# EI doesn't work and is killing my plants



## Maryland Guppy

It is late and I may have more to say but.

This makes me wonder, what is your de-gassed pH reading?


> Ph - 6.6 with Co2 is on, 7 or 7.1 when it's off


This is not a full point pH drop, how is 30ppm CO2 justified?
Please don't answer the pH vs. KH chart.


----------



## KZB

In my experience full EI dosing requires a lot of plants a lot of light and alot of co2. If any of these are lacking EI would be too much and would cause more ill effects than positive. With your ph drop and plant load I would decrease the amount your dosing. Goodluck and enjoy the ride


----------



## Ddrizzle

Maryland Guppy said:


> It is late and I may have more to say but.
> 
> This makes me wonder, what is your de-gassed pH reading?
> 
> 
> 
> Ph - 6.6 with Co2 is on, 7 or 7.1 when it's off
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a full point pH drop, how is 30ppm CO2 justified?
> Please don't answer the pH vs. KH chart.
Click to expand...

Drop checker and ph/kh chart. I'll have to double check the ph tomorrow morning before the co2 turns on. It's always fully degassed by then.



KZB said:


> In my experience full EI dosing requires a lot of plants a lot of light and alot of co2. If any of these are lacking EI would be too much and would cause more ill effects than positive. With your ph drop and plant load I would decrease the amount your dosing. Goodluck and enjoy the ride


Yes, its not heavily planted. How much should I dose then? I've tried laying off or adding more but I still have random ass issues that seem like every deficiency in one.


----------



## KZB

Hate to be cliche but everyones tank is different and I or anyone here could tell you how much you should actually be dosing. I would suggest, finding an accurate ph drop. If you aren't achieving atleast 1ph drop without fish stress, that typically means circulation is an issue. Lack of co2 will/could/can show the same fert like deficiency symptoms. The amount of co2 will typically be judged by the amount of light your pushing. Sorry if my reply is of no help


----------



## Ddrizzle

KZB said:


> Hate to be cliche but everyones tank is different and I or anyone here could tell you how much you should actually be dosing. I would suggest, finding an accurate ph drop. If you aren't achieving atleast 1ph drop without fish stress, that typically means circulation is an issue. Lack of co2 will/could/can show the same fert like deficiency symptoms. The amount of co2 will typically be judged by the amount of light your pushing. Sorry if my reply is of no help


I appreciate the co2 concern but I was getting 1 ph drop for months when my gh 
(and kh) was high. 7.6 down to 6.6. Same issues. I also have a powerhead to make sure there is strong flow even at the opposite end of the tank's outflow


As for recently, the drop checker is always a light green after a few hours of my ph sitting at 6.6.


----------



## Smooch

Yes, Seiryu stone alters water parameters. I have some in my tank, but they are small stones that were sold for a nano tank ( I have a 40 breeder) so they haven't caused problems. Since you knew these stones were causing a problem, why did you keep them? Keeping for the sake of not having to dose calcium while they are reeking havoc on the rest of your water parameters is not a good idea. It is easy enough to remineralize RO water and for a small tank, it will cost next to nothing to do so. Planted tanks like stability.

As for the green spot algae, this isn't always a phosphate problem. If you have high organics in your tank from dying plants, that too can cause green spot. 

While it is true that plants melt and go through awkward phases as they adjust to new environment, sick plants are algae magnets. Mosses in general tend to be algae magnets because they collect stuff that is floating around in the water column. Vacuuming them or using a soft toothbrush to remove the detritus they collect once a week during a water change keeps them algae free. Some mosses also need to be trimmed as the base layer will die off without light which causes more problems with organics in the water column.

What does your tank maintenance schedule look like? 

As for EI itself, I'm not willing to go into that rabbithole, but I will say that it is meant to be modified. My bottle of orange water from Tropica is also EI, but it doesn't contain nitrates or phosphorus. I don't dose my tank what Tropica recommends as I don't use CO2, I don't have stems to feed and my fast growers Vals and Giant Hairgrass are given root tabs which contains some phosphates, but most of the phosphates in my tank comes from fish food. 

There is no true definition of 'heavily planted', but usually that means more than 75% of a persons' tank is covered with plant mass. Your tank does not meet that so-called standard.


----------



## Greggz

Amazonian sucks up PO4, among other things.

10 ppm NO3 and 1 PO4 my tank would crash.

60 PAR is on the low side for fast growing flowery stems. And light spread/PAR drops off quickly off center with LED's. PAR at edges might be significantly lower.

CO2 still seems on the low side.

BBA usually related to high organics, not enough maintenance, and unhappy plants

I would find journals of tanks you want to emulate that started up with Amazonian.


----------



## Asteroid

If you want to eliminate that it's EI dosing just use some K and micros for the next few months and see what happens. Every tank I started with aquasoil that's all I did for the 1st 6 months and everything started up clean. Granted all tanks are different but the AS is so loaded that you don't really need much else in the beginning. 

If your getting BBA that quickly to me that's an organic / light / co2 imbalance.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Smooch said:


> Yes, Seiryu stone alters water parameters. I have some in my tank, but they are small stones that were sold for a nano tank ( I have a 40 breeder) so they haven't caused problems. Since you knew these stones were causing a problem, why did you keep them? Keeping for the sake of not having to dose calcium while they are reeking havoc on the rest of your water parameters is not a good idea. It is easy enough to remineralize RO water and for a small tank, it will cost next to nothing to do so. Planted tanks like stability.
> 
> As for the green spot algae, this isn't always a phosphate problem. If you have high organics in your tank from dying plants, that too can cause green spot.
> 
> While it is true that plants melt and go through awkward phases as they adjust to new environment, sick plants are algae magnets. Mosses in general tend to be algae magnets because they collect stuff that is floating around in the water column. Vacuuming them or using a soft toothbrush to remove the detritus they collect once a week during a water change keeps them algae free. Some mosses also need to be trimmed as the base layer will die off without light which causes more problems with organics in the water column.
> 
> What does your tank maintenance schedule look like?
> 
> As for EI itself, I'm not willing to go into that rabbithole, but I will say that it is meant to be modified. My bottle of orange water from Tropica is also EI, but it doesn't contain nitrates or phosphorus. I don't dose my tank what Tropica recommends as I don't use CO2, I don't have stems to feed and my fast growers Vals and Giant Hairgrass are given root tabs which contains some phosphates, but most of the phosphates in my tank comes from fish food.
> 
> There is no true definition of 'heavily planted', but usually that means more than 75% of a persons' tank is covered with plant mass. Your tank does not meet that so-called standard.


Seiryu - ita not cuasing problems anymore now that I do more water changes throughout the week.

Green spot and maintenance - Water change used to be 30% a week but now it's definitely 50%. I scrub the glass clean as well but explicitly didn't scrub the tank for my pictures so people could see what it's like at the end of one week cycle.



Greggz said:


> Amazonian sucks up PO4, among other things.
> 
> 10 ppm NO3 and 1 PO4 my tank would crash.
> 
> 60 PAR is on the low side for fast growing flowery stems. And light spread/PAR drops off quickly off center with LED's. PAR at edges might be significantly lower.
> 
> CO2 still seems on the low side.
> 
> BBA usually related to high organics, not enough maintenance, and unhappy plants
> 
> I would find journals of tanks you want to emulate that started up with Amazonian.


PAR has shown it can grow plants just fine so I'm not sure it's that. 

I can turn up my co2 but it's already near the point where it makes my fish grasp. My puffer will start gasping when he starts running around chasing bloodworms.

As you saw, TDS was o ly 257 and I'm doing at least 50% water changes each week to keep the calcium at 50ppm and gh at 8.

I'll have to check out journals that use this substrate. I thought amazonia was the too tier substrate that everyone wanted to use.



Asteroid said:


> If you want to eliminate that it's EI dosing just use some K and micros for the next few months and see what happens. Every tank I started with aquasoil that's all I did for the 1st 6 months and everything started up clean. Granted all tanks are different but the AS is so loaded that you don't really need much else in the beginning.
> 
> If your getting BBA that quickly to me that's an organic / light / co2 imbalance.


So I had stopped dosing everything except co2 out of frustration and what you're seeing is what happened. Holes came back and lower leaves died within a week. Before, I had to dose 4-5x phosphate and potassium to get the tank to bubble.

I thought me overdosing compared to EI was way off, but from what people are able to tell me so far in this thread (basically nothing, sadly except I have calcium rocks and aquasoil) the extra dosing may have been warranted.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> So I had stopped dosing everything except co2 out of frustration and what you're seeing is what happened. Holes came back and lower leaves died within a week. Before, I had to dose 4-5x phosphate and potassium to get the tank to bubble...


That doesn't sound right to me, because we are talking about a loaded substrate directly available to the plants. If it makes you feel any better about EI in my new setup (see link in sig) I also have a ton of Seiryu stone and very little plant mass and dosing normal EI levels using NPK and Seachem Flourish Comp. I have a Finnex 24/7 CC light that provides just 3 hours of max light and my plants are all clean even the slow growing Anubias and Ferns.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Asteroid said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I had stopped dosing everything except co2 out of frustration and what you're seeing is what happened. Holes came back and lower leaves died within a week. Before, I had to dose 4-5x phosphate and potassium to get the tank to bubble...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound right to me, because we are talking about a loaded substrate directly available to the plants. If it makes you feel any better about EI in my new setup (see link in sig) I also have a ton of Seiryu stone and very little plant mass and dosing normal EI levels using NPK and Seachem Flourish Comp. I have a Finnex 24/7 CC light that provides just 3 hours of max light and my plants are all clean even the slow growing Anubias and Ferns.
Click to expand...

Indeed and thanks for the reminder - I didn't dose anything but micros the first three month and the tank was doing awesome. Then, what I assume happened is that the fertilizers ran out in the aquasoil. That's when I started having problems and also began attempting EI. This tank has been up for about 7 or 8 months now.

Also, its degassed ph is actually 7.5, and it drops to 6.6 with co2 on. Just checked.


----------



## cl3537

You have a host of problems the major one being Algae.
Your secondary one is old leaf loss in Ludwigia(?). 

You are too focussed on ferts, yes you don't need 'Classic EI' or anything close to that level of dosing, but you have to deal with Algae first.

I would start with good husbandry. Scrub glass, take out all stone and scrub it. Remove the worst algae infested leaves/plants and then do 3X 50% water changes in succession to reset things as best you can. 

Then I would stop dosing for a week, lower light duration to 4 hours/day and see if your tank adjusts and algae stops growing. 

I would do that first before considering any other changes. The substrate may be loaded with ferts and this excess may take a long time to deplete so I wouldn't worry about dosing for a while. Even afterwards with your hard water I would favor Osmocote plus sparingly near hungry stems over caking on ferts in the water column.


----------



## Ddrizzle

cl3537 said:


> You have a host of problems the major one being Algae.
> Your secondary one is old leaf loss in Ludwigia(?).
> 
> You are too focussed on ferts, yes you don't need 'Classic EI' or anything close to that level of dosing, but you have to deal with Algae first.
> 
> I would start with good husbandry. Scrub glass, take out all stone and scrub it. Remove the worst algae infested leaves/plants and then do 3X 50% water changes in succession to reset things as best you can.
> 
> Then I would stop dosing for a week, lower light duration to 4 hours/day and see if your tank adjusts and algae stops growing.
> 
> I would do that first before considering any other changes. The substrate may be loaded with ferts and this excess may take a long time to deplete so I wouldn't worry about dosing for a while. Even afterwards with your hard water I would favor Osmocote plus sparingly near hungry stems over caking on ferts in the water column.


I suppose I could try this as I have nothing else to lose. It doesn't necessarily help me understand what has been going wrong though. My best guess right now is that EI is causing all of the issues because my tank isn't planted heavily.

Also, I've been performing your suggested cleaning and husbandry for months now. What you see is what I get after 5 days after cleaning with the current setup and plant mass.


----------



## Asteroid

If you believe that your substrate is depleted than not dosing anything and doing big water changes will surely deprive the plants more than the algae. It's pretty much impossible to rid the water of all nutrients that algae won't grow. I think there's still some life in the AS after 4 months so I would at least dose K and micros which you would not be getting from the substrate or the tank. 

If you started the tank with 8 hours light that would have been a problem, so I would definitely reduce that or if reduce your peak lighting to 2-3 hours and doing regular large water changes.


----------



## Grobbins48

Ddrizzle said:


> I'll have to check out journals that use this substrate. I thought amazonia was the too tier substrate that everyone wanted to use.


I have never used Amazonia, but from what I understand there is a specific dosing methodology for this substrate, meaning that following a classic EI method probably is not best. Like @Greggz mentioned, I would look for journals on tanks that use Amazonia, and do some more specific research on that substrate and how it alters the water chemistry. 

I know it can be frustrating when things seem like they are not going right- stick with it, read as much as you can, and challenge the decisions you are making.


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> I suppose I could try this as I have nothing else to lose. It doesn't necessarily help me understand what has been going wrong though. My best guess right now is that EI is causing all of the issues because my tank isn't planted heavily.
> 
> Also, I've been performing your suggested cleaning and husbandry for months now. What you see is what I get after 5 days after cleaning with the current setup and plant mass.


Show us a picture after its all clean again .

If you really want to solve your problems you need to plant much more heavily, you are trying to run a tank on hard mode. High Water Column Ferts, Hard Water, Lots of Hardscape, Low Plant Mass, Active Substrate, this is a tough tank to balance.

But if you are impatient you should start again, tear it down, use an inert substrate, plant heavy, get at least 1 point CO2 drop, use lean water column ferts and start with much shorter light period.

If you read my past journal https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1288679-cl3537s-very-green-17g.html you will see I had a lot of problems when dosing high ferts and 'EI'. I had tropica CEC substrate and I could not get rid of the excess. I wanted to rescape anyway so I did and those same algae ridden stunted plants (Rotala Rotundifolia, Pogostemon Erectus, Staurogyne Repens) did much better under lean ferts and inert substrate.

I am really not a big fan of EI as it is preached here. If 'EI' is only using excess ferts and resetting them weekly with 50% water changes than I see nothing wrong with it. But for your plant mass, excess ferts is probably NO3/PO4/K 10/1/7ppm(total weekly!) and 0.1ppm Fe(weekly). Your tank is nothing like the dutch tanks you see displayed here so you can just about throw away any numbers close to their tanks.

My current tank https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...lon-rescape-new-beginning-2.html#post11215369 is running on 2.124N, 0.159P, 1.6K, 0.109 Fe (Kh=5, Gh=8) (Tropica Specialized), Inert substrate no root tabs.

You have a Ca complication from your Seiryu stone but lets ignore that for now and assume you are doing weekly 1-2X 50% changes so it shouldn't build up too much.

I question your PAR values and you might want to bump up CO2 a bit to a full point, but the challenge now will be to remain patient enough to stick with lean ferts, lower light, and a lower growth equillibrium. If you can't live with it start over. I couldn't get rid of algae or get good growth from my old scape(carpet and few plants were happy) even with lean ferts for a month those 3 species were never happy, in contrast this new one has been really easy with over 12 species being happy.


----------



## Asteroid

It'a no secret that the easiest tanks to startup clean are low stock, high plant mass with co2. You have good uptake with little organic waste, but it's certainly not a requirement if the husbandry is there. People have been using EI type dosing for iwagumi and other minimalist type setups for decades. They don't always add stems and them remove them once the tank matures. They manage the startup with short light cycle/ or short intense cycle, regular large water changes and a just good over maintenance by removing any dead plants/leaves etc on a daily basis. 

If you look at most iwagumi type setups (or an ADA journal) where the plant mass is lean your notice above average water changes for that particular tank to make up for the lack of uptake by plants.

As I mentioned I'm dosing regular EI dosing in my newly setup 3-Ft and the plant mass is extremely lean. How is this possible that I don't have any nuisance algae from the excessive ferts?


----------



## Ddrizzle

Thank you everyone. What I'm thinking now is that my EI dosing is just too strong for my tank in its current state. I didn't clearly state this but the tank was at least 33% covered in plants before.

I think I will try reducing the ferts and light while keeping the co2 going. I need to replant though because my amanos tore up all of my rotala (two cups!!).

What I'm most afraid of is getting it in balance and the holes and old leaves dying again, but I'll have to deal with that when I get there.

As for inert substrate - what are people using?


----------



## Grobbins48

Ddrizzle said:


> As for inert substrate - what are people using?


Good, cheap options are Black Diamond Blasting Sand (from Tractor Supply Company) or pool filter sand (not play sand, but true pool filter sand).

IMO those are the best bang for the buck vs. aquarium specific inert substrate.


----------



## Quesenek

Asteroid said:


> It'a no secret that the easiest tanks to startup clean are low stock, high plant mass with co2. You have good uptake with little organic waste, but it's certainly not a requirement if the husbandry is there. People have been using EI type dosing for iwagumi and other minimalist type setups for decades. They don't always add stems and them remove them once the tank matures. *They manage the startup with short light cycle/ or short intense cycle,* regular large water changes and a just good over maintenance by removing any dead plants/leaves etc on a daily basis.
> 
> If you look at most iwagumi type setups (or an ADA journal) where the plant mass is lean your notice above average water changes for that particular tank to make up for the lack of uptake by plants.
> 
> As I mentioned I'm dosing regular EI dosing in my newly setup 3-Ft and the plant mass is extremely lean. How is this possible that I don't have any nuisance algae from the excessive ferts?


This is very good advice.

When I was dialing in my system trying to rid my tank of algae that seemed endless, I tried _everything_ you name a method of getting rid of algae and I tried it over a 2 month period.

Lowering fert levels just made my issues worse.

What finally worked to kill the algae was keeping my EI dosage high, Co2 high, but messing with my photoperiod.
I have my lights on for about 8 hours total, 4 hours of low light fading into 30 minutes of really high light burst fading into 3 hours of medium-high light fading into 30 minutes of low light.

After dialing in my photoperiod I only get negligible amounts of algae, and my plants are growing very well.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> ...
> 
> As for inert substrate - what are people using?


Are like PFS. Use it often, never used BDBS, but why would you get rid of perfectly good Aquasoil?


----------



## cl3537

Asteroid said:


> If you look at most iwagumi type setups (or an ADA journal) where the plant mass is lean your notice above average water changes for that particular tank to make up for the lack of uptake by plants.


ADA uses Aquasoil and very lean water column ferts, If anything they reinforce that high water column ferts is not the optimal way to grow out an Iwagumi.

The exact opposite of your argument:

https://www.adana.co.jp/en/aquajournal/nature_in_the_glass_05/

Light 10 hours/day, lean column ferts, 33% water change once per week.



> As I mentioned I'm dosing regular EI dosing in my newly setup 3-Ft and the plant mass is extremely lean. How is this possible that I don't have any nuisance algae from the excessive ferts?


You have 5 plants(?) in your 3 ft tank growing for what 3-4 weeks? it would be rediculous if you are dosing the same as Ddrizzle which is Classic 'EI' 22.5ppm NO3 per week and totally excessive and unecessary.

If slow plant growth was the goal, than leaner ferts and a reasonable light period(not 3 hours at Max) would achieve heathier plants with less risk of algae.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

If you are using aquasoil there is a lot of leeway with regards to dosing. 
Read this : 
https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/fertilisers-how-to.html

If you have light plant load, a less heavy dose is actually much easier to control. This is why most hardscape focused lightly planted competitions scapes never use EI - even the competition folks from the US that started with EI moved away from it due to control issues (they always get dust algae on their hardscape/walls). Nutrients are just one angle though, CO2 control - overall tank husbandry are much more important factors. 

My farm tank that uses aquasoil doses 1/3 EI or less - and that is with a lot more light than most of the folks here. Best thing is, I can get away with doing water changes once every 2 weeks even.


















and for my hardscape focused scapes I can get away with 1/4 EI or so. Still much higher density compared to many EI tanks. Plants don't really uptake all that much - or rather they can down regulate their uptake to grow on much leaner levels than people on this forum would have you believe. Look outside at the rest of the world (where most of the competition scapes come from) - most folks don't use EI at all... and we all grow plants just fine


----------



## Asteroid

cl3537 said:


> ADA uses Aquasoil and very lean water column ferts, If anything they reinforce that high water column ferts is not the optimal way to grow out an Iwagumi.
> The exact opposite of your argument:
> .


On the attack again are we? I simply asked the OP why he would get rid of perfectly good AS that was it. If he wants to dose leaner that’s up to him, but I don’t think regular EI Dosing is the issue here. So you need to calm down.
Since you don’t have the experience of ever doing an Iwagumi and must rely on simply reading things and attaching links. I can do the same thing. Here’s an instructional iwagumi link from George Farmer (I’m sure you’ve heard of him, using full ADA and he has a six hour photo period and his comment in the article is:

_George Farmer Comments: …It was interesting that I did not experience any algae, despite the low biomass. I put this down to a restricted photoperiod, rigorous maintenance and good quality plants, substrate and fertilisers_

https://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/features/how-to-set-up-an-iwagumi-aquarium/

The link you attached is in the ADA gallery where they have a full time staff maintaining the tanks, far removed from the typical hobbyist. The shorter light cycle is your best friend and yes you can increase the photo period in some of these setups depending on the parameters once the tank matures, I was really referring to the OP who is setting up a tank without significant bio-mass. How do I know this, because I'VE ACTUALLY DONE IT. 



cl3537 said:


> You have 5 plants(?) in your 3 ft tank growing for what 3-4 weeks? it would be rediculous if you are dosing the same as Ddrizzle which is Classic 'EI' 22.5ppm NO3 per week and totally excessive and unecessary. .


Actually there’s six plants and thank you, you just proved my point. I have no biomass and I’m dosing regular EI and everything is clean.


----------



## Quesenek

Xiaozhuang said:


> If you are using aquasoil there is a lot of leeway with regards to dosing.
> Read this :
> https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/fertilisers-how-to.html
> 
> If you have light plant load, a less heavy dose is actually much easier to control. This is why most hardscape focused lightly planted competitions scapes never use EI - even the competition folks from the US that started with EI moved away from it due to control issues (they always get dust algae on their hardscape/walls). Nutrients are just one angle though, CO2 control - overall tank husbandry are much more important factors.
> 
> My farm tank that uses aquasoil doses 1/3 EI or less - and that is with a lot more light than most of the folks here. Best thing is, I can get away with doing water changes once every 2 weeks even.
> SNIP
> 
> SNIP
> 
> and for my hardscape focused scapes I can get away with 1/4 EI or so. Still much higher density compared to many EI tanks. Plants don't really uptake all that much - or rather they can down regulate their uptake to grow on much leaner levels than people on this forum would have you believe. Look outside at the rest of the world (where most of the competition scapes come from) - most folks don't use EI at all... and we all grow plants just fine
> SNIP


This is interesting.
If you had to guess, what level or how much ferts are you getting from the aquasoil?

I'm asking because if I do this with inert substrate I would expect 1/3 EI dosage to be much too lean.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Quesenek said:


> This is interesting.
> If you had to guess, what level or how much ferts are you getting from the aquasoil?
> 
> I'm asking because if I do this with inert substrate I would expect 1/3 EI dosage to be much too lean.


1/3 EI isn't lean by any standard. Depending on your plant mix, some plants may fancy more, but I've seen inert tanks run with less than 1/3 EI growing plants perfectly fine. How do you think the rest of the world grows their tanks ?

I've seen tanks (in person, not just on the internet) across these countries: Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, England - 99% of them do not use EI and grow plants just fine. EI tunnel vision is super strong in this forum - because most of the crowd comes from one place. 

Go look up Tropica's dosing system, or what Filipe olivera uses (his is super lean) 




Or what public systems such as the Lisbon amano exhibit uses 









or the Sumida aquariums









or check out the levels in natural biotopes (from kasselman book here)









None of them comes even close to 1/3 EI.

Expand your horizons.


----------



## Quesenek

Xiaozhuang said:


> 1/3 EI isn't lean by any standard. Depending on your plant mix, some plants may fancy more, but I've seen inert tanks run with less than 1/3 EI growing plants perfectly fine. How do you think the rest of the world grows their tanks ?
> 
> I've seen tanks (in person, not just on the internet) across these countries: Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, England - 99% of them do not use EI and grow plants just fine. EI tunnel vision is super strong in this forum - because most of the crowd comes from one place.
> 
> Go look up Tropica's dosing system, or what Filipe olivera uses (his is super lean)
> 
> Or what public systems such as the Lisbon amano exhibit uses
> 
> 
> or the Sumida aquariums
> 
> 
> or check out the levels in natural biotopes (from kasselman book here)
> 
> 
> None of them comes even close to 1/3 EI.
> 
> Expand your horizons.


Thanks for the reply,

Don't take my comment as a challenge or anything I'm just really interested in experimenting with this.

I was just making sure I wasn't missing anything by thinking I could do this with inert substrate, or if I needed other supplements such as a high quality substrate.


----------



## Asteroid

Xiaozhuang said:


> If you are using aquasoil there is a lot of leeway with regards to dosing.
> 
> My farm tank that uses aquasoil doses 1/3 EI or less


That's exactly the point I was making when i asked the OP "why get rid of the AS", EI isn't one number for each micro/macro. You adjust, I personally have not found much difference between a leaner EI and regular EI dosing (Not high end). The typical tank here is not a competition tank and the threshold for success is much lower.

Everything is different depending on context and culture. S.A. and Asia are far ahead of the US in planted tanks and it's a larger part of the culture. If you look at any of the aquascaping contests they are dominated by Asia. The US usually has between 10 and 30 entries Most in US don't spend as much time with their tanks and this does have something to do with EI Dosing. With a leaner dosing schedule you need to be on top of the tank more as opposed to something more excessive.


----------



## Discusluv

Xiaozhuang said:


> 1/3 EI isn't lean by any standard. Depending on your plant mix, some plants may fancy more, but I've seen inert tanks run with less than 1/3 EI growing plants perfectly fine. How do you think the rest of the world grows their tanks ?
> 
> I've seen tanks (in person, not just on the internet) across these countries: Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, England - 99% of them do not use EI and grow plants just fine. EI tunnel vision is super strong in this forum - because most of the crowd comes from one place.
> 
> Go look up Tropica's dosing system, or what Filipe olivera uses (his is super lean) https://youtu.be/wtH44vCjW2Y
> 
> Or what public systems such as the Lisbon amano exhibit uses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or the Sumida aquariums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or check out the levels in natural biotopes (from kasselman book here)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them comes even close to 1/3 EI.
> 
> Expand your horizons.


 Thanks for posting this video. I had seen it in the past, but I forgot what great advice this man provided. So many times on this site I hear people insisting that Rootabs serve no purpose when dosing the water column - that water column dosing is all you need. "Your wasting money!"- so on and so forth...
In my low-tech tank I essentially do the same as Olivera recommends in this video: root tabs and the recommended ML dosing on the back of the bottles of the Seachem liquid fert line. All problems of algae, in my case, are basically due to my lack of Co2- imbalance between light/ferts/Co2. But, I try to combat the algae with regular Excel dosing. Overall ( if you dont look too close  ) it all works out fine. 

Certainly, my tanks will not make any competitions, but they make a beautiful environment in which to high-light my focus- my fish. The fish seem much more comfortable now in a planted environment than the "only hardscape" tanks I had for all my set-ups for 26 years. 



This is a picture of my low-tech tank a while back ago. The stem plants were primarily Valisneria, ambula, crypt spiralis.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Asteroid said:


> That's exactly the point I was making when i asked the OP "why get rid of the AS", EI isn't one number for each micro/macro. You adjust, I personally have not found much difference between a leaner EI and regular EI dosing (Not high end). The typical tank here is not a competition tank and the threshold for success is much lower.
> 
> Everything is different depending on context and culture. S.A. and Asia are far ahead of the US in planted tanks and it's a larger part of the culture. If you look at any of the aquascaping contests they are dominated by Asia. The US usually has between 10 and 30 entries Most in US don't spend as much time with their tanks and this does have something to do with EI Dosing. With a leaner dosing schedule you need to be on top of the tank more as opposed to something more excessive.



Thanks for challenging the system. To answer your question, it seems to be because my substrate is soaking up my phosphate as I have to dump 3-4x the recommended EI dose to keep it above 1ppm for any extended period of time (and keep green spot algae at bay). However, now that I know that I don't have to have my fertz so high all of the time, this may be a non issue, if this issue I just described is true at all. I also had to get my potassium above 50ppm to get my tank to start bubbling at all. I literally dump 1/16 tsp of potassium sulfate in everyday, and 15 minutes later bubbles are shooting off of everything in my tank. Something is sorely amiss and I'm at a loss. Otherwise my leaves start dying again at the base, starting with yellowing and holes.


Also, I still have literally no idea why my leaves on all plants have pinholes and slowly die at the lower extremities of the plants. Why the hell do I need so much potassium to prevent this? 60 PAR too low? I'm still stuck here and I'm sure the problem will show its head once again even if I reset my with aquasoil and seiryu rocks.

And lastly, what should ppm readings be at any given time? Or does this not matter as much as how much you dose per day? I ask because I HAD to keep phosphate up around 5ppm to avoid green spot algae which meant I had to dose that one every day after measuring it in the morning.


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> Thanks for challenging the system. To answer your question, it seems to be because my substrate is soaking up my phosphate as I have to dump 3-4x the recommended EI dose to keep it above 1ppm for any extended period of time (and keep green spot algae at bay). However, now that I know that I don't have to have my fertz so high all of the time, this may be a non issue, if this issue I just described is true at all. I also had to get my potassium above 50ppm to get my tank to start bubbling at all. I literally dump 1/16 of potassium sulfate in everyday, and 15 minutes later bubbles are shooting off of everything in my tank. Something is sorely amiss and I'm at a loss. Otherwise my leaves start dying again at the base, starting with yellowing and holes.
> 
> 
> Also, I still have literally no idea why my leaves on all plants have pinholes and slowly die at the lower extremities of the plants. Why the hell do I need so much potassium to prevent this? 60 PAR too low? I'm still stuck here and I'm sure the problem will show its head once again even if I reset my with aquasoil and seiryu rocks.


The main reason I'm interested in lean EI dosing is because I've been struggling to figure out why I have some pin holes in my plants. It is most significantly effecting rotala rotundifolia while my other plants have it, it is very minor.

