# Some interesting info



## DavidZ (Nov 17, 2009)

http://fins.actwin.com/mirror/plant-co2.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/69737-method-controlled-imbalances-summary.html


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

The first link was pretty much standard knowledge. The relationship of CO2 and light has been long understood. I think it's a good article on the subject however, and not a bad pointer to newbies in the hobby.

The second article I find a little more difficult to accept. After reading the whole thing, I found the biggest flaw in the method to be that our aquarium is an ever changing world. 

To go through the difficulty of dosing/limiting nutrients to so much of an excess/deficiency that I produce algae is seemingly a little backwards IMO in finding my tank's fert requirements. I can appreciate what the author is saying, but it seems like a lot of work to find out just how far I can push nutrients through my system and not grow algae, when my intent is to not grow algae...and although I may find those parameters for my aquarium at that time, the aquarium will change and the dosing will have to change with it.

Further, the work the author suggests is only a 'snapshot' of the aquarium. What is good today, may not be good tomorrow as the tank grows and evolves. As the tank evolves, how much different does the method become than EI? It seems that we are doing the same thing.. but in EI we can/tend to tweak ferts as needed. The author even makes it understood about other variables that must be considered such as species specific needs.. in other words, I find the variables complex enough in our planted tank that the work involved doesn't justify the end result.. plants are growing, algae is not. Why? Because in EI.. plants are growing, algae is not... If, and only if algae is growing do we start to question the variables.. but by following some very good research done by fellow aquarists, EI is by far the easiest method of adding ferts. If the plants are growing and algae isn't taking over, (and this seems to be true for most part for people using EI), then why add a bunch of extra protocols to follow to get the same result?

MCI Method - Plants are growing, algae is not. Extra work is needed initially, and tweaking of ferts is likely required to maintain the tank as it matures. 

EI Method - Plants are growing, algae is not. No extra work, just a simple calculation in the beginning to figure out your dosing. Tweaking may be required as the tank matures, maybe not... depends on a lot of variables as the tank changes.

It seems both methods lead to the same place.. one requires a lot of extra work, (work which literally pushes a tank to grow algae), in order to find fert dosage. The other estimates it and we go from there.. if all is good, then we keep it there as long as the plants are happy and we have no algae. In either method, if algae start to take over, we take appropriate measure to control it which have likely more to do with adding _more_ ferts, not less.

It would seem a decent method if the MCI method didn't 'snapshot' a moment in aquarium time. After the tank changes, it becomes 'estimative' anyhow since the parameters that existed at the time measurements were done... change.

I'm not knocking it if someone wants to do the work. I just see less benefit in doing it when both methods lead to the same place.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

I've read about MCI, but haven't tried it so I can't comment on its effectiveness. 

Maybe I will someday when I feel like experimenting. It would be interesting to see what happens; and to compare the final dosing levels to EI dosing levels. Perhaps, despite a different methodology, they end up similar. Has anyone done or seen such a comparison?

Though there's one statement I find odd:

_"In fact, I am limitating resourses but not Po4, I limite K. I don’t want that No3 reach zero, if we add too much K we can achieve this anti goal."_

I didn't see an explanation from the author why he believes that adding too much K could cause N depletion. Perhaps it's due to "luxury uptake", but I find it difficult to believe it has that big an impact.


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

> I've read about MCI, but haven't tried it so I can't comment on its effectiveness


I haven't either, but I reread the whole thing.. and parts or it a couple times. Is it me, or does this sound more like an experiment on how to grow algae with various ferts than how to grow plants?

