.
https://www.amazon.com/JARDLI-Aquar...2698843&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull-spons&psc=1

I don't worry about it for now but if i go on vacation I'll have to consider it.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Most of the reason I have to keep up on my top offs. Is the shape of my tank 30"×20" to substrate. To keep my desired ph drop and the fish happy. I need to have my spray bar at a certain depth in order to have proper surface agitation. Other wise my fishes get stressed. Pretty much a thin line between ph drop and fishes in safe conditions. It's been something I been trying to balance out for a while, but I gotta say, the ph controller has made my life a lot easier.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

KZB said:


> Most of the reason I have to keep up on my top offs. Is the shape of my tank 30"×20" to substrate. To keep my desired ph drop and the fish happy. I need to have my spray bar at a certain depth in order to have proper surface agitation. Other wise my fishes get stressed. Pretty much a thin line between ph drop and fishes in safe conditions. It's been something I been trying to balance out for a while, but I gotta say, the ph controller has made my life a lot easier.


So the fact you have 20" height (18" water?) instead of 12" water like me means you can stress your fish if the outflow is too low?
What kind of fish do you have that get stressed? What is your kh and estimated ph drop?

I'm trying to learn when O2 levels become dangerous for fish, it seems to be related to surface area to height ratios. It seems it happens just not for shallow wide tanks.


----------



## KZB (Jan 3, 2018)

Yessir, I have to have my surface agitation just right in order to balance my co2 with plants. I believed Dennis Wong goes over the details of proper circulation surface agitation with different shapes of tanks. Because my tank is almost a square shape I have less water in contact with air. My latest test done this weekend shows my kh 5, degassed ph 7.3 drop from co2 6.0 total 1 3. Water sat for 3 days before tested for degassed ph. Water changes are done with tap. It took me some time to get the balancing act in check. Hope this helps


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

KZB said:


> Yessir, I have to have my surface agitation just right in order to balance my co2 with plants. I believed Dennis Wong goes over the details of proper circulation surface agitation with different shapes of tanks. Because my tank is almost a square shape I have less water in contact with air. My latest test done this weekend shows my kh 5, degassed ph 7.3 drop from co2 6.0 total 1 3. Water sat for 3 days before tested for degassed ph. Water changes are done with tap. It took me some time to get the balancing act in check. Hope this helps


I have kH=5 but my pH is at 8 and I drop it to 6.5 - 6.6 but I am no closer to knowing how much CO2 is in my tank than before I had the pH monitor.

Edit: https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/gas_exchange.html

"For many planted tanks, especially smaller ones that are not too tall/narrow, having reasonably good gaseous exchange can simply be done if the flow pattern in the tank exchanged surface layer of water with deeper layers - this usually also provides some surface agitation."

"Lily pipes and spray bars
​The use of lily pipes or spray bars filter outputs that channel the flow output near the surface in a pattern that circulates the top layer of water (that contacts air) with deeper layers in the tank improves gaseous exchange significantly."

"The use of surface skimmers, which keep the water surface crystal clear of surface film and draw in the oxygen rich surface layer of water is also a good method. One again, circulating the surface layer of water (that contacts air) with deeper water.
I never run a tank without them; they are also easily hidden behind tall stem plants. "

Those are the three reasons I don't have oxygenation issues.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

cl3537 said:


> Do you have a link I am interestedin reading about it. I have kH=5 but my pH is at 8 and I drop it to 6.5 - 6.6 but I am no closer to knowing how much CO2 is in my tank than before I had the pH controller.


https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/gas_exchange.html The "balancing act" that I am doing with my co2 is also based largely on Dennis's comments on his web site.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> "Lily pipes and spray bars
> ​The use of lily pipes or spray bars filter outputs that channel the flow output near the surface in a pattern that circulates the top layer of water (that contacts air) with deeper layers in the tank improves gaseous exchange significantly.


I've got to tell you, I love the look of those lily pipes, especially in a rimless set up like yours. And sounds like they are functional as well, creating good surface ripple. 

Such a nice clean modern look. Makes me want to set up a small tank like that some time.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> I've got to tell you, I love the look of those lily pipes, especially in a rimless set up like yours. And sounds like they are functional as well, creating good surface ripple.
> 
> Such a nice clean modern look. Makes me want to set up a small tank like that some time.


Thank-you, yes the lily pipes are designed to only be an inch to 2 inches from the top of the tank and blend into the background so you get good surface agitation and the whole vortex effect.

They need to be cleaned often (for me weekly or biweekly) and if you want to complete the look the clear tubes have to be cleaned as well.
I am not even using the inflow lily I bought it doesn't have a surface skimmer and the glass lily with skimmer is almost 30cm and too big for the minimalist look.

I don't like any equipment in my tank, inline heather, inline CO2 reactor etc, I use temporary probes (pH, temperature etc.) to keep the look. For now I have kept an acrylic inflow + skimmer because it is a lot smaller than the glass ones(~30cm) but maybe in the future I will switch, but it doesn't have a skimmer which may hurt my O2 levels and cleanliness of the surface.

ADA has meticulous maintenance on theirs so it always looks great in their promotional photos I wonder if they use a skimmer and take it out for the "money shot" or if they don't need them somehow.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Still growing but unhappy S. Repens.

Still dosing about the same, I've added 6ppm Magneisum(Epsom) since about a week ago(14 total including 8 from TAP), haven't picked up my dry ferts yet, but I suspect even though I'm dosing ~0.6ppm Fe (its a mix of DTPA and ETDA) its Fe deficiency.

I dose Thrive 3X per week 3ml in ~15g of tank and add 3.5g Epsom. (I got them to fix the calculator for Thrive)












Tank is very dusty, Tropica powder after 1 year breaking down a bit after uprooting  I did a complete uproot and replant the tops of my Pogostemon Erectus so tank will be dusty for a while. GSA on old leaves has been there for a while. 

Leaves are not well shaped, down turned tips wavey((-Ca(31ppm in Tap!(or -B)? Mg(8 Tap + adding 6)?) possibly pale(-Fe) (Although dosing 0.66ppm/week I see a lot of Precipitate in Outflow its a mix of DTPA/EDTA so its probably precipitating out. Holes on older leaves possible (K) but those were old emersed leaves so discounting that. 

I don't test PO4 or Fe as I've heard they are really inaccurate but I'm thiking I should definitely get a PO4 test kit.

Rotala not 100% either.


















The GSA and GHA on older leaves was there from before at least that isn't growing anymore. But new growth and stems are still twisted and possible pale(although Rotala can be pale/pinkish at the top so not sure).


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

I was using Tropica Specialized before with low light, lower CO2 and while growth was slower especially S. Repens plants were healthy with few visual issues, I had little algae, everything green and healthy see first photo in my journal. Rotala had big firm thick leaves, pogostemon was a lot more full and bushier with thicker stalks , Monte Carlo had bigger more full leaves.

Then I moved the tank to a new house, switching to 'EI' first with Thrive (9ml per week) I had a ton of hair algae, some BBA, some GSA and unhappy thinning stems and a host of other problems. (18,3.4,13 NPK) (0.66 Fe) Weekly Dose.

Tanks was doing very poor I chalked it up to a lot of things, CO2(I raised it a little), Husbandry, Flow, PAR(got meter), light spectrum, CO2(got a pH meter) a little bit of sunlight etc etc. Unfortunately none of those things being changed turned things around.

Went to an insane husbandry schedule, ripped out and cleaned up a ton of plants, turned the light down to 60%, did an Algae Bomb @Deanna (which removed most of the hair algae), blocked the sunlight. But still new growth was not happy, and I still a little bit of Hair Algae growing. Left things a few weeks with meticulous pruning and cleaning(6+ HOURS PER WEEK) still things were not improving.

Changed the light to Twinstar 600S, moved the lily pipe for better flow, meticulously cleaned every aspect of the tank including the inline diffuser, every bit of tubing, things improved a little but not enough. I was cleaning the filter weekly and doing 60% water changes.

Then I reset, two 50%+ water changes and I switched to all dry Ferts 2-3 weeks ago. 
(15/5/13 NPK) (0.45 Fe from DTPA, and pretty much @burr740 @Greggz Micros recipe)

Rotala is getting better but still a little stunted with some brown spots, Pogostemon branching and still badly stunted with some hair algae, S. Repens growing faster but still old leaves are getting Hair Algae.

Interestingly Rotala seems to always look better after a water change and lower fertilizer concentrations and worse by the end of the week.

