# Not seeing value in "megadosing" nutrients



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

If you're getting good growth, why change it? Anyway. If you're going to up your fertilizers, 2x is way to much. Why not 1.1x the amount and try that for a week or up to a month? Bigger doses in EI is supposed to alleviate any bottlenecks in terms of nutrients. 

Great looking tank by the way!


----------



## pauld738 (Jan 4, 2019)

Yeah, don't change if things are going good now!

Of course that will change. It's always changing. 

Really EI is just a starting point (just like PPS). You need to adjust to the conditions in your tank. With EI it's typically down, although not always. And you have "complicated" things by adding plant tabs. Although in my opinion that's a good complication.

Not sure how you are measuring co2 but if you categorize it with a range of 15-20 I would hazard a guess that is limiting your nutrient uptake. While your lighting is high which is probably why you see changes in algae growth when you bump up Ferts.

Nice looking tank! And awesome that you found the sweet spot on light, co2, Ferts.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I'm a relatively lean doser, inclined more toward the PPS camp than EI. You may want to study the PPS method to see how it blends with your approach (I'm not a root tab supporter)

Concerning the sudden algae surges, I would tend more to think that it is due to a destabilization issue rather than algae suddenly finding food to eat. Algae is triggered by ammonia(ium) and it takes very little to do it. Perhaps your sudden change in dosing is causing plants to reel back a little, leaving more ammonia on the table. I doubt that our test kits can read such a spike, but you may want to try to see if TAN jumps. If you're inclined to testing, you could also allow about two weeks to see if algae reverses at high dosing levels, after plants adapt.

However, again, I see no reason to do EI if you can do without.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Hi
Having a new setup for 5 weeks is not enough time to see what is working and what not. You will see changes in coming months. Aside from that, dosing daily 0.25 ppm Fe is a lot and it may start accumulating and cause problems later. The usual Fe dose is 0.05 ppm (0.01 – 0.10) a day.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> Hi
> Having a new setup for 5 weeks is not enough time to see what is working and what not. You will see changes in coming months. Aside from that, dosing daily 0.25 ppm Fe is a lot and it may start accumulating and cause problems later. The usual Fe dose is 0.05 ppm (0.01 – 0.10) a day.


Hey Edward good to see chime in. And I agree, five weeks is not long enough to come to many conclusions.

And 7 ppm NO3 and 2.1 ppm PO4 weekly is not that light. I'm at 10 NO3 and 3.5 PO4 and folks think I dose EI. Fact is very few blindly follow EI, and most dial in what works best in their particular tank and mix of plants.

Also agree with Edward that 1.75 weekly is far more Fe than any tank I know needs. Doubt you need that much K either, but who knows?

I will say tank is looking good. Expect a few bumps and bruises along the but it's a great start.

Keep the updates coming I look forward to following along.


----------



## monkeyruler90 (Apr 13, 2008)

if you dose higher ferts then it may mean that you should up the light and CO2 so the plants can uptake faster. since you're not changing those two factors then that's why the algae take over. If you up ferts, light intensity, and co2 then you'll get faster growing plants than you have now but should keep algae in check.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

*Can Seachem iron settle or otherwise go somewhere it can't be measured in the water?*



Edward said:


> Hi
> Having a new setup for 5 weeks is not enough time to see what is working and what not. You will see changes in coming months. Aside from that, dosing daily 0.25 ppm Fe is a lot and it may start accumulating and cause problems later. The usual Fe dose is 0.05 ppm (0.01 – 0.10) a day.





Greggz said:


> Hey Edward good to see chime in. And I agree, five weeks is not long enough to come to many conclusions.
> 
> And 7 ppm NO3 and 2.1 ppm PO4 weekly is not that light. I'm at 10 NO3 and 3.5 PO4 and folks think I dose EI. Fact is very few blindly follow EI, and most dial in what works best in their particular tank and mix of plants.
> 
> ...


Thank you, thank you for bringing up Fe! I was going to start a whole thread on that. Hopefully I get some replies on this. 

Yes I feel it is a lot of Fe. Here's the skinny. I test it every night and it shows 0ppm. I now have 5 different iron tests I am experimenting with including a Hanna HC (those little electronic color checker things you put the sample in) and they all confirm a 0ppm. I then dose Fe, re-test my water shortly after and sure enough, the tests then show iron in the water and very roughly around the ppm value I dosed. But then 24hrs later I measure 0 ppm iron again. I started with .1ppm daily doses and upped it a couple times to the now .25ppm. Each time I wanted to see if I would measure "leftover" iron the next day, and nope it's all gone after 24hrs. I've even checked in the middle of the day (~8 hours later) with lights on, and no iron detected.

My HUGE million dollar question is, is it possible for iron to build up in the tank in a manner that will not show up on the tests? For example, could it be settling somewhere or perhaps coating the filter plumbing? Can plants absorb too much of it?

I was assuming the plants are uptaking all that iron but in the back of my mind, worried it might be going somewhere else. You have just convinced me to pull back to .1ppm daily until I can be more certain about it.

Appreciate all the positive comments from everyone!!


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

*Not seeing value in &quot;megadosing&quot; nutrients*

Oh! Seachem Iron, that’s gluconate, the one that breaks down daily. That may explain why your tests see nothing at the end of the day. 

Yes, I, too am interested to know what would be the issue of overdosing that ?

There’s even mention here that it breaks down in “hours”. https://barrreport.com/threads/i-wa...-seachem-iron-to-a-chelated-iron-powder.8746/


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Hi
Did you mention water changes? 
You are testing so many things daily? It is not necessary, once a week max at the beginning. And only macros. With trace elements like Fe testing is kind of pointless. The element changes form and makes reliable testing impossible. You have new Flourite black sand porous clay. Clay substrates have some CEC ability. To better understand you can go here and read very well explained what trace elements do.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

monkeyruler90 said:


> if you dose higher ferts then it may mean that you should up the light and CO2 so the plants can uptake faster. since you're not changing those two factors then that's why the algae take over. If you up ferts, light intensity, and co2 then you'll get faster growing plants than you have now but should keep algae in check.


 Are you saying that if I accidently overdose fertilizers I better increase light intensity and CO2 level or I get algae?


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

ipkiss said:


> Oh! Seachem Iron, that’s gluconate, the one that breaks down daily. That may explain why your tests see nothing at the end of the day.
> 
> Yes, I, too am interested to know what would be the issue of overdosing that ?
> 
> There’s even mention here that it breaks down in “hours”. https://barrreport.com/threads/i-wa...-seachem-iron-to-a-chelated-iron-powder.8746/


Tom Barr says "DTPH last about 2-3 days in solution, ETDA, maybe a few hours, 1/2 day, the Fe Gluc maybe a few hours/minutes......." but what does that mean? Where does the iron go? It can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed form. So what does it mean that "it doesn't last"? Do the plants all use it or it converts to a form that can't be used?

Bump:


Edward said:


> Hi
> Did you mention water changes?
> You are testing so many things daily? It is not necessary, once a week max at the beginning. And only macros. With trace elements like Fe testing is kind of pointless. The element changes form and makes reliable testing impossible. You have new Flourite black sand porous clay. Clay substrates have some CEC ability. To better understand you can go here and read very well explained what trace elements do.


I will definitely reduce testing eventually. For right now I need to understand the nutrient cycle in the tank so I know how best to manage it.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

ahem said:


> Tom Barr says "DTPH last about 2-3 days in solution, ETDA, maybe a few hours, 1/2 day, the Fe Gluc maybe a few hours/minutes......." but what does that mean? Where does the iron go? It can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed form. So what does it mean that "it doesn't last"? Do the plants all use it or it converts to a form that can't be used?
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I will definitely reduce testing eventually. For right now I need to understand the nutrient cycle in the tank so I know how best to manage it.


I'll leave it to the chemists to really answer that one. As we've established before, your desire to go down rabbit holes way exceed mine (and I don't mean that in a bad way!  ) But from my limited understanding and past reading, it has changed form so that certain tests no longer register it and even more importantly, your plants won't be able to use it -- which is why I, myself, was a little curious of what happens to the buildup of this particular type. I'm remembering that I've read the buildup of the chelates of the other types can theoretically start doing weird things, but I thought this sort of problem was not true for gluconate.

This thread 'may' help or beget even more questions...

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...pe-chelated-iron-toxic-works-if-ph-6-3-a.html


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

ipkiss said:


> I'll leave it to the chemists to really answer that one. As we've established before, your desire to go down rabbit holes way exceed mine (and I don't mean that in a bad way!  ) But from my limited understanding and past reading, it has changed form so that certain tests no longer register it and even more importantly, your plants won't be able to use it -- which is why I, myself, was a little curious of what happens to the buildup of this particular type. I'm remembering that I've read the buildup of the chelates of the other types can theoretically start doing weird things, but I thought this sort of problem was not true for gluconate.
> 
> This thread 'may' help or beget even more questions...
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...pe-chelated-iron-toxic-works-if-ph-6-3-a.html


Some of the best learning in life happens in the rabbit holes :nerd:

Great thread and threads linked within it. It's a good primer for understanding the different forms of iron and ways to administer in the tank. It does not directly answer the question of what happens to iron gluconate excess, which I'm going to post directly to Seachem. I think they have a Q&A they respond to. On their bottle they pre-warn about getting a 0PPM test result afterwards and recommend "Due to rapid utilization, test within 30 minutes". 