From my research high amounts of potassium >20ppm, and/or high ppm of calcium can cause issue with magnesium uptake, which in turn causes chlorosis and necrosis of leaf tissue between the veins.
The recommended fix is to dose magnesium however it makes more sense to me to also fix the issue that causes it which is to get potassium and calcium under control.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Quesenek said:


> The main reason I'm interested in lean EI dosing is because I've been struggling to figure out why I have some pin holes in my plants. It is most significantly effecting rotala rotundifolia while my other plants have it, it is very minor.
> 
> From my research high amounts of potassium >20ppm, and/or high ppm of calcium can cause issue with magnesium uptake, which in turn causes chlorosis and necrosis of leaf tissue between the veins.
> The recommended fix is to dose magnesium however it makes more sense to me to also fix the issue that causes it which is to get potassium and calcium under control.



We probably read the same things, which is why I started dumping in potassium daily. It worked, but seemed _wrong_ so I gave up on it. Now I'm thinking it was ok for my specific setup. I also made sure my magnesium was at least 10ppm but the bubbling cranked up after adding potassium. I watched this as an experiment multiple times.


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> We probably read the same things, which is why I started dumping in potassium daily. It worked, but seemed _wrong_ so I gave up on it. Now I'm thinking it was ok for my specific setup. I also made sure my magnesium was at least 10ppm but the bubbling cranked up after adding potassium. I watched this as an experiment multiple times.


From research I believe potassium dosage is a double edged sword.
Potassium allows better uptake of nitrogen which could be the reason why when added in a large amount it causes pearling in your case, however it seems with too much it also restricts the uptake of nutrients such as calcium and magnesium which shows symptoms that imitate iron deficiency.

I've read that the ideal potassium dosage is between 5-20ppm a week. Which according to my dosage amount for my tank ~40ppm a week is quite a bit of a difference, and could be what is causing issues.

My current tank is more of an experimental setup so that I can test things out before I setup something bigger, having a canary type of plant such as rotala rotundifolia is very helpful to see what impact the ferts are having on my tank.

I will have to see what impact my current plan of doing 1/3 or less of EI has on my tank in a month or two after everything has settled and adjusted to less nutrients.


----------



## DaveKS

You need to read Dennis’s substrate pages, paying special attention to layers and microbial section and how the warning about avoiding organics in really deep anaerobic layers pertains to your tank. 

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/defining-good-substrate.html

Your setup also ignores everything about setting up a good, brisk buffeting current across substrate bed using a pump/circulator to create a good high>low current flow. 

This pic of your I’ve marked up shows problem area in red. Blues is your circulation pump and where you should have it placed and pointed.


----------



## Greggz

Xiaozhuang said:


> EI tunnel vision is super strong in this forum - because most of the crowd comes from one place.


Dennis I love your posts and points of view. I read them, and them reread them, and try to figure out how I can take that information and apply it my own tank. As anyone can see, your results speak volumes.

But I am not sure what you mean by EI tunnel vision. I don't know of many that are blindly following EI here. In fact, there have been quite a few here testing lower dosing schemes. Myself I am front loading macros at NO3 about 1/2 EI, and daily custom micros at 1/4 EI. And with good results.

And like you have said, I agree CO2, light, and even more important husbandry play a more important role than dosing. Each needs to be taken seriously. IMO, more focus on those aspects allow for a wide variety of dosing schemes to be successful. Reminds me of your earlier thread on the over emphasis on dosing. 

My guess is that your tanks would look great at 1/4, 1/3, or 1/2 EI dosing. Just saying I don't think dosing is the primary reason for your success, and the difference might be negligible.

And by the way, you inspired me to up my PAR levels. Could be disaster, but we will see what happens.


----------



## Deanna

If you are looking for a formulaic, low-dose approach, consider PPS.


----------



## cl3537

Xiaozhuang said:


> If you have light plant load, *a less heavy dose is actually much easier to control*. This is why most hardscape focused lightly planted competitions scapes never use EI - even the competition folks from the US that started with EI moved away from it due to control issues (they always get dust algae on their hardscape/walls). Nutrients are just one angle though, CO2 control - overall tank husbandry are much more important factors.


+1 Exactly this. It controls algae AND it controls growth which is important if you don't want to be doing heavy trimming every week or two, dealing with persistent shading issues or shifts in the requirements of the tank, or if you want to maintain particular height or control the look of your scape. 



> Look outside at the rest of the world (where most of the competition scapes come from) - most folks don't use EI at all... and we all grow plants just fine


No kidding, High ferts with EI is the exception not the norm just about everywhere I know of except on this board.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> But I am not sure what you mean by EI tunnel vision.
> I don't know of many that are blindly following EI here.
> In fact, there have been quite a few here testing lower dosing schemes.


Those of us dosing ferts for quite some time can "read through" a post or thread about dosing and quickly determine that the EI "claim" is greatly modified.

We all purchase the EI fert package but don't dose @ EI levels.
Yet many still call it EI as a reference even though it's quite modified.
I can understand the confusion for some that are just hunting for the recipe.


----------



## cl3537

Quesenek said:


> It is most significantly effecting rotala rotundifolia while my other plants have it, it is very minor.


Rotala Rotundifolia doesn't need a lot of Potassium (I only dose about <2ppm K weekly) (Gh=8, kh=5) it doesn't need or like high ferts at all. Rotalas are part of the Lythraceae family and they easily get stunted, or have holes or necrotic spots in high ferts. See Rotala Kill Thread on Barrreport.com Vin Kutty showed many great insights in that long thread.

I stunted these R. Rotundifolia and P. Erectus stems in my old scape and replanted them in my new and they have fluorished under what would be considered very lean dosing here.


----------



## Quesenek

cl3537 said:


> Rotala Rotundifolia doesn't need a lot of Potassium (I only dose about <2ppm K weekly) (Gh=8, kh=5) it doesn't need or like high ferts at all. Rotalas are part of the Lythraceae family and they easily get stunted, or have holes or necrotic spots in high ferts. See Rotala Kill Thread on Barrreport.com Vin Kutty showed many great insights in that long thread.
> 
> I stunted these R. Rotundifolia and P. Erectus stems in my old scape and replanted them in my new and they have fluorished under what would be considered very lean dosing here.


Yeah I've been doing quite a bit of research trying to piece together information and while I have achieved great looking plants through heavy EI dosing, I think using rotala rotundifolia as a canary plant will be my indicator for fert levels from now on because while some plants are doing great others are just not _right_.
With information in this thread and other sources it does seem like lean fert dosage is the way to go.


----------



## cl3537

Quesenek said:


> Yeah I've been doing quite a bit of research trying to piece together information and while I have achieved great looking plants through heavy EI dosing, I think using rotala rotundifolia as a canary plant will be my indicator for fert levels from now on because while some plants are doing great others are just not _right_.
> With information in this thread and other sources it does seem like lean fert dosage is the way to go.


I don't really understand how RR would be a good indicator for fert levels. If you were doing a mixed species high density stem tank it might even do okay with higher excess ferts, as it isn't as sensitive as say Rotala Wallichi to excess ferts. On the other hand its needs are so modest, other plants like Ammanias would stunt well before it would ever show any deficiencies.

Lean dosing works well for hardscape focussed tanks, I doubt my lean dosing would be suitable for most of the dutch scapes displayed here though. I would argue one could start more lean and increase with higher plant mass, more demanding stems, or if your plants are showing deficiencies. But going the other way is much more difficult.


----------



## Quesenek

cl3537 said:


> I don't really understand how RR would be a good indicator for fert levels. If you were doing a mixed species high density stem tank it might even do okay with higher excess ferts, as it isn't as sensitive as say Rotala Wallichi to excess ferts. On the other hand its needs are so modest, other plants like Ammanias would stunt well before it would ever show any deficiencies.
> 
> Lean dosing works well for hardscape focussed tanks, I doubt my lean dosing would be suitable for most of the dutch scapes displayed here though. I would argue one could start more lean and increase with higher plant mass, more demanding stems, or if your plants are showing deficiencies. But going the other way is much more difficult.


My reason is that I've seen it brought up as an excellent indicator plant due to it being a weed type grower and how sensitive it is to ferts it will show issues before other plants.

As far as wallichi being more sensitive, I would argue that wallichi is pretty bullet proof. Mine has been the fastest growing and best looking plant in my tank even when I was doing a 3x amount EI dosing experiment for a couple of weeks to rule out the fert levels being too low causing the problems with random holes in leaves, the wallichi didn't act phased at all by the amount of ferts in the water.

I do feel good about the lean dosing experiment because of the tanks I've seen in this thread that run very lean.


----------



## cl3537

Quesenek said:


> My reason is that I've seen it brought up as an excellent indicator plant due to it being a weed type grower and how sensitive it is to ferts it will show issues before other plants.


I don't think it is unless ferts are in great excess and you might also need moderate/low plant mass as well.



> As far as wallichi being more sensitive, I would argue that wallichi is pretty bullet proof.


It seems Wallichi is less predictable. https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-27
Rotala Eenie may be a better choice for detecting too high ferts.

I also would use Pantanal as an indicator for deficiencies quickly as it can be quite fussy quickly if not given enough ferts.



> I do feel good about the lean dosing experiment because of the tanks I've seen in this thread that run very lean.


I am the last person who would disagree with that, I wasted 4 months on EI ferts before I tore down my tank, threw out the toxic CEC aquasoil and turned everything around in a month on leaner ferts, but I will never and likely will never have a tank of hungry high demand stems.


----------



## Quesenek

cl3537 said:


> I don't think it is unless ferts are in great excess and you might also need moderate/low plant mass as well.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems Wallichi is less predictable. https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-27
> Rotala Eenie may be a better choice for detecting too high ferts.
> 
> I also would use Pantanal as an indicator for deficiencies quickly as it can be quite fussy quickly if not given enough ferts.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the last person who would disagree with that, I wasted 4 months on EI ferts before I tore down my tank, threw out the toxic CEC aquasoil and turned everything around in a month on leaner ferts, but I will never and likely will never have a tank of hungry high demand stems.


Good idea for plants to try out, once I get rotala rotundifolia growing without looking like the leaves have been chewed up by something I might try out some other finicky species.


----------



## Surf

You have verified your lighting and CO2 and you are suppling all the needed macros. So that leave one thing left. Your micros. 

CSM+B is a good fertilizer but like most is missing some plant nutrients (nickel) and it is not balanced for an aquarium. Most fertilizers have little to no copper and zinc in them. CSM+B has 0.001ppm of zinc and 0.006ppm Tap water is typically very rich in these nutrients due to leaching from metal pipes. I could not get reliable growth in my aquarium with the fertilizer I purchased, RO water, and inert substrate. Now I am making my own micro fertilizer a I keep my zinc levels at 0.020ppm Zinc and 0.010ppm copper and have reliable plant growth. 

I think this might be your problem. Some people including myself are now making their own micro fertilizer rather than buying it. The links below are about making your own micros. They are long but contain a lot of useful information. i also think you might just want to use an inert substrate in the future. your nutrient rich substrate only lasted a few months. Meaning in the future you may have to replace the substrate as soon as your plants get established. Also if you make your own macros you wouldn't need the extra nutrients from the substrate. 


https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread.html

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1288329-share-your-dosing-thread.html


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Greggz said:


> But I am not sure what you mean by EI tunnel vision.


It may not apply to you or some of the regulars specifically, but it applies to a lot of the other threads diagnosing issues.
I think a lot of it is beginners reading old posts and getting into sucked into the old idea that any issue is a "deficiency issue" and related to lack of dosing in some way. - And not enough of the regular crowd correct them on that or have alternative methods to display/explain/demonstrate. 

If you think about the whole EI philosophy to start with - you dose things in excess to rule out nutrients and thus allow one to focus on CO2/Light/Husbandry etc. Words straight from Barr himself.

However, if I did a statistical count of how many threads and percentage of replies in this forum is still focused on nutrients (and most recommending even more) - it is probably 70% or more, regardless of whether the issue is algae or plant growth. When this number should be closer to 0% if the above statement was true - and if not true, then why ? This is something I cannot figure out myself; a system that was developed to rule out nutrients end up having more nutrient related issues and discussions than any other system out there.


----------



## Greggz

cl3537 said:


> I also would use Pantanal as an indicator for deficiencies quickly as it can be quite fussy quickly if not given enough ferts.


+1 on the Pantanal.

And brings up another point. Different plants thrive at different optimum conditions.

A tank packed full of flowery stems like Pantanal is different than a hardscape tank full of Rotala.

The tricky part is finding the best levels for your particular mix and mass of plants.

Bump:


Xiaozhuang said:


> However, if I did a statistical count of how many threads and percentage of replies in this forum is still focused on nutrients (and most recommending even more) - it is probably 70% or more, regardless of whether the issue is algae or plant growth.


Part of the problem is that EI is not uniform. It's been presented as too broad a range IMO.

Here's a comment from my thread that addresses this.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-shrimp-part-deux-6-9-2019-a-160.html#post11204273


----------



## Asteroid

cl3537 said:


> Rotala Rotundifolia doesn't need a lot of Potassium (I only dose about <2ppm K weekly) (Gh=8, kh=5) it doesn't need or like high ferts at all. Rotalas are part of the Lythraceae family and they easily get stunted, or have holes or necrotic spots in high ferts. See Rotala Kill Thread on Barrreport.com Vin Kutty showed many great insights in that long thread.


I've grown RR in regular EI dosing with Aquasoil beautifully for years.


----------



## Smooch

Ddrizzle said:


> Also, I've been performing your suggested cleaning and husbandry for months now. What you see is what I get after 5 days after cleaning with the current setup and plant mass.


Nothing in this hobby happens instantly. If you were to buy plants that were sub-par to begin with, unless you had the knowledge to bring them back, those plants would continue to decline. I'm not suggesting that you did that, however, such knowledge comes with time, lots and lots of reading, patience, experimenting within your own tank and understanding that you can never know everything; nobody does.

Once you get the algae situation under control, things will get better. You're not the first person to have a run-in with EI dosing. There have been lots of people that have come through here that figured that if they just kept dumping ferts in their tanks that they would have a tank that resembles some of the tanks seen around this forum. What they failed to understand is those tanks didn't get there overnight. Said tank owners have had their fair share of frustrations and failures just like everybody else. 

If you're willing to keep a open mind, find somebody that has been in this hobby for a long time and follow them. Listen to what they say, apply what they teach and you'll be fine. I personally have a few favorites that I go to when I'm frustrated with a problem. There is Dennis Wong who has appeared in this thread, Dave from ADU and my third newest favorite, Filipe Oliveira. Not all of them agree about everything, but all of them are excellent 'teachers', been in the business of aquascaping for a long time and can help a person work through lots of issues. I have zero interest in aquascaping and my tank shows that, but I do have a clean tank that is problem free most of the time. I don't care if my lack of not wanting a tank of perfect stems makes me a second class citizen. It's my tank; I keep it as I see fit. 

The other option of course is to continue to blame EI and not learn anything. My just saying this will ruffle a few feathers around here which isn't hard to do, but a closed mind doesn't lend itself to keeping people in this hobby for long. It's easier to blame everybody for everything that went wrong then find another hobby to get into.

EDIT: Even pros don't always have good days.


----------



## cl3537

Xiaozhuang said:


> However, if I did a statistical count of how many threads and percentage of replies in this forum is still focused on nutrients (and most recommending even more) - it is probably 70% or more, regardless of whether the issue is algae or plant growth. When this number should be closer to 0% if the above statement was true - and if not true, then why ? This is something I cannot figure out myself; a system that was developed to rule out nutrients end up having more nutrient related issues and discussions than any other system out there.


Yes, this is a major weakness of this board, you are the 'outlier' if you aren't caking on the high water column ferts.

The likely reason why there are so many nutrient related problems here is that the experienced regulars here push their systems hard. and novices try to emulate aspects of what they are doing when they see the pretty tank shots.

High light, high CO2, and a bias towards 'Dutch' scapes where there is a never ending task of balancing the needs of numerous different species of plants that have different preferences. Adjusting fertilizers is an iterative process in most of these tanks and it never stops, new species are added, the tank biomass changes, new experiments etc.

If we all blindly followed your example and everyone had 200+ par shining on their tanks without all the other details being covered, I beleive we would see even more 'nutrient related problems' because the higher PAR often highlights any mistakes or imbalances. 

Diagnosis of excess ferts is difficult, reversing toxicity takes a long time(if ever), considering that most here don't even beleive it ever causes any problems, the old Barr rhetoric over the last decade prevails, "excess ferts never hurts, its usually a CO2 problem".


----------



## Asteroid

Whichever method of dosing you choose your always providing ferts in excess, otherwise something would run out. What is EI? Your dosing Macro/micro. As many experienced aquarists on this board have mentioned you tweak things for your setup. You don't blindly dose regardless of what the tank is showing you. 

With that said most systems I don't believe will suffer by some movement in dosing I'm not talking about extremes just within normal range. 

These excerpts are from advancedplantedtank.com:
_
"While the growth rates on the EI system are considerably faster, especially if higher lighting/CO2 levels are used, most plants can adapt to either a fat or lean nutrient dosing system."_

In regards to Tom Barr (EI):

"His success is more closely tied to good maintenance, quality of lighting and upkeep than on the actual nutrient ratios used, but people tend to get caught up with the nutrient angle. 

In regards to EI and ADA:

"Looking at these two popular methods show just how large the differences between dosing levels can be and both systems can produce great planted tanks."


----------



## cl3537

Greggz said:


> Bump:
> Part of the problem is that EI is not uniform. It's been presented as too broad a range IMO.


Broad Range, No Guidance on Ratios of Elements. Sparse guidelines on how to apply it to different types of tanks or how to adjust. Take your pick as to potential caveats they are numerous.


----------



## Greggz

cl3537 said:


> The likely reason why there are so many nutrient related problems here is that the experienced regulars here push their systems hard. and novices try to emulate aspects of what they are doing when they see the pretty tank shots.


Some of us just can't drive 55!!:grin2:


----------



## cl3537

Greggz said:


> Some of us just can't drive 55!!:grin2:


Why drive 55 when you can drive 155 on the Autobahn with EI ferts in your gas tank and a shot of NOS every once and a while.


----------



## ipkiss

@Ddrizzle, 

create a clickbait title, get a clickbait discussion. As always, discussions go on all sorts of tangents with no real resolution. What about YOUR tank? Don't really know for sure. Take all the guesses that came before me. However, I will impart upon you something I live my planted tank by. 

"Think of light as a gas pedal of a car. The harder you press down on the gas pedal (the more light you have), the faster your car will go (the faster your plants will grow). However, the car will require more regular maintenance (your plants will require more maintenance, i.e. fertilizers, CO2, etc)." 

Quoted from Darkblade's primer : https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107303#2

The phrase has been rephrased. quoted. paraphrased. but it holds true. 

Whatever ails your tank right now, be it fertilizers, co2, etc, the easiest solution is also the simplest solution right now, but probably one of the hardest to do because we're mentally blocked from doing it. You have no business going fast on a car that doesn't have all its cylinders humming or wheels balanced. So, I echo the posts earlier to reduce your lighting levels and/or amounts. A Satellite Plus Pro at 8 hours full intensity sounds like a little too much. Too much gas. 

If you have algae at the level you're having within 5 days, cutting light levels can only help you. A plant in the darkness can't even die in 5 days or else how would we ship plants? Try it for the next 5 days. Something significant. Like half the lighting period or half the intensity. 

What do you do if it makes a difference? Try to run at that reduced level for a while as you figure out all the other issues. Flow, co2 injection, saturation, everything mentioned before me. All good ideas in their way. Pick a method of fertilization and stick with it for a while. Shouldn't matter in the short term. Less light lets you run slower and buys you more time to think about your problems. Can't think about issues if you're scrubbing down a tank every 5 days. 

Who am I? Probably a noone. I can't claim any famous publications or fancy award winning tanks. I can only claim that I'm some regular hobbyist that went through what you are going through many years ago. Ecoxotic E-60 (Current Satellite Plus Pro's predecessor) at full power for 8 hours. and before that some T5HO Coralifes at full power. Just trying all sorts of stuff but always algae farming. Finally got smart and cut that light down.

When you get things right, I promise, you CAN run high light to your hearts content without triggering significant amounts of algae. I now can push *2X* Satellite plus pros at their full power. But even then, I only do it for 4 hours and drop it to 30% or less for the rest of the time (the other 4 hours). You give plants that short burst and they can be happy enough. Back then, I was baffled myself when I saw tanks running lights way higher than me and not getting algae. To the point of disbelief. But you know what? At the time, my tank just wasn't running properly. Except, the hard part here is not knowing what the problem is. So what do you do when your car is acting weird on the highway and it doesn't match up with what you understand is wrong with it? You drive slow, pull off, stop and take a look. Either way, you let off the gas.

Good luck and I hope you find your way!


----------



## Asteroid

Someone crashes and burns because he didn't adjust his speed around a turn and it's "I shall have my revenge in this life or the next"


----------



## Discusluv

cl3537 said:


> Yes, this is a major weakness of this board, you are the 'outlier' if you aren't caking on the high water column ferts.
> 
> The likely reason why there are so many nutrient related problems here is that the experienced regulars here push their systems hard. and novices try to emulate aspects of what they are doing when they see the pretty tank shots.
> 
> High light, high CO2, and a bias towards 'Dutch' scapes where there is a never ending task of balancing the needs of numerous different species of plants that have different preferences. Adjusting fertilizers is an iterative process in most of these tanks and it never stops, new species are added, the tank biomass changes, new experiments etc.
> 
> If we all blindly followed your example and everyone had 200+ par shining on their tanks without all the other details being covered, I beleive we would see even more 'nutrient related problems' because the higher PAR often highlights any mistakes or imbalances.
> 
> Diagnosis of excess ferts is difficult, reversing toxicity takes a long time(if ever), considering that most here don't even beleive it ever causes any problems, the old Barr rhetoric over the last decade prevails, "excess ferts never hurts, its usually a CO2 problem".


We are outliers when we choose to feel we are. I feel I am apart of a community here- even though my goals for my aquariums are quite different than (some, many?) others on this forum. You may want to look at posts beyond the fertilizing section - we are actually a diverse group of membership at TPT. 



I am an active member on this site and have no identification with this:

_"High light, high CO2, and a bias towards 'Dutch' scapes where there is a never ending task of balancing the needs of numerous different species of plants that have different preferences. Adjusting fertilizers is an iterative process in most of these tanks and it never stops, new species are added, the tank biomass changes, new experiments etc._

TPT is comprised of a diverse group of people that have different goals for their tanks. There are many other members on TPT who have no aspirations to ever be apart of the Dutch scape group. I have no desire- my focus and interests are elsewhere- on my fish. There are many TPT members like me; they are low-tech, have had fish tanks for years, and would just like to add some nice green plants in the aquarium to give their fish a healthy, "natural environment." Our knowledge of plants, lighting, ferts and its interaction is limited- we are here to learn how- utilizing low-tech- we can get some satisfaction in growing some plants in the aquarium.


----------



## cl3537

Discusluv said:


> We are outliers when we choose to feel we are. I feel I am apart of a community here- even though my goals for my aquariums are quite different than (some, many?) others on this forum. You may want to look at posts beyond the fertilizing section - we are actually a diverse group of membership at TPT.


Without a doubt  but this is plantedtank.net .

I mainly read the dosing thread, tank journals, and requests for advice threads. I beleive I am an outlier because the most active and vocal posters here are predominantly displaying dutch style tanks or just blindly using or preaching EI in all cases and giving advice based on their experiences with THEIR tanks, without proper balance given to the contrast between their tank and the one they are trying to help.

It may be they do not realize that leaner would work better or they do have as Dennis put it 'EI Nutrient Tunnel Vision'.



Xiaozhuang said:


> My tank is probably the outlier, but I'm sure some folks will find my values curious
> 
> Substrate PAR vary between 180 to 200ish umols.
> 
> Amounts dosed per week
> K - about 16 to 20ppm
> NO3 - 6 to 8ppm
> PO4 - 3 to 5ppm
> Mg - 5-7ppm
> 
> Fe - 0.1 to 0.15
> 
> (relatively) rich soil under rooted plants.


Should a top Aquascaper and teacher in this hobby consider himself and his methods as an outlier?

No. I don't think so, this place needs to feature more scapes that run on leaner ferts to demonstrate that it is also a viable method and educate more on the proper selection and starting point which in the vast majority of cases should have been leaner in the first place. Leaner ferts, less light, and slower and more controlled growth initially with a slow ramp up with increasing plant mass.



Xiaozhuang said:


> Still much higher density compared to many EI tanks. Plants don't really uptake all that much - or rather they can down regulate their uptake to grow on much leaner levels than people on this forum would have you believe. Look outside at the rest of the world (where most of the competition scapes come from) - most folks don't use EI at all... and we all grow plants just fine


In this thread and in others this phrase bears repeating until it trickles down so that the general advice from the average regular poster here is more balanced.


----------



## Asteroid

I honestly don't understand what the major problem is here. Yes in a perfect world the communication on what to with certain setups could be better, etc.but EI last I checked is not a company It's guy who developed a dosing method. In contrast ADA is a company. Now I love ADA stuff I obviously use their AS (which is probably what 99% of the people in the US use and not much else), but how many people come on this forum and don't know what to do with it? They don't follow any of the guidelines set out by ADA in terms of water changes, lighting and planting and usually end up with a mess. Some even have rinsed the stuff and then call it the product from hell. 

This is going back to Dennis's thread on over thinking ferts. There is a fairly wide margin of error if your take care of husbandry, co2 and lighting as he even describes on his site. Dennis doesn't even contribute Barr's success to fert dosing, but to the other aspects mentioned. If you have algae growing everywhere I'm very confident it's not because you provided a little too much of this or that or forget the nickel.


----------



## Discusluv

cl3537 said:


> Without a doubt  but this is plantedtank.net .
> 
> I mainly read the dosing thread, tank journals, and requests for advice threads. I beleive I am an outlier because the most active and vocal posters here are predominantly displaying dutch style tanks or just blindly using or preaching EI in all cases and giving advice based on their experiences with THEIR tanks, without proper balance given to the contrast between their tank and the one they are trying to help.
> 
> It may be they do not realize that leaner would work better or they do have as Dennis put it 'EI Nutrient Tunnel Vision'.
> 
> 
> 
> Should a top Aquascaper and teacher in this hobby consider himself and his methods as an outlier?
> 
> No. I don't think so, this place needs to feature more scapes that run on leaner ferts to demonstrate that it is also a viable method and educate more on the proper selection and starting point which in the vast majority of cases should have been leaner in the first place. Leaner ferts, less light, and slower and more controlled growth initially with a slow ramp up with increasing plant mass.
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread and in others this phrase bears repeating until it trickles down so that the general advice from the average regular poster here is more balanced.


 Yes, this is planted tank.net and I have plants in all four of my low-tech tanks. Its not "high-tech" planted tank .net. I think that is what you are conflating. Some sort of hierarchy among these two methods that shouldn't be there. 



The "most active and vocal" posters are within your vision of importance. Not mine. I experience this site much different than you do. 

I see no outliers here- thats the point. If you are experiencing this designation or seeing it in any one else's methods it is because you are identifying with that particular method and feeling others are discounting this method. A self-identifying move- not an imposed one. Dont worry what others are doing or posting. Start conveying your own message and methods and worrying less what others are saying.


----------



## cl3537

Discusluv said:


> I see no outliers here- thats the point.


I didn't post that paragraph to start a philosophical debate. I don't consider outlier as a perjorative term it is just a comparative descriptor and I beleive accurate. 

_*Outlier - a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set*_

I rarely see anyone on TPT, who is focussed on plants, injects CO2 and displays a wide variety of healthy plants that doses anywhere close to as lean as I am.

Up until last week I was dosing this in my new scape. (I increased it by 33% as a test this week but it wasn't because there were any deficiencies)

Total Weekly Dosing (50% water changes once per week)
N	1.416
P	0.106
Mg	0.412
K	1.088
S	0.962
Fe	0.073
Mn	0.041
B	0.004
Cu	0.006
Mo	0.002
Zn	0.002
Cl	0.528 

I beleive I am an outlier here amongst the 'High Tech' plant focussed crowd, but my dosing is comparable with how lean Filipe Oliveira doses(he may be even more lean) and many people I speak to offline and on Facebook.

Granted my plant selection plays a big part in this. Hygrophila Pinnatafida is probably the most demanding plant I have in this scape filled with epiphytes(Buces(Wavy Green and Red, Anubias Nana Petite) Crypt Parva, Spiky Moss, and low demand 'weed' stems (P. Erectus R. Rotundifolia) along with easy foreground plants (S. Repens, R. Inundatis, Eleocharis Mini) and one relatively easy red stem in Ludwigia Palustris.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Just an fyi, Here is my tank before I ripped out the plants in the back due to stunting/holes/dying (right after the daily 1/8 tsp of K). I kept the light and ferts where they were and my initial pics is what happened: https://gfycat.com/remorsefulhorribledesertpupfish . I ripped them out because the plants were growing extremely slow and dying from the bottom up. This is the problem I've yet to understand or solve from my main post, even after everyone's help.

Anyways, thanks for the posts. I DO understand the light vs co2 vs ferts thing. I bought a book called Sunked Gardens that explained it. Three months into my tank, my plants were stalling so I read the EI method and thought "ok, these people have success and I know I need more ferts because my plants are suffering even though I have adequate light and co2". However, I think EI, with what the current plant mass was, ruined my plants. Otherwise it was potentially my insanely high calcium.

Either way, I now realize I don't need a ton of ferts. Plants won't die when the nitrate isnt sitting at 20ppm, but it can die if it's way too high.

Now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of all of the parameters, my plan is to reset with water changes, lower the light time to 4 hours a day and replant. Basically reset. I'll be keeping co2 where it is as well because I havent read that it will make a negative difference.

If I run I to the same problems of old leaves dying, expect another thread. I simply cannot remember what exactly my maintenance or ferts were at after my initial stunting three months in. My hope is that I missed something obvious then.


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> Now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of all of the parameters, my plan is to reset with water changes, lower the light time to 4 hours a day and replant. Basically reset. I'll be keeping co2 where it is as well because I havent read that it will make a negative difference.
> 
> If I run I to the same problems of old leaves dying, expect another thread. I simply cannot remember what exactly my maintenance or ferts were at after my initial stunting three months in. My hope is that I missed something obvious then.