Still not close to as healthy as they could be with many symptoms which cannot be explained by deficiencies its definitely a toxicity which is causing minor deficiencies but noone on TPT has made any diagnosis here despite me posting two threads on the subject.

The only thing that has grown a lot faster was S. Repens but old leaves inevitably get hair algae and other problems.

Summary:

Rotala is stunted, twisted.
S. Repens old leaves getting Hair Algae.
Pogostemon Erectus stunted badly and branching
Monte Carlo smaller leaves than before but generally okay.

I will post pictures below. Then I will put my new plan into place based on some useful advice from many experienced hobbyists I spoke to over the last two days.

*The end Conclusion EI and excess Ferts has really had very deleterious effects on my tank. High plant mass equilibrium is very different from low plant mass tanks and EI is a very poor method of fertilization for my type of tank and plants.
*

I will do a full reset of my tank 3 / 50% water changes in the next day or so and switch back to Tropica Specialized Green, and I will keep the light at the ~100 par that I have now and report the results. I am writing this in hopes that others don't go through the extremely frustrating road I have gone on.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

You are not alone.

2-3 weeks may not be enough time to judge the new dry fert routine. A lot of these plants are still loaded up with too much or an imbalance of nutrients from the Thrive/EI days.

But ime most rotalas and especially pogo erectus does NOT like high ferts. No surprise there.

Macros look OK at 15/5/13

How much Fe did you dose when you say mine/greggz micros? .1-.15 3x per week should've been good. Any more than that could certainly cause issues with the pogo

How much Tropica are/were you dosing, in ML ?x per week


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

burr740 said:


> ...
> 2-3 weeks may not be enough time to judge the new dry fert routine. A lot of these plants are still loaded up with too much or an imbalance of nutrients from the Thrive/EI days. But ime most rotalas and especially pogo erectus does NOT like high ferts. No surprise there.


I usually agree with you so I'm somewhat surprised at your post, but you know as well as anyone that EI dosing is not a set level. You adjust it based on a tank's parameters. You don't just blindly dose. So all the tanks done with heavy hardscape and low plant mass can't use EI dosing as this OP would have you believe? The problems with OPs tank were far more than simply not having Pogo grow well. He had to nuke the tank. That's the fault of EI dosing? Not sure what Rotalas your referring to, but all mine have done great under heavy EI dosing. So it can't be that.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Summary:
> 
> Rotala is stunted, twisted.
> S. Repens old leaves getting Hair Algae.
> ...


Interesting and looking forward to seeing where this goes.

In general, hard to judge on the performance of a few plants. S. Repens has never done well for me, don't know why. Same for P. Erectus. Will go along well, then suddenly melt. Rotala in general does well, but depends on the species. No luck either with some species like Ammania. 

But that's not how I judge success. It's more to do with the broader scope of the tank, which for me is lots of fast growing stems, which is not for everyone. 

You've also got a newer tank, and there are some growing pains. I wouldn't really be coming to any end conclusions yet.

But in general, yes, plant mass and plant selection can and will influence fert dosing. Hope you strike a good balance and find the right mix for your tank and your mix of plants. 

Keep the updates coming and interested in seeing what comes next.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Asteroid said:


> I usually agree with you so I'm somewhat surprised at your post, but you know as well as anyone that EI dosing is not a set level. You adjust it based on a tank's parameters. You don't just blindly dose. So all the tanks done with heavy hardscape and low plant mass can't use EI dosing as this OP would have you believe? The problems with OPs tank were far more than simply not having Pogo grow well. He had to nuke the tank. That's the fault of EI dosing? Not sure what Rotalas your referring to, but all mine have done great under heavy EI dosing. So it can't be that.


Some folks get lucky and everything falls into place, many do not. The ones that do like to proclaim to everyone else that nutrients cant be the problem. Neither one can articulate exactly why something works or why it does not. There are many underlying factors that affect nutrient uptake, not the least of which is the balance of the nutrients themselves (Thrive, csmb, etc, works for some but not others).

You cant just say EI works or doesnt work. What are you even calling EI? Then you have different KH and PH levels, under which nutrients behave differently. Ca and Mg hiding in the background asserting a profound effect on things whether its high or low.

The best we can do is combine our own experience with the collective anecdotal reporting of everyone else in the hobby. And from a hoard of experienced plant growers that know what their looking at, and my own personal experience, I can assure you that generally speaking Lythracaea does better with low water column ferts. Pogo erectus certainly does.

Dont fall into the trap of parroting EI fanboy narrative that every problem is co2 and cant be ferts. "Dose EI and then nutrients dont matter" is the absolute dumbest statement thats ever been made in the hobby.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

burr740 said:


> ...
> 
> Don't fall into the trap of parroting EI fanboy narrative that every problem is co2 and cant be ferts. "Dose EI and then nutrients dont matter" is the absolute dumbest statement thats ever been made in the hobby.


You are obviously taken a very defensive position assuming I am an EI fan boy which, if you want to talk about dumb things to say. If you've read any of my posts you would see I am open to different dosing techniques based on parameters and one's time spent with their tank, even specifying that EI type dosing works for MOST plants not all. It's all in the posts I've made. I have never, ever said EI dosing is the only way to go.

OP is making a statement is BOLD to not use EI because of what he experienced. He's got one tank a few months old, that's it, so he should draw sweeping conclusions on that method that you seemed to support by your post. The results of a few species possibility not doing well is not going to force him to nuke the tank. It's much more likely someone with little experience learning how to adjust things as we have all done when starting out. Doesn't matter what you call the fert routine.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Asteroid said:


> You are obviously taken a very defensive position assuming I am an EI fan boy which, if you want to talk about dumb things to say. If you've read any of my posts you would see I am open to different dosing techniques based on parameters and one's time spent with their tank, even specifying that EI type dosing works for MOST plants not all. It's all in the posts I've made. I have never, ever said EI dosing is the only way to go.
> 
> OP is making a statement is BOLD to not use EI because of what he experienced. He's got one tank a few months old, that's it, so he should draw sweeping conclusions on that method that you seemed to support by your post. The results of a few species possibility not doing well is not going to force him to nuke the tank. It's much more likely someone with little experience learning how to adjust things as we have all done when starting out. Doesn't matter what you call the fert routine.


I just said do not fall into that trap like many people do. Wasnt trying to sound defensive, but you did insinuate that OP's problems couldnt be nutrients but rather inexperience on his part.

My opinion, based on what plants he has, everything he said he's done, and what he's been using for dosing...yeah nutrients are very likely a big part of the problem


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> The best we can do is combine our own experience with the collective anecdotal reporting of everyone else in the hobby. And from a hoard of experienced plant growers that know what their looking at, and my own personal experience, I can assure you that generally speaking Lythracaea does better with low water column ferts. Pogo erectus certainly does.


Great post Joe.

If I might add something, it brings to mind the thought of sticking with plants that like the soup you are serving. I have not seen a dosing scheme or set of parameters yet that will bring out the very best in every species.

If the rest of my tank is doing well, I'm not too concerned if something I try doesn't take well to it. Better not to chase the ones you can't grow, as many times something else will suffer. A good example is C. Furcata, which both of us saw decline as we lowered micros. 

And yes, when people say EI dosing what do they mean? I'd say where many of us are at is pretty well removed from that, and it's an over simplification of most dosing strategies. 

So getting back to @cl3537 , when you get things adjusted to your new parameters, I would try a variety of plants and see what sticks. And I wouldn't be too concerned about any single species. Some things will not do well, and you may never know why. If I was judged on my ability to grow AR mini, I would have been thrown off this board a long time ago!:wink2:


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

burr740 said:


> I just said do not fall into that trap like many people do. Wasnt trying to sound defensive, *but you did insinuate that OP's problems couldnt be nutrients but rather inexperience on his part.*
> 
> My opinion, based on what plants he has, everything he said he's done, and what he's been using for dosing...yeah nutrients are very likely a big part of the problem


I wasn't looking to pick it fight with you, I was just surprised at your post. I think you need to re-read my post. I didn't say it wasn't fert related I said it wasn't EI-related. My point being EI is not a set amount for all, it varies based on tank. Most that start a hi-tech tank for the first time have issues managing light, co2,and many of the other parameters you mentioned. As a result they change things which sometimes is difficult in terms of controlling algae, etc. This thread has been no different. A few species not doing well, shouldn't shut down an entire setup.