It looks to me like iron has a lot of unknowns in the hobby. I see people post they run 2-3PPM weekly dosing, others much lower, and various guidelines recommending weekly dose of .1 to .6ppm. A "how to use" video I watched for the Hanna HC Iron detector, at ~2:35 the instructor is saying her reading of .6PPM is "deficient" and that she runs at a constant state of 2-3PPM. That would be a very large weekly dose, maybe 10PPM to maintain a constant 2-3ppm. She is in aquaponics, not aquariums so maybe there is a big difference.






For anyone interested in iron tests, the Lamotte strips appear to work. I've been using them for a couple weeks, comparing to other tests, and doing "before and after" testing. They are very convenient compared to other iron tests which can be so complex, user error will result in them never working (eg. Seachem iron test). Dip for 2 seconds and near instantly you'll see if there is iron, takes 30 seconds to fully develop. It's not super resolved with the 0PPM, .3PPM, .5PPM ... pink gradations but I find it useful enough.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

I beleive the most scientific about their tanks use this Fe tester https://hannacan.com/hi746-iron-low-range-checkerr-hc.html I don't have a dutch tank so I never saw the need to get one but its as good as you get in our hobby. Range is up to 1ppm Fe which should be good for most tanks.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

ahem said:


> It looks to me like iron has a lot of unknowns in the hobby.


 Well, this here is what we know so far.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I dose .1ppm iron daily (.7ppm weekly), but that is all gluconated (Seachem Iron). Because of my level one UVS, I cannot use chelated iron, such as EDTA or DTPA. Generally, you need to dose more gluconated iron that EDTA or DTPA forms because it is consumed by plants so rapidly. After going back and forth with Seachem on how to determine how much to dose (their directions are a little misleading), they advised to dose enough so that ferrous iron tests show zero iron after 20-30 minutes. During that time, the plants will uptake virtually all of it. In my case I could actually dose higher than I do and remain within these test parameters. This is because it is in the ferrous form and not the ferric form found in chelated versions, which are designed to last much longer in the water column (up to several days). Additionally, the gluc iron is not dependent upon pH levels.

As far as test kits for iron are concerned, after trying a few different kits, I found that the Nutrafin kit (may be labeled under the Fluval name) is good at detecting both types of iron. I don’t have the Hanna version because I don’t think it is important to test for iron at that price since iron testing is so questionable in both results and value, as @Edward pointed out. However, I do use Hanna for other types of tests and would expect their iron test to be good, as well. I found Seachem’s test to be good with ferrous iron (which is their product), but not very good for ferric iron. As I understand it, the chelated bond has to be broken down by these types of reagents before actually being able to measure the ferric iron (this is the reason for the lengthy time to measure EDTA and DTPA iron) and many test kits aren’t good at doing that. Conversely, some were not good at measuring ferrous iron.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> I beleive the most scientific about their tanks use this Fe tester https://hannacan.com/hi746-iron-low-range-checkerr-hc.html I don't have a dutch tank so I never saw the need to get one but its as good as you get in our hobby. Range is up to 1ppm Fe which should be good for most tanks.


That's what I have. I have the one that has a 0-5PPM range and shows out to two decimal points. It's actually not so easy to use, but yes it is a nice tester.

Bump:


Deanna said:


> I dose .1ppm iron daily (.7ppm weekly), but that is all gluconated (Seachem Iron). Because of my level one UVS, I cannot use chelated iron, such as EDTA or DTPA. Generally, you need to dose more gluconated iron that EDTA or DTPA forms because it is consumed by plants so rapidly. After going back and forth with Seachem on how to determine how much to dose (their directions are a little misleading), they advised to dose enough so that ferrous iron tests show zero iron after 20-30 minutes. During that time, the plants will uptake virtually all of it. In my case I could actually dose higher than I do and remain within these test parameters. This is because it is in the ferrous form and not the ferric form found in chelated versions, which are designed to last much longer in the water column (up to several days). Additionally, the gluc iron is not dependent upon pH levels.


That answers a lot of questions. It sounds like during the titration period, dosing should be during the day with lights on so that plants can uptake the iron immediately and can be retested 20-30 min later. I have been dosing an hour or so before lights on (which is convenient for me). I can see why they recommend daily dosing of it. Actually it seems critical in a high tech fast growing tank. 
Since iron can't be transported inside the plant and it's gone in 20-30min, it needs to be re-introduced everyday for new growth to get enough iron.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

ahem said:


> Daily
> 15-20ppm CO2
> 1ppm Seachem N
> .30ppm Seachem P
> ...


This was my weekly dosing for about 8 months. I mixed everything in an old Easy Green bottle and dosed 4x per week:

6 ppm NO3
2.8 ppm PO4
20.8 ppm K
.16 ppm Fe
1.6 ppm Mg

So leaner on N but higher PO4 and K. It worked pretty well when supplemented with Osmocote root tabs, but as soon as the root tabs started to run low you could see deficiencies in the plants. I was using the Seachem fert plan for a few months like two years ago, but I just got sick of having to measure out 6 different liquids every day. 

I pretty much doubled the lean dosing since then. Plants are growing bigger and faster, plus I don't have to worry about root tabs. I'm using more fertilizers, but I've still only had to buy the dry ferts once in my life. It also allows me to dose macros once per week which is just easier. The downside is the plants are growing bigger and faster so there's more trimming maintenance. 

The whole concept of EI and "MEGADOSIIIIIIINNG" is very particular to American aquarists and this forum in particular. Most other aquatic horticulturists from Asia and Europe are using much leaner dosing, in line with what you do. If it's working for you, I don't see a reason to change.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

gjcarew said:


> This was my weekly dosing for about 8 months. I mixed everything in an old Easy Green bottle and dosed 4x per week:
> 
> 6 ppm NO3
> 2.8 ppm PO4
> ...


If you go over to The 2HR Aquarist website these amounts are pretty much in line with those Dennis Wong recommends. He also mentions that nitrate levels >10 ppm makes one more prone to GDA and GSA.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> And 7 ppm NO3 and 2.1 ppm PO4 weekly is not that light. I'm at 10 NO3 and 3.5 PO4 and folks think I dose EI. Fact is very few blindly follow EI, and most dial in what works best in their particular tank and mix of plants.


From the PPS website:

Medium light
PPS-Pro Solution #1, 1ml per 10 gallon or 40 L
PPS-Pro Solution #2, 0.5ml per 10 gallon or 40 L
Water change 50% once a week
This limits water column nutrient levels to 14 ppm NO3, 1.4 ppm PO4, 18 ppm K, 1.4 ppm Mg, 0.7 ppm Fe(TE).

It seems the difference between PPS PRO and 'EI' is small and mostly the ratio of N to P.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> From the PPS website:
> 
> Medium light
> PPS-Pro Solution #1, 1ml per 10 gallon or 40 L
> ...


We may have to get @Edward to weigh in here, but if I go to the calculators (RotalaButterfly and Zorfox) and use the daily dosing recommendations, I get EI as being dosed at over three times what PPS is dosed for NO3, even accumulated. PO4 is 6x higher EIPS. Am I missing something?


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> We may have to get @Edward to weigh in here, but if I go to the calculators (RotalaButterfly and Zorfox) and use the daily dosing recommendations, I get EI as being dosed at over three times what PPS is dosed for NO3, even accumulated. PO4 is 6x higher EIPS. Am I missing something?


There isn't one set of numbers for EI or PPS(that I know of), they are both overdose and then reset weekly regimes where it is easy to calculate the max possible accumulation. I wrote 'EI' in single quotes because Greggz dosing has migrated from any fixed set of numbers for years and he uses custom micros as well. The nitrates dosed for PPS pro can vary from as little as 7ppm to much more and I'd be surprised if EI didn't have a broad range as well those don't appear to be differentiators but I agree I'd rather have the experts chime in on the differences.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I view one of the primary differences between the two in that aspect of reset. EI requires it at high levels and ~weekly, rightly so, whereas PPS tends to be more flexible, in frequency and quantity, as it tries to more closely match uptake with dosing. This a major factor and circles back to the water change frequency thread we were all discussing last week.

They both have fixed-dose starting points, which is what the calculators use, but both philosophies recognize the desire/need to be flexible. I do believe that, despite flexibility around their mean, they remain quite far apart on expected water column nutrient levels.

I consider myself much closer to the PPS philosophy, in recent years, after many years with EI. @Greggz: it would be interesting to hear which approach you believe you are closer to now.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> I do believe that, despite flexibility around their mean, they remain quite far apart on expected water column nutrient levels.


 When one wants to understand what the fundamental difference is then we have to ask a question, what was the envisioned priority? Was it fauna with supporting healthy flora, or just flora.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> When one wants to understand what the fundamental difference is then we have to ask a question, what was the envisioned priority? Was it fauna with supporting flora, or just flora.