Sounds like a decent plan. If you could get your hands on a PAR meter(Seneye?) I would want to check PAR in the corners and at the back of your tank just to be sure you really do have 60 par at substrate as you beleive from extrapolation.

If you can keep up with water changes 2X per week that will help you keep Calcium levels in check (just in case that is a problem). While not definitive or conclusive look what excess Calcium could inhibit (K, Fe, Mg, P, Mn, Zn, B).


----------



## Discusluv

Okay- not pejorative- but, "set apart". Does this positioning of yourself as an "outlier" indicate you are in a position of neutrality? I wonder...
So, philosophy is not your thing. 
From what I gather, this is most important to you :


"_... this place needs to feature more scapes that run on leaner ferts to demonstrate that it is also a viable method and educate more on the proper selection and starting point which in the vast majority of cases should have been leaner in the first place. Leaner ferts, less light, and slower and more controlled growth initially with a slow ramp up with increasing plant mass._"

Education. I think this is important myself. Thats why I spend a lot of time-daily- helping others, answering questions on fish health, husbandry, illnesses...

Seems far more productive- being that you value the education of others in broader terms than what ( you feel) is being offered currently- to help beginners get off on the right foot. Be an alternate voice in the community by helping those that need your help. 

Believe me- I have some alternative views that are not part of the consensus- given opportunity I express them. When beginners ask a direct question in relation to these views- I give them my take. Inevitably, the detractors then give theirs- but, I can at least give that beginner something to weigh when they are first making important choices. This is where your knowledge can make a difference.


----------



## Wobblebonk

I don't know if my plants are always all healthy but I dose pretty lean, I just don't talk about that very much... I barely participate at all in fert discussions. It's not even consistent between my own tanks every one is an ongoing experiment of sorts, but 1/3 EI (is this really a standard unit heh) is about as high as any of my tanks get.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

OP; 

The other unlikely, but possible scenario is that you hit a bad batch of aquasoil. Recent batches have been more inconsistent - enough that I stopped using ADA soil myself.
If plants are rotting at the roots even as the tips are growing well, this may be it.
Easy way to test this is have a cup of another substrate in the same tank and see how plants grow in it.

Bump: OP; 

The other unlikely, but possible scenario is that you hit a bad batch of aquasoil. Recent batches have been more inconsistent - enough that I stopped using ADA soil myself.
If plants are rotting at the roots even as the tips are growing well, this may be it.
Easy way to test this is have a cup of another substrate in the same tank and see how plants grow in it.


----------



## Desert Pupfish

Ddrizzle said:


> Just an fyi, Here is my tank before I ripped out the plants in the back due to stunting/holes/dying. I kept the light and ferts where they were and my I itial pics is what happened: https://gfycat.com/remorsefulhorribledesertpupfish


Didn't realize there was another DesertPupfish out there. Sorry if I inadvertently plagiarized your handle.

If it's any consolation, the tank in your vid looks way better than mine does right now.....


----------



## Smooch

Ddrizzle said:


> Just an fyi, Here is my tank before I ripped out the plants in the back due to stunting/holes/dying. I kept the light and ferts where they were and my I itial pics is what happened: https://gfycat.com/remorsefulhorribledesertpupfish . I ripped them out because the plants were growing extremely slow and dying from the bottom up. This is the problem I've yet to understand or solve from my main post, even after everyone's help.
> 
> Anyways, thanks for the posts. I DO understand the light vs co2 vs ferts thing. I bought a book called Sunked Gardens that explained it. Three months into my tank, my plants were stalling so I read the EI method and thought "ok, these people have success and I know I need more ferts because my plants are suffering even though I have adequate light and co2". However, I think EI, with what the current plant mass was, ruined my plants. Otherwise it was potentially my insanely high calcium.
> 
> Either way, I now realize I don't need a ton of ferts. Plants won't die when the nitrate isnt sitting at 20ppm, but it can die if it's way too high.
> 
> Now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of all of the parameters, my plan is to reset with water changes, lower the light time to 4 hours a day and replant. Basically reset. I'll be keeping co2 where it is as well because I havent read that it will make a negative difference.
> 
> If I run I to the same problems of old leaves dying, expect another thread. I simply cannot remember what exactly my maintenance or ferts were at after my initial stunting three months in. My hope is that I missed something obvious then.


I'm glad you're not throwing your hands up in the air and running away. Lots of people do.

As far as plants rotting from the bottom up, I don't have a explanation for that, but since your tank is relatively new in terms of 'tank age', tanks need time to develop what is called a microbial bed. I don't explain this well, so I'm not going to try. Instead I'll let Dave from ADU explain it as he's a science guy. 







Also keep in mind that plants have a adjustment period when they go from the tank you purchased them from to yours. Plants are going to melt, develop holes and shed leaves until they adapt to your water parameters. Not all plants are going to like your tank; this is okay. It is perfectly normal and doesn't mean you've failed somehow.

EDIT: I missed Dennis' post. If it is a bad batch of AS, watch the video when you have time. The more you know, the better.


----------



## ipkiss

Ddrizzle said:


> Now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of all of the parameters, my plan is to reset with water changes, lower the light time to 4 hours a day and replant. Basically reset. I'll be keeping co2 where it is as well because I havent read that it will make a negative difference.
> 
> If I run I to the same problems of old leaves dying, expect another thread. I simply cannot remember what exactly my maintenance or ferts were at after my initial stunting three months in. My hope is that I missed something obvious then.


Sounds like something to go forward with. 

Just remember like @Seattle_Aquarist always says, look for new plant growth and how well they stay healthy. Changes take a couple weeks sometimes to show themselves. They ARE plants. Speed is relative  

I would also not take co2 for granted -- all the way from the cylinder to the plant. Injection, reaction, diffusion, flow, absorption. I would inspect and reinspect the entire process. There's just so many places to go wrong here. Unlike ferts, short of gassing fish, I dont recall anyone ever arguing about too much co2. So, if you think you have enough, you probably dont have enough.  and as always if you're going to make co2 changes, watch your fish. That change can show itself real quick.


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> Just an fyi, Here is my tank before I ripped out the plants in the back due to stunting/holes/dying. I kept the light and ferts where they were and my I itial pics is what happened: https://gfycat.com/remorsefulhorribledesertpupfish .


One more thing I noticed:

The large primary Seiryu stone breaking the water surface does concern me a little bit, and how it might be blocking flow, would you consider lowering the substrate below it so that you have at least a couple inches of water above it to the surface? That would dramatically increase natural flow and may help with CO2 and fert circulation. It looks like you put a powerhead behind it which is a good idea but I would be more comfortable if it was a little lower considering the algae problems you are having.


----------



## Greggz

cl3537 said:


> Granted my plant selection plays a big part in this. Hygrophila Pinnatafida is probably the most demanding plant I have in this scape filled with epiphytes(Buces(Wavy Green and Red, Anubias Nana Petite) Crypt Parva, Spiky Moss, and low demand 'weed' stems (P. Erectus R. Rotundifolia) along with easy foreground plants (S. Repens, R. Inundatis, Eleocharis Mini) and one relatively easy red stem in Ludwigia Palustris.


This is an important point.

Similar to my tank when it was low tech. Needed very, very little to no ferts. 

IMO, species of plants and overall goals need to be considered from the beginning.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Discusluv said:


> Education. I think this is important myself. Thats why I spend a lot of time-daily- helping others, answering questions on fish health, husbandry, illnesses...


I may regret replying to the thread that will never end. :|
@Discusluv good point made on the "Education" front.
When searching the web one must also have the ability to determine fact from fiction.
Everything on the web is of course absolutely the truth! >

To add to this, in a planted tank world "Experience" is also key.
So many species of plants are available these days.
Last time I checked there are no courses on trimming and propagation of aquatic plants.

This journey takes time, I'm 5 years in on heavily planted tanks.
Some days I feel like I've only grazed the surface.


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> Just an fyi, Here is my tank before I ripped out the plants in the back due to stunting/holes/dying. I kept the light and ferts where they were and my I itial pics is what happened: https://gfycat.com/remorsefulhorribledesertpupfish . I ripped them out because the plants were growing extremely slow and dying from the bottom up. This is the problem I've yet to understand or solve from my main post, even after everyone's help.
> 
> Anyways, thanks for the posts. I DO understand the light vs co2 vs ferts thing. I bought a book called Sunked Gardens that explained it. Three months into my tank, my plants were stalling so I read the EI method and thought "ok, these people have success and I know I need more ferts because my plants are suffering even though I have adequate light and co2". However, I think EI, with what the current plant mass was, ruined my plants. Otherwise it was potentially my insanely high calcium.
> 
> Either way, I now realize I don't need a ton of ferts. Plants won't die when the nitrate isnt sitting at 20ppm, but it can die if it's way too high.
> 
> Now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of all of the parameters, my plan is to reset with water changes, lower the light time to 4 hours a day and replant. Basically reset. I'll be keeping co2 where it is as well because I havent read that it will make a negative difference.
> 
> If I run I to the same problems of old leaves dying, expect another thread. I simply cannot remember what exactly my maintenance or ferts were at after my initial stunting three months in. My hope is that I missed something obvious then.


I'm curious, I know you believe the calcium is coming from the stone, but could the calcium be coming from your tap?

I ask because if you hop on youtube and look at a ton of aquascapes from members such as George Farmer and others they use Seiryu stone in quite a few scapes. Their tanks at least through recordings look fine and the leached calcium doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the system.


----------



## Discusluv

Maryland Guppy said:


> I may regret replying to the thread that will never end. :|
> 
> @*Discusluv* good point made on the "Education" front.
> When searching the web one must also have the ability to determine fact from fiction.
> Everything on the web is of course absolutely the truth! >
> 
> To add to this, in a planted tank world "Experience" is also key.
> So many species of plants are available these days.
> Last time I checked there are no courses on trimming and propagation of aquatic plants.
> 
> This journey takes time, I'm 5 years in on heavily planted tanks.
> Some days I feel like I've only grazed the surface.







That old saying...


The wisdom paradox:
The more you learn, the more you are exposed to what you dont know. :smile2:


----------



## Ddrizzle

cl3537 said:


> Sounds like a decent plan. If you could get your hands on a PAR meter(Seneye?) I would want to check PAR in the corners and at the back of your tank just to be sure you really do have 60 par at substrate as you beleive from extrapolation.
> 
> If you can keep up with water changes 2X per week that will help you keep Calcium levels in check (just in case that is a problem). While not definitive or conclusive look what excess Calcium could inhibit (K, Fe, Mg, P, Mn, Zn, B).


I actually own a PAR meter but I can double check what the PAR is on the very edges. I'm not sure I measured anywhere but the middle but I thought I did.



Xiaozhuang said:


> OP;
> 
> The other unlikely, but possible scenario is that you hit a bad batch of aquasoil. Recent batches have been more inconsistent - enough that I stopped using ADA soil myself.
> If plants are rotting at the roots even as the tips are growing well, this may be it.
> Easy way to test this is have a cup of another substrate in the same tank and see how plants grow in it.
> 
> Bump: OP;
> 
> The other unlikely, but possible scenario is that you hit a bad batch of aquasoil. Recent batches have been more inconsistent - enough that I stopped using ADA soil myself.
> If plants are rotting at the roots even as the tips are growing well, this may be it.
> Easy way to test this is have a cup of another substrate in the same tank and see how plants grow in it.


Ok, why not. I've tried everything else. BTW I've had BGA an inch into my substrate but not on the surface of it since I was dry starting. My Baby's Tears never grew during dry start as much as they should have either.




Desert Pupfish said:


> Didn't realize there was another DesertPupfish out there. Sorry if I inadvertently plagiarized your handle.
> 
> If it's any consolation, the tank in your vid looks way better than mine does right now.....


Oh man, that's hilarious! What are the chances a random name generator would pick that?



ipkiss said:


> Sounds like something to go forward with.
> 
> Just remember like @Seattle_Aquarist always says, look for new plant growth and how well they stay healthy. Changes take a couple weeks sometimes to show themselves. They ARE plants. Speed is relative
> 
> I would also not take co2 for granted -- all the way from the cylinder to the plant. Injection, reaction, diffusion, flow, absorption. I would inspect and reinspect the entire process. There's just so many places to go wrong here. Unlike ferts, short of gassing fish, I dont recall anyone ever arguing about too much co2. So, if you think you have enough, you probably dont have enough. and as always if you're going to make co2 changes, watch your fish. That change can show itself real quick.


The main problem was that my plants would look GREAT after dosing new ferts, but then the bottom would consistently rot. I'm talking three months of waiting. This was over three months already INTO the tank too.



cl3537 said:


> One more thing I noticed:
> 
> The large primary Seiryu stone breaking the water surface does concern me a little bit, and how it might be blocking flow, would you consider lowering the substrate below it so that you have at least a couple inches of water above it to the surface? That would dramatically increase natural flow and may help with CO2 and fert circulation. It looks like you put a powerhead behind it which is a good idea but I would be more comfortable if it was a little lower considering the algae problems you are having.


I have a Vortech MP10 powerhead on the right, back side to increase flow there. It stopped any BGA or hair algae from growing on or near the rock/java moss, but BBA still stuck around. Interestingly enough, the rotala directly under and a few inches away from the powerhead grew at 1/4 the rate of the others farther away.



Quesenek said:


> I'm curious, I know you believe the calcium is coming from the stone, but could the calcium be coming from your tap?
> 
> I ask because if you hop on youtube and look at a ton of aquascapes from members such as George Farmer and others they use Seiryu stone in quite a few scapes. Their tanks at least through recordings look fine and the leached calcium doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the system.


Good question but I'm using RO and tested it already. I'm not 100% sure it's even seiryu, but the rock has definitely disappeared a bit and cracks have widened since it being in the tank.


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> Good question but I'm using RO and tested it already. I'm not 100% sure it's even seiryu, but the rock has definitely disappeared a bit and cracks have widened since it being in the tank.


I'm not a rock expert, but that doesn't sound like it should be happening if it truly is seiryu. 
I know seiryu stone deteriorates when in water, but I always thought that would have been over a period of many many years.
Maybe someone who knows more can chime in.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

ipkiss said:


> Sounds like something to go forward with.
> 
> Just remember like @Seattle_Aquarist always says, look for new plant growth and how well they stay healthy. Changes take a couple weeks sometimes to show themselves. They ARE plants. Speed is relative
> 
> I would also not take co2 for granted -- all the way from the cylinder to the plant. Injection, reaction, diffusion, flow, absorption. I would inspect and reinspect the entire process. There's just so many places to go wrong here. Unlike ferts, short of gassing fish, I dont recall anyone ever arguing about too much co2. So, if you think you have enough, you probably dont have enough.  and as always if you're going to make co2 changes, watch your fish. That change can show itself real quick.


Hi All,

As ipkiss stated we have to give plants time to adjust. Below is a picture of Pogostemon erectus. It was suffering in my 45 gallon with CO2 and EI dosing. It had stunted leaves and extremely slow growth. The tank parameters were: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

So I moved it to my *low tech, low light, high no CO2 tank* with tank parameters of: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] (20 ppm Ca & 9.6 ppm Mg); dose Excel 3X per week. I dose low EI with [email protected] however I have added six (6) Osmocote Plus tabs to the substrate.

Can you see the difference in growth over the last four (4) weeks? Notice how the leaves on the lower half of the stems are stunted and curled downward? What changed? I have also seen similar results with my Rotala 'Vietnam' which was in the same 45 gallon tank as the Pogostemon erectus. Is it the low dKH coupled with root feeding as suggested by Vin Kutty in his presentation at the AGA Convention last month? Obviously something improved!

Pogostemon erectus









Rotala 'Vietnam'


----------



## Ddrizzle

Quesenek said:


> I'm not a rock expert, but that doesn't sound like it should be happening if it truly is seiryu.
> I know seiryu stone deteriorates when in water, but I always thought that would have been over a period of many many years.
> Maybe someone who knows more can chime in.





I guess I could ask the guy at Nature Aquarium in Santa Monica what they were. I blindly trusted his stock since he seemed like the best shop in that area.



Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi All,
> 
> As ipkiss stated we have to give plants time to adjust. Below is a picture of Pogostemon erectus. It was suffering in my 45 gallon with CO2 and EI dosing. It had stunted leaves and extremely slow growth. The tank parameters were: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> So I moved it to my low tech, low light, high no CO2 tank with tank parameters of: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] (20 ppm Ca & 9.6 ppm Mg); dose Excel 3X per week. I dose low EI with [email protected] however I have added six (6) Osmocote Plus tabs to the substrate.
> 
> Can you see the difference in growth over the last four (4) weeks? Notice how the leaves on the lower half of the stems are stunted and curled downward? What changed? I have also seen similar results with my Rotala 'Vietnam' which was in the same 45 gallon tank as the Pogostemon erectus. Is it the low dKH coupled with root feeding as suggested by Vin Kutty in his presentation at the AGA Convention last month? Obviously something improved!
> 
> Pogostemon erectus
> 
> 
> Rotala 'Vietnam'


This is exactly what my issue is/was. Would love to hear a response! My main problem is that the leaves would come out looking great but then would deteriorate when the next generation appeared. And I mean it looks EXACTLY like your pics. Are you seeing pinholes and yellowing with algae growing on the old ones if you look closely?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi @Ddrizzle,

With Pogostemon erectus and Rotala 'Vietnam' it is not possible to see any pinholes in the leaves with my old eyes. I can tell you that most of the other plants in the 45 gallon are doing fine with the exception of my Hygrophila which does show good new leaves but leaf deterioration as the leaves mature.....likely potassium in my case.


----------



## cl3537

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> As ipkiss stated we have to give plants time to adjust. Below is a picture of Pogostemon erectus. It was suffering in my 45 gallon with CO2 and EI dosing. It had stunted leaves and extremely slow growth.
> 
> So I moved it to my low tech, low light, high no CO2 tank..... I dose low EI with [email protected] however I have added six (6) Osmocote Plus tabs to the substrate.


All you needed to do was move it to leaner water column ferts, CO2 would have helped and hardness doesn't matter much either. You don't need root tabs for rotalas or pogostemon erectus, they will grow like weeds in 5 ppm of Nitrates in the water column or even less and of course lower micros as well.

My old tank had higher ferts, not as high as yours or full classic EI but still high and I saw slow growth, hair algae, and branching from P. Erectus. First before tearing down the scape I tried dosing just about once or twice a week very lean, but the buildup in Tropica CEC Aquasoil kept these plants unhappy for weeks before I tore down the scape.

Moved RR and PE to lean ferts and inert substrate (same light, same CO2, even the same lean ferts I was dosing in the old scape at the end) and within two weeks I saw major improvements. 

You can see corroboration for what I am saying from Vin's Rotala Kill Tank thread https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-25


----------



## Quesenek

cl3537 said:


> All you needed to do was move it to leaner water column ferts, CO2 would have helped and hardness doesn't matter much either. You don't need root tabs for rotalas or pogostemon erectus, they will grow like weeds in 5 ppm of Nitrates in the water column or even less and of course lower micros as well.
> 
> My old tank had higher ferts, not as high as yours or full classic EI but still high and I saw slow growth, hair algae, and branching from P. Erectus. First before tearing down the scape I tried dosing just about once or twice a week very lean, but the buildup in Tropica CEC Aquasoil kept these plants unhappy for weeks before I tore down the scape.
> 
> Moved RR and PE to lean ferts and inert substrate (same light, same CO2, even the same lean ferts I was dosing in the old scape at the end) and within two weeks I saw major improvements.
> 
> You can see corroboration for what I am saying from Vin's Rotala Kill Tank thread https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-25


The rotala kill tank thread is a treasure, so much information to be found.

BTW if anyone has issues with images not showing in the thread click on the broken image and in the URL replace postimg.org with postimg.cc and it will show the image.


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

ipkiss said:


> @Ddrizzle,
> 
> create a clickbait title, get a clickbait discussion. As always, discussions go on all sorts of tangents with no real resolution. What about YOUR tank? Don't really know for sure. Take all the guesses that came before me. However, I will impart upon you something I live my planted tank by.
> 
> "Think of light as a gas pedal of a car. The harder you press down on the gas pedal (the more light you have), the faster your car will go (the faster your plants will grow). However, the car will require more regular maintenance (your plants will require more maintenance, i.e. fertilizers, CO2, etc)."
> 
> Quoted from Darkblade's primer : https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107303#2
> 
> The phrase has been rephrased. quoted. paraphrased. but it holds true.
> 
> Whatever ails your tank right now, be it fertilizers, co2, etc, the easiest solution is also the simplest solution right now, but probably one of the hardest to do because we're mentally blocked from doing it. You have no business going fast on a car that doesn't have all its cylinders humming or wheels balanced. So, I echo the posts earlier to reduce your lighting levels and/or amounts. A Satellite Plus Pro at 8 hours full intensity sounds like a little too much. Too much gas.
> 
> If you have algae at the level you're having within 5 days, cutting light levels can only help you. A plant in the darkness can't even die in 5 days or else how would we ship plants? Try it for the next 5 days. Something significant. Like half the lighting period or half the intensity.
> 
> What do you do if it makes a difference? Try to run at that reduced level for a while as you figure out all the other issues. Flow, co2 injection, saturation, everything mentioned before me. All good ideas in their way. Pick a method of fertilization and stick with it for a while. Shouldn't matter in the short term. Less light lets you run slower and buys you more time to think about your problems. Can't think about issues if you're scrubbing down a tank every 5 days.
> 
> Who am I? Probably a noone. I can't claim any famous publications or fancy award winning tanks. I can only claim that I'm some regular hobbyist that went through what you are going through many years ago. Ecoxotic E-60 (Current Satellite Plus Pro's predecessor) at full power for 8 hours. and before that some T5HO Coralifes at full power. Just trying all sorts of stuff but always algae farming. Finally got smart and cut that light down.
> 
> When you get things right, I promise, you CAN run high light to your hearts content without triggering significant amounts of algae. I now can push *2X* Satellite plus pros at their full power. But even then, I only do it for 4 hours and drop it to 30% or less for the rest of the time (the other 4 hours). You give plants that short burst and they can be happy enough. Back then, I was baffled myself when I saw tanks running lights way higher than me and not getting algae. To the point of disbelief. But you know what? At the time, my tank just wasn't running properly. Except, the hard part here is not knowing what the problem is. So what do you do when your car is acting weird on the highway and it doesn't match up with what you understand is wrong with it? You drive slow, pull off, stop and take a look. Either way, you let off the gas.
> 
> Good luck and I hope you find your way!



Sorry hijacking this with a satellite pro plus question. How do you run it for 4h at 100% and then the rest at lower "speed?" All I can do is set a % and then do the 15 minutes warm up/sundown thing with the controller that came with it.


----------



## Ddrizzle

TheLordOfTheFish said:


> Sorry hijacking this with a satellite pro plus question. How do you run it for 4h at 100% and then the rest at lower "speed?" All I can do is set a % and then do the 15 minutes warm up/sundown thing with the controller that came with it.


There is only two modes for this light. Daylight and night time. You set both of those levels first and then simply set the timer for when you want the light to come on (to daylight) and then off (to night time).


----------



## Asteroid

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> It was suffering in my 45 gallon with CO2 and EI dosing. It had stunted leaves and extremely slow growth. The tank parameters were: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> .. I dose low EI with [email protected]


So it's not really about EI, it's about going full blast EI under the wrong water conditions. Several of your parameters in the 1st setup are out of EI target ranges. Your describing dosing low EI at no3 10ppm. That is still within the range of EI. As has been repeated ad nauseum as one gains experience they know how to adjust not just dosing but maintenance, light, co2.

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


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Asteroid said:


> So it's not really about EI, it's about going full blast EI under the wrong water conditions. Several of your parameters in the 1st setup are out of EI target ranges. Your describing dosing low EI at no3 10ppm. That is still within the range of EI. As has been repeated ad nauseum as one gains experience they know how to adjust not just dosing but maintenance, light, co2.
> 
> *EI target ranges*
> CO2 range 25-30 ppm
> NO3 range 5-30 ppm
> K+ range 10-30 ppm
> PO4 range 1.0-2.0 ppm
> Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher
> GH range 3-5 degrees
> KH range 3-5


Hi @Asteroid,

I did not say the issues were caused by EI dosing, actually according to the AGA Convention presentation it was suggested that high dKH may contribute of the issues I was experiencing as well as nitrogen in the water column in the two species I referenced above. I am neither "pro-EI" nor "anti-EI"; I am only concerned with healthy plant growth.

Although the suggested parameters for EI dosing are well known, and likely accommodate the needs of many plant species, it would be foolish of me to assume that those parameters are ideal for all plant species since all these species evolved in different habitats with different water parameters around the world.


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> Thank you everyone.
> 
> As for inert substrate - what are people using?


Are you talking for replacing all the soil or something to use as proper underlay for doing a build up under soil?

For a underlay .25-.5” black lava made for fire pits is perfect.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Fir...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TH9D19F04X2MK3RPFWK8


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

Ddrizzle said:


> There is only two modes for this light. Daylight and night time. You set both of those levels first and then simply set the timer for when you want the light to come on (to daylight) and then off (to night time).


Sorry to seek clarification. So you set your daytime to 100%, night time to 30% and then you use an external timer to completely shut the light off for the real rest period? Maybe I should take a look again at the manual huh.


----------



## ipkiss

Ddrizzle said:


> This is exactly what my issue is/was. Would love to hear a response! My main problem is that the leaves would come out looking great but then would deteriorate when the next generation appeared. And I mean it looks EXACTLY like your pics. Are you seeing pinholes and yellowing with algae growing on the old ones if you look closely?


I think you may have misinterpreted @Seattle_Aquarist's post .. or maybe I did. His new growth was much better AFTER he moved it to a different tank. The old stunted growth was that way BEFORE he moved it. In contrast, as I read it, your old growth is just not surviving long enough for whatever reason. 

Not saying this is your case, but I went through something similar back in 2014. New growth seemingly ok, but roots would rot, the melt would chase upwards to the new growth, and the plant would float free. I even suspected my substrate was bad and was mulling a replacement. It's really hard to say what resolved it. As I did not scientifically pursue it, I can only say (you're gonna kill me :grin2: ) CO2, CO2, CO2... flow, flow flow, CO2 *cough* too much light *cough* Well, something like that anyway.. and maybe a few more things happened. According to what I wrote in the journal, I got a skimmer so that I could enhance my surface agitation and gas exchange and thus, push the CO2 harder. I thought I read about lack of oxygen down in the substrate causing this melt. Like you, I was just chasing anything at that point. I think @DaveKS pointed out possible flow issues and thickness of your substrate. Then, I read that happy plants are supposed to push oxygen out in the substrate via their roots too, so it's almost a vicious cycle once things go downhill. I also replaced my filtration with a canister. Was running a HOB and the flow patterns were just not optimal. Got different plants, finally cut down light and spent the next year slowly re-optimizing everything. Bigger reactors, lighting schedule changes (including adopting that timing I mentioned previously), and so on. You know what you might need to try? Get something real tough, like lobelia cardinalis was for me. See if it grows and just fill the tank with it. Get a taste of that success just to convince you that your tank CAN grow plants. It also sort of teaches you how to manage planting over time too. I'm rambling now. As @Discusluv said, the more I learn, the less I know.. Well, in this case, the less I'm sure about anything. But anyway, I DID manage to stumble out of it without replacing my substrate ... 



TheLordOfTheFish said:


> Sorry hijacking this with a satellite pro plus question. How do you run it for 4h at 100% and then the rest at lower "speed?" All I can do is set a % and then do the 15 minutes warm up/sundown thing with the controller that came with it.





Ddrizzle said:


> There is only two modes for this light. Daylight and night time. You set both of those levels first and then simply set the timer for when you want the light to come on (to daylight) and then off (to night time).


Very observant of you, @TheLordOfTheFish, to notice that wrinkle  and @Ddrizzle is right, as it comes from the factory, that's all you can do. I suppose you can try to get a second unit and set it at a different light level and time it on a different cycle. Much like how the T5HO guys do it. However, because we live in the 21st century, people come up with projects like this: iAqua Lite Ecoxotic E-Series cross fading controller Of course, you may probably have trouble finding the parts that this thread refers to nowadays, but if you're savvy with this sort of stuff, it'd be no sweat to substitute what you need or even come up with something yourself based on the idea. In a nutshell, someone created an IR blaster type controller out of an arduino. Found the proper IR codes to send to the ecoxotic/satellites (minor code difference) and programmed whatever timing they want. Guys are creating new ones with raspberry pis and what not. Web driven too nowadays! I am not that savvy. I don't know what I'll do when my controller gives up. Maybe I'll have to find a new fixture that does do all that. Or bite the bullet and chase down a new project.


----------



## DaveKS

Yea, some long standing crown plants like swords, especially if you get ones tall enough that tips emerge from water or even a Anubis lancefolia mounted to rock and give the roots time to work their way down into deep depths of that substrate would bring co2 down via roots and release oxygen as part of uptake of nutrients.

There’s a fine line between desirable anaerobic activity and a sour, putrid, stagnant lower layer of organics leeching sulfide and other noxious substances back into your water.


----------



## Discusluv

DaveKS said:


> Yea, some long standing crown plants like swords, especially if you get ones tall enough that tips emerge from water or even a Anubis lancefolia mounted to rock and give the roots time to work their way down into deep depths of that substrate would bring co2 down via roots and release oxygen as part of uptake of nutrients.
> 
> There’s a fine line between desirable anaerobic activity and a sour, putrid, stagnant lower layer of organics leeching sulfide and other noxious substances back into your water.


 Im curious to how common this anaerobic scenario happens- where leaching of sulfides actually leaks out into the tank at such a level that it is toxic or detrimental? Ive heard it can happen and dont doubt it does happen, but haven't seen it myself in my tanks in 3 decades of fish-keeping. And believe me, I stumbled along the same path of mistakes and mishaps that every other beginner has to navigate. 

My tanks did not have plants up until a few years ago and have always had a depth of 3 inches of substrate because it appeals to me.


----------



## cl3537

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi [MENTION=388085], actually according to the AGA Convention presentation it was suggested that high dKH may contribute of the issues I was experiencing as well as nitrogen in the water column in the two species I referenced above.


