# High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life



## tahoesnowed

Well you do miss the main point of EI dosing which is provide sufficient nutrients to avoid nutrients being a limiting factor without having to test. It is a tool to help you get nice healthy planted tanks. The point is not to get a high enough concentration of nutrients to cause a toxic mess. Of course too much is bad.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I am used to getting beat up a lot.
I'll offer an opinion here.

In the total realm of things aquatic and plant related.
I believe lighting and micro dosing are the two main factors to disaster.

Testing and dosing based on results are my anchor.
Truthfully I don't really like dosing anything in the aquarium.
For me it is a necessary evil daily process.


----------



## Audionut

I can't say for certain, but I get the feeling that most of the scientific studies are conducted in the wild, where changes happen rapidly. Here's some creek, there was a sudden influx of P from runoff, a subsequent explosion of algae, P = bad. Is it solely the increased concentration of P that caused the issues, or _did the rate of change of concentration also have an effect_?

Life does adapt. This is without question. It's the reason why we can read these words instead of still swimming in a puddle of water, or swinging through some trees. However, the rate of adaption is slow. We didn't stop swinging through tress overnight for instance. In aquatic nature, it is my understanding that P is the limiting nutrient. When we understand that life can adapt, we can understand that P being the limiting factor isn't such a big deal. Over millennia, life has adapted to the low P levels, and even with these low P levels, life functions well.

Since algae contains the same growth mechanisms of plants, clearly, increasing nutrient levels provides a _platform_ for the increased growth rate of algae also. However, it is my belief (opinion or whatever you want to call it), that it's not the nutrient concentration in and of itself that solely promotes the increased growth of algae, but at least three other factors. The rate of change of the nutrient concentration. And algae' apparent ability to adapt to changes at a faster rate. 

The other confounding factor seems to be at what levels do these nutrients cause toxicity affects. We don't even half half an idea of what levels constitute toxicity for wanted plant species, let alone algae. Evidence seems to suggest the Green Spot Algae has a strong relationship between P and light levels, with increased P and/or decreased light levels having a negative affect on GSA growth, and decreased P and/or increased light levels having a positive affect on GSA growth.

So we may find that there are concentrations of nutrients that do indeed have a negative affect on the ability of algae to thrive, while having a positive affect on other plant species to thrive. We may also find that given the sheer number of species of both plants and algae, there is no one level of nutrients that supports the thriving growth of plants, without also supporting the thriving growth of some species of algae. This then leads back to controlling the rate of change of nutrient levels, but I don't want to swell my head with to much supporting anecdotal evidence.

I also think that if nature was given enough time to adapt, she would probably also increase the number of algae eating species in high algae environments. We find concentrated populations of animals where food and water is plentiful.

The other issue I have with nature based scientific studies against our little eco-systems, is with our supply of aquatic life. To run a successful business in today's economy, you need to generate profit. To generate good profit you need things like economy of scale. Breeding fish from one adult pair in a 5000 liter puddle of water is very poor economy of scale, whereas breeding fish from 1000 adult pairs or more, in the same volume of water is better economy of scale. Providing that all other factors (maintenance, water changes etc) are equal, clearly, the volume of water containing increased numbers of fish will contain higher levels of toxic substances.

So while Joe fish that was caught in some natural river system may find nutrient A toxic at concentration B, it's reasonable to assume that the same breed of Joe fish that has been breed from generations of high fish to low water volume, probably has applied the same genetic adaption that all life is capable of, and is thus capable of sustaining life at elevated levels then his wild breed counterpart.


Having said all that, I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of this thread. General statements regarding these things are daft. There are so many confounding factors that even full blown chemists and biologists don't yet fully understand. And yet forum goer Fred Bloggs, will happily state things like high nutrient levels provide great growth in his tank, without even considering the role that algae eaters play on the growth rates of algae, or any of the other confounding factors. So poor old Joe Someone who has no algae eaters, follows the advice given to him and has a completely different experience. To make matters worse, when Joe Someone then comes back to describe his results, he is often told that he must be doing something wrong, when in reality, it is forum goer Fred Bloggs and his lack of understanding that has neglected to also advise of many of the confounding factors involved with his general statements.

Also, just because mass breed fish _may_ develop adaption to higher levels of things, doesn't necessarily mean we should be promoting this, or accepting that just because we are higher life forms, these lower life forms should be adapting to our ways of doing things.


----------



## Greggz

Marcel, I'm no scientist, biologist, or anything really.

But with all due respect, the title of this thread should have been.........

*In my opinion high nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life*

I'm just saying, this is far from settled science. And there are some very knowledgeable people who have very successful tanks whose opinion differs with yours. 

If this was completely settled, we would all have the perfect algae free tank of our dreams. In the real world, and my experience, what works for one may not work at all for another. It seems this may be part art and part science after all.


----------



## Hoppy

Maryland Guppy said:


> I am used to getting beat up a lot.
> I'll offer an opinion here.
> 
> In the total realm of things aquatic and plant related.
> I believe lighting and micro dosing are the two main factors to disaster.
> 
> Testing and dosing based on results are my anchor.
> Truthfully I don't really like dosing anything in the aquarium.
> For me it is a necessary evil daily process.


This is a hobby, so you should use methods that enhance your enjoyment of the hobby. If you enjoy testing and making decisions based on that, you should do that. If you don't enjoy testing or making that type of decisions, the EI method is a another way to enjoy the hobby.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Greggz said:


> Marcel, I'm no scientist, biologist, or anything really.
> 
> But with all due respect, the title of this thread should have been.........
> 
> *In my opinion high nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life*
> 
> I'm just saying, this is far from settled science. And there are some very knowledgeable people who have very successful tanks whose opinion differs with yours.
> 
> If this was completely settled, we would all have the perfect algae free tank of our dreams. In the real world, and my experience, what works for one may not work at all for another. It seems this may be part art and part science after all.


If you peruse the literature, the statement that 'high nutrients promote algae and are toxic to aquatic life' is well established. Dismissing science when it is inconveniently opposed to certain dogmatic paradigms that are common in the hobby is like denying climate change/global warming. Denial is a result of fear; it functions as a coping mechanism. In this case, if it's true that high nutrients cause problems, then that means those who've been dosing high levels of traces have been poisoning and killing their fish and shrimp. In truth, most people don't want to hear that they are the ones who are responsible for the deaths of their pets; it's easier to place blame on someone or something else.


----------



## happi

am not sure why my name is in there, but i do know that when you read my threads and posts you might find mixed information, the reason behind that is because as i mature in this hobby i have learned more and more and my opinions changed after caring out my own experiments. i use to dose EI and it worked great in my hard water but it failed me when i switched to soft water. when i was dosing EI, i did not have any algae at all in my hard water, but in my soft water it was a disaster, GDA would cover the tank immediately when i dosed high NO3, then i switched to urea, i had great looking plants and no more gda or ant other algae. then suddenly one day things went down hill again and i tried all method from EI to my own with more or less ferts and couldn't defeat some of the algae. i have never said high po4 cause algae, i have said it can increase the existing algae and decreasing it to 0 PO4 wont help either if algae already exist. i can only share my experiments and people can try them, for some it works for some it doesn't, so there is not exact answer to these kind of questions. i use to dose 8+ ppm PO4 at water change and 1 ppm urea daily and tank was crystal clear, when i had algae issue i tried 0 PO4 and 8 ppm PO4 and algae still grew, so you see there is no exact answer to why algae still occurs. there are few other things that happened in my tank, every time i dosed high NO3, my red plants would suffer and die eventually, there only thrived once i started using urea. people are told they would get algae if they use NH4, but they should understand Urea works different and actually make the plant grow better due to its highest Nitrogen content. other thing i noticed is when PO4 and Fe levels were high cyano bacteria like to grow, bba was also present when Fe levels were high especially from Fe gluconate. 

am down for any kind of debate, but in the end we will get mixed results.


----------



## Immortal1

hoppy said:


> *this is a hobby*, so you should use methods that enhance your enjoyment of the hobby. If you enjoy testing and making decisions based on that, you should do that. If you don't enjoy testing or making that type of decisions, the ei method is a another way to enjoy the hobby.


123


----------



## niko

And how does ADA run their tanks? 

Simplified: Lean water column WITH a daily dose of fertilizers AND rich substrate that is active in the sequestering of nutrients.

Can anyone here tell me why in America these basic principles are not followed?
Why we marvel at the (same old) Japanese aquascape copy-cats and try to emulate them but do not emulate HOW they are maintained?

We love to use calculators and tests and what not fertilizers. Of course things will get accumulated if you add excessive amounts. Water changes do not take care of the accumulations because the rate of use by the plants is dynamic, there are tons of dynamic physico-chemical processes going on in the tank, etc.


At the end of the day in the US the average hobbyist checks about 8 parameters, adds about 6 fertilziers, changes water as if that's some kind of magic and believes that is right. 

The result is beautiful aquascapes, AGA contest full of non-recycled ADA tanks, and an active community that discusses everything else but aquascaping. 

And since for some people what I said above may not be clearly connected to the thread topic - "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life" here's a final food for thought:

- Where in Nature can you find a body of water that has Nitrate 5-20, Phosphate 0.5-2.0, 30ppm CO2, and loads of traces?
- Would that be considered "polluted" water?
- How stable would be a tank with the above parameters?
- How easy would be to eradicate budding algae in such a tank?
- Why do I believe that a glass box is something so different than Nature that I have to artificially create a completely unnatural environment in it so live plants grow in it? Feel free to call me "stupid" if you do think I am.

Good night. Sweet dreams now


----------



## 58417

*List of names from the old thread*



happi said:


> am not sure why my name is in there ... as i mature in this hobby i have learned more and more and my opinions changed after caring out my own experiments ... am down for any kind of debate, but in the end we will get mixed results.


I ment no harm, I was just listing the people who were arguing for EI in the original old thread from 2011:


happi said:


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


My point was just to point out what arguments were used for advocating high nutrient levels. "No fish gasping" in this case.


----------



## jcmv4792

niko said:


> And how does ADA run their tanks?
> 
> Simplified: Lean water column WITH a daily dose of fertilizers AND rich substrate that is active in the sequestering of nutrients.
> 
> Can anyone here tell me why in America these basic principles are not followed?
> Why we marvel at the (same old) Japanese aquascape copy-cats and try to emulate them but do not emulate HOW they are maintained?
> 
> We love to use calculators and tests and what not fertilizers. Of course things will get accumulated if you add excessive amounts. Water changes do not take care of the accumulations because the rate of use by the plants is dynamic, there are tons of dynamic physico-chemical processes going on in the tank, etc.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day in the US the average hobbyist checks about 8 parameters, adds about 6 fertilziers, changes water as if that's some kind of magic and believes that is right.
> 
> The result is beautiful aquascapes, AGA contest full of non-recycled ADA tanks, and an active community that discusses everything else but aquascaping.
> 
> And since for some people what I said above may not be clearly connected to the thread topic - "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life" here's a final food for thought:
> 
> - Where in Nature can you find a body of water that has Nitrate 5-20, Phosphate 0.5-2.0, 30ppm CO2, and loads of traces?
> - Would that be considered "polluted" water?
> - How stable would be a tank with the above parameters?
> - How easy would be to eradicate budding algae in such a tank?
> - Why do I believe that a glass box is something so different than Nature that I have to artificially create a completely unnatural environment in it so live plants grow in it? Feel free to call me "stupid" if you do think I am.
> 
> Good night. Sweet dreams now


So does ADA dose their tanks with a regimen more similar to PPS pro? How do they calculate how much they need to dose?


----------



## 58417

*Thread title*

Deleted


----------



## 58417

*Added on the list*



tahoesnowed said:


> Well you do miss the main point of EI dosing which is provide sufficient nutrients to avoid nutrients being a limiting factor without having to test. It is a tool to help you get nice healthy planted tanks. The point is not to get a high enough concentration of nutrients to cause a toxic mess. Of course too much is bad.


Good point, tahoesnowed! I added this argument on the list. Thank you!


----------



## Hoppy

jcmv4792 said:


> So does ADA dose their tanks with a regimen more similar to PPS pro? How do they calculate how much they need to dose?


Most ADA lighting is relatively low light, not high light. They do dose a lot of things, some which are just fertilizers, heavy on potassium, and others which seem to be used primarily to entice others to buy them. Since they start with non-high light their fertilizing is a lot less critical than it is with high light - the plants use much less nutrients by growing slower.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*



Hoppy said:


> Most ADA lighting is relatively low light, not high light ... Since they start with non-high light their fertilizing is a lot less critical than it is with high light - the plants use much less nutrients by growing slower.


What about ADA Aqusky? Do you consider this a low light? Me not. Still, they recommend using the same (lean) fertilizers as with ADA HQI Solar lighting. This adds to the arguments that even with high light you probably need only a relatively small amount of nutrients (in water column) for good growth, given you use some kind of soil substrate (as ADA or Walstad does).










_PS: These tanks are not mine. I just measured the light intensity in them._


----------



## jcmv4792

Hoppy said:


> Most ADA lighting is relatively low light, not high light. They do dose a lot of things, some which are just fertilizers, heavy on potassium, and others which seem to be used primarily to entice others to buy them. Since they start with non-high light their fertilizing is a lot less critical than it is with high light - the plants use much less nutrients by growing slower.


I see. So would you say their fert regiment is more like pps pro?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

PAR measurements of the ADA Grand Solar I and II, both measuring 150-175 PAR:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/125010-fishneedit-vs-ada-mh.html#post1255726

Makes my cheap LED light look weak in comparison since it's probably only providing 100+PAR at the substrate.


----------



## 58417

Deleted


----------



## waddo

I am now using all things ADA. Previously I had a few problems with algae, sometimes very minor, sometimes more serious. When I finally switched to the aqua sky LED with my ADA tank and used their step 1 2 3 ferts regimen, all my algae problems went away. 

I am not an expert by any means, but for almost a year now I never have any algae. I don't really know why, but it seems that using all things ADA did the trick.

Waddo


----------



## 58417

*Substrate nutrition*

Deleted


----------



## roadmaster

I have seen the ADA tank set up video step's#1 #2 and #3 paying particular attention to the additives in addition to the aquasoil.
I have built my soil substrates in a similar fashion lacking fund's for the ADA product's and or easy access to same.
Could easily understand how fewer nutrient's might be needed with this approach and maybe for some time.
Don't believe anyone has suggested that too much of anything is not gonna present issues but... No one has proven that the Estimative index dosing scheme,or any other scheme is too much and absolutely, positively, harmful/toxic for plant's and or fish, and or that it will cause algae independent of other variables that they wish to dismiss as they have done throughout several forum's .
Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.
Forgive them for tourturing their fish and plant's that they raise and sell from these tank's with nutrient's /gas, and or chemical's (ie) such as.. EXCEl.Metricide,Glut,Peroxide,urea,fish food's.alage fixes,all manner of medication's, "For they know not what they do".
Forgive them for their ignorance , and bow before those who point out just how unknowledgeable and evil the rest of us are. 
Thank them for making the hobby a better experience for all of us praise GOD almighty. 
PFFFFFT!


----------



## 58417

*Sarcasm as an argument?*

Deleted


----------



## Straight shooter

Sarcasm and combativeness only reinforce Marcel's argument that it can be impossible to have a level headed debate on EI. Too many times I see it decending into "you're different and we are just right because we are" without any further substance.

I use EI on high light tanks and it worked pretty well for me. I'm running a lowish light CO2 injected tank at the moment and only provide the minimum ferts I can get away with and that's great also, just a different way of managing things. So you see I am on the fence, not taking sides. 

To the 'gurus' here who constantly decend into arguments based on anecdotal evidence with an "it's right because we all do it" mentality - show some scientific evidence or shut up.


----------



## bsantucci

I think EI works to an extent, as long as you use your head while doing it. No need to dump all these ferts in the tank if you don't need it. Feed the fish a lot, have a high bio load? Probably don't need as much nitrate or phosphate. Seeing possible toxicity from micros? Reduce it. EI is a good starting point, but as noted already, all tanks are different. Some have more fish, less plants. Some have plants on every square inch and no fish. Each tank has different needs. 

This is where I can see PPS Pro working better, but it's more work to really pay attention to your tanks needs weekly. I don't think you have to be that precise, but a nice middle ground with modified EI will work for most. Just understand you don't need full EI unless you really see no substrate or glass and you have a forest in there. Most tanks can do with a good deal less.

Took me a while to understand this and to just stop dosing NO3. Since I did that, 99% of my problems are clearing up.


----------



## 58417

Deleted


----------



## 691175002

I'm sure these questions have been answered but forgive me as the other thread is like 20 pages.


I absolutely believe that too much of anything is bad for the fish, and eventually plants as well. I'd need more evidence that EI dosing with weekly 50% water changes can get you past that threshold.

Are you suggesting that the EI ratio of macros to micros is off, or that EI simply provides too much of every component?

Do you think that reduced dosing (say half of EI) would be better, or do we need something elase entirely?


----------



## Greggz

roadmaster said:


> Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.
> Forgive them for tourturing their fish and plant's that they raise and sell from these tank's with nutrient's /gas, and or chemical's (ie) such as.. EXCEl.Metricide,Glut,Peroxide,urea,fish food's.alage fixes,all manner of medication's, "For they know not what they do".
> Forgive them for their ignorance , and bow before those who point out just how unknowledgeable and evil the rest of us are.
> Thank them for making the hobby a better experience for all of us praise GOD almighty.
> PFFFFFT!


Right or wrong, politically correct or not, thanks for the laugh out loud read. 

I did a small spit take with my coffee reading that!:laugh2:


----------



## 58417

*If I were to choose*

Deleted


----------



## happi

Marcel G said:


> I ment no harm, I was just listing the people who were arguing for EI in the original old thread from 2011:
> 
> My point was just to point out what arguments were used for advocating high nutrient levels. "No fish gasping" in this case.


now if you look at it, that video was posted on Jun 4, 2011. i have learned and gained more experience since then, i was under the bubble of EI and under the impression that EI is the best way to dose the tank, but later i was convinced its not the best way to fertilize the plants, when you are constantly at risk of killing your fishes, shrimps from overdosing of co2, ferts etc. BTW in that same tank in the video i did loose lots of my fishes and there were time when my fish would randomly die out of no where, i couldn't keep any shrimps alive, EI and High co2 was a disaster in my cases most of the time. now i have blue ram living in my tank for so long without any issue, including amano shrimps. 

you wont win this fertilizer war with anyone, i tried it in the past and it doesn't get anywhere, that's why i haven't posted much for a while and stayed away from TPT, i was only back due to the Trace toxicity topic. i encourage people to test their own observation instead of listening to others, you will gain more knowledge by doing that.


----------



## 58417

*Wrong expectations*

Deleted


----------



## klibs

happi said:


> i encourage people to test their own observation instead of listening to others, you will gain more knowledge by doing that.


+1 I totally agree with this

IME with my high tech I am considering just barely dosing now. I noticed improved results when I cut dosing EI in half and basically stopped dosing micros (like 1/10 of what EI recommends). I have some algae in the tank but it is somewhat under control. Slowly backing off nutrients in a much more established tank seems like it would be worth a shot.

This was learned through experience, trial and error, etc. Not because someone on the forum had a magic formula.

Generally though I do agree that EI is probably too much to dose in most hobbyist's setups and can cause issues.


----------



## micheljq

niko said:


> And how does ADA run their tanks?
> 
> Simplified: Lean water column WITH a daily dose of fertilizers AND rich substrate that is active in the sequestering of nutrients.
> 
> Can anyone here tell me why in America these basic principles are not followed?
> Why we marvel at the (same old) Japanese aquascape copy-cats and try to emulate them but do not emulate HOW they are maintained?
> 
> We love to use calculators and tests and what not fertilizers. Of course things will get accumulated if you add excessive amounts. Water changes do not take care of the accumulations because the rate of use by the plants is dynamic, there are tons of dynamic physico-chemical processes going on in the tank, etc.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day in the US the average hobbyist checks about 8 parameters, adds about 6 fertilziers, changes water as if that's some kind of magic and believes that is right.
> 
> The result is beautiful aquascapes, AGA contest full of non-recycled ADA tanks, and an active community that discusses everything else but aquascaping.
> 
> And since for some people what I said above may not be clearly connected to the thread topic - "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life" here's a final food for thought:
> 
> - Where in Nature can you find a body of water that has Nitrate 5-20, Phosphate 0.5-2.0, 30ppm CO2, and loads of traces?
> - Would that be considered "polluted" water?
> - How stable would be a tank with the above parameters?
> - How easy would be to eradicate budding algae in such a tank?
> - Why do I believe that a glass box is something so different than Nature that I have to artificially create a completely unnatural environment in it so live plants grow in it? Feel free to call me "stupid" if you do think I am.
> 
> Good night. Sweet dreams now


Personally i use EI, i check NO3 from time to time, that's all. Amano did dose ferts in the water column too. I have a couple of his books..

I think that it must exists in nature too : Nitrate 5-20, Phosphate 0.5-2.0, 30ppm CO2, and loads of traces, why not? Steams, lakes have lot of organic matter decomposing and creating co2. Is it polluted? i do not know, some bodies of water have more than 100ppm phosphate i think.

The tanks are stable with the above parameters, there are a lot of successfull planted tanks, just check the pics section, without algae.

Nature aquarium term is quite subjective. It is still an aquarium, a closed system. Four glasses with silicon and we put plants and fishes in it.

But i am a fan of Amano.

Michel


----------



## houseofcards

Just for the record. Whether you follow an EI or ADA type dosing routine both have the potential for algae. So if one is heavy and one is lean you really can’t directly blame high fert levels since the ADA system doesn’t work this way. This is true since Amano (RIP) has it all over his literature that there will be algae. In addition ADA sells algae removal products. Why would they do this if algae wasn’t part of the equation. 

The reason they do this is because the biggest variable in any tank is not the nutrient levels, it’s the end-user. No two people will maintenance there tank the same way even if they are subjecting it to the same lights, ferts, co2, fish load, feeding, etc.



Hoppy said:


> This is a hobby...


This is the most profound thing I’ve read in this thread as it relates to a planted aquarium in one’s home. You can have an algae-free tank regardless of dosing preference it’s a matter of how intense the interest is of the hobbyist.


----------



## philipraposo1982

I don't have a belief as to what's best or not but I do try and add as little as I can to my tanks. I constantly work to find that sweet spot for my setup. 

I think this is a good approach.

I don't see any scientific proof one way or the other but I haven't gone searching either. But it only makes sense that the less we can add to our tanks the better. Overdosing anything is never good.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoppy

philipraposo1982 said:


> Overdosing anything is never good.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


By definition "overdosing" would be bad, but the problem is determining what constitutes an "overdose". There are two parameters: one is the total amount of nitrates, for example, in the water vs. what the plants will use up. And, the total amount needed is a function of plant mass and the growth rate of the plants. The other is concentration of nitrates, for example, in the water vs. what concentration makes it easy for the plants to use it. I believe that is a function of what species of plants we have. We only discuss concentration, ppm, which eliminates the plant mass and growth rate from the discussion. Do we really want to include plant mass in the equation? I know I don't. At best we are estimating, not carefully determining what is an "overdose".

Those people who enjoy the science of the hobby, and enjoy spending lots of time figuring out what the best methods are, are probably going to enjoy something other than an EI approach the most, so that is how they should do it.


----------



## micheljq

I don't believe that EI method and ADA are quite different anyway, just to say. Amano had his shares of algae when he began, like the other masters, and i do not think he became a master in one month, or even one year. He was interested in fishes and plants when he was a kid. He tells about it in one book i have from him. Everyone who makes planted tanks will face algae at one point of time, one method or the other.

I saw the term "overdosing" in this thread. EI is about making sure there are plenty of nutrients for the plants, it is not about overdosing. Those who use the term "overdosing", should return on Barr's report pages and read what EI is about again, because they do not understand the philosophy behind it, or either they feel negatively about it.

Nobody force them to use this method if they dislike it.

Michel.


----------



## Positron

micheljq said:


> I don't believe that EI method and ADA are quite different anyway, just to say. Amano had his shares of algae when he began, like the other masters, and i do not think he became a master in one month, or even one year. He was interested in fishes and plants when he was a kid. He tells about it in one book i have from him. Everyone who makes planted tanks will face algae at one point of time, one method or the other.
> 
> I saw the term "overdosing" in this thread. EI is about making sure there are plenty of nutrients for the plants, it is not about overdosing. Those who use the term "overdosing", should return on Barr's report pages and read what EI is about again, because they do not understand the philosophy behind it, or either they feel negatively about it.
> 
> Nobody force them to use this method if they dislike it.
> 
> Michel.


I think "overdosing" as far as this thread is concerned is focused more on fauna. Fish and inverts will not tolerate higher levels of nitrate. 

For plants, since their role in nature is to fix nitrogen and make it usable, will obviously not have huge issues with higher nitrates. But, as the author states, this is species specific. Giving a chicken pie to a starving person will obviously help alot more than giving the pie to an obese person.


----------



## Doogy262

Speaking for a high school graduate with no scientific experience I feel that so many of these "studies" are based on the persons doing the study having an agenda for their own gain.Examples are many but studies told my mom that milk was the greatest thing for my well being.10 tears later a study said it was not good and should be used in moderation. 10years later it was the best thing around and etc etc...I know nothing about the actual facts presented here but I feel these studies were done with nature being the main theme as opposed to an aquarium environment.What I do know is that I have been in the hobby for 40 yrs.first with just fish and the last two with planted tanks.In the beginning I had little luck with planted tanks until after a ton of research much of it here I learned about the correlation between light,ferts and co2 and now have two beautiful tanks with lush plants happy fish and a happier hobbyist.So show me studies from a scientific group that pertains only to an aquarium eco system than maybe I'll listen but till than I will be ei dosing and enjoying this hobby as it should be enjoyed.


----------



## micheljq

Positron said:


> I think "overdosing" as far as this thread is concerned is focused more on fauna. Fish and inverts will not tolerate higher levels of nitrate.


Mine has been at 10mg/L of NO3 for more than one year, recently 25mg/L, according to my cheap Nutrafin test.

I have otocinclus, cardinalis, and red cherry shrimps, some planorbae snails. Cardinalis will have 3 years in my tank next march, just to give an example.

Michel.


----------



## Nordic

If you have not had algae, you have not properly tested the limits of the variables under your control.
Do you think growing algae in a dedicated spot in your sump or tank, would prevent it from growing elsewhere due to the excess nutrients being consumed?

There always seems to be some algae somewhere in natural water bodies, no matter how healthy.


----------



## nilocg

Positron said:


> I think "overdosing" as far as this thread is concerned is focused more on fauna. Fish and inverts will not tolerate higher levels of nitrate.
> 
> For plants, since their role in nature is to fix nitrogen and make it usable, will obviously not have huge issues with higher nitrates. But, as the author states, this is species specific. Giving a chicken pie to a starving person will obviously help alot more than giving the pie to an obese person.



I agree with this, but simply stating that they cant tolerate higher levels of nitrates really doesnt tell us anything. What levels are ok and what arent ok? Copper is known to be toxic to shrimp at what seem to be relatively lower levels, but remove all the copper and the shrimp will perish. 

Same thing with algae, what are the concentrations that cause issues. At what concentration of phosphate does it stop being ok and start causing a problem. Why does a lot cause algae and a little not cause algae?




This is all stuff that has been discussed for decades and will likely continue for the next decade. It seems people are using anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove other anecdotal evidence is incorrect(speaking in general, not directly at you Positron).

Disclaimer- While Im sure there are many people who feel I might side with one side or the other it really isnt true. I would love to know the truth more than most.

Anyways, thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Hooked on fish

I have a really stupid question....

What is the problem with algae?

I mean I don't want algae growing all over my glass (GSA, GDA) and I don't like BBA..
But I currently have 6 tanks with plants and fish and 1 tank I toss my cuttings into to mature.
I have some algae in all of them.

I worked hard to get the algae I have on my driftwood and rocks to grow because I think it looks good there.
plus I have Ottos, BN, snail, shrimp, etc that appreciate a little algae growth from time to time.

I grew up in Florida between a creek and a river on a place that had 120 fish ponds.
Algae grew in anything wet. (so did the gators, but I digress)

I would think, and I could be crazy here, that certain algae growth might point to a healthy environment.
Or, maybe more to the point, maybe algae help to create/maintain a healthy environment.

Sure too much of anything is bad. But maybe trying to eradicate it all isn't good either.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## micheljq

nilocg said:


> Same thing with algae, what are the concentrations that cause issues. At what concentration of phosphate does it stop being ok and start causing a problem. Why does a lot cause algae and a little not cause algae?
> Anyways, thats my 2 cents.


I had concentrations of more than 5ppm in the past, according to cheap Nutrafin test, and no algae issues at that time. I have more than 3ppm since many years, acccording to Nutrafin and Seachem tests. Some claimed having more than 10ppm and no algae issues.

Not much algae right now, i have some, but i do not run in panic in the house doing water changes.

Just as an example, for what it is worth.

The worst algae outbreaks i had were back in 2012, when i almost had no PO4 or less than 0,25mg/L according to cheap PO4 test.

Michel.


----------



## nilocg

micheljq said:


> I had concentrations of more than 5ppm in the past, according to cheap Nutrafin test, and no algae issues at that time. I have more than 3ppm since many years, acccording to Nutrafin and Seachem tests.
> 
> Not much algae right now, i have some, but i do not run in the house doing water changes.
> 
> Just an example, for what it is worth.
> 
> The worst algae outbreaks i had were back in 2012, when i almost had no PO4 or less than 0,25mg/L according to cheap PO4 test.
> 
> Michel.


I think we can all agree that algae, just like plants need some nutrients to grow, if there are absolutely no nutrient nothing will grow. I dont think anyone would argue this. I just dont understand this apparent threshold that some is ok, but at some point algae grows?? I would be appreciative if someone could explain this to me.

Bump:


Hooked on fish said:


> I have a really stupid question....
> 
> What is the problem with algae?
> 
> I mean I don't want algae growing all over my glass (GSA, GDA) and I don't like BBA..
> But I currently have 6 tanks with plants and fish and 1 tank I toss my cuttings into to mature.
> I have some algae in all of them.
> 
> I worked hard to get the algae I have on my driftwood and rocks to grow because I think it looks good there.
> plus I have Ottos, BN, snail, shrimp, etc that appreciate a little algae growth from time to time.
> 
> I grew up in Florida between a creek and a river on a place that had 120 fish ponds.
> Algae grew in anything wet. (so did the gators, but I digress)
> 
> I would think, and I could be crazy here, that certain algae growth might point to a healthy environment.
> Or, maybe more to the point, maybe algae help to create/maintain a healthy environment.
> 
> Sure too much of anything is bad. But maybe trying to eradicate it all isn't good either.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


 A little algae is pretty much present in every body of water, fish tanks included. Its just when the algae over takes the tank at which time the health of the plants is effected negatively.


----------



## d33pVI

So many logical fallacies and cosmic teapots I don't know where to begin...

I do think there is a great deal of misunderstanding behind the EI concept and its application. The idea is to start at levels that cannot be limiting, *and then make adjustments according to observation*. Don't forget the second part.


----------



## MoreyFan

d33pVI said:


> The idea is to start at levels that cannot be limiting, *and then make adjustments according to observation*. Don't forget the second part.