----------



## KayakJimW (Aug 12, 2016)

Not to throw gas on a fire, I only say this because I doubt I'm the only one who thought this way: But I thought "a set amount for all" is exactly what EI is. My introduction to EI was this kit where you mix one pack for Macros, one pack for Micros and add 5ml per 20gal every other day, skipping one day a week. Only other variable I knew of was to add GH if your source water lacked it... There was three choices, EI, PPS pro, or custom mixing. I went EI at first because it seemed the easiest but I didn't get the results I was looking for either. Still chasing that dragon, but my point is that I was (still am) under the impression that EI was originally marketed as a one size fits all theory. and making adjustments to EI would put me into the custom mix category. Maybe semantics? but this has been an eye opener that we use EI with differing definitions


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Stunted Pogostemon, branching without being cut, slow growth and some hair algae.










Another Photo of different stems negligible still stunted and branched.

Rotala Rotundifolia Already Looking Better From A Water Change and No Dosing. Brown Lines, Tips can be brown on 1 week or 2 week growth. Brown spots but only on some leaves. Leaves are thin, stalks are weak and bending. Color is fine ignore poor White Balance on the Camera.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Ranunculus generally okay especially new growth. Old growth continues to get hair algae after 1 - 2 weeks (see bottom left).

Bump:









Monte Carlo is fine, a little bit of Hair Algae on old growth but but generally on switching to leaner dry ferts it recovered quite well. Ignore color WB off.

Bump:









S. Repens a little GSA or Hair Algae on the edges of some older leaves. New Growth looks good but after a week it becomes wavy with algae.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Full Tank Shot you have to look closer than this to really see the differences from the original tank shot(see page 1 of my journal) which was 9 months of growth on Tropica Specialized and this shot today after months of Thrive and weeks on Dry Ferts.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

@burr740 @Greggz

I should clarify I am currently dosing 1/3 of weekly dose every other day alternating Macros and Micros.
I derived my Micro dosing from your reported dosing, and it is indeed 0.225 weekly for a target of 0.45ppm.

My tap water contains 31 ppm Ca and 8 ppm Mg. It also contains 13ppm Sodium and 25ppm Sulphates.

For the first week I double dosed to reach the target dose by the end of the week and thereafter dosing weekly split up to 3X Macro and 3X Micro dosing on alternate days.

So for Macros I dose 2.5ppm NO3 3X per week for a weekly dose of 7.5ppm and a target with 50% Water changes is a total of 15ppm.

*I beleive Target dosing is important because I have not seen Net Significant Uptake from the plants, if its there it is low and not readily observable with the large reading error of the API kit in both Phosphate and Nitrate. My plants are not using more than 1 ppm of Nitrates per day.*

You can see the differences between my old Tropica Dosing and new dry ferts dosing in the chart above.

While 'N' dosing is almost the same the comparable ratios of most other Macro and Micros is significantly lowered.

While N is almost equal (in Nitrate equivalents) the source of N in Tropica has been mentioned to be a signifcant amount Ammonia along with Nitrates. This may be the greatest single difference between the dosing regimes. It has been suggested also that I dose 6 or 7x per week so I will split up the dose by 6 instead of by 3 as its an all in one with significant ammonia in it.

Zn is an antagonist to Fe so it makes sense that both are lowered in Tropica Specialized. In addition since Phosphate blocks(is Antagonist) to Zn that it is also lowered. (See Mulder's Chart)

The Chelate for Tropica is HEEDTA which chelates Fe which doesn't react with the Phosphates or degrade in the Tropica solution so I can dose the same all in one solution 6X per week instead of alternating days.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> You are not alone.
> 
> 2-3 weeks may not be enough time to judge the new dry fert routine. A lot of these plants are still loaded up with too much or an imbalance of nutrients from the Thrive/EI days.
> 
> ...


Tropica I assumed 50L tank so its 5 pumps weekly or 6ml.
I wish we had a plant database on TPT, would make issues like these for particular plants easier to navigate.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> Some folks get lucky and everything falls into place, many do not. The ones that do like to proclaim to everyone else that nutrients cant be the problem. Neither one can articulate exactly why something works or why it does not. There are many underlying factors that affect nutrient uptake, not the least of which is the balance of the nutrients themselves (Thrive, csmb, etc, works for some but not others).


Agreed, but my time here or anywhere blindly following any Tom Barr theory is over. I did not see any proper peer review of his articles on EI, and I simply will not beleive "Excess Ferts never cause issues your problem must be CO2".

I also now refuse to beleive that unbalanced Ferts or excess cannot cause Algae, or that
High Light + Lean Dosing is a catalyst for Algae. 

These are really misleading concepts perpetuated here time and time again and I have repeated them to others in ignorance.

The reputation of EI and Tom Barr off of TPT in the general international aquascaping community is significantly different from how his theories are viewed on this forum. While some people may be politically correct and say nothing or look for positive aspects of his dosing, there are far more who are vocal critics of his dosing regime and the plants he sells or has sold in the past. These are of course not my words I am paraphrasing many experienced members of the aquarium business and hobbyists. I have seen this opinion repeated by a dozen different people this week both locally and in facebook groups I recently joined.

From Mulder's chart we can see that many elements are Antagonists or Catalysts for others so the balance is important. In healthy well established tanks with high biomass this balance may not be as sensitive but in mine with my plants it certainly seems to be.



> You cant just say EI works or doesnt work. What are you even calling EI? Then you have different KH and PH levels, under which nutrients behave differently. Ca and Mg hiding in the background asserting a profound effect on things whether its high or low.


Well it is still unclear to me if at higher Par I will have to supplement(mostly more Fe and Zn) due to my mid range kH and gH(Ca) but I may run out of time before figuring that out as I am rescaping the tank within a couple weeks.
I run 24/7 CO2 so I have less concern over bioavailability of Micros as my pH never rises above 7.0.




> Dont fall into the trap of parroting EI fanboy narrative that every problem is co2 and cant be ferts. "Dose EI and then nutrients dont matter" is the absolute dumbest statement thats ever been made in the hobby.


Amen and thank-you for repeating that which is precisely my point and the trap I fell into especially because I lack the knowledge to diagnose individual plant species and noone replied when I posted photos of my unhappy Rotala and S. Repens weeks ago.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

My new aquascape coming soon.... (I will start a new thread).


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> Agreed, but my time here or anywhere blindly following any Tom Barr theory is over.
> 
> These are really misleading concepts perpetuated here time and time again and I have repeated them to others in ignorance.
> 
> ...


I don't think any of us should blindly follow anyone, every tank will always be different.
Even the tanks I own are all independently different in their own way.

Repeating a philosophy to others, well I've had a path of enlightenment change before.
Just admit it, make a change to the other team and so be it.

The balance even in a high biomass tank is still a must IMO.

Kind of liked the scape you had going. 

The knowledge of many plant species is a long road I am still traveling.
Let's not count the years, this is why I don't have a dutch scape that is my end goal.
More time required for me.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> Full Tank Shot you have to look closer than this to really see the differences from the original tank shot(see page 1 of my journal) which was 9 months of growth on Tropica Specialized and this shot today after months of Thrive and weeks on Dry Ferts.


Here's the thing. You have two species that are notorious for not liking high ferts - P erectus and the Rotala. Then its 75% Monte carlo which doesnt need much of anything. It is no surprise that high water column nutrients wrecked this tank.

Fwiw your custom dry ferts look pretty good. Probably a little lean on NO3 (cant really compare ppm to ppm with N, it's gonna take more using NO3)

That pesky hair algae is likely too much Fe (and the P erectus stunting). In mine it will come and go like clockwork when Fe is too high. Seen it happen over and over. Relative to everything else, a couple doses of .06 per week would probably be more in line (weekly total of .12)

For micros I'd do something like this 2x week

Fe DTPA - .06
Mn - .02
B - .01 (accounting for whats in the tap)
Zn - .017 (big difference in chelated Zn and non)
Mo - .001
Cu - .0012 (none listed on your chart? having zero will cause issues) 
Ni - .00025 (dont need it if you're sure whats in the tap)

But going back to Tropica is a good plan too. Why fix something that wasnt broke in the first place? I'll be interested to see how things go from here


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> *The end Conclusion EI and excess Ferts has really had very deleterious effects on my tank. High plant mass equilibrium is very different from low plant mass tanks and EI is a very poor method of fertilization for my type of tank and plants.
> *
> .... I* am writing this in hopes that others don't go through the extremely frustrating road I have gone on.*





cl3537 said:


> Agreed, but my time here or anywhere blindly following any Tom Barr theory is over. *I did not see any proper peer review of his articles on EI*, and I simply will not beleive "Excess Ferts never cause issues your problem must be CO2"..