It started out as fauna, then fauna with incidental flora (sometimes plastic), then became fauna with supporting flora, but seems to have recently become flora with supporting fauna, variously using EI, then PPS inclined. So far, the flora-only activity is just what I use my lawn mower on.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> I view one of the primary differences between the two in that aspect of reset. EI requires it at high levels and ~weekly, rightly so, whereas PPS tends to be more flexible, in frequency and quantity, as it tries to more closely match uptake with dosing. This a major factor and circles back to the water change frequency thread we were all discussing last week.
> 
> They both have fixed-dose starting points, which is what the calculators use, but both philosophies recognize the desire/need to be flexible. I do believe that, despite flexibility around their mean, they remain quite far apart on expected water column nutrient levels.
> 
> I consider myself much closer to the PPS philosophy, in recent years, after many years with EI. @Greggz: it would be interesting to hear which approach you believe you are closer to now.


I follow many of the best tanks from around the world, and have the opportunity to communicate with many of them to learn more about their methods. I am talking about tanks that are similar to mine in that they are very plant centric, rather than hardscaped dominated.

The funny thing is not one of them would refer to their dosing as EI or PPS. They just refer to the numbers that they use. EI calls for 22:4:22 NO3O4:K and 2.0 Fe from micros (was at 5.0 just a few years ago). I don't know of one that doses at that particular level. And almost all pay very close attention to Ca:Mg levels, which is not a focus of EI.

There is one fundamental that is almost universally true of the most successful "Dutch" inspired tanks from around the world. Like you alluded to above, it's regular large water changes. IMO, that is easily the most common denominator regardless of dosing levels.

For me, I have tested loads of dosing levels over the years. My conclusion is that dosing is the least important of the fundamental things that the best tanks share. 

Much more important to get light, CO2, and maintenance correct. And of those, maintenance may be the biggest common factor. The most successful people work harder at it. And that includes trimming, pruning, and plant mass management.

If you get everything else right, you can get by on a wide range of dosing. At that point dosing is really fine tuning things. If you don't get everything else right, even the most perfect dosing scheme won't save you.

The other thing to keep in mind is to always look at the particular plants in a set up. A tank full of Rotala's is a lot different than a tank full of Ludwigia's and Limnophila's.

As for me, current dosing is 10/3.5/15 and Ca/Mg at 20/8. Micros are custom at 0.525 Fe. And my tank is pretty much on auto-pilot right now. But the reality is most of that is not due to the dosing, it's due to everything else.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Greggz said:


> ....
> 
> If you get everything else right, you can get by on a wide range of dosing. At that point dosing is really fine tuning things. If you don't get everything else right, even the most perfect dosing scheme won't save you.
> 
> ...


Selecting some parts of Greggz' quotes, what may be interesting in the evolution of more attention to detail in dosing may be due to the expansion of species we keep. It was easy to please what is now known as "simple" plants as hobbyists are constantly pushing towards discovering the next rare species to introduce to the hobby. The constant desire to just tweak things just a little bit to get that new favorite plant to respond while not dragging down others has, in turn, pushed us to experiment with all sorts of variables  Maybe the shrimp guys have it right. Don't mix some of those species if they require different water parameters. In that vein, I think even @burr740 has started to separate some things into different substrated tanks to get things to respond better. And didn't @Maryland Guppy use solo cups of different substrates for this very purpose?


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Edward said:


> When one wants to understand what the fundamental difference is then we have to ask a question, what was the envisioned priority? Was it fauna with supporting healthy flora, or just flora.


In my case its hardscape based flora(low plant mass, easy to grow plants), the fauna of course I want healthy and they enhance the scape. 
Cryptocoryne Parva has never been happy in my tank I suspect because I don't keep my lights very high (60 Par or so) or for a long duration(4-5 hours). The moss and Rotala grow annoyingly fast already.

But I still don't understand how knowing that differentiates EI from PPS Pro.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Large water changes are optional.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Edward said:


> Large water changes are optional.












How is that?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

1. PPS-Pro 100% fully planted
2. PPS-Pro *with TDS meter* (Optional)
3. PPS-Pro *with water changes* (Optional)

One Macro and Micro solutions. For more details please see here and here.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> How is that?


I have high light and am floored at the prospect of 28 PPM of NO3 per week. I dose 1 ppm a day (with high light) and I know my fish/fish food provide some as well. If I put in 2ppm, I'll have GDA the next day. It might be because my tank is young, but it seems hard to believe you could leave that much excess nutrients sitting in the water column without trouble.

One other thing that is not completely understood to me is nominal or "floor" concentration. I notice people use the term PPM to mean two different things interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable quantities. The most common usage of "PPM" is actually incorrect. The PPM figures you see for PPS and EI PPM for example are really "PPM/week" not "PPM". It would be true PPM if you dumped all the nutrients for the week in at once, then the nutrients would momentarily exist at those PPMs in the water column and go down from there as they are gradually utilized.

I notice that people also refer to PPM to denote a floor level water column concentration, e.g. "you should always have 1PPM of phosphates", "your nitrates should never go lower than 10PPM" or "iron should always be measured at no lower than .1ppm". I notice that neither EI nor PPS directly talk about ideal floor concentrations. There seems to be some collective "wisdom" about it since people frequently post what PPMs one should measure at a given moment but I've yet to see any science or specifics to back up a specific floor concentration. 

For example, is there a difference between:
1. Tank A - has a floor of 5ppm nitrates and 1ppm nitrates are added each day to keep up with plant demand
2. Tank B - has a floor of 0ppm nitrates and 1ppm nitrates are added each day to keep up with plant demand

Should there be any growth rate difference between Tank A and Tank B above? I would argue that there is probably no difference in growth but a big difference is that Tank A has much greater possibility of algae growth due to excess nutrients sitting in the water column.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ahem said:


> For example, is there a difference between:
> 1. Tank A - has a floor of 5ppm nitrates and 1ppm nitrates are added each day to keep up with plant demand
> 2. Tank B - has a floor of 0ppm nitrates and 1ppm nitrates are added each day to keep up with plant demand
> 
> Should there be any growth rate difference between Tank A and Tank B above? I would argue that there is probably no difference in growth but a big difference is that Tank A has much greater possibility of algae growth due to excess nutrients sitting in the water column.


I disagree.

In the above example, no doubt I would expect Tank B to exhibit faster growth. 

I prefer to think of an optimal level that allows for easiest uptake for plants. For instance, let's say a heavily planted high light tank uptakes 3 ppm NO3 daily. Does that mean 3 ppm in the water column is optimal? I would say no. For a tank like mine, somewhere about 25 tp 30 ppm NO3 is optimal. At lower levels there are many fast growing stems that will not exhibit peak growth/color, and may stunt or be at less than peak health. 

Plants at less than peak health are a magnet for algae. I have observed a great number of tanks over the years. In my experience, I have seen more issues arise from under dosing than over dosing, and too little is worse than too much. 

Now keep in mind this is always in the context of the particular tank with a particular mix of plants. There are some tanks that are more hardscaped based with mainly Rotala's or other plants that don't require much in the water column. Then there are tanks full of Limnophila's and Ludwigia's that would prefer much higher levels. They are different animals. There is no one scheme that is optimal for all types of plants. 

As to excess nutrients in the water column causing algae, this has been disproven many times over. Very old thinking in terms of planted tanks. I can dose an extra 10 ppm NO3 into my tank any time and see no uptick in algae. Most problems with algae have little to do with fertilization, other than providing too little. 

It usually has more to do with intensity/duration of lighting, pH drop from CO2, and most often poor maintenance/husbandry. A dirty tank full of dissolved organics is a number one cause, and you can adjust dosing all you want and you will never fix it. 

As always, just my thoughts and experience from my tank and many others that I follow closely.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Greggz said:


> I disagree.
> 
> In the above example, no doubt I would expect Tank B to exhibit faster growth.
> 
> ...


Very appreciate all the thoughts and experience!

I think you mean that Tank A would have faster growth. 

That hypothesis would explain why my slow growing plants like anubias are doing less well than the faster growing stems plants and something I am concerned about, that at lean dosing levels the fast growers will strip the nutrients too fast and leave slow growers starving.

I don't believe nutrients trigger or "spontaneously generate" algae just that it's always present (except perhaps in the most meticulous tanks) and given nutrients and a place to grow, it will. Aquarium glass and hardscape is completely free of plants so I can't see how algae would NOT form on it if plenty of nutrients and light are available to it. There is no competitive pressure by plants in that situation. It's not on my glass (or not much) because I scrub it off. I just trimmed out some leaves that had GSA. So I think that's why an aquarium would be algae free. My guess is your tank and others are so clean that you could dump nitrates in there without causing a big problem. If it wasn't clean then it seems like it would be playing with fire putting that much in. My tank is pretty clean but I would bet at a 5PPM nitrate floor I would come down next morning to a thick green cloud.

Do these dosing regimens like PPS and EI talk about the floor concentration? It seems like they should be presented in a two step fashion: initial dose to bring to floor PPM levels, then daily/x weekly dosing (understanding that there is a heavy tailoring to each tank situation). Is there a science to setting the optimal floor PPM or just brute force trial and error?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ahem said:


> Very appreciate all the thoughts and experience!
> 
> I think you mean that Tank A would have faster growth.
> 
> ...


Yes I meant to say tank A......thanks for pointing that out. 

To be honest, I think some get carried away with testing.

If I am dosing 10 ppm of NO3 and things are going well, means little what the measured value is. 