I'm not experienced but have had a CO2 injected Spec III for 10 months. I did EI daily in that tank with 0.5mL Fluval Comp, N, K and 1mL P. Constantly had mass green dust algae. Tried everything. Finally out of laziness I stopped doing EI daily and cut back to once per week at half EI levels. Algae is gone. HC stilling growing insane. 


My point is no one ever mentions the second part to newbs. They always just talk about how awesome EI is. How you never need to test. The web address of the fert calculators and how a host of other problems are the reasons for your algae.


----------



## Hoppy

If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to get good growth of a few stems of Species X, what will you need when you have the tank half full of that same species? If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to grow a few anubias, and crypts, what will you need if you add Hygro polysperma to the tank? If the above is with low medium light, say 40 PAR at the substrate, what will you need if you double the light intensity? It just seems overwhelmingly logical that the minimum needed is a function of many variables. And, I am assuming that you measure your nitrates once a day, not every hour.


----------



## nilocg

MoreyFan said:


> I'm not experienced but have had a CO2 injected Spec III for 10 months. I did EI daily in that tank with 0.5mL Fluval Comp, N, K and 1mL P. Constantly had mass green dust algae. Tried everything. Finally out of laziness I stopped doing EI daily and cut back to once per week at half EI levels. Algae is gone. HC stilling growing insane.
> 
> 
> My point is no one ever mentions the second part to newbs. They always just talk about how awesome EI is. How you never need to test. The web address of the fert calculators and how a host of other problems are the reasons for your algae.



The problem is that there are also people who dont add fertilizers and have algae which then improves once they dose fertilizers. I agree that it is confusing, but there seems to be a multitude of variables which cause problems and we really dont have a grasp on all these variables.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

nilocg said:


> The problem is that there are also people who dont add fertilizers and have algae which then improves once they dose fertilizers. I agree that it is confusing, but there seems to be a multitude of variables which cause problems and we really dont have a grasp on all these variables.


If macros are not dosed, then micros will accumulate due to the lack of uptake. But if macros are dosed, then the micros will be taken up, which results in less nutrients for algae to grow. So here, it needs to be distinguished which fertz is being discussed, macros or micros.


----------



## Christophe

d33pVI said:


> I do think there is a great deal of misunderstanding behind the EI concept and its application. The idea is to start at levels that cannot be limiting, *and then make adjustments according to observation*. Don't forget the second part.


I think of EI as not a set dosing regimen, but the *concept* of providing abundance of nutrients, such that the least competitive plants in your system can get what they need. The only issue I have is with what constitutes 'Abundance'.

I've experienced over-usage of micros, and reduced my use of them significantly. I still consider that I'm doing EI, just with the 'micros' goalpost moved for my system. I think maybe the suggested starting doses need to be reconsidered some. Online dosing calculators don't help in this regard -- they kind of drive where most people get their first notions of how to use ferts.


----------



## dru

I'll chime in anecdotally and say EI dosing almost ruined my enjoyment of the hobby

This was while following it to the letter and performing 2-3 50% water changes a week during the first month and weekly water changes after.

I put hours into each water change as well, carefully pruning any algae and spot treating affected areas.

I would lose fish with no explanation, and algae was rampant. I was ready to quit something I loved before

I started in the hobby basically using a PPS dosing scheme without even knowing what that was using Seachem products.

I am back on that scheme now and I am slowly regaining the appreciation for my tanks

My recommendation is for people to not hesitate to make changes when things aren't working, and stick with things that are. Sounds simple but I stuck with EI because of all the beautiful tanks that use it and internalized the failures. Not sure why I ever switched from lean dosing. I think it was just foolishly thinking EI was better.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## Audionut

https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm

Pourbaix diagrams describe the state of the ion against pH and ORP of the solution. Some states of the iron being unavailable to the plant through precipitation, some states requiring the usage of excess energy to transform the ion into a usable state, and some states being immediately available to the plant requiring the least amount of energy for usage.



> reducing the total concentration of Fe3+ will reduce the driving force of the precipitation
> reducing the total iron concentration from 1 M to 10-6 M (more realistic concentrations for geochemists and corrosion engineers) shifts the boundary from pH 1.7 to pH 4.2
> In general, in more dilute solutions, the soluble species have larger predominance areas.


In other words, throwing more of an ion into a solution doesn't necessarily facilitate plant uptake of that ion.

Absorption of Minerals



> *STRUCTURES INVOLVED IN ABSORPTION*
> 
> Aquatic plants do not need any special structures for the absorption of minerals, for the entire plant body acts as absorptive surface.





> *Saturation Effect*:
> 
> If a root system is provided with an excess amount of specific ions, initially ions are taken up at a greater rate but later the rate of uptake remains steady and constant. This observation further suggests that for a given ion there is a fixed number of specific carrier sites; if all are loaded with their respective ions, the rate of uptake can not be increased until and unless the number of carriers is increased.


My bold for emphasis.


> *CONCENTRATION OF SOIL SOLUTION *
> 
> Generally the concentration of minerals and its components found in soil solution is far below the levels of the same found in the cell sap. *It means that the absorption of ions takes place against concentration gradient.* The relative concentration of ions found in the cell sap and soil solution gives absorption ratio.
> 
> Ocean water contains relatively greater amount of salts than that of fresh waters. The land plants which are adapted to grow in fresh water soils die in marine water, because the marine water is enriched with greater amount of metal ions. Physiologically dry for them. But marine plant cells which have been adapted to such waters contain much more ionic contents than found in sea water. Even here, the ions are absorbed against concentration gradient.
> 
> The rate of absorption of ions very and depends upon the concentration of the soil solution. *Normally, roots absorb greater amount of ions at a greater rate in dilute solutions than in a relatively high concentration solutions.* How exactly the dilution enhances the rapid uptake is not clear, but it is a fact.


Still a little off-topic I guess. But it might help to put some different perspective on the notion that more is always better.


----------



## d33pVI

Marcel G said:


> I counted about 17 posts from my last visit that may seem interesting to someone, but I think they don't belong to this thread.
> The goal of this thread is to post *arguments* for or against the hypothesis that there is a "*correlation of high nutrient levels and algae biomass, and toxicity of high nutrient levels for aquatic life*".



If such a debate is to be held in this this forum, the premise should be amended to include: "_*relative to common plant fertilization methods in home aquaria*_". Evidence and arguments need to be linked back to a relationship with the hobby in a meaningful context, otherwise this is an inappropriate forum for the question at hand. Selecting an appropriate venue is an important part of holding a valid debate.


Secondly, the term "high levels of nutrients" needs to be properly defined in order to frame the debate in proper context.




> Post the arguments that *prove* high nutrient concentration in water column (as full EI or similar ferilizer methods suggests) is harmless for aquatic life, and have no correlation to algae biomass, or post arguments that *disprove *it. But stay away from discussing all kinds of personal feelings and life histories here.



This is a slippery slope. The premise is requesting evidence that "high nutrient levels" (undefined) do not cause algae and/or do not cause harm to fauna. Asking for evidence to prove that something does not exist is a logical fallacy, specifically an "argument from ignorance" and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. One cannot prove a negative.




> If you feel you have to tell everyone your own story, please, create your own thread. This thread should be not about "us", but about our "arguments". Either we have some, or not.
> 
> _"Personally, I use EI ... and everything seems OK."
> "I dose 5 ppm PO4 ... and have no algae issue."
> "I reduced EI doses ... and everything now seems OK."
> "This is all stuff that has been discussed for decades ..."
> "So many logical fallacies ... I don't know where to begin ..."_
> 
> These are just examples of the posts that do not belong here! It's not about personal experiences, lamenting or similar things, it's about *facts, solid arguments, and science*!
> You are free to say whatever you want in your own thread, but please respect the goal of this thread, and *stay on-topic*.


This goes back to keeping the debate in the context of "_*relative to common plant fertilization methods in home aquaria*_" and the chosen forum. If the question is to be kept inside of this context within this audience, why then are the verifiable observed results of controlled environments within that context invalidated? or less valid than scientific studies that cannot be related back into said context?


Going back to the original post, most of the evidence provided for the "pro" side are based on verified, repeatable observations within the context of planted tank keeping. Much of the evidence provided for the "con" side is based on weak analogies, unverified statement of 'fact', explicit statement of 'opinion', mixed in with some good and interesting scientific studies that may or may not be relatable back into the context of planted tank keeping.


----------



## 58417

*The value of science*

Deleted


----------



## c9bug

Marcel G said:


> Many users (for example, Hoppy, Jeffww, plantbrain, happi, speedie408, and Dempsey) were arguing there against the hypothesis that "*high levels of nutrients (especially N and P) are causing algae, and may be potentially harmful for aquatic critters*" (advocated mainly by snausage)...
> 
> ...Please, refrain from any personal attacks. If you feel my arguments are poor, please, try to formulate your own (better ones).


I think you are misstating the positions of many advocates of the EI system. I think you need to define "high levels of nutrients" before anyone can even begin to offer any sort of counter argument. Everything has the potential to be toxic, the dosage is what is important. I'm not sure many would argue against that. If it is the levels at EI the most many of us can provide is anecdotal evidence where there are many confounding factors.

I also want to add that if you are aiming for a civil debate, characterizing any argument against your position as either myths, pseudo scientific, or "science based facts" (note the quotes) isn't really conducive to your goal. I also find it strangely personal that you called out various users by name, but that is a different matter.

Anyway, back to arguments. Much of what I learned about eutrophication in school is that it is often caused by fertilizer runoff. This undoubtedly leads to algae blooms. However, many terrestrial fertilizers are ammonia based. As many osmocote + tab users know, ammonia based fertilizers can cause algae issues and health problems for aquatic critters if they are overdone. I would be interested in knowing if the fertilizer salts used in the EI system have a similar effect on algae growth.


----------



## tahoesnowed

I take my post back, Marcel G got me thinking and reading much more on it. It is certainly true that Nitrates are toxic at some level. You can find studies saying so all the way from 40 ppm to the much lower levels stated by the studies referenced on the post. I have been able to find a study that tried to kill fish with phosphates, Aquatic Toxicity Assessment of Phosphate Compounds, but was unable to do so. However one phosphate definitely did and one did not cause algae. I can see how one could definitely cause way to high of nitrates for fish health using the EI method. The CO2 studies are really inconvenient  since most of us can't not use it and get the kind of results we want. Thanks for the thoughts Marcel G


----------



## Hoppy

c9bug, I think, stated what bothers me about this discussion. I don't think anyone has ever said that you can dose 10X what is "normal" of anything without seeing problems as a result. So, if the EI table says we should dose 1 tsp of KNO3, and we decide to dose 10 tsp, of course there will be problems. And, if PPS pro says to dose 5 ppm of nitrates, and we dose 50 ppm, we can expect to see problems. I hope we can all agree with that.

But, many of us have made the mistake of dosing KH2PO4 thinking we were dosing KNO3, which means we dosed about 4X what the tables say to dose. And, no problems showed up, that we could see. So, just what is the definition of "high" nutrients?

Diana Walstad, in her book, notes that dosing "too much" iron can lead to problems. Given that she has done the experimenting and research necessary to reach that conclusion I take her conclusion to be true. I think she also defined what she meant by too much, but I don't remember for sure.

To be really useful to us I think we would have to state what is the threshold for excessive dosing of each of the chemicals we use, and that logically would have to be versus light intensity and plant density. Do we have any data that we can share about what those threshold values are?


----------



## 58417

*Difference between science and pseudo-science*

Deleted


----------



## c9bug

_I don't understand your logic (sorry). Let's say we have some fish, and we want to find out what concentration of nitrates will kill 50% of the fishes during 96 hours. Do we need to define what are the toxic levels before we start this experiment? Or course not! We just prepare some test tanks with different concentrations of nitrates, and monitor the condition of our fish samples (toghether with other parameters of our test like dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, temperature, etc.). At the end of our test we find out that for our fish species, for example, 40 ppm of NO3 is the LD50 value. That's it. Then we can decide to study the toxic effects of NO3 on another species. This way we can gather some amount of data, that show us some species that are more sensitive to nitrate toxicity than others. Based on that we can give out some recommendation as to what concentration of nitrates can be considered safe for even the most sensitive fish species. There will never be some precise threshold. There'll always be a percentage of species that may be affected by this or that concentration. For example, 7.5 ppm NO3 is considered safe for 95% of aquatic species, but toxic for the rest (5%). 11 to 16 ppm NO3 is considered safe for 80-90% of aquatic species, but toxic for the rest (10-20%), and so on. Again, these numbers are based on some research, on some statistical data. It does not mean that your Otocinclus will be in the affected group (but who knows). So again, again, again: Our subjective observations can't help us much in finding out the objective data. Similarly, science may not give us any definitive answers (because most issues is very complex, not black-and-white as we often think), but it may show us possible risks, or may point us in the right direction._

I'm not sure I understand you here either. When you set up a scientific study you define the variables. You should state what levels you find dangerous or induce algae growth. For instance, is KNO3 dangerous at 1ppm, 10ppm, 40ppm, 400ppm? You would test all of them and display your data. Again though there are many factors that would influence this data such as lighting, plant mass, species, etc. I already stated that everything is toxic depending on the concentration. To me that is obvious and I do not see anyone arguing otherwise. We need to know what concentration you are referring to when you say high levels of nutrients. What fertilizer levels do you consider safe.


_If someone links to scientific articles that say exactly the opposite that what to referer says, this is true pseudo-science for me. Similarly, if someone uses scientific articles for backing up his method, and it shows up that the scientific data present much different results, this is true pseudo-science for me. If someone ignores hundereds of scientific papers and professional books, as well as many generations of researchers, teachers and professors that as confident about the correlation between nutrient levels and algae biomass, and someone says they are all ignorants that don't see the truth, this is true pseudo-science for me, and his statements based on this pseudo-science are true myths. It's not about my or anyone else's position. It's about the approach to objective facts, scientific reasearch, or even to other people positions. So let's set our subjective opinions aside for now, and focus on scientific methods._

That's fine, however characterizing all EI users the same way is disingenuous and counter productive. I also would like to see any links of scientific papers that you provide that focus on an aquarium environment using the fertilizers we use. Please link the articles, not just the quotes.

_Does it offend you to see the nicknames (which are not even a real names)?
_
Again, I find it strangely personal, and it comes off like you are picking a fight. It does not, however, offend me. 

_You can do a simple test using the scientific method to see the results yourself. Or you can try to find out some studies that already researched this topic._

You are making a claim, please back it up in regard to planted tank systems. The scientific method is about *disproving* accepted theories. I haven't seen any evidence that you have provided that convinces me that fertilizer levels dosed in the standard EI fertilizing regimen are harmful to fish. This to this would be very interesting, yet all I see in this topic is "EI users say this or EI users say that..." Please focus on aquarium salts, not ammonia based fertlizers.


----------



## happi

i have read many articles based on scientific research, if i follow them i would be lost by now, even they had different conclusion from each others, that is why i have always said you will get mixed results and there is no end to it. i was reading somewhere most scientific research say's PO4 cause Algae, NH4 cause algae, Urea cause algae and at the same time companies made their aquatic plant fertilizers from all these chemicals and am sure this involve scientific research too.


----------



## Audionut

c9bug said:


> That's fine, however characterizing all EI users the same way is disingenuous and counter productive.


To their egos..........yeah, I agree.


----------



## Hoppy

Audionut said:


> To their egos..........yeah, I agree.


No, it has nothing to do with egos. In fact if you were to survey all users of the EI method I would expect you to end up more confused than when you started. EI is a concept, not a group of mandatory dosage tables. People use what they consider to be EI when they are dosing just Seachem Flourish and a couple of other Seachem products. People also use what they consider to be EI when they have low light and dose the full amounts in the tables. Others use what they consider to be EI when they don't even know what their GH is, let alone dosing GH booster.

The EI concept is extremely flexible, and reduced to the simplest form, is just dosing on a regular schedule, with weekly big water changes, and never testing the water. This has worked so well for many of us that it allows us to have very nice planted tanks where we had been struggling endlessly before. 

Plantbrain first called it the "Estimative Index" method about 10 years ago, after realizing that he could not get algae growths by using what had been considered overdoses of nitrates and phosphates, and adding the realization that if you do weekly 50% water changes the highest amount you can get of any of the things you dose is twice the weekly total dosage of that thing, so as long as that number is not a problem, you don't need to test the water to avoid overdosing. Since then the EI method has matured a lot, even though the concept is still the same.

As I understand this "debate" it is based on the belief that even the amounts of "things" that we dose that are twice the weekly total dosage are toxic to our tanks. Is that what we are debating?


----------



## dukydaf

Let me start with expressing my OPINIONs and FEELINGS on the topic.
1.	The title “High [levels of plant] nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life” is axiomatic. I can also say “High oxygen levels are toxic for all life.” “ Too much water will kill you.” As others have said nobody will disagree. But what is high, what are the nutrients, what type of algae and what aquatic life … now those are more interesting questions.

2. @Marcel G maybe it would be more constructive, for your idea of fertilizing, to present Evidence #1-n: for reduced dosing instead of trying to find counterarguments. If both work, then great found a different way to grow all the aquatic plants in the world.

3.	While Marcel names members of this forum opposing the hypothesis, he forgets to make clear that his beliefs are strongly for the hypothesis ( at least based on his previous posts and active threads). That is alright, his post is an opinion piece after all. Every one of us is prone to taking one side or the other. But it should be clear that the first post is biased. Even if everything looks good in an ecological study in the Gulf of Mexico financed with BP $, would you give it the same level of trust ? Marlboro and lung cancer ?

4.	Asking hobbyists to accurately and precisely measure the levels of nutrients in the aquarium is unreasonable 

5.	In my view, at the moment most environmental science journals have a strong publication bias. Most look for articles that prove that any human intervention causes death and destruction, thus they will select to publish the studies that recommend the lowest levels of NO3, PO4. Studies where fish/ inverts are not affected are not published because there is no significant effect of NO3… on X

6.	I know there is a lot of literature on trout and salmon because of their commercial importance. However, trout and salmon would die if put in a similar natural environment of our tropical aquarium fish (main factor would be lack of oxygen). Comparing trout with aquarium fish is difficult at best.

7.	The major problems I had with plants were because there was a LACK of a nutrient/light not an overdose. Damaged plants lead to algae. In EI aquariums I run into problems when the plants have no place left to grow.

8.	Members of this forum are often interested (exceptions are there, I am sure) in having the best / fastest growth of difficult plants. If some compromises in fish longevity/ selection need to be made, then so be it. I am that guy who names fish, wakes up at 5am to see the Betta spawning, feeds individual flakes to fish just to see them more, pets the goldfish in the pond on the head…. But fish are just a sidenote in a high tech/ high nutrient planted tank. Want a discus tank, maybe try other plants… Want to raise fish fry , another setup comes to mind. I am sure, in the future the EU aquarium police will come, bang the door and handcuff me because I have 20ppm NO3 and 3ppm PO4 in my fish aquarium but until then I will enjoy my high nutrient planted aquarium.


----------



## d33pVI

Hoppy said:


> As I understand this "debate" it is based on the belief that even the amounts of "things" that we dose that are twice the weekly total dosage are toxic to our tanks. Is that what we are debating?


Yeah, but we are going to discount any and all experiences based on simple hobbyist observation over the past decades, because objective.


Instead, let's focus on the more relevant studies about plant mass in Lake Okeechobee, acceptable nitrate levels in Canadian lakes, the effect of CO2 on farmed Atlantic cod, clever analogies about human fornication in heavily polluted urban centers, and some guy that extrapolated enough data to determine the dissolved CO2 levels of the entire Amazon River, because Science, brah. SCIENCE!


----------



## c9bug

Audionut said:


> To their egos..........yeah, I agree.


Wow... really? My point was that starting off a debate that is meant to be civil by ostracizing people who don't share your view is unwise and counter productive to a healthy debate. The only thing you will accomplish is creating an echo chamber. Characterizing every user of EI by the faulty arguments of a few is disingenuous.


----------



## dukydaf

I am waiting for unlimited sun ( summer) to run some exploratory trials... see how algae grow under different conditions and continue my BBA testing. Lots of nutrients and light combined with few plants is certainly a good algae growing solution. Algae will grow so much that they acutally lead to nutrient deficientcy in plants.

Now some remarks



roadmaster said:


> No one has proven that the Estimative index dosing scheme,or any other scheme is too much and absolutely, positively, harmful/toxic for plant's and or fish, and or that it will cause algae independent of other variables that they wish to dismiss as they have done throughout several forum's .


Couldn’t have said it better. I would recommend people read carefully Tom’s article on EI, before critising actual EI.
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...tive-index-of-dosing-or-no-need-for-test-kits

From Tom’s article 


> This will give an assumed “maximum uptake rate”. This rate is important in setting the upper limit of the needs of the plants. Once the aquarist knows this rate, they can be confident that they are not going to run out of any nutrient at most any lighting variable. This “rate” of uptake or dosing is what is truly important rather than maintaining some static “residual” level.





roadmaster said:


> Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.


Good thing our medicine also gets lucky time after time and treats us ...Lucky things these medicine thingies



Hoppy said:


> By definition "overdosing" would be bad, but the problem is determining what constitutes an "overdose".
> total amount of nitrates
> plant mass a
> growth rate of the plants.
> Do we really want to include plant mass in the equation? I know I don't. At best we are estimating, not carefully determining what is an "overdose".





Hoppy said:


> If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to get good growth of a few stems of Species X, what will you need when you have the tank half full of that same species? If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to grow a few anubias, and crypts, what will you need if you add Hygro polysperma to the tank? If the above is with low medium light, say 40 PAR at the substrate, what will you need if you double the light intensity? It just seems overwhelmingly logical that the minimum needed is a function of many variables. And, I am assuming that you measure your nitrates once a day, not every hour.


What @Hoppy says makes the most sense both in theory and in practice. One often sees an aquarium with a few slow growing plants, plenty of light, dosing EI and struggling with algae. It also points out, rightly so, that algae in the aquarium is not a pure function of nutrient levels. If one wants to model algae growth in the aquarium you need to put all the nutrients ( both dosed, env. accumulated, bioaccumulated), light levels, light duration, animal load, plant mass, plant growth rate, plant species, algae mass, algae type, cleaning crew, pH…….
If we had a big enough dataset with accurate measurements maybe we can see what is significant for each algae type and make a multifactorial model to diagnose/run your aquarium
Is it reasonable to propose that a hobbyist runs his aquarium according to such models? I would say NO. It is expensive and unreliable at hobbyist levels. Too many variables need to be controlled. Not to mention catching all the right variables.




Marcel G said:


> but I think they don't belong to this thread.
> 
> But stay away from discussing all kinds of personal feelings and life histories here. If you feel you have to tell everyone your own story, please, create your own thread.
> These are just examples of the posts that do not belong here!
> please respect the goal of this thread, and *stay on-topic*.


Marcel, I respect your activity in this forum but if you want to have a controlled discussion maybe your personal website or a wiki would be more suitable. If you want to hold an uninterrupted lecture, fine. But don't expect to censor the comments that follow it. Even if somebody decides to post his/hers personal opinions over and over, there is little you yourself can do. Why would one knowingly open a controversial thread and then shun people away from participating? Is it too noisy? Well, it is a forum. 

A forum is just that. It is mostly about personal feeling and personal experience. We are here to learn from each other, exchange ideas and knowledge not to be whacked on the head and sent outside the classroom.


----------



## Hoppy

One thing I like about this thread is that it caused me to think more about dosing. For example, we have often said or read where others said that you can dose the weeks load of each nutrient on Monday, then not have to dose on Tues, Wed., etc. That can't be a good idea, because that once a week dose really could get to be too high a concentration, for the first few days of the week. That's why the EI method says to dose every day of the week, alternating traces and macro ferts.

Then I started thinking more about dosing iron and phosphates on the same day Has anyone done any testing to see if the very low concentrations of both in an aquarium are enough to cause precipitation of the iron as an iron phosphate compound? If not, it would be a good test for someone here to do, even though I don't know how it would be done. Assuming the iron wouldn't precipitate out, would that mean that doing EI dosing of all of the nutrients daily is a better idea, because each dose would be smaller?

Does the PPS pro method combine iron and phosphate in the same solution?


----------



## sohankpatel

I personally have tried both PPS-PRO and EI, I just started EI, so I may not be the best source. When I dosed PPS-PRO I would have a ton of algae, It just wasn't doing it for me. Now The only algae that I have to deal with is GSA, and I would take it over staghorn or BBA. I think that dosing what fits your beliefs as well as your schedule will dictate what is truly "better".

Bump:


Hoppy said:


> Does the PPS pro method combine iron and phosphate in the same solution?


Nope, but macros and micros are dosed at the same time, possible causing the iron to react.


----------



## Audionut

@Hoppy, yes that is what EI is. But it relies on a certain amount of ambiguity and laziness. What is low light? What is high light? Was is low or high CO2? What is low or high plant mass?

I would be very surprised if you could find a definitive answer to any of those questions. I mean, the goal posts move all of the time for a start. 10 ppm of CO2 was considered high once, then 30 ppm, and now some value in excess of that. Lighting is exactly the same.

What if I have low light, high CO2 and medium plant mass? Or any other combination? Ambiguity Sir.

And then there is the laziness. Tired of test kits and measuring water parameters, well we have some very special news for you today, you never have to measure water parameters ever again.........Introducing EI, the just dump stuff in and change some water once a week fool proof method. Clearly, EI is not as fool proof as those who dream of it day in and day out would have us to believe. As soon as there is any objection to the methods of EI, out of the wood works are tons of people who say, well.........actually.........you can't just dump stuff in and change some water, you actually need observational skills too. You need to dig through a bunch of threads to try and find some reasonable interpretation of what exactly is high and low light, CO2 and plant mass, use that research to find appropriate initial ion concentration levels that are fitting for the tank, and then use observational based skills to adapt those initial ion concentrations as needed. Pffft, and here I (and I'm sure others) just thought non-limiting actually meant what a dictionary states it to mean. Ambiguity!

Here is an example based on one of your posts.



Hoppy said:


> The PAR ranges for low light, medium light, and high light are a little bit arbitrary.


I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.



Hoppy said:


> if you also use good CO2 concentration and non-limiting fertilizing, you should be able to grow any plants you want to.


This isn't an attack on you Hoppy, far from it. I am also human and have the same susceptibility to being fallible as the rest of us. The point being, it's not until something is pointed out in a negative light towards EI, that all of a sudden people jump in and and describe all of the confounding factors related to the EI method. Laziness breeds laziness Sir.



This thread is purely regarding high concentrations of ions and their negative effect on creatures. And fact based studies regarding whether high ion concentrations promote algae growth.

*It just so happens*, that EI users with enough anecdotal evidence to sink a battle ship, are _typically_ the ones who promote high levels of ion concentration, and _typically_ state that these high ion concentrations are only ever beneficial, and never have negative effects towards the health and well-being of creatures, nor the ability for algae to grow.


----------



## Hoppy

Audionut said:


> @Hoppy,
> 
> I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.


My contribution to this ambiguity is the attempt to get us to define light intensity in a way that actually does involve light intensity, instead of just using the power rating of our many kinds of light fixtures to do it. And, my definition of low, medium and high light, is as I posted, related to when you need to use CO2 and when it is desirable and when it is essential to avoid serious algae problems. But, I agree that those new to planted tanks have a difficult time with all of the things they need to learn, unlearn, relearn, etc.


> This thread is purely regarding high concentrations of ions and their negative effect on creatures. And fact based studies regarding whether high ion concentrations promote algae growth.
> 
> *It just so happens*, that EI users with enough anecdotal evidence to sink a battle ship, are _typically_ the ones who promote high levels of ion concentration, and _typically_ state that these high ion concentrations are only ever beneficial, and never have negative effects towards the health and well-being of creatures, nor the ability for algae to grow.


EI advocates do insist that the levels of ions we use have not been shown to cause algae, nor to harm the fish - maybe some shrimp, but not fish. When someone finds data or, through experimenting, amasses data that shows that there should be limits lower than EI uses for how much concentration of ions is good for the plants and fauna, I think they should post those new limits, and suggest how to stay within those limits while still being able provide the nutrients the plants need so they grow well enough to inhibit algae blooms. They could label it the REI (rational estimative index) method or whatever else they want to call it, so we can know we are talking about the same subject. Just saying that we dose too much isn't that helpful.


----------



## dukydaf

Audionut said:


> Clearly, EI is not as fool proof as those who dream of it day in and day out would have us to believe. ......You need to dig through a bunch of threads to try and find some reasonable interpretation of what exactly is high and low light, CO2 and plant mass, use that research to find appropriate initial ion concentration levels that are fitting for the tank, and then use observational based skills to adapt those initial ion concentrations as needed.
> 
> 
> I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.


 @Audionut Not sure I understand the point here. EI is not good because users can make errors ? The hammer is wrongly built because the user can hit his fingers ?

To dose according to EI recommended levels is relatively easy. EI takes care of the nutrient part. What you are referring to is setting up a high light planted aquarium... light, substrate, filter, plant species, etc...another discussion.

There are plenty of articles and websites with good information on the subject. That being said, I would not recommend a high light planted tank for a beginner. Get some experience, read on dif subjects and slowly progress.


----------



## Audionut

Hoppy said:


> EI advocates do insist that the levels of ions we use have not been shown to cause algae, nor to harm the fish - maybe some shrimp, but not fish. When someone finds data or, through experimenting, amasses data that shows that there should be limits lower than EI uses for how much concentration of ions is good for the plants and fauna, I think they should post those new limits, and suggest how to stay within those limits while still being able provide the nutrients the plants need so they grow well enough to inhibit algae blooms. They could label it the REI (rational estimative index) method or whatever else they want to call it, so we can know we are talking about the same subject. Just saying that we dose too much isn't that helpful.


It's a tough world Hoppy when someone has to do all the things you suggest, just to put to rest anecdotal evidence. A much better solution for all of society, would be to teach people the problems associated with anecdotal evidence. Then we wouldn't need people wasting time shushing those with no evidence and loud voices.

As for evidence Sir, Counterargument #6.

@dukydaf. If the user is advised to hit the nail with the claw end of the hammer, is it still the users fault, or those advising?


----------



## 58417

*EI-users' claims*

Deleted


----------



## 58417

Deleted


----------



## MoreyFan

Hoppy said:


> People use what they consider to be EI when they are dosing just Seachem Flourish and a couple of other Seachem products.


Is this a reference to me saying this a couple of pages ago?



MoreyFan said:


> I did EI daily in that tank with 0.5mL Fluval Comp, N, K and 1mL P.




Are you saying I wasn't REALLY doing EI because I wasn't using dry ferts? I understand the point you are making that EI is an extremely loose term (like high/low tech) but I don't see how using liquid or branded ferts is relevant.


----------



## 58417

*If there is no specific paper ...*

Deleted


----------



## Audionut

MoreyFan said:


> Is this a reference to me saying this a couple of pages ago?
> Are you saying I wasn't REALLY doing EI because I wasn't using dry ferts? I understand the point you are making that EI is an extremely loose term (like high/low tech) but I don't see how using liquid or branded ferts is relevant.


 @Hoppy was merely pointing out that EI isn't fixed in stone. It could be dosed with dry ferts, liquid ferts, applies to high light, low light, high CO2, etc, etc.