To Quote Vin:

"R. wallichii and A. pedicellata struggle more when faced with BOTH high nutrients and hard water (Dual Insult) and somehow struggle less when you have high nutrient + very soft water (Single Insult.)"

Although those two are more sensitive than others the same appears to apply to the whole Lythraceae family.

But is interesting you mention Nitrogen, the more conclusive culprit was Micros in the Rotala Kill Thread, what did he say about low trace and higher Macro levels?


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> I have a Vortech MP10 powerhead on the right, back side to increase flow there. It stopped any BGA or hair algae from growing on or near the rock/java moss, but BBA still stuck around. Interestingly enough, the rotala directly under and a few inches away from the powerhead grew at 1/4 the rate of the others farther away.


You are at a crossroads right now and this comes down to your approach to your goals and time horizon.

One approach is to fix one thing at a time and then wait, which may or may not work, but if it does you will know exactly what the main issue was that needed fixing but it comes at a heavy expense of time. It is difficult to avoid dead spots when you have hardscape that reaches the water surface.

The other way is to minnimize all potential risk factors and make changes that give you the best chance for success even if some of those changes were just being overcautious. That is essentially tearing down the tank and starting over with new substrate. I did this and it worked as my main goal was to grow healthy plants and enjoy my tank, secondary was the research and tinkering aspect.

A few pages back there was an important post by @DaveKS about your flow and your substrate which I think largely got lost. He pointed to a red area under a tall hill of Aquasoil which may or may not be compacted which likely is the place where your BGA or a place that caused or could cause problems. 

Dead spots increase risk of Algae (Hair, GDA, GSA). High artificial flow (Powerhead etc.) beside dead spots increase risk of BBA algae.
Rotala doesn't like high flow blowing it around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another major issue which is related to a poor batch of Aquasoil,, even if the soil was okay to begin with it might not be now.

Even with lean ferts I could not fix my algae or stunting issues, my lightly compacted Tropica Aquasoil and whatever was bound to it that was being released into the water column(from a couple months of EI dosing) was preventing successful growth of RR, SR and PE even if my dosing became leaner and more optimal. I beleive @Deanna experienced the same thing and Pikez(Vin) described this in his Kill Tanks on Barrreport.

My approach was to remove any possible risk factors to improve success. I removed old toxified Aquasoil and changed to inert coarse sand, Purigen in the filter to control Organics, 1x Excel overdosed all plants in a plastic bin @Deanna Bomb Method 1.5ml/Gallon) and waited a week to kill any existing algae before putting plants in the new scape. Lighting duration really low (3 hours duration to begin with) and was doing multiple 50% water changes per week at the beginning and planted as heavy as possible with low demand plants with some fast growers.

Now this approach isn't for everyone, its a lot of effort, but I beleive ditching the toxic Aquasoil (which probably had a buildup of ferts and organics bound to it from months of overdosing) was the single most important aspect of turning around my tank.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

> I think you may have misinterpreted @Seattle_Aquarist's post .. or maybe I did. His new growth was much better AFTER he moved it to a different tank. The old stunted growth was that way BEFORE he moved it. In contrast, as I read it, your old growth is just not surviving long enough for whatever reason.


Hi All,

Yes, the new growth in the low tech tank is much better than it was in the CO2 tank for the two species I mentioned.

Bump:


cl3537 said:


> To Quote Vin:
> 
> "R. wallichii and A. pedicellata struggle more when faced with BOTH high nutrients and hard water (Dual Insult) and somehow struggle less when you have high nutrient + very soft water (Single Insult.)"
> 
> Although those two are more sensitive than others the same appears to apply to the whole Lythraceae family.
> 
> But is interesting you mention Nitrogen, the more conclusive culprit was Micros in the Rotala Kill Thread, what did he say about low trace and higher Macro levels?


Hi @cl3537,

I would have to review the video of his presentation to see if he described that scenario or not.


----------



## DaveKS

Discusluv said:


> Im curious to how common this anaerobic scenario happens- where leaching of sulfides actually leaks out into the tank at such a level that it is toxic or detrimental? Ive heard it can happen and dont doubt it does happen, but haven't seen it myself in my tanks in 3 decades of fish-keeping. And believe me, I stumbled along the same path of mistakes and mishaps that every other beginner has to navigate.
> 
> My tanks did not have plants up until a few years ago and have always had a depth of 3 inches of substrate because it appeals to me.


3” of inert substrate almost never a problem, only really fine play sand can start being a problem at that depth but only in low flow environments. 

But yea I’ve seen a really deep gravel bed probably 5-6” deep that had a long buried driftwood on slate pulled up from it and it released a sulfide bomb in tank. Within 30min every fish in tank was floating on top dead or near dead. Whole reason for us pulling it was to fix this tanks substrate bed and lower level because of all algae problems in tank and poor fish health. We should have known better thinking back on it now. 0


----------



## cl3537

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> I would have to review the video of his presentation to see if he described that scenario or not.


So why do you think these plants(PE, RR) stunt due to high water column Nitrogen alone?

Bump:


Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Yes, the new growth in the low tech tank is much better than it was in the CO2 tank for the two species I mentioned.


That is a misleading message. The new growth in the lean ferts tank was much better than the stunted growth in the EI high ferts tank.
The fact the lean ferts tank didn't have CO2 and the and the high ferts tank did was not the determining factor.

P. Erectus and R. Rotudifolia both grow better with CO2 versus without CO2 if all other variables remain the same.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

cl3537 said:


> That is a misleading message. The new growth in the lean ferts tank was much better than the stunted growth in the EI high ferts tank.
> The fact the lean ferts tank didn't have CO2 and the and the high ferts tank did was not the determining factor.
> 
> P. Erectus and R. Rotudifolia both grow better with CO2 versus without CO2 if all other variables remain the same.


Hi @cl3537,

I don't disagree, it is likely that with the same parameters as I have in my low tech tank along with CO2 growth would be better - however I have not tested that scenario. I can only describe the results I am receiving based upon my current tank parameters.


----------



## cl3537

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @cl3537,
> 
> I don't disagree, it is likely that with the same parameters as I have in my low tech tank along with CO2 growth would be better - however I have not tested that scenario. I can only describe the results I am receiving based upon my current tank parameters.


Well I do find it interesting that you can grow this plant reasonably well without CO2. Tropica reccomends otherwise.
https://tropica.com/en/plants/plantdetails/Pogostemonerectus(053FTC)/4497

I do wonder though if over time you will lose lower leaves or have a more brittle stem without CO2 injection for P. Erectus.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi @cl3537,

Only time will tell, I plan on maintaining this tank 'as is' until I move out the Melanotaenia lacustris fry to a larger tank, probably a month or two and will try to do a periodic update so folks can see the progress (or lack thereof).


----------



## Maryland Guppy

cl3537 said:


> So why do you think these plants(PE, RR) stunt due to high water column Nitrogen alone?
> 
> P. Erectus and R. Rotudifolia both grow better with CO2 versus without CO2 if all other variables remain the same.


P.erectus enjoys a low KH @ less than 1dKH, micros under .2ppm Fe in the water column.
IMHO macro ferts have not mattered regarding growth/stunting.
Typical Pogo behavior with this one, if unhappy tip will stunt and begin branching with two or more segments.
If lower stem rot is present KH must be lowered and shading avoided.
I've never grown this without CO2 nor have I ever been able to convert emersed plants to submerged.

R.rotundifolia is best stunted with too little light or shading.
Having grown this one in both extremes of fertilization.


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> R.rotundifolia is best stunted with too little light or shading.
> Having grown this one in both extremes of fertilization.


Agreed. Have grown R.Rotundifolia in everything from low tech to nose bleed EI. 

Ferts mattered little. 

High light always made it happy. Even closer to higher light, and even happier.


----------



## Asteroid

Why is it always a surprise that plants do better in softer, usually somewhat acidic water. I have found no "insult" in providing rich water column dosing with many species from the Lythraceae family in these conditions.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Maryland Guppy said:


> P.erectus enjoys a low KH @ less than 1dKH, micros under .2ppm Fe in the water column.
> IMHO macro ferts have not mattered regarding growth/stunting.
> Typical Pogo behavior with this one, if unhappy tip will stunt and begin branching with two or more segments.
> If lower stem rot is present KH must be lowered and shading avoided.
> I've never grown this without CO2 nor have I ever been able to convert emersed plants to submerged.
> 
> R.rotundifolia is best stunted with too little light or shading.
> Having grown this one in both extremes of fertilization.


I have grown Erectus very well in harder water, around 8 dKH. Its quite common around here, so I'm quite sure it doesn't require low KH per se. Aquascapers use it in seriyu (limestone) tanks often, its considered an easy plant here. (I sense cos dosing is much leaner here as a whole). RR is generally flexible regardless... CO2/Non-CO2, hardwater or soft etc...

old seiryu scape


----------



## Asteroid

@Xiaozhuang

Can I ask what are your tap water parameters (KH PH) and do you use it for your scapes.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Asteroid said:


> @Xiaozhuang
> 
> Can I ask what are your tap water parameters (KH PH) and do you use it for your scapes.


Yep, I use my tap. pH 7+, KH between 0.5 to 2. For my scapes, they are generally soft-water unless I use seiryu limestone, which tend raises it to between 8 to 12 dkh usually.


----------



## Quesenek

Xiaozhuang said:


> Yep, I use my tap. pH 7+, KH between 0.5 to 2. For my scapes, they are generally soft-water unless I use seiryu limestone, which tend raises it to between 8 to 12 dkh usually.


Given that tons of people use seiryu stone in their tanks and looking at a lot of the EU aquascapers on youtube, the common theme with them is the lean fert dosage with a high quality substrate.
Many of these EU aquascapers also use finicky species with ADA or a similar version of ferts and they don't have much issues, or at least you can't see much from the recording.
Interesting as always.


----------



## Asteroid

Xiaozhuang said:


> Yep, I use my tap. pH 7+, KH between 0.5 to 2. For my scapes, they are generally soft-water unless I use seiryu limestone, which tend raises it to between 8 to 12 dkh usually.


Thank you, yes so your water is very soft in Singapore. You know I'm not doubting anything your saying, but I think there are several reasons you and some of the other scapers have success growing the P. Erectus in "harder" water while many here have issues. The most obvious to me would be:

1.Large regular water changes. If your water is naturally very soft the water can't constantly be at 8-12 kh. Now many people do that here too, but not as religiously as seasoned scapers/professionals. Also the water in the states varies greatly, so even with the water change they are not always replacing with very soft water. 

2.Many scapers use loaded substrates like (ADA) that will soften the water. Many scapes especially seasoned professional are not up long past this buffering effect wears off. 

I think these can and do play a part in the differences.


----------



## cl3537

Hard Water + EI High Ferts = RR and PE stunting (In my water kh=5 gh=8)
Soft Water +EI High Ferts= PE stunting (Rotala Kill Tank) RR not so sensitive.

Hard Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy. 
Soft Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.

Both RR and PE need medium light.

This is not about Algae, this is about stunting and/or slow growth, husbandry won't solve the stunting issues.


----------



## Asteroid

That's not even what my response is about data unit CL3537.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

cl3537 said:


> Hard Water + EI High Ferts = RR and PE stunting (In my water kh=5 gh=8)
> Soft Water +EI High Ferts= PE stunting (Rotala Kill Tank) RR not so sensitive.
> 
> Hard Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.
> Soft Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.
> 
> Both RR and PE need medium light.
> 
> This is not about Algae, this is about stunting and/or slow growth, husbandry won't solve the stunting issues.


This is exactly what Vin demonstrated in his talk. Its quite easy to follow, with plenty of examples. Not sure why folks are taking so long to absorb this. This talk is very comprehesive (hence the hour long vid). his sample sets are small but controlled, but moreover, it can be easily seen if you frequently travel between regions that do EI dosing and regions that do not. Its kinda night and day difference. Not just arguing at the margins or claiming outliers by one or 2 examples. 



Asteroid said:


> Thank you, yes so your water is very soft in Singapore. You know I'm not doubting anything your saying, but I think there are several reasons you and some of the other scapers have success growing the P. Erectus in "harder" water while many here have issues. The most obvious to me would be:
> 
> 1.Large regular water changes. If your water is naturally very soft the water can't constantly be at 8-12 kh. Now many people do that here too, but not as religiously as seasoned scapers/professionals. Also the water in the states varies greatly, so even with the water change they are not always replacing with very soft water.
> 
> 2.Many scapers use loaded substrates like (ADA) that will soften the water. Many scapes especially seasoned professional are not up long past this buffering effect wears off.
> 
> I think these can and do play a part in the differences.


lol.
I'm no noob. I took measurements before water changes/during the week. The readings are rock solid. As is my grasp of the science - that's why my tank results speak for themselves.
Depending on your type of aquasoil, it doesn't save you from seiryu when significant amounts are used. Immediately after water change, the KH of the tank can be 4 or 5. It rises to 8 in 3 days, topping out towards 10+ by end of week. Its a very simple measurement to take. And I have other plants as tests as well, i.e. Tonina, Blood vomit etc don't do well in the seiryu tanks, regardless of how much aquasoil you use.


----------



## Rainer

cl3537 said:


> Hard Water + EI High Ferts = RR and PE stunting (In my water kh=5 gh=8)
> 
> Hard Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.


What sort of lean fertilizer regime are we talking about here? Could you point me to some guidelines? 

My conditions are similar (7.6 pH; 8dGH; 7dKH) to yours and I could never quite nail down some issues I had five years ago using EI. Still not sure it wasn't a lighting or dispersal issue. Jungle vals, for example, would detach mid-blade for no apparent reason; other vals lost the last couple inches.


----------



## Asteroid

Xiaozhuang said:


> ...lol.
> I'm no noob. I took measurements before water changes/during the week. The readings are rock solid. As is my grasp of the science - that's why my tank results speak for themselves.
> Depending on your type of aquasoil, it doesn't save you from seiryu when significant amounts are used. Immediately after water change, the KH of the tank can be 4 or 5. It rises to 8 in 3 days, topping out towards 10+ by end of week. Its a very simple measurement to take. And I have other plants as tests as well, i.e. Tonina, Blood vomit etc don't do well in the seiryu tanks, regardless of how much aquasoil you use.


Never stated nor implied that you were a noob. Why would I think that? I'm just making a point that that the large water changes and AS would have a counter effect to the Seiryu and the water wouldn't actually be 8-10KH all the time. Some tanks I'm sure require or have multiple large water changes conducted per week to keep them pristine.


----------



## cl3537

Rainer said:


> What sort of lean fertilizer regime are we talking about here? Could you point me to some guidelines?
> 
> My conditions are similar (7.6 pH; 8dGH; 7dKH) to yours and I could never quite nail down some issues I had five years ago using EI. Still not sure it wasn't a lighting or dispersal issue. Jungle vals, for example, would detach mid-blade for no apparent reason; other vals lost the last couple inches.


I don't think anyone could tell you the upper limit of tolerable ferts before it stunts that is very tank and water specific but certainly it stunts with 0.45ppm Fe dosed weekly in 8dgh. 

As for how little you can dose, it will be much smaller and grow slower with just fish food as a fertilizer source but i I have grown it as long as you have medium light and co2.

Currently I am growing full sized P. Erectus with Tropica Specialized which contains Ammonia/Urea as well as nitrates likely in a ~1:1 ratio it can be grown (see link for picture) with this amount dosed daily.

N	0.236
P	0.0176
Mg	0.0687
K	0.1814
S	0.1603
Fe	0.0122
Mn	0.0069
B	0.0007
Cu	0.0011
Mo	0.0004
Zn	0.0004
Cl	0.0881

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...nt-work-killing-my-plants-3.html#post11215573


----------



## Rainer

cl3537 said:


> I don't think anyone could tell you the upper limit of tolerable ferts before it stunts that is very tank and water specific but certainly it stunts with 0.45ppm Fe dosed weekly in 8dgh.


I'll look into the Tropica tomorrow but it's also interesting you mentioned the iron. Not only did I dose standard EI but I supplemented with Seachem's Iron. Since I came back to the hobby, I've read that high pH renders both of those types of iron ineffective, though I have no idea how much reached the plants before becoming inaccessible. I had issues with hygro stunting so I wonder if they'd somehow gotten too much iron or, OTOH, what iron deficiency looks like in that plant.


----------



## cl3537

Rainer said:


> I'll look into the Tropica tomorrow


You don't have to use Tropica, those two plants are amongst the easiest to grow in low ferts. 5ppm NO3, 0.25 PO4, 0.05Fe weekly is more than enough to grow them.



> what iron deficiency looks like in that plant.


Practically impossible with those two species if you are dosing any Fe that is bioavailable at all.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Xiaozhuang said:


> cl3537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard Water + EI High Ferts = RR and PE stunting (In my water kh=5 gh=8)
> Soft Water +EI High Ferts= PE stunting (Rotala Kill Tank) RR not so sensitive.
> 
> Hard Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.
> Soft Water + Lean Ferts = PE + RR happy.
> 
> Both RR and PE need medium light.
> 
> This is not about Algae, this is about stunting and/or slow growth, husbandry won't solve the stunting issues.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what Vin demonstrated in his talk. Its quite easy to follow, with plenty of examples. Not sure why folks are taking so long to absorb this. This talk is very comprehesive (hence the hour long vid). his sample sets are small but controlled, but moreover, it can be easily seen if you frequently travel between regions that do EI dosing and regions that do not. Its kinda night and day difference. Not just arguing at the margins or claiming outliers by one or 2
Click to expand...

Where is this talk?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Ddrizzle said:


> Where is this talk?


https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-54
Here is Vin's thread on the kill tanks.

Vin gave his talk @ AGA in Seattle and some smaller group presentations during the previous year.


----------



## Immortal1

For AGA members the 1+ hour long video is posted on their web site. As for non-members, I don't know where the video would be posted.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Immortal1 said:


> For AGA members the 1+ hour long video is posted on their web site. As for non-members, I don't know where the video would be posted.


Weird. Why not on YouTube? Hopefully not for financial purposes, that would be so 2005.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Maryland Guppy said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this talk?
> 
> 
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/page-54
> Here is Vin's thread on the kill tanks.
> 
> Vin gave his talk @ AGA in Seattle and some smaller group presentations during the previous year.
Click to expand...

So the biggest takeaway I got from that thread is that we all my be seriously underestimating the need for a rich soil to grow lush plants. Osmocote seems to be a simple way forward here and worked way better than EI with high light and co2.

Now that I think back, the live plants I got from nature aquarium in Santa Monica had osmocote in them. I tossed the balls, having no idea what they were. Is this the future, or has it already been a thing?

Aquasoil was a dream for three months as well. Is that because it basically mimics osmocote until it runs out? How do you re-enrich a soil that your plants became accustom to? Just drop in some osmocote?

Finally, what in nature mimics this scenario? How does soil co tinue to be enriched like osmocote would do? No way its similar to just dosing like EI does...

It also seems to show that high kh with EI is a disaster waiting to happen. However, my kh is low... my gh was 16 though.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi @Ddrizzle,

Osmocote Plus is time released based upon temperature, the higher the temperature the more nutrients that are released; at 70 degrees it supposedly lasts 5-6 months in soil, at 80 degrees then 4-5 months. However that is in soil, not water. To my mind the best way to monitor how long it remains effective would be plant growth, when it tapers off it needs to be replenished. In the low tech, low light, high CEC tank I inserted six (6) Osmocote Plus 00 gel capsules. When growth slows I will add more capsules, again pushing them down all the way to the bottom of the tank. 

I have also been monitoring for ammonia since over 50% of the available nitrogen in Osmocote Plus is in the form or ammonia. The ammonia level was 1.0 ppm for the first week or so however it dropped down to 0.25 ppm a few weeks ago. I will re-test ammonia levels tomorrow.


----------



## Rainer

Ddrizzle said:


> It also seems to show that high kh with EI is a disaster waiting to happen. However, my kh is low... my gh was 16 though.


I understand the demarcation for high KH is around 5; my water is 8dGH and 6.7 dKH. Is cutting tapwater with RO/DI water the only option for reducing the KH?


----------



## Ddrizzle

Rainer said:


> I understand the demarcation for high KH is around 5; my water is 8dGH and 6.7 dKH. Is cutting tapwater with RO/DI water the only option for reducing the KH?



I think there are slow ways to do it but I'm not experienced here. I use RO water.



Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @Ddrizzle,
> 
> Osmocote Plus is time released based upon temperature, the higher the temperature the more nutrients that are released; at 70 degrees it supposedly lasts 5-6 months in soil, at 80 degrees then 4-5 months. However that is in soil, not water. To my mind the best way to monitor how long it remains effective would be plant growth, when it tapers off it needs to be replenished. In the low tech, low light, high CEC tank I inserted six (6) Osmocote Plus 00 gel capsules. When growth slows I will add more capsules, again pushing them down all the way to the bottom of the tank.
> 
> I have also been monitoring for ammonia since over 50% of the available nitrogen in Osmocote Plus is in the form or ammonia. The ammonia level was 1.0 ppm for the first week or so however it dropped down to 0.25 ppm a few weeks ago. I will re-test ammonia levels tomorrow.


So I guess my question is for the experienced players here: is this a new or novel idea, or has it been a thing? How were people surviving before aquasoil and osmocote? Solely off of dosing the water column?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi @Rainer,

Yes, diluting the tap water with RO water will lower the dKH. In the video Vin Kutty also suggested *carefully* using Muriatic Acid (which is dilute hydrochloric acid but still very strong acid). I used Muriatic Acid on the Low Tech, Low Light, High CEC tank to lower the dKH. If using Muriatic Acid it is important to be safe - read up on proper handling of Muriatic Acid. Some of the key some safety tips: wear eye protection, wear rubber gloves, always add acid to water - *never add water to acid*, use in a well ventilated area, do not add Muriatic Acid directly into a tank that contains livestock, dilute it with water first then add the diluted mixture to an aquarium. Adding Muriatic Acid to a tank drastically lower the pH which can kill fish, shrimp, and plants. If the dKH is very high then lower the dKH over gradually over several days or weeks. Adding one part of Muriatic Acid to 11,000 parts of water will lower alkalinity by 2.8 dKH. Adding Muriatic Acid to the tank changes the CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in CaCl2 (calcium chloride) with by-products of H2O (water) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). By changing calcium carbonate into calcium chloride the reduction in carbonates lowers the dKH.


----------



## jcoulter

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @Rainer,
> 
> Yes, diluting the tap water with RO water will lower the dKH. In the video Vin Kutty also suggested *carefully* using Muriatic Acid (which is dilute hydrochloric acid but still very strong acid). I used Muriatic Acid on the Low Tech, Low Light, High CEC tank to lower the dKH. If using Muriatic Acid it is important to be safe - read up on proper handling of Muriatic Acid. Some of the key some safety tips: wear eye protection, wear rubber gloves, always add acid to water - *never add water to acid*, use in a well ventilated area, do not add Muriatic Acid directly into a tank that contains livestock, dilute it with water first then add the diluted mixture to an aquarium. Adding Muriatic Acid to a tank drastically lower the pH which can kill fish, shrimp, and plants. If the dKH is very high then lower the dKH over gradually over several days or weeks. Adding one part of Muriatic Acid to 11,000 parts of water will lower alkalinity by 2.8 dKH. Adding Muriatic Acid to the tank changes the CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in CaCl2 (calcium chloride) with by-products of H2O (water) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). By changing calcium carbonate into calcium chloride the reduction in carbonates lowers the dKH.


WHAT??? 

1) Wear gloves
2) Use eye goggles
3) Mix a solution

I can get behind using fertz and playing with a tank's chemistry, but this definitely seems a bit extreme.


----------



## KZB

I think the moral of this story and much of other stories. All tank should be treated as an individual. Really depends on individual goals. Different situations have different needs. Low light less demanding plants shouldn't follow high par hungry plants fertalization regiments. High light, high demanding plants wont do well in lean fert low light tanks. 1 thing we all have in common is consistent co2 and good tank maintenance.


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> So I guess my question is for the experienced players here: is this a new or novel idea, or has it been a thing? How were people surviving before aquasoil and osmocote? Solely off of dosing the water column?


Yes it was all based on using a substrate media that had good CEC binding properties and doing dosing in water column which by way of circulation/micro currents gets pushed into substrate where the negatively charged soil or substrate grab onto positive charged nutrient ions and hold them there for the roots to uptake. 










It’s basically how all soil works, terrestrial or aquatic. Seattle aquarists safeTsorb substrate he used in his demo/test bed tank has a very high CEC binding property, but has absolutely zero organic matter.

Without that binding action the Osmocote would have very little for its nutrients to bind to and hold it there for plant roots uptake, most of it would end up flushed back in into water column. The roots as far as I know can’t extract fert from osmo pellets directly.

Even inert subtrate like blast sand can build up their CEC properties over time by the build of mulm (organic matter) in between grains or you can add a slight bit of coco peat with it as you build substrate to give a bit of a jump start. True soils and peats usually have highest CEC properties then you get to hardened clays like safeTsorb/kitty litter. Then slightly lower on CEC capacity scale you’ll find stuff like Flourite etc.


----------



## jbvamos

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @Rainer,
> 
> Yes, diluting the tap water with RO water will lower the dKH. In the video Vin Kutty also suggested *carefully* using Muriatic Acid (which is dilute hydrochloric acid but still very strong acid). I used Muriatic Acid on the Low Tech, Low Light, High CEC tank to lower the dKH. If using Muriatic Acid it is important to be safe - read up on proper handling of Muriatic Acid. Some of the key some safety tips: wear eye protection, wear rubber gloves, always add acid to water - *never add water to acid*, use in a well ventilated area, do not add Muriatic Acid directly into a tank that contains livestock, dilute it with water first then add the diluted mixture to an aquarium. Adding Muriatic Acid to a tank drastically lower the pH which can kill fish, shrimp, and plants. If the dKH is very high then lower the dKH over gradually over several days or weeks. *Adding one part of Muriatic Acid to 11,000 parts of water will lower alkalinity by 2.8 dKH. * Adding Muriatic Acid to the tank changes the CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in CaCl2 (calcium chloride) with by-products of H2O (water) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). By changing calcium carbonate into calcium chloride the reduction in carbonates lowers the dKH.


I don’t math good. :grin2:, how much acid per 10 gallons? I would like to experiment with this. Thanks.


----------



## Smooch

Ddrizzle said:


> So I guess my question is for the experienced players here: is this a new or novel idea, or has it been a thing? How were people surviving before aquasoil and osmocote? Solely off of dosing the water column?


As mentioned in the thread over at Barr Report, lean water column dosing does still happen while using this method depending on the plants that are being kept. Rhizome plants such as anubias, bolbitis, java ferns, ect... still need to be fed. They will naturally grow roots into the substrate themselves, but if the rhizome is buried, it will rot and the plant will die. 

This is what people need to keep in mind when using this method. Not all plants are stems and or rosettes. I didn't read the entire thread, but culture tissue plants unless dry started would also need to be fed as they don't have much in terms of roots when they come out of their plastic cups. If a person has a couple of inches of substrate, it's going to take a minute for said plants to grow roots that will reach down to where the Osmocote is which means there is going to be plant melting and tank maintenance to keep the organics in the water column under control.

I'm not knocking the idea as I use root tabs myself (not Osmocote) but there are things that need to be taken into consideration before somebody decides to load up their tank with Osmocote. There has been more than one person that has turned their tank into a total algae farm because they thought is they just used Osmocote they wouldn't have to do anything other than feed their fish for a few months.


----------



## Immortal1

jbvamos said:


> I don’t math good. :grin2:, how much acid per 10 gallons? I would like to experiment with this. Thanks.


I have been doing the Muratic acid thing for several months now. There is a thread on here documenting it as well.
To answer your question, 3ml added to 20 gallons will drop the dKH about 1 degree (other variables at play, but this is close).
For me, a nice plastic syringe works great for adding the acid to water. If you have the ability to test the dKH of your water, try doing some experimenting. The Acid is very cheap and water is even cheaper :grin2:


----------



## Rainer

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @Rainer,
> 
> Yes, diluting the tap water with RO water will lower the dKH. In the video Vin Kutty also suggested *carefully* using Muriatic Acid (which is dilute hydrochloric acid but still very strong acid). I used Muriatic Acid on the Low Tech, Low Light, High CEC tank to lower the dKH. If using Muriatic Acid it is important to be safe - read up on proper handling of Muriatic Acid. Some of the key some safety tips: wear eye protection, wear rubber gloves, always add acid to water - *never add water to acid*, use in a well ventilated area, do not add Muriatic Acid directly into a tank that contains livestock, dilute it with water first then add the diluted mixture to an aquarium. Adding Muriatic Acid to a tank drastically lower the pH which can kill fish, shrimp, and plants. If the dKH is very high then lower the dKH over gradually over several days or weeks. Adding one part of Muriatic Acid to 11,000 parts of water will lower alkalinity by 2.8 dKH. Adding Muriatic Acid to the tank changes the CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in CaCl2 (calcium chloride) with by-products of H2O (water) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). By changing calcium carbonate into calcium chloride the reduction in carbonates lowers the dKH.


Thanks for the detailed explanation, Roy - much appreciated. I have a few follow up questions:
- Is there a list somewhere of plants that fare well enough in EI + high KH? 
- To lower KH by 2.8, how much is pH lowered?

I'm planning to set up a new 120g with 40g sump. Assuming we're still going with 50% WC weekly and using a water changer connected to the nearest sink, what would be the best way to dose the acid without damaging anything?


----------



## cl3537

KZB said:


> I think the moral of this story and much of other stories. All tank should be treated as an individual. Really depends on individual goals. Different situations have different needs. Low light less demanding plants shouldn't follow high par hungry plants fertalization regiments. High light, high demanding plants wont do well in lean fert low light tanks. 1 thing we all have in common is consistent co2 and good tank maintenance.


Exactly, well put!
A careful selection and plant plan for a scape from the beginning prevents problems later.

If you have all low demand plants than you can use lean water column ferts and don't even have to bother with root fertilization, I don't.

If you plan on having a mix of high and low, getting the balance is tricky and you might benefit from a rich substrate or selective root tabs, water chemistry becomes a factor (hard or soft, low kh, high kh), and achieving this balance comes with other caveats and keeping the tank cleaner could be more difficult. 