More important is consistency. And that includes consistency of light, CO2, water changes and maintenance. If you get those right, small differences in dosing matter little. 

And yes it's difficult to keep a mix of plants with different needs all happy at once. I don't keep any anubias or crypts. At my light level and dosing they would likely not do well. Nor will certain Rotala like H'ra or Colorata. They will grow but never reach peak color. My tank is too rich for them. 

I've said this many times. Part of the process is finding the plants that prefer the soup you are serving. Put some Pantanal into a heavily hardscaped PPS tank, and likely will not get anywhere near peak health. Pantanal likes everything is excess. It does not understand moderation. But those Rotala's will do great. 

So where that does leave us? Like you said, brute force and trial and error. I've spent years testing the upper and lower limits of dosing in my tank. And have gone through the entire process again recently as I swapped to an active substrate (Landen Soil). But those numbers are unique to my particular set up. The interesting thing is that with no collaboration they end up being pretty close to other set ups very similar to mine. 

That's why I always recommend seeking out successful tanks with similar set ups and goals to your own. Like I've said before, a hardscape focused ADA style tank has completely different needs than my tank of flowery stems.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Greggz said:


> Yes I meant to say tank A......thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> To be honest, I think some get carried away with testing.
> 
> If I am dosing 10 ppm of NO3 and things are going well, means little what the measured value is.


To dose 10 ppm you would not need to test. To determine "there should be at least 10ppm in the water columns at all times" you would have to test for that right? I can see if you run the same tank for a long time you might have a ballpark idea for all of the above and don't need to test as much anymore. 

The floor PPM or "minimum concentration" is not mentioned in too many places except posts. The plant vendors do not mention optimum concentrations for their different plants, just whether the plant likes a lot of nutrients or not. It's interesting because if its an important parameter, there should be more about it. Instead it gets conflated with weekly dosing PPMs. I think there is something to it, just need to find some data on it.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> I disagree.
> As to excess nutrients in the water column causing algae, this has been disproven many times over. Very old thinking in terms of planted tanks. I can dose an extra 10 ppm NO3 into my tank any time and see no uptick in algae. Most problems with algae have little to do with fertilization, other than providing too little.



In tanks that are more sparsely planted, heavy fertilizer dosing can be destabilizing. In the event that algae spores are triggered, and there is a lack of plant mass available to deny the algae space to flourish, algae will spread even more quickly given the elevated nutrient levels.

Green dust algae (GDA) is very common in EI tanks if the tank is not matured enough or does not have enough plant mass for example. Algae issues in these tanks can be much worse than in tanks when water column nutrients are lean. 

Iwagumis with only delicate carpets, and hardscape focused aquascapes that have large areas of open sand and rock rock have much lower nutrient requirements compared to heavily planted tanks filled with stem plants. They also have less dominant plant mass to deny algae a home. For those with Iwagumi style and hardscape style planted tank, a combination of lean dosing and good maintenance is an important step in planted tank algae control. They look deceptively simple, but actually require more experience to manage and balance compared to more fully planted tanks. Dosing fertilizers heavily in this style of tanks creates instability and is not something we would recommend.

https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/algae-control/ccontrol-algae-excess-nutrients

This has been my experience as well. If I add too much fertilizer inevitably I will get some GDA on the glass, it won't happen if I have a higher plant mass. Even with good husbandry there will always be traces of DOCs and Ammonia in any live tank so eliminating algae is impossible you just have to control it by sensible choices of light intensity, fertilizer concentrations, and good husbandry. In high density planted tanks you have much greater room for error and wider range of dosing parameters before algae problems arise, this is an unlikely scenario for those struggling with establishing their tanks or working with lower plant mass type scapes.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

ahem said:


> One other thing that is not completely understood to me is nominal or "floor" concentration. I notice people use the term PPM to mean two different things interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable quantities. The most common usage of "PPM" is actually incorrect. The PPM figures you see for PPS and EI PPM for example are really "PPM/week" not "PPM". It would be true PPM if you dumped all the nutrients for the week in at once, then the nutrients would momentarily exist at those PPMs in the water column and go down from there as they are gradually utilized.


Ppm(parts per million) refers to weight as a percentage of total weight of water and there is no other definition. Since water has a density 1g/ml weight as a function of volume of water are approximately equal and also give you ppm. 

The numbers listed for EI and PPS are daily or weekly dosing amounts. There is no floor as noone knows what the uptake in your tank is or what is optimal for your plants, in the extreme case the floor would be 0ppm for all elements but the regimes are designed so that this rarely happens, but one will rarely know what the floor is as our test kits are not accurate enough nor can we easily test for all elements down to 0ppm.

The water column concentrations should always be higher than the plant uptake amounts as plants do not uptake nutrients in a linear fashion nor at the same rates in different concentrations in the water column. Leaf fertilization as opposed to root fertilization is another issue, for some plants they can be much more selectively efficient with their roots but have issues when they can only receive nutrients from the water column. For some elements and plants below a certain concentration in the water column the plants cannot readily uptake the element even if it is always present and expecially in the presence of a concentration of an antagonistic element. The uptake efficiency of plants is complicated thus knowing what the floor should be is difficult to determine.

As for the ceiling that is what is referred to as accumulation, the theoretical ceiling for any of these reset regimes is based on the percentage of water changed and assuming no loss or uptake:

Examples:

50% WC weekly the ceiling with no uptake or loss is 2X the weekly dosing
25% WC weekly the ceiling is 4X the weekly dosage
10% WC weekly the ceiling is 10X the weekly dosage

The ceilings are the case where there is no uptake or loss and if one continues to change water and dose the same weekly amount over time the limit of the accumulated concentrations will tend to the above values.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> In tanks that are more sparsely planted, heavy fertilizer dosing can be destabilizing. In the event that algae spores are triggered, and there is a lack of plant mass available to deny the algae space to flourish, algae will spread even more quickly given the elevated nutrient levels.
> 
> Green dust algae (GDA) is very common in EI tanks if the tank is not matured enough or does not have enough plant mass for example. Algae issues in these tanks can be much worse than in tanks when water column nutrients are lean.
> 
> ...


I don't think we disagree at all.

Like I said, a sparsely planted tank is a different animal than a densely planted tank. My method might work poorly in an ADA type set up. And likewise typical ADA dosing would work poorly in my tank.

Therein lies the issue everyone confronts. What works best in YOUR set up. 

I've always said when you see successful tanks, pay close attention to the plant species and mass in the tank. That is don't blindly follow dosing of others, unless their set up is very similar to yours.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> In tanks that are more sparsely planted, heavy fertilizer dosing can be destabilizing. In the event that algae spores are triggered, and there is a lack of plant mass available to deny the algae space to flourish, algae will spread even more quickly given the elevated nutrient levels...
> 
> Iwagumis with only delicate carpets, and hardscape focused aquascapes that have large areas of open sand and rock rock have much lower nutrient requirements compared to heavily planted tanks filled with stem plants. They also have less dominant plant mass to deny algae a home. For those with Iwagumi style and hardscape style planted tank, a combination of lean dosing and good maintenance is an important step in planted tank algae control. They look deceptively simple, but actually require more experience to manage and balance compared to more fully planted tanks. Dosing fertilizers heavily in this style of tanks creates instability and is not something we would recommend...
> 
> This has been my experience as well. If I add too much fertilizer inevitably I will get some GDA on the glass, it won't happen if I have a higher plant mass. Even with good husbandry there will always be traces of DOCs and Ammonia in any live tank so eliminating algae is impossible you just have to control it by sensible choices of light intensity, fertilizer concentrations, and good husbandry. In high density planted tanks you have much greater room for error and wider range of dosing parameters before algae problems arise, this is an unlikely scenario for those struggling with establishing their tanks or working with lower plant mass type scapes.


I pretty much agree with you as we go up in plant mass their is more wiggle room with light, ferts, husbandry. After all haven't seen too many rocks good at uptake. 

Not sure about dosed ferts though causing algae. Why would a simple little organism care if there is 3 ppm of no3 or 30? If its in the water why wouldn't it be utilized by the algae. Most dosed tanks don't run dry of no3, so it's not like the no3 runs out and the algae doesn't have nutrients available. *Remember algae grows in tanks with no plants and no dosing. So the common dominator with planted tanks and dosing is organics. *

Also I think there's a difference between spore development and feeding existing algae. If you can keep the spores from developing I don't think the dosed ferts matter. The spore development for me is clearly in the organics and any toxins that are released. There are just too many hardscape dominated tanks. Remember my 12g (still have it.) I dosed regular EI from the start. Not only did I have little plant mass, the mass I had were all epiphytes and I can assure you there was pretty much no visible algae. My no3 levels ranged from 40ppm to 80ppm. The husbandry is the difference removing any dead leaves, good water changes, carbon at startup or whenever needed. These redundant measures make a big difference. 

6 Month Shot:










And this was my no3 reading before and after WC three months in when plant mass was low: 


















Obviously light management is a very important part of the equation as I went with just a 3 hr peak.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Greggz said:


> I don't think we disagree at all.
> 
> Like I said, a sparsely planted tank is a different animal than a densely planted tank. My method might work poorly in an ADA type set up. And likewise typical ADA dosing would work poorly in my tank.