----------



## s_s

Effects of nitrates on fish health

In fathead minnows (seen as an extremely hardy fish), the physiological effects of nitrates could be detected in concentrations of 21ppm and became "significant" at 41.6ppm. 

Xanthic Fathead minnows are also known in the hobby as "Rosy Red Minnows". We've probably all seen them actually survive levels of ammonia and nitrate in a "feeder tank" that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies. Given this data, it seems reasonable that 20ppm should be considered the maximum for our aquariums.

*Study:* _Scott, G., Crunkilton, R.L., 2000. Acute and chronic toxicity of nitrate to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), Cerio- daphnia dubia and Daphnia magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 2918–2922_ 

A compiled review of prior testing conducted in Spain at the Universidad de Alcala suggests that the effects of nitrate toxicity in the most sensitive freshwater species can begin in concentrations as low as 2ppm and that long term exposure to nitrates in concentrations of 10ppm are known to adversely effect rainbow trout, chinook salmon, and cutthroat trout. 

*Study:* _Camargo, Julio A., 2004, Nitrate Toxicity to aquatic animals: a Review with new data for freshwater invertebrates, Chemosphere 58 (2005) 1255-1267_ 

Long-term studies identified a nitrate concentration high of 1.24ppm in the Amazon River and 80ppb (virtually undetectable) in the Orinoco River. Which also shows that high concentrations of nitrate are at the least unnatural. 

*Study 1:* _Mayorga, Emilio, 2002, Processing of Bioactive Elements in the Amazon River System, The Ecohydrology of South American Rivers and Wetlands. IAHS Special Publication no. 6, 2002_ 

*Study 2:* _Lewis, William M., 2006, Concentration and transport of dissolved and suspended substances in the Orinoco River, Biodegradation Volume 7, Number 3 / May, 1989, 0923-9820 (Print) 1572-9729_

There are even studies performed on Gambusia in Florida springs that discovered that decreased fertility rates were caused by nitrate in concentrations as low as 1.5ppm. 

*Study:* _Edwards. Thea M., 2006, Water Quality Influences Reproduction In Female Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrookie) from Eight Florida Springs, Environment Health Perspectives, Vol 114,_ 

Credit to:
https://www.reddit.com/u/JosVermeulen
for finding and compiling these sources. I've simply copied them here since it seems relevant.


----------



## c9bug

s_s said:


> Effects of nitrates on fish health
> 
> In fathead minnows (seen as an extremely hardy fish), the physiological effects of nitrates could be detected in concentrations of 21ppm and became "significant" at 41.6ppm.


I haven't gone through the other articles, but for this first article those values are referencing neonates. Later in the paper it says this: "NOEC (no observable effect concentration) and LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) for 7-d larval and 11-d embryo-larval growth tests were 358 and 717 mg/L NO3-N"
These are much higher values than most will find in their planted tanks.


----------



## isonychia

Marcel G said:


> I thought it was clearly stated in the first post already, but to repeat it: By high levels of nutrients I mean full-EI dose, which according to T.Barr and his recent practice is as follows: 20-80 ppm CO2, 30-45 ppm NO3, 3-15 ppm PO4, 0.5-2.1 ppm Fe (weekly dose), which will accumulate into approximately about 20-80 ppm CO2 [no accumulation with CO2], 60-90 ppm NO3, 6-30 ppm PO4, and 1.0-4.2 ppm Fe levels in your tank given you do 50% water changes once a week (also be aware that plants' consumption is neglected in these numbers, so in reality the number will be little lower). According to my growth experiments, in high-light EI tanks the weekly consumption of nutrients by a really densely planted aquarium plants (mostly fast growing stem plants) can reach up to about 12 ppm NO3, 1.1 ppm PO4, 5.0 ppm K, and 0.004 ppm Fe per week. These data are based on laboratory analysis of nutrients in dry matter (plant biomass from these tanks). Unlike T.Barr (and his explanation of how did he come to his EI data), I can show you the whole well-documented experiment.
> As far as what nutrients can be toxic to aquatic life, this can be found in literature again. I would name CO2, NO3, and heavy metals in the first place.


I just have a general observation/question concerning EI and the frequent responses from MANY people that reference SPECIFIC ppm of any nutrient. This is not directed at Marcel or questioning his info. I am using his post as an example.

How are people coming up with these specific amounts of say NO3?

Marcel, you state your experiments show an uptake of NO3 in the 12ppm range. How do you test such amounts and how do you come to such an exact number. Do you use a more reliable high end testing system?

The "testing" of NO3, PO4 etc is useless to ME. I use API test kits and even after I calibrated the NO3 test, I still can only guess a range between say 20-50ppm. That's a big range. Same with PO4. The simple fact that I don't own any advanced test kits makes me stick to full EI dosing. I don't worry if my tank is considered medium or densely planted. I can't determine how much "uptake" is occurring. I cant determine if I should dose HALF EI. I stick with full EI because I read it is not detrimental to my plants, causes algae etc. and I read it's better to have non-limiting amounts.

The reason I don't deviate from the EI dosing schedule is:

1. I cant accurately measure my nutrients.
2. I am not skilled enough to modify it based on "what the plants are telling me"
3. I don't have a reason to modify it because I read it works from people who have the education and time invested in the hobby that I do not yet have.

Until I put the time in myself and develop my own educated opinions AND feel confident enough to TINKER with things I stay the course.

I know none of what I posted is new info. But it is coming from a new person to the hobby and where, my guess, most new planted tank people stand. 

iso


----------



## c9bug

Marcel G said:


> I don't know if you understand my point in the first post (or elsewhere).
> 
> My point is that EI users (not me!) say that EI levels are harmless for aquarium critters, and that EI levels of nutrients have no correlation to algae growth/biomass. These are their claims, not mine!


I see that where there could be some confusion there. However believe I understood you correctly. In this case, The "EI fertilizer levels are harmless" is what you would need to disprove. 

The reason I say that it has to be shown in planted tanks (or at least a laboratory setting) is that fisheries, lakes, and rivers are incredibly different. Just to name some of the many confounding factors researchers may not control: 

_PAR of sunlight - this is significantly higher than anything planted tank hobbiests have to deal with. How do we know that algae growth in outdoor aquatic systems can be attributed to fertilizers rather than sunlight or low plant mass. 

Types of fertilizer - soil runoff that contributes to eutrophication consists of more than just the fertilizer salts that we use. Many terrestrial fertilizers are not suitable for planted tanks.

Over all health of the outdoor aquatic system e.g. pollution, misc. mineral content, co2, o2 etc.

Various critters that are present in these aquatic environments that most few hobbiests would have in their tanks. For instance, few of us keep insects (which are very active players in outdoor environments), daphnia, mussels, birds, etc. Any of these organisms can cause significant changes in the environment.

Over all size and type of the aquatic system. e.g. river, swamp, lake, puddle? All of these will differ in the make up of their flora and fauna as well as their ability to process nutrients.

The fragility of certain wild fish species that would never been in our aquariums in the first place

_


There are many factors that differ in outdoor vs. indoor systems. I would suggest caution while using non laboratory studies for that reason. I'm not saying all articles are inapplicable, but the it must be able to be read in its entirety (not behind a paywall, abstracts and snippets are not enough) so we can determine if it is indeed useful to our aquatic systems.

I would also argue that anecdotal evidence can be useful even if you just use it as part of a data set. If 30 people say they have used EI (or failed with EI) that can show us some of the pros or cons of the system. Then we can share that data, figure out what is wrong and grow as a community. This is even more useful because it focuses on planted tanks specifically.

It is not in the spirit of science to ignore data, but you don't want to take data out of context either. EI dosing is used in planted tank systems, that is where you have to show that it is harmful.


----------



## 58417

Deleted


----------



## 58417

*Hats off!*

Deleted


----------



## c9bug

Marcel G said:


> _*I have greatest respect to this argument! *_It seems logical, and well formulated. Thank you for it. It makes me think of it.
> 
> Let me ask you just one question: _*Why only one side of this dispute is required to prove or disprove something?*_
> Why do you ask me to disprove that EI levels of nutrients are harmless?
> Why don't you ask EI users to prove that EI levels of nutrients are harmless?
> Is it some unwritten law that the one who first formulate any postulate is freed from the burden to prove he's right?
> So if I were the first one who said that elevated levels of nutrients in planted tanks are harmfull to critters, then all the EI users appearing after me should disprove my statement to show I may be mistaken? If this is true, then I'm more than sure that there were people who said this decades ago before T.Barr came with his EI method. So allow me another question: Do you consider subjective observations about succesful breeding of several fish and shrimp speacies in EI planted tanks as good enough proofs to disprove this statement about harmfulness of elevated (EI) levels of nutrients for fish/shrimps? Are positive experiences of (say) 30 people enough for you as a proof of harmlessness of EI levels of nutrients? And did you take into account all the people also with negative experiences with EI? And are you aware of the fact that not all ill effects are being visible by naked eye = by mere observation (so even if everything may seem OK, there still may be some problem)? Do you see my point?


I do see your point. I guess it depends on who you are trying to convince. If you want to convince people using EI that it is harmful, then evidence needs to be provided. Many users have already done their research and have found this method to be successful. If you want to convince new comers it will be less difficult. However it is likely they will go with a more established procedure because that is what is likely to be recommended to them by people on this forum. 

Whenever there is a new opinion or procedure in our hobby there is going to be push back. We used to think that limiting PO4 alone would stop algae growth in planted tanks. Since then evidence has come out that makes some of us doubt that claim. I'm sure that when Tom Barr put the EI system forward there was a lot of push back. But with enough people trying it and having similar experiences it became one of the common fertilizer regimens that many use now. 

That being said, many people who practice EI are also practice other fertilizing techniques. You may be able to convince people who are struggling with EI that their dosing amounts are the issue. A different thread (which I believe you participated in) focused on micronutrient toxicity. That thread got me thinking about the necessity of high concentrations of micros used in EI dosing especially in soft water. I am considering changing my fertilizing protocol because of it. The strongest evidence to me was the evidence provided anecdotally by the users of this forum. 

If EI users wanted to convince you it was safe, then the onus would be on them to provide evidence. The problem is that if they are content which their protocol they may not want to expend the effort. As you know it is a lot of work to convince other people to your side. The most many are willing to provide is anecdotal evidence and personal experience.

As a side note, 30 people was just a random number I came up with. The higher the number the better, but it isn't too important. My point was that those anecdotes could conceivably be seen as data points and should not be avoided. It's more data :smile2: We could almost think of them as data points in a survey.


----------



## roadmaster

I could see the sharp increase in TDS from the mineral salt's having an effect on some sensitive ,or wild caught species, and breeding of same.
Other variables such as poor genetic's,inbreeding,Poor diet, temp's, GH, KH ,unsuited for species being kept,poor maint,over feeding,overstocking, over medicating, could and have taken a toll on fishes we keep long before EI was invented.
One could theorize that the addition of the mineral salt's at what %? could be enough to send them over the edge or not.
Is the only problem I have with attempting to lay blame with a particular dosing scheme without acknowledging the long term effect's over time of other important variables.
Same with algae.
My apologies Marcel and all other's, for near melt down I exhibited the other day. 
It offend's my sense's ,and is embarrassing for me as well as a bit surprising at how easily it came, and then left.
Sometimes I must retreat and regroup, re-evaluate.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## c9bug

Awesome! *This* is how we get into a civilized debate! :grin2:


----------



## d33pVI

Marcel G said:


> Although many scientific studies are not directly applicable to our planted tanks, there are many implications that may apply well. To downplay all the research just because it has not "freshwater planted tanks" in its title is an evidence of ignoring the spirit of science, and worshipping subjective observation instead. As I already stated I interpret the results with caution. If you think that no scientific paper is applicable to our planted tanks, then you should discard all the knowledge about nitrification, water chemistry, nutrient uptake, etc., because there is hardly any study about our ornamental aquarium plants. Also, you can use whatever nutrient levels, as there is (and will ever be) no paper that would imply you can do any wrong. You can add plutonium into your tank, because although there are studies about its radioactivity, you can stay calm because there's no such study for planted tanks (and even if there were some, your specific tank is different so it doesn't apply to it). Is this what you wanted to say?


Far from it. I take no issue with the stated position of this debate. I don't dispute any of the studies cited. I'm just trying to point out that the argument is flawed. The claim might not be wrong, but it has not yet been proven to be right.


I suggested to amend the premise to relate to the forum not to insist that published studies need be hobby specific, but to narrow the scope of an overly broad claim down to a form the forum can readily relate and contribute to. If the argument is EI levels cause problems, the data supporting that argument needs to be related back to that claim in a meaningful manner before it can be considered proof of correlation. 


If the argument is running counter to observed results, the evidence needs to relate back to those observations and offer a new interpretation. Claim: High nutrients causes algae. Observation: Using EI levels, some tanks have algae, others do not. Evidence: Farm run-off causes algae bloom in local lake. The evidence could support the claim, but must also explain the conflict with observation, otherwise further evidence is required or the claim must be modified. The scientific method.


You cannot simply discount observations contrary to the claim as "subjective" or based on "myth" if they do not fit the narrative. Fishkeeping practices of all sorts are based on a body of knowledge gained through multiple "experiments" being run and results peer reviewed and duplicated under similar parameters. What works and does not work, is good or is bad, is based on observation and shared experiences to produce repeatable results. The scientific method.


The premise of this discussion starts with a broad claim, and is supported by evidence collected from disparate studies that give the claim some merit. Ultimately, though, the argument is trying to win by discrediting observations to the contrary instead of explaining them. This is the scientific method, run backwards. The pseudo-scientific method?


----------



## 58417

*Agree*

Deleted


----------



## Hoppy

MoreyFan said:


> Is this a reference to me saying this a couple of pages ago?
> 
> Are you saying I wasn't REALLY doing EI because I wasn't using dry ferts? I understand the point you are making that EI is an extremely loose term (like high/low tech) but I don't see how using liquid or branded ferts is relevant.


No, I wasn't referring to any individual. Over the past few years I have read a lot of posts where people believe they are using the EI method, but have made enough changes in it that it is only barely related to the EI method. Some have said they dose just a couple of the nutrients, but still believe they are following the EI method. 

If you use the Flourish line of ferts you can be using the EI method, but not if you dose per the Seachem recommendations, which are appropriate for low light tanks only (in my opinion).

The point I was making is that "EI" dosing covers such a wide range of dosages that it doesn't really define much.


----------



## philipraposo1982

Wouldn't you need to know how much the plants uptake in order to determine what's left in the water? What high amounts of nitrates in one tank is not necessarily high in another.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoppy

philipraposo1982 said:


> Wouldn't you need to know how much the plants uptake in order to determine what's left in the water? What high amounts of nitrates in one tank is not necessarily high in another.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


My answer would be yes. But, I still have questions about how to define what we are discussing. Don't we have to concern ourselves with the plant density in the tank? A "jungle" of fast growing stem plants must necessarily require more mass of nitrates per day than a tank with an HC carpet and little else. So, how do we include that in the discussion? 

Do plants need a certain concentration of nitrate, for example, in the water, or do they need a certain mass of nitrate in the water per day? If I have a single stem of Rotala in a 55 gallon tank, does it need X ppm of nitrate to grow well, or Y mass of nitrate in the tank water per day? (I'm not a botanist, so I don't know what role concentrations play vs total nutrient mass.)

One major difference between natural bodies of water and an aquarium is that natural bodies of water are like huge aquariums, and for rivers, they have almost an infinite amount of water, due to the constant flow through the plants. Aquariums have an extremely small amount of water by comparison. So, a river with 1 ppm of nitrate can supply adequate nitrates for the plants there, providing the concentration of nitrate isn't a major factor in how well the plants can use the nitrate.


----------



## philipraposo1982

I agree with you 100%

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nordic

I don't think we are anywhere to a universal answer otherwise someone would have sold a "just add RO water and plants" bag of powder by now.
I'm afraid even with all the science and members on hand it would still be like blind people each describing his little bit of the elephant.
I just get more and more questions the further we go.
Like what if you had two tanks with exactly the same plants, substrate, lights as well as dosing schedule... Would differences in pH or CO2 or temperatures etc. make a tangible difference in type of algae, or rate of its growth.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## Hoppy

Marcel G said:


> This thread should discuss the concentration of inorganic plant nutrients in water column that have negative impact on organisms in our tanks.
> That being said, it's clear that the nutrient uptake depends on the plant/algae biomass. But that's not what is being (or should be) discussed here. So for example, if we come to a conclusion that (say) 15 ppm NO3 would be a reasonable safe amount for even the most sensitive critters in our tanks (just an example!), of course, in tanks with a huge plant biomass a weekly dose of 20 ppm NO3 would not probably pose any problem, while in HC tank it may be over the limit.
> 
> 
> I did quite a few growth experiments, and the results seem to imply both. That is, in the first tank with 4 ppm NO3 (weekly dose) the plant will yield (say) 2.5 grams of fresh weight after 20 days, while in the second tank with 32 ppm NO3 (weekly dose) the plant will yield 5.4 grams of fresh weight after 20 days of growth. But if you calculate the real uptake in each tank based on the analysis of nutrients in the dry matter, you find out that the plants consumed only a small portion from this big 'nutrient cake'. So under the relatively low nutrient concentration of 4 ppm NO3, the plants took up only about 1/5th (0.8 ppm NO3) per week. Under the high nutrient concentration of 32 ppm NO3, the plants took up only about 1/12th (2.7 ppm NO3) per week. This implies that under lower concentration the uptake is lower, while under higher concentration the uptake is higher (but the effectivity of uptake decrease, and even the growth rate declines). But it's clear also, that the uptake of 0.8 ppm NO3 yields less biomass (2.5 g) than the uptake of 2.7 ppm NO3 (5.4 g). But to gain twice as much biomass you have to increase the external concentration of nutrients by 8 times (from 4 ppm to 32 ppm NO3)! This answers also your question about whether is it better to dose just once a week, or daily. The results imply that daily dosing gives you higher uptake efficiency, but you can expect lower growth rates, and thus less biomass yield. The highest growth rates are achieved under highest nutrient levels, but with terrible efficiency (for example, with 3.5 ppm NO3 you get 50% growth rate, with 10 ppm NO3 you get 75% growth rate, and to achieve 100% growth rate you need 32 ppm NO3). Then you can ask also, if we need the highest possible growth rate of 100%, or we can do fine with just 75% (or whatever positive number)?


Based on that: Aquatic plants' ability to use the nutrients in the water is greater if the concentration of nutrients is higher, up to some concentration, at least. That would be true how ever dense the plants are in the tank. Therefore, a "jungle" tank should be dosed more often, as opposed to being dosed with bigger doses. Or vice versa, a tank starting out with a low plant density would do best with the same ppm dosage, but fewer times per week. So, when we start our planted tank we should dose the EI recommended dosage once per week, not 3 times per week at 1/3 the recommended dosages. And, that recommended dosage should not be such that the ppm of any of the nutrients is above that which is harmful to the occupants of the tank.

If for example, the EI dosage, with 50% weekly water changes, is 20 ppm and that is above the concentration that is harmful, we should decrease that to perhaps 10 ppm, but dose every day instead of 3 times a day for our "jungle" tank. Or increase the water changes to a higher percentage or do them twice a week.

If that is a correct interpretation of what your tests demonstrate, how would you modify the EI dosing schedules?


----------



## Audionut

Hoppy said:


> Based on that: Aquatic plants' ability to use the nutrients in the water is greater if the concentration of nutrients is higher, up to some concentration, at least.


Under 4 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/5th of the available NO3, leaving 80% of the NO3 remaining in the water.

Under 32 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/12 of the available NO3, leaving 91.5% of the NO3 remaining in the water.

I see that as reduced efficiency as concentration increases, probably at least in some part due to the concentration gradient. Adding 100 ppm of NO3 would result in the plant uptaking a higher value of NO3, but at an even further reduced efficiency, with the result of an even larger percentage of the available NO3 remaining in the water column.


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> Under 4 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/5th of the available NO3, leaving 80% of the NO3 remaining in the water.
> 
> Under 32 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/12 of the available NO3, leaving 91.5% of the NO3 remaining in the water.
> 
> I see that as reduced efficiency as concentration increases, probably at least in some part due to the concentration gradient. Adding 100 ppm of NO3 would result in the plant uptaking a higher value of NO3, but at an even further reduced efficiency, with the result of an even larger percentage of the available NO3 remaining in the water column.



i do agree with your observation, its also scientifically proven if you want to talk scientifically, i also support this with my own observation. 

my question for you is when you tested your stuff was it tested while dosing KNO3 only without any source of NH4/Urea? without any fish or any other animals in the tank?

NH4/Urea will be up taken before most plants started to use NO3. in most cases NO3 will build up over time even in heavily planed tank.


----------



## Audionut

What stuff @happi? The data in my last post was provided by Marcel. I would be very surprised if it wasn't the data from Marcel's other thread: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...nutritional-requirements-aquarium-plants.html

In which case, the source of NO3 is from KNO3 solely, in tanks that contain no filtration, fish or any other known source of NO3.


----------



## philipraposo1982

Marcel G said:


> This thread should discuss the concentration of inorganic plant nutrients in water column that have negative impact on organisms in our tanks.
> That being said, it's clear that the nutrient uptake depends on the plant/algae biomass. But that's not what is being (or should be) discussed here. So for example, if we come to a conclusion that (say) 15 ppm NO3 would be a reasonable safe amount for even the most sensitive critters in our tanks (just an example!), of course, in tanks with a huge plant biomass a weekly dose of 20 ppm NO3 would not probably pose any problem, while in HC tank it may be over the limit.
> 
> 
> I did quite a few growth experiments, and the results seem to imply both. That is, in the first tank with 4 ppm NO3 (weekly dose) the plant will yield (say) 2.5 grams of fresh weight after 20 days, while in the second tank with 32 ppm NO3 (weekly dose) the plant will yield 5.4 grams of fresh weight after 20 days of growth. But if you calculate the real uptake in each tank based on the analysis of nutrients in the dry matter, you find out that the plants consumed only a small portion from this big 'nutrient cake'. So under the relatively low nutrient concentration of 4 ppm NO3, the plants took up only about 1/5th (0.8 ppm NO3) per week. Under the high nutrient concentration of 32 ppm NO3, the plants took up only about 1/12th (2.7 ppm NO3) per week. This implies that under lower concentration the uptake is lower, while under higher concentration the uptake is higher (but the effectivity of uptake decrease, and even the growth rate declines). But it's clear also, that the uptake of 0.8 ppm NO3 yields less biomass (2.5 g) than the uptake of 2.7 ppm NO3 (5.4 g). But to gain twice as much biomass you have to increase the external concentration of nutrients by 8 times (from 4 ppm to 32 ppm NO3)! This answers also your question about whether is it better to dose just once a week, or daily. The results imply that daily dosing gives you higher uptake efficiency, but you can expect lower growth rates, and thus less biomass yield. The highest growth rates are achieved under highest nutrient levels, but with terrible efficiency (for example, with 3.5 ppm NO3 you get 50% growth rate, with 10 ppm NO3 you get 75% growth rate, and to achieve 100% growth rate you need 32 ppm NO3). Then you can ask also, if we need the highest possible growth rate of 100%, or we can do fine with just 75% (or whatever positive number)?


I thought our own personal thoughts are to be be not included. Your experiment is far from scientific. how about we stick to science as you suggested. 

Or maybe I am completely confused.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoppy

Audionut said:


> Under 4 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/5th of the available NO3, leaving 80% of the NO3 remaining in the water.
> 
> Under 32 ppm of NO3, the plants consumed 1/12 of the available NO3, leaving 91.5% of the NO3 remaining in the water.
> 
> I see that as reduced efficiency as concentration increases, probably at least in some part due to the concentration gradient. Adding 100 ppm of NO3 would result in the plant uptaking a higher value of NO3, but at an even further reduced efficiency, with the result of an even larger percentage of the available NO3 remaining in the water column.


We shouldn't care about the efficiency of the fertilizing, just about how to get the plant growth we want, without also getting a toxic concentration of nutrients in the water. I'm looking at the fact that if we dose 2 days worth of NO3 at one time, the concentration is at the maximum for the first day. So, that is the day we might run into toxicity.

However, since the plants don't ever remove all of the nutrients we dose.....oops....don't people report zero nitrates when they aren't dosing enough? What is happening then? That looks like the plants do consume all of the nutrients with low dosages. I also recall that years ago people kept running out of phosphates in the water from fear of dosing enough to last the whole dosing period. Could that all just be due to the trickiness of measuring nitrate and the inaccuracy of hobbyist test kits? I don't measure nutrients in my tank so I'm at a disadvantage here.


----------



## Audionut

Hoppy said:


> We shouldn't care about the efficiency of the fertilizing,


I think I understand what you are saying. But it's not the efficiency of the fertilizing, it's the efficiency of the plants. This point is relevant below.




Hoppy said:


> .....oops....don't people report zero nitrates when they aren't dosing enough? What is happening then?


The reduced concentration of the ions results in increased plant efficiency for uptake.

As the concentration of the ions reduces, the plants becomes more efficient at uptaking the ions. As the plants continues to consume ions (ion concentration continues to reduce), the efficiency continues to increase, resulting in a faster uptake of the ions.

By adding a large portion of nutrients at one time, we reduce the maintenance required on our behalf (we don't have to dose as often), by reducing the efficiency of the plants to uptake those nutrients.

Absolute numbers don't tell the whole story.

Someone might see, 4 ppm of NO3 in the solution resulted in an uptake of 0.8 ppm, and 32 ppm of NO3 resulted in an uptake of 2.7 ppm. More is always better........right? What I see is that with a solution concentration of 4 ppm NO3, the plants consumed 20% of the ion, and at a solution concentration of 32 ppm NO3, the plants only consumed 11% of the ion.

Now what happens at the end of a dosing week when the accumulated concentration of the ion is in excess of 60 ppm?

In other words, in order to gain some percentage of increased plant mass, *an ever greater percentage* of the nutrients must be dosed to reach that goal, because the greater percentage of nutrients reduces the efficiency of the plant to uptake those nutrients. Now, if there are no consequences to a greater nutrient concentration in the solution other then the reduced efficiency of the plant, then it could probably be considered a worth-while trade-off for the net increase in plant mass.

But what if the increased concentration of nutrients in the solution also has other consequences. Would the trade-off still be worth it?


----------



## Hoppy

Audionut said:


> Now, if there are no consequences to a greater nutrient concentration in the solution other then the reduced efficiency of the plant, then it could probably be considered a worth-while trade-off for the net increase in plant mass.
> 
> But what if the increased concentration of nutrients in the solution also has other consequences. *Would the trade-off still be worth it?*


My answer would be no, because it should be possible to adjust the dosage and frequency of dosing, plus the frequency and amount of water change to eliminate the consequences. That is why I was asking how the EI dosing tables would be changed to incorporate this new information about toxicity. If I had a good understanding of the toxicity data I would love to tackle this, but I don't, so I can't. If we can say that the iron plus phosphate issue is moot for the low concentrations we are concerned with there are obvious changes that would be easy to make. Starting with dosing everything every day.


----------



## Chlorophile

This is SOO long and multifaceted I dont dare get involved but I just want to say as far as Fish are concerned, the reason things like Nitrate dont kill fish, but ammonia and nitrite do, is because fish are able to keep them out of their bodies effectively or are non toxic when in the fishes body.. It is a notion we as humans should all be aware of - EVERYTHING is toxic at a certain level and if fish are not dying at 80ppm nitrate, and even sensitive fry are not dying at 80ppm nitrate, and picky eaters are thriving at 80ppm nitrate, etc, etc, etc. There is no reason to assume it is having a negative effect on the fish. 
If you find the level where lifespan is reduced, or there is a certain amount of death, or disease is becoming more prevalent, then you have your proof - but its not the levels we commonly target. 

Keep in mind that fish evolved to live in an ecosystem where nitrate was the final stage of a waste removal process - if there had never been a bacteria that turned nitrite into nitrate you can guarantee we would see the same level of nitrite tolerance today as we see nitrate tolerance. 
Or conversely there could be something so toxic about nitrite that they would not have adapted, and we would not be here today either in that case. 
Things like Heavy metals are more toxic and less prevalent so fish have not adapted, or they are inherently too damaging on a cellular level for adaptation to have ever occurred. 

There are plenty more pathogens associated with dirty water that fish succumb to, the common compounds in all soils and waterways like Nitrate.. are not of concern to fish in that dramatic a sense.

Bump:


philipraposo1982 said:


> Wouldn't you need to know how much the plants uptake in order to determine what's left in the water? What high amounts of nitrates in one tank is not necessarily high in another.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Part of EI and you can see this in tons of graphs is that the 50% water change will keep the PPM fixed even if there is almost no uptake, as the dosages are based on water volume, of which we remove half of weekly


----------



## Hoppy

EI method 50% water changes don't keep the level of nutrients constant, they do limit the maximum level to twice the total that is dosed between water changes. So, if we know that X ppm of nitrate is toxic, we need to dose less than 50% of X in total between 50% water changes.


----------



## burr740

One easy mistake to make with EI is changing less than 50% of the water every week. Nutrients can further build up. Early on I was bad about doing that. At a glance it looked like I was changing half, but closer inspection showed far less. Now I make sure to change a good 60% or so


----------



## Hoppy

If you change 33% of the water, the build-up is limited to 3x the total doses between water changes. 25% limits it to 4x the total doses.


----------



## Chlorophile

Right, I just meant even without plant uptake there is a constant (limit ) imposed by water changes


----------



## roadmaster

Once more we drift back to our fondness for the plant's with pondering over rates of uptake,etc.
Believe for those plenty confused by now,that EI method is good place to start and then after some week's,one can scale down if plant's allow.Alway's has been this way.
Hard to know what you might be able to dose less or more of, if you ain't never seen good growth before, due to limitation brought on by just these sort of discussion's.(might get confused)
If the plant's your buying are dying, before you get to observe any sustained growth ,then compounding the problem with practicing limitation is not likely to improve your chances IMHO.
From livestock position ,I might (If your scared,just say your scared),start the tank without any fishes, but buy all the plant's you can cram in it.(fast grower's mostly)
Dose the nutrient's however you might like, and then you can see what effect the nutrient's alone have on your particular tank.(choose a method )
Run it this way for a few week's, month's, (not day's), and then maybe introduce a few shrimp,then a few fish over a few week's.
I was no easy convert to using mineral salt's that I knew only what I was told as to what effect they might have on fishes/shrimp's, so this was the approach I took.(gave me time to watch plant's)
I was determined this time, to get the plant's to perform so I focused on growing them independent of any fishes.
Maybe a few snail's that hitched a ride with purchased plant's.
I was at first delighted, to have found forum's discussing planted aquarium's for I was much in study of these .
Did not take long though ,for my tried and true belief's from lack of knowledge,and running fish only tank's came under fire .
What??? I can dose lean version of EI and not have to change water as often ,and way less nutrient's are needed? NON CO2 can work?(fact)
Yes is what I have discovered.(fact)
Other's can and have done it also (fact).
Best advice I ever got was..."Choose a method and do not deviate" Then choose another.
Plenty of time for learning all about the other variables with respect to growin the weed's, but you can easily forget the basic's (light ,nutrient's,CO2)
Plenty of good information and opinion's are awash here, but don't become so focused on one grain of sand,that you lose sight of the beach.
If from my own experience, I can say EI dosing scheme has had no measureable negative effect , it's cause I believe it .
Can't eliminate personal experiences of other's ,which is what I first came to hear.(some other's)
Would not have taken me long to hear of all manner of livestock issues from EI dosing scheme, for me to abandon completely the idea of adding more stuff to my tank that I knew would bring sharp increase to TDS. 
would have just gone back to keeping learge cichlid's which I have always had a fondness for.
I have described my approach,and it was less stressful than worrying bout livestock.
Anybody can do it .