The pro and competition aquascapers know their plants, their needs, and how to balance the tank. They typically use a limited number of species well known to them where the growth behaviour and needs are predictable and work well with one another.

Light control becomes key throughout the stages of growth of the tank especially during early stages and one must be careful not to overdo it.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi All,

@DaveKS provided an excellent summary of how the CEC of a substrate helps plants absorb nutrients into the root zone. I do disagree with the comment about the CEC levels of calcined clay products however. Calcined clay substrates (such as Profile (Soilmaster Select), Turface, and Safe-t-sorb) have a CEC level comparable to and even greater than most soils. There was an excellent article in *Planted Aquaria Magazine Summer 2000 issue* (hi-res .pdf - takes a while to load) pages 17-23 of which was the magazine that preceded the current AGA magazine _The Aquatic Gardener_. The article was done by a TPT member. 

There is also an *excellent discussion thread about CEC here on TPT*.

Nutrient Levels and CEC Levels of Various Substrates (re-printed from Planted Aquaria Magazine - Summer, 2000









Note that #1, #15, and #20 are various soils with CEC readings of 16 - 24. Turface (#16), Soilmaster Select (Profile)(#8), and other clay based substrates have CEC readings in the 29-33 range.

How important is CEC? I've seen beautiful planted tanks using inert substrates and water column dosing. Conversely I have seen equally beautiful tanks using high CEC substrates and minimal water column dosing. One of the inferences from Vin Kutty's presentation was almost all of the more successful tanks seem to have lower alkalinity (dKH) as a common factor in their success. Is this true? I don't know, that is why I am doing the experiment in my 10 gallon tank. However based upon the growth changes in my Pogostemon erectus over the last 5 weeks changing from a 6.0 dKH tank to a 1.0-2.0 dKH (and minimal water column dosing) something has obviously improved.


----------



## Immortal1

Rainer said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation, Roy - much appreciated. I have a few follow up questions:
> - Is there a list somewhere of plants that fare well enough in EI + high KH?
> - To lower KH by 2.8, how much is pH lowered?
> 
> I'm planning to set up a new 120g with 40g sump. Assuming we're still going with 50% WC weekly and using a water changer connected to the nearest sink, what would be the best way to dose the acid without damaging anything?


Rainer, I don't know that this site will help you completely with your first question, but I have found it pretty handy at times with regards to what likely "won't" grow in high KH water.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

cl3537 said:


> The pro and competition aquascapers know their plants, their needs, and how to balance the tank. They typically use a limited number of species well known to them where the growth behaviour and needs are predictable and work well with one another.


One of your better statements!
This takes time to build experience with so many available species and growing conditions.


----------



## Smooch

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi All,
> 
> ...I do disagree with the comment about the CEC levels of calcined clay products however. Calcined clay substrates (such as Profile (Soilmaster Select), Turface, and Safe-t-sorb) have a CEC level comparable to and even greater than most soils. There was an excellent article in *Planted Aquaria Magazine Summer 2000 issue* (hi-res .pdf - takes a while to load) pages 17-23 of which was the magazine that preceded the current AGA magazine _The Aquatic Gardener_. The article was done by a TPT member.


So, if a person wanted to beef up their substrate but not necessarily swap it out for something else, would adding something like this https://www.amazon.com/Turface-Bonsai-Tree-Soil-Additive/dp/B00DRIDUYA/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=calcined+clay&qid=1560706044&s=gateway&sr=8-8 help?


----------



## cl3537

Smooch said:


> As mentioned in the thread over at Barr Report, lean water column dosing does still happen while using this method depending on the plants that are being kept. Rhizome plants such as anubias, bolbitis, java ferns, ect... still need to be fed.


I have all those species(except bolbitis which is similar to Hygrophila Pinnatafida which I do have) and more epiphytes and low demand plants in my tank, my PAR is 80- 120 , CO2 is ~30+ppm, kh=5, gh=8 and I have inert substrate. All my dosing is water column and they need very little ferts, my tank is getting crowded to the point where I need to reduce light and slow down growth. 0.25N 0.02P 0.012 Fe dosed daily is enough.


----------



## Ddrizzle

What I'd like to add as a newcomer is that plant mass seems to be critical for your dosing methods and I dont think this was mentioned enough in the various articles I read and videos I watched. If it was, I completely missed it. For EI specifically, the thought I got from it was "as long as the ferts are in the right proportion, algae will not grow." In reality, you need a massive plant mass to vacuum those ferts up. It's like its assumed everyone is running a Dutch tank.

In the back of my mind this never made sense since extra nutrients means algae could grow.

That, and I also was under the impression that I absolutely needed high par to grow plants which doesnt seem to be true either. Most plants will grow slower or just be less red.

These two combined to basically run my tank into the ground (with help from the mystery calcium from my rocks). "Babys tears need high light?". Ok, guess I have no choice. "Crap! Why am I getting GDA everywhere?". Guess I'm not doing ferts right and it's time to try EI! Commence plant decay and algae overgrowth.

Can't wait to try again but I have no idea what I'll do with my fish after redoing my substrate with aquasoil. It takes a few weeks for the ammonia to get under control.


----------



## jcoulter

Immortal1 said:


> Rainer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the detailed explanation, Roy - much appreciated. I have a few follow up questions:
> - Is there a list somewhere of plants that fare well enough in EI + high KH?
> - To lower KH by 2.8, how much is pH lowered?
> 
> I'm planning to set up a new 120g with 40g sump. Assuming we're still going with 50% WC weekly and using a water changer connected to the nearest sink, what would be the best way to dose the acid without damaging anything?
> 
> 
> 
> Rainer, I don't know that this site will help you completely with your first question, but I have found it pretty handy at times with regards to what likely "won't" grow in high KH water.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, this website looks fantastic. Thanks for this!

Are there any other "plant databases" that you use and trust? It's not the easiest finding info like this especially when there are lots of singular anecdotal stories.


----------



## Smooch

Ddrizzle said:


> Can't wait to try again but I have no idea what I'll do with my fish after redoing my substrate with aquasoil. It takes a few weeks for the ammonia to get under control.


You don't have to cycle AS in a tank. It can be done in a bucket or something like a Rubbermaid storage container. Do lots of water changes like you would if it were in a tank until the ammonia is no longer a issue.

Speaking of ammonia, if you plan on swapping your substrate out all at once, there is a really good chance you are going to see ammonia spikes anyway as you'll be wiping out what bacterial bed has been established since you set the tank up. 

When I swap a substrate I never do the whole thing at once. I visually break up the tank into quarters and only do one quarter a week, so it takes me four weeks. The process is long, but it prevents ammonia spikes ( the section that is being replaced is vacuumed so I don't have stuff floating around everywhere) and it gives bacteria time to start growing as the new substrate is put in.


----------



## cl3537

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi All,
> How important is CEC? I've seen beautiful planted tanks using inert substrates and water column dosing. Conversely I have seen equally beautiful tanks using high CEC substrates and minimal water column dosing. One of the inferences from Vin Kutty's presentation was almost all of the more successful tanks seem to have lower alkalinity (dKH) as a common factor in their success.


I'm still studying Vin's presentations and Rotala Kill tank but my impression is that it depends on the plant species.

Lean water column ferts with rich CEC substrate is ideal for a species like Ammannia Pedicellata (Nesaea 'Golden') which requires lean water column ferts(in hard water) and grew okay in lean conditions but then exhibited improved growth and color with rich substrate added in a cup to one stem. But examples like that were not too common in the Lythracae family in his research. Most of the plants that stunted typically grew just as well with overall low ferts and didn't require root enrichment. 

Vin postulated (correlation not causation) that some species cannot regulate selective nutrient uptake from leaves in the column so they get stunted, but they are able to do this better with their roots.

The main advantage to rich soil substrates is that you can adapt to more species with different needs, keep the water column lean and still grow demanding plants if their roots have access to higher levels of fertilization. I don't think Vin touched on it, but I'd like to see if a tank full of Pantanal and only other high demand plants can be grown with lean water column and just a rich substrate.

IMO if you won't be using demanding plants there is no need to use soil at all and tank maintenance will be much simpler, it is easier to control leaner ferts with a non CEC substrate as you don't have to worry about the substrate buffering or locking up what you are dosing to the column.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi All,

I have noticed that there is little to no algae growth in the Low Tech, Low Light, High CEC tank after almost 5 weeks. I did have to wipe diatoms off the glass once but the Otocinclus seems to be keeping up fairly well. The ammonia level reading this week was in the range of 0.00 ppm - 0.25 ppm - a little more yellow than green so call it 0.10 ppm.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

cl3537 said:


> I'm still studying Vin's presentations and Rotala Kill tank but my impression is that it depends on the plant species.
> 
> Vin postulated (correlation not causation) that some species cannot regulate selective nutrient uptake from leaves in the column so they get stunted, but they are able to do this better with their roots.


Vin's tank targeted family Lythraceae.
And over a pound of osmocote plus! Not to mention other additives.

Plants and luxury uptake.
Sometimes if it's in the water column they take it.


----------



## Rainer

Immortal1 said:


> Rainer, I don't know that this site will help you completely with your first question, but I have found it pretty handy at times with regards to what likely "won't" grow in high KH water.


Thanks for the interesting link. If it's correct, I should be able to grow virtually anything, even Tonina and Eriocaulon, in my 6.7 dKH water and high light, aside from Mayaca and a couple of obscure Bacopa species.

Takeaway seems to be that KH is far more important than pH.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Small update on a plant in my tank: https://imgur.com/a/zwyNtJU

Notice the top seems OK. Bigger leaves and red. However, even though the newest generation looks good, the second or third generation back slowly die out and get dark due to algae covering them.

I know ots hard to see, but when you are looking at the plant from the side, the darker leaves are the dying ones.

This goes against the advice I've seen where if the top grows out ok, you are in the clear. Again, this pattern is showing up on every plant in the tank.


----------



## Immortal1

jcoulter said:


> Oh hey, this website looks fantastic. Thanks for this!
> 
> Are there any other "plant databases" that you use and trust? It's not the easiest finding info like this especially when there are lots of singular anecdotal stories.



http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plantfinder/all.php
Above is another site I have used.


----------



## Surf

> So I guess my question is for the experienced players here: is this a new or novel idea, or has it been a thing? How were people surviving before aquasoil and osmocote? Solely off of dosing the water column?


The primary reason peaple put soil in there aquarium and osmocote are because they got better results. They are not new ideas. Soil adds a a lot of nutrients to the aquarium but it doesn't last. Osmocote is a common fertilizer that slowly releases nutrients. but it was designed for dry soil and farmers and decorative plants. So in a tank it release its nutrients somewhat faster. CEC soil is basically a material that is trying to hold onto nutrients longer. 

The key point in all of these ideas is that people have been doing a lot of things to increase nutrient levels in the tank. Unfortuneately almost no one is asking what nutrients are missing from there regular fertilizer. All plants need the same 14 nutrients but everyone just talks about NPK. Why just KPK because they are easy to test for and easy for a holiest to manipulate. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you can ignore the rest.

Very few people are trying to figure out what is actually missing from a fertilizer that isn't working. IF a fertilizer is just missing one nutrient plants will be stunted and may not grow at all. The truth is is that most fertilizers are missing something . Most fertilizer makers are skimping on some nutrient because every one is using tap were which is rich in some nutrients. Which brings me back to a point I made very early in this thread. you are using depleted soil with RO water. You have checked your lighting and [email protected] and for the most part those look OK. Your NKP also looks fine and you have addressed the other macros such as Ca, Mg, and S. So what have you missed in your aquarium? YOU need to look at your CSM+B.

For a RO water tank with a depleted substrate it doesn't have a enough zinc. The iron in it is not lasting long due to your higher PH Copper may also be a little low (tap water is typically very rich in copper. and I could go on. You need to try modifying your CSM or try making your own micro. Recently Burr 740 started doing this and got some improvement verses the CSM+B he was using. Other have also started to make their own macros. I think you need to consider doing that.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread.html

As to low dosing and high dosing I think the underlying assumption people are making is that CSM+B is toxic in some way or simply too many macros are toxic. Fotunately the Hydroponics industry can offer some guidance on this. In this industry getting the fertilizer right is very important. And the dosage levels they use are way higher than what anyone hear is talking about:

http://www.greenhouse.cornell.edu/crops/factsheets/hydroponic-recipes.pdf

One of the recipes they list in this article has fertilizer levels about 21 times higher than what anyone hear is talking about. The industry is also big on monitoring every single nutrient in the water. After all if they don't get the nutrient levels right they go out of business. Now I would use any of these hydroponics recipes in your tank. Simply because these high nutrient levels may be harmful to your fish. The water testing they do catches any nutrient problems and then they adjust. If that tap water is rich in copper they recuse the amount of copper they use. If zinc is short they add more. 

So overall I don't think it is the fertilizer that is killing your plants. I think you are simply missing one nutrient or simply don't have enough of that one and as a result you plant are not doing well or not growing. And since it is not a macro nutrient it much be in your micro. In short the Law of Minimum applies to your tank.

https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_liebig-s-law-of-the-minimum


----------



## DaveKS

Smooch said:


> So, if a person wanted to beef up their substrate but not necessarily swap it out for something else, would adding something like this https://www.amazon.com/Turface-Bonsai-Tree-Soil-Additive/dp/B00DRIDUYA/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=calcined+clay&qid=1560706044&s=gateway&sr=8-8 help?


This one is finer grain so would probably fit better in some OO sized gel caps making it easy to insert under existing gravel bed. Also much cheaper. Actually it’s perfect grain size/pore structure for using in a planted tank.

https://www.amazon.com/Turface-Seedling-Cutting-Succulents-Bonsai/dp/B07B1YG5LB


----------



## Ddrizzle

Surf said:


> The primary reason peaple put soil in there aquarium and osmocote are because they got better results. They are not new ideas. Soil adds a a lot of nutrients to the aquarium but it doesn't last. Osmocote is a common fertilizer that slowly releases nutrients. but it was designed for dry soil and farmers and decorative plants. So in a tank it release its nutrients somewhat faster. CEC soil is basically a material that is trying to hold onto nutrients longer.
> 
> The key point in all of these ideas is that people have been doing a lot of things to increase nutrient levels in the tank. Unfortuneately almost no one is asking what nutrients are missing from there regular fertilizer. All plants need the same 14 nutrients but everyone just talks about NPK. Why just KPK because they are easy to test for and easy for a holiest to manipulate. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you can ignore the rest.
> 
> Very few people are trying to figure out what is actually missing from a fertilizer that isn't working. IF a fertilizer is just missing one nutrient plants will be stunted and may not grow at all. The truth is is that most fertilizers are missing something . Most fertilizer makers are skimping on some nutrient because every one is using tap were which is rich in some nutrients. Which brings me back to a point I made very early in this thread. you are using depleted soil with RO water. You have checked your lighting and [email protected] and for the most part those look OK. Your NKP also looks fine and you have addressed the other macros such as Ca, Mg, and S. So what have you missed in your aquarium? YOU need to look at your CSM+B.
> 
> For a RO water tank with a depleted substrate it doesn't have a enough zinc. The iron in it is not lasting long due to your higher PH Copper may also be a little low (tap water is typically very rich in copper. and I could go on. You need to try modifying your CSM or try making your own micro. Recently Burr 740 started doing this and got some improvement verses the CSM+B he was using. Other have also started to make their own macros. I think you need to consider doing that.
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...rameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread.html
> 
> As to low dosing and high dosing I think the underlying assumption people are making is that CSM+B is toxic in some way or simply too many macros are toxic. Fotunately the Hydroponics industry can offer some guidance on this. In this industry getting the fertilizer right is very important. And the dosage levels they use are way higher than what anyone hear is talking about:
> 
> http://www.greenhouse.cornell.edu/crops/factsheets/hydroponic-recipes.pdf
> 
> One of the recipes they list in this article has fertilizer levels about 21 times higher than what anyone hear is talking about. The industry is also big on monitoring every single nutrient in the water. After all if they don't get the nutrient levels right they go out of business. Now I would use any of these hydroponics recipes in your tank. Simply because these high nutrient levels may be harmful to your fish. The water testing they do catches any nutrient problems and then they adjust. If that tap water is rich in copper they recuse the amount of copper they use. If zinc is short they add more.
> 
> So overall I don't think it is the fertilizer that is killing your plants. I think you are simply missing one nutrient or simply don't have enough of that one and as a result you plant are not doing well or not growing. And since it is not a macro nutrient it much be in your micro. In short the Law of Minimum applies to your tank.
> 
> https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_liebig-s-law-of-the-minimum



I see your point but I don't understand why that would be. Am I wrong in assuming that plenty of people use RO water, basic macros and then something like CSM + B? Am I doing something odd? I'll gladly switch to a set of ferts that are proven to work...


----------



## Surf

> So I guess my question is for the experienced players here: is this a new or novel idea, or has it been a thing? How were people surviving before aquasoil and osmocote? Solely off of dosing the water column?


The primary reason peaple put soil in there aquarium and osmocote are because they got better results. They are not new ideas. Soil adds a a lot of nutrients to the aquarium but it doesn't last. Osmocote is a common fertilizer that slowly releases nutrients. but it was designed for dry soil and farmers and decorative plants. So in a tank it release its nutrients somewhat faster. CEC soil is basically a material that is trying to hold onto nutrients longer. 

The key point in all of these ideas is that people have been doing a lot of things to increase nutrient levels in the tank. Unfortuneately almost no one is asking what nutrients are missing from there regular fertilizer. All plants need the same 14 nutrients but everyone just talks about NPK. Why just KPK because they are easy to test for and easy for a holiest to manipulate. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you can ignore the rest.

Very few people are trying to figure out what is actually missing from a fertilizer that isn't working. IF a fertilizer is just missing one nutrient plants will be stunted and may not grow at all. The truth is is that most fertilizers are missing something . Most fertilizer makers are skimping on some nutrient because every one is using tap were which is rich in some nutrients. Which brings me back to a point I made very early in this thread. you are using depleted soil with RO water. You have checked your lighting and [email protected] and for the most part those look OK. Your NKP also looks fine and you have addressed the other macros such as Ca, Mg, and S. So what have you missed in your aquarium? YOU need to look at your CSM+B.

For a RO water tank with a depleted substrate it doesn't have a enough zinc. The iron in it is not lasting long due to your higher PH Copper may also be a little low (tap water is typically very rich in copper. and I could go on. You need to try modifying your CSM or try making your own micro. Recently Burr 740 started doing this and got some improvement verses the CSM+B he was using. Other have also started to make their own macros. I think you need to consider doing that.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread.html

As to low dosing and high dosing I think the underlying assumption people are making is that CSM+B is toxic in some way or simply too many macros are toxic. Fotunately the Hydroponics industry can offer some guidance on this. In this industry getting the fertilizer right is very important. And the dosage levels they use are way higher than what anyone hear is talking about:

http://www.greenhouse.cornell.edu/crops/factsheets/hydroponic-recipes.pdf

One of the recipes they list in this article has fertilizer levels about 21 times higher than what anyone hear is talking about. The industry is also big on monitoring every single nutrient in the water. After all if they don't get the nutrient levels right they go out of business. Now I would use any of these hydroponics recipes in your tank. Simply because these high nutrient levels may be harmful to your fish. The water testing they do catches any nutrient problems and then they adjust. If that tap water is rich in copper they recuse the amount of copper they use. If zinc is short they add more. 

So overall I don't think it is the fertilizer that is killing your plants. I think you are simply missing one nutrient or simply don't have enough of that one and as a result you plant are not doing well or not growing. And since it is not a macro nutrient it much be in your micro. In short the Law of Minimum applies to your tank.

https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_liebig-s-law-of-the-minimum


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> Small update on a plant in my tank: https://imgur.com/a/zwyNtJU
> 
> Notice the top seems OK. Bigger leaves and red. However, even though the newest generation looks good, the second or third generation back slowly die out and get dark due to algae covering them.
> 
> I know ots hard to see, but when you are looking at the plant from the side, the darker leaves are the dying ones.
> 
> This goes against the advice I've seen where if the top grows out ok, you are in the clear. Again, this pattern is showing up on every plant in the tank.


Going back a few pages there was talk about how your substrate might have been a bad batch.

You may not 100% be able to test this without taking out all of the substrate and growing the plants in some inert substrate for a bit. However it may be good enough to simply stick a small cup/bowl (only big enough to stick 2-3 stems in it) in the tank with some standard gravel/pool filter sand in it and then planting a few stems in that and watch as it grows to see if the same thing happens.

I would trim the bottoms off of the stems that are dying off so that you are 100% sure the new growth is dying or not in the new substrate.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Quesenek said:


> Going back a few pages there was talk about how your substrate might have been a bad batch.
> 
> You may not 100% be able to test this without taking out all of the substrate and growing the plants in some inert substrate for a bit. However it may be good enough to simply stick a small cup/bowl (only big enough to stick 2-3 stems in it) in the tank with some standard gravel/pool filter sand in it and then planting a few stems in that and watch as it grows to see if the same thing happens.
> 
> I would trim the bottoms off of the stems that are dying off so that you are 100% sure the new growth is dying or not in the new substrate.



I've actually just set up a cheap 10 gallon to house my fish while I restart this 22 gallon. I should be able to test substrate issues by migrating my plants into the 10 gallon once it's cycled. There's only going to be eco complete in it.

Until the 10 gallon is ready for fish, I'm going to dose on the higher end of micros to disprove (or prove) that CSM + B is the cause of any issues.


----------



## Quesenek

Ddrizzle said:


> I've actually just set up a cheap 10 gallon to house my fish while I restart this 22 gallon. I should be able to test substrate issues by migrating my plants into the 10 gallon once it's cycled. There's only going to be eco complete in it.
> 
> Until the 10 gallon is ready for fish, I'm going to dose on the higher end of micros to disprove (or prove) that CSM + B is the cause of any issues.


Sounds like a good idea.
I like the idea of using high quality nutrient rich substrate, but situations like this would honestly have made me quit the hobby. 
Your situation especially with the given issues it is almost impossible to figure out the root cause due to it possibly being anything.

The algae issues are simple to solve, but plant growing issues from my personal experience are just infuriating when you know you're doing everything everyone else is doing, but not getting any results.

Good luck on the experiments, I really hope things eventually work out for you.


----------



## Positron

Surf said:


> The primary reason peaple put soil in there aquarium and osmocote are because they got better results. They are not new ideas. Soil adds a a lot of nutrients to the aquarium but it doesn't last. Osmocote is a common fertilizer that slowly releases nutrients. but it was designed for dry soil and farmers and decorative plants. So in a tank it release its nutrients somewhat faster. CEC soil is basically a material that is trying to hold onto nutrients longer.
> 
> The key point in all of these ideas is that people have been doing a lot of things to increase nutrient levels in the tank. Unfortuneately almost no one is asking what nutrients are missing from there regular fertilizer. All plants need the same 14 nutrients but everyone just talks about NPK. Why just KPK because they are easy to test for and easy for a holiest to manipulate. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you can ignore the rest.
> 
> Very few people are trying to figure out what is actually missing from a fertilizer that isn't working. IF a fertilizer is just missing one nutrient plants will be stunted and may not grow at all. The truth is is that most fertilizers are missing something . Most fertilizer makers are skimping on some nutrient because every one is using tap were which is rich in some nutrients. Which brings me back to a point I made very early in this thread. you are using depleted soil with RO water. You have checked your lighting and [email protected] and for the most part those look OK. Your NKP also looks fine and you have addressed the other macros such as Ca, Mg, and S. So what have you missed in your aquarium? YOU need to look at your CSM+B.
> 
> For a RO water tank with a depleted substrate it doesn't have a enough zinc. The iron in it is not lasting long due to your higher PH Copper may also be a little low (tap water is typically very rich in copper. and I could go on. You need to try modifying your CSM or try making your own micro. Recently Burr 740 started doing this and got some improvement verses the CSM+B he was using. Other have also started to make their own macros. I think you need to consider doing that.
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread.html
> 
> As to low dosing and high dosing I think the underlying assumption people are making is that CSM+B is toxic in some way or simply too many macros are toxic. Fotunately the Hydroponics industry can offer some guidance on this. In this industry getting the fertilizer right is very important. And the dosage levels they use are way higher than what anyone hear is talking about:
> 
> http://www.greenhouse.cornell.edu/crops/factsheets/hydroponic-recipes.pdf
> 
> One of the recipes they list in this article has fertilizer levels about 21 times higher than what anyone hear is talking about. The industry is also big on monitoring every single nutrient in the water. After all if they don't get the nutrient levels right they go out of business. Now I would use any of these hydroponics recipes in your tank. Simply because these high nutrient levels may be harmful to your fish. The water testing they do catches any nutrient problems and then they adjust. If that tap water is rich in copper they recuse the amount of copper they use. If zinc is short they add more.
> 
> So overall I don't think it is the fertilizer that is killing your plants. I think you are simply missing one nutrient or simply don't have enough of that one and as a result you plant are not doing well or not growing. And since it is not a macro nutrient it much be in your micro. In short the Law of Minimum applies to your tank.
> 
> https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_liebig-s-law-of-the-minimum


You miss one crucial "detail" here. Hydroponically grown plants arn't fully submerged. Also, these plants are exposed to roughly 10-12x the CO2 of our tanks (about 380 ppm vs 30 ppm). Only root uptake is allowed, and as we have been postulating over the last 10 years, plants are much more able to negotiate what substance they need via roots then leaf structures. If you are sure they are one in the same: get a 5 gallon tank and adjust the water substance PPM levels to the one in that article. Fully submerge the plants in this water. Pretty sure every plant we deal with on this forum would melt a nasty death.


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> Small update on a plant in my tank: https://imgur.com/a/zwyNtJU
> 
> Notice the top seems OK. Bigger leaves and red. However, even though the newest generation looks good, the second or third generation back slowly die out and get dark due to algae covering them.
> 
> I know ots hard to see, but when you are looking at the plant from the side, the darker leaves are the dying ones.
> 
> This goes against the advice I've seen where if the top grows out ok, you are in the clear. Again, this pattern is showing up on every plant in the tank.


I’ll say it again, classic symptoms of poor circulation and poor substrate health because of it. Even the denser growth of algae along bottom glass closer to gravel points to this.


----------



## Asteroid

I might have missed this, but how old is the setup?


----------



## Ddrizzle

DaveKS said:


> I’ll say it again, classic symptoms of poor circulation and poor substrate health because of it. Even the denser growth of algae along bottom glass closer to gravel points to this.



Poor circulation - I have a freaking vortech mp10 powerhead on the opposite side of the inflow/outflow. Co2 is pumped into the outflow and no bubbles are seen. Circulation is not the issue. By chance do you mean circulation at the bottom of the substrate?

Poor substrate health - BGA started in _dry start_ and never went away. I can't argue with this unless you base this off of circulation, but I also have no idea why BGA would appear in a dry start. Maybe too deep of a substrate?





Asteroid said:


> I might have missed this, but how old is the setup?



If you're referring to mine, nothing has changed besides doing massive water changes and stopping EI. I'm currently waiting on a 10 gallon to cycle so I can move fish into it and completely rescape.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> If you're referring to mine, nothing has changed besides doing massive water changes and stopping EI. I'm currently waiting on a 10 gallon to cycle so I can move fish into it and completely rescape.


Yes, how long has this tank been running?


----------



## Ddrizzle

Asteroid said:


> Yes, how long has this tank been running?



Sorry, I misread your question as "how is the old setup?". The setup has been up for about 8 months now. I saw plant issues about 1-2 months in which is when I attempted to start EI and have had trouble since. The first plant to have issues was Tonina Fluviatilis. The same issue has always persisted: great new growth with the 2nd generation on one slowly dying and being algae covered. I was not fertilizing besides micros before the first 3-4 months.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> Sorry, I misread your question as "how is the old setup?". The setup has been up for about 8 months now. I saw plant issues about 1-2 months in which is when I attempted to start EI and have had trouble since. The first plant to have issues was Tonina Fluviatilis. The same issue has always persisted: great new growth with the 2nd generation on one slowly dying and being algae covered. I was not fertilizing besides micros before the first 3-4 months.


I understand with a very compacted substrate, but aquasoil is used all the time that way. Scapers create very deep areas with it and it has space between the granules. At 8 months I don't see that, but that's my opinion. You also have a very strong filter for that size tank even without the powerhead. That rock to me has plenty of flow around it. I've setup well over a dozen tanks with aquasoil and never even used a powerhead and ran the substrate very deep. 

I'm still sticking with light and the organic load that's causing the algae issues. With AS, especially it's best to start off with a very short photoperiod or one with a short mid-day burst, water changes of 50% or more really need to be done to give yourself the best chance. Algae starts before you see it.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Asteroid said:


> I understand with a very compacted substrate, but aquasoil is used all the time that way. Scapers create very deep areas with it and it has space between the granules. At 8 months I don't see that, but that's my opinion. You also have a very strong filter for that size tank even without the powerhead. That rock to me has plenty of flow around it. I've setup well over a dozen tanks with aquasoil and never even used a powerhead and ran the substrate very deep.
> 
> I'm still sticking with light and the organic load that's causing the algae issues. With AS, especially it's best to start off with a very short photoperiod or one with a short mid-day burst, water changes of 50% or more really need to be done to give yourself the best chance. Algae starts before you see it.



Thanks for the inputs. I could and did run my light around 50% (30-40 par) and there would be no algae. However, the plant death still remained the same. My guess is the huge rock mass or osme unknown is the issue.


Any thoughts on a known good supplier of ferts is? I'd like to stay with dry salts if possible. Macro and micro.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> Thanks for the inputs. I could and did run my light around 50% (30-40 par) and there would be no algae. However, the plant death still remained the same. My guess is the huge rock mass or osme unknown is the issue.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on a known good supplier of ferts is? I'd like to stay with dry salts if possible. Macro and micro.


Did you run the lights at 30-40 or was their a peak period? I meant run at full blast but just for 4-5 hours. The 30-40 wouldn't be enough for those stems. 

You could get the dry salts anywhere these days. I usually buy from https://aquariumfertilizer.com/ but you could get them from GLA, Nilcog. If your ever in a pinch you could purchase Spectracide stump remover. Spectracide® Stump Remover is pure KNO3. I know Lowes stocks it.