Greggz said:


> If you get everything else right, you can get by on a wide range of dosing. At that point dosing is really fine tuning things. If you don't get everything else right, even the most perfect dosing scheme won't save you.





Greggz said:


> It usually has more to do with intensity/duration of lighting, pH drop from CO2, and most often poor maintenance/husbandry. A dirty tank full of dissolved organics is a number one cause, and you can adjust dosing all you want and you will never fix it.



We agree on all of the above.




Greggz said:


> As to excess nutrients in the water column causing algae, this has been disproven many times over.


This is where we disagree, the catalyst in an otherwise well controlled and balanced aquarium can be the excess Nutrients. Light, Organics, and Ammonia are already present, the catalyst was the excess fertilizer. The plants can remain as healthy as they were before but you can get algae on hardscape and the glass anyway. 

In many tanks if you added an extra 10 - 20 ppm Nitrates or 2-5ppm Phosphates with already high light there is a good chance you can get GDA on the glass whereas with lean dosing you wouldn't. Just because you have little to no visible algae doesn't mean it isn't lurking in the background and the excess fertilizer is just the catalyst it needs to rear its ugly head. Biofilm on the glass is invisble add Fertilizer and it can turn into GDA.

You cannot gain experience on this point by observing only high plant density well balanced tanks, even my tank when full of moss was surprisingly resistant to Algae even in the absence of good husbandry. Take out that plant mass and the balance needs to be less light, less nutrients, and more meticulous husbandry.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

Dang @Asteroid, 100 ppm NO3? Not worried about nitrate poisoning?

@ahem to expand on what @cl3537 said regarding PPS Pro, 2 mL per day of solution #1 would be 14 ppm of NO3 per week which is about 35% less than EI levels. That would give you a MAXIMUM NO3 level of 28 ppm if you do a 50% water change. I recommend checking out this post from @Greggz for more information on dosing amount vs. accumulation amount, I found it very informative.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Asteroid said:


> Why would a simple little organism care if there is 3 ppm of no3 or 30? If its in the water why wouldn't it be utilized by the algae.


Algae grows much like plants it grows faster with more nutrients than without and that can be proven. There is a non linear and poorly understood relationship between DOCs, ammonia, ferts, and light on algal growth it is not just one factor. 

From a hobbyiest perspective this topic continues to be of great interest and is often repeated on this forum over and over again. From an academic perspective this is not a particularly interesting topic and thus it hasn't been studied in a properly detailed and controlled manner. In my opinion a mountain of anecdotal evidence doesn't prove/disprove your point and this topic will never be resolved here.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Take out that plant mass and the balance needs to be less light, less nutrients, and more meticulous husbandry.


Again we aren't far off.

As you mentioned above, plant mass, light, and husbandry are part of the balance. I would add CO2 to that list. 

So are ferts the cause of algae? Or is it lack of plant mass, too much light, poor CO2, and poor husbandry? 

In the end pay close attention to light/CO2/husbandry and you have much more leeway with ferts. It's true with any style/type of tank. And I agree more ADA style tanks can get by and thrive on a much lighter dosing scheme. In any tank it's all about finding that balance that works best for that set up.

And keep in mind I have nothing against lean dosing. My dosing is as lean as it has been in years.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

gjcarew said:


> Dang @Asteroid, 100 ppm NO3? Not worried about nitrate poisoning?


Never lost a tetra in this tank in over a year and the shrimp breed like crazy later. I believe there is a big difference between dosed no3 and no3 as a result of organic decomposition. One comes with baggage the other doesn't 



cl3537 said:


> Algae grows much like plants it grows faster with more nutrients than without and that can be proven.


Define nutrients? I'm not sure if the no3 feeds established algae, but very confident it doesn't feed algae spore development. see below for excess "nutrients" 



gjcarew said:


> Dang @Asteroid, 100 ppm NO3? Not worried about nitrate poisoning?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Not sure about dosed ferts though causing algae. Why would a simple little organism care if there is 3 ppm of no3 or 30? If its in the water why wouldn't it be utilized by the algae. Most dosed tanks don't run dry of no3, so it's not like the no3 runs out and the algae doesn't have nutrients available. *Remember algae grows in tanks with no plants and no dosing. So the common dominator with planted tanks and dosing is organics. *


Good points.

I've seen folks try the theory that starving algae will kill it. You can't starve algae. Most times what happens is that the plants become starving and weak, and then they are a magnet for MORE algae. 

That's my point that I have seen more algae from too little dosing than too much. Folks are amazed that they INCREASE dosing and algae goes away. As you know, it all has to do with happy healthy plants. 

Anyway, all good discussion and food for thought.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> Good points.
> 
> I've seen folks try the theory that starving algae will kill it. You can't starve algae. Most times what happens is that the plants become starving and weak, and then they are a magnet for MORE algae.
> 
> ...


I agree, remove the easy, fast growing plants from a Walstad tank and see what happens in the high-organic loaded setup. The Walstad method as you know is no dosing and relys on a mass of fast growing plants to keep algae away.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Years ago, I was trying to sort out this algae development pathway, but for my tanks that were not plant-centric (tanks weren’t even sophisticated enough to be considered low-tech). I found several threads on UKAPS that cited quite a bit of research about the issue. Unfortunately, I didn’t copy these links, so I can only state the beliefs I developed from these articles and posts.

Algae spores are triggered by ammonia. So, in a sense, we can say that organics start the process and things that cause the organics, e.g.; overfeeding, cleanliness, husbandry, etc., can be controlled …somewhat. The unfortunate aspect is that the spores only need an almost imperceptible amount of ammonia to get going and this is impossible to eliminate.

Once algae is ‘born’, it feeds primarily upon NO3 and PO4. This is where I was successful in preventing/killing it in a high light tank: I starved it for PO4 with aggressive chemical media filtering and addressed minimizing spore development with cleanliness, w/c’s and Purigen. Of course, this is impossible when one of the goals is to have healthy plants.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

It’s so great to finely know what causes algae. We were told silicates caused algae, then heating cables were next, not having a grounding wire, not dosing vitamins, never enough CO2, not having under gravel filtration, PO4 in the water column, some light spectrum, not having CO2 mist, having NH4 and on and on…

Now we know it’s organics, the evil organics. 
Purigen removes organics. So, let’s stuff our canister filters with Seachem Purigen like a turkey and call it a day! 

( … any volunteers?)


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> Years ago, I was trying to sort out this algae development pathway, but for my tanks that were not plant-centric (tanks weren’t even sophisticated enough to be considered low-tech). I found several threads on UKAPS that cited quite a bit of research about the issue. Unfortunately, I didn’t copy these links, so I can only state the beliefs I developed from these articles and posts.
> 
> Algae spores are triggered by ammonia. So, in a sense, we can say that organics start the process and things that cause the organics, e.g.; overfeeding, cleanliness, husbandry, etc., can be controlled …somewhat. The unfortunate aspect is that the spores only need an almost imperceptible amount of ammonia to get going and this is impossible to eliminate.
> 
> Once algae is ‘born’, it feeds primarily upon NO3 and PO4. This is where I was successful in preventing/killing it in a high light tank: I starved it for PO4 with aggressive chemical media filtering and addressed minimizing spore development with cleanliness, w/c’s and Purigen. Of course, this is impossible when one of the goals is to have healthy plants.


Thank-you of course you are correct and the real world has known this for years.

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/issue 

A dozen colleges or more teach undergrad microbiology courses on how Nitrates and Phosphates cause algal blooms you can even watch it grow under a microscope.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Edward said:


> It’s so great to finely know what causes algae. We were told silicates caused algae, then heating cables were next, not having a grounding wire, not dosing vitamins, never enough CO2, not having under gravel filtration, PO4 in the water column, some light spectrum, not having CO2 mist, having NH4 and on and on…
> 
> Now we know it’s organics, the evil organics.
> Purigen removes organics. So, let’s stuff our canister filters with Seachem Purigen like a turkey and call it a day!
> ...


LOL, gonna stick with my 75% water changes for awhile...


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> It’s so great to finely know what causes algae. We were told silicates caused algae, then heating cables were next, not having a grounding wire, not dosing vitamins, never enough CO2, not having under gravel filtration, PO4 in the water column, some light spectrum, not having CO2 mist, having NH4 and on and on…
> 
> Now we know it’s organics, the evil organics.
> Purigen removes organics. So, let’s stuff our canister filters with Seachem Purigen like a turkey and call it a day!
> ...


No need to volunteer ...I've already done it. Problem is that you can't do enough of it. You can only inhibit it, sometimes temporarily eradicate it, but never eliminate it. It's always ready to take advantage of some weakness in the system. I have found some mercenaries that fight for the cause and they work cheap: Ramshorns - the biofilm thing. Removing PO4 works very well, but only in a non-planted tank. I've also set up cereal bowls with RODI water and added NO3 and PO4, plus other nutrients, set it in the sun for weeks and ...no algae. Repeated it, then, when no algae developed, added a little ammonia and POP: algae aplenty. Try it. It also showed me that algae spores are everywhere. WARNING: these are not scientific studies.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Deanna said:


> No need to volunteer ...I've already done it. Problem is that you can't do enough of it. You can only inhibit it, sometimes temporarily eradicate it, but never eliminate it. It's always ready to take advantage of some weakness in the system. I have found some mercenaries that fight for the cause and they work cheap: Ramshorns - the biofilm thing. Removing PO4 works very well, but only in a non-planted tank. I've also set up cereal bowls with RODI water and added NO3 and PO4, plus other nutrients, set it in the sun for weeks and ...no algae. Repeated it, then, when no algae developed, added a little ammonia and POP: algae aplenty. Try it. It also showed me that algae spores are everywhere. WARNING: these are not scientific studies.