----------



## Canuck

While I will say there is a large element of subjectivity, I'm not sure the fish welfare argument isn't a straw man fallacy. In the case of the guppy, the level of SAFETY is 1/10 the ld50. Obviously, this doesn't suggest that all guppies can be guaranteed of health at 80 ppm (I don't think) but it would mean that the probability of illness (or death) occurs is deemed "acceptable". Obviously this is different from pharmaceuticals, completely different context. Though to make my point I will say 1/1000 of the LD50 does not guarantee humans remain unharmed, it just results in a probability that science/society deems acceptable given the benefits that a drug or substance provides.... Anyway back to our guppy, full EI with no uptake would result in 60 ppm of nitrates, this is 20% less than the "SAFE" level of nitrates. I believe 20% is a fairly significant buffer from safe. Two arguments are going to be proposed from the contrary viewpoint. Number 1, some people suggest more than the initial 3X10 ppm weekly dose. I'm not sure I can present an argument defending these people. I'm not sure there is a benefit to doing it at all besides the fact that human nature is that if some is good, more must be better. I'm confident that three times dosing at 10 ppm means that plants are provided a constant supply of nutrients with the possibility of 'starvation' being extremely remote. In my mind, I would have no problem advocating a position that it may not be worth the risk (again subjective). The second argument I foresee to my position is the valid research done on cod, and salmonids that is cited and that different species have different thresholds. Completely true but there is a reason that the common aquarium species are kept. While the Amazon itself is pristine as claimed, almost all of these species have evolved to survive extended periods trapped in glorified "mud puddles" during the dry season. This hardiness and ability allows them to be bred, transported and kept in conditions where no trout would survive. Obviously this doesn't mean that fish tanks, EI or other, provide an optimum environment. But it probably suggests that based on a spirit of causing absolutely no harm, one shouldn't probably keep fish in completely overpopulated glass boxes at all unless one adheres to the 1 fish per 100 gallon rule...Another consideration is that while we subject our fish to less than ideal conditions, many will live longer in an aquarium (EI or other) than they would in the wild, under pristine conditions. Many fish like neon tetras are considered annuals in the wild with huge population explosions seasonally. I'm not sure from a moral standpoint how this fact is too be considered.

Anyway, just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts out there. Glad to consider opposing viewpoints...


----------



## 58417

*Black-and-white war*

Deleted


----------



## 58417

*Very good point*

Deleted


----------



## houseofcards

I still don't understand why you guys treat a planted tank in a home like a science experiment. There is no control. You could move from tank to tank whether your dosing EI, ADA, Pro whatever and everyone might have somewhat different results. 

For example, do you think everyone with an EI dosed tank actually does the full 50% water change (if that's what the tank requires)? People are people life gets in the way and they might skip a water change or accidentally feed too much, etc, so you really can't blame the EI method for a fish or algae issue it just as easily might be a problem caused by the tank owner. 

My personal experience:

Have been using an EI-type dosing routine on all my tanks for around 10 years. Whether the tank is high/med/low light, co2 or not, thinly planted or a jungle I dose toward the high-end of EI and make sure I do my water changes. I never have a problem with algae or have noticed any type of trend with shortened critter lifespans. There might be a fish lost here or there, but that happens in every setup man-made or natural. My fish live 7+ years many times and live longer life spans then they would in nature.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

To further add to the EI method and why it's flawed:

Dosing excessively high NPK, GH, CO2, light, plus (twice) weekly large water changes, are done to alleviate toxicity of the micros. It appears that everything Tom has done over the past several years are the result of trying to alleviate the toxicity caused by dosing excess traces. This is why his plants grow better after a water change, because it lowers the toxic range of the trace nutrients. This is why CO2 needs to be "good" (I interpret this to mean high, 30+ppm), to maximize nutrient uptake and why you need, in his words, "good light" (I've always assumed "good" meant high, 100+ PAR, at the substrate) to drive that nutrient uptake. Why "it's not EI without GH", because Ca and Mg alleviate trace nutrient toxicity. It's also why Tom's said that plants grow better in hard water, because higher Ca and Mg reduces trace nutrient toxicity by improving the nutrient ratio balance, which contradicts his own statements that ratios don't matter. Ratios do indeed matter, and they matter a lot. Screw up any one of these and your plants grow poorly or not at all.

To put this into perspective, some of ADA tanks have 2X the light, half the CO2, far less fertilization, and smaller water changes.

A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC. 

This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...


Bump:
The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.

Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0043135477900793


----------



## Canuck

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Bump:
> The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.
> 
> Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"
> Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry


You may want to reread that.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Canuck said:


> You may want to reread that.


There's nothing incorrect about my previous post.


----------



## Canuck

I had assumed you misread it. 199 ppm of N as potassium nitrate would be over 800 ppm of NO3...


----------



## houseofcards

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC.
> 
> This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...


Who's setup are you referring to?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Canuck said:


> I had assumed you misread it. 199 ppm of N as potassium nitrate would be over 800 ppm of NO3...


The article states that it's nitrate N, not total N.

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> Who's setup are you referring to?


The 180cm ADA tanks at Niigata with three Grand Solar I fixtures.


----------



## Canuck

"The 72-h lc50 values were 199 and 1.26 mg 1−1 −N for potassium nitrate and free ammonia, respectively."


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Canuck said:


> "The 72-h lc50 values were 199 and 1.26 mg 1−1 −N for potassium nitrate and free ammonia, respectively."


I read the article, not the abstract. The 96hr LC50 ranged from 180-200ppm of NO3.


----------



## Chlorophile

The factors at play that kill fish are almost never nitrate. 
co2 is lethal, deoxygenation is lethal, over feeding can be lethal, but in a balanced tank where there is no surges, etc, Nitrate doesn't kill. 
You are more likely to kill your fish by doing a water change which drops nitrate rapidly than you are leaving your fish in a 50-100ppm nitrate tank.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> To further add to the EI method and why it's flawed:
> 
> Dosing excessively high NPK, GH, CO2, light, plus (twice) weekly large water changes, are done to alleviate toxicity of the micros. It appears that everything Tom has done over the past several years are the result of trying to alleviate the toxicity caused by dosing excess traces. This is why his plants grow better after a water change, because it lowers the toxic range of the trace nutrients. This is why CO2 needs to be "good" (I interpret this to mean high, 30+ppm), to maximize nutrient uptake and why you need, in his words, "good light" (I've always assumed "good" meant high, 100+ PAR, at the substrate) to drive that nutrient uptake. Why "it's not EI without GH", because Ca and Mg alleviate trace nutrient toxicity. It's also why Tom's said that plants grow better in hard water, because higher Ca and Mg reduces trace nutrient toxicity by improving the nutrient ratio balance, which contradicts his own statements that ratios don't matter. Ratios do indeed matter, and they matter a lot. Screw up any one of these and your plants grow poorly or not at all.
> 
> To put this into perspective, some of ADA tanks have 2X the light, half the CO2, far less fertilization, and smaller water changes.
> 
> A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC.
> 
> This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...
> 
> 
> Bump:
> The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.
> 
> Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"
> Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry


Some years ago, after buying a Apogee PAR meter, Tom B. took the meter to San Francisco to the authorized ADA dealer there, and measured the light intensity at the substrate of their display tanks, which were lit by that Grand Solar I light. Here is what he wrote about it, having been extremely surprised by the results: ADA lights have low PAR - reason? - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

The article specifically states NO3 as the LC50 for guppy fry, not N-NO3.

Bump:


Hoppy said:


> Some years ago, after buying a Apogee PAR meter, Tom B. took the meter to San Francisco to the authorized ADA dealer there, and measured the light intensity at the substrate of their display tanks, which were lit by that Grand Solar I light. Here is what he wrote about it, having been extremely surprised by the results: ADA lights have low PAR - reason? - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report


I'm going to go with this source for the PAR measurements for the Grand Solar I:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/125010-fishneedit-vs-ada-mh.html#post1255726

And the Aqua Forest lights on the 180p were not Grand Solar I lights. they were MH lights only.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I checked, it's nitrate.

Here's another article that directly addresses the effects of nitrate toxicity:
Shimura et al. "Nitrate Toxicity on Visceral Organs of Medaka Fish, _Oryzias latipes_: Aiming to Raise Fish from Egg to Egg in Space", _Biological Sciences in Space_, Vol.18 No.1 (2004): 7-12.

Medaka (Japanese rice fish) were exposed to 100ppm and 125ppm of nitrate for 96hrs. 30% and 10% survived respectively.
"Histological examination of orgams showed that disruption of cell alignment was a common feature in the gills, intestinal ampulla, liver and kidney."
"The results of our experiments suggest that the high mortality resulting from short-term acute exposure to nitrate is caused by a general dysfunction throughout the whole body. The chronic toxic effects attributed to nitrate, following long-term exposure, were likely to have resulted from nutrient deficiency caused by hepatic [liver] dysfunction."


Acute exposure to 100ppm of nitrate for 4 days killed off 70% of the Medaka, while 125ppm killed off 90%. Would dosing just 30ppm of nitrate be safe for the long-term? The article states that less than 25ppm is safe. Also discussed is that one fish developed curvature of the spine and died soon after. Is high nitrate concentrations partly responsible for morphological defects?


----------



## roadmaster

Marcel G said:


> @*roadmaster*, your posts seem to be often very offensive and attacking IMO with too many general misconceptions. For example, you say that practicing limitation is not likely to improve anyone chances. But this depends on the root cause. Similarly, when overdosing micros I could say that practicing limitation is likely to improve anyone's chances. As far as the livestock, there are not only the visible issues (as I pointed out), so starting with or without fishes makes no difference. Even if you add fishes under EI dosing, and do not register any ill effects, it does not mean there are none (maybe there really are no ill efects, but even if there were some, you need not be able to discern them by naked eyes). Again, ones eyes are not the best guarantee of fish welfare. Also, this whole discussion is not about any method, it's about the possible negative effect of elevated levels of plant nutrients in water column. You recommend people to choose a method and practice it for a few weeks or months. I recommend people to find out first if this method has any negative effects on their critters. Also, the fact that others run succesful planted tanks with EI does not automatically mean that there is no risk. I admit that it has some relevance for this discussion, but for each one with positive experience there is at least another one with negative experience, so experiences only (whether positive or negative) are not the best indicator. Besides, EI is said to be very easy method for newbies, while in reality its CO2 management is something that even T.Barr calls an 'art' => _"There are plenty of folks who likely will take *many years* to do it [ie. CO2] right or get it right for one reason or another."_ So you exchanged an easy way of fixing deficiencies (by adding a little fertz) for an extremly hard way of managing CO2 (after you remove the mineral nutrients from the equation).


 
I made no mention of CO2 management for it was not the title of the thread and not the method I was describing.
Hard to kill fishes with toxic level's of nutrient's (title of thread) if they ain't no fishes NO?
Need to start a new thread with respect to CO2 management /delivery, and it's distribution.
I am pleased to see however, other variables regarding health of plant's and fishes independent of nutrient delivery being hinted at.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## roadmaster

Marcel G said:


> No need to start a new thread. As far as I know CO2 is also a plant nutrient. There are 17 essential plant nutrients: C (in the form of CO2 or HCO3), O, H, N ... etc. When hobbyists speak about the most important things for growing the plants, they often say "light, CO2, nutrients", as if the CO2 was not a nutrient.


 Agreed.


----------



## houseofcards

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The 180cm ADA tanks at Niigata with three Grand Solar I fixtures.


You mentioned a Single Grand Solar I in your original post on the 180cm so that's what threw me off. 

Anyway, so your reference point for a hobbyist to follow in terms of light, ferts, co2 is a setup in the ADA Gallery in Japan? One that is professionally maintained by a staff. There are pictures in that gallery on the internet from people that went there that show visible algae (I guess before the staff got to that setup). I'm not saying the tanks have a lot of algae but it is there. 

Also can you explain why ADA in their literature talks about algae occurring and why they sell algae removal tools. 

Having algae, fish death has more to do with the commitment of the hobbyist than anything else. Obviously at a professional site like the gallery the commitment is far more than typical. I can put a tank outside in the sun and if I took care of it enough and changed enough water there wouldn't be any issues either.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## c9bug

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I checked, it's nitrate.
> 
> Here's another article that directly addresses the effects of nitrate toxicity:
> Shimura et al. "Nitrate Toxicity on Visceral Organs of Medaka Fish, _Oryzias latipes_: Aiming to Raise Fish from Egg to Egg in Space", _Biological Sciences in Space_, Vol.18 No.1 (2004): 7-12.
> 
> Medaka (Japanese rice fish) were exposed to 100ppm and 125ppm of nitrate for 96hrs. 30% and 10% survived respectively....
> 
> Acute exposure to 100ppm of nitrate for 4 days killed off 70% of the Medaka, while 125ppm killed off 90%. Would dosing just 30ppm of nitrate be safe for the long-term? The article states that less than 25ppm is safe. Also discussed is that one fish developed curvature of the spine and died soon after. Is high nitrate concentrations partly responsible for morphological defects?


Thank you for providing these papers. I just wanted to point out a couple of things we need to consider. First, these scientists are using sodium nitrate not potassium nitrate. Second, they are also measuring nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). To covert to ppm NO3 we need to multiply by 4.42. So the numbers they found would be 442 and 500ppm respectively which is higher than what is seen in our aquariums.

"survival rate was found to be 30% and 10%, for the 100 and 125 mg NO3-N l-1 exposure concentrations"


----------



## 58417

*NO3 toxicity for guppy fry*

Deleted


----------



## c9bug

Marcel G said:


> I have found the following study about nitrate toxicity on guppy fry:
> http://golias.net/akvaristika/docs/The common guppy.pdf
> 
> [BTW, they also say that KNO3 is more toxic than NaNO3.]


Interesting! I had no idea. After you mentioned it I looked it up and I found the same thing in this paper: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2426.pdf

Excerpt below: 
"Dowden and Bennett (1965) reported that the 24 h LC50 values of NaNO3 and KNO3 for L. macrochirus were 2110 and 761 mg NO3-N/l."

I would take a look at the paper if any of you get a chance. It has a nice table (table 3) regarding nitrate toxicity with various fish.


----------



## 58417

*Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data*

Deleted


----------



## houseofcards

Marcel G said:


> So makes it any difference if the tank is being maintained by a professional staff or anyone else? *Do the ADA staff put more effort into it than an average hobbyist?* I doubt it! .


I am 100% certain this is true. Think about what your saying for a minute. Professional Staff vs Average Hobbyist. The reason why it's an average hobbyist (your words not mine,) is because some will go above and beyond, some will do what's required and some will fall short. The person being paid that is their focus all day, the person at home gets distracted by other things going on in their life other than an aquarium. Things happen that might prevent good maintenance. The guy at ADA might lose his job. The sole purpose of the ADA Gallery is to show lush, pristine aquascapes that will take your breath away, do you think the staff is going to not be on top of every issue. Other's might disagree, but this is a no-brainer to me.

If you went to buy car at a showroom. That car is going to be perfectly cleaned, polished, etc. When you left the showroom and saw the same car on someone's driveway, would you expect all those cars to look the same way as the one in the showroom? A dirty car will not sell, either way an aquarium with algae.

As far as Mr. Barr and EI, you didn't read my other quote(s) in the thread. 



houseofcards said:


> .. You could move from tank to tank whether your dosing *EI, ADA, Pro* whatever and everyone might have somewhat different results.


I never said EI dosed tanks can't get algae or have issues, it's about the end-user!


----------



## c9bug

Marcel G said:


> I know about this paper.
> Actually, I have cited it in my counterargument #6 (if you look into the first post of this thread). I wish there be more studies like this that would test some sensitive aquarium fish species also, so that we know for sure if these data (i.e. LOEC of around 1-5 ppm N for fish eggs and fry) are applicable to our tropical species also, or they are just some rare exception that could not be expected in our tanks.


Ah I see, you definitely did (sorry for the repost). I wish there were more studies as well. This is a very interesting topic.


----------



## roadmaster

And so it goes with those who readily proclaim other's sarcasm, or who's post's are deemed offensive to them, yet they cannot see their own wart's perched squarely on their own noses.
Is almost funny.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bsantucci said:


> You really don't think that those who work for ADA for the sole purpose of maintaining the tanks don't handle things a bit better than the averge hobbiest?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet the glass is cleaned daily of any algae, filters cleaned more often, pipes and tubing cleaned, etc.
> 
> I consider myself a bit anal with cleaning and even I don't keep up with that level.
> 
> That's the point the previous post was getting at, not the sarcasm you threw back at him.


No, they don't, especially because their routine is very low on nutrients and CO2 which results in less maintenance and algae. I'm currently running my tank with similar low fertz and CO2 and I don't need to do much. It's very easy, unlike when I was dosing EI + high CO2 and there'd be GSA and GDA which required weekly scrubbing and frequent trimming. The local ADA dealer also doesn't do much in terms of maintenance. So in reality, ADA tanks actually have far less maintenance than the typical EI user.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## dru

bsantucci said:


> You really don't think that those who work for ADA for the sole purpose of maintaining the tanks don't handle things a bit better than the averge hobbiest?


What do you think they do beyond the average hobbyist? 

They are running a store-front, do think they are also spending hours maintaining each tank?


----------



## bsantucci

dru said:


> What do you think they do beyond the average hobbyist?
> 
> They are running a store-front, do think they are also spending hours maintaining each tank?


I stated in the rest of the post you quoted a few things I'm sure they do above and beyond.

They are running a store-front to display their top of the line tanks, do you think the tanks are comparable to your average LFS tanks? I'm sure there are staff who are tasked to just upkeep the tanks daily to have them pristine. 

This is getting off topic though, no need to keep rehashing. Sorry OP.


----------



## houseofcards

dru said:


> What do you think they do beyond the average hobbyist?
> 
> *They are running a store-front*, do think they are also spending hours maintaining each tank?


Just for the record, it's not a store. It's a showcase for their setups. *You can not buy product there.* All the staff does is makes sure everything is beyond pristine.

This is the opening paragraph on the gallery website:

"The Nature Aquarium Gallery is the only place in the world where you can feel and experience the ADA World. About 40 layouts of various sizes, from mini to 3.5m gigantic one, are always exhibited in the Gallery.* All of them are well maintained by the skilled ADA staff and welcome you in the most beautiful state. *The visitors can enjoy the real aquascapes and look closely at ADA Goods. You can also ask questions to ADA staff about creation and maintenance of aquascape and how to use ADA products. We look forward to your visit to / Nature Aquarium Gallery."

They make a point of the maintenance in the opening paragraph. They're not trying to hide anything. Do you really think the maintenance is the same as a pet store or aquarium ship employee?

BTW Amano got me into the hobby, I love ADA stuff and have some of it. Point being when we are discussing EI and ADA fert routines using the gallery tanks is not a fair comparison to a typical hobbyist nor is using Mr. Barr.


----------



## dru

houseofcards said:


> Just for the record, it's not a store. It's a showcase for their setups. *You can not buy product there.* All the staff does is makes sure everything is beyond pristine.
> 
> This is the opening paragraph on the gallery website:
> 
> "The Nature Aquarium Gallery is the only place in the world where you can feel and experience the ADA World. About 40 layouts of various sizes, from mini to 3.5m gigantic one, are always exhibited in the Gallery.* All of them are well maintained by the skilled ADA staff and welcome you in the most beautiful state. *The visitors can enjoy the real aquascapes and look closely at ADA Goods. You can also ask questions to ADA staff about creation and maintenance of aquascape and how to use ADA products. We look forward to your visit to / Nature Aquarium Gallery."
> 
> They make a point of the maintenance in the opening paragraph. They're not trying to hide anything. Do you really think the maintenance is the same as a pet store or aquarium ship employee?


No, but I never even mentioned pet stores. I was asking what y'all think they are doing beyond the average hobbyist. 

The average hobbyist cleans the glass and performs filter maintenance. 

The bottom line is if their tanks were consistently suffering from algae you would know it. You can trim away algae but you lose the lush / mature look. They are not fighting constant battles with algae and only staying on top of this battle due to some magical maintenance routine. 

Their tanks are balanced, and it is foolish to say they are over-dosing (EI) their tanks, suffering algae outbreaks, but they still look nice because they are just better at maintenance than the average hobbyist.


----------



## PerfectDepth

I haven't read all of this thread yet, just adding my two cents.

Limiting nutrients will prevent algae, but of course will also limit plant growth. In my experience it's possible to find a balance by lowering the co2 concentration which limits the rate of growth, and reduces overall nutrient demand, meaning you can get away with a lower range of water column nutrients without apparent deficiencies, and phosphate concentration can be kept to a minimum to keep algae in check. I think this used to be a much more common practice. In my opinion, if you want to target a lower range of nutrients and/or co2 concentration, a better practice would be to limit growth by dimming or raising the light fixture instead. 

As far as substrate vs. water column nutrients, it's my understanding that it's more efficient for aquatic plants to uptake nutrients directly through the leaves, since it requires less energy than drawing nutrients up from the roots. Obviously nutrient-rich substrates provide a slow-release of ferts into the water, so I'm not convinced that plants will draw much from the roots if nutrients are available in the water.


----------



## houseofcards

dru said:


> No, but I never even mentioned pet stores. I was asking what y'all think they are doing beyond the average hobbyist.
> 
> *Their tanks are balanced, and it is foolish to say they are over-dosing (EI) their tanks, suffering algae outbreaks*, but they still look nice because they are just better at maintenance than the average hobbyist.


Your said "Store Front" The ADA Gallery is NOT a store. 

Please read my posts and quote me where I said their tanks are full of algae. And why would ADA be dosing their tanks via EI. What are you even talking about?


----------



## Doogy262

Hello Marcel,I posted on your thread a few days ago may have sounded a little sarcastic but it was not my intention it is just that this is a little over my head.So I wonder if you would take a minute to help me understand in laymen's terms the reason for this thread.It sounds like the question is does ei or other methods of dosing ferts pose a risk to certain fish or are you arguing the need of such dosing.I know you are not concerned with individual results but for me after much experimentation and research I seem to have found a near perfect combination of co2,ferts,and light to establish three beautiful tanks with little visible algae and happy and healthy inhabitants.So again please explain the idea you are researching and as important give your opinion based on your experiences.Thanks


----------



## Termato

I want to try and bring this conversation back into the right topic because I found some useful information for everyone. Here is a very relevant study: Nutrient control of algal growth in estuarine waters. Nutrient limitation and the importance of nitrogen requirements and nitrogen storage among phytoplankton and species of macroalgae 


> ...The results suggest that the species-specific differences in growth rate [of algae] and critical N concentrations account for a substantial part of the variation in the duration of nutrient limitation among different algal types and, therefore, provide further clarification of the reasons why fast-growing algae are stimulated by increased nutrient availability while slow growing algae remain unaffected or are hampered due to shading.


This study would only serve to prove that some kinds of algae require these high nutrient waters, therefore reinforcing the statement that "high nutrient waters will promote algae growth". This is because at lower levels, those kind of algae don't grow OR have a very hard time. Therefore with more nutrients you will have more types of algae able to grow. That's not to say it's the cause and that if you reach a certain level of nutrients in the water it wont hurt it. With such a lose hypothetical statement, such a conclusion could be made from this article though. Notice how it even mentions lower light intensity affecting algae growth in a negative way.

I also found this study which has some interesting information:
Nutrient control of estuarine macroalgae: Growth strategy and the balance between nitrogen requirements and uptake

In this study you can see how different algae adapts to different environments. This goes to show that by allowing faster growing algae to thrive [by having higher nutrients], you are therefore stimulating the algae growth. *Nutrients, by definition, can be C02, N03, P, etc. * Personally, I include light as a nutrient because the plant does take it in. I have not been able to find a source to prove that definition, however. Also, due to the facts that light intensity, as stated in the article, affects the growth of algae.

Also, if you are going to post a link to a study, can you please provide the entire article. Abstracts don't contain enough information to properly give us a real look at what happened and often give you a skewed view of the research. I've found some great articles that have everything we could want but I can only find the abstract. I've been burned in that past where the abstract didn't contain all of the information i needed.

My conclusion from skimming all of the post (there were 11 pages so sorry if I re-iterate something) of this has been that higher nutrients DO stimulate algae growth. The article I posted proves that. Now, we can correct this statement in saying that overly saturated levels of nutrients will not increase the growth of algae past it's maximum yield potential BUT there is a direct correlation and relationship between more nutrients and fast growing algae (just like plants do). The articles I posted talks about this. What we can't do is say that the statement that more nutrients induces more algae growth is wrong.

Yes, algae growth does not depend on a single nutrient, but an array of required minerals. This goes for all plants. I am not speaking toward toxicity or any other topics brought up here, but only the relationship between high nutrients and algae growth. I'm just trying to clear stuff up form what I've read compared to what you all have posted. Great thread so far and very informative. 

Also, Marcel, that experiment you did with N03 and growth was VERY insightful and shows similar results to what I've found here (both are asymptotes).


----------



## micheljq

Hello,

No need of a scientific study to know that more light, nutrients, co2 will promote algae growth in any environment.

What we need are studies made in planted tanks where plants are present in enough mass as well, because plants and algae are in competition with each other. Those are still rare unfortunately.

There is the allelopathy too where scientific studies were made but more could be made. The growth of plants in a planted tank affect the algae and vice-versa, however we do not know to which extent. This is a complex system.

Michel.


----------



## burr740

Where are the plants in the article above? How can those results apply to an aquarium environment where thriving plants are added to the equation? 

In the aquarium environment, for reasons yet unknown, thriving plants keep algae away. "High nutrient levels" only promote algae at the point where too much becomes toxic to plants, thereby making them unhealthy and weak.

What happens in a culture to algae alone is comparing apples to oranges, and quite useless in my humble opinion.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## Termato

burr740 said:


> Where are the plants in the article above?


The first article focuses on algae's response to nutrients, not plants response. The article does go into the competition between organisms and how that can affect their growth. This study does not show data for plant growth as that is not what the study was for.



burr740 said:


> How can those results apply to an aquarium environment where thriving plants are added to the equation?


This study was taken place in estuary waters, which by nature, is very rich in plants and animal life.

The first way you can apply this is that when algae grows in the aquarium, it requires the same nutrients as it does in the wild. The second way, is that the study DOES show algae growing in a competitive environment for that is the nature of the environment being tested.



burr740 said:


> In the aquarium environment, for reasons yet unknown, thriving plants keep algae away. "High nutrient levels" only promote algae at the point where too much becomes toxic to plants, thereby making them unhealthy and weak.
> 
> What happens in a culture to algae alone is comparing apples to oranges, and quite useless in my humble opinion.


I think there is a good hypothesis, just like the ones being talked about here, as to why these plants will reduce the algae growth. You can even see examples of this happening in the article I posted of how algae competes for nutrients. It doesn't give you everything but it certain shines light on the path to us understanding why.

You say that thriving plants keep algae away. Ok. Well there is a lot more to that.

Is that environment perfect for plants to thrive? Does it have the proper lighting for the proper plants and the right height with the right amount of minerals? Yes, I can completely understand why that tank isn't seeing algae problems. Now, take that tank and add more light intensity, more nutrients, and more light exposure. Will you still not see algae? Will you still see healthy plants? I'd wager that you'd see something happen that wasn't happening before and I can guess that something is going to be algae. There are a lot of factors that promote algae and plant growth. I am pointing towards what promote algae growth and why. The papers I posted clearly demonstrate those facts and through everything else that has been posted here I feel we can come to the conclusion I made above. 

Also, I disagree with the statement that 


> High nutrient levels" only promote algae at the point where too much becomes toxic to plants, thereby making them unhealthy and weak


C02 is a nutrient and too much (at first and in combination with other nutrients and light) wont hurt plants but will promote algae. I don't think this is an accurate statement (as far as I understand it). 

My question to you now is, do you still feel these studies can't be applied to the aquaria? And if so, why?


----------



## Hoppy

"Too much" CO2 promotes algae? I don't recall reading that before. Has anyone here found this to be true, where the high CO2 was used along with non-limiting dosages of the other nutrients?


----------



## Jeff5614

One of the things that bothers me in threads like this is that Marcel has presented his hypothesis, theory, whatever it should be called, and people ask for scientific evidence that prove it. He and others present scientific references that they consider supportive of their position. Others disagree and make comments to the contrary, but don't seem to provide the same scientific evidence that supports their position as they ask Marcel to provide.

It would be nice to see some sources cited that show high nutrient concentrations don't promote algae. If they have been cited then I apologize. This thread has gotten kind of long and I may have missed a few posts.


----------



## Termato

Hoppy said:


> "Too much" CO2 promotes algae? I don't recall reading that before. Has anyone here found this to be true, where the high CO2 was used along with non-limiting dosages of the other nutrients?


I did not state C02 alone. Sorry if that was unclear.


> Now, take that tank and add more light intensity, more nutrients, and more light exposure.


 I have edited the post to more accurately reflect this idea.



Jeff5614 said:


> One of the things that bothers me in threads like this is that Marcel has presented his hypothesis, theory, whatever it should be called, and people ask for scientific evidence that prove it. He and others present scientific references that they consider supportive of their position. Others disagree and make comments to the contrary, but don't seem to provide the same scientific evidence that supports their position as they ask Marcel to provide.
> 
> It would be nice to see some sources cited that show high nutrient concentrations don't promote algae. If they have been cited then I apologize. This thread has gotten kind of long and I may have missed a few posts.


I was trying to find sources to support Marcel for this exact reason. I see a lot of people posting counter arguments without sources. I am really thankful for the information here and the studies but I would really appreciate good source material.


----------



## Canuck

Termato said:


> My question to you now is, do you still feel these studies can't be applied to the aquaria? And if so, why?


Because I just looked at my aquarium...

I don't mean to be sarcastic. I don't believe EI is the only method that works, I think any of the methods have advantages and disadvantages. But at the end of the day "the proof is in the pudding". In the last week, I've fed my fish, and did a 10 minute water change and dosed of course. I forgot to wipe the glass, and I may not need to next weekend when I do my water change. I'll spend the evening watching the male ruby barbs trying to coax the females into dropping there eggs, wondering how I could torture them like this...


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Termato said:


> I was trying to find sources to support Marcel for this exact reason. I see a lot of people posting counter arguments without sources. I am really thankful for the information here and the studies but I would really appreciate good source material.


The lack of support is because there isn't any, other than someone with authority saying so, therefore it must be true.


----------



## burr740

Termato said:


> My question to you now is, do you still feel these studies can't be applied to the aquaria? And if so, why?


The problem I have with the theory of limiting nutrients to control algae, is the fact that it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to starve it. Algae can thrive in a tank with zero ferts, a bit of organic waste is all it takes, fish poop, etc.