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> Poor circulation - I have a freaking vortech mp10 powerhead on the opposite side of the inflow/outflow. Co2 is pumped into the outflow and no bubbles are seen. Circulation is not the issue. By chance do you mean circulation at the bottom of the substrate?


I don't care how badass you think you pump is, if you don't have at least one of your circulation pumps blowing high to low, blowing on to the substrate and providing circulation through substrate bed you are ignoring one of the basic fundamentals of properly setting up a aquarium that has been known for decades. Fresh, salt, reef, planted, fish only, same principle applies to them all. Healthy substrate=Healthy tank

From Dennis Wong pages...

"It is only when conditions become severely anaerobic that bacteria processes can be harmful - this can manifest as production of hydrogen sulfide gas, or methane. So while mildly anaerobic conditions are normal and harmless, severely anaerobic conditions causes problems."

Your tank is a text book example of the severely anaerobic problems and poor high>low circulation in tank. Algae that won't go away regardless of what you try. Leaves prematurely dropping. Algae patterns on glass close to substrate level and algae on lower leaves of plants close to substrate level.


----------



## Asteroid

I'm going by 10 years of personally using ADA aquasoil. I have never had it go anaerobic on me and you would laugh at the filtration, flow I use. I never even used a powerhead, just a spraybar (actually I'm using a nano powerhead now on my 3-ft tank because it's an oddly long shape.) I could see it happening more with sand or dirt, but not this stuff, not in 8 months. Just because Dennis's sight mentions it doesn't mean it's happening here, certainly not severe anaerobic as he mentions. 

This is a 22g tank with a huge filter and powerhead. I really don't know where all that flow is gonna go in that small tank.


----------



## DaveKS

Only place water is getting circulated in that tank is around the top.


----------



## Asteroid

All OP has to do is drop some Seachem Flourish Comp into the return and/or powerhead and see where it goes.


----------



## Ddrizzle

DaveKS said:


> Only place water is getting circulated in that tank is around the top.



Vs what? Are people pumping water through the bottom of the substrate with drilled in holes and sump for a 22 gallon tank? Please let me know and I will change because I am desperate. Money is not an issue. I thought my pump and power head was enough.


----------



## Asteroid

I don't usually show this tank. It was when I first started it's from 2007, I saw Amanos books and wanted a tank with just HC and DHG. Forget the rocks I didn't know much about rock formation, etc. Just used it as an experiment. I think it was my 1st aquasoil-based tank.










This was a 46g Tank (3 ft) and it had only an Eheim 2213 for filtration with a lily pipe. No powerheads nothing else. It's effective turnover was around 2 not 10, 2. The tank was too tall for the hardscape, but I had it available and just used it to see how things grew. You could see the lily pipe in the upper left corner. 










This tank was so clean and healthy. The Eheim 2213 has a gph of 116 out of the box, so the effective turnover wasn't even 2x / hr. 

Aquasoil, K and micros 1st 6 months, Full EI thereafter, 50% WC weekly. 192 watts T5H0, with only 2 hr burst for both and a six hour total photo period.


----------



## jcoulter

Ddrizzle said:


> DaveKS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only place water is getting circulated in that tank is around the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs what? Are people pumping water through the bottom of the substrate with drilled in holes and sump for a 22 gallon tank? Please let me know and I will change because I am desperate. Money is not an issue. I thought my pump and power head was enough.
Click to expand...

He posted a graphic earlier in this thread, at least I thought he did - I can't seem to find it now.

Put a powehead at the top of your water column surface and point it down towards your substrate at 45 degrees. He's basically saying the top of your water column isn't mixing with the bottom properly and/or everywhere (substrate included). That means your nutrients (co2 included) aren't getting to the substrate level. At least, that's my interpretation.

It's an easy thing to test...


----------



## jcoulter

Asteroid said:


> I don't usually show this tank. It was when I first started it's from 2007, I saw Amanos books and wanted a tank with just HC and DHG. Forget the rocks I didn't know much about rock formation, etc. Just used it as an experiment. I think it was my 1st aquasoil-based tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a 46g Tank (3 ft) and it had only an Eheim 2213 for filtration with a lily pipe. No powerheads nothing else. It's effective turnover was around 2 not 10, 2. The tank was too tall for the hardscape, but I had it available and just used it to see how things grew. You could see the lily pipe in the upper left corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tank was so clean and healthy. The Eheim 2213 has a gph of 116 out of the box, so the effective turnover wasn't even 2x / hr.
> 
> Aquasoil, K and micros 1st 6 months, Full EI thereafter, 50% WC weekly. 192 watts T5H0, with only 2 hr burst for both.


Substantially different plant masses here.

Edit: Beautiful tank though imo 🙂


----------



## Asteroid

jcoulter said:


> Substantially different plant masses here.


Here ya go. 4 ft tank with just an Eheim 2215 spray bar upper left. Far more plant mass then OP. Look what the return flow has to get through. Both tanks are also taller than OPs. Again around a 2x turnover.


----------



## DaveKS

Asteroid said:


> I don't usually show this tank. It was when I first started it's from 2007, I saw Amanos books and wanted a tank with just HC and DHG. Forget the rocks I didn't know much about rock formation, etc. Just used it as an experiment. I think it was my 1st aquasoil-based tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a 46g Tank (3 ft) and it had only an Eheim 2213 for filtration with a lily pipe. No powerheads nothing else. It's effective turnover was around 2 not 10, 2. The tank was too tall for the hardscape, but I had it available and just used it to see how things grew. You could see the lily pipe in the upper left corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tank was so clean and healthy. The Eheim 2213 has a gph of 116 out of the box, so the effective turnover wasn't even 2x / hr.
> 
> Aquasoil, K and micros 1st 6 months, Full EI thereafter, 50% WC weekly. 192 watts T5H0, with only 2 hr burst for both and a six hour total photo period.


Try that again but pile aqua soil 4-6” deep across one whole end of tank, wait about 3-4mo for a little detritus to settle into substrate, effectively clogging off what little bit of circulation is getting down to lower layers of that high organic content soil and let me know how that works out for you. 

Also be sure to put a big ass rock on top of that 6” deep layer of organic soil, even further cutting off flow into substrate and compacting soil underneath it.


----------



## cl3537

DaveKS said:


> Try that again but pile aqua soil 4-6” deep across one whole end of tank, wait about 3-4mo for a little detritus to settle into substrate, effectively clogging off what little bit of circulation is getting down to lower layers of that high organic content soil and let me know how that works out for you.
> 
> Also be sure to put a big ass rock on top of that 6” deep layer of organic soil, even further cutting off flow into substrate and compacting soil underneath it.


Haha then you would have Ddrizzle's tank and his problems. >


----------



## Asteroid

DaveKS said:


> Try that again but pile aqua soil 4-6” deep across one whole end of tank, wait about 3-4mo for a little detritus to settle into substrate, effectively clogging off what little bit of circulation is getting down to lower layers of that high organic content soil and let me know how that works out for you.
> 
> Also be sure to put a big ass rock on top of that 6” deep layer of organic soil, even further cutting off flow into substrate and compacting soil underneath it.


Dave his tank is like 1/2 the height of the ones I showed. Aquascapers pile Aquasoil up sometimes to the rim of the tank. Have you ever use ADA aquasoil? It's not dirt/soil. His tank is so short, there's no way he's not getting circ to the top of the substrate with that huge powerhead and filter. I don't disagree with you in prinicipal that anaerobic condtions can happen especially with soil and sand, but i disagree in this case.

The shot of my 2nd tank has three huge rocks (two covered in riccia) and all there is, is an Eheim 2215 without any powerheads or anything.

Here's another tank with AS. See the huge pile of AS in the middle. This tank had a tiny Azoo Mignon 60 on it. Anyone that knows that filter knows it's pretty weak.


----------



## DaveKS

Asteroid said:


> Dave his tank is like 1/2 the height of the ones I showed. Aquascapers pile Aquasoil up sometimes to the rim of the tank. Have you ever use ADA aquasoil? It's not dirt/soil. His tank is so short, there's no way he's not getting circ to the top of the substrate with that huge powerhead and filter. I don't disagree with you in prinicipal that anaerobic condtions can happen especially with soil and sand, but i disagree in this case.
> 
> The shot of my 2nd tank has three huge rocks (two covered in riccia) and all there is, is an Eheim 2215 without any powerheads or anything.
> 
> Here's another tank with AS. See the huge pile of AS in the middle. This tank had a tiny Azoo Mignon 60 on it. Anyone that knows that filter knows it's pretty weak.


Actual aquasoil no. Other comparable soil ball types like Fluval etc yes.

But to compare the 2-3” layer in your tank shot or that little tiny ant hill of soil in that mini tank shot to the 12” wide, 10” long, 6” deep layer of aquasoil in his tank is preposterous. As long as you stay 3” or less you’ll be fine. And yes I’ve got 6 mignon setting on shelf downstairs, it would easily keep that 1 cup mound of AS aerated in that mini

But you know I’m tired of arguing about it. I know what I’ve seen happen when a deep substrate is used and proper circulation is ignored. I’ve been at this for 33+ yrs and know the telltale symptoms of a souring, putrid subtrate bed when I see them.

Good night.


----------



## Asteroid

Again not arguing with the premise, but OP tank is so shallow and way overfiltered and only 8 months old. Also in all the tanks I've shown I never pointed anything to the substrate. 

Not my tank, but,


----------



## Ddrizzle

DaveKS said:


> Asteroid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave his tank is like 1/2 the height of the ones I showed. Aquascapers pile Aquasoil up sometimes to the rim of the tank. Have you ever use ADA aquasoil? It's not dirt/soil. His tank is so short, there's no way he's not getting circ to the top of the substrate with that huge powerhead and filter. I don't disagree with you in prinicipal that anaerobic condtions can happen especially with soil and sand, but i disagree in this case.
> 
> The shot of my 2nd tank has three huge rocks (two covered in riccia) and all there is, is an Eheim 2215 without any powerheads or anything.
> 
> Here's another tank with AS. See the huge pile of AS in the middle. This tank had a tiny Azoo Mignon 60 on it. Anyone that knows that filter knows it's pretty weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual aquasoil no. Other comparable soil ball types like Fluval etc yes.
> 
> But to compare the 2-3” layer in your tank shot or that little tiny ant hill of soil in that mini tank shot to the 12” wide, 10” long, 6” deep layer of aquasoil in his tank is preposterous. As long as you stay 3” or less you’ll be fine. And yes I’ve got 6 mignon setting on shelf downstairs, it would easily keep that 1 cup mound of AS aerated in that mini
> 
> But you know I’m tired of arguing about it. I know what I’ve seen happen when a deep substrate is used and proper circulation is ignored. I’ve been at this for 33+ yrs and know the telltale symptoms of a souring, putrid subtrate bed when I see them.
> 
> Good night.
Click to expand...

DaveKS I'm not saying your wrong, but the flow is great above the substrate. It's actually verging on too intense with the powerhead. The rotala that were right below the powerhead were pushed completely sideways and grew about 5x slower then the rotala a foot away from it.

Also, I'm not sure how what I've setup is different than anyone else's. Lily pipes are the norm and water is flowing from top to bottom. I watch the bubbles cover the tank.

What I'm trying to say is that I am seriously considering your point but I don't know how to "fix" anything because the flow doesn't look broken.


----------



## Quesenek

Asteroid said:


> Dave his tank is like 1/2 the height of the ones I showed. Aquascapers pile Aquasoil up sometimes to the rim of the tank. Have you ever use ADA aquasoil? It's not dirt/soil. His tank is so short, there's no way he's not getting circ to the top of the substrate with that huge powerhead and filter. I don't disagree with you in prinicipal that anaerobic condtions can happen especially with soil and sand, but i disagree in this case.
> 
> The shot of my 2nd tank has three huge rocks (two covered in riccia) and all there is, is an Eheim 2215 without any powerheads or anything.
> 
> Here's another tank with AS. See the huge pile of AS in the middle. This tank had a tiny Azoo Mignon 60 on it. Anyone that knows that filter knows it's pretty weak.


To be fair though pro aquascapers typically use something like ADA powersand/lavarock in order to build up that mound so that they can save on the aquasoil and prevent anaerobic conditions, but even then if you take a look at channels like "the green machine" he can be seen getting the aquasoil really high and he doesn't use anything other then a return line to provide movement to the water.

I'm not going to say that the substrate being deep isn't OP's problem, however I don't see how adding more flow would fix the issue at this point.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Also, my wife's 10 gallon has aquasoil from the same pack with incredibly low flow for her betta. Her plants are not rotting.


----------



## cl3537

Quesenek said:


> To be fair though pro aquascapers typically use something like ADA powersand/lavarock in order to build up that mound so that they can save on the aquasoil and prevent anaerobic conditions.


The better ones use drainage cells, or a bag of crushed lava rock in a filter bag, or other things, it not only prevents anaerobic conditions, helps with drainage, lowers cost of aquasoil, and keeps the shape of the hardscape and provides stability so your scape stays in place.


----------



## Greggz

I've got no horse in this race, but my guess is that more flow is not going to solve anything. Your filter and powerhead should provide more than enough. I've never aimed a powerhead at the substrate, and can't think of any successful people that I follow who do. 

In a tank that size, once the flow hits the sides of the tank it will go down toward the substrate. I direct all of my flow to the surface/front glass, and it rolls down the front, across the substrate, and back to the rear. 

In fact, IMO too much flow can be just as bad as too little. Some plants just don't like it, and some algae loves it. I once had what I consider now to be way too much flow in my tank. Slowly began removing power heads one at a time. Tank only got better. Then a few months ago I took a drill and increased the size of the holes in my spray bars. It created a wider more gentle laminar flow, and less plants waving around. Once again, tank seems to like it. 

Flow is a tricky thing to get right, and deserves attention, but in the scheme of things my opinion is that there are probably a dozen things that have more impact.


----------



## Asteroid

Greggz said:


> ...
> 
> Flow is a tricky thing to get right, and deserves attention, but in the scheme of things my opinion is that there are probably a dozen things that have more impact.


I put my other tanks up just to show how clean they run with gentle flow. And as @Greggz alludes to light mgmt, maintenance, co2 are far more important IMO. Those tanks have 2x turnover out of the box and no powerheads. Not saying more turnover/flow would hurt, but there is a limit.


----------



## Asteroid

cl3537 said:


> ....High hills of Aquasoil with a thick Seiryu stone that breaks the surface causes flow and circulation issues, whether they can be mitigated with a powerhead or not, or whether they will or will not cause algae is quite another discussion, it poses a risk and it is an *unnecessary design choice*.


Tell that to all the scapers that have done for more extreme setups than this one without issue. Unnecessary design choice. :laugh2:


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> Vs what? Are people pumping water through the bottom of the substrate with drilled in holes and sump for a 22 gallon tank? Please let me know and I will change because I am desperate. Money is not an issue. I thought my pump and power head was enough.


It’s not that you don’t have enough gph movement, it how it’s directed. Me I would simply replace that wide lily pipe with one of these duck bill type, leave slot vertical, angle it slightly down directing a big wide more forceful fan of water right along front edge of tank aimed mostly right at base of that big mound of soil.

https://www.amazon.com/Multipurpose...n+nozzle&qid=1560888449&s=pet-supplies&sr=1-5

I mean you’ve tried everything else. But make no mistake when you set this up there will be a big purge of substances from substrate, be ready with 50% water change 2-3hrs after you set it up, another next day and probably every other day after that for week. I’d also add carbon or purigen to filter. Watch your fish also for signs of distress from excess sulfides and methane and you can also expect a surge in undesirable algae throughout the tank even with big water changes and carbon etc. The beneficial aerobic and anaerobic BB will correct the sour substrate slowly over course of about 2wks.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Guys I appreciate the flow advice but I watch the bubbles and fish food flow from the top down, and also around the rock. There is not an inch that isnt getting water moving over it.

I am hearing you though and just in case, when I rescape soon I won't have large mounds without powersand under it, and no huge rocks breaking what would be a perfect flow. I want to take the powerhead out anyways because it's too turbulent.


----------



## Greggz

cl3537 said:


> I hate this discussion it dilutes the message and perpetuates the status quo


I honestly have no idea what you are referring to??

What message? What status quo?

We were talking about flow, and the suggestion that changing it would solve all the OP's problems.

IME flow is a factor in a planted tank, but a rather minor one compared to everything else. A well thought out and managed planted tank can do well with a wide range of flow, as long as it is not extreme (both too little/too much). At least that has been my personal experience.


----------



## Leeatl

Sorry , but I have been out of circulation for a while till recently.....what is the Sol Kool Aid ?


----------



## Greggz

Leeatl said:


> Sorry , but I have been out of circulation for a while till recently.....what is the Sol Kool Aid ?


It's a long story.

There was a group of guys here who believed the root of all evil was "micro toxicity", too much micro dosing. They were diagnosing every single problem in every single tank as micro tox. The funny thing is that half of those folks weren't even dosing micros. But that didn't slow them down. 

It led to a period a few years back now referred to as the "micro tox wars". Sol was the leader of the group, and he and most of his group were permanently banned from here, and a few other FB groups too.

The poster above has joined that group on FB, and while he has little practical experience, it seems he pretty much posts everything they post over there. They all have an irrational hatred of Tom Barr, and think EI is a scourge of the earth. 

And I am all for good healthy debate and discussion. There is much to be learned from observing different methodologies. But some reason with that group there is no compromise, and it always ends badly.


----------



## jcoulter

As someone who is new(ish) to planted tanks and these forums, I find it very frustrating to read threads where cl3537 has posted. His/her comments are generally argumentative and combative as opposed to contributive.


----------



## somewhatshocked

There are literal children here (with their parents' permission) behaving better than this. I'd rather deal with them or the shrimp war bros we had to ban a few years ago for scamming the sales system.

What on earth is with the bickering for the sake of bickering? What's with being consistently argumentative? *Stop.* 

*Stop.* 

*Stop.* 

If you want to be difficult? Go be difficult in your personal lives. I promise you no one here cares about it or wants to experience your negativity. Heck, take it to the pits of awful we call social media. Nastiness is welcomed there. Not here.

I'm too tired from the heat and humidity to ban people today but the rest of the moderation team and admins are not.

Edit: If we have to clean this thread up again? At least a couple members will be taking a permanent hike. This behavior is beyond dumb.


----------



## Positron

Greggz said:


> It's a long story.
> 
> There was a group of guys here who believed the root of all evil was "micro toxicity", too much micro dosing. They were diagnosing every single problem in every single tank as micro tox. The funny thing is that half of those folks weren't even dosing micros. But that didn't slow them down.
> 
> It led to a period a few years back now referred to as the "micro tox wars". Sol was the leader of the group, and he and most of his group were permanently banned from here, and a few other FB groups too.
> 
> The poster above has joined that group on FB, and while he has little practical experience, it seems he pretty much posts everything they post over there. They all have an irrational hatred of Tom Barr, and think EI is a scourge of the earth.
> 
> And I am all for good healthy debate and discussion. There is much to be learned from observing different methodologies. But some reason with that group there is no compromise, and it always ends badly.


I was around during the "tox wars," and although most of the discussion was emotional based, there was some good information that I believe came out of that time. Many people are now making their own ferts, and we took a hard look at what CSM+B came from and what it's actual manufactured use is for. It was an absolute pleasure coming back to plantedtank.net after a year or so and watching Burr's progress. What intrigues me the most when I look at the custom micro thread is how high Zn and B values are. My Fe:Mn values are about the same, but I use about 1/10 the Zn and 1/5 the B. Perhaps I'll try a trial run using these higher amounts. After 5 minutes of having my tap run, there's basically no Zn in my water. 

To me CSM+B is too inconsistent for the scale we use it on in our aquariums. Each batch will have different levels of micros weather you like it or not. This singular point had me ordering my own micro's years ago. I'm happy to see so many others trying out new formulations. 
I'm not saying stop using CSM+B. If it works for you then keep it up!


----------



## cl3537

Positron said:


> What intrigues me the most when I look at the custom micro thread is how high Zn and B values are. My Fe:Mn values are about the same, but I use about 1/10 the Zn and 1/5 the B.


I noticed the same trend comparing a suggested recipe from @happi and the values in Tropica Specialized to the values I saw in the dosing thread from Burr740 and others. I never got a satisfactory answer as to why those values are so different. Your Gh(Calcium) will play a part in how much Boron you need. The kH will play a part in how much and which chelate Fe you need and Fe influences how much Zn you need and this cascades to practically all the Micros (See Mulder's chart)

Vin's recent talk highlights that high micros(in the water column) coupled with high kH is problematic for many sensitive species to stunting (Rotalas and Ammanias) whereas those same micros in lower kH water may not be as problematic. This explains why Barr and others have not seen the same problems that were clearly evident in Vin's Rotala Kill tanks. It also sheds some light on possibly why the majority of pro aquascapers are using low kH water.


----------



## Leeatl

Thanks Greggz for the explanation . I didn't mean to open a can of worms so I think I will watch this thread from afar so I don't get accidentally banned  .


----------



## Greggz

Positron said:


> I was around during the "tox wars," and although most of the discussion was emotional based, there was some good information that I believe came out of that time.


I think so too. 

And I agree micro tox was real for some people. I myself was dosing a minuscule amount of micros at one point. That really changed when Joe asked me if I wanted to try custom micros. IMO, crummy CSM+B and the wrong iron source were the root of most micro problems. 

So there was some good that came of it, and there were valid points there. But that message was almost completely lost in the constant battling, and the personal attacks that went well over the line. 

I had just joined here at the time, and I remember thinking how in the world can planted tanks create this type of anger? My feeling is there is room for plenty of points of view, and reasonable discussion helps advance the hobby. 

As I have said many times, show me a healthy well presented tank, and you have got my attention. If the method is polar opposite of mine, it's even more interesting. 

And in the end, each tank behaves differently, so the tricky part is taking all that cumulative knowledge and finding balance in your unique eco system. It may sound easy, but IME it's more difficult than most think.

Bump:


cl3537 said:


> It also sheds some light on possibly why the majority of pro aquascapers are using low kH water.


Well we can agree on that.:grin2:

My planted tank life became easier when I first went to RO water, which lowered my KH dramatically. Then not too long ago, I lowered my K2CO3 dosing and brought KH down even further (KH less than 1.0). Once again, things improved. 

And it's not that you can't have a nice tank at higher KH, but IME everything is easier with it lower.


----------



## Greggz

Leeatl said:


> Thanks Greggz for the explanation . I didn't mean to open a can of worms so I think I will watch this thread from afar so I don't get accidentally banned  .


I wouldn't feel bad that can of worms gets opened here every once in a while.

And it is what it is and is part of the history of the board. Amazing that it still dredges up anger after all these years. It surely was an interesting chapter, and as mentioned above led to positive changes in the long run.


----------



## Asteroid

EI dosing guidelines does state 3-5 for both KH/GH so it shouldn't be a huge surprise if some issues can occur if these are higher..

Japan and many areas of Asia (where many pro-scapers are from. Just look at IAPLC entries) have naturally soft water so, there's that too. in the states it varies greatly.


----------



## Ddrizzle

I'd like to know why there isn't more people experimenting with ferts, co2 and lighting like in the rotala kill thread. If I had the room I'd buy 10 or so 5-10 gallon tanks, plant a few of the same plants in each and vary the parameters a bit.

Have there been experiments like this logged somewhere?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Ddrizzle said:


> I'd like to know why there isn't more people experimenting with ferts, co2 and lighting like in the rotala kill thread. If I had the room I'd buy 10 or so 5-10 gallon tanks, plant a few of the same plants in each and vary the parameters a bit.
> 
> Have there been experiments like this logged somewhere?


Believe it was user MarcelG, whom I believe is now banned.
Posted several such tanks with rotala wallichii I think.
Upon exiting I think he deleted much of the info but it can be found elsewhere on the web.


----------



## somewhatshocked

Just a reminder - all those folks everyone keeps mentioning? They were given the boot for being super-nasty to other members. Not a few times but dozens of times. And at least one of them tried to scam our For Sale section. It wasn't for having crazy, out-of-touch or purposefully provocative ideas. They were intentionally and repeatedly stirring the pot.

I know some of them went elsewhere and complained, played the victim, acted as if they were wronged by the forum. Kinda like the handful of shrimp folks who got upset when a couple of them were banned after repeatedly scamming the For Sale section. (That's partly why we keep it so locked down - another reason is one of the Buce smugglers who was just arrested within the past week or two.) Can guarantee most of them still complaining would be singing a different tune if our moderation policy wasn't to keep details of infractions or suspensions fairly quiet.

It takes a lot to be given the boot. _A lot._ Insane ideas? Not so much - cause forum members will be quick to educate.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> My planted tank life became easier when I first went to RO water, which lowered my KH dramatically. Then not too long ago, I lowered my K2CO3 dosing and brought KH down even further (KH less than 1.0). Once again, things improved.
> 
> And it's not that you can't have a nice tank at higher KH, but IME everything is easier with it lower.


I went through the same thing: was a big believer in EI and ultra-high micros for a few years. Then, @Edward challenged me (in a nice way) to 'go low'. This was about a year ago and I took the challenge. While I was happy on EI and high micros (still think it works), I noticed little improvements with each step down. So, now, I'm dosing to target, as opposed to saturation dosing and those targets (5-10 NO3, .5-1 PO4, 10-15 K and micros closer to Tropica and Seachem) are maintained with very little dosing. Substrate PAR ~80, CO2 ~30, dGH ~2, dKH < 1 and TDS ~100 (500 scale). However, I dose heavily via my fish food and, I think, that is a big part of my ability to back way down on most of this. I am close to being done with my last adjustments about 4 months ago, where I went strictly to urea (no more direct NO3) and also found that my Dwarf Sag and Pantanal complained at the too-low iron, I had to increase iron to much greater ratios to other micros but fish food, again, may be the compensating factor.

What I don't understand is why it is that my plants seem to do so well with virtually no bicarbonates (dKH < 1) or, better put: why are plants impeded by high bicarbonates. Is it because pH can go so much lower and perhaps the nutrient absorption sweet spot is in the pH mid-5's and not in the pH mid-6's? Is it because BB is starved for bicarbonates and can't compete for N products as well? Maybe a combination of both. Would sure like to the see the science behind this bicarbonate conundrum.


----------



## jeffkrol

Deanna said:


> I went through the same thing: was a big believer in EI and ultra-high micros for a few years. Then, @*Edward* challenged me (in a nice way) to 'go low'. This was about a year ago and I took the challenge. While I was happy on EI and high micros (still think it works), I noticed little improvements with each step down. So, now, I'm dosing to target, as opposed to saturation dosing and those targets (5-10 NO3, .5-1 PO4, 10-15 K and micros closer to Tropica and Seachem) are maintained with very little dosing. Substrate PAR ~80, CO2 ~30, dGH ~2, dKH < 1 and TDS ~100 (500 scale). However, I dose heavily via my fish food and, I think, that is a big part of my ability to back way down on most of this. I am close to being done with my last adjustments about 4 months ago, where I went strictly to urea (no more direct NO3) and also found that my Dwarf Sag and Pantanal complained at the too-low iron, I had to increase iron to much greater ratios to other micros but fish food, again, may be the compensating factor.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it is that my plants seem to do so well with virtually no bicarbonates (dKH < 1) or, better put: why are plants impeded by high bicarbonates. Is it because pH can go so much lower and perhaps the nutrient absorption sweet spot is in the pH mid-5's and not in the pH mid-6's? Is it because BB is starved for bicarbonates and can't compete for N products as well? Maybe a combination of both. Would sure like to the see the science behind this bicarbonate conundrum.



might be able to piece something togethr w/ enough papers.. 



> Subsoil nutrient toxicitiesAt high concentrations, nutrient elements can become toxic to plants, reducing root growth and yield and can result in the death of plants in extreme cases. The most common nutrient toxicities in subsoils of the medium and low rainfall areas of south-eastern Australian are B, Na+, carbonate (CO3-) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) (Nuttall et al. 2003, Rathjen et al. 1999, Rengasamy et al. 2003). In the high rainfall regions, where high rates of leaching occur, subsoil acidity can develop. This causes specific nutrient toxicities, especially aluminium (Al) and manganese (Mn). Typical profiles for B, electrical conductivity, exchangeable Na+ and chloride (Cl-) in alkaline soils are shown in Figure 3.4. High concentrations of B and salt occur in many alkaline soils throughout south-eastern Australia and can restrict root growth and water uptake. Under saline conditions, the presence of high concentrations of salts reduces growth by osmotic stress, in which the presence of high salt concentrations restricts water uptake, and by the direct toxic effect of Na+ and Cl- in the plant tissues. How does soil pH affect nutrient availability and toxicity?Several physical, chemical and biological properties of soil interact to determine the concentration of available nutrients in the soil. Soil pH is arguably the most important because it influences the chemical form of nutrients and their availability (Figure 3.5). The optimum pH for most nutrients is generally from 6.5 – 7.5. Outside this range the concentration of many nutrients in the soil solution declines and for some nutrients, such as Al, Mn and B, the availability can increase to concentrations toxic to plants. The pH of the soil is therefore a good indicator of some of the nutritional problems that are likely to occur.Alkaline soilsAlkaline soils have a pH above 7.0, but nutritional problems are encountered when pH is greater than 7.5 – 8.0. In alkaline soils, [already defined above] CO32- and HCO3- may be present at high concentrations. Excess HCO3- inhibits root growth in plants and the high pH reduces the availability of a number of nutrients (Figure 3.5). In soils with high exchangeable Na+, sodium





> carbonate and sodium bicarbonate raise the pH above 9.0. Plant growth can be affected directly by this high pH as well as being reduced by a number of nutrient toxicities and deficiencies (Table 3.2). Some of the *commonly observed nutritional problems of highly **alkaline soils include: • decreased solubility of Fe and Mn with increasing pH• low availability of Zn at high pH resulting from the adsorption of Zn to CaCO3 and HCO3-• low availability of P due to adsorption to clay particles and the formation of complexes with Ca2+ and H+• phytotoxic B concentrations (Figure 3.6)• increases in phytotoxic Al(OH)4- in soils with pH>9.* Alkaline soils and calcareous soils have a high capacity to ‘fix’ P. This reduces the availability of P to plants and limits their response to P fertiliser. The effects of pH and the amount of calcium carbonate in the soil on the response









http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soil_mgmt_subsoil_pdf/$FILE/BCG_subsoils_09_ch03.pdf


But then again.. land plants..