Interesting! An experiment I may try although I may have to use a strong grow light vs the sun as it is getting closer to winter in the Midwest 
Experiment aside, your comment does open a new avenue to explore for my situation that I had not considered...
In my 75g tank I have a lot of fish - lets say too many. This likely should lead to an increase in an increased amount of organic waste. The solids I think I have a good handle on. Ammonia waste... now this could be an issue.
I have a Fluval FX4 filter and the inner bottom tray is full of Eheim Substrat Pro. Between the hungry plants in the tank and the Substrat Pro I "should" have enough bio filter to handle plenty of fish.
But....
The Substrat Pro is the same bio media that I have had for several years - I have never changed it out as recommended by the manufacturer.


Hmmm, could my lack of bio media maintenance lead to a "little" increase in water column ammonia which in turn contributes to the excessive amount of algae in my tank? 

And possibly why adjusting my macros, light level, co2, etc. only makes minimal differences in the level of algae?

Hmmmm


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

It was late, so I didn't elaborate (note my redundant "temporarily eradicate it, but never eliminate it"). The test that I conducted only caused the development of GDA. However, I never expected red algae, GSA or green water because of the setup: a bowl of stagnant water. I believe that algae spores can also be fed by ammonia development in troubled leaves and/or biofilm.

My other point was that I don't think that you can reduce NH3/NH3 creation enough, no matter what you do, to completely stop algae formation. If you can minimize the TAN (UVS can help sterilize spores) it supposedly then reduces the amount algae development making it easier for stable, healthy, plants to suppress it. Spore germination is a separate topic from what feeds algae after it becomes algae. I do know that, at least, starving it for PO4 does work (at least, in minimizing it), having done this many years in a non-planted tank, as I mentioned, but that will kill our plants. I also did not have any GSA at the time.

I did find what I think is one of the threads I mentioned. There were more, but this summarizes much of what formed my thinking on it. Read through the entire thread - lots of interesting comments. I believe we know that the urea issue is due to it being taken in by plants *as* urea and converted to ammonia within the plant. Here is the link:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/why-dont-nutrients-cause-algae.3217/


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

cl3537 said:


> Ppm(parts per million) refers to weight as a percentage of total weight of water and there is no other definition. Since water has a density 1g/ml weight as a function of volume of water are approximately equal and also give you ppm.


We all agree the standard scientific definition of Parts per Million (PPM). However in the hobby it is used for two refer to different quantities and often conflated in a way in which you can't tell which the poster means. It can mean "Total Parts per Million dosed per week" or "Parts per Million in the water column at a given moment" (this is the scientific definition). In both cases, people in the hobby will call it "PPM"

It's conflated in many examples, a poster will say "make sure to keep phosphates above X ppm to prevent/reduce Y algae ..." What does that mean? Make sure you dose at least X ppm each week? Make sure that whatever quantity you are dosing each week, that it doesn't fall below X ppm in minimum concentration?

I understand that people run with large surplus of nutrients in the water column. My question is why? Like the tank with 50/100ppm of nitrates in this thread. Why is that better than 1ppm, 5ppm, or 10ppm? I'll get it that some people have tested it themselves, for example they tried 1ppm minimum concentration of something and noticed better growth/health of their mix of plants at 5ppm concentration or whatever. It's just surprising that for something that seems like an important parameter, it's not noted so much in literature -- e.g. this genus of plants prefer high concentrations of nutrients versus this other genus that prefers low concentrations... 

I think my tank falls under densely planted at this point and I am finding the opposite, very strong growth with exceptionally lean dosing and low concentrations. My API nitrate test an hour or so before lights on comes out pure yellow (0ppm, even with a fully stocked fish load). There is not a hint of orange in it. My phosphates at this point are usually around ~.2-.25ppm. I'm still experimenting with daily dose ranges of 1-1.5ppm of N (it's seachem so it's a combo of nitrate and urea) and ~.3-.6ppm of PO4. My main problem is mild GSA though a tough one that is hard to scrape off and is on some leaves. It seems to accumulate later in the day. I am assuming this means I am running out of some nutrient that is then creating ideal conditions for GSA. Plant growth continues to be ridiculously strong. I trimmed a large amount this past weekend and just days later, it is already overgrowing to where I need to trim again this weekend. I do have some extreme reds going on which I wonder is a result of nitrate deficiency (I understand this can cause reddening in some plants).

If anyone knows of literature about minimum concentrations of nutrients and how the concentration may affect plant uptake, I would love to read it, please post!


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Deanna said:


> No need to volunteer ...I've already done it. Problem is that you can't do enough of it. You can only inhibit it, sometimes temporarily eradicate it, but never eliminate it. It's always ready to take advantage of some weakness in the system. I have found some mercenaries that fight for the cause and they work cheap: Ramshorns - the biofilm thing. Removing PO4 works very well, but only in a non-planted tank. I've also set up cereal bowls with RODI water and added NO3 and PO4, plus other nutrients, set it in the sun for weeks and ...no algae. Repeated it, then, when no algae developed, added a little ammonia and POP: algae aplenty. Try it. It also showed me that algae spores are everywhere. WARNING: these are not scientific studies.


I was just reading an article that claims algae spores develop in ammonia, and once the algae is establish as an adult organism (what we see in the tank), it then consumes nitrates, phosphates, et al. Algae is a vast number of organisms so probably not too many generalizations hold. But that seems to confirm your test, that a spike in ammonia will trigger algae to start up (it must activate the already present spores). It does fit observations of some folks that have high nitrates for example and no algae while others have the nitrates fuel a algae bloom. The ones with the bloom probably already had ammonia activated algae in their tank which then takes advantage of the excess nutrients in the column. People with high concentrations and no algae have clean tanks with no ammonia or ammonia vectors and thus no activated spores. For sure they have spores in the tank! They are just not activated due to the cleanliness and lack of ammonia.

It could be imagination but I feel like I see a slight increase in algae the day after plant trimmings. I'm pretty OCD about waving the net around to get all cut pieces and picking them out with the forceps, but some get left and the part of the plants that gets cut may "micro rot" a tiny bit creating ammonia.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> I did find what I think is one of the threads I mentioned. There were more, but this summarizes much of what formed my thinking on it. Read through the entire thread - lots of interesting comments. Here is the link:
> 
> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/why-dont-nutrients-cause-algae.3217/


Post #4 

_“Spores do not feed on fertilizers such as PO4 or NO3, therefore PO4 and NO3 cannot possibly trigger a bloom, no matter what the level, however, the butterfly form - the flagellate - does feed on fertilizers and will immediately begin to take advantage of any nutrient source in the water column or on leaves once it changes from spore to flagellate.”_

It is no secret that algae moved from infested aquarium to algae-free planted aquarium die despite having nutrients, light and CO2.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> It is no secret that algae moved from infested aquarium to algae-free planted aquarium die despite having nutrients, light and CO2.


What do you think we should attribute that to?

Healthy plants? Something else?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

ahem said:


> It does fit observations of some folks that have high nitrates for example and no algae while others have the nitrates fuel a algae bloom. The ones with the bloom probably already had ammonia activated algae in their tank which then takes advantage of the excess nutrients in the column. People with high concentrations and no algae have clean tanks with no ammonia or ammonia vectors and thus no activated spores. For sure they have spores in the tank! They are just not activated due to the cleanliness and lack of ammonia.


I think that is the right track but, again, EVERYBODY has ammonia. It’s a matter of minimizing it to dampen spore germination and then, AFTER germination, inhibiting algae with a stable, well-balanced system.

I cannot say that I know any of this to be fact. Like so much of this hobby, it comes down to beliefs based upon x, y and z. I do know that when I started adding in the intentional effort to view everything I do in the tank through several lenses, such as my personal rule: “do things that will minimize ammonia production”, algae retreated and plants remained healthy. Another rule is: “do things that won’t destabilize the system.” Algae spore issues may or may not be linked to ammonia, but that first rule sure set something in motion that algae was not happy about, and the second rule probably keeps it in check, along with other good things.

I also assume that algae spores are constantly present in our tanks. However, I wouldn’t mind looking at some studies that support this …if anyone can provide links.



Edward said:


> It is no secret that algae moved from infested aquarium to algae-free planted aquarium die despite having nutrients, light and CO2.


I think we’re all in agreement on this …right?


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Deanna said:


> I also assume that algae spores are constantly present in our tanks. However, I wouldn’t mind looking at some studies that support this …if anyone can provide links.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we’re all in agreement on this …right?