That is why the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is wrong. Unhealthy plants cause algae.

In the same way it is wrong to say low CO2 causes algae. Adding more may fix the problem, but the root cause to begin with was unhealthy plants.

Too much light = deficiencies everywhere = unhealthy plants = algae. 

High nutrients to the point of toxicity = unhealthy plants = algae

See where Im going with this? It all comes back to how well the plants are doing.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

burr740 said:


> The problem I have with the theory of limiting nutrients to control algae, is the fact that it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to starve it. Algae can thrive in a tank with zero ferts, a bit of organic waste is all it takes, fish poop, etc.
> 
> That is why the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is wrong. Unhealthy plants cause algae.
> 
> In the same way it is wrong to say low CO2 causes algae. Adding more may fix the problem, but the root cause to begin with was unhealthy plants.
> 
> Too much light = deficiencies everywhere = unhealthy plants = algae.
> 
> High nutrients to the point of toxicity = unhealthy plants = algae
> 
> See where Im going with this? It all comes back to how well the plants are doing.


My opinion almost contradicts every statement. High nutrients do indeed cause algae, but the word "high" is relative. Algae can use the excess nutrients, hence the reason why it's high. Fish poop is a fertilizer, hence the reason it's necessary to change the water frequently, and why even low tech tanks need frequent water changes, especially if there aren't any plants to remove the nutrients.

Unhealthy plants can be the result of deficiency or toxicity. If plants are deficient, less nutrients can be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. If plants are suffering toxicity, less nutrients will be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. But even in tanks without plants, algae can still thrive if there are excess nutrients.

Low CO2 can result in excess algae only in that plant growth slows down resulting in more nutrients in the water column which algae can use, but low CO2 alone does little to nothing.

Too much light doesn't directly cause algae as long as there aren't excess nutrients. No nutrients = No algae, even if the water receives sunlight.


----------



## burr740

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> My opinion almost contradicts every statement. High nutrients do indeed cause algae, but the word "high" is relative. Algae can use the excess nutrients, hence the reason why it's high. Fish poop is a fertilizer, hence the reason it's necessary to change the water frequently, and why even low tech tanks need frequent water changes, especially if there aren't any plants to remove the nutrients.
> 
> Unhealthy plants can be the result of deficiency or toxicity. If plants are deficient, less nutrients can be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. If plants are suffering toxicity, less nutrients will be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. But even in tanks without plants, algae can still thrive if there are excess nutrients.
> 
> Low CO2 can result in excess algae only in that plant growth slows down resulting in more nutrients in the water column which algae can use, but low CO2 alone does little to nothing.
> 
> Too much light doesn't directly cause algae as long as there aren't excess nutrients. No nutrients = No algae, even if the water receives sunlight.


All this implies that it's possible to strike some magical balance where the plants have just enough nutrients with none being left over for algae. Sorry but I just dont see that being possible.

Besides, there are plenty of thriving tanks out there with excess nutrients and no algae to speak of. By excess I mean more than the plants can use. How do you explain that phenomena? 


And fwiw I do believe EI calls for more than is necessary, especially micros. I usually agree with you when it comes to pointing out a likely micro tox issue. Having dealt with the same for a long time myself, and still trying to find the sweet spot.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

burr740 said:


> The problem I have with the theory of limiting nutrients to control algae, is the fact that it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to starve it. Algae can thrive in a tank with zero ferts, a bit of organic waste is all it takes, fish poop, etc.
> 
> That is why the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is wrong. Unhealthy plants cause algae.
> 
> In the same way it is wrong to say low CO2 causes algae. Adding more may fix the problem, but the root cause to begin with was unhealthy plants.
> 
> Too much light = deficiencies everywhere = unhealthy plants = algae.
> 
> High nutrients to the point of toxicity = unhealthy plants = algae
> 
> See where Im going with this? It all comes back to how well the plants are doing.


This matches EXACTLY to my experiences and thoughts. Somehow, when the plants are happy and growing, algae simply disappears, regardless of nutrient levels, light levels, or CO2 levels. This is not to say long-term exposure to very high nutrient levels it safe for all animals - it may not be. But regarding the specific issue of algae prevention, burr is SPOT ON.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

burr740 said:


> Besides, there are plenty of thriving tanks out there with excess nutrients and no algae to speak of. By excess I mean more than the plants can use. How do you explain that phenomena?


Show me one tank that fits this description because I've yet to see one.

Also, if it's too toxic for plants, it's probably too toxic for algae.


----------



## bsantucci

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Show me one tank that fits this description because I've yet to see one.
> 
> Also, if it's too toxic for plants, it's probably too toxic for algae.


Check this post. Simply amazing tank and spotless. 

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?posts/431888

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bsantucci said:


> Check this post. Simply amazing tank and spotless.
> 
> Going Dutch by the book - tank sponsored by Tropica | Page 8 | UK Aquatic Plant Society


That does not fit the description of EI dosing.

Also, if you look carefully at some of the plants, (e.g. Limnophila aromatica, Ludwigia "Red"), there is some toxicity of trace nutrients.


----------



## bsantucci

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> That does not fit the description of EI dosing.
> 
> Also, if you look carefully at some of the plants, (e.g. Limnophila aromatica, Ludwigia "Red"), there is some toxicity of trace nutrients.


You had said fit the description of excess nutrients, not EI. 

That being said, what is wrong with the limnophila? Looks perfect to me. And I know you'll say it's cause we're accustomed to toxicity, but really what can you nitpick on that plant? 

I'm not trying to be contrary, just really curious what you're seeing that I'm not. 



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Show me one tank that fits this description because I've yet to see one.


Look no further than the last page of my journal (pg 16). Im actually dealing with some tox issues atm and you can read all about it. Still no algae to speak of, only growth issues with a couple finicky species.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Also, if it's too toxic for plants, it's probably too toxic for algae.


If this was the case then high nutrient levels would be the cure for algae, not the cause. You cant have it both ways.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bsantucci said:


> You had said fit the description of excess nutrients, not EI.
> 
> That being said, what is wrong with the limnophila? Looks perfect to me. And I know you'll say it's cause we're accustomed to toxicity, but really what can you nitpick on that plant?
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary, just really curious what you're seeing that I'm not.


I don't know if this description conjures the right image, but if you look at the closeup of the leaves of L. aromatica, do you see the bumpiness or rumpling? That's an indication that there's nutrient excess which is preventing proper leaf formation. Leaves should be perfectly flat. Also, some of the leaves have a slight bend to the side when they should be straight, which is another indication of nutrient excess. Hope the description makes sense.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Look not further than the last page of my journal. Im actually dealing with some tox issues atm and you can read all about it. Still no algae to speak of, only growth issues with a few finicky species. (I would actually love to hear your input about it)
> 
> If this was the case then high nutrient levels would be the cure for algae, not the cause. You cant have it both ways.


Nutrient toxicity does not affect all algae identically. The hair-type algae are probably the most susceptible to heavy traces since this type of algae are rare in EI dosed tanks. The algae that have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria are probably the most tolerant since they protect each other, such as GSA and GDA.


----------



## Termato

Canuck said:


> Because I just looked at my aquarium...
> 
> I don't mean to be sarcastic. I don't believe EI is the only method that works, I think any of the methods have advantages and disadvantages. But at the end of the day "the proof is in the pudding". In the last week, I've fed my fish, and did a 10 minute water change and dosed of course. I forgot to wipe the glass, and I may not need to next weekend when I do my water change. I'll spend the evening watching the male ruby barbs trying to coax the females into dropping there eggs, wondering how I could torture them like this...


Pointing to your aquarium is not disproving anything I posted. Mine looks great, too. That doesn't disprove my point. I don't understand what you are trying to point out here.

I never mentioned any dosing method. Ever. The proof is in your tank (as you are saying) and everything I've posted reinforces that. 



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The lack of support is because there isn't any, other than someone with authority saying so, therefore it must be true.


I'm assuming you are speaking of what Marcel has posted. It's hard to determine the context without a clear target. 

Did you read the studies I posted? I haven't seen my claim being properly addressed or disproved yet.



burr740 said:


> The problem I have with the theory of limiting nutrients to control algae, is the fact that it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to starve it. Algae can thrive in a tank with zero ferts, a bit of organic waste is all it takes, fish poop, etc.


I agree with you 100% that it's impossible to have an aquarium (with live fish and plants the way we want it) and completely starve it. Absolutely agree.

I am not making any claims as to what doesn't make algae grow. I'm simply reinforcing the statement here saying that the high nutrients promote algae growth. I have not done enough research on it's toxicity on fauna so I am not speaking on that subject.

We do end up severely reducing algae by modifying our light exposure, light intensity, how much poop is in the tank and how much we take out--the bio load. We also do it through the use of other nutrients that we dose. Sometimes we add plants to compete against the algae and starve it out (It's obvious we have no scientific proof on how that works or why or if it's actually starving it). That's clearly been demonstrated through everyone's tanks and nature. I am not arguing against that.

However, all of those simple factors can and will affect algae growth. N03, as Marcel's wonderful study showed, was very helpful in the growing of Ludwigia. N03 naturally gets produced through the nitrogen cycle and one of those sources is poop. I've personally spoken with doctors at Salisbury University, who wish to remained anonymous, who have been testing algae growth in the water around the area. This doctor has been trying to find the correlation between N03 and algae growth. I haven't seen a study about it yet but I was told that with higher levels of N03, algae grew much faster than at lower levels. I cannot give you the sources for this until it is published. This does call for an experiment!

Everything you are saying was already proved and I am agreeing with you. I'm just trying to clearly define everything here while also providing a source for what Marcel has stated, which I have found to be true (with the exception of toxicity because I haven't research it yet).



burr740 said:


> That is why the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is wrong.


Yes, the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is inaccurate because it's not a complete statement. However, I must partially disagree with this statement:



burr740 said:


> Unhealthy plants cause algae.


Yes, unhealthy plants can cause algae, but it is not the only cause.

Not only have I experienced this first hand but there is a great example of it happening right now not too far from me. I've experienced this first hand in my tanks where a fluctuation in light exposure and/or nutrients has allowed algae to grow. This could have happened because there was more of one nutrient than the other, not enough nutrients for the amount of light or a handful of other reasons. But the plants were absolutely in perfect health. I started to see algae in the tank, not on the plants though, not too long after. It wasn't until the algae had settled in that it started to take on the plants. When it did, it started taking over the lower leaves where less light was reaching. I think this is a very important point. I don't have any studies proving this and it's my own word BUT the study I linked does have examples of slow growing and fast growing algae out competing other organisms for nutrients. There is a correlation, just nothing proved YET that we know of.

The other example is the Chesapeake Bay and it's horrifying watershed system. The majority of the Eastern Shore in Maryland is covered in Farms. There is so much run off from those farms into the bay that it has considerably polluted the area. There are major studies being done because once this happened, the eastern shore started to see major algae issues. These areas are dense in plant and aquatic life but eventually got ran over by algae. It starts to cloud the water and kill the plants and animals. When you hear pollutants you think those will never get in your tank. BOTH of my water sources that could come to my house drain from very similar waters. Both empty out into the bay and carry those exact toxins in it. I've lived on the Eastern Shore where we have Hard water with many toxins and then just over the bridge a few minutes away with softer water because of less farms. Once I moved from the Eastern Shore to the DC area, I saw an immediate decrease in the growth of my plants so much so I had to change my dosage. Now, I can't come to any conclusions from that because I didn't properly measure anything but it's something to consider and look into.



burr740 said:


> In the same way it is wrong to say low CO2 causes algae. Adding more may fix the problem, but the root cause to begin with was unhealthy plants.
> 
> Too much light = deficiencies everywhere = unhealthy plants = algae.
> 
> High nutrients to the point of toxicity = unhealthy plants = algae
> 
> See where Im going with this? It all comes back to how well the plants are doing.





Solcielo lawrencia said:


> My opinion almost contradicts every statement. High nutrients do indeed cause algae, but the word "high" is relative. Algae can use the excess nutrients, hence the reason why it's high. Fish poop is a fertilizer, hence the reason it's necessary to change the water frequently, and why even low tech tanks need frequent water changes, especially if there aren't any plants to remove the nutrients.
> 
> Unhealthy plants can be the result of deficiency or toxicity. If plants are deficient, less nutrients can be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. If plants are suffering toxicity, less nutrients will be used which results in more in the water column that algae can use. But even in tanks without plants, algae can still thrive if there are excess nutrients...
> 
> ...Too much light doesn't directly cause algae as long as there aren't excess nutrients. No nutrients = No algae, even if the water receives sunlight.


YESSS!! I agree with this 100% and what I posted also correlates with this statement. I don't think it contradicts it but it's just more accurately defined.



burr740 said:


> All this implies that it's possible to strike some magical balance where the plants have just enough nutrients with none being left over for algae. Sorry but I just dont see that being possible.
> 
> Besides, there are plenty of thriving tanks out there with excess nutrients and no algae to speak of. By excess I mean more than the plants can use. How do you explain that phenomena?


I see your point. So here is my reasoning. On this tank you posted Going Dutch by the book - tank sponsored by Tropica | Page 8 | UK Aquatic Plant Society It has the right amount of light, the right amount of plants and light exposure for that exact dosing that person is doing. Without it, the tank wouldn't look so freaking beautiful...I mean wow it's gorgeous. Now, we haven't defined how much spare nutrients are needed to create algae or which nutrients, we just stated that it's unused nutrients. If there are no nutrients than you can't have algae growth. How could it grow?

This tank is clearly a fast growing high tech tank. Those plants are sucking in minerals so fast nothing else has a chance. Has anyone ever tested a lot of fast growing plants next to a slow growing one? Control group? That'd be interesting.

I really do see your point that a lot of these dosing strategies overdosed but they are also very refined systems. But how did those systems get like that? Through experimentation of what works. They found the sweet spot of the right amount of lighting and the right amount of plants and they chose to over dose to no plants would starve so no algae had chance. They chose very specific nutrients to overdose. This seems to have worked in preventing algae growth. We've seen in the study that when fast growing algae is starved of some nutrients it requires, it's growth is slowed. Now to your point. Healthy plants don't get algae. 

I disagreed earlier that unhealthy plants cause algae, but I'm trying to say that healthy plants don't get algae. That could be the answer, what do you think? Now what if he had an area of white sand in between the area of plants. Would that get algae? Is it only plants? A lot of questions come up here...

Now what if you have more light to induce more growth? What if you have more plants? More of the minerals that get soaked up faster? Can you push the growth further and would there be algae? These are the kinds of question you all are asking, which is great...buuuuuut those are some seriously complex answers that warrant more experiments.

Everyone is trying to argue all these things that have been unproven and are still in question. That is wonderful and I love it! The question here though is "Does high nutrients promote algae growth" and we've concluded some very definite circumstances where that is true and where that is not true. To say that high nutrients doesn't promote algae growth when there is clear research with proof right in front of you is ludicrous. It's very circumstantial and I think *Solcielo lawrencia* summed it up really well.


----------



## ua hua

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> That does not fit the description of EI dosing.
> 
> Also, if you look carefully at some of the plants, (e.g. Limnophila aromatica, Ludwigia "Red"), there is some toxicity of trace nutrients.


Ok, so I have been absent from posting on this site for awhile now but I have been following these threads on micro toxicity with much interest and an open mind as I'm always looking to learn more when it comes to this hobby. There is many points that I see as having validity and other comments/posts that seem to have ulterior motives which need not even be made in the interest of keeping this an open and civil discussion. The one reason that I'm picking out your comment Solcielo is because I see a glaring contradiction in this statement. 

When someone is using the EI dosing, are they not using excessive nutrients that they do not need to be using? 

How can a tank that does not fit the description of EI dosing and still dosing daily show what you claim to be toxicity of trace nutrients?
What exactly would you consider to be a healthy planted tank? Because there is nothing I can see in any of those pictures that I would consider unhealthy. Please show me a picture of a planted tank that you would consider a healthy looking ecosystem because it seems that the line between fantasy and reality is starting to become very blurry from your perspective.


----------



## dru

houseofcards said:


> Please read my posts and quote me where I said their tanks are full of algae.


You never said they are full of algae. You stated they have nice tanks because they maintain them better than a hobbyist would. 



houseofcards said:


> All the staff does is makes sure everything is beyond pristine.
> 
> They make a point of the maintenance in the opening paragraph. They're not trying to hide anything.





houseofcards said:


> The person being paid that is their focus all day, the person at home gets distracted by other things going on in their life other than an aquarium. Things happen that might prevent good maintenance.
> 
> I never said EI dosed tanks can't get algae or have issues, it's about the end-user!


Also that you could maintain an extremely high light tank with zero issues if you stayed on top of the maintenance. 



houseofcards said:


> I can put a tank outside in the sun and if I took care of it enough and changed enough water there wouldn't be any issues either.


So your assertion is the "end-user" that is dosing their tanks while following a water change schedule in line with their method of dosing but experiencing algae issues is just not maintaining their tank well enough. Again, I will ask a simple, straightforward question - what do you think ADA (or your hypothetical sun tank) is doing beyond the average hobbyist? Is it simply time spent? If that is the case then they are spending that time trimming and plants affected by algae, and as I've already stated, if this was the case it would be obvious. Do you think they monitor their tanks microscopically and siphon individual spores of algae when they detect them? I am honestly curious. 

You are using fallacious circular logic - 'They are pros so they have nice tanks - they have nice tanks because they maintain them so well - they maintain them so well because they are pros with lots of time- just look at their tanks!' If a hobbyist is looking for answers to their issues and reads you posts they will think 'It MUST be something I am not doing!' when the problem could be something THEY ARE ALREADY DOING. 

Back to the point, their tanks look nice because they are balanced, not because they are master aquatory custodians. A balanced tank requires little to no maintenance beyond the obvious.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

ua hua said:


> When someone is using the EI dosing, are they not using excessive nutrients that they do not need to be using?
> 
> How can a tank that does not fit the description of EI dosing and still dosing daily show what you claim to be toxicity of trace nutrients?
> What exactly would you consider to be a healthy planted tank? Because there is nothing I can see in any of those pictures that I would consider unhealthy. Please show me a picture of a planted tank that you would consider a healthy looking ecosystem because it seems that the line between fantasy and reality is starting to become very blurry from your perspective.


I didn't see a contradiction when I posted that, but I see what you mean. When I think EI, it should follow the suggested dosing schedule closely of macros and micros, but the tank in question just uses Tropica Specialised, and I assumed it was dosing according to Tropica's suggested dosing, which it turn out is not. So it appears that the tank is being overdosed quite a bit, which is obvious by the toxicity symptoms.

There are other plants which are affected by trace nutrient toxicity, not just the two I mentioned earlier. S. repens, AR, Lobelia cardinalis are others which show trace toxicity affecting morphology and health. This can be clearly seen in the closeup photos.

Another thing to note is that the substrate is a high CEC substrate, which will quickly adsorb cations from the water column which reduces it's potential for toxicity. As long as there are plenty of adsorption sites available, severity of toxicity is reduced. However, after a few months or so, the adsorption sites diminish to the point where it can no longer adsorb anymore. This results in metals remaining in the water column, resulting in very obvious signs of toxicity. Therefore, you should expect in a few months, there will be an inevitable decline in plant health and algae will most likely run rampant if the current dosing is not decreased. So high CEC substrates provide a buffer against toxicity by its ability to remove metals from the water column.

So the high CEC substrates is probably the reason why people indicate initial success with EI, because of its ability to reduce toxicity. But then after a few months, things start going downhill. Those who use sand as the substrate (which has almost no CEC), have issues with plant growth immediately.


----------



## SwampGremlin

Just want to add a thought. If you do not have enough CO2 in the tank to keep up with nutrient and light demands wont thier be alot of light and nutrients left over for algae to flourish?

Or in another way, Does CO2 make your plants the star athletes they were ment to be to out compete algea ?


----------



## DennisSingh

I have found that co2 can replace other nutrients. For example the higher the co2 concentration the less need for other nutrients. Correct me if I am wrong. I think co2 should be labeled a "super" macro. First light, co2, then nutrients last in order of priority, this is all geared at higher lighting, lower tech lighting you can get away with a lot of things.


----------



## Silversea

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> That does not fit the description of EI dosing.
> 
> Also, if you look carefully at some of the plants, (e.g. Limnophila aromatica, Ludwigia "Red"), there is some toxicity of trace nutrients.


I would not be surprised if the plants are starting to show trace toxicity since he is dosing about 500% more than the bottle directs. Based on aquarium dimensions 120x50x50 with an average 3.5 inches of substrate would be about 60 gallons or 226L. Tropica states 25 pumps per week for that volume. Each pump at 1.2ml, and he is using 30 per day! I am assuming not on water change day. 30ml x 6 days=180ml. A 300ml bottle would only last 1.6 weeks.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chlorophile

Jeff5614 said:


> One of the things that bothers me in threads like this is that Marcel has presented his hypothesis, theory, whatever it should be called, and people ask for scientific evidence that prove it. He and others present scientific references that they consider supportive of their position. Others disagree and make comments to the contrary, but don't seem to provide the same scientific evidence that supports their position as they ask Marcel to provide.
> 
> It would be nice to see some sources cited that show high nutrient concentrations don't promote algae. If they have been cited then I apologize. This thread has gotten kind of long and I may have missed a few posts.


Sources just mean someone did a good experiment - we all do good experiments every day with high nutrient concentrations and no algae.. 
Many of the sources posted are for rivers and streams and not fish tanks with plants etc..


----------



## burr740

StrungOut said:


> I have found that co2 can replace other nutrients. For example the higher the co2 concentration the less need for other nutrients. Correct me if I am wrong. I think co2 should be labeled a "super" macro. First light, co2, then nutrients last in order of priority, this is all geared at higher lighting, lower tech lighting you can get away with a lot of things.


Maybe replace isnt the right way to put it? If plants are CO2 limited, then they are forced to spend a certain amount of resources (energy) gathering/converting carbon from any source available. Once CO2 becomes non-limiting, these resources are free to be used for optimizing nutrient utilization. In other words they can do more with less.

Similar to how CO2 helps a low light tank, by allowing the plants to devote more of their resources to utilizing light.

Think it mostly revolves around the production of rubisco, or the need to produce it. Tom explains it in fairly simple terms HERE


----------



## Jeff5614

Chlorophile said:


> Sources just mean someone did a good experiment - we all do good experiments every day with high nutrient concentrations and no algae..
> Many of the sources posted are for rivers and streams and not fish tanks with plants etc..


If everyone's tank is a good experiment for whatever position they want to take then there is plenty of evidence to support any position.


----------



## houseofcards

burr740 said:


> The problem I have with the theory of limiting nutrients to control algae, is the fact that it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to starve it. Algae can thrive in a tank with zero ferts, a bit of organic waste is all it takes, fish poop, etc.
> 
> That is why the statement "high nutrients cause algae" is wrong. Unhealthy plants cause algae.
> 
> In the same way it is wrong to say low CO2 causes algae. Adding more may fix the problem, but the root cause to begin with was unhealthy plants.
> 
> Too much light = deficiencies everywhere = unhealthy plants = algae.
> 
> High nutrients to the point of toxicity = unhealthy plants = algae
> 
> See where Im going with this? It all comes back to how well the plants are doing.


I pretty much agree with all this and I'll take it a step further, it's the organic load that doesn't get taken up by the plants or removed from the tank via water changes, organic removal products, etc. that is the trigger. That's pretty much what the plants are doing if their healthy and the mass is large enough. Not every tank is going to have the equivalent of a large group of healthy plants since it could be an iwagumi or other setup that isn't densely planted. Just like a new setup, these types of tanks have to rely on heavier water changes and organic removal before it breaks down and causes algae.


----------



## houseofcards

In retrospect I'm not sure how this thread will help the typical planted tank aquarist, but if you find health issues and would not be satisfied with a tank like this:

Going Dutch by the book - tank sponsored by Tropica | Page 8 | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Then by all means seek out and find the holy grail of macro/micros. Otherwise dose away!


----------



## Audionut

houseofcards said:


> I'll take it a step further, it's the organic load that doesn't get taken up by the plants or removed from the tank via water changes, organic removal products, etc. that is the trigger. That's pretty much what the plants are doing if their healthy and the mass is large enough. Not every tank is going to have the equivalent of a large group of healthy plants since it could be an iwagumi or other setup that isn't densely planted. Just like a new setup, these types of tanks have to rely on heavier water changes and organic removal before it breaks down and causes algae.


You sound like you would scream blue murder if you knew how many poop machines I have in my tank, and how much I feed them. What ever the canister and sump doesn't catch stays in, on and around the substrate.



houseofcards said:


> In retrospect I'm not sure how this thread will help the typical planted tank aquarist, but if you find health issues and would not be satisfied with a tank like this:
> 
> Going Dutch by the book - tank sponsored by Tropica | Page 8 | UK Aquatic Plant Society!


What a wonderful tank. It looks beautiful.

Such a shame that it's the biologically equivalent age of a microsecond. When the sources of chelation die off, that's when it will be interesting to see results.


----------



## houseofcards

Audionut said:


> You sound like you would scream blue murder if you knew how many poop machines I have in my tank,


I might, but it really depends on the other dynamics of your setup what you can get away with. 



Audionut said:


> Such a shame that it's the biologically equivalent age of a microsecond. .


Yeah, LOL, that's why I'm off stems. The tank stays the same for a few microseconds.


----------



## Audionut

houseofcards said:


> I might, but it really depends on the other dynamics of your setup what you can get away with.


Agreed, but the point was.



houseofcards said:


> it's the organic load that doesn't get taken up by the plants or removed from the tank via water changes, organic removal products, etc. that is the trigger.


As with light, CO2 levels, nutrient levels, the current orbit of the moon, organics alone isn't a trigger. You could say that if you have to much organics, then that's where the problem stems from, but to much inorganic nutrients, to much light, the moon orbiting to fast also creates issues.

With basically to much of anything being an issue, you can't really single out organics with any great usefulness.



houseofcards said:


> Yeah, LOL, that's why I'm off stems. The tank stays the same for a few microseconds.


It's not the stems that concern me. Lovely brand new fresh soil is a cation sink.

My knowledge on the below isn't very great, so I'd apply about a 85% confidence factor on the below being a very accurate description.

The soil is basically a bunch of negatively charged particles, and just like a magnet, it will attract and bond with positively charged particles (Fe+++, Ca++, Mg++, Mn++, Cu++, K+, Na+, H+, etc). 

While these cations are bound to the substrate, they don't do anything. But unlike a true chelator, the cations (Ca++, Mg++, Fe+++, etc) don't have a strong bond with the anions (soil), and the simple strength of the charge of a cation can dislodge other cations. Keep adding excess Fe+++, and you'll keep dislodging low charge cations like K+ from the substrate. In reality, it's not that simple either, ions have a high affinity for some ions, and a lower affinity for other ions, and the total concentration of the ion also plays a role (more lower charged ions will start to act like higher charged ions).

When the soil is new, is has a large capacity to attract and bond with cations, but gradually this capacity is diminished and the soil can longer attract more ions, it can only exchange them. This is time where you find out if your dosing regime is ideal or not.

Lets assume that the nutrients are being dosed at the optimal levels, the soil has no capacity to accept more cations and the plants are growing great. Now lets assume you start dosing excess micronutrients. Some of these micronutrients will have a higher affinity to the negative soil charge then other nutrients, and as a result, they will dislodge these nutrients away from the soil into the water column. This will push the concentration of these dislodged nutrients higher in the water column, but a 50% water change each week will gradually decline the total concentration of the nutrient (substrate + water column).

The end result though is a significantly reduced nutrient level of these dislodged nutrients, since the only supply of these nutrients is from water column dosing, since there is no supply of the nutrient from the substrate. To make matters worse, the supply of micronutrients gradually increases as there's simply no room left in the substrate for these nutrients to bond too. 

Toxic levels? Maybe, maybe not. But the plants start showing signs of deficiency (Ca++, Mg++, K+), and to combat this, the result is very rarely to reduce the micronutrient concentration, but instead to increase concentration of the ions that appear to be deficient. 

If the micronutrient dosing was reduced, the nature of law regarding the balance of charge would mean that these excess micronutrients in substrate would begin to dislodge into the water column, with some amount being taken up by the plants as needed. The system would gradually balance itself back out (balance the charge), as the level of micronutrients in the substrate is reduced, being replaced by other positive cations.

But if the typical procedure is followed whereby "deficient" nutrient levels are increased, you push the concentration of the micronutrients in the water column even higher, as this increased concentration of "deficient" nutrients begins to dislodge the micronutrients from the substrate. Your still dosing excess micronutrients, but now your also dosing excess of other nutrients in a vain attempt to forcibly balance the charges with more, instead of less.


----------



## houseofcards

Audionut said:


> With basically to much of anything being an issue, you can't really single out organics with any great usefulness.


To be honest I don't agree.

After doing this over and over and over for over 10 years this has been the key to keeping my tanks algae-free. It's the most important variable to every setup.

First off the EI dosing technique is in excess and it hasn't caused me any problems so you really can't say to much of anything will cause problems, unless I misunderstood you there.

Secondly so many times people here have algae issues and the first response is to turn up the co2. Then I look at their setup and they have like 3 stems and a marimo moss ball. You could turn up the co2 till it reaches pluto (seems like you like space references) and it's not going to do a thing. 

The hardest tanks to keep pristine are high light, heavy stock, low plant mass, why?

New setups for many go through horrible algae phases? why? They post their tanks here and they look like something out of a Tim Burton movie. Some are EI and some are ADA, why?


----------



## Audionut

Anecdotal evidence always wins. Forget I said anything mate.


----------



## houseofcards

Audionut said:


> Anecdotal evidence always wins. Forget I said anything mate.


If I was getting into the hobby and someone shared 10 years of experience having algae free setups with all types of parameters, both personally and professionally or I could read a paper that was conducted in a laboratory or controlled environment, which of course an aquarium in one's home is not, I would take the anecdotal evidence each and every time.


----------



## pmgsr

Hi there,

I'm the owner and maker of Going Dutch by the Book!
Thanks for the nice words some of you been writing.
Don't really want to take part on the ongoing "war"  and just want to say one thing about fertilisation of this Aqua.
I've been using Tropica since the beginning and now, when the vegetal mass is huge, I'm giving between 20 to 30 ml daily and that is something like 4 to 5 times Tropica writes on their bottles. The reason is simple: the dose adviced is very poor to the needs of a planted aquarium. Tropica prefers to give advice to use little and make users search for the correct dosage.
Now, you can see that this aquarium is an aquarium with LOTS of plants, some of them grow a lot. How in the world anyone would want to stick to the dosage on the bottle when the need is so high?

And yes, i prefer to give a little more so that plants can grow without any nutrient fault and giving less opportunity to algae. BUT I do not like to overdose just because I can! That would be stupid! ... and expensive! So, knowing the aquarium need and giving "food" to our plants without poisoning the water seems to me to be the best one can achieve. That's always my objective!

Pedro.


----------



## Nuno M.

Hi pedro thank you for giving the time to came here after our little chat, we have to take a coffee some time soon ...

Really good to have one of your works on debate here, and also your methods.

But I'm intrigued this dose poses a something like this, I know your tank it's 300L so with substrate we can assume something like 250l total water volume and assuming that you are only fertilizing with Tropica Specialized and not both. 