I find it extremely arrogant of you to make these statements. Your a newcomer, have one 2 ft tank that you couldn't keep clean of algae or grow plants. Throughout the forum whenever anyone differs with your view your ask for a valid study to prove it yet you are preaching these sweeping conclusions based on your one tank (first tank) that didn't work out. That is very hypocritical of you. 

Most newbies that start out have issues, I don't care what dosing regime they follow. You've had many issues (which again is not uncommon for someone new) but to blame it all on EI type doing is ridiculous when there are thousands upon thousands of tanks that are successful with that dogma. 

I'll steal a title from another thread _When to know if you are over-thinking fertilization 
_ that applies here. What your doing now can't be compared to the beginning since nothing stated the same. You probably changed the husbandry of the tank as well as the lighting period. Looks like you were using a split lighting period which can in some cases stall growth and let algae take over. 

EI type dosing has a pretty wide range of targets depending on the setup. No one told you to follow a high range blindly. It also relies on religious water changes. Not saying you didn't do them, but you wouldn't be the first to miss some depending on other things happening in your life.

Same thing happens here with Aquasoil. It's a proven substrate, it works no doubt,, but you get a ton of newbies who use it don't follow instructions and then blame the aquasoil. Yeah if you don't change the water as indicated you will have a ton of issues with aquasoil.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

KayakJimW said:


> Not to throw gas on a fire, I only say this because I doubt I'm the only one who thought this way: But I thought "a set amount for all" is exactly what EI is. My introduction to EI was this kit where you mix one pack for Macros, one pack for Micros and add 5ml per 20gal every other day, skipping one day a week. Only other variable I knew of was to add GH if your source water lacked it... There was three choices, EI, PPS pro, or custom mixing. I went EI at first because it seemed the easiest but I didn't get the results I was looking for either. Still chasing that dragon, but my point is that I was (still am) under the impression that EI was originally marketed as a one size fits all theory. and making adjustments to EI would put me into the custom mix category. Maybe semantics? but this has been an eye opener that we use EI with differing definitions


Going back to the source, we're all forgetting the 'estimative' part. I think over time, we've diluted from the original instructions. 

This may be selective referencing, but here's where I feel the critical part is... 

"So the aquarist dose only 3 things really, KNO3, KH2PO4 on the day of the water change then every other day there after, traces of the off day till the next week rolls around. Do a 50-70% water change, dose the macro nutrients back, add the traces the following day and repeat. *You can slowly back off this amount till you notice plant growth differences to tailor your individual tank’s need, but all you will do is waste some macros and traces by adding more than the plant needs.* You should give each change in your routine about 3 weeks before making another change. This will take time but is worth the time spent. It will not cause algae unless you over look something, namely CO2 or under dosing KNO3 which both of these account for about 95% of all algae issues. If you focus on the plant’s needs, the algae will no longer grow. "

and also about the water changes for those stuck on that: 

"There is no hard and fast rule here when dosing or doing 50% weekly water changes. This method can be applied to water changes once a month or once every two weeks, better more consistent results will be obtained when doing 50% weekly water changes, but a well run tank can go longer without a water change.* The aquarist can note plant health and dose slightly less as they gain experience of their individual tank's needs. As they get a feel for the dosing they can tailor the tank's needs further.*"

https://barrreport.com/threads/the-estimative-index-of-dosing-or-no-need-for-test-kits.52/

To this day, we're essentially still doing it. Even if we measure our amounts, we're trying stuff until we get to the point where we can just 'dose' without having to use test kits all the time. That, in essense, was the reason for this method. Where people seemingly got lost is that they took the 'typical' amount on that page and just kept at it. Granted, he did also say it will not cause algae and we're sort of challenging that now, but let's not lose what the original intent was. Dose, water change, dose, water change. Get the right routine, and at some point, you just get *roughly* the right dose with some overages and no longer need to keep testing. Now, your time can be freed up to go do some trimming, filter cleaning, or something else more useful. At least that's what I got from it.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> The reputation of EI and Tom Barr off of TPT in the general international aquascaping community is significantly different from how his theories are viewed on this forum


I am pretty sure I know which FB group you joined. Hope you not are trading one dogma for another. IMO their hatred for Barr borders on irrational.

I think the truth is somewhere in between.

Good luck and I am very interested to see how this goes. Keep the updates coming.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> I am pretty sure I know which FB group you joined. Hope you not are trading one dogma for another. IMO their hatred for Barr borders on irrational.


Its funny how dogma falls apart when its challenged I have no problem doing that  

I wasn't around nor did I come across the Microtox arguments, but just reading Joe's comments above I never considered excess Fe causing Algae and stunted growth until this week. This is rarely discussed here and just about never on Barr Report.

This tank ran on Tropica Specialized for 9-10 months, plants were much happier. The "X" factor may be the N source in Tropica being partially in the reduced state (Urea or Ammonia). 

I have a week or two before the new scape but hopefully I can see some changes, did cumulative 80 - 90% WC and dosed 1ml Tropica 'Green' Specialized tonight.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

ipkiss said:


> Going back to the source, we're all forgetting the 'estimative' part. I think over time, we've diluted from the original instructions.


The estimative part for a tank such as mine should not copy Burr740, Greggz, Tom Barr, 'Classic EI' or any high plant mass dosing schedule as a first guess.

The method is totally useless if it takes you months (or never) to reach a happy equilibrium for most of your plants. The first guess should be much more refined based on water parameters and the species you choose to grow.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> I wasn't around nor did I read I find the Microtox arguments, but just reading Joe's comments above I never considered excess Fe causing Algae and stunted growth until this week. This is rarely discussed here and just about never on Barr Report.


That's because the notion is still dismissed by a large percentage of the hobby despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

To be fair the whole "micro-tox" idea is greatly overblown, usually misapplied and tends to be shouted the loudest by all the wrong people. It's a convenient way to explain problems that we have no idea wtf is causing them, just like blaming everything on CO2.

Not sure if you plan to take this tank down when you do the new scape or not but I wish you'd leave it up a couple more months so everyone could see that pogo erectus bounce back.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> That's because the notion is still dismissed by a large percentage of the hobby despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.







"If you dose too much Iron you tend to get Green Filamentous Algae"
Filipe Oliviera at 5:04


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

cl3537 said:


> The estimative part for a tank such as mine should not copy Burr740, Greggz, Tom Barr, 'Classic EI' or any high plant mass dosing schedule as a first guess.
> 
> 
> 
> The method is totally useless if it takes you months (or never) to reach a happy equilibrium for most of your plants. The first guess should be much more refined based on water parameters and the species you choose to grow.


You're confusing the starting point or the example point with the "method". Could the starting point or example points be more refined as you've requested? Sure. Maybe the share your dosing thread could turn into that. Or maybe it's just a bunch of useless cases of "correlation, not causation." Could Tom be a little less adamant about excess not a problem? I'll concede that. 

But the "method" is still sound. Even pps-pro "simplified" shares this method by including water changes to "reset" the amounts of nutrients. It just has lower amounts. 

"How to do PPS-Pro with water changes?
Easy, no worry approach. Dose PPS-Pro Solution #1 and PPS-Pro Solution #2 at the same time daily for a week, then 50% water change."

https://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/chemicals

Unless you go pps classic and break out your tds meter and/or test kit for every water change for the rest of your tank life, you're "estimating" your nutrients.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Look at this reply to Filipe's video from 2 days ago in CO2 Supplemented Planted Tanks (Facebook Group)










Judge for yourself.

Do you really think someone who writes these kind of paragraphs is credible amongst those who are knowledgeable and recognized top aquascapers in Europe like Filipe?


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

*shrug* apparently credible enough to have a method of fertilization forever linked to his name.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

There's no reason to make this about Tom or EI or anyone else. No system is gonna work for every tank. If someone cant accept that it wont work for everyone then that's their problem.

Those Tropica ferts wouldnt run any of my set ups, not even close. Neither would Flourish liquids. I used to run Flourish liquids, as my tanks evolved so did the need for different ferts. It is what it is.

Be great if we could all just watch and learn from the response in this particular tank instead of turning it into a bitch fest. jmo :hihi:


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> Do you really think someone who writes these kind of paragraphs is credible amongst those who are knowledgeable and recognized top aquascapers in Europe like Filipe?