It seems intuitive but it is a bit of a leap I guess without some real data. It would be interesting to see what forms of life are floating in a ml of typical clean-ish aquarium water. There are so many algae that we would have to assume not all of them could be present, in fact only a small subset.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> A dozen colleges or more teach undergrad microbiology courses on how *Nitrates and Phosphates cause algal blooms you can even watch it grow under a microscope.*





Deanna said:


> I've also set up cereal bowls with RODI water and *added NO3 and PO4, plus other nutrients, set it in the sun for weeks and ...no algae.* Repeated it, then, when no algae developed, added a little ammonia and POP: algae aplenty. Try it. It also showed me that algae spores are everywhere. WARNING: these are not scientific studies.


Interesting two completely different conclusions. Why do you think that is? Any valid data to me has to be in aquarium environment. Not a study from a lake or a test tube. 

Setups with lots of plants have less algae issues. Setups with lots of water changes have less algae issues. Both have the removal of organics in common. One removes ammonia/toxins as they enter the water column the other removes the organics before they breakdown. 

Organics are evil? They are the bane of most setups that aren't anything close to nature. The only wav to have setups that give you the freedom of hardscape, plant species, etc is too deal with organics either before or after. BTW ADA tanks utilize large water changes and carbon at startup and whenever else it is needed. The goal is low organics.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Asteroid said:


> Interesting two completely different conclusions. Why do you think that is? Any valid data to me has to be in aquarium environment. Not a study from a lake or a test tube.
> 
> Setups with lots of plants have less algae issues. Setups with lots of water changes have less algae issues. Both have the removal of organics in common. One removes ammonia/toxins as they enter the water column the other removes the organics before they breakdown.
> 
> Organics are evil? They are the bane of most setups that aren't anything close to nature. The only wav to have setups that give you the freedom of hardscape, plant species, etc is too deal with organics either before or after. BTW ADA tanks utilize large water changes and carbon at startup and whenever else it is needed. The goal is low organics.


Actually, they are in agreement. Once algae spores germinate the algae are then subject to blooming. There is much confusion, in many of the above posts, about the discussion-difference between spore germination and the resulting algae behavior afterwards.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Interesting two completely different conclusions. Why do you think that is? Any valid data to me has to be in aquarium environment. Not a study from a lake or a test tube.
> 
> Setups with lots of plants have less algae issues. Setups with lots of water changes have less algae issues. Both have the removal of organics in common. One removes ammonia/toxins as they enter the water column the other removes the organics before they breakdown.
> 
> Organics are evil? They are the bane of most setups that aren't anything close to nature. The only wav to have setups that give you the freedom of hardscape, plant species, etc is too deal with organics either before or after. BTW ADA tanks utilize large water changes and carbon at startup and whenever else it is needed. The goal is low organics.


+1.

I've had this conversation with many, many folks in the hobby. You know the speech.......large regular water changes, regular gravel vacs, pruning/trimming removal of dead decaying plant matter, regular filter cleanings, don't feed frozen foods, limit feeding in general, remove pleco's and other waste machines, etc. 

The amazing thing is that they are genuinely surprised when things quickly begin to turn around. It's like the light bulb goes on. And soon their tank begins to flourish like never before.

As to algae always laying in wait, I am a firm believer. You don't need to bring it into the tank, it's always there lurking. Take a look at some mismanaged beginner tanks and you will see all manner of algae unleased. Was that hair algae brought in from somewhere else? The BBA? The BGA? Heck no, all you have to do is create the conditions that is prefers and it can come out of nowhere.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

> > > cl3537 said:
> > >
> > >
> > > > A dozen colleges or more teach undergrad microbiology courses on how Nitrates and Phosphates cause algal blooms you can even watch it grow under a microscope.
> > ...


To me, cl3537 is talking about already existing algae that is blooming when given nutrients and Deanna is talking about activating spores. You are comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Deanna said:


> Actually, they are in agreement. Once algae spores germinate the algae are then subject to blooming. There is much confusion, in many of the above posts, about the discussion-difference between spore germination and the resulting algae behavior afterwards.


Yes there is, thanks for clarifying and providing a link to that thread to remove the confusion and provide solid answers. 
After reading that thread and your answers here, I think there is a much more clear explanation even if there will always be those who refuse to accept it.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Actually, they are in agreement. Once algae spores germinate the algae are then subject to blooming. There is much confusion, in many of the above posts, about the discussion-difference between spore germination and the resulting algae behavior afterwards.


I didn't see anything specifiying that one was spores and the other was existing algae. Just reading what was posted. I'm in agreement that there is a difference between spore germination and existing algae. I've preached probably more than anyone about not letting the algae start to begin with by taking proactive measures if you recall.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

This certainly has been a busy, and informative thread over the last few days.
Really should have a higher number of "views"


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Immortal1 said:


> This certainly has been a busy, and informative thread over the last few days.
> Really should have a higher number of "views"


Yes, good to see everybody back post-summer in debate mode. Let's hope it stays clean and doesn't get personal so the thread can thrive.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Immortal1 said:


> This certainly has been a busy, and informative thread over the last few days.
> Really should have a higher number of "views"


 Thanks , I was going to mention this too. Not as much as a new topic, definitely not, but rather the sad observation on how many people are still interested in this hobby. I remember tens of thousands several years back.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cl3537 said:


> Yes there is, thanks for clarifying and providing a link to that thread to remove the confusion and provide solid answers.
> After reading that thread and your answers here, I think there is a much more clear explanation even if there will always be those who refuse to accept it.


I read that article as well.

I took it as a solid endorsement of EI. Same thing that has been said and demonstrated over and over again over the years. Healthy well fed plants are the best defense against algae. And weak underfed plants are a magnet for it.

Curious, what are you saying that some will never accept?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> +1.
> 
> I've had this conversation with many, many folks in the hobby. You know the speech.......large regular water changes, regular gravel vacs, pruning/trimming removal of dead decaying plant matter, regular filter cleanings, don't feed frozen foods, limit feeding in general, remove pleco's and other waste machines, etc.
> 
> ...


Agree completely. And all those housekeeping things have nothing to do with the amount of dosed ferts in the column. I agree Ammonia is the main culprit to getting things started and you don't need a test-kit amount. The impossible thing to determine is what is the threshold between light and ammonia that sends a signal for spores to activate. Gonna be different in every tank thus the importance of being proactive and not reactive.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Edward said:


> Thanks , I was going to mention this too. Not as much as a new topic, definitely not, but rather the sad observation on how many people are still interested in this hobby. I remember tens of thousands several years back.



At least in my part of the world, and as you observed on this board... not as popular as it once was.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Thanks , I was going to mention this too. Not as much as a new topic, definitely not, but rather the sad observation on how many people are still interested in this hobby. I remember tens of thousands several years back.


There was another thread, on this subject, recently. The conclusion was that forums, such as this, don't have the "WOW" that rapid (perhaps mindless) exchanges on the likes of FB and Twitter do. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, it seems that a lot of thought provokers have gotten themselves banned from TPT over the years. I assume that they remain active, but somewhere else.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> There was another thread, on this subject, recently. The conclusion was that forums, such as this, don't have the "WOW" that rapid (perhaps mindless) exchanges on the likes of FB and Twitter do. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, it seems that a lot of thought provokers have gotten themselves banned from TPT over the years. I assume that they remain active, but somewhere else.


Yes. I think they gave up trying, just like I have several times before because it became restricted and boring. The preferred audience is the most PC sheeple, the stagnant, one routine parroting robots without any drive to advance. As for the social-istic media, the formats are not designed to share and search and educate, but collect for something else. 

It started with the removal of the Dislike button, if you are old enough to remember.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Edward said:


> ....
> Now we know it’s organics, the evil organics.
> Purigen removes organics. *So, let’s stuff our canister filters with Seachem Purigen like a turkey and call it a day! *


Here's what ADA thinks of organics. 










Sounds like they think organics are pretty "evil". I start up every tank with carbon and the results speak for themselves in terms of algae control. It's even more important at startup when there is no real bio-filter. So yeah stuff your filter with carbon/purigen.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> Yes. I think they gave up trying, just like I have several times before because it became restricted and boring. The preferred audience is the most PC sheeple, the stagnant, one routine parroting robots without any drive to advance. As for the social-istic media, the formats are not designed to share and search and educate, but collect for something else.


Edward I am beginning to think this hobby has passed you by.

There is an active group around the globe demonstrating success in this hobby. Stunning tanks that can take your breath away. They are easy to find if you look. More success than I have ever seen before.

Fact is very few if any use PPS.

And as to folks who have been banned here, it has never had anything to do with their thoughts. One physically threated to harm Tom Barr, and only lived a couple of hours away. 

In the end, this is a hobby. A visual hobby. With common goals. Vigorous discussion is encouraged. But sadly many times it has degenerated to something much more than that. You know that very well and the history here. Sad to see you support those that were so divisive and downright rude and dismissive to well respected folks in the hobby.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Asteroid said:


> Sounds like they think organics are pretty "evil".


This goes back to the issue of organics as a catchall for waste products, and which organics are involved, in the water change thread last week:

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1313839-question-chemist-about-water-changes.html

The N organics are good and bad. Good for the plants and bad because of algae. Too bad we can't eliminate them and just dose the N.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Asteroid said:


> Here's what ADA thinks of organics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 We know you have very good experience and knowledge with Aquasoil. What is your opinion, what should we do with new AS substrate. The complications are crazy at first, at least for the first few months.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Edward said:


> We know you have very good experience and knowledge with Aquasoil. What is your opinion, what should we do with new AS substrate. The complications are crazy at first, at least for the first few months.