You are dosing beetween:

20ml daily

Nitrat (NO3-)	4,72 mg/l	
Phosphat (PO43-)	0,25 mg/l	
Kalium (K+)	0,82 mg/l	
Eisen (Fe)	0,06 mg/l	

30ml daily

Nitrat (NO3-)	7,08 mg/l	
Phosphat (PO43-)	0,37 mg/l	
Kalium (K+)	1,24 mg/l	
Eisen (Fe)	0,08 mg/l

Can you do a NO3 test just so we know how much of that is still present in water colum, do you think your plants are able to consume anything near this values ?? Is it not a big overdose mainly of N ??

Regards, Nuno Matos


----------



## pmgsr

Nuno,

Just a quick answer before any tests.
Sunday - 50% water change
Saturday - no dosage
Do you think that 5x~5 no3 is too much for the quantity and kind of plants I have? 16 plants, 100% planted area, some 70% of stems...
EDITED: No fertile substrate under Tropica soil.

Pedro.

Ps: I didn't confirm the values you gave, I suppose you used a good calculator


----------



## Nuno M.

Notheless Pedro,

With a 30ml daily dose and an off day from routine you are looking at +/-40ppm weekly dose at least double the EI standards ...

Is this really necessary ? Just my point, and something we are discussing here in this same topic, your contibute is an excelent exemple to discuss, your tank is prestine, beutiful plants, and wonderfull mix of colors ... 

A really good exemple for what this topic is all about ...


----------



## dru

houseofcards said:


> I pretty much agree with all this and I'll take it a step further, it's the organic load that doesn't get taken up by the plants or removed from the tank via water changes, organic removal products, etc. that is the trigger. That's pretty much what the plants are doing if their healthy and the mass is large enough. Not every tank is going to have the equivalent of a large group of healthy plants since it could be an iwagumi or other setup that isn't densely planted. Just like a new setup, these types of tanks have to rely on heavier water changes and organic removal before it breaks down and causes algae.


Interesting that you claim with certainty that a high organic load is the root cause of algae using a line of reasoning that the plants are not uptaking the available nutrients but don't extend this exact same logic to an over-abundance of fertilizers added to a tank by dosing.


----------



## klibs

houseofcards said:


> Secondly so many times people here have algae issues and the first response is to turn up the co2. Then I look at their setup and they have like 3 stems and a marimo moss ball. You could turn up the co2 till it reaches pluto (seems like you like space references) and it's not going to do a thing.
> 
> The hardest tanks to keep pristine are high light, heavy stock, low plant mass, why?


Thank you for posting this - I try to preach this fact every chance I get. #1 mistake people make is not taking into account plant mass and believing the 'magic of CO2' will save the day.

The 'you need CO2' blanket advice statement is the most often abused I see on this forum and it needs to stop.

I am under the impression that all of the things discussed here are at fault for poor conditions... We have all seen them... Low CO2, high organics, too much N, K, P, Fe, micros, whatever. IMO it is (and will probably remain) near impossible to single out which is the particular culprit in any given setup.

I think by saying 'one of these reasons is why you have poor growth and/or algae' is NEVER the correct response. People need to look at their tanks in a logical, educated manner and experiment themselves how to make their tank work. Nobody's tanks are the same. So many factors that are at play in every tank that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a certain setup will react a certain way to a certain change.

I believe this is Pedro's take on the whole thing as well... (Please correct me if I'm wrong Pedro!) His comments above indicate a reasonable approach to planted tanks... He realizes he has a VERY densely planted, fast growing tank so he doses a lot of nutrients. Over time it seems he has found a sweet spot and his routine is producing fantastic results. If I myself replicated his EXACT situation it may not work out. Why exactly may it work or not work? We will never know for sure...

Now Pedro is using Tropica products to feed his aquarium... It would be ridiculous IMO to say that if you want a tank to look great like that you should switch to Tropica and do exactly what he did to achieve those results. There are too many unknown variables...

I do agree with houseofcards that anectdotal evidence of experienced aquarists is more valuable than some experiments done on a stream somewhere. The environments are so different... If scientists did similar experiments in closed-system aquariums to suit the needs that we are aiming to achieve in our glass boxes that is an entirely different story... I don't give a damn about some paper written about nitrate toxicity in some stream in Florida or whatever. I'm sorry but I just don't. To notion that the environments are similar enough so that I should apply certain practices to my fish tank is just something I do not agree with.

Now you can all blast me for my opinions too


----------



## nilocg

Please delete


----------



## Positron

Can anyone else here correlate rampid weekly GSA growth on the glass with poor weekly plant growth? Keeping NO3 and P (NO3 5-10, P 0.2-0.5) low seem to elimate the growth of GSA (the only algae i contend with), while making the plants grow lusher, more structurally sound. 

It beats having to scrub a bundle of GSA off the glass every week. Micro dosing has been kept unchanged for months. 0.05ppm iron from gluc once a week. Custom micro blend (very small amounts weekly).


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

https://www.renewableresourcescoali...scoalition.org/files/Woody_Copper_Effects.pdf

According to this article, high concentrations of copper negatively affect algae, diatoms, crustaceans and fish. How high is "high"? 1ppb to 20ppb, much lower than a typical EI dose of CSM+B which results in 6.7ppb. Two doses = 12ppb. Three doses = 20ppb.

That would definitely explain why EI-dosed tanks lack certain kinds of filamentous algae, because it's just too damn toxic to grow. It also explains why healthy algae that's placed into an EI-dosed tank dies.

The article is only about the effects of copper. So if you read about the toxic effects of the other heavy metals, they would most likely compound the negative effects.


----------



## burr740

Positron said:


> Can anyone else here correlate rampid weekly GSA growth on the glass with poor weekly plant growth? Keeping NO3 and P (NO3 5-10, P 0.2-0.5) low seem to elimate the growth of GSA (the only algae i contend with), while making the plants grow lusher, more structurally sound.
> 
> It beats having to scrub a bundle of GSA off the glass every week. Micro dosing has been kept unchanged for months. 0.05ppm iron from gluc once a week. Custom micro blend (very small amounts weekly).


It is possible that before, you were short on CO2. By reducing the N and P, you've reduced the demand for CO2. Reducing the light could've done the same thing, so could adding more Co2.

Not saying this is absolutely what happened, only that it's a possible explanation. It is the same mechanism by which the "high P causes algae" dogma was falsified several years ago, primarily thanks to the efforts of Tom Barr.


----------



## houseofcards

klibs said:


> I think by saying 'one of these reasons is why you have poor growth and/or algae' is NEVER the correct response. People need to look at their tanks in a logical, educated manner and experiment themselves how to make their tank work. Nobody's tanks are the same. So many factors that are at play in every tank that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a certain setup will react a certain way to a certain change.


Very nicely said. There are just too many variables with live stock, feeding, light, grow rates, plant mass, peoples lifestyles, etc. that it would be very unlikely to pinpoint the one cause that ails a particular setup. If we use Pedro's tank as an example. He knows the tank has massive plant volume/growth so he's able to use the high-end of EI-type dosing without issue and too make sure the plants don't run short of something.


----------



## klibs

I think too many times people give too specific advice... especially to the less experienced aquarists. It is all too easy to fall into pitfalls believing one thing is at fault. IMO people need overall experience to truly understand how things work together as a whole which unfortunately takes a lot of time, much trial and error, many failed attempts, etc. It is rare that someone nails a high tech setup on their first try.

That is why in general I think it is silly to ramrod certain views that ONE specific factor can plague tanks worse than others.. It is very hard for me to believe that this is the case...


----------



## burr740

Add a crew of Amano shrimp, algae disappears. Take them out, algae comes back.

Conclusion: The absence of Amano shrimp causes algae.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

burr740 said:


> Not saying this is absolutely what happened, only that it's a possible explanation. It is the same mechanism by which the "high P causes algae" dogma was falsified several years ago, primarily thanks to the efforts of Tom Barr.


If phosphorus is limited, but all other conditions are met, then adding phosphorus can lead to algae blooms. This is clearly documented and a well-known phenomenon. However, if other variables were limited, then adding phosphorus would not lead to algae blooms due to the limiting variables. Thus, it's incorrect to say that phosphorus does not cause algae. In certain situations, it clearly can, even in aquariums.


----------



## Leeatl

+1 to kilbs and houseofcards in the root of what they say . Your tank is just that , your tank.....I have 3 planted tanks and each one is so called low tech . Each one is doing great . I try to not overreact to things that go one way or another,,,IE: algae,plant growth ,etc,etc . I just take each one as it looks...I use Seachem root tabs and Big Al's liquid fert , and Excel for carbon and BBA control , and I have found that once you get a tank balanced , no mater how you did it , then it will help you keep itself going in the best way . Just don't over think it , learn as you go , and most of all ..enjoy!


----------



## houseofcards

dru said:


> Interesting that you claim with certainty that a high organic load is the root cause of algae using a line of reasoning that the plants are not uptaking the available nutrients but don't extend this exact same logic to an over-abundance of fertilizers added to a tank by dosing.


Just so I understand you believe that the dosing of inorganic salts like NPK is the same as letting organics breakdown in a tank and not being either consumed by plants, biofilter or removed by water changes or media. You think the side effects to the aquarium would be one in the same?


----------



## Audionut

houseofcards said:


> Just so I understand you believe that the dosing of inorganic salts like NPK is the same as letting organics breakdown in a tank and not being either consumed by plants, biofilter or removed by water changes or media. You think the side effects to the aquarium would be one in the same?


Rather then putting the onus on others, how about you explain exactly how organic waste is more detrimental then inorganic waste?

Using the example in your quote would be nice. I'll assume that your dosing fish crap into the tank with high organics, since a tank bound by the conditions you have listed wouldn't support fish in any case. What exactly is organic waste going to do in this fishless tank, that inorganic waste dosed at the same concentration isn't also going to do?


----------



## klibs

Audionut said:


> Rather then putting the onus on others, how about you explain exactly how organic waste is more detrimental then inorganic waste?
> 
> Using the example in your quote would be nice. I'll assume that your dosing fish crap into the tank with high organics, since a tank bound by the conditions you have listed wouldn't support fish in any case. What exactly is organic waste going to do in this fishless tank, that inorganic waste dosed at the same concentration isn't also going to do?


Doesn't organic waste contain high levels of toxins like ammonia? I am pretty sure dosing a lot of KNO3 is not going to introduce those kinds of toxins... These toxins harm flora as well as fauna.

To me it has been quite clear that dissolved organic waste is far more prone to cause algae issues vs overdosing my tanks with compounds like KNO3, KH2PO4, etc... I have seen this firsthand... If I slack off on water changes and let fish poop pile up then algae immediately follows. Why? There must be a reason for this...

Fish poop / organic waste is certainly not going to be the same chemical makeup as inorganic ferts. There seems to be an assumption that these ultimately amount to the same things - like 1 gram of fish poop will break down into the exact same chemicals as 1 gram of certain dry ferts. I am not going to research this further to validate my point because I simply don't care to put in the time to do so but logically it does not make sense.

houseofcards' response above was not to sound like a dick - but rather propose that the before claim is preposterous.



dru said:


> Interesting that you claim with certainty that a high organic load is the root cause of algae using a line of reasoning that the plants are not uptaking the available nutrients but don't extend this exact same logic to an over-abundance of fertilizers added to a tank by dosing.


I look at this claim the same way... To me it assumes that organic waste and dry ferts are essentially the same thing to a tank. I think that they act similarly in that they can result in too much available N, P, etc but there is a HUGE difference between to two.


----------



## Audionut

A fair comparison as you describe would be between organic waste and inorganic ammonium salts. Differences between organic waste and inorganic nitrate aren't really relevant, since your describing the differences between two different ions that behave differently in a solution.

But more importantly, is that for organic waste, or as you describe, the ammonia to be detrimental, it's concentration would have to increase greater then the nitrifying bacteria's ability to convert the ammonia to nitrate. That in and of itself is an issue totally unrelated to inorganic salts.

For a fair comparison between organic and inorganic, then you have to consider the differences when also considering the same ions. If you want to make it a fair comparison, then please describe how inorganic ammonia is less of an issue then organic ammonia?


----------



## nilocg

Audionut said:


> A fair comparison as you describe would be between organic waste and inorganic ammonium salts. Differences between organic waste and inorganic nitrate aren't really relevant, since your describing the differences between two different ions that behave differently in a solution.
> 
> But more importantly, is that for organic waste, or as you describe, the ammonia to be detrimental, it's concentration would have to increase greater then the nitrifying bacteria's ability to convert the ammonia to nitrate. That in and of itself is an issue totally unrelated to inorganic salts.
> 
> For a fair comparison between organic and inorganic, then you have to consider the differences when also considering the same ions. If you want to make it a fair comparison, then please describe how inorganic ammonia is less of an issue then organic ammonia?



I know the point you are trying to make, but I think you are missing the ball here. I think its an extraordinarily fair comparison. Very few people add inorganic ammonia to their tank, but almost everyone adds the organic form in one fashion or the other.


----------



## micheljq

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If phosphorus is limited, but all other conditions are met, then adding phosphorus can lead to algae blooms. This is clearly documented and a well-known phenomenon.


Heuh, oh sorry but many have dosed excess phosphates in a planted tank and no algae blooms ever appeared. Same for nitrates, same for iron. Where is it documented, please share sources if you have.

You can have a look at Barr's report or test it for yourself in your planted tank.

Michel.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

micheljq said:


> Heuh, oh sorry but many have dosed excess phosphates in a planted tank and no algae blooms ever appeared. Same for nitrates, same for iron. Where is it documented, please share sources if you have.
> 
> You can have a look at Barr's report or test it for yourself in your planted tank.
> 
> Michel.


Why did you fail to quote the rest of my post? It directly answers your concerns.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If phosphorus is limited, but all other conditions are met, then adding phosphorus can lead to algae blooms. This is clearly documented and a well-known phenomenon. However, if other variables were limited, then adding phosphorus would not lead to algae blooms due to the limiting variables. Thus, it's incorrect to say that phosphorus does not cause algae. In certain situations, it clearly can, even in aquariums.


That is interesting, and contrary to my experience. Do you have some more information about how this was tested, and what the parameters were?


----------



## Audionut

nilocg said:


> I know the point you are trying to make, but I think you are missing the ball here.


The original claim was that organic nutrients are the cause of algae, but when questioned, this apparently is a NH4 vs NO3 issue instead, that has absolutely nothing to do with organic waste, save for the fact that most people dose inorganic NO3, and organic waste is NH4.



nilocg said:


> Very few people add inorganic ammonia to their tank, but almost everyone adds the organic form in one fashion or the other.


But if it's perpetrated as an organic vs inorganic problem, then people could be lead to believe that inorganic dosing of NH4 isn't a problem. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence, facts were made based on that evidence, and those facts aren't entirely true and accurate, or probably more appropriately, the wrong conclusions can be made that could lead to problems for others.

But, is NH4 really a problem as far as algae are concerned? I can spread some anecdotal evidence regarding the dosing of 2 ppm per day of NH4 into my tank, without issue. So who's anecdotal evidence is right, and who's is wrong? Should I just continue to sprout how NH4 isn't an issue based on my own anecdotal evidence, just to offset the claims that NH4 is an issue based on anecdotal evidence? Everyone's tank is different right. Some people have organic H2O, and others have inorganic H2O, or something along those lines. :tongue:

Here's my question to the people who have issue with NH4. Once upon a time phosphate was considered the root cause of algae. Why is phosphate now understood to not be the root cause of algae, and do you think those same principles apply to NH4?


----------



## nilocg

I only use organic water:x


----------



## dukydaf

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Thus, it's incorrect to say that phosphorus does not cause algae. In certain situations, it clearly can, even in aquariums.


By the same logic, S can cause algae, K can cause algae ... H2O can cause algae. No H2O = no algae.. problem solved. In my opinion, introducing algae control with factors that limit plant growth is largely irrelevant for my planted aquariums.



Audionut said:


> how about you explain exactly how organic waste is more detrimental then inorganic waste?
> What exactly is organic waste going to do in this fishless tank, that inorganic waste dosed at the same concentration isn't also going to do?


Here is one thing different...
high organic waste = high bacterial growth 

So indirectly, organic waste will lead to higher O demand, more CO2 , H2S, CH4 production. Other issues are higher DOC, biofilm formation, B12, the variety of side products from decomposing organic matter. High organics can also lead to anoxic conditions, few people will dose the kind of inorganic substance to make their aquarium anoxic.
Granted there are bacteria that grow on inorganic substances but they are fewer and generally grow less rapidly.



Audionut said:


> If you want to make it a fair comparison, then please describe how inorganic ammonia is less of an issue then organic ammonia?


 @Audionut Strictly speaking NH3 is not an organic substance. To be considered an organic compound the substance needs to have Carbon ( some substances can have C and not be organic ie. CO2). So just because NH4 comes from organic compounds it is not an organic substance. Just like KNO3 is not an organic substance if it comes from 'organic NH4'.




Audionut said:


> The original claim was that organic nutrients are the cause of algae, but when questioned, this apparently is a NH4 vs NO3 issue instead, that has absolutely nothing to do with organic waste, save for the fact that most people dose inorganic NO3, and organic waste is NH4.
> Here's my question to the people who have issue with NH4. Once upon a time phosphate was considered the root cause of algae. Why is phosphate now understood to not be the root cause of algae, and do you think those same principles apply to NH4?


What we are talking about when we say organic waste is a mix of sugars, proteins and lipids. The decomposition of which leads to a varied array of compounds depending on environmental conditions and existing bacterial populations. There is nothing wrong with organic waste, after all nature uses it all the time. But in the aquarium it is difficult to 'dose' and to control the outcome.

I think most use the presence of NH4 as an easy to measure indicator of an abundance of organic waste. NH4 itself might not be the problem, but some other unknown substance upstream or originating from the same organic source. I can also confirm an algae bloom following organic release (like plant, fish death).

I have no problems playing with urea (at acidic pH). However it quickly becomes NO3 and did not notice any differences in plant growth.



nilocg said:


> I only use organic water:x


:grin2: This reminds me of the stupid food /detergent labels saying: " Chemical free". Is your EI recipe Chemical free ? If not pay me 500% and I will sell you one.


----------



## easternlethal

Audionut said:


> Here's my question to the people who have issue with NH4. Once upon a time phosphate was considered the root cause of algae. Why is phosphate now understood to not be the root cause of algae, and do you think those same principles apply to NH4?


I thought the issue with NH4 is not that it causes algae, but is harmful to fish at high doses in a way that NO3 is not. If you're advocating dosing urea instead of NO3 I'd be very interested to hear how you control the dosage because it doesn't show up in any EI calculator I have seen, and I do have some sitting on my shelf I'm quite keen to use..


----------



## Hoppy

The vast majority of planted tank hobbyists are not educationally equipped to develop their own fertilizing system, avoiding "too much" of any of the nutrients, or "too little" of them. That majority can easily fertilize their tanks if given the dosages of each of the needed chemicals that is likely to give them the best chance for success. These dosages would, of course be different for each size tank, and for low vs high light for those tanks. EI was an attempt to do just that - whether the dosages provided were too high or too low or dosed too often or not often enough is another question.

A thread such as this causes mostly confusion, instead of offering advice to the majority of us. If someone has done enough testing to justify the claim that "high nutrients promote algae, etc." they must also have a pretty good idea what "high nutrients" means. And, in order for that to be useful, they must also have a pretty good idea what "too little nutrients" means. If they don't have that information the whole purpose of the thread can only be to confuse people.

So, once again, I ask that those who believe the general premise of this thread is correct, please provide your "pretty good idea" for what is a set of dosages vs tank sizes and light intensity that will give us the best chance for success with our planted tanks. Not doing that is not a helpful thing at all.

There is another alternative: propose, for example, that we use our plants to tell us if we have too much or too little. But, when you do that, you must also tell us how to interpret what our plants are saying, in clear enough detail that we can use the information.

Another alternative is: propose that we must test our water at some frequency, for each of the nutrients that are of significance. But, to do that you must first tell us what reasonably priced test kits enable us to do that, and, of course, what test results are our goals, what are "too little" and what are "too high".

Perhaps the simplest way to do this is to just recommend different dosage amounts for the tables in http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/21944-_dosing-regimes_.html


----------



## Straight shooter

Given the chemistry behind fertilizing and use of soils long term, and given that dutch tanks require the highest doses of fertilizer, is it actually better to run a dutch tank with an inert substrate?


----------



## DennisSingh

was almost too afraid to post this, but how can you even test this? too many variables to a planted tank. Mainly plant choice. Plant mass, lighting, o2, co2, which specific fertilizers, substrate. I don't see this going anywhere but argumentative.


----------



## Audionut

Context seems to have been lost in the discussion.


Eutrophication shows us what happens with an increase in nutrient levels. By definition, "Eutrophication is the *enrichment* of an *ecosystem* with *chemical nutrients*, typically compounds containing nitrogen, phosphorus, or both."

I've added some bold for emphasis. 



dukydaf said:


> So indirectly, organic waste will lead to higher O demand, more CO2 , H2S, CH4 production. Other issues are higher DOC, biofilm formation, B12, the variety of side products from decomposing organic matter. High organics can also lead to anoxic conditions............


You point out some slight differences in the decomposition of organic waste vs eutrophication caused by inorganic waste, but the end result is one and the same. Increased algae levels, depletion of oxygen, death of aquatic life. Whether the increase in nutrients have arisen from organic or inorganic chemical compounds is not the important aspect of the problem. The issue being that increased nutrient levels (organic or inorganic) promote the rapid growth of algae.

In nature, eutrophication is an inorganic nutrient level problem, whereas in our dinky little bowls of water, being the superior beings that we are, we can easily increase the bioload on the system beyond the capability of that system to maintain itself in a conductive state towards fauna. An increased bioload has some specific differences to the increase in inorganic nutrient levels, but the end result is the same............Death!

So to answer the thread title, "High nutrients promote algae growth", the answer is clearly, yes.

But on the other hand, we see countless aquariums that maintain high nutrient levels, and yet life appears to flourish. So we have to ask ourselves, how can we maintain aquariums with high nutrient levels without death of life.

For me, the answer clearly lies in our ability to provide maintenance to the aquarium, that nature cannot also provide within the timespan required to maintain health. The answer has nothing to do with phosphates, nitrates, organic nutrients, inorganic nutrients, and such, but instead, our ability to provide the needed level of maintenance until the biological functions of the aquarium can support itself.

As an experiment, we can use light to simulate changing nutrient levels. Take a planted aquarium that has some amount of light, driven for some amount of time. Rapidly expand the time that the light is on, and/or rapidly increase the intensity of the light. What happens? Now take another planted aquarium with the same amount of light driven for the same amount of time, and this time gradually increase the timespan and/or intensity of the light to the same levels as the previous experiment, but this time, gradually increase the levels over a period of two months. Observe the differences.

This further reinforces that it's not simply the absolute value of the concentration of the nutrients that causes issues, but rather, the speed with which these changes are made.

As another example, take the nitrification cycle. Add one fish per week to an aquarium and there will be no issue. Add 500 fish in one hit and it rapidly turns to shi*. When we add one fish at a time, we allow the biological processes time to adjust to the increased nutrient levels, but when we add 500 fish at once, we simply push the biological processes beyond their ability to process the increased demand at a rate sufficient to maintain life.

Balancing the ability of the biological system to maintain itself, with manual maintenance as needed is key. Regardless of nutrient sources, types, or whatever.



dukydaf said:


> I have no problems playing with urea (at acidic pH). However it quickly becomes NO3 and did not notice any differences in plant growth.


You should try reducing the ability of nitrifying bacteria to function, so that the urea is food for the plants, rather then just feeding your nitrifying bacteria colony. In my experience, anecdotal evidence only, NH4 is a better source then Urea.



easternlethal said:


> I thought the issue with NH4 is not that it causes algae, but is harmful to fish at high doses in a way that NO3 is not. If you're advocating dosing urea instead of NO3 I'd be very interested to hear how you control the dosage because it doesn't show up in any EI calculator I have seen, and I do have some sitting on my shelf I'm quite keen to use..


I would highly suggest you have a good understanding of the issues surrounding NH4/NH3 before proceeding to use Urea as a nutrient source.


----------



## burr740

Audionut said:


> So to answer the thread title, "High nutrients promote algae growth", the answer is clearly, yes.


Would you mind explaining what levels of what equals "high nutrients"? Ive yet to see this question answered.

Surely we can all agree that it is relevant to individual tanks, some obviously need and use more than others. So if it is not possible to give universal ppms of this or that, is there at least a percentage above what plants consume that you consider to be "high nutrient" level?

Marcel? Solcielo? Anyone?


----------



## Audionut

*Any* increase in nutrient levels will promote algae growth. The _rate of change_ of the increased nutrient level directly influences the ability of algae to grow at an increased rate against the other biological functions.

There is no absolute number. The rate of change is the key. Reread my above post please.


----------



## easternlethal

Audionut said:


> I would highly suggest you have a good understanding of the issues surrounding NH4/NH3 before proceeding to use Urea as a nutrient source.


a tad presumptious to assume that just because I asked a question I don't have a good understanding to start with.

..but okay. I'll seek advice elsewhere.


----------



## burr740

Audionut said:


> Any increase in nutrient levels will promote algae growth. The rate of change of the increased nutrient level directly influences the ability of algae to grow at an increased rate against the other biological functions.
> 
> There is no absolute number. The rate of change is the key. Reread my above post please.



Then wouldnt it be more accurate to say that "Sudden increases in....." or something to that effect? 

Im just trying to understand how someone can claim that high nutrients promote algae, if they cant even define what is "high" in the first place?


----------



## Audionut

burr740 said:


> Im just trying to understand how someone can claim that high nutrients promote algae, if they cant even define what is "high" in the first place?


High | Define High at Dictionary.com

The issue with absolute numbers is that they get repeated by people into circumstances where those absolute numbers do not apply.

If you have an aquarium that has maintained a PO4 concentration of 1 ppm, then a sudden increase to 3 ppm would be a high PO4 nutrient level and promote the growth of algae.
If you have an aquarium that has maintained a PO4 concentration of 5 ppm, then a sudden increase to 10 ppm would be a high PO4 nutrient level and promote the growth of algae.
If you have an aquarium that has maintained a PO4 concentration of 0.01 ppm, then a sudden increase to 1 ppm would be a high PO4 nutrient level and promote the growth of algae.

Absolute numbers only tell a story when you have all the information relevant to the story.



Audionut said:


> Any increase in nutrient levels will promote algae growth. The rate of change of the increased nutrient level directly influences the ability of algae to grow at an increased rate against the other biological functions.
> 
> *There is no absolute number. The rate of change is the key.* Reread my above post please.





easternlethal said:


> a tad presumptious to assume that just because I asked a question I don't have a good understanding to start with.
> 
> ..but okay. I'll seek advice elsewhere.


Any day of the week I will take presumptuous over assumption. If I was to assume something, and my suggestion lead to dire consequences for you and your aquarium, I would have a larger issue with that, then your hurt feelings by being presumptuous.

Feel free to start another thread, or pm.


----------



## burr740

You are saying that a sudden increase in nutrients can possibly spark an algae outbreak, relative to, and regardless what the levels were to begin with.

That is not a point I care to debate, though I will say that through personal experience with my own tanks Ive seen evidence to the contrary.

Nevertheless, it is a far cry from the thread's title statement, and what the anti-nutrient crowd were initially trying to pass off as scientific fact, as it relates to aquaria.


----------



## Audionut

burr740 said:


> Nevertheless, it is a far cry from the thread's title statement, and what the anti-nutrient crowd were initially trying to pass off as scientific fact.


No. It is a far cry from what bias you apply to the meaning of the thread title. Since the term "high", is only relevant against another value.

Absolute numbers with regards to toxic affects on fauna is a completely different issue. Here, science can show absolute numbers, and the effects of those absolute numbers on fauna.

But if we're going to keep arguing over the true meaning and intent of this threads title............Seriously! We both must be bored sh*tless today.


----------



## burr740

Im just trying to learn what "high nutrients" means so I can avoid algae and not torture my fish.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## dukydaf

Hoppy said:


> There is another alternative: propose, for example, that we use our plants to tell us if we have too much or too little. But, when you do that, you must also tell us how to interpret what our plants are saying, in clear enough detail that we can use the information.
> Another alternative is: propose that we must test our water at some frequency, for each of the nutrients that are of significance. But, to do that you must first tell us what reasonably priced test kits enable us to do that, and, of course, what test results are our goals, what are "too little" and what are "too high".


I agree with you @Hoppy. Just to add that often you will see algae problems before you see clean cut plant deficiency in N or P. So waiting for necrotic plants to dose is counterproductive. However, in my opinion, dosing and observing if plant heath increased is a better approach (ie increase NO3 levels, are plants bigger then great). But this gets us into topics such as this, where nutrients are toxic. Testing is tricky for most hobbyists, more so at low nutrient levels. You can have 5ppm NO3 and the test say 0, etc


StrungOut said:


> was almost too afraid to post this, but how can you even test this? too many variables to a planted tank. Mainly plant choice. Plant mass, lighting, o2, co2, which specific fertilizers, substrate. I don't see this going anywhere but argumentative.


Well it can be tested but the result will only be applicable at a very specific setup, so useless to most. However it can give us an idea into the more important factors in your equation.
Thank you @Audionut for your reply. As always I hope you take what follows as an attempt to develop the conversation and provide clarity. Keep up the good job.


Audionut said:


> Context seems to have been lost in the discussion.
> Eutrophication shows us what happens with an increase in nutrient levels. By definition, "Eutrophication is the *enrichment* of an *ecosystem* with *chemical nutrients*, typically compounds containing nitrogen, phosphorus, or both."


I would not use the term eutrophication when we are talking about an aquarium. The aquarium is a highly regulated and simple biological system which suffers from eutrophication daily (adding fish food, fertilizers). In ecological sciences, ecosystems are often seen as units so no outside nutrients come in. Eg plants eats nutrients, fish eats plant, bird eats fish, bird poops, bacteria eat poop and produce nutrients --- nutrient came back. But when you have nutrients from outside this system ….farm animals come to bathe you get eutrophication. 

Another problem, in our human-made-climate-warming crazed world, is that most assume eutrophication is a bad thing. Problems start to appear when you go eutrophic and hypereutrophic systems. I was on a mesotrophic lake and I can say it was quite enjoyable with more abundance and diversity of plant, animal and microscopic life than the boring oligotrophic lakes.


Audionut said:


> You point out some slight differences in the decomposition of organic waste vs eutrophication caused by inorganic waste, but the end result is one and the same. Increased algae levels, depletion of oxygen, death of aquatic life.


I think you might have missed my point, you get different substances from organic and inorganic nutrients. Adjusting for the N concentration, dumping a sack of KNO3 and an amount of cow dung will result in very different substances in the water which can lead to different end results.
‘Death of aquatic life’ only occurs at very high levels at eutrophication, irrelevant to our topic here. Even then, not all organisms die… it is not aquapocalipse.
Even in aquariums, you can get high enough levels of organic substances to get anoxic conditions (esp. in the substrate). They can develop so fast that algae has no role to play in the process.



Audionut said:


> Whether the increase in nutrients have arisen from organic or inorganic chemical compounds is not the important aspect of the problem.