More bashing from someone who hasn't run one tank clean compared to someone that has a huge portfolio of successful tanks.


----------



## OreoP (Aug 12, 2016)

burr740 said:


> turning it into a bitch fest. jmo :hihi:


Can we lock all the participants in a room and observe the bitch fest? >>:wink2::wink2:


I ventured into this hobby couple of years ago using classic EI ferts. Did it work? Yes and no. Some plants thrived while others just melted. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I opted to follow more experienced planters and tweaked my parameters (CO2, lights, ferts, housekeeping).

I think I have my CO2 and light levels at optimum as far as my setup is concerned. Ferts are continuously evolving.

You can call it EI, modified ferts, low ferts...call it bull crap. I just observe my plants and tweak my ferts here and there to get the best out of them!! Are all my plants perfect? Absolutely not!! But I have more happy plants then unhappy ones and that makes me happy.

FWIW, my tank is looking MUCH better with lower ferts! But then it is MY tank. YOURS might not respond in a similar way.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

OreoP said:


> Can we lock all the participants in a room and observe the bitch fest? >>:wink2::wink2:
> 
> 
> I ventured into this hobby couple of years ago using classic EI ferts. Did it work? Yes and no. Some plants thrived while others just melted. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I opted to follow more experienced planters and tweaked my parameters (CO2, lights, ferts, housekeeping).
> ...



:grin2:


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> Those Tropica ferts wouldnt run any of my set ups, not even close. Neither would Flourish liquids. I used to run Flourish liquids, as my tanks evolved so did the need for different ferts. It is what it is.


Fair point, I'd prefer not to be reliant on any black box fertilizer or expensive commercial water but for now I don't trust the 'clone' recipe of Tropica and can get away with the expensive green dyed water as my tank is small. Filipe may very well be sponsored by Seachem, I'm not interested in using their Ferts that part I ignored.

If you watch though Filipe makes a distinction between heavy stem plant tanks and the carpeted lower plant mass ones he is keeping in the tank behind him. That is a key point of difference which should be emphasized. Too lean within limits isn't going crash his type of tank, I know it didn't hurt mine, it merely slows down growth which is a positive for limiting the need for frequent maintenance. Dennis has spoken about this on here and in his videos on Diorama and competition scapes. 

On the other hand for someone with daily NTUs in the 2-3ppm of Nitrates per day its obvious you can't be dosing 7ppm of nitrates per week.

But its not just the absolute value of dosing (lean versus excess) its also the ratios which may be a problem for my type of tank.

The N ratio in Tropica 13.4:1 yours is 5:1 and I beleive used to be even lower. Is that a major difference maker for your tank or a result of starting with 'Classic EI' and then optimizing leaner from that starting point? 

Then there is the Macro to Micro ratios or just the absolute concentration of Fe. If Fe is used as the reference your N:Fe is 40:1 and Tropica 86:1.

I beleive I may need to keep Fe concentrations low <0.2ppm of accumulation to keep Hair Algae in check, clearly a different concentration is needed for your type of tank. pH and which chelates are being used plays a major role here for stability of Micros, Tropica uses strongly chelated Micros(still guessing as to what the chelate is) as Fe and the phosphates are in the same bottle without issue.

Then finally one can use leaner dosing if the N source is more efficiently used by plants. A decent amount of Ammonia in the fertilizer may serve that purpose quite handily, unnecessary and even potentially problematic in high bioload tanks.
[/quote]


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

@cl3537,

I climbed down from EI-type levels 6-8 months ago, but I do think that they can work in the right light/CO2 setup (it did work for me). When making a radical nutrient change, such as moving away from high-end EI levels, I found it much more difficult than simply removing it from the water column. I spent over six weeks not dosing anything other than very low traces (even below Tropica's levels). It is amazing how much plants can store due to luxury uptake and other aspects. Then, I figured enough was enough, so I started very low level increases in micros and simply monitored NO3, PO4 and K to hold them in the 5/.5/5 ppm area and GH in the 2 dGH area (nudging if needed). dKH is below 1. The idea was to allow the plants to drain their reserves, slowly, while ensuring a minimum reading of the macros. I'm still in this stage. My TDS levels hover in the 60 ppm area to give you an idea of how low my water column dosing is. My plants look the same as they did with EI (and I've always been pleased with them).

My perspective is that we might do better to establish our light (PAR/PUR and photoperiod), CO2, circulation, gas exchange, cleaning and husbandry and say: "That's my setup." Then, approach non-CO2 nutrients from the low end, expanding their use as you wish, given your willingness to watch and wait. I'm not sure that 2-3 weeks is enough to say that a change is stable. I think you have to crawl toward it.

You might like investigating PPS. Although I'm not following it strictly, I'm much closer to it than typical EI ...right now.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

ipkiss said:


> You're confusing the starting point or the example point with the "method". Could the starting point or example points be more refined as you've requested? Sure. Maybe the share your dosing thread could turn into that. Or maybe it's just a bunch of useless cases of "correlation, not causation." Could Tom be a little less adamant about excess not a problem? I'll concede that.
> 
> But the "method" is still sound. Even pps-pro "simplified" shares this method by including water changes to "reset" the amounts of nutrients. It just has lower amounts.
> 
> ...


I get what you are saying about most of the dosing methods are 'estimating' to some extent and many of them share the 'reset with WC' philosophy.

The problem I have with EI in my case is how it has been applied here on TPT. Read the Share your Dose Thread, your tank is an 'outlier' unless you are dosing around ~20ppm NO3, ~3 - 5ppm PO4, 0.4ppm+ Fe etc. etc.

Thrive often reccomended here is an 'EI' fert NO3O4 5:1 with Fe at 0.2ppm per dose and dosage at 2 - 4 time per week. Yet most of the tanks that I see here looking for advice have low plant mass.

But look at the ranges as reported on Barr Report in 2005 for EI.

https://barrreport.com/threads/the-estimative-index-of-dosing-or-no-need-for-test-kits.52/

CO2 range 25-35ppm
NO3 range 5-30ppm
K+ range 10-30ppm
PO4 range 1.0-3.0 ppm
Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher (?)
GH range 3 degrees ~ 50ppm or higher

If someone had said try 0.2ppm Fe, 10ppm NO3 and 1.0ppm PO4 based on my tank I might have much healthier plants and much fewer problems now. 

The problem is EI preaches not needing test kits, you don't ever know plant uptake, you are supposed to know from plant health what to do. Well not even the pros can easily do that, deficiencies are hard enough to diagnose correctly, toxicity from excess even more difficult and it seems very plant specific.

That post I quoted above from Facebook is exactly the same thing Tom Barr has been saying for 14 years, nothing has changed. His advice is not more sophisticated, it isn't more nuanced, no guidelines for specific tanks like Dennis Wong, its the same tired conclusions blaming 'everythingelse' instead of admitting that some problems are precisely about excess fertilizer.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> The problem I have with EI in my case is how it has been applied here on TPT. Read the Share your Dose Thread, your tank is an 'outlier' unless you are dosing around ~20ppm NO3, ~3 - 5ppm PO4, 0.4ppm+ Fe etc. etc.


You need to take that information in context. Most every one of those tanks has high light, high CO2, and loads of fast growing hungry stems. Not much in common with yours.

And much of this discussion goes right back to the overthinking fert dosing thread by Dennis Wong. In my experience, a well managed tank can do pretty well in a wide variety of dosing schemes. Seems you are suggesting here that fert dosing is the primary reason for a successful tank. That has not been my experience. 

Another thing not often discussed is the actual mix of plants in any tank. When you look closely at different methods, you begin to see how folks pick plants that favor the conditions they provide. As has been mentioned, your P. Erectus and Rotala like lower nutrient levels. Vin Kutty has done numerous experiments in this area and his Kill Tank thread is a very good one. By the way, his Pogo Erectus always eventually stunted and melted away in his Dutch tank. 

So the point is, plants like Pogo Erectus and something like Pantanal have much different needs. You will seldom see both flourishing in the same tank. Now some of the groups out there are preaching that there is a secret "recipe" that one must follow. While I do agree that ratio's are something to pay attention to (one of the reasons for the share your dosing thread), I don't believe there is a "recipe" that works for every tank. Actually, far from it. 

In my opinion, our best tool is trial and error and observation. And this doesn't sit well with those who want to solve a planted tank with science. Each tank reacts differently, and duplicating an eco system with so many variables is pretty much impossible. It takes a good deal of effort and dedication to figure out YOUR tank. No shortcuts that I have seen so far. 