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> What I don't understand is why it is that my plants seem to do so well with virtually no bicarbonates (dKH < 1)


The dominant species in CO2 injection equilibria is bicarbonate (Not Carbonic Acid, Not Co2, not Carbonate) with common pHs (6.4 - 8) we run aquariums at.

If you inject CO2 your plants have access to significant bicarb. It doesn't matter if it wasn't present in your source water if you inject CO2 your plants have access to it.

Edit: At ph=6.4 H2CO3 starts to become equivalent in concentration to HCO3- and then the lower you go the more the equilbirum is pushed towards Carbonic Acid. I would still argue with a ph range of degassed water starting at 7(3ppm 1dkh) and 6(30ppm 1dkh) your plants still have access to bicarb if they even need it in that form is another question.


----------



## Deanna

@jeffkrol

Yup: collecting more studies might provide a better picture. Difficult to say how much the terrestrial studies apply, but I have been digesting a long study on hydropnics these last few weeks (will be posting it separately once I’m done), and that also mentions that osmotic pressure may play a role in nutrient uptake. Maybe TDS is even more important than suspected. However, as we know, hydroponics - not having any concern for fish - push their nutrients/TDS way above what we do.

@cl3537

It’s my understanding that only about half of the plants we use in aquariums have evolved to process HCO3 (the so-called ‘hard water’ plants). This means that the low-KH (HCO3) plants don’t/can’t use the bicarbonate and use the CO2 directly. I also seem to recall that algae like HCO3 (have any of us seen algae lower in tandem with lower KH?). Perhaps (for you chemists to answer), if we force KH up, we create evermore bicarbonate conversion of CO2, leaving less CO2 for those “soft “water” species(?).


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> @jeffkrol
> 
> 
> It’s my understanding that only about half of the plants we use in aquariums have evolved to process HCO3 (the so-called ‘hard water’ plants). This means that the low-KH (HCO3) plants don’t/can’t use the bicarbonate and use the CO2 directly. I also seem to recall that algae like HCO3 (have any of us seen algae lower in tandem with lower KH?). Perhaps (for you chemists to answer), if we force KH up, we create evermore bicarbonate conversion of CO2, leaving less CO2 for those “soft “water” species(?).


Interesting, this sounds like a Biology or Biochemistry question not a pure chemistry question. I am not sure I have an answer for you and I haven't seen research along those lines.

Equilibrium CO2 concentrations can be equal for a whole range of kH and pH and in terms of the availability of CO2 to plants it could be the same so I don't think that is a plausible explanation. You can have 30ppm CO2 at ph=6 and 30ppm CO2 at ph=8.

But what I do beleive is more along the lines of the same results as from the terrestrial studies. Higher kh >>> Higher Ph >>> Lower Bioavailability of Micros >>> Inhibited Macros Uptake >>> Plant Growth selective uptake through leaf problems.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> But what I do beleive is more along the lines of the same results as from the terrestrial studies. Higher kh >>> Higher Ph >>> Lower Bioavailability of Micros >>> Inhibited Macros Uptake >>> Plant Growth selective uptake through leaf problems.


This seems to be generally accepted and, if true (as I suspect it is), it could also explain why higher doses of macros and micros are better suited to higher KH levels, particularly for the "soft water" plants, but we've all seen this idea suggested before. It's behind the idea of ensuring maximum saturation of nutrients to 'push' them onto every surface of the plant and, again, especially on "soft water" plants. Basically, force-feeding the plants.

However, like I said, it would sure be nice to see a biologist explain/support the reason for the apparent benefit of low KH for such plants. 

Conversely, I wonder if "hard water" plants struggle in low KH water (I never noticed), or perhaps they can use the CO2 and HCO3 no matter what the ratios.


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Believe it was user MarcelG, whom I believe is now banned.
> Posted several such tanks with rotala wallichii I think.
> Upon exiting I think he deleted much of the info but it can be found elsewhere on the web.


I have seen quite a few experiments of this type.

While they are interesting, you have to understand what they are. When you grow one plant species in a bare bottom tank, you can fine tune things and tweak things to make that plant happy in that tank. 

But IMO, the only thing you have demonstrated is what happens to that particular plant in that particular tank. 

The problem is that very few people grow a single species in a bare bottom tank. Most have a wide variety of species, with different substrates, light levels, source water, fish loads, maintenance habits, etc. etc. etc.

So my point is that while I find them interesting, the combination that makes Rotala Wallachii happiest in that tank probably has little correlation to Ludwigia Pantanal in my tank. 

Heck, I have seen folks get completely different results just moving the same plant from one spot in a tank to another. 

Just saying every tank is unique, and I have yet to see a recipe that works for every situation.


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> This seems to be generally accepted and, if true (as I suspect it is), it could also explain why higher doses of macros and micros are better suited to higher KH levels


The exact opposite, Vin's recent AGA talk showed that Lythraecae(and others like Pogostemon Erectus) cannot handle the double insult, High Kh and High Ferts causes problems like stunting. He postulated these plants in particular have trouble with selective uptake from leaves whereas that is less of a problem with root feeding. You can't solve the leaf uptake problem by adding more of everything as an excess of one nutrient inhibits the uptake of another(see Mulder's Chart).

Even in the Rotala Kill Tank threads on Barrreport, Barr was often presenting the contrary result or opinion to Vin's results. What wasn't as clear then(2016 - 2017) which seems more clear now is that High Kh and High Water Column Ferts is more a problem for these plants than Low Kh and High Water Column Ferts. High caked on everything in Barr's tanks(soft water) is not conclusive for high caked on everything in hard water. Failure to isolate variables and take into account all water parameters leads to Barr's conclusions which while they apply to his tanks may not apply to others. I beleive @burr740 and @Greggz posted in that thread and should remember those posts @burr740 argued with Barr on that exact point.

This wasn't covered but I beleive the softwater species that need low KH have even worse selective uptake abilities. The presence of excess Calcium can inhibit Macros and Micros.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> The exact opposite, Vin's recent AGA talk showed that Lythraecae(and others like Pogostemon Erectus) cannot handle the double insult, High Kh and High Ferts causes problems like stunting. He postulated these plants in particular have trouble with selective uptake from leaves whereas that is less of a problem with root feeding. You can't solve the leaf uptake problem by adding more of everything as an excess of one nutrient inhibits the uptake of another(see Mulder's Chart).
> 
> Even in the Rotala Kill Tank threads on Barrreport, Barr was often presenting the contrary result or opinion to Vin's results. What wasn't as clear then(2016 - 2017) which seems more clear now is that High Kh and High Water Column Ferts is more a problem for these plants than Low Kh and High Water Column Ferts. High caked on everything in Barr's tanks(soft water) is not conclusive for high caked on everything in hard water. Failure to isolate variables and take into account all water parameters leads to Barr's conclusions which while they apply to his tanks may not apply to others. I beleive @burr740 and @Greggz posted in that thread and should remember those posts @burr740 argued with Barr on that exact point.
> 
> This wasn't covered but I beleive the softwater species that need low KH have even worse selective uptake abilities. The presence of excess Calcium can inhibit Macros and Micros.


Well ...then that thought may not work, although, as usual, testing on two species may make it hard to generalize. I think Mulder's chart has some value, but is overstated in application with our hobby. For me, what it does is to point out that ratios can be important, particularly when considering optimal pH target for uptake. I'll read through those links later. Thanks for supplying them.


----------



## Edward

cl3537 said:


> The dominant species in CO2 injection equilibria is bicarbonate (Not Carbonic Acid, Not Co2, not Carbonate) with common pHs (6.4 - 8) we run aquariums at.
> 
> If you inject CO2 your plants have access to significant bicarb. It doesn't matter if it wasn't present in your source water if you inject CO2 your plants have access to it.


 CO2 injection changes water column bicarbonate levels?


----------



## Positron

I think our experimentation process has become too complex. Marcel, Rotala kill tanks: while interesting provide very little in terms of control. My ideal experiment would be this:

CONTROL TANK: Submerse Rotala W. into a 10 gallon tank (weigh it down with a glass nugget). No substrate, glass bottom. Water is filtered via a HOB that's seeded with established media. Put 2 cherry barbs in there. Wait 10 days for favorable bacteria to reestablish. No ferts whatsoever, except light feeding (this is subjective: all food should be eaten within 30 seconds). CO2 is ~30 ppm: it should be matched with the experimental tank (Ph drop and Ph values should be identical). GH, KH, temperature values should be identical to experimental tank. Light source could come from 2 T-8 utility bulbs bought from lowes/home depot. Basically everything about this tank should be identical to the experimental tank except dosing. 

EXPERIMENTAL TANK: Submerse Rotala W. into a 10 gallon tank. No substrate, glass bottom. Everything identical to the control tank except:

Add enough KNO3 to bring NO3- to 25 ppm
Add enough K2SO4 to bring K+ to 30 ppm 
Add enough K2PO4 to bring PO4-3 to 2 ppm

Since it's easily available and reproducible:

Add enough Seachem flourish to raise iron to 0.20 ppm

END METHODS

Let both of these tanks grow for six weeks. Each week add 0.20 iron from flourish to the experimental tank.


----------



## Deanna

Positron said:


> I think our experimentation process has become too complex. Marcel, Rotala kill tanks: while interesting provide very little in terms of control.


I think the problem with all of these tests/experiments is the lack of statistical validity. Unfortunately, none of us have the wherewithal/willingness to meet such requirements and the few companies, e.g.; Seachem, Tropica, etc. that have the resources to do this are focused elsewhere.

From my viewpoint, just to begin to approach statistical validity, we would need to reach a minimum of roughly 30 tests before inferences could begin to be somewhat valid, and more would be better. So, a test for, lets say a plant response to x qty of iron at a KH level of 1 dKH would need to have 30 different plant species in a single tank (thus, a large tank would be needed) and, on top of that, 30 different tanks with identical parameters (or one tank tested 30 times) would need to be tested. All other parameters (those not being tested) would need to fixed and identified. You can see that the permutations could easily be overwhelming.

So, lacking this, we are left with trying to find what works for our tanks and then extrapolating to suggest that doing what we did might work in someone else’s tank. We know, very broadly, some of the things that do usually work, but can never be sure that applying it to another tank successfully is a given. This is why it is so easy to poke holes in our anecdotal observations of our own tanks.


----------



## cl3537

Edward said:


> CO2 injection changes water column bicarbonate levels?


Yes it sure does.
What do you think happens that causes the pH drop when you inject CO2?

I didn't say it raises kH I said it raises bicarbonate. (go look at the kh formula and see what else is raised so that kh stays the same).


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> We would need to reach a minimum of roughly 30 tests before inferences could begin to be somewhat valid


You don't need 30 tests in A - B testing, the number of tests you need is dictated by the standard deviation.
If you don't beleive his results are reproducible than I disagree with you, he has reproduced many of the same results in overlapping pairs.

You have no standard deviation if every tank with High Kh and High Ferts stunts a particular species. If it doesn't than the hypothesis is disproved or you haven't isolated that variable well enough. 

There are a lot of people in the Share Your Dosing Thread with hard water and high ferts. 

How many of them grow healthy Pogostemon Erectus or sensitive members of the Lythraecae family (Ammannia (old Nesaea) pedicellata or Rotala Red Cross or Rotala Sunset)? 

@burr740 @Ken Keating1 [MENTION=47241]Chlorophile @elusive77 @Grobbins48 @SingAlongWithTsing @Immortal1


----------



## DaveKS

Asteroid said:


> Again not arguing with the premise, but OP tank is so shallow and way overfiltered and only 8 months old. Also in all the tanks I've shown I never pointed anything to the substrate.
> 
> Not my tank, but,


Any pics of build up of that? 

Some guy did a dry start, flooded tank and took a pic 3 weeks after setup before any problems reared their head, lets see a pic about 6-8mo after setup. 1yr after.

But I could build something exactly like that following best practices and whole center core of that mound will be a fiberglass window screen mesh bag I built filled with lava rock and soil dropped around edges and on top and you would never even know that bag of lava rock is there. None of the AS anywhere in tank would be over the safe limit and will perform just as it should for recommended life.

So again, to pull up some random pic off internet and say here’s proof without knowing actual build up process of tank or how it performed in long run is again, preposterous. For all you know bulk of that build up in the center could be a coraplast retaining walls filled with lava rock and a few vent notches cut around bottom. 

Looking at tank and scale I doubt even if it is all AS, I doubt it’s over 4” deep anywhere in tank (I put it at 6-8” front to back) which puts it at the marginal limit of what you can get away with long term with a organic soil and soil depth..

Many ways, many materials you can properly build something like that and it’s totally invisible to the eye. It’s actually quite easy. Some coraplast, some cheap fiberglass window screen at $5 roll and some epoxy or silicone and you can make any shape or gradient/drop off you want.


----------



## DaveKS

Ddrizzle said:


> Guys I appreciate the flow advice but I watch the bubbles and fish food flow from the top down, and also around the rock. There is not an inch that isnt getting water moving over it.
> 
> I am hearing you though and just in case, when I rescape soon I won't have large mounds without powersand under it, and no huge rocks breaking what would be a perfect flow. I want to take the powerhead out anyways because it's too turbulent.


I love your big tower rock. I would just move it back a bit and over to right a bit, turn it a slight bit so it’s top points a bit front. Right in front of your oversized circ pump and use it as buffer. Aim pumps flow at back half of that slanted rock, it will push flow up and towards back wall, slowing it down, making a nice surface ripple at back wall at water surface. The off center flow from pump will just lightly flow around rock, sweeping down drop off gracefully without being to hard on plants below.

Some Val nano or willow leaf hygro sweeping out from behind that rock on down side current would look awesome, they would further buffer that oversized pumps flow. Plants like those you almost have to consider as almost part of hardscape they can be so dramatic when placed right, but you’ve got plenty of sideways room for a big sweep of green like that.

Rocks on left, bring them more forward a bit. Big rock will be slightly to back on right, smaller rocks on left more forward. You’ll have a bigger plain in front of rock on right but more planting room behind rocks on left. In a design sense your current arrangement with all rock kind of lined up down center area actually makes your tank look smaller. With more room in front of big rock put small mound of hydrocotyle japan, even just a couple small crypt in front, put a small blob of spaghnum moss and some more H. japan on top growing out as a mini floating vine. 

I actually love the way you brought top of that rock up to water surface and tried to use it as semi emergent layer, I wouldn’t change that at all just reposition it.


----------



## Asteroid

DaveKS said:


> Any pics of build up of that?
> 
> Some guy did a dry start, flooded tank and took a pic 3 weeks after setup before any problems reared their head, lets see a pic about 6-8mo after setup. 1yr after..


Dave, I do believe you are beating a dead horse at this point.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> You don't need 30 tests in A - B testing, the number of tests you need is dictated by the standard deviation.
> If you don't beleive his results are reproducible than I disagree with you, he has reproduced many of the same results in overlapping pairs.
> 
> You have no standard deviation if every tank with High Kh and High Ferts stunts a particular species. If it doesn't than the hypothesis is disproved or you haven't isolated that variable well enough.
> 
> There are a lot of people in the Share Your Dosing Thread with hard water and high ferts.
> 
> How many of them grow healthy Pogostemon Erectus or sensitive members of the Lythraecae family (Ammannia (old Nesaea) pedicellata or Rotala Red Cross or Rotala Sunset)?
> 
> @burr740 @Ken Keating1 [MENTION=47241]Chlorophile @elusive77 @Grobbins48 @SingAlongWithTsing @Immortal1


Possibly, but I wouldn’t want to be the one to devise the test method. I don’t want to get too deep into opinions on statistics, but I do think we are looking at a very large population and to get a ‘reasonable’ (whoever decides what reasonable is) confidence level, we are looking at a normal distribution around the mean, especially where there are so many predictor variables. N=30 is, of course, a rule of thumb if we accept the traditional two-tailed .05. I suggested a minimum of 30, but I suspect that it would be higher. Falsifying one test event just demands more testing to see where the distribution falls.


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> Possibly, but I wouldn’t want to be the one to devise the test method. I don’t want to get too deep into opinions on statistics, but I do think we are looking at a very large population and to get a ‘reasonable’ (whoever decides what reasonable is) confidence level, we are looking at a normal distribution around the mean, especially where there are so many predictor variables. N=30 is, of course, a rule of thumb if we accept the traditional two-tailed .05. I suggested a minimum of 30, but I suspect that it would be higher. Falsifying one test event just demands more testing to see where the distribution falls.


What I am trying to tell you is you are applying a statistical model that doesn't fit the experiment.
There is no mean or a distribution(its 100% stunted), not measuring the degree of stunting its a qualititative Yes/No and then maybe description of appearance in case where the growth is present but less than ideal, we don't have a population of tanks where 80% stunt 20% do not. 

If I see that others with these conditions but with other independant variables (like different species of auxillary plants or different substrate) do not stunt in high kh an high ferts, and they are able to grow these species (with time sensitive, FTS, photo proof) to their full beauty then his conclusions can be relegated to (potential risks) or futher study of other factors is required. At this point I beleive this is a solid trend.


This is different it is A - B comparison testing. Both tanks same variables with one or a limited number of variable changes. High Ferts vs. Low Ferts and then High Kh High Ferts versus High Ferts Low Kh. 100% of the High Kh High Ferts tanks stunted the most sensitive species. In some species low kh high ferts stunted as well but only with particular species.

This testing is not robust, it wouldn't pass as academic work, but then again neither would the testing Barr did for EI.

It has often been said running a tank with High Ferts, Inert Substrate, High Kh with Lythraecae is running a planted tank on hard mode for a variety of species this research seems to confirm that statement.


----------



## Asteroid

You could just as easily blame hard water rather than the dosing for people having issues with various plants. Both can be altered. It's up to the user and what they are growing. I really don't see the big reveal here. Most folks don't care about a few harder to grow species.


----------



## cl3537

Asteroid said:


> You could just as easily blame hard water rather than the dosing for people having issues with various plants. Both can be altered. It's up to the user and what they are growing. I really don't see te big reveal here. Most folks don't care about a few harder to grow species.


No, it often has to be both and that is the key, that is why you don't get problems and I do. It also has to be with particular species (sensitive Lythraecae) but in general high kh is much more difficult to control for a wider variety of species and fert dosing regimes.










(Reproduced with permission from Vin Kutty from his 2019 AGA presentation)


----------



## Positron

cl3537 said:


> What I am trying to tell you is you are applying a statistical model that doesn't fit the experiment.
> There is no mean or a distribution(its 100% stunted), not measuring the degree of stunting its a qualititative Yes/No and then maybe description of appearance in case where the growth is present but less than ideal, we don't have a population of tanks where 80% stunt 20% do not.
> 
> If I see that others with these conditions but with other independant variables (like different species of auxillary plants or different substrate) do not stunt in high kh an high ferts, and they are able to grow these species (with time sensitive, FTS, photo proof) to their full beauty then his conclusions can be relegated to (potential risks) or futher study of other factors is required. At this point I beleive this is a solid trend.
> 
> 
> This is different it is A - B comparison testing. Both tanks same variables with one or a limited number of variable changes. High Ferts vs. Low Ferts and then High Kh High Ferts versus High Ferts Low Kh. 100% of the High Kh High Ferts tanks stunted the most sensitive species. In some species low kh high ferts stunted as well but only with particular species.
> 
> This testing is not robust, it wouldn't pass as academic work, but then again neither would the testing Barr did for EI.
> 
> It has often been said running a tank with High Ferts, Inert Substrate, High Kh with Lythraecae is running a planted tank on hard mode for a variety of species this research seems to confirm that statement.


I agree with Deanna here. n = 30 tests would be the BEGINNING point of the scientific process of gathering data. There are a number of methods to extract objective data values. Subjective data is seldom of any use in a real study. Instead of looking to see if something is stunted (subjective) measure it's mass and chlorophyll concentration. It's not hard to devise an objective process that would work. No one is going to do it, though.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> What I am trying to tell you is you are applying a statistical model that doesn't fit the experiment.
> There is no mean or a distribution(its 100% stunted), not measuring the degree of stunting its a qualititative Yes/No and then maybe description of appearance in case where the growth is present but less than ideal, we don't have a population of tanks where 80% stunt 20% do not.
> 
> If I see that others with these conditions but with other independant variables (like different species of auxillary plants or different substrate) do not stunt in high kh an high ferts, and they are able to grow these species (with time sensitive, FTS, photo proof) to their full beauty then his conclusions can be relegated to (potential risks) or futher study of other factors is required. At this point I beleive this is a solid trend.
> 
> 
> This is different it is A - B comparison testing. Both tanks same variables with one or a limited number of variable changes. High Ferts vs. Low Ferts and then High Kh High Ferts versus High Ferts Low Kh. 100% of the High Kh High Ferts tanks stunted the most sensitive species. In some species low kh high ferts stunted as well but only with particular species.
> 
> This testing is not robust, it wouldn't pass as academic work, but then again neither would the testing Barr did for EI.
> 
> It has often been said running a tank with High Ferts, Inert Substrate, High Kh with Lythraecae is running a planted tank on hard mode for a variety of species this research seems to confirm that statement.


I think that we just see the problem differently, but it's all an academic exercise, since it is unlikely to ever be tried. In any case, either approach would - possibly - be better than nothing. If @Positron is willing to try his test, and generates something that might be useful to me, I'd certainly be willing to try it in my tank.


----------



## Positron

Deanna said:


> I think that we just see the problem differently, but it's all an academic exercise, since it is unlikely to ever be tried. In any case, either approach would - possibly - be better than nothing. If @Positron is willing to try his test, and generates something that might be useful to me, I'd certainly be willing to try it in my tank.


Unfortunately, don't count on it anytime soon. For the next year I'm building a new house and won't have access to the needed instruments until 2020. On the plus side: in the new house I'm specifically building a fish / plant room. The prospects are exciting!

Interestingly enough: before i bought the property I asked the nieghbor for a water sample. Told him i'd test it for free and report back on the results. His well will be about 200-300 feet from mine.

The water looks very good. 1.5 KH and 5 GH. Almost no Mg, but that's no problem. Suffice to say I bought the property shortly after


----------



## Edward

*Tokyo *
Alkalinity 13 – 61 mg / L, 0.7 – 3.4 dKH
Total hardness 47 – 83 mg / L
Ca hardness 41 – 60 mg / L, 16 – 24 ppm Ca, 2.2 – 3.4 dGH
Mg hardness 6 – 23 mg / L, 1 – 5 ppm Mg, 0.2 – 1.1 dGH

*Hong Kong *
Alkalinity 7 - 78 mg / L, 0.4 – 4.4 dKH
Total hardness 4 – 64 mg / L
Ca hardness 2 – 53 mg / L, 0.9 – 21 ppm Ca, 0.1 – 2.9 dGH
Mg hardness 2 – 11 mg / L , 0.4 – 2.8 ppm Mg, 0.1 – 0.6 dGH

*Singapore*
Alkalinity 6 – 40 mg / L, 0.3 – 2.2 dKH
Total hardness 27 – 221 mg / L

These regions don’t go for 50 ppm NO3, 20 ppm PO4, 60 ppm K, 4 ppm Fe, 80 ppm Ca, 30 ppm Mg, … and they have the best planted aquariums with the healthiest plants. Go figure.


----------



## Ddrizzle

DaveKS said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys I appreciate the flow advice but I watch the bubbles and fish food flow from the top down, and also around the rock. There is not an inch that isnt getting water moving over it.
> 
> I am hearing you though and just in case, when I rescape soon I won't have large mounds without powersand under it, and no huge rocks breaking what would be a perfect flow. I want to take the powerhead out anyways because it's too turbulent.
> 
> 
> 
> I love your big tower rock. I would just move it back a bit and over to right a bit, turn it a slight bit so it’s top points a bit front. Right in front of your oversized circ pump and use it as buffer. Aim pumps flow at back half of that slanted rock, it will push flow up and towards back wall, slowing it down, making a nice surface ripple at back wall at water surface. The off center flow from pump will just lightly flow around rock, sweeping down drop off gracefully without being to hard on plants below.
> 
> Some Val nano or willow leaf hygro sweeping out from behind that rock on down side current would look awesome, they would further buffer that oversized pumps flow. Plants like those you almost have to consider as almost part of hardscape they can be so dramatic when placed right, but you’ve got plenty of sideways room for a big sweep of green like that.
> 
> Rocks on left, bring them more forward a bit. Big rock will be slightly to back on right, smaller rocks on left more forward. You’ll have a bigger plain in front of rock on right but more planting room behind rocks on left. In a design sense your current arrangement with all rock kind of lined up down center area actually makes your tank look smaller. With more room in front of big rock put small mound of hydrocotyle japan, even just a couple small crypt in front, put a small blob of spaghnum moss and some more H. japan on top growing out as a mini floating vine.
> 
> I actually love the way you brought top of that rock up to water surface and tried to use it as semi emergent layer, I wouldn’t change that at all just reposition it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice! I slowly realized what you are telling me, which is that I only took one plane into consideration when scaping. This left a lot oit in terms of front to back depth. Sadly, the big rock is too thick to rearrange and "send to the back" so I'll have some work on my hands with the new scape.

Also, with the hardwater revelations in this thread I want to cut out or extremely lower the amount ofimestone in my tank.

That said, my issues was mostly gh (16) but my kh was still around 8, which may also explain things here.

It's either that or my substrate really is toast.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Ok everyone, so what local group or person has time to flesh out an experiment for either hard water and fert uptake, or just a generalized fert experiment under differing conditions?

If I saw a well thought out plan on a slide deck that was backed by a club, I'd donate to the cause. There has to be a more correct way to dose plants in certain tank conditions than just EI.

Space, money, proper planning and maintenance seems to be the headaches here.


----------



## Asteroid

Edward said:


> ...
> These regions don’t go for 50 ppm NO3, 20 ppm PO4, 60 ppm K, 4 ppm Fe, 80 ppm Ca, 30 ppm Mg, … and they have the best planted aquariums with the healthiest plants. Go figure.


Who doses to those numbers?


----------



## Deanna

Ddrizzle said:


> Ok everyone, so what local group or person has time to flesh out an experiment for either hard water and fert uptake, or just a generalized fert experiment under differing conditions?
> 
> If I saw a well thought out plan on a slide deck that was backed by a club, I'd donate to the cause. There has to be a more correct way to dose plants in certain tank conditions than just EI.
> 
> Space, money, proper planning and maintenance seems to be the headaches here.


I'd start with my local congressional representative to have it added to the pork barrel. Huawei may have some time on their hands right now.


----------



## Edward

Asteroid said:


> Who doses to those numbers?


 Fewer and fewer people.


----------



## Asteroid

cl3537 said:


> No, it often has to be both and that is the key, that is why you don't get problems and I do. It also has to be with particular species (sensitive Lythraecae) but in general high kh is much more difficult to control for a wider variety of species and fert dosing regimes.


Again it's clearly stated in EI the recommended KH ranges. Low KH is also literally the foundation of the ADA system so I'm not sure what your trying to prove to me. It's a giving that most aquatic plants do better in softer water. If you have used aquasoil and or lowered your KH in your first tank 6 months ago it probably wouldn't have imploded on you.


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> Ok everyone, so what local group or person has time to flesh out an experiment for either hard water and fert uptake, or just a generalized fert experiment under differing conditions?
> 
> If I saw a well thought out plan on a slide deck that was backed by a club, I'd donate to the cause. There has to be a more correct way to dose plants in certain tank conditions than just EI.
> 
> Space, money, proper planning and maintenance seems to be the headaches here.


Look no further than Vin Kutty's 2019 AGA presentation the best I have seen on a topic like this. However on this board discussing it will be a waste of time, too many tanks using High ferts EI successfully and it will be an enormous task to get them to consider counterindications.


----------



## Greggz

cl3537 said:


> Look no further than Vin Kutty's 2019 AGA presentation the best I have seen on a topic like this. However on this board discussing it will be a waste of time, too many tanks using High ferts EI successfully and it will be an enormous task to get them to consider counterindications.


I really don't understand this attitude, and feel this type of comment is completely unjustified.

Many of us here have been following the Rotala Kill Tank and the Going Dutch with Aquasoil threads for years. I have referenced them both many times, and have been in contact with Vin to discuss those tanks (and my own) over the years.

The latest version of the kill tank was developed to test some specific species. It's also all but unrepeatable, as Vin basically just dumped a bunch of everything into that soil. Still, there are many lessons there, many of which really have to do with selecting plants that work well with your source water and what your are offering. For instance, it helps explain why I had trouble with certain species when my KH was sky high. 

Have you read the Going Dutch thread? There you will see Vin dumping loads and loads of ferts at nose bleed levels into a tank with a wide variety of flowery stems. The tank was spectacular. But by your logic, I would be assuming it would have little interest to you.

So my point is, I have seen tanks be successful with a wide variety of methodologies (and so has Vin). To suggest that discussing Vin's AGA talk here is a waste of time is simply not warranted, and I really don't understand where you are getting this attitude (but I do have a suspicion).

And you keep mentioned these high fert EI tanks......who you are talking about? Of all the tanks I follow, I can't think of one that blindly doses EI levels. In fact, besides you, I hardly hear EI mentioned at all.


----------



## ipkiss

Awesome response @Greggz, but please stop taking the troll bait.  I'd much prefer a forum with your presence!


----------



## cl3537

Greggz said:


> I really don't understand this attitude, and feel this type of comment is completely unjustified.
> 
> Many of us here have been following the Rotala Kill Tank and the Going Dutch with Aquasoil threads for years. I have referenced them both many times, and have been in contact with Vin to discuss those tanks (and my own) over the years.
> 
> The latest version of the kill tank was developed to test some specific species. *It's also all but unrepeatable*, as *Vin basically just dumped* a bunch of everything into that soil.


That is a very incomplete, negative, and pessimistic review of those experiments and the presentation. 
Did you even see Vin's 2019 AGA presentation?

A subset of the Kill Tank Experiements used rich soil, much of it was with inert substrate, so your comment is unfair.

Vin isn't active here to defend his work but as he predicted my comments are just adding to the noise/arguments here and I look like a contrarian without a complete detailing of proper context and fine details. I have no will to write out pages of detail which noone here will read anyway, and those that do will find a way to dismiss it in such a cavalier manner as you just did.