 Some of us here stated that it is, myself included. Not the N or P per se, but the molecules and conditions that came before them.


Audionut said:


> In nature, eutrophication is an inorganic nutrient level problem, whereas in our dinky little bowls of water, being the superior beings that we are, we can easily increase the bioload on the system beyond the capability of that system to maintain itself in a conductive state towards fauna


In nature , eutrophication originates both from organic and inorganic sources (see above example). In our aquariums, the moment you add one fish, it is too much, the system is unable to maintain life for that one fish…( hint: think fish food)


Audionut said:


> The answer has nothing to do with phosphates, nitrates, organic nutrients, inorganic nutrients, and such, but instead, our ability to provide the needed level of maintenance until the biological functions of the aquarium can support itself.
> Balancing the ability of the biological system to maintain itself, with manual maintenance as needed is key.


I agree, we are the gardeners and we need to remove waste and provide food. I do not agree with the ‘aquarium can support itself’ part. Unless the aquarium is very simple ( think soil, shrimps and vallisneria) it is unable to support itself for even an year. We need to get away from ‘piece of nature’ thinking that so plagues the planted aquarium. 





Audionut said:


> You should try reducing the ability of nitrifying bacteria to function, so that the urea is food for the plants, rather then just feeding your nitrifying bacteria colony. In my experience, anecdotal evidence only, NH4 is a better source then Urea. .


But what is the point to try and destroy bacteria that is not noxious, not affecting the esthetics and will regenerate. It is a losing battle and more maintenance then I like given the results than can be obtained with NO3


Audionut said:


> This further reinforces that it's not simply the absolute value of the concentration of the nutrients that causes issues, but rather, the speed with which these changes are made.


Hmm, it depends if plants have mechanisms to control the uptake and how fast/to what degree they can be adapted. Thus sudden increase in light is harmful, but a sudden increase in CO2 from 3 to 30 is not a bad change. For example, from night to day we double or more the concentration of CO2 (via injection). One can dose PO4 to raise it from 0.1 to 3 ppm, 30x increase and not notice any algae issues.




easternlethal said:


> I thought the issue with NH4 is not that it causes algae, but is harmful to fish at high doses in a way that NO3 is not.


Hey @easternlethal . Hope I can give a very superficial explanation of the issue. Depending on the pH there are 2 forms NH4+ and NH3. In acidic (low) pH the ammonium form is present and it is largely safe for fish. At 7 or higher pH, the ammonia NH3 form is very toxic even at low levels. With CO2 injection the pH goes well below 7 for most of us, so we do not observe the toxicity of NH3, thus can does NH4 and urea.


----------



## easternlethal

dukydaf said:


> Hope I can give a very superficial explanation of the issue. Depending on the pH there are 2 forms NH4+ and NH3. In acidic (low) pH the ammonium form is present and it is largely safe for fish. At 7 or higher pH, the ammonia NH3 form is very toxic even at low levels. With CO2 injection the pH goes well below 7 for most of us, so we do not observe the toxicity of NH3, thus can does NH4 and urea.


Appreciate your helpful response dukydaf. I understand the danger actually arises when NH4 is converted into nitrites in the cycle. 

In any case that wasn't really my question, which was specifically about how people control their dosing - what do they look for, how they figure out max amounts etc. especially since this thread is about how high nutrients are toxic. Since people are more than happy to discuss about nitrates, phosphates, copper etc. why not also discuss urea in this context? 

But nope. Maybe it's because I have only posted a few posts and my status is algae grower and I am not yet worthy enough..


----------



## dukydaf

easternlethal said:


> I understand the danger actually arises when NH4 is converted into nitrites in the cycle.
> 
> Since people are more than happy to discuss about nitrates, phosphates, copper etc. why not also discuss urea in this context?
> 
> But nope. Maybe it's because I have only posted a few posts and my status is algae grower and I am not yet worthy enough..


Yes fair enough, NH3 and nitrites can also be toxic. I answered the problem with the NH4 more toxic than NO3 you stated in the first post. Both of them are less typical sources of toxicity since in a mature planted aquarium they dissapear very fast, at normal conc. That is what happenend in my aquarium. There is some link between conc. of NH4 and algae spore maturation, but I suspect there are other organic substances required for a big nice bloom.

Dosing NH4 is easy, keeping it that way is hard in a mature aquarium. 1mg urea will add aprox. the same amount of N that 2mg NO3 will add. One way you can determine max. levels is to increase dose until 50% of population(shrimp, fish,worms) dies, than 90% dies. Chronic exposure is a bit different though. Most play it by the ear when it comes to max levels

Number of posts has nothing to do with knowledge or status ... I see people with 1000+ posts that write illogical things all the time. Getting people to know you is more helpful than having 10000 posts.


----------



## Audionut

dukydaf said:


> 1mg urea will add aprox. the same amount of N that 2mg NO3 will add.


Ouch. NO3 as an inorganic salt doesn't come by itself, it is always attached to a cation. The weight of the attached cation determines the amount of NO3 added with each dose of the substance.

Urea contains 46.646% by weight of N. Since the discussion was revolving around KNO3, KNO3 contains 13.85% by weight of N. You shouldn't need a calculator to understand that two times 13.85 doesn't equal 46.646.

If you maintain water parameters that are conductive to the well being and reproduction of nitrifying bacteria, and haven't bothered to destroy at least some portion of the existing bacteria colony, you can probably reasonably assume that virtually all of the NH4 will be converted to NO3. And thus, the easiest method to determine the effects of NH4 dosing, is to simply assume that it is all NO3. The conversion factor between NH4 and NO3 being 3.437. ie: Dose 1 ppm of NH4, and expect 3.437 ppm of NO3 as a result.

The maths is easy if you can understand the basics. I suck at maths, and yet I can understand it, so if it looks complicated at first glance, look again.

((amount added in grams * 1000) / volume of water in liters) * mass percent of the element in the dosed substance.

You've got 100 liters of water in your aquarium, and you want to dose 1 gram of (NH4)2SO4.

((1 * 1000) / 100) * 21.1999%

1 * 1000 = 1000
1000 / 100 = 10
10 * 21.1999% = 2.11999.

Dosing 1 gram of (NH4)2SO4 into 100 liters of water will raise N concentration by 2.11999 ppm. Doing the maths long hand all the time is handy for practice, but boring and repetitive, plug the numbers into a spreadsheet instead for quicker results.

A handy calculator I found online to help determine the ratio of NH3 vs NH4 against pH, temperature and salinity is this one.

Note: While ionized ammonia (NH4) is harmless at single digit concentrations, please consider that some portion of the dosed NH4 will undergo a transformation to NO2-, and nitrite is pretty nasty stuff as far as fish are concerned. If you've reduced the capacity of the nitrifying bacteria to convert NH4 to NO3, or otherwise dose a large amount of NH4 in excess of bacteria ability to quickly convert the dosed amount, expect some portion of the dosed amount to remain as NO2- for some time. Yes it's fiddly, and yes there are issues, hence my desire to ensure that those I give this advice to have a clear understanding of all of the issues as I am aware of them, and also the common sense to consider that I alone may not understand of all the issues in there entirety. Asking simple questions, and then claiming foul when given a simple answer is poor form, regardless of your post count.

@dukydaf
Missing the point has extended both ways. I was attempting to answer a simple claim in a simple manner. You've totally disregarded the context of the original discussion, and attempted to make it a meaningful discussion, but in a very detailed manner. Sorry, but I don't have the spare time for a long drawn out technical discussion on the matter atm. If you manage to involve others in the discussion, and keep it relevant and meaningful, I'm likely to jump back in at some stage. Cheers.


----------



## Hoppy

If nothing else, this has been a very interesting discussion, and it does encourage us to question the things we have been accepting as "facts". I like that.

But, I'm still very much aware that most of us, and I would guess that "most" means over 90%, are hobbyists who enjoy watching aquatic plants grow, who enjoy our "pet" fish, and who use our hobby to satisfy our artistic leanings. For that rather large group, the question is "what should I dose to get healthy, good looking plants, and how much of that should I dose how often". I have asked 3 times (I think) if anyone is able or willing to apply the principles discussed here to a good answer for that question. If not, then how do you, any of you, suggest we answer that question? Surely the answer is not "only I know that answer".

It takes a lot of something, nerve, courage, conceit, to propose an answer to that question, by posting it here, in a usable form, for all of us to try out. I have the nerve, the courage, and the conceit, but not the knowledge to do that. But, it would be far better for those of you who obviously know a lot more about this than me to do it. Please?:|


----------



## alcimedes

Can someone think of an experiment that would actually give a definitive answer? I have two empty 30 gal tanks that I haven't set up yet. I could set them up as empty planted tanks and actually run a real world experiment on the theories given in this thread. Obviously the results would be somewhat limited to whatever the tank setups were, but there must be some way to at least test whether the underlying theories are sound?

I was already going to do an experiment between the two tanks to see once and for all if an aquarium product works as advertised to cycle a tank (which I believe is total bunk), I could test out some plant specific parts once the tank has cycled.


----------



## 58417

*Hardly realizable dream*

Deleted


----------



## DennisSingh

easternlethal said:


> I thought the issue with NH4 is not that it causes algae, but is harmful to fish at high doses in a way that NO3 is not. If you're advocating dosing urea instead of NO3 I'd be very interested to hear how you control the dosage because it doesn't show up in any EI calculator I have seen, and I do have some sitting on my shelf I'm quite keen to use..


Before I completely go on reading the _beginning_ and _end_ of this thread. I would like to try and answer this.

With ADA *amazonia* specifically, the leech of NH4 is i'll call monsterous. I'll make the claim that it does cause algae based on observation. In little amounts, I see that plants can soak this stuff up and grow massively and at a fast rate. But I've seen it all around, that first month to month and a half, people even T. B. hate to bring his name into this again, had algae problems initially. This could be due to the lack of _maintenance_-mainly water change and light correlation and removing the big leech. Can plant mass, combat it, Iono, to be leeching for a month to a month and a half, numbers must be high in the NH4. I don't see it being harmful to fish not at all, as co2 can be detrimental. So I'm making the claim, yes, in excess it will cause algae

Sorry i have no experience in dosing urea


I would advise beginners and such to go the Malaya route or Africana route. These soils are less in to little NH4 and you can basically set up with littler and lesser algae issues if even any. This all revolves around light as well, too high, you are gonna get algae.

Here's a chart, sorry if this is just way off topic
ADA Aqua Soil Analyse - Aquascaping - Aquarium - Flowgrow
I believe it says 2.85 ppm NH4

I hope I answered your question, no science behind, just observation


----------



## Hoppy

alcimedes said:


> Can someone think of an experiment that would actually give a definitive answer? I have two empty 30 gal tanks that I haven't set up yet. I could set them up as empty planted tanks and actually run a real world experiment on the theories given in this thread. Obviously the results would be somewhat limited to whatever the tank setups were, but there must be some way to at least test whether the underlying theories are sound?
> 
> I was already going to do an experiment between the two tanks to see once and for all if an aquarium product works as advertised to cycle a tank (which I believe is total bunk), I could test out some plant specific parts once the tank has cycled.


The information I lack is: (And, I don't see any way to get this information from a test that one of us can do, but it probably is available if I knew where to find it.) 
1. *For any or all of the nutrients, is there a minimum concentration in the tank water that is too low for the plants to use to get their required amounts of that nutrient?* 
2. *Do plants take up nutrients faster, more efficiently, as the concentration of that nutrient in the water is increased? * And, of course, is this something to be concerned about?
3. While it is certainly possible to determine the concentration of each nutrient that causes 50% of the plants to be harmed, and/or causes 50% of the fish to be harmed, *is it possible to determine, for each nutrient, the highest concentration that will cause less than 1% of the plants/fish to be harmed?*

With those 3 questions answered with a better than 50% confidence, it isn't at all hard to develop a table/tables/charts for "good" fertilizer dosing. Without them I don't see any way to do so, and that leaves me, at least, with no usable option except following the EI method as is. I don't accept, as a good method, the option of describing my tank/conditions/plants/fish to someone here so they can say "just dose 3 drops of *A* per day, 1 cc of *B *per every other day, etc."


----------



## alcimedes

Hoppy said:


> The information I lack is: (And, I don't see any way to get this information from a test that one of us can do, but it probably is available if I knew where to find it.)
> 1. *For any or all of the nutrients, is there a minimum concentration in the tank water that is too low for the plants to use to get their required amounts of that nutrient?*


This alone would take a few dozen tanks or more to test. There would be a variety of chemical interactions and dependencies you would need to account for.

Instead of fish tanks with plants, it might work better to do small jars or gallon sized containers with something generally considered to be a 'canary' type plant, although to work in a small container, it would probably need to be some kind of moss.

The number of jars required just for this step would be staggering.

I think the only way you might be able to then measure success would be wet weight before going into the jar and after, and you'd have to go by total growth?

That might cut it, and it might also cover part two. (Depending on micro/macro nutrient levels, how does that effect growth?)



Hoppy said:


> 2. *Do plants take up nutrients faster, more efficiently, as the concentration of that nutrient in the water is increased? * And, of course, is this something to be concerned about?


The uptake you might just have to get at by weight again, before and after going into the test container. You could check TDS readings to try and get some idea of uptake, but I don't think you'd have any idea *which* of the nutrients is being taken up, short of a very thorough test kit.




Hoppy said:


> 3. While it is certainly possible to determine the concentration of each nutrient that causes 50% of the plants to be harmed, and/or causes 50% of the fish to be harmed, *is it possible to determine, for each nutrient, the highest concentration that will cause less than 1% of the plants/fish to be harmed?*


For this you might have to just go by weight again to decide a quantitative metric for harm/thriving. You couldn't do fish, but you could do something like half a dozen daphnia in each jar, and see if you have any left by the end.

They're pretty damn sensitive to general water quality, if they're surviving your fish shouldn't be at risk. If they're thriving, the water should be safe. If they die, then something is wonky in the water and we'd need to cut nutrients in half repeatedly to try and get an idea of which nutrient is the culprit. (or which combo)

Reminds me of the research on diesel fumes and ozone.

We have a good idea of how much diesel fumes you can breathe in before it causes harm, and we know how much ozone exposure you can have before it causes harm.

That tells you *nothing* about the harm caused by ozone and diesel fume exposures together. (hint, turns out it's way worse than either alone)

I can only imagine how complicated the nutrients in water would start to get.


----------



## DennisSingh

> I use very similar nutrient levels as EI suggests in one of my test tanks, and obviously some kind of sensitive plants (e.g. Rotala wallichii or Rotala macrandra) don't like such a high nutrient levels => they show clear signs of toxicity (mainly growth deformations)


I'm not trying put you down in anyway and by all means carry on after your break, I don't see how you can drop so much $ on it though except for your passion. Sorry if i'm trolling

Not to turn this into a picture thread.

Here are my levels
guesstimate according to dosing bottles
K 5.27ppm/degree
N 1.69
NO3 7.50
P 0.42
PO4 1.30

B 0.09
Cu 0.01
Fe 0.50
Mg 0.11
Mn 0.14
Mo 0.0038
Zn 0.03
dGH 0.02

These are ei levels are they not? If not what would term label as? In receiving this plant, I decided to plant it as a lot of people are saying its an indicator plant. This is less than a week into it. I only see this plant prospering from here on out. Stable growth, good reds, nice growth. I'm not trying to put you down, there are many variables around this, but does this not counterpart your test?

Can you identify the growth deformations here? From the looks of it, looks like the plant is going to take off.





















> that suggests EI levels of nutrients (especially CO2heavy metals, and maybe NO3 of Fe also


No brainer, co2 can be utmost toxic, I thought co2 here was not in discussion. The others need to be proven without the use of co2, as this is the most detrimental to fish, not proven, just observation but isn't that a no brainer


----------



## DennisSingh

Hoppy said:


> But, I'm still very much aware that most of us, and I would guess that "most" means over 90%, are hobbyists who enjoy watching aquatic plants grow, who enjoy our "pet" fish, and who use our hobby to satisfy our artistic leanings. For that rather large group, the question is "what should I dose to get healthy, good looking plants, and how much of that should I dose how often". I have asked 3 times (I think) if anyone is able or willing to apply the principles discussed here to a good answer for that question. If not, then how do you, any of you, suggest we answer that question? Surely the answer is not "only I know that answer".


Any form of dosing....

They're all popularized or practiced or made their foothold in this hobby for a reason. 

For healthy plants

Go anyway you'd like, they all cover deficiencies. Toxicity? A whole another aspect, a whole nother game.


----------



## Edward

Hoppy said:


> ...
> 2. *Do plants take up nutrients faster, more efficiently, as the concentration of that nutrient in the water is increased? * And, of course, is this something to be concerned about? ...


In my experiments, I could not make my plants to consume daily more than 1 ppm NO3, 0.1 ppm PO4, 1.3 ppm K and 0.1 ppm Mg. Once saturated, they simply didn’t want to take more. When I gave them more, they left it behind creating a buildup. This was under Metal Halide 5 Watt/gal PAR 100 and CF 6 Watt/gal PAR 200. _(Light Calculator)_

Now the question is, why some people use levels like 45 ppm NO3 or 15 ppm PO4? Is it really necessary?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Edward said:


> Now the question is, why some people use levels like 45 ppm NO3 or 15 ppm PO4? Is it really necessary?


This will be my last post in this thread.

In chemistry, there is a phenomenon called the 'anion effect'. It makes cations less toxic due to the affinity of positive and negative ions. In other words, dosing high levels of anions reduce the toxic effects of excess heavy metals cations that are essential in minute quantities (but very toxic at higher concentrations, e.g. 1ppb of Cu is toxic to many life forms, including algae and crustaceans.)

Dosing excessive PO4 also increases the likelihood of metal precipitation, rendering them inert and non-toxic. It also helps alleviate toxic metal stress once plants have absorbed metal cations.

Dosing high levels of NO3 and PO4 anions also helps improve nutrient balance between the macros and the micros, especially more so if micros are excessively high as occurs when dosing EI levels of micros.

So is it typically necessary to dose such high concentrations of anions even though plants don't ever use so much? No, unless you are dosing excessively high concentrations of micros and need a way to neutralize or balance that toxicity. FYI: hydroponics use only a minute fraction of the traces needed to grow food crops, yet EI suggests dosing far in excess of what even these terrestrial crops require for fast and healthy growth. Logic should dictate an error in this approach.


----------



## Hoppy

Edward said:


> In my experiments, I could not make my plants to consume daily more than 1 ppm NO3, 0.1 ppm PO4, 1.3 ppm K and 0.1 ppm Mg. Once saturated, they simply didn’t want to take more. When I gave them more, they left it behind creating a buildup. This was under Metal Halide 5 Watt/gal PAR 100 and CF 6 Watt/gal PAR 200. _(Light Calculator)_
> 
> Now the question is, why some people use levels like 45 ppm NO3 or 15 ppm PO4? Is it really necessary?


If you started the day with 1 ppm of NO3 in the tank water, would the plants drop that to zero by the end of the day? Would that be true if you had one anubias in a 40 gallon tank vs. one H. polysperma in a 10 gallon tank? Or, 25 in each tank?

And, the same for the others you mentioned.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to grasp the difference between micrograms of NO3 consumed by a plant vs. ppm in the water. Clearly if a single plant can empty the water of a nutrient in a 40 gallon tank, then that plant would be consuming a lot more than it would be in a 10 gallon tank. I see the nutrient requirements as two pronged - concentration, which determines if the plant can access the nutrient, and total amount of nutrient available, which determines how much plant growth is possible. (But, my mental picture of the process may not be right.)


----------



## Edward

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> This will be my last post in this thread.
> 
> In chemistry, there is a phenomenon called the 'anion effect'. It makes cations less toxic due to the affinity of positive and negative ions. In other words, dosing high levels of anions reduce the toxic effects of excess heavy metals cations that are essential in minute quantities (but very toxic at higher concentrations, e.g. 1ppb of Cu is toxic to many life forms, including algae and crustaceans.)
> 
> Dosing excessive PO4 also increases the likelihood of metal precipitation, rendering them inert and non-toxic. It also helps alleviate toxic metal stress once plants have absorbed metal cations.
> 
> Dosing high levels of NO3 and PO4 anions also helps improve nutrient balance between the macros and the micros, especially more so if micros are excessively high as occurs when dosing EI levels of micros.
> 
> So is it typically necessary to dose such high concentrations of anions even though plants don't ever use so much? No, unless you are dosing excessively high concentrations of micros and need a way to neutralize or balance that toxicity. FYI: hydroponics use only a minute fraction of the traces needed to grow food crops, yet EI suggests dosing far in excess of what even these terrestrial crops require for fast and healthy growth. Logic should dictate an error in this approach.


Excellent explanation Solcielo lawrencia.


----------



## Edward

Hoppy said:


> If you started the day with 1 ppm of NO3 in the tank water, would the plants drop that to zero by the end of the day?


Of course not, the levels never drop to zero, that’s a crazy myth about it. 
The water column levels remain stable at 5 – 10 ppm NO3 and 0.1 – 1 ppm PO4. The plants take only what they want and leave the rest. 



> Would that be true if you had one anubias in a 40 gallon tank vs. one H. polysperma in a 10 gallon tank? Or, 25 in each tank?
> 
> And, the same for the others you mentioned.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to grasp the difference between micrograms of NO3 consumed by a plant vs. ppm in the water. Clearly if a single plant can empty the water of a nutrient in a 40 gallon tank, then that plant would be consuming a lot more than it would be in a 10 gallon tank. I see the nutrient requirements as two pronged - concentration, which determines if the plant can access the nutrient, and total amount of nutrient available, which determines how much plant growth is possible. (But, my mental picture of the process may not be right.)


I think this is why I mentioned the light energy (100 and 200 PAR). There was no more space to put plants, couldn’t see the substrate nor the glass. And, all plants were fast growing stems.


----------



## Hoppy

Edward said:


> Of course not, the levels never drop to zero, that’s a crazy myth about it.
> The water column levels remain stable at 5 – 10 ppm NO3 and 0.1 – 1 ppm PO4. The plants take only what they want and leave the rest.
> 
> 
> I think this is why I mentioned the light energy (100 and 200 PAR). There was no more space to put plants, couldn’t see the substrate nor the glass. And, all plants were fast growing stems.


Logic says the more plants you have and the more light you use, the more ferts you need to dose every day. So, if I understand you, you recommend starting with the water at 5-10 ppm NO3 and .1-1 ppm of PO4, then dosing an additional 1 ppm per day of NO3 and .1 ppm per day of PO4. And, this would only apply to heavily planted, high light tanks. 

How would you reduce that for a low medium light tank, semi-heavily planted? I assume you would still start at the same concentration, but dose less per day or less often.


----------



## Audionut

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> FYI: hydroponics use only a minute fraction of the traces needed to grow food crops, yet EI suggests dosing far in excess of what even these terrestrial crops require for fast and healthy growth. Logic should dictate an error in this approach.



A little bit of an exaggeration there, but in any case to help visualize this, the follow graphs show the concentration of the various elements in Hoagland solution, vs accumulated full EI dosing with CSM+B. EI in red.





One could probably argue that there is a slight imbalance.


----------



## Edward

Hoppy said:


> Logic says the more plants you have and the more light you use, the more ferts you need to dose every day. So, if I understand you, you recommend starting with the water at 5-10 ppm NO3 and .1-1 ppm of PO4, then dosing an additional 1 ppm per day of NO3 and .1 ppm per day of PO4. And, this would only apply to heavily planted, high light tanks.
> 
> How would you reduce that for a low medium light tank, semi-heavily planted? I assume you would still start at the same concentration, but dose less per day or less often.



We all know new setups are challenging. Plants always need time to adapt to new conditions. You know what I mean. 

To begin, aquarium water can start at any nutrient levels. Then we start dosing daily PPS-Pro solution #1 at 2 ml / 10 gallon and PPS-Pro #2 (Trace elements) at 1/10 of the recommended 1 ml / 10 gallon for about four weeks to let the plants to adapt. (2 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4, 2.66 ppm K, 0.01 ppm Fe)

During this time and in to the future we need to switch from test kits to conductivity readings. This is easier, cheaper, faster and more accurate to overall living condition. Everything in an aquarium, alive or not, has some relationship to conductivity. (https://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/tds-meter)

The way it is done is to maintain consistent levels of pollutants, like fertilizers, substrate leaks, fish waste, decoration leaks and other with water changes. Some setups involve large water changes at times, and some more balanced, not so much. That’s the beauty. Plants and fish love consistency. 

For example, when your tap is 300 µS, one PPS-Pro daily fertilizer dose is 6µS. This one dose is 1 ppm of NO3. So to limit the NO3 to 15 ppm we need to make sure the conductivity reading is kept under (6 x 15) + 300 = 390 µS. This is so easy. 

After the four weeks we start dosing daily PPS-Pro solution #1 at 1 ml / 10 gallon and PPS-Pro #2 (Trace elements) at 1/10 of the recommended 1 ml / 10 gallon and follow the conductivity TDS readings for water changes. Yes, no more test kits. (1 ppm NO3, 0.1 ppm PO4, 1.33 ppm K, 0.01 ppm Fe)

If you feel like needing more fertilizer then there is no problem to dose more ml of the PPS-Pro solutions. The conductivity reading will take care of it and balance it out. 

And, no need to use GH Booster. It is not needed with tap.


----------



## Audionut

@Edward


> Now the question is, why some people use levels like 45 ppm NO3 or 15 ppm PO4? Is it really necessary?


While not the intent of the thread, http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...nutritional-requirements-aquarium-plants.html shows that increased nutrient concentration in the water leads to greater plant mass.




dukydaf said:


> But what is the point to try and destroy bacteria that is not noxious, not affecting the esthetics and will regenerate. It is a losing battle and more maintenance then I like given the results than can be obtained with NO3.





Audionut said:


> The issue is, that not all of the N as NH4 is available to the plants, some of it is transformed by nitrifying bacteria into NO3, which then must be denitrified by the plants back into NH4, requiring energy to do so. Without nitrifying bacteria, I would have no loss of NH4 to NO3, and hence, I could add significantly less NH4 to maintain the highly available (low energy requirement for use) form of N. Oh, and of course, with no NO3 dosing or nitrification of NH4 > NO3, NO3 concentration would be 0 ppm. Efficiency.................
> It wasn't the increased NO3 concentration that facilitated that increased growth of the stem plants. The NO3 being nothing more then a byproduct of an unwanted biological process. It's the increased availability of more efficient forms of N that is the interesting part. I facilitate this availability by destroying some part of the nitrifying bacteria colony. Give or take, NO3 concentration remains the same as lower doses of N, through the process of water changes and destruction of nitrifying bacteria, but plant growth increases significantly.....................Since some part of the learning process in this system also means the reduction of manual tasks to support it, the constant removal of nitrifying bacteria goes against this standard. So I need to find that balancing act between available N, for my own personal needs and desires regarding growth, and the concentration of an unwanted byproduct (NO3).






dukydaf said:


> For example, from night to day we double or more the concentration of CO2 (via injection).


Yes, people do. And why do they do that? Is it because the fluctuations outside of the photoperiod don't matter, or just because any fluctuations don't matter?

When plants only consume this specific nutrient during the photoperiod, what happens with this specific nutrient outside of the photoperiod is of little consequence. T. Barr explains it better then I could currently, @burr740 linked this explanation earlier.


----------



## dru

houseofcards said:


> Just so I understand you believe that the dosing of inorganic salts like NPK is the same as letting organics breakdown in a tank and not being either consumed by plants, biofilter or removed by water changes or media. You think the side effects to the aquarium would be one in the same?


I am trying to discern your stance on this issue since you are speaking with authority, touting your experience as proof of what you are saying is the absolute truth. If algae is simply a result of decaying organic material in the tank then why would any new setup suffer from algae? 

Fresh substrate / filter media / new healthy plants - but algae (including but not limited to diatoms and BGA) can develop and persist. Even as plants have acclimated and are thriving in a new setup, algae can pop up almost out of nowhere. 

Wouldn't algae only emerge over time as decaying organic matter in the tank increases and is not / cannot be removed with maintenance? And wouldn't mature tanks be affected the most? If this was true older tanks would become increasingly difficult to maintain algae-free as time progresses when the opposite is what is actually observed. 

From personal experience, the tanks I have tried to keep pristine - with frequent, large (50%+) water changes, EI dosing to the letter, cleaning the filters / tubing monthly, and hours of in-tank maintenance have suffered the most frequent and persistent algae outbreaks. Backing off the maintenance and modifying the dosing (EI to pps) has completely turned these tanks around. Light and co2 have remained consistent, and organic matter has increased. This ended my experiment with EI dosing. 

I feel that is important to offer a counter experience to your claims in case someone is reading your words and internalizing their own failures. The solution isn't always more frequent water changes or more thorough maintenance.


----------



## blinky2088

One thing ive notiveced from this thread is when we attempt to compare nature to our own aquariums.

Where the Amazon River is found to have 1 ppm of nitrate however doesnt really effect plant growth as the river is in constant supply for plant growth (page 7). Yet we dose much larger doses in EI as to not limit the plants.

Would it therefore make more sense to dose less amount of ferts more frequently while attempting to avoid percipitation, and toxicity.

With equipment advances such as timers and dosing pumps etc it is easier now than having to manually do this.

Another thing that has come to mind if high cec substrate fills up would it therefore be beneficial to add fresh cec substrate periodically to keep as a safety backup system. Ie if overload of ei is filled in the substrate overtime and becomes toxic then the fresh cec substrate can assist pulling excess from water column. As oppose to having to replace substrate completely.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## dukydaf

Audionut said:


> Ouch. NO3 as an inorganic salt doesn't come by itself, it is always attached to a cation. The weight of the attached cation determines the amount of NO3 added with each dose of the substance.
> …
> You shouldn't need a calculator to understand that two times 13.85 doesn't equal 46.646.


Thanks for the added infor. However, what I have written is correct. The amount of NO3 added to a water volume should be double that of urea in order to achieve a similar N concentration. There is a reason I did not say KNO3, Ca(NO3)2, Mg(NO3)2 or whatever salt … If you use one or mix them, your choice.. still end up with X mg of NO3. I find it easy to figure out the different mass percent NO3 for each salt.
Obviously nobody will dose 2 grams KNO3 and expect it to add 2grams NO3, just like 1g urea would not add 1g N. The correct calculation would be:
2 * 0.225897 (proportion of N in NO3) = aprox. 0.46646
If you want the exact SALT amount to get the same ppm of N as 1g urea you will need:
3.365g KNO3
2.732g Ca(NO3)2
2.4697g Mg(NO3)2

I was referring to your statement :


Audionut said:


> This further reinforces that it's not simply the absolute value of the concentration of the nutrients that causes issues, but rather, the speed with which these changes are made.


I provided several examples where the rate of change does not create any issues. In most cases, it does not matter when I raise PO4 from 0.2(lowest) to 4ppm (20x). No plants will melt if I do it during the photoperiod, after, in one minute, one hour or 12h . However, I believe most will benefit having the 4ppm from the start. What Tom Barr explains is absolutely logical for CO2, actually I try to raise my CO2 as fast as possible. Does P or N uptake takes place only during the photoperiod ?



Audionut said:


> Missing the point has extended both ways. I was attempting to answer a simple claim in a simple manner.