In the end, sometimes the end goal gets lost in all the arguing. Show me a beautifully presented tank of healthy plants, and I am interested. Some have strayed so far from that they can't admit when someone has success with any method other than their own. A dogma can be blinding at times.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I am definitely an "outlier". :grin2:
Dose more macros than most, less micros than probably any, and barely change any water.
But I have based it all on consumption with a bit left in the water column.
Otherwise that minimal WC deal would not work.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

I think some ratios are important stay in a general range, mainly those with a strong antagonistic relationship between them. Ca, Mg, K - Fe, Mn - Fe, PO4. 

But there's a few problems with prescribing a "best ratio" for everyone. One of the biggest problems with that is how PH affects each nutrient's availability in a different way. Some will be more available at a certain PH (stronger), others will be less available (weaker).

Im not sure how accurate the pic below is but it gives the general idea. There can be a big difference in how "strong" something is in a PH of 5.5 compared to 7.5.

PH is not the only thing that affects availability. The levels of everything else does too. Say you shoot for a 3:1 Ca:Mg ratio, pretty common target. How "strong" either one is will be different in a tank with 15 ppm K than a tank with 50 ppm. Because all three compete for uptake within the plant, and it probably varies from species to species.

Chelated compounds vs non-chelated will make a difference too as far as how long something sticks around (longer with chelated) and how rapidly plants absorb it (faster with non-chelated)

The ratio we put in the dosing bottle is not necessarily what the plants wind up presented with. It's what happens in the water column that matters.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

burr740 said:


> It's what happens in the water column that matters.


That's why soil is useful... its localized, have different stratifications/layers, separated somewhat from water column chemistry. In your water column, all plants compete for the same dose, in soil, roots have their own areas. Ammonia - far more effective in the substrate than the water column...


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Xiaozhuang said:


> That's why soil is useful... its localized, have different stratifications/layers, separated somewhat from water column chemistry. In your water column, all plants compete for the same dose, in soil, roots have their own areas. Ammonia - far more effective in the substrate than the water column...


 @Xiaozhuang I am starting a new scape soon with inspiration from your diorama style. Still playing with hardscape configurations, it is difficult to get fine detail and depth into a (ADA 60p clone) 60cm X 30cm tank is much more limiting. My thumb has calouses from breaking up lava rock with a hammer and flathead screwdriver.

I will have practically no tall stems in the new scape unless I just play around with some at the back, so dosing very lean is definitely the way I will go and if any foreground palnt seems hungry I will use root tabs maybe use your osmacote with wrapping roots around it method. I have thrive caps which I hope to use for this purpose.

Just curious though have you had any experience with dosing say 0.2ppm (N) daily from Urea or Ammonia in the water column?, I was planning on using Tropica Specialized for this purpose although I have all the dry ferts to make up my own if necessary.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

ipkiss said:


> You're confusing the starting point or the example point with the "method". Could the starting point or example points be more refined as you've requested? Sure. Maybe the share your dosing thread could turn into that. Or maybe it's just a bunch of useless cases of "correlation, not causation." Could Tom be a little less adamant about excess not a problem? I'll concede that.
> 
> But the "method" is still sound. Even pps-pro "simplified" shares this method by including water changes to "reset" the amounts of nutrients. It just has lower amounts.


I don't beleive any method is sound if its based on the assumption that "excess" is not harmful to plants(can stunt) or a catalyst for algae.
The Estimative part(if you can't even measure it) and water changes won't fix it if the maximum target is much too high to begin with. 
*When your plant uptake is <1ppm NO3 daily you aren't measuring NTUs easily you just must start much much leaner.
*

It becomes very complicated and unproven when you get into which excess to look for and plant specific. Maybe macros in excess aren't such a problem(within reasonable ranges) but Micros clearly are and that has not been published, oh what a uproar from EI fanboys if that became proven.

*Plant deficiencies are hard to diagnose, try plant excess, I bet only a few dozen people on this board even know what to look for and most aren't active posters anymore.
*

Compounding that problem is if your starting guess was way off, is that Tom Barr for 14+ years and most of his disciples refuse to understand that other tanks don't have a buffer of hungry stems to remove organics and buffer the system, it doesn't matter what you do with light or CO2 you won't optimize the tank without reducing dosage or increasing plant mass. Sure maybe you can slowdown Algae and everythingelse by lowering light but that is a bandaid and not a solution.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> @cl3537,
> 
> I climbed down from EI-type levels 6-8 months ago, but I do think that they can work in the right light/CO2 setup (it did work for me).


For me it can work with the right PLANT setup.



> When making a radical nutrient change, such as moving away from high-end EI levels, I found it much more difficult than simply removing it from the water column. I spent over six weeks not dosing anything other than very low traces (even below Tropica's levels). It is amazing how much plants can store due to luxury uptake and other aspects.


Unfortunately you and @Greggz @burr740 are right and even in my small tank with active substrate it may take weeks if not months. I don't have time to wait I'd rather enjoy my tank so the new scape won't be pushed off much longer. I may try planting some of the old rotala stems in the scape temporarily to see how they do but I don't want to wait on this tank.



> Then, I figured enough was enough, so I started very low level increases in micros and simply monitored NO3, PO4 and K to hold them in the 5/.5/5 ppm area and GH in the 2 dGH area (nudging if needed). dKH is below 1. The idea was to allow the plants to drain their reserves, slowly, while ensuring a minimum reading of the macros. I'm still in this stage. My TDS levels hover in the 60 ppm area to give you an idea of how low my water column dosing is. My plants look the same as they did with EI (and I've always been pleased with them).


Yep I get that, its why monitoring changes in healthy systems may take a long time before things start to crash or improve. That is why I question the conclusions drawn by Tom Barr about excess the observation period may not have been long enough.



> My perspective is that we might do better to establish our light (PAR/PUR and photoperiod), CO2, circulation, gas exchange, cleaning and husbandry and say: "That's my setup."


Well I'm not thrilled to see no results for 3 months, but thats essentially what led me to a much stronger conclusion that its ferts that are the problem.
I would have preferred to learn about Rotalas and Pogostemon a lot earlier on though. The goal wasn't to do experiments for the hobby it was to have a healthy tank!



> , approach non-CO2 nutrients from the low end, expanding their use as you wish, given your willingness to watch and wait. I'm not sure that 2-3 weeks is enough to say that a change is stable. I think you have to crawl toward it.


Agreed I won't have the patience to wait this out. Ideally I dose nothing or low, wait for plants to recover take a picture, then cake it on again watch plants deteriorate and take pictures. 



> You might like investigating PPS. Although I'm not following it strictly, I'm much closer to it than typical EI ...right now.


I'm looking for the references for Marschner Ratio, is it N of 10:1? 
That is the PPS-pro ratio is that derived from it? Thing is thought its still 0.35 Fe weekly and which I suspect is still much too much although daily will help mitigate it somewhat. Also no N source other than KNO3 not sure lean without reduced N is great.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Maybe macros in excess aren't such a problem(within reasonable ranges) but Micros clearly are and that has not been published, oh what a uproar from EI fanboys if that became proven.


I agree with much of what you have been saying, but a blanket statement like above is why the factions were at war a few years back. You weren't here, but it was a bloody battle. Some were banned for life because it got so out of control. 

At the time of the micro tox wars, most everyone was dosing CSM+B. Most likely that was the root of most problems. First is the type of iron used vs tank pH. Next is the nature of CSM+B itself, which is produced in huge vats to spread over crops. 

Now let's just take B itself. I have tested various B levels and in my tank it has the narrowest effective range. Not enough is not good, and too much can be toxic. I tested the upper end and the reaction was swift and certain. So let's take a vat of CSM+B, then scoop out the pound you purchase, then scoop out the 1/16th or 1/32nd tsp most were using. What are the odds of the B in that fractional tsp to be in the correct range? IMO very, very slim. 

And we could on and on with each individual micro. Some of these are a minute physical amount. Getting the same from dose to dose using CSM+B is highly unlikely. 

To compound matters further EI dosing was listed as 0.5 Fe from CSM+B 3 times a week. That amount was way too high for most tanks, and could itself cause problems. It wasn't that long ago that Barr relented and the calculators brought it down to 0.2 x 3 times per week. Zorfox still has it as 0.5. 

So yes, micros can cause toxicity. I believe much can be attributed to crummy micros, and some to flat out too high of guidelines. In general it's a more nuanced argument than simply stating micros are toxic. 