Ty, but I think it's well documented how to properly setup an AS based tank and reiterated by myself ad nauseam both in text and in application of my own setups. I know you also research their methods quite extensively.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Ty, but I think it's well documented how to properly setup an AS based tank and reiterated by myself ad nauseam both in text and in application of my own setups. I know you also research their methods quite extensively.


The leaching of ammonia goes right back to the earlier discussion.

If the early stages of soil are not managed properly, all types of algae can pop up. And they don't need to be introduced.

When I changed over to Landen I had some hair algae rear it's ugly head every time PO4 bottomed out too much. I've never seen a hint of it ever before. But when the conditions were right, it took advantage quick.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> ...
> When I changed over to Landen I had some hair algae rear it's ugly head every time PO4 bottomed out too much. I've never seen a hint of it ever before. But when the conditions were right, it took advantage quick.


Absolutely, when you swamped out your soil, I knew you would get some algae. The stall in uptake alone properly would have caused some to develop, but with a main fert bottoming out the plants slowed as well I'd imagine. In a tank like yours with so much plant mass I also knew you would over come it. In a tank with more hardscape not as easy or as quickly, so from my vantage point,I was like do partial substrate changes over time. That's what would have worked for me in my more minimal scapes.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Greggz said:


> The leaching of ammonia goes right back to the earlier discussion.
> 
> If the early stages of soil are not managed properly, all types of algae can pop up. And they don't need to be introduced.
> 
> When I changed over to Landen I had some hair algae rear it's ugly head every time PO4 bottomed out too much. I've never seen a hint of it ever before. But when the conditions were right, it took advantage quick.


I think if there is one truth to the overly generalized statement in the hobby that "healthy plants outcompete algae" it's that a high enough density of healthy respiring plants may uptake ammonia fast enough that they down regulate any possible algae spore activation.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ahem said:


> I think if there is one truth to the overly generalized statement in the hobby that "healthy plants outcompete algae" it's that a high enough density of healthy respiring plants may uptake ammonia fast enough that they down regulate any possible algae spore activation.


Yeah I think that there is some truth to that.

Plants actually like a very small amount of ammonia......but too much and look out.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Interesting thing in my tank was when I took out almost all the Bolbitis since it was going to over-run the setup. It probably accounted for 70% of the plant mass. After that I started to notice tuffs of BBA and some GSA. I cut off any affected leaves, increased water changes, 10 minute tidy daily (prune away so so leaves, gravel vac areas) and reduced my peak lighting period and the algae was pretty much gone. 

During this time I continued to dose and my KNO3 was easily above 40ppm and P04 around 3. Makes sense how it started since so much uptake was removed (Bolbitis was pearling and growing pretty fast), but why didn't it spread if heavy ferts cause existing algae to explode?


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

Asteroid said:


> Interesting thing in my tank was when I took out almost all the Bolbitis since it was going to over-run the setup. It probably accounted for 70% of the plant mass. After that I started to notice tuffs of BBA and some GSA. I cut off any affected leaves, increased water changes, 10 minute tidy daily (prune away so so leaves, gravel vac areas) and reduced my peak lighting period and the algae was pretty much gone.
> 
> During this time I continued to dose and my KNO3 was easily above 40ppm and P04 around 3. Makes sense how it started since so much uptake was removed (Bolbitis was pearling and growing pretty fast), but why didn't it spread if heavy ferts cause existing algae to explode?


I think it's just differences in algae. If I were to guess I would guess that BBA attaches to damaged plants primarily, possibly in response to ammonia which may be given off by damaged/rotting plant material. GSA seems to be more of a "water column algae" as it is triggered by problems in the water column, possibly low phosphates and/or low CO2, and not triggered by ill health of a plant.

I've just learned that lighting might be the most powerful and easiest way to adjust out of an algae problem. I seemed to have abated GSA by reducing lighting. I had recently purchased a second Fluval LED 3.0, which two of those at full is quite a bit of PAR. I noticed with both on max, I could not drop pH more than ~.5 no matter how many BPS I set the CO2 on. The day I throttled the light intensity down, my pH dropped an extra .3. So the bright lights must have had photosynthesis going so fast that I could not supply CO2 quickly enough, which created a shortage (along with PO4 shortage), and then GSA would appear on my glass, rocks, and some leaves.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ahem said:


> I think it's just differences in algae. If I were to guess I would guess that BBA attaches to damaged plants primarily, possibly in response to ammonia which may be given off by damaged/rotting plant material. GSA seems to be more of a "water column algae" as it is triggered by problems in the water column, possibly low phosphates and/or low CO2, and not triggered by ill health of a plant.


I think at the end of the day, no one knows for sure. That's why I always recommend a proactive (before you see problems) approach. No such thing as too "clean" if you are dosing. Redundant proactive measures like WC, removing dead leaves, carbon, yada, yada, always benefit. If you are in such of the exact causes of all it's gonna be a long wait, better to just enjoy your tank, it is a hobby after all and all the scientific conjecture in the world will not prevent spores from developing in different setups based on an immeasurable threshold number.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ahem said:


> I've just learned that lighting might be the most powerful and easiest way to adjust out of an algae problem. I seemed to have abated GSA by reducing lighting. I had recently purchased a second Fluval LED 3.0, which two of those at full is quite a bit of PAR.


Fine tuning lighting is one of our tools. 


It's all about balance, and light is a tricky one to get right. Too little can result in weak plants and little color. Too much can trigger algae. No two tanks are the same, so takes trial and error to hit the sweet spot.

In general, the higher the light, the more important to have everything else dialed in. Too high of light will expose any weakness.


----------



## zivvel (Apr 17, 2013)

ahem said:


> I think it's just differences in algae. If I were to guess I would guess that BBA attaches to damaged plants primarily, possibly in response to ammonia which may be given off by damaged/rotting plant material. GSA seems to be more of a "water column algae" as it is triggered by problems in the water column, possibly low phosphates and/or low CO2, and not triggered by ill health of a plant.


I have seen BBA on all manner of healthy / unhealthy plants. And rocks. I recall reading in either @Greggz or @burr740 journal about BBA forming wherever there was high flow for some period of time. Fascinating.

But the *bold part below* is even more fascinating to me:



ahem said:


> I've just learned that lighting might be the most powerful and easiest way to adjust out of an algae problem. I seemed to have abated GSA by reducing lighting. I had recently purchased a second Fluval LED 3.0, which two of those at full is quite a bit of PAR. *I noticed with both on max, I could not drop pH more than ~.5 no matter how many BPS I set the CO2 on. The day I throttled the light intensity down, my pH dropped an extra .3.* So the bright lights must have had photosynthesis going so fast that I could not supply CO2 quickly enough, which created a shortage (along with PO4 shortage), and then GSA would appear on my glass, rocks, and some leaves.


It makes sense when you think about it, but I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

ahem said:


> I've just learned that lighting might be the most powerful and easiest way to adjust out of an algae problem. I seemed to have abated GSA by reducing lighting. I had recently purchased a second Fluval LED 3.0, which two of those at full is quite a bit of PAR. I noticed with both on max, I could not drop pH more than ~.5 no matter how many BPS I set the CO2 on. The day I throttled the light intensity down, my pH dropped an extra .3. So the bright lights must have had photosynthesis going so fast that I could not supply CO2 quickly enough, which created a shortage (along with PO4 shortage), and then GSA would appear on my glass, rocks, and some leaves.


In a roundabout way, you are saying that your CO2 level and/or fertilizer level(s) may have been too limited for your plant mass until you slowed plant growth with a lower light level. Algae should be suppressed, no matter what the light level, if you have sufficient plant mass and plants are healthy and growing well. However, as others mentioned, it becomes increasingly more important to ensure stability as light increases. 

If you are happy where you are, then it is no longer an issue. If you ever do decide you want more light or a longer photoperiod, I’d first try to figure out why you can’t get CO2 where you want it. You should be able to reach a full 1-point pH drop, and beyond, with pressurized CO2. If you do achieve higher CO2 levels, be prepared to adjust other nutrients higher, as well.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> In a roundabout way, you are saying that your CO2 level and/or fertilizer level(s) may have been too limited for your plant mass until you slowed plant growth with a lower light level. Algae should be suppressed, no matter what the light level, if you have sufficient plant mass and plants are healthy and growing well. However, as others mentioned, it becomes increasingly more important to ensure stability as light increases.
> 
> If you are happy where you are, then it is no longer an issue. If you ever do decide you want more light or a longer photoperiod, I’d first try to figure out why you can’t get CO2 where you want it. You should be able to reach a full 1-point pH drop, and beyond, with pressurized CO2. If you do achieve higher CO2 levels, be prepared to adjust other nutrients higher, as well.


I would add something to that.

Raise light levels slowly. It's a big difference to jump from 70 to 120 PAR all at once. It's a shock to the system and all manner of algae could break out. I always do it over weeks/months. Another method is to have a higher "burst" in the middle of the lighting period, then slowly expand that over time. 

And take notes and pictures. I take far more pictures than I post here. It helps me go back and correlate with all my tracking.


----------