The issue of nutrients and organic substances is not simple and cannot be solved in a simple manner. Detailed considerations need to be made if we want to derive a valid conclusion, even more so if we want to generalize our conclusion to other aquaria. 


blinky2088 said:


> One thing ive notiveced from this thread is when we attempt to compare nature to our own aquariums.
> Where the Amazon River is found to have 1 ppm of nitrate however doesnt really effect plant growth as the river is in constant supply for plant growth (page 7). Yet we dose much larger doses in EI as to not limit the plants.


It is my strong opinion that we need to stop such a comparison. To begin with, fauna and flora are not offered perfect growth conditions in nature except for a very limited time (if any). In addition, we cannot, nor do we wish, to provide all the natural complexities of the ecosystem in our aquariums. I really do not want to leave some random dead fish in the aquarium to provide N , C, P etc , nor do I care for a layer of mulm on plant leaves. I dare you to try and stratify your Livingroom tank to simulate summer and wintertime stratification that leads to clear water in some ponds. What about meter long patches of one single plant sp., how many fit in a normal aquarium ? We can learn somethings from natural ecosystem observation, but experiments have their place.


----------



## dukydaf

dru said:


> If algae is simply a result of decaying organic material in the tank then why would any new setup suffer from algae?
> Fresh substrate / filter media / new healthy plants - but algae (including but not limited to diatoms and BGA) can develop and persist. Even as plants have acclimated and are thriving in a new setup, algae can pop up almost out of nowhere.


Interesting points. As others stated, algae does not have a single point of origin. There is a multifactorial equation behind the existence of algae in an aquarium. Organic substances are one factor that may have a higher impact coefficient. 
From my experience, problems with algae start to appear at around 2 weeks in the life of the aquarium…. Maybe the bacterial population becomes established at that point and enough organics accumulate. In this new environment there is also a fast succession of first (bacterial) colonizers, which grow and die (release organics) very fast. In the following months these bacteria are replaced by more stable populations. 
It is also the case that some algae are observed after fish are added to a setup, sudden increase in organics. For example, if I induce increase in organics ( eg plant trim, plant damage) without cleanup or wc , bba bloom is sure to follow (bba was already present in small amount)
To complicate things further, as your righty point out, there are many different algae, some do indeed appear faster than 2 weeks under certain conditions. BGA profits from its ability to grow in NO3/NH3 poor waters ( typical for some new tanks). Diatoms are also observed in nutrient poor , high silica waters. Green water, another starting algae, seems to occur in high NH4, using all nutrients and then crashing. As you see, there are some factors that seem to tip the balance towards one algae type or another. Organics may be one of the factors for BBA, hair , GDA….






Edward said:


> During this time and in to the future we need to switch from test kits to conductivity readings. This is easier, cheaper, faster and more accurate to overall living condition. Everything in an aquarium, alive or not, has some relationship to conductivity. (https://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/tds-meter)
> 
> The way it is done is to maintain consistent levels of pollutants, like fertilizers, substrate leaks, fish waste, decoration leaks and other with water changes... Plants and fish love consistency.
> 
> For example, when your tap is 300 µS, one PPS-Pro daily fertilizer dose is 6µS. This one dose is 1 ppm of NO3. So to limit the NO3 to 15 ppm we need to make sure the conductivity reading is kept under (6 x 15) + 300 = 390 µS. This is so easy.
> And, no need to use GH Booster. It is not needed with tap.


I like the thinking process behind PPS-Pro and for large aquariums or areas with water restrictions this is a good method.

However, not so easy nor so simple. It is made seem simple by ignoring/misstating certain facts. Some organic molecules have 0 impact on conductivity. Conductivity is a good measure when working with electrolytes. 

In addition, rock and substrate interactions can affect the conductivity of the water. To use your example, rock leaks Ca2+ and the conductivity in now raised above 410 µS. Does this mean we have more than 15ppm NO3? It actually tells us nothing about the conc. of NO3. Say we have a nice Montmorillonite substrate under basic conditions and a (real) NO3 of 40ppm. Ca2+ decreases, conductivity decreases down to 300. Oh, it must mean all our PPS-Pro dose was used. Conductivity measurement is great but it never ever replaces the specific test, no matter the calculations. Interactions between substrate, fish waste, rock and water are not consistent over time. 

Even with daily dosing, you do not have consistency in the aquarium. I would rephrase it to plants and fish love the correct parameters. Fish that start spawning when conductivity abruptly drops are not actually very sad. What about plants that flower when P is increased ?
Dosing additional Mg and Ca is not needed with most taps, UNLESS you have very soft water or your GH is made out of Ca only or you have a high performance water softener. 

So not so simple. PPS-Pro is a good starting point for running suitable nutrients without the big weekly wc, it is just more tricky to get and keep right than EI.




Marcel G said:


> c) By calculation I have found out that for producing 450 grams of fresh weight the plants consumed 642 mg NO3, 58 mg PO4, and 262 mg K in 100 days. Converted to 60L tank volume, this means that the actual uptake rate of these plants was about 12 ppm NO3, 1.1 ppm PO4, and 5.0 ppm K per week.
> 
> ....
> So we should differenciate between these two things: external concentration of nutrients vs. uptake rate (and also between 'minimum external concentration of nutrients needed for maximum growth rate' vs. 'minimum uptake rate needed for maximum growth rate' vs. 'actual uptake rate').



Bravo @Marcel G . A very good explanation of some complicated concepts. I would like to humbly add some points. 

The (amount of ) elements that are present in the plants at the time of the measurement may not be all that is required by a plant to function. Like any organism, plants use some molecules /elements available in the environment as carriers. They also secrete organic substances/biproducts. Thus the C or N requirements might be higher because the plants loose some of it via ex/secreted molecules. As others who documented these molecules stated, some of them are returned to plant nutrients other are lost to the aquatic plants. A close to home example (with a bit of a stretch) would be the % of O in the human body is not the ppm of O2 that we need in the air in order to survive. 

Thus the dry tissue analysis, although widely used, only serves as a ball-park, not the exact amount, composition or proportions of elements that the plant prefers.

A second point I would like to make is that most plants have a nutrient storage already with them when we subject them to different nutrient regimes. For some trace elements these storages might last very long in some plants. If the growth rate is slowed enough the plant can even survive in RO water for some months (years ?). This further complicates things when we talk about minimum nutrient level.
Food for though. Cheers.


----------



## Edward

dukydaf said:


> I like the thinking process behind PPS-Pro and for large aquariums or areas with water restrictions this is a good method.


 What water restrictions? Some aquariums, based on conductivity readings need little water changes and some need massive water changes based on contaminations invisible to test kits. 

Anyway, there is a value in water that has been filtered by plants. We think of tap water as the most brilliant and clean water there is, but plants don’t. For plants tap water is a polluted soup needing hard work. 



> However, not so easy nor so simple. It is made seem simple by ignoring/misstating certain facts. Some organic molecules have 0 impact on conductivity. Conductivity is a good measure when working with electrolytes.


 True, however, when zero impact organic molecules are present, there are also other substances present that are making it visible on the conductivity scale. This will trigger a water change. 



> In addition, rock and substrate interactions can affect the conductivity of the water. To use your example, rock leaks Ca2+ and the conductivity in now raised above 410 µS. Does this mean we have more than 15ppm NO3?


 Are you suggesting that rocks and substrate leakage increasing conductivity through the roof is a good thing? I don’t. I think maintaining it with the help of conductivity readings will keep water more pure or at least at the same level without further deterioration. I could say less soupy. 



> It actually tells us nothing about the conc. of NO3.


 The mentioning of NO3 was used to describe one dose of the fertilizing package. 



> Say we have a nice Montmorillonite substrate under basic conditions and a (real) NO3 of 40ppm. Ca2+ decreases, conductivity decreases down to 300. Oh, it must mean all our PPS-Pro dose was used.


 Great, keep regular dosing until the substrate becomes saturated and then you get an indication in increased conductivity that the substrate is at its limits. 



> Conductivity measurement is great but it never ever replaces the specific test, no matter the calculations. Interactions between substrate, fish waste, rock and water are not consistent over time.


 True, but I am looking for the easiest way to have a beautiful living room display with the least amount of work. 



> Even with daily dosing, you do not have consistency in the aquarium.


 Still more consistent than weekly spooning.



> I would rephrase it to plants and fish love the correct parameters. Fish that start spawning when conductivity abruptly drops are not actually very sad.


 This is so sixties.



> What about plants that flower when P is increased ?


 … really?



> Dosing additional Mg and Ca is not needed with most taps, UNLESS you have very soft water or your GH is made out of Ca only or you have a high performance water softener.


 Very soft water poses no problems to most aquatic plants. Actually they are doing better in softer water. When your GH is made out of Ca only is no problem neither because PPS-Pro comes with Mg. And, as you suggested “high performance water softener”, almost everybody knows today, not to use it for aquatic plants.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## dukydaf

Edward, I am glad we agree that NOT ‘everything in an aquarium, alive or not has some relationship to conductivity’ and that many asterisks are needed in something as easy and simple as PPS-Pro.

I will try to restate my view on deciding when and how much fertilizers to add based on conductivity. I do so because I find it important for the members here to understand the weaknesses of this method.
For our purposes, conductivity acts as a sum. The value of the sum tells us nothing about the proportion or existence of the making parts. For simplicity say 

conductivity= [water baseline]+[nutrient added]-[plant uptake]+[plant secretions]+[dissolved rock]-[substrate uptake]+[substrate leakage]+[last feeding]+[…] 

The same sum value (conductivity) can be obtained by different mixes of the factors. Starting with the same solution, after a time you can have the exact same conductivity with 
-	the ideal amount of nutrients in the solution 
 -	no nutrients left in the solution
-	too much of all or one nutrient left in solution

There is no way to differentiate between the situations based on conductivity alone. Thus one should not decide when and how much to dose based on conductivity. 



Edward said:


> When your GH is made out of Ca only is no problem neither because PPS-Pro comes with Mg.


0.1 ppm daily Mg to be exact. Under certain conditions, some plants will run into Mg deficiency if no baseline Mg was provided.



Edward said:


> Great, keep regular dosing until the substrate becomes saturated and then you get an indication in increased conductivity that the substrate is at its limits.


Continuing to dose -NO3 will do nothing to saturate the CEC of the substrate. Wish you luck in trying to do it ( hint: There is a reason why ADA AS leaks NH4+ and not -NO3). 

Furthermore, substrate ‘saturation’ is not a single fixed event in the substrate lifetime. Plants will take away needed nutrients. Even during a day, the substrate might release cations (like Ca2+,Mg2+, Na+) depending on the pH of the surrounding solution. The impact of the substrate on conductivity varies all the time. You will need constant tweaking to get consistent nutrient levels. Blindly de/increasing your dosing to hit a target conductivity is not the way to go.
x
@Marcel G Thanks for the input. So the plants act as a stable colonized surface (though invisible to the naked eye) to seed the rest of the disturbed ecosystem. Can't wait for summer to run some experiments on this. Most of us would ‘reset’ the systems to a lesser degree than the experiment you are running. Algae eaters certainly have a role to play in applying top-down pressure on algae. I am now wondering if instead of the big ‘reset’ ( bleaching tanks and equipment), would it not be easier to handhold the aquarium during the initial 2-3 wk algae bloom ? Then work on algae growth management instead of algae eradication. Easy to say, hard to do.


----------



## Audionut

@dukydaf Quote function not working on the post I want to quote.



> What I have written is correct.


You can't physically weigh anions, because they precipitate with cations. So you either have the weight of the salt (cation+anion), or the measurement of just an anion (in a solution) as mmol/L, ppm, mg/L.

Then you try and compare the weight of a salt (Urea), with the weight of an anion in a solution. 



> Obviously nobody will


Nothing is ever obvious to everyone!



> In most cases, it does not matter when I raise PO4 from 0.2(lowest) to 4ppm (20x). No plants will melt if I do it during the photoperiod, after, in one minute, one hour or 12h .


What do plants have to do with anything? If the thread title was "High nutrients promote plant growth and don't make them melt", that would be rather pointless..............right?



> The issue of nutrients and organic substances is not simple and cannot be solved in a simple manner. Detailed considerations need to be made if we want to derive a valid conclusion, even more so if we want to generalize our conclusion to other aquaria.


Absolutely. I agree 100%. That was sort of the point I was trying to make too, and the point I was trying to reinforce when I asked you on more then one occasion to consider the context of the original discussion.

You're barking up the wrong tree.



> If you manage to involve others in the discussion, and keep it relevant and meaningful, I'm likely to jump back in at some stage. Cheers.


----------



## dukydaf

To keep the thread on topic, I will stop my discussion on how much urea adds the same N as 2g NO3 with this post. I believe members who wanted to understand, did so already. If not PM. 



Audionut said:


> You can't physically weigh anions,


True. But at the same time we have the mass percent, so we know that 1g KNO3 has 0.613g NO3. No need to physically separate the NO3 from the K to know that.
Somewhere in the 6th grade, I learned that mass concentration is given by:
Conc. = mass solute / Volume solution ( mg/L )
So we are talking about a MASS of NO3 dissolved in a Volume of solution.



Audionut said:


> Then you try and compare the weight of a salt (Urea), with the weight of an anion in a solution.


If you read my posts again, you will see I never said that you need to weigh 2g of NO3. What I did say is that 1g urea will add the same conc of N to water as 2g NO3. In this aspect they are comparable. With respect to resulting N ppm , would you say the following is false ?

1mg urea/1L= 3.365mg KNO3/1L = 2.732mg Ca(NO3)2/1L = 2.06mg NO3/1L = 1.53mg NO2/1L = 0.46646mg N /1L

Add that mass of solute to the same water volume and you will get a similar N ppm. I am just reporting different substances' ppms .



Audionut said:


> This further reinforces that it's not simply the absolute value of the concentration of the nutrients that causes issues, but rather, the speed with which these changes are made.





Audionut said:


> What do plants have to do with anything? If the thread title was "High nutrients promote plant growth and don't make them melt", that would be rather pointless..............right?


You mean apart from being in the name of the forum and being part of the aquatic life (term included in the thread title ) ? You mentioned the rate of change ‘ causes issues ’. The examples offered earlier show no issues in plants or algae linked to the rate of change. Wrong concertations on the other hand …

Now what happens in those 2 weeks that we get the algae bloom ? That is a question worth pursuing.


----------



## Edward

Hi Marcel
In your post #251 you are talking about nutrient consumption and requirements of aquatic plants and other details related to the topic. Very nicely done, I support your research hundred percent.

Nevertheless, I am still not sure what your final target is. Conducting dry plant tissue analysis to establish guidelines for minimum growth, maximum uptake, maximum growth, and minimal nutrient uptake needed for maximum growth rate or what not. I am not sure.

My goal is made of three parts, Input - Output - Product. 
Input - fertilizer
Output - conductivity
Product – algae resistant healthy plants


Anyway, what you could also focus on are two very fascinating issues, allelopathy and luxury uptake. 

When conditions like water column concentrations, temperature, light energy and so on change, plant health deteriorate and algae attack follow. After adaptation period plant health improves and algae start dying off of plant surface. To take this further, in the presence of unhealthy plants algae start growing on other surfaces then plants. When these plants start becoming healthy, algae start dying off of the other surfaces. 

How come? What is the mechanism? My explanation with the plant surface is to look at house plants that are not fertilized and compare them to fertilized plants. The first significant difference is the waxy looking glossy leaves on the fertilized plants. Non fertilized leaves are dull. The waxy looking surface is resistant to attacks. The same I see on aquatic plants. Healthy plants have shiny looking leaves, unhealthy leaves are dull. This protective layer is a part of why healthy plants resist algae.

But what about algae growing or dying on other than plant surfaces? As I described above, algae is dying on other surfaces in the presence of healthy plants. For this to happen, algae and plants must communicate. Do they email each other? 

No, they communicate by Allelopathy sending chemicals called allelochemicals. 

Edward


----------



## Hoppy

Edward said:


> No, they communicate by Allelopathy sending chemicals called allelochemicals.
> 
> Edward


Given the number of people and companies working on aquarium products, isn't it strange that Dupla, for example, hasn't isolated the appropriate allelochemicals and bottled them for sale to fight algae? Has anyone even identified potential allelochemicals? The last time I searched for anything to indicate that they had was several years ago. I may spend some time looking again.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Edward said:


> Anyway, what you could also focus on are two very fascinating issues, allelopathy and luxury uptake.


Brought this up before and got beat on by many.


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic*

_Deleted: Off-topic post._


----------



## Edward

Marcel G said:


> Hi Edward, we are really off-topic here, as your question pertains to my other thread concerning "Nutritional requirements of aquarium plants".


 I am sorry I know, but look at it, both threads have around 250 posts each and are pretty much mixed up. We should just reference them both together at this point.



> As far as allelopathy ... about a week ago one friend have told me his story about allelopathy experience in his tank. He has an extremely sensitive skin, and when he puts his hand into his tank, his skin turns red ... but only when he has some kind of plants in there (I don't remember which ones). He has also observed that when he's doing 80-90% water changes in his tank, he gets algae, but when he's doing only 30-50% water changes there are no algae. Although these are just subjective observations, this topic is interesting and I may get into it ... sometimes. Remember I am just one ordinary man with family, work, house, and not much money, so in about ten years later I may give you some results on allelopathy testing. But not now. I'm sorry.


 There is no surprise to me, plants are powerful chemical factories. People should think about it when drinking tea, see herb medication store or think about poisonous plants. 



> … I just want to find out some solid data about things most hobbyists are only speculating of. We are talking so much about what amount of this or that should we add to our tanks, and what light or how much CO2 to use for good plant growth.


 I think, finding an “Optimum (effective) concentration of nutrients” as you said, includes a range. This range on the low side where plants start being healthy is what I described above. Plant health starts with the ability to have enough resources to build a protective mechanism. This protective mechanism is the “waxy” looking protection and production of defensive chemicals. Growth alone is not the complete picture. This is why I posted about Allelopathy. 

Edward


----------



## Chlorophile

Hoppy said:


> Given the number of people and companies working on aquarium products, isn't it strange that Dupla, for example, hasn't isolated the appropriate allelochemicals and bottled them for sale to fight algae? Has anyone even identified potential allelochemicals? The last time I searched for anything to indicate that they had was several years ago. I may spend some time looking again.


Even in the FAR more researched land plants - we find a bare minimum of allelopathic compounds in plants..
And guess what they hurt? Other plants. 
You can take that two ways - either we haven't even touched the surface on detecting algae damaging allelopathic chems, or the vast majority of allelopathic compounds damage land plants only, and there may not have been a requirement for aquatic plants to produce similar compounds given the dilutions the compounds would face.
edit: quoted you cause it was relevant not cause im disagreeing


----------



## 58417

*Off-topic posts*

Deleted


----------



## houseofcards

Marcel G said:


> There are so many posts off-topic in this thread that I decided to lead by example and delete all my posts here that were off-topic.
> 
> I don't know how moderators work here, but it would be definitely better if they apply more control over the threads.
> 
> I would like to ask others to do the same (i.e. delete all their posts that are clearly off-topic here), so that we can stay away from personal attacks, sarcasm, and other off-topic subjects.
> If there is some interesting information in your off-topic post you can move it into appropriate thread that deals with your topic (e.g. allelopathy).
> 
> _Is the moderators' concern to have here fiery discussions (although mostly off-topic) or to have on-topic posts that make the threads clear, well-arranged, and full of appropriate info?_


I think that's all very good, but I think you set yourself up for some of the responses you received by naming the thread* "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life"*

There are so many here that use EI or dose in excess and have done for years without issue to flora and fauna. Anyone fairly new to the forum might also take that the wrong way. I didn't take it that way in fact I agree with the title if the high nutrients are coming from decaying organic matter left in the water column that is simply to much for that particular setup to deal with.


----------



## roadmaster

All this thread was in my view ,was a not too thinly veiled attack on EI method along with it's creator, and those who use the method .
Appear's to be genuine concern/ frustration that all hobbyist's do not immediately abandon this particular method/principal's, and adopt more scientifically controlled method of supplying only what plant's need for any given day/week.
As plant mass increases,the content would then need to be adjusted upward so as not to limit plant's too much .(In my view)
Perform a big trim ,and again the nutrient content would need to be adjusted downward to prevent toxicity issues.(whatever number that is).
Don't believe it realistic to think that most folk's want to attempt to thread the needle,or take such a scientific approach when supplying nutrient's when new to the hobby.
Initial post's indicated an interest in argument's presented for and against a particular method, and it appear's that desired effect's were achieved.
Cannot in my view, feign wonderment that thing's get heated or perceived to be off topic when not all agree with either side's view, and where no so thinly veiled attacks on ones intelligence or lack thereof, are lobbed about.
The hope was that through argument ,the sinner's would repent and come into the realization of their unscientific way's . 
But this is easier to hope for I think, than what may be desired.
Clearly the science presented takes a fair bit of intelligence by those who present it that way.
Clearly they are intelligent enough to realize fairly quickly the difficulty in getting the masses in agreement.
With this intelligence clearly evident,,then it becomes more difficult to not view the whole exercise/thread as a less than intelligent attempt at discrediting one method, while hoping to shame other's into submission (they should be smarter).
Some of us may be smarter than other's figured on.
Just sayin.


----------



## klibs

roadmaster said:


> All this thread was in my view ,was a not too thinly veiled attack on EI method along with it's creator, and those who use the method .
> Appear's to be genuine concern/ frustration that all hobbyist's do not immediately abandon this particular method/principal's, and adopt more scientifically controlled method of supplying only what plant's need for any given day/week.
> As plant mass increases,the content would then need to be adjusted upward so as not to limit plant's too much .(In my view)
> Perform a big trim ,and again the nutrient content would need to be adjusted downward to prevent toxicity issues.(whatever number that is).
> Don't believe it realistic to think that most folk's want to attempt to thread the needle,or take such a scientific approach when supplying nutrient's when new to the hobby.
> Initial post's indicated an interest in argument's presented for and against a particular method, and it appear's that desired effect's were achieved.
> Cannot in my view, feign wonderment that thing's get heated or perceived to be off topic when not all agree with either side's view, and where no so thinly veiled attacks on ones intelligence or lack thereof, are lobbed about.
> The hope was that through argument ,the sinner's would repent and come into the realization of their unscientific way's .
> But this is easier to hope for I think, than what may be desired.
> Clearly the science presented takes a fair bit of intelligence by those who present it that way.
> Clearly they are intelligent enough to realize fairly quickly the difficulty in getting the masses in agreement.
> With this intelligence clearly evident,,then it becomes more difficult to not view the whole exercise/thread as a less than intelligent attempt at discrediting one method, while hoping to shame other's into submission (they should be smarter).
> Some of us may be smarter than other's figured on.
> Just sayin.


My thoughts exactly... Very well put - this conveys how I have felt about this argument all along.

The first part about taking a reasonable approach seems to be the best way to approach planted tanks IMO. Once one understands the basics of how things 'work' (higher plant mass yields the need for higher nutrients, higher light drives things, algae prevention through moderation of light / nutrients, etc) then they should be able to see success in this hobby.

The definition of what that 'success' is clearly varied by many posters in this topic. Do we strive for perfect tanks with 100% healthy plants, 0 algae, perfect fish balance? Or do we just want a tank that looks pretty good and has healthy plants and a tad of algae every once in a while?

I completely agree that getting so in depth to the exact science of it is truly 'threading the needle' and striving for perfection that frankly is not necessary or relevant to 99% of hobbyists. Having a baseline guide on where to start dosing is much more practical for the vast majority of people who come to this forum for information. And IMO I agree that EI is far more than is needed by the majority of high tech tanks. Even more so - understanding the basic principals of how to balance a tank with light, CO2, plant mass, fish, filtration, nutrients, etc and understanding of the relationships between these factors is paramount to success.

I think that this post is correct in saying that this thread is a pretty obvious 'attack on EI' and many are claiming that you are basically 'doing it wrong' if you have adopted those principles. While I certainly appreciate reading behind the science that people are contributing I will be the first to admit that I simply do not have the chemistry background to understand a lot of what is going on. 

It would be much much easier for myself to take a more scientific approach to my own tank if accurate test kits for all of these variables were accessible. I am not looking to spend a fortune on test kits for K, Mg, Ca, Fe, etc... It would be great if I could test these levels independently in my own tank over time and tailor a dosing solution to what I am seeing. It is extremely difficult to make assumptions on what I may have too much / too little of in my tank purely by the appearance of my plants / what algae I am seeing.


----------



## Hoppy

My initial reaction to this was much the same as roadmaster and klibs, but I decided to instead treat this as a incentive to spend more time thinking about fertilizing. For several years I have just used the dosing tables, reducing the amounts dosed because I'm using less than high light. I'm now modifying how I'm going to dose as I get my aquascape "refurbished", with some new plants I haven't tried before. See http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...fertilizing-65-gal-low-medium-light-tank.html This is more fun than engaging in futile arguments about the "best" way to fertilize.


----------



## Audionut

It takes two to tango.


----------



## Hoppy

Audionut said:


> It takes two to tango.


I find the polka works so much better.:laugh2:


----------



## dukydaf

*Why delete data*

This post editing/deleting reminds me of a bad PR move Tom did when leaving /being kicked from Aquatic Plant Central. Yeah the ol’days when that forum still had a kick …
Some of the edits make me smile:

 

I bet it felt good to delete wrong expectations :grin2:, however we should be more careful with the value of science :surprise:



While I can understand Marcel’s frustrations and I respect his right to take his toys and leave, I find editing old posts to be antisocial and destructive for this forum. Again, this is a forum, the format of the information is presented here is different from a blog, a lecture or a scientific debate. I understand that the format is not what Marcel wanted but I do not agree with removing observations and opinions from the public/ historic record (maybe if they were based on proven falsified data). 

The data he provided is interesting and maybe useful references for further experiments, I see no point in removing the posts. Opinions and subjective observations (off topic or not ) while of varying quality are still interesting to read and bring new views on some subjects. 

Deleting /editing posts makes this thread a poor read. New readers might be interested in the subject and they would have benefited from a complete experience. It is not like editing the posts would make us forget what was said there. Maybe we should make a copy of every thread we find interesting, or maybe the admins can restore the posts from backup… till then Google cache to the rescue 

Of find a pdf of the pages from Google cache here

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0BAJ2vRjSRjUFBfczBqRVhmeDA


----------



## houseofcards

I agree with dukydaf. Try to picture someone new to planted tanks. They find TPT and stumble upon this thread as it reads now. I think they would buy a hamster instead


----------



## mike-guy

I just want to grow plants......


----------



## micheljq

While I did not agree myself with a lot of the opinions on this thread. I did read a lot of it, but not all. Marcel and others, did bring interesting data and opinions. He could have left what he wrote there. There was the part "toxicity to aquatic life" that i have found particularly interesting and informative.

I wanted to reread it later, because the thread is interesting, and who knows maybe I could have changed my mind in the end (or not, or on particular segments). This is lame.

Michel.


----------



## Audionut

@dukydaf



> You mean apart from being in the name of the forum and being part of the aquatic life (term included in the thread title ) ?


No. I mean that the original claim was that the rate of change plays a role in the ability of algae to grow En masse. You defy this claim with some general statement regarding what happens to plants when given an increase in P from one value to another. We know what happens to plants when P concentration is increased. You're anecdotal evidence isn't even related to the original claim. 




> You mentioned the rate of change ‘ causes issues ’. The examples offered earlier show no issues in plants or algae linked to the rate of change. Wrong concertations on the other hand …


Rather then continuing to debate your simple and general responses regarding the claim that the rate of change has a direct link to the ability of algae to thrive (or not), and listening to your retorts about the word plant being in the forum title.................since I know that you are a hell of a lot smarter then your recent responses to my posts seem to imply, I would ask politely that you science the sh*t out of it, and school me in this stuff.

Lets not waste anymore of each others time practicing our witty retorts.

Cheers.


----------



## Audionut

To help correlate some data I will perform a simple test. Various water samples placed in sun or complete darkness. 

These will be,


Aquarium water sample with ample nutrients placed in the sun
RO/DI water sealed from the atmosphere and placed in the sun
RO/DI water unsealed and open to the atmosphere placed in the sun
Aquarium water sample with ample nutrients placed in complete darkness
RO/DI water sealed from the atmosphere and placed in complete darkness

Expected results,


Optimal conditions for algae growth, largest growth of algae
No growth of algae
Little if any growth of algae
No growth of algae
No growth of algae

Why?

Light = growth, no light = no growth.
Higher nutrient levels facilitate algae growth.


When people understand that higher nutrient levels _facilitate_ algae growth, hopefully, they can then begin to understand what are the confounding factors that inhibit the growth of algae in their aquariums, given that their aquariums maintain good light and nutrient levels for algae growth. 

The really interesting part will be if the actual results do not match expected results.  I plan to start the test tomorrow and run for two weeks.


----------



## Edward

Audionut said:


> I plan to start the test tomorrow and run for two weeks.


 I think this test gets more interesting with time, I would do two months. The reason is algae stages adaptation time and following blooming phases.


----------



## Hoppy

Edward said:


> I think this test gets more interesting with time, I would do two months. The reason is algae stages adaptation time and following blooming phases.


The samples exposed to the air may get contaminants in them which may alter the results, the longer they are left out. Also, the water will be evaporating rapidly, concentrating the minerals in them.


----------



## Audionut

Test sample three should show that air + dust borne nutrients is enough to facilitate algae growth, while test sample two should show that without any source of nutrients, algae cannot grow, with test sample one showing that increased nutrient levels facilitates increased algae growth.

The only suitable containers I have are small, and will need to be topped up with their respective water sources due to evaporation.

Two weeks should be plenty of time to get the point across, although sample three may need more time for the nutrient levels to reach the required concentration.


----------



## houseofcards

Audionut said:


> Aquarium water sample with ample nutrients placed in the sun
> RO/DI water sealed from the atmosphere and placed in the sun
> RO/DI water unsealed and open to the atmosphere placed in the sun
> Aquarium water sample with ample nutrients placed in complete darkness
> RO/DI water sealed from the atmosphere and placed in complete darkness
> .


I have nothing against a good test, but I'm not getting how this is at all related to home aquaria. Your putting nutrients in the sun in 85F temps. I don't know to many people that have tanks in those conditions. Even if it was the nutrients you have nothing to counter their effects as people would have in their aquariums, so the whole idea of whether those same nutrients in an aquarium would cause algae are mute. You don't even have a representative test of an aquarium with minimum ferts and another test with excessive ferts to see the difference. You should also have a test with organic waste as opposed to NPK salts and see the difference between the three. 

Oh and there's no plants in your test, no bio-filter, no uptake and your using the sun to light a little container? None of it comes close to any parameter in an aquarium.


----------



## somewhatshocked

Please keep it friendly, folks. No need for insults.


----------



## Wasserpest

As the OP has deleted his posts, this thread has become difficult to follow. Discussions like this are helpful education for our forum members, and represent the value of boards like this. Resorting to personal attacks, general bickering, and deletion of content is against our rules. We are all here to learn, including the OP and the participants in this discussion. We may find that we said something incorrectly, and learn something in the process. Win/win.

I am going to lock the thread, restore the missing posts as much as possible, and leave it at that.


----------