And I actually don't know of too many EI fanboys around anymore. I started with EI, and found quickly that it was not the best dosing for my tank. It's taken years of experimenting to get to my current dosing, and I am still tweaking and searching for the optimal amounts. It's funny those guys are still at war with EI, yet few that I know are dosing EI. 

I've been enjoying following your journey, and I think there are things to be learned there. Healthy debate and experimentation is good for the hobby. But it seems you may be buying in to a dogma with which you have no practical experience. No different than an EI fanboy who enters the hobby and preaches what he has not experienced. Just saying you may want to give things more time and see actual results in your tank before offering broad conclusions.

Heck, I have doing this for almost 4 years, and I don't have many broad conclusions. All I really know is what happens in my particular tank, and that's really all the perspective I can provide. 

Last thing is that I would beware of folks performing micro experiments on a single species in a bare bottom tank. IMO, the only thing it proves is what happened with that particular set of parameters in that particular tank. Extrapolating that to another tank with a different set of everything is tricky business.

Good luck and I am very much looking forward to seeing what the next chapter brings.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I should re-qualify part of my statement about dramatically reducing my dosing. Shortly after I turned off the nutrient gusher, my Dwarf Sag began turning glassy, rotted and diminished greatly (never turning white). I suspected iron, but ruled it out since I was dosing .2 ppm gluc daily and, instead, suspected N. I was willing to live with this given my overall objective to reduce and the fact that all other plants were still thriving. A few months later, I switched to .05 ppm daily but moved to DTPA - with no change in any plants. Two weeks ago, I decided to test the iron possibility and started dosing .06 ppm gluc daily on top of the .05 ppm DTPA (.11 ppm daily). The Dwarf Sag (a known iron hog) began a miracle recovery about a week later and has begun expanding again. no other plants showing any change ...yet. I don't plan to stay at these levels, as it was mainly a test. Besides, removing the dosing should test whether or not the iron is actually the issue.

So, I did violate @Greggz rule about performing micro experiments on a single species but, at least it isn't in a bare-bottom tank. [smiley face is supposed to be here]


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> I should re-qualify part of my statement about dramatically reducing my dosing. Shortly after I turned off the nutrient gusher, my Dwarf Sag began turning glassy, rotted and diminished greatly (never turning white). I suspected iron, but ruled it out since I was dosing .2 ppm gluc daily and, instead, suspected N. I was willing to live with this given my overall objective to reduce and the fact that all other plants were still thriving. A few months later, I switched to .05 ppm daily but moved to DTPE - with no change in any plants. Two weeks ago, I decided to test the iron possibility and started dosing .06 ppm gluc daily on top of the .05 ppm DTPE (1.1 ppm daily). The Dwarf Sag (a known iron hog) began a miracle recovery about a week later and has begun expanding again. no other plants showing any change ...yet. I don't plan to stay at these levels, as it was mainly a test. Besides, removing the dosing should test whether or not the iron is actually the issue.
> 
> So, I did violate @Greggz rule about performing micro experiments on a single species but, at least it isn't in a bare-bottom tank. [smiley face is supposed to be here]


I have no idea what DTPE is > but I do know what DTPA is  Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetic Acid. 
I also don't know in what world 0.06 + 0.05 equals 1.1, but I do know in this world that is 0.11ppm. >

But even though I am confused I get what you are saying, in your tank which if it needs 0.77 Fe weekly must be full of demanding plants or at least enough of them to require higher dosing. Lower than you were dosing before but still much higher than my tank needs.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> I have no idea what DTPE is > but I do know what DTPA is  Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetic Acid.
> I also don't know in what world 0.06 + 0.05 equals 1.1, but I do know in this world that is 0.11ppm. >
> 
> But even though I am confused I get what you are saying, in your tank which if it needs 0.77 Fe weekly must be full of demanding plants or at least enough of them to require higher dosing. Lower than you were dosing before but still much higher than my tank needs.


LOL: well, as you can see, I was in a rush. I guess I'm more concerned about "he who hesitates is lost" than I am about "haste makes waste."

You got the numbers and vowels right. Now corrected.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

@Deanna 

Dry ferts at 7.5/2.5/6.75 NPK and 0.22 Fe and over month ago, and then 80% water change and then only dosing Tropica as of a week ago with 1ml every other day with little changes.

So just like you I reduced ferts dramatically with little to no changes in plant health it may take a long time to see anything.

I decided to top all my Rotala, remove lower leaves of S. Repens and just left Pogostemon alone. Everything is growing, algae is mostly reduced, but growth doesn't look appreciably better maybe Pogostemon is getting a little more full but other than that I see little in the way of changes.
@burr740


Burr740 said:


> Macros look OK at 15/5/13


Please explain your thought process on these numbers.
First those are double my dosing, those were my targets based on 50% water changes and no uptake(I know my uptake is low).
Also why do you suggest Phosphates so high? Most people with few stems are dosing much lower Phosphates (N) 10:1 or higher any thoughts?




burr740 said:


> Fe DTPA - .06
> Mn - .02
> B - .01 (accounting for whats in the tap)
> Zn - .017 (big difference in chelated Zn and non)
> ...


Could you please explain how you came up with these Micro numbers is it ratios of the Macros or somethingelse?
I have Cu, Ni and B in my tap showin from both 2012 and 2016 water reports
I am dosing Tropica right now but what I am interested in understanding is what the starting point guess should have been and how you estimated it.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> @*burr740*
> 
> Please explain your thought process on these numbers.
> First those are double my dosing, those were my targets based on 50% water changes and no uptake(I know my uptake is low).
> Also why do you suggest Phosphates so high? Most people with few stems are dosing much lower Phosphates (N) 10:1 or higher any thoughts?


Oh right, you guys dosing for "targets" confuse me. 15/5/13 should be a good weekly dosing total, along with .1 Fe 3x per week. That's what I meant.

But...if your tank was rolling along just fine with Tropica, which is much lower than that, you may not even need that much. The plants will have to answer this.

Fwiw the Redfield Ratio, which is where the 10:1 thing comes from, pertains to N, not NO3O4. It was also done in the ocean as an experiment on algae growing. Some folks still think its some magic formula to keep algae away but I can assure you its not.



cl3537 said:


> Could you please explain how you came up with these Micro numbers is it ratios of the Macros or somethingelse?
> I have Cu, Ni and B in my tap showin from both 2012 and 2016 water reports
> I am dosing Tropica right now but what I am interested in understanding is what the starting point guess should have been and how you estimated it.


The starting point for micros is Fe and its based on how much plants need to be happy.

Mn is somewhat relevant to Fe in that having a 4:1-2:1 Fe:Mn ratio seems to work best. Crop studies usually agree that 2:1 is best. In my aquarium experiments, using strongly chelated Fe and unchelated Mn, 3-4:1 seems to work better. Too much Mn will induce a Fe deficiency even when there's plenty of Fe present

Everything else is based on dosing the right amount, not specifically in ratio to something else, although everything else is relative. If you wanted to increase or decrease the micro recipe above, adjust everything the same across the board. That way the ratios stay the same even though we arent necessarily relying on some ideal ratio.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> Oh right, you guys dosing for "targets" confuse me. *15/5/13* should be a good weekly dosing total, along with .1 Fe 3x per week. That's what I meant.


Close to those amounts are what got me in trouble in the first place. 3ml X3 of Thrive weekly. However it may be that Thrive has too much Fe and Mn and it wasn't Macros at all as I said before.

(Assuming 15 Gallons of Water)

NO3	17.9697
Po4	3.3512
K	12.8159
N	4.0577
P	1.0929
Ca	0.0317
S	0.8559
Fe	0.6657
Mg	0.5072
Cu	0.0003
B	0.0127
Mn	0.2663
Mo	0.001
Zn	0.006



> But...if your tank was rolling along just fine with Tropica, which is much lower than that, you may not even need that much. The plants will have to answer this.


Tropica Dosing (6ml weekly).

N	1.416 (6.26 NO3 or 1.82 NH4+)
P	0.106 (0.33 PO4)
Mg	0.412
K	1.088
S	0.962
Fe	0.073
Mn	0.041
B	0.004
Cu	0.006
Mo	0.002
Zn	0.002
Cl	0.528




> Fwiw the Redfield Ratio, which is where the 10:1 thing comes from, pertains to N, not NO3O4.


This is the first time I've some across that name. A quick search tells me its probably not relevant, not worrying about BGA for low ratios <10 such as yours.