You may have forgetten the arguments Vin and Joe had with Tom Barr in that Rotala Kill thread . There positions were valid then as much as they are even more valid now. Tom Barr wasn't testing his dosing system and running his main tanks with all types of water (like hard water), or isolating variables comprehensively (often changing only one variable in an already successful, high plants mass, low kh tank only with no other datasets), if he had, I am quite certain his conclusions and the EI system would be far more complex.

@burr740 was also active in the Rotala Kill thread perhaps his harder water allows him to recognize and duplicate and thus accept the more general applicability of Vin's work for Rotala species, too bad you don't. 


This wasn't in Vin's talk but is part of the same issue, the risks of high water column ferts in high kh water when using a CEC soil is even more complex. You can't reset CEC soil with water column changes as predicted by Barr theory. Accumulation in the soil in hard water is unpredictable and can bring the system to toxic levels even for species that are relatively less sensitive like Rotala Rotundifolia. If that happens reversing conditions is very difficult it is not as simple as repeated water changes, short of changing the substrate it isn't easy to correct. *This could very well be what happened to Ddrizzle's tank.*

You are a pretty loud, active, popular voice on this forum and I have no interest in being continuously disparaged and drowned out by you or called argumentative and combative because this particular message and/or the way I deliver it will likely never be popular here.

Best of luck, I'm done arguing on TPT.


----------



## Edward

cl3537 said:


> You can't reset CEC soil with water column changes as predicted ...


Can you expand on that? Does it apply to high CEC course substrates as well? So no amount of water changes can clean the mess? I am asking because this is often suggested as a solution in such situations.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

cl3537 said:


> Did you even see Vin's 2019 AGA presentation?
> 
> Vin isn't active here to defend his work


Good Morning All:

It was a wonderful presentation.
I had the pleasure of viewing it 13 months before it was an AGA presentation.
Believe it was @ Ghazanfar's house where we recently reviewed a revised AGA Bucephalandra presentation from a few years ago.









Vin @ times posts here, not a frequent flier by any means. @Saxa Tilly may wish to defend his work?

Low KH was a given.
I think Vin put over a pound of O+ in the substrate.
Once stated that when the soil was depleted it would all turn to crap and be trashed.
I've ran "hot" soil and when the plants move to water column only it falls quick.
At that point trying to keep everything alive is not easy.


----------



## cl3537

Edward said:


> Can you expand on that? Does it apply to high CEC course substrates as well? So no amount of water changes can clean the mess? I am asking because this is often suggested as a solution in such situations.


I don't have robust proof only sparse anecdotal. 

The CEC makes going back to low water column ferts difficult. There is a lingering negative effect of EI + high KH + Aquasoil.

I beleive @Deanna has observed this too (hard water?). I have seen this with Tropica Aquasoil (stunted or poor growth S. Repens, R. Rotundifolia, P. Erectus) even with no fert dosing(or sparse) afterwards and frequent water changes it take months if ever. (I gave up after about 2 months). Moving those same unhealthy stems to inert substrate in a new tank, they were improved within 2 weeks (see my old Tank Journal last post)

To see what is really going on an ICP-AES chemical analysis with samples taken over time of Tropica Aquasoil under EI ferts would be much more conclusive to show the buildup in the Aquasoil.


----------



## Ddrizzle

cl3537 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expand on that? Does it apply to high CEC course substrates as well? So no amount of water changes can clean the mess? I am asking because this is often suggested as a solution in such situations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have robust proof only sparse anecdotal.
> 
> The CEC makes going back to low water column ferts difficult. There is a lingering negative effect of EI + high KH + Aquasoil.
> 
> I beleive @Deanna has observed this too (hard water?). I have seen this with Tropica Aquasoil (stunted or poor growth S. Repens, R. Rotundifolia, P. Erectus) even with no fert dosing(or sparse) afterwards and frequent water changes it take months if ever. (I gave up after about 2 months). Moving those same unhealthy stems to inert substrate in a new tank, they were improved within 2 weeks (see my old Tank Journal last post)
> 
> To see what is really going on an ICP-AES chemical analysis with samples taken over time of Tropica Aquasoil under EI ferts would be much more conclusive to show the buildup in the Aquasoil.
Click to expand...

How do I get that test performed and how much does it cost? I'd have the aquasoil left in the bag, my soil and then my wife's soil which was low tech a6bd minimal dosing.

Also, are you sure about it or are there other tests that would be better for this type of discussion?


----------



## cl3537

Ddrizzle said:


> How do I get that test performed and how much does it cost? I'd have the aquasoil left in the bag, my soil and then my wife's soil which was low tech a6bd minimal dosing.
> 
> Also, are you sure about it or are there other tests that would be better for this type of discussion?


It is not practical or cost effective to measure elemental concentrations for a hobby tank. This is only if you want to do research and write papers in this field. It would cost hundreds of dollars for each sample at a commerical lab.

You would be better off just replacing the substrate, 2X 9L bag of Tropica Aquasoil cost a fraction of the cost of testing.

I can't be sure that is your specific issue but I identify it as a risk. Mush like high substrate hills and hardscape that breaks the surface. My approach would be to limit risks as much as possible especially until you get more experienced. 

I wouldn't be using high ferts unless your plants required it and that is far from the case in your tank.


----------



## Jeff5614

Is Vin's presentation available on the AGA website? I'm a member and looked under the member's portal with no luck.


----------



## DaveKS

I guess you could take small say 1cup of his old AS, put it in big bowl with a small circ pump and cover it with 2000ml of distilled water and let it run for 5-7days then pull water tests for phos, Ca, Mg, iron, tds and see if it released anything. Rough garage hobbyist test but it might reveal something as to wether you can unbind cations through changes in water chemistry. Even if it did release I wouldn’t be sure that it would release all compounds at same rate. As OP found out the aquasoil seemed to have a particular affinity for phosphorus compounds. Or was it potassium he was mega dosing that got sucked up like a sponge?


----------



## Rainer

cl3537 said:


> (Reproduced with permission from Vin Kutty from his 2019 AGA presentation)



Maybe I've missed it, but where does #5 leave non-stem plants in medium-to-high light tanks?


----------



## happi

It's no surprise that plant like low KH, most of us been keeping almost 0 KH for very long time now, some people add 5 DKH etc, which is also unnecessary and only adds burden to micro and Fe availability, you can think of a stock solution where one is acidic and while the other one is alkaline, you will constantly observe precipitation in the alkaline solution, same is occuring in our aquariums and same logic can be applied here.


----------



## happi

Vin have also asked about my opinion as well before his AGA presentation, I have also shared my opinions with him, we also talked about Marcel finding on this topic as well.


----------



## cl3537

Rainer said:


> Maybe I've missed it, but where does #5 leave non-stem plants in medium-to-high light tanks?


I have mostly epiphytes in my tank glued to wood/lava rock. Anubias, Buces, Moss, Crypt Parva, Hygrophila Pinnatafida, 100 par, lean column ferts, kh=5, gh=8, those plants don't need high dosing. 0.2ppm N dosed daily (Tropica specialized which contains some Ammonia/Urea) is enough. 

As long as I keep lean ferts and light 100 par or under the tank runs fine with inert substrate.


----------



## Rainer

Nice, thanks for posting that. Five years ago when I left the hobby, I was religiously dosing EI as a fire-and-forget solution, so I've been conditioned to think that a lean ferts approach is a knife's edge away from an algae explosion. Is there a consensus on what constitutes a sufficient, lean regime for water column feeders?


----------



## KZB

Im really liking the new tank @cl3537. Easy grow plants with more effort into the scape. I want to work on more scape one day, but until than I just try to grow plants.


----------



## Ddrizzle

cl3537 said:


> It is not practical or cost effective to measure elemental concentrations for a hobby tank. This is only if you want to do research and write papers in this field. It would cost hundreds of dollars for each sample at a commerical lab.
> 
> You would be better off just replacing the substrate, 2X 9L bag of Tropica Aquasoil cost a fraction of the cost of testing.
> 
> I can't be sure that is your specific issue but I identify it as a risk. Mush like high substrate hills and hardscape that breaks the surface. My approach would be to limit risks as much as possible especially until you get more experienced.
> 
> I wouldn't be using high ferts unless your plants required it and that is far from the case in your tank.



I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.


Why do you keep going back to the ferts as the main reason for your tank's condition. These are the things that were mentioned by some very experienced people in this thread:

EI, bad AS, severely anaerobic 8 mth old AS, hard water, flow, husbandry, light. From my experience if light and husbandry are in balance you usually don't get that much algae if some of the plants aren't growing well. Algae all over the hard surfaces in an aquarium is almost always light/organic related IMO.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> I don't have robust proof only sparse anecdotal.
> 
> The CEC makes going back to low water column ferts difficult. There is a lingering negative effect of EI + high KH + Aquasoil.
> 
> I beleive @Deanna has observed this too (hard water?). I have seen this with Tropica Aquasoil (stunted or poor growth S. Repens, R. Rotundifolia, P. Erectus) even with no fert dosing(or sparse) afterwards and frequent water changes it take months if ever. (I gave up after about 2 months). Moving those same unhealthy stems to inert substrate in a new tank, they were improved within 2 weeks (see my old Tank Journal last post)
> 
> To see what is really going on an ICP-AES chemical analysis with samples taken over time of Tropica Aquasoil under EI ferts would be much more conclusive to show the buildup in the Aquasoil.


My situation was different, but still surprising, as I have a totally inert 2" of CaribSea Peace River on top of 1" of CaribSea Sunset Gold sand. I also have very soft water (dGH ~2 and dKH < 1). My experience was that, after high dosing for many years (closer to EI) and gradually reduciing over ~8 months, I went about two months without adding any macros (of course, the fish food continued to add) and added very low micros (more typical of Tropica or Seachem type of levels) while maintaining weekly 30% w/c's. through this period, I continued to see robust plant health, except for an iron deficiency in Dwarf Sag and Pantanal that developed after ~6 weeks. I attributed the overall good health to luxury uptake during the high dosing years (some might call it overdosing). However, maybe there was some unexpectedly sufficient nutrient accumulation in the substrate without actually being in the substrate material. I'm sure there is some of this happening (maybe mulm adsorbs it?), but if anything would be down there in sufficient quantity, I would have thought that Fe would be the one, yet that was the first thing that seemed to run low.


----------



## Smooch

Ddrizzle said:


> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.


You don't owe anybody anything. You owe yourself the ability to learn from this experience and move on. You will never 'grow' as a hobbyist if you allow this situation to dictate and or drag you down with everything you do from this point forward. If you start to see trouble brewing, ask about it. That way you are not overwhelmed with a possible problem list.

I had a problem with diatoms in my tank recently. My tank is going on 3 years old and I'm borderline OCD about keeping my tank clean. After going through my mental list of possible causes, the problem was really stupid once I figured it out. 

People are always told to only surface vac their tanks to avoid disturbing roots and what have you. The problem with my tank at the time was over 90% of the plants did not have their roots in the substrate, so my only surface vacuuming was causing a accumulation of organics in the water column which lead to a algae problem. The problem was annoying, but I didn't allow it to get out of hand. Once I figured it out, the algae went away. 

Context with the advice of 'surface vacuuming' matters. If a person has a tank full of anubias, java fern, buce or other rhizome plants, it's okay to vacuum deeper than the surface and should be done to keep TDS, nitrates and organics levels in check. 

Crap happens; don't beat yourself up over it. While there are people in this hobby that are negligent on purpose, you're not one of them.


----------



## Edward

Rainer said:


> … I've been conditioned to think that a lean ferts approach is a knife's edge away from an algae explosion. Is there a consensus on what constitutes a sufficient, lean regime for water column feeders?


 If your objective is slower and healthy plant growth then anything above zero is sufficient. Nitrate and phosphate is being supplied continuously by fish, often enough quantities to cover plant’s needs. Calcium and KH should not be extremely high and magnesium can be minimal. Important is having solid presence of potassium. Trace elements can be dosed at 0.01 – 0.05 ppm Fe depending on plant’s reaction. One of the reasons why this works is that plants store reserves called luxury uptake for managing nutrient fluctuations.


----------



## Ddrizzle

Asteroid said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep going back to the ferts as the main reason for your tank's condition. These are the things that were mentioned by some very experienced people in this thread:
> 
> EI, bad AS, severely anaerobic 8 mth old AS, hard water, flow, husbandry, light. From my experience if light and husbandry are in balance you usually don't get that much algae if some of the plants aren't growing well. Algae all over the hard surfaces in an aquarium is almost always light/organic related IMO.
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding the analysis the test provides but the point would be to understand if the aquasoil is toast or not, and what if anything sticks out in it related to anaerobic conditions s or fertilizers. 

I know the light is out of balance, but my issue is not alage, it my plants dying from the 2nd generation of leaves and down no matter what light or shade or ferts they get at this point. 



Smooch said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't owe anybody anything. You owe yourself the ability to learn from this experience and move on. You will never 'grow' as a hobbyist if you allow this situation to dictate and or drag you down with everything you do from this point forward. If you start to see trouble brewing, ask about it. That way you are not overwhelmed with a possible problem list.
> 
> I had a problem with diatoms in my tank recently. My tank is going on 3 years old and I'm borderline OCD about keeping my tank clean. After going through my mental list of possible causes, the problem was really stupid once I figured it out.
> 
> People are always told to only surface vac their tanks to avoid disturbing roots and what have you. The problem with my tank at the time was over 90% of the plants did not have their roots in the substrate, so my only surface vacuuming was causing a accumulation of organics in the water column which lead to a algae problem. The problem was annoying, but I didn't allow it to get out of hand. Once I figured it out, the algae went away.
> 
> Context with the advice of 'surface vacuuming' matters. If a person has a tank full of anubias, java fern, buce or other rhizome plants, it's okay to vacuum deeper than the surface and should be done to keep TDS, nitrates and organics levels in check.
> 
> Crap happens; don't beat yourself up over it. While there are people in this hobby that are negligent on purpose, you're not one of them.
Click to expand...

I'm already rescaping. I have my temp tank for my fish and new hardscape materials. No problem moving on.

As for the tests, I'd like to amplify how much I can grow and learn from this experience instead of wondering what happened forever. If I can prevent one other person from experiencing this it would feel great.


----------



## Asteroid

Ddrizzle said:


> ...
> I know the light is out of balance, but my issue is not alage, it my plants dying from the 2nd generation of leaves and down no matter what light or shade or ferts they get at this point.


I can only go by what you present. Weren't these issues part of your original list? 



Ddrizzle said:


> - My java moss seems to attract hair algae unless I have a powerhead on right side of the tank (opposite lilly pipes)
> - If I don't overdose phosphate by about 3-5x I get green spot algae on the glass.
> - *I have BBA everywhere,* even after I destroyed its presence via hydrogen peroxide two months ago.












Tanks usually get this way, when you have too much light and too much organics in the water column. With that amount of plant mass, husbandry and light control become way more important than your dosing in terms of water quality.


----------



## Rainer

Edward said:


> If your objective is slower and healthy plant growth then anything above zero is sufficient. Nitrate and phosphate is being supplied continuously by fish, often enough quantities to cover plant’s needs. Calcium and KH should not be extremely high and magnesium can be minimal. Important is having solid presence of potassium. Trace elements can be dosed at 0.01 – 0.05 ppm Fe depending on plant’s reaction. One of the reasons why this works is that plants store reserves called luxury uptake for managing nutrient fluctuations.


Thanks, Edward. I won't have fish for several months after planting, until the shrimp colony is established, so I'll have to dose that for awhile. The light and plant combination I have in mind leaves me with medium-high to high light at the substrate, so slow growth isn't likely, especially in the higher elevations (planning a ridge-style peninsula scape). 

It sounds as if I'll need to monitor it very closely to avoid a crash out of the gate but with no idea of how much of a buffer I can get away with before the KH-related stunting begins. KH here is 6.7 and I haven't found a practical way of lowering it yet, but I realize I'm still thinking about elements of EI - specifically, the weekly 50% WC. What sort of WC does the lean fert regime call for?


----------



## cl3537

Rainer said:


> Thanks, Edward. I won't have fish for several months after planting, until the shrimp colony is established, so I'll have to dose that for awhile. The light and plant combination I have in mind leaves me with medium-high to high light at the substrate, so slow growth isn't likely, especially in the higher elevations (planning a ridge-style peninsula scape).


You can control growth by limiting the duration of your lights. I have 80 - 110 par across my tank. If I want to slow down growth I just run lights only 3 hours a day, the plants will still be healthy, Ludwigia Palustris is still nice and red with only 3 hours/day. If I ever have algae problems I will reduce from 5 hours/day back to 3 hours which is where I started.

Competition and experienced aquascapers can control growth by limited Macros particularly nitrates. If you have a hardscape focussed tank you may not want fast growth. Just because you have high/medium light doesnt mean you will automatically have fast growth or algae. I only have one species in my tank growing quickly(Rotala Rotundifolia) the rest maintain slow steady growth likely due to the lean ferts.



> It sounds as if I'll need to monitor it very closely to avoid a crash out of the gate but with no idea of how much of a buffer I can get away with before the KH-related stunting begins. KH here is 6.7 and I haven't found a practical way of lowering it yet, but I realize I'm still thinking about elements of EI - specifically, the weekly 50% WC. What sort of WC does the lean fert regime call for?


If you aren't using sensitive species like Rotalas, Ammanias, PE, SR it may not be much of a problem at all. Plant as heavy as you can up front. I would still be doing 50% water changes weekly and for the first few weeks 3X 50% per week would be helpful. Husbandry is as important as anything when you are first establishing your tank and dealing with dead plant matter from emersed growth. Once established and balanced you can change less water or in smaller percentages, but you are still required to changewater to remove organics and waste even if you don't have to remove much excess fefts.


----------



## cl3537

PHP:







Ddrizzle said:


> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.


A better investment would be in an RODI system for your water, storage tank, and plumbing it so its conveniently accessible to your tanks.
Dealing with hard water limits which types of plants you can keep and the variety of balanced systems you can have.

Chemical analysis won't tell you if your soil is rotten or not, it will tell you if you have been building up high Micros like Fe, Zn, Cu or Macros like Phosphates but that is only one piece of the puzzle and not partcularly applicable to other people's tanks if you haven't controlled variables up to the point of testing.


----------



## Deanna

Ddrizzle said:


> I mean if 3 samples is under a grand I wouldn't mind doing it. It would help me figure out why I wasted 6 months trying to figure this out and give back to the community so others don't make the same mistake. I just need to know how to get the service done and who to contact.


I think we're stuck with trying to compile anecdotal observations and establish a best practices from those. If you want to try convincing someone/organization to do it, maybe a local univ would take up the challenge.

If you do it, my preference would be to try to determine individual macro (N,P,K, Ca and Mg) uptake as a function of inches/week growth in an inert substrate. Fix all water parameters except the subject nutrient (maybe by collecting opinions from members on what parameter levels they would like and then averaging the choices) and do the same with x number of species (selected as with the water parameters, but try to get a smattering of species that grow best under the 3 broad PAR intensities). Once you have a majority of "go's" from members, take it to the univ. Who knows, maybe some linear curves could be built from that data.

We'd all love ya if it worked out.


----------



## cl3537

Deanna said:


> I think we're stuck with trying to compile anecdotal observations and establish a best practices from those. If you want to try convincing someone/organization to do it, maybe a local univ would take up the challenge.
> 
> If you do it, my preference would be to try to determine individual macro (N,P,K, Ca and Mg) uptake as a function of inches/week growth in an inert substrate. Fix all water parameters except the subject nutrient (maybe by collecting opinions from members on what parameter levels they would like and then averaging the choices) and do the same with x number of species (selected as with the water parameters, but try to get a smattering of species that grow best under the 3 broad PAR intensities). Once you have a majority of "go's" from members, take it to the univ. Who knows, maybe some linear curves could be built from that data.
> 
> We'd all love ya if it worked out.


First I'd like to see if a plantless tank with high CEC Aquasoil which is dosed with High EI and no light, will accumulate Micros over time and how different the profile looks between hard water and soft water in terms of what accumulates in the soil. It stands to reason Fe 2+ will accumulate in hard water tanks in the soil, much more quickly than in softwater tanks where it more readily stays as Fe 3+ chelate in the water column.

Aquasoil toxicity and accumulation is not something I have heard about much, presumably in softwater the equilibrium concentrations of Micros never gets that high for it to be an issue or the plant roots are not sensitive enough to be bothered by it in the absence of excess carbs or bicarbs, as they can selectively uptake what they need.

All speculation and conjecture, this would be a great phD project in analytical chemistry for someone to take up especially if a small grant could be provided by one of the commercial companies like Seachem, Tropica or Fluval to support the research.

Step 2 would be exploring when levels become toxic to plants and if its release into the water column or toxicity to the roots that causes stunting/melting and this would be more in the Botany or Biology fields.


----------



## Deanna

cl3537 said:


> First I'd like to see if a plantless tank with high CEC Aquasoil which is dosed with High EI and no light, will accumulate Micros over time and how different the profile looks between hard water and soft water in terms of what accumulates in the soil. It stands to reason Fe 2+ will accumulate in hard water tanks in the soil, much more quickly than in softwater tanks where it more readily stays as Fe 3+ chelate in the water column.
> 
> Aquasoil toxicity and accumulation is not something I have heard about much, presumably in softwater the equilibrium concentrations of Micros never gets that high for it to be an issue or the plant roots are not sensitive enough to be bothered by it in the absence of excess carbs or bicarbs, as they can selectively uptake what they need.
> 
> All speculation and conjecture, this would be a great phD project in analytical chemistry for someone to take up especially if a small grant could be provided by one of the commercial companies like Seachem, Tropica or Fluval to support the research.
> 
> Step 2 would be exploring when levels become toxic to plants and if its release into the water column or toxicity to the roots that causes stunting/melting and this would be more in the Botany or Biology fields.


I'd be happy with any such study. Get one that works out and you have the test pattern. Now, you have your foot in the door and can expand the testing. I do think you'd need to index it to something and inches/per week seems a hard one to deny.


----------



## Asteroid

cl3537 said:


> ... If I want to slow down growth I just run lights only 3 hours a day, the plants will still be healthy, Ludwigia Palustris is still nice and red with only 3 hours/day. If I ever have algae problems I will reduce from 5 hours/day back to 3 hours which is where I started...
> 
> ..I only have one species in my tank growing quickly(Rotala Rotundifolia) the rest maintain slow steady growth likely due to the lean ferts.
> ...


I agree about the plants only needing 3 hours to stay healthy, but I really don't see that as a practical solution since the whole idea of having a tank is to see it. Now if your talking about doing a 2-3 burst and the rest viewing light I could buy into it. The only time I would do a short light cycle is at start up 4-5, which for some reason many don't do and run into issues very quickly.

Other then the RR, you have pretty much all epiphytes. These will grow faster under good light and co2 as opposed to low-tech, but they are still slow growers compared to most stems, even in a rich fert environment. So no surprise there.


----------



## cl3537

Asteroid said:


> I agree about the plants only needing 3 hours to stay healthy, but I really don't see that as a practical solution since the whole idea of having a tank is to see it.


3 hours at 100 Par. I can see easily see and enjoy my tank at 10-15 par and I can run it for as many hours as I want just for viewing without issues. 



> Other then the RR, you have pretty much all epiphytes. These will grow faster under good light and co2 as opposed to low-tech, but they are still slow growers compared to most stems, even in a rich fert environment. So no surprise there.


I have 13 different species of plants in my tank, the fastest growing ones would be Pogostemon Erectus, Hygrophila Pinnatafida, Rotala Rotundifolia, Ludwigia Palustris(a surprise as i thought Ludwigia liked higher ferts) and Ranunculus Inundatus. None of these are slow growers comparing to most stem plants and none of these are epiphytes(although HP is glued to the lava rock). 

Ranunculus Inundatus was an annoying weed in my old tank as well as Pogostemon Erectus, both are growing much slower under the same light intensity as before. They are both controlled by Inert substrate, shorter light duration, and lean ferts.


----------



## Asteroid

I'm going by your own words.



cl3537 said:


> I have *mostly* epiphytes in my tank glued to wood/lava rock. Anubias, Buces, Moss, Crypt Parva, Hygrophila Pinnatafida


BTW will are the internodes on the RR so spread out with that much PAR? It should be growing fuller and less lanky.


----------



## cl3537

KZB said:


> Im really liking the new tank @cl3537. Easy grow plants with more effort into the scape. I want to work on more scape one day, but until than I just try to grow plants.


Thank-you, hardscape focussed tanks require more upfront work and planning(plant selection) and more techniques which aren't really well covered on the net. The challenge with this scape was getting the Ludwigia Palustris to grow bushy on top of the spider wood without detaching. The stems keep detaching if they get too tall so I have to trim often and sometimes reattach. Ultimately this may become too tedious(even with gluing moss on top of the stems to attach it better) at which point I'll either drill small holes into the wood and glue the stems into the holes or I will replace the ludwigia with more traditional mosses which should stay self attaching.


----------



## jcoulter

Jeff5614 said:


> Is Vin's presentation available on the AGA website? I'm a member and looked under the member's portal with no luck.


Would like to know this as well. I'm very interested in hearing it. Am also a member.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

jcoulter said:


> Would like to know this as well. I'm very interested in hearing it. Am also a member.


At some point it will make it to DVD that can be purchased?
I checked the website too and could not find anything readily available.


----------



## jcoulter

Maryland Guppy said:


> jcoulter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would like to know this as well. I'm very interested in hearing it. Am also a member.
> 
> 
> 
> At some point it will make it to DVD that can be purchased?
> I checked the website too and could not find anything readily available.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks


----------



## Edward

Rainer said:


> Thanks, Edward. I won't have fish for several months after planting, until the shrimp colony is established, so I'll have to dose that for awhile. The light and plant combination I have in mind leaves me with medium-high to high light at the substrate, so slow growth isn't likely, especially in the higher elevations (planning a ridge-style peninsula scape).
> 
> It sounds as if I'll need to monitor it very closely to avoid a crash out of the gate but with no idea of how much of a buffer I can get away with before the KH-related stunting begins. KH here is 6.7 and I haven't found a practical way of lowering it yet, but I realize I'm still thinking about elements of EI - specifically, the weekly 50% WC. What sort of WC does the lean fert regime call for?


The method depends on the setup, like aquarium size, substrate type, RO or tap etc. Using tap is the easiest but quite often doesn’t work well in some areas since it contains a lot of unknown from herbicides and pesticides to disinfection byproducts. RO water works well but it needs a container large enough to support water changes. How large water changes depends on contamination rates. For example leaching substrates or heavy fish loads need more water changes. On the other hand, balanced systems need minimal water changes or none at all. 

You mentioned high light. High light is good, I use 2 x 250 W HQI Metal Halide over 120 gallon only 4” 10 cm above water, and also additional LEDs. The 2 x 250 W are on for four hours a day. Substrate PAR 160, mid 500 PAR and 4000 PAR at 1” below the water line. ( https://rotalabutterfly.com/light-calculator.php )

Elemental monitoring is not practical with smaller aquariums but having 120 gallon can change the situation. Some find it easier to change 30% weekly with added pre-determined mineral content without any testing. Others like testing and managing details. This testing when done weekly becomes so predictable that monthly will be sufficient. At that point it becomes low maintenance timewise.


----------



## Ddrizzle

FYI just reporting back that I've been dosong nothing but some micros and magnesium after water changes for the past two weeks.

In the past two days a few of my plants have exploded in growth, but the 2nd generation and on seems to be dying still.

I'd wait it out to see what happens but I was planning on rescaping this weekend.


----------



## aclaar877

Yes - keep us posted. Interested in if you plants turn around and if you change the substrate at some point. I have many plants which just don't seem to grow as well with higher fert levels. Thinking back, my best tanks have been with lower dosing even with inert sand substrate. I would routinely get GSA on the glass, suggesting low phosphates, but plants grew great for the most part. I have tried to copy the fert schemes from some of the best tank journals here, but it hasn't gone well. Now I have a weird situation - high light, high ferts, high CO2, no algae concerns, and slow or no growth in some plants. Even giant hygro barely grows at the moment - I can go weeks without trimming it, and it gets the best light/CO2 in the tank.

It wasn't a scientific experiment, but my experience mirrors those who have trouble growing ammania/lythraceae with higher ferts. They grew fine with lower ferts, but even when I put some in cups loaded with O+ tabs and garden soil (and higher ferts in the water column), they did nothing. Just sat there for months on end, high light, low light, didn't matter. That was with KH of 3 and varying GH from 6-13. My experience suggested that no amount of soil/root ferts mattered as long as the water had high fert levels. With pogo erectus, I didn't try soil, but it would only grow when fert levels dropped way down, sometimes to the point of detrement to other plants. Otherwise it would just sit there - no stunting, but no growth either.


----------



## Ddrizzle

New scape is in dry start here: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1294045 . Phee, what a weekend that was.

Anyways, the original tank continued to get algae since I kept the lights on for 8 hours at 100%. However, after abstaining from any macros for at least two or three weeks, the plants took off. I continued micros and magnesium during that time as well. The second and third generation of leaves seemed to be OK too. However, a few rotala that were hanging on seemed to be permanently stunted.

One thing I noticed but didn't get to test enough was that the algae seemed to blow up the day after I fed my tank bloodworms. Maybe I've been over feeding as well. A block of bloodworms typically lasted me 1 week.

I did transfer some of the plants into the holdover 10 gallon that is storing my fish, but the dead leaves started producing what looked to be a white fungus in their area. I assume this is because the 10 gallon is getting nearly zero light. My guess is that algae can't grow but the fungus can.

Anyways, onto newer, hopefully greener pastures.


----------



## ChrisX

You used ADA aquasoil AND EI!!??

Oh no, there is your problem!


----------



## Asteroid

ChrisX said:


> You used ADA aquasoil AND EI!!??
> 
> Oh no, there is your problem!


That describes around 90% of tanks I've done. Not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## BOTIA

@;


ChrisX said:


> You used ADA aquasoil AND EI!!??
> 
> Oh no, there is your problem!


Even with a nutrient rich substrate , the water column still needs dosing.... Just a bit less. Use test kits to get a baseline and and stick to it.


----------