However Tropica dosing is 13.4:1 N while your suggest dosing is like 2:1! (Yes they have different sources Tropica is rumored to be NH3/NH4+)

The question really becomes does more PO4 reduce Algae or it it required for N uptake and if so in what ratio?












> The starting point for micros is Fe and its based on how much plants need to be happy.


If Tropica working 9 months was any indication, I would say you aren't even near that ballpark. >



> Everything else is based on dosing the right amount, not specifically in ratio to something else, although everything else is relative. If you wanted to increase or decrease the micro recipe above, adjust everything the same across the board. That way the ratios stay the same even though we arent necessarily relying on some ideal ratio.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

If Tropica works well why not just use it, or clone it


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Got my vote to clone it if it works!


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

burr740 said:


> If Tropica works well why not just use it, or clone it


Its a 17g I have 9 months worth of the original and it cost me $10 USD.
I also bought Urea thinking I might try Happi's clone recipe but that will have to wait for the new scape.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Topped all the Rotala, new growth definitely looking better on Tropica vey lean dosing. 130 par at the substrate.









Bump: Pogostemon also looking better some stems getting yellow/red color par is 120+ at substrate and the taller ones are getting 150 +par.
Starting to get more full but the bottom is a crowded branched mess, most stems still stunted not growing well.

While this is interesting to watch the recovery its time for a teardown.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> But it seems you may be buying in to a dogma with which you have no practical experience.


Edit: Instead of a long ineffective diatribe I'll just ask.

What dogma are you referring to?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

:laugh2::grin2::laugh2::grin2:

Your ignorance on the whole EI is for Dutch tanks is simply laughable!!!


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Xiaozhuang said:


> That's why soil is useful... its localized, have different stratifications/layers, separated somewhat from water column chemistry. In your water column, all plants compete for the same dose, in soil, roots have their own areas. Ammonia - far more effective in the substrate than the water column...


 @Xiaozhuang

I like this concept a lot. What would be some low maintenance options for substrate in your Diorama style scapes?

I would prefer not to have to worry about soil mixing with the cap and maintenance issues with that. I was hoping to do two types of sand, 
course medium grit BDBS for planting and a lighter sand for the front if I can easily construct a barrier to prevent them for mixing.

I was considering Black Beauty medium grit Black Diamond Blasting Sand, can't I use that with root tabs(if necessary) and forego the soil altogether?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> I have thought a great deal about your comment over the last few days so I delayed my response until now. I will violate my rule of trying to keep posts shorter as this is a very complicated topic and I have a lot to say.


I started to write a detailed response to this post, but honestly it would be so long I don't have the will.

You have pretty much managed to mischaracterize every thought I have about planted tanks. I don't understand the full scale attack on me personally. I am a hobbyist who shares my journey, and equally enjoys following the journeys and successes of others in the hobby. And that goes regardless of the type or style of tank, or the methodology used.

Good luck to you. I really do hope things go well and look forward to seeing where things go next.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> ...
> 
> You have pretty much managed to mischaracterize every thought I have about planted tanks. I don't understand the full scale attack on me personally...


I've been trying to say that for the last month about this member. He keeps referring to me as an EI fan boy which if you look at any of my posts I continually state that there are many approaches that work for different setups and different lifestyles, husbandry, etc. One approach doesn't work for everyone. The think that sets me off bout it, is that this member has pretty much no experience and is simply standing on the "shoulders of giants" and acting like he has figured everything out.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

I'll lock the thread if each of you can't be respectful. 

We'll also suspend or ban you if you can't get your act together.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> I started to write a detailed response to this post, but honestly it would be so long I don't have the will.
> 
> You have pretty much managed to mischaracterize every thought I have about planted tanks. I don't understand the full scale attack on me personally. I am a hobbyist who shares my journey, and equally enjoys following the journeys and successes of others in the hobby. And that goes regardless of the type or style of tank, or the methodology used.
> 
> Good luck to you. I really do hope things go well and look forward to seeing where things go next.


My apologies then if I misunderstood your opinions and advice. 
You have helped many here and it doesn't go unnoticed, even though I can't credit you with the changes I needed in my tank I do recognize your efforts.

FWIW my quarrel is more with EI and Tom Barr theory and mostly how it is applied here on TPT rather than you personally so I removed my long diatribe it won't likely help anyone, least of all me, especially if it just looks like an attack.

I beleive the average tank(with lower stem density) that has algae problems could benefit from a leaner dosing regime, whether applied as EI or any other system, and that was the thesis for my post.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> ...
> I beleive the *average tank here* that has problems could benefit from a leaner dosing regime, whether applied as EI or any other system, and that was the thesis for my post.


Your "thesis" IMO is not really very credible. It's based on your 1st and only tank. Although you read what other "Pros" do with their tanks what you don't understand is that those people are not like the average member's tank here, they are far more dedicated to the hobby, many make their living or supplement their living through their tanks and are going to spend more time with them For the average tank here, EI or whatever you call it, heavier dosing can work better since they can be away from the tank longer without running short of something. Not to say leaner dosing can't work for many members as well. So to make a blanket statement like that is simply worthless IMO. 

BTW there are plenty of people that use EI type doing for hardscape heavy tanks like iwagumi, etc. The water change is there to reduce organics since the uptake is less with less fast growing stems. It reduces the ferts too, but primarily it's for the organics to keep the tank clean.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> My apologies then if I misunderstood your opinions and advice.
> You have helped many here and it doesn't go unnoticed, even though I can't credit you with the changes I needed in my tank I do recognize your efforts.
> 
> FWIW my quarrel is more with EI and Tom Barr theory and mostly how it is applied here on TPT rather than you personally so I removed my long diatribe it won't likely help anyone, least of all me, especially if it just looks like an attack.
> ...


I appreciate that, and I have no quarrel with you (or your methods!:grin2.

And I agree, tanks with different goals require different dosing strategies (and light/CO2/etc.). There is no recipe I have seen yet that works in every situation. And that includes EI and the ideas proposed by the group you joined. An argument can be made that both are dogmatic in their beliefs.

The key to me is a willingness to experiment and find the right recipe for each tank and it's particular goals. There is no shortcut, and it takes more time and dedication than most realize (or want to take on). 

Like I have said many times, show me a beautifully presented tank full of happy plants, and I am interested. The methodology makes no difference, and maybe there is something we all can learn from.

And when I say I am looking forward to seeing your next set up, I mean it. If it's successful, it might be very helpful to those with similar goals. So keep the updates coming.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

See? Being respectful works! 

Especially on a forum dedicated to keeping plants in boxes filled with water.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Somehow I got mentioned in this thread today but nothing is here to see??? :|

Dosing can be tricky or not depending on source water used and plant load.

I've poured on the macros and run very lean micros.
Never really followed an EI method of dosing, always modified to my liking.
Note: It took a while to figure out what I wanted in my water.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Somehow I got mentioned in this thread today but nothing is here to see??? :|


I didn't see it either but I am sure it must have been only the kindest flattering things!:wink2:

And yes your dosing is much different than mine, and unique in many ways. I think maybe that's why I enjoy our discussions so much.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

***


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Edward said:


> ***


I would like this post but I'm lost?
Who kissed and made up?
Has something been deleted?

Always seem to miss the controversy. :|

Forgot I was @ work today when all of the action happened. :frown2:


----------



## Quint (Mar 24, 2019)

I just use copepods .....:grin2:


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> ***


See I knew you knew how to post a picture!!:wink2:


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

I planted a few of my stunted/marked Rotala Rotundifolia and Pogostemon Erectus in my new scape, prior to this they were floating in a holding tub for a few days following by planting in a small cup of old Aquasoil for about a week. The tub and the new scape have been dosed sparingly with Tropica Green Specialized 1ml every other day, so the dosing has been quite lean and I only kept two small cupfuls of the old aquasoil.

I am pleased to report both species are now Algae free and new growth is no longer stunted in my inert sand scape. New growth, while the leaf shape is well formed and more full, the size of the leaves are smaller(expeced from leaner dosing) and the color is more green than yellow/red for both species (due to lower light). I will ramp up ferts and light slowly in the upcoming weeks to hopefully show better color and size from both of these.

This has been a good learning experience, but I really wish I had been aware of the Rotala Kill Thread https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/ it is a long read but at least it makes clear potential dangers(not for everyone) as a result of buildup of Micros and stunting that may occur for the Lythraceae family of plants and others like P. Erectus under high micro concentrations.


----------