I just don't see the reason to spend weeks/months pushing my tank to algae growing limits to figure out a dosing quantity when dosing per the EI method 'may' set the nutrients up perfectly for my tank and I may never see big algae blooms. I like the fact that it was investigated and posted..if all the information posted is true, then I will probably try and repeat it just for my own sanity in a pico tank so that I can feel like I have a little better 'hands on' grasp controlling algae outbreaks. However, I don't see it as a worthwhile method to apply for just dosing when others reach the same goal with less work.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I tried the MCI method. Personally, some algae went away, but once I moved to the second step, the plants were seriously micro deficient and the algae just returned. Of course, I can disclaim my results with the fact I had a hard time understanding what the second part of the steps were and lost interest.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

I read through the MCI thread quite a while back and about the only thing I can say is that if keeping a planted tank was that complicated I'd never have bothered trying.


----------



## MarkMc (Apr 27, 2007)

Looking through that post I did not see any photos of his beautiful algae free tanks. Did I miss them? Nice photos of algae species though.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

His website has many nice pictures of tanks. I only wish I could understand more of his method, but I feel I am too dense to understand it.


----------



## JoraaÑ (Jun 29, 2009)

My head Spinned when I read his methods few yrs back......


----------



## fooledyas (Feb 22, 2010)

Reading it was more work then I want to do. Forget about actually doing it


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

It would benefit from a rewrite in concise "how-to" format; rather than a literal translation from the original posts which weren't in English, and include a lot of extra info and background.

I think I must have spent an hour on it before I understood anything. Even now, if I were to actually do it, I'd have to study it again.


----------



## MarkMc (Apr 27, 2007)

sewingalot said:


> His website has many nice pictures of tanks. I only wish I could understand more of his method, but I feel I am too dense to understand it.


Do you have the link handy? I searched through the posts but could not find one. Thanks.


----------



## JoraaÑ (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkMc said:


> Do you have the link handy? I searched through the posts but could not find one. Thanks.


If you scroll down this link
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...s-summary.html

there you will find the pictures and also his website is http://www.drpez.net/
tho' its in Spanish... Google translator helps!!!


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

DarkCobra said:


> It would benefit from a rewrite in concise "how-to" format; rather than a literal translation from the original posts which weren't in English, and include a lot of extra info and background.
> 
> I think I must have spent an hour on it before I understood anything. Even now, if I were to actually do it, I'd have to study it again.


I really think this was where I had issues. My Spanish isn't good enough to read the article and the translation is hard to follow. It seems like it makes sense on many levels, but I am just too confused on all the steps. What I got from the Method of Controlled Imbalances was this:

1. Ensure your operating optimal levels of co2 and lighting
2. Stop all dosing and change 50% of water
3. Add 1 gram of KNO3 daily until GSA appears. If this doesn't happen in the first week, increase the amount to 2 grams the following week after changing 50% of the water
4. Once GSA appears, that is the amount of nitrate to use for the week.
5. Start adding PO4 back slowly (1 gram for every 500 gallons) in addition to the nitrate until GSA disappears. That'll be the amount of phosphate to use on a weekly basis.
6. This is where I get lost. I believe you add back micros at this point at a lower dose, but I am not sure at what amount.

The two problems I had were the fact the plants suffered greatly from micros being withheld for several days. Plants were growing in white or not growing well during the two weeks I tried this. Once I started adding micros back, the plants grew and the algae returned. I am thinking it may need to be repeated as the amount of plants increase and this is where I failed.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part, and the original author over at APC would explain this better than I can.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

your plants will need much higher nutrient levels once they get going than they will during this few week long "burn in" coarse. Hence, you'll have to repeat this process again with a "full tank" and again with a "trimmed tank" to even get close to knowing what you'll need during those common cycles of high tech tanks. 

Why bother, when simply adding what the plants will need during the "full tank" side of the cycle is just as good for the "trimmed tank" side of the cycle? A lot of work goes into planted tanks already, no sense adding MORE. Even if you discount the work aspect of this method, I believe it to be fatally flawed for the reasons above. Your tank goes through cycles of growth that you'd have to follow with dosing when attempting to run so lean.

*edit* at least he got this part right:



> When there is a balance in the aquarium, plants grow properly and you have no algae. You can reach this goal with any fertilizing method.


*edit #2* I think his experiments can go a long way towards helping people understand certain dynamic relationships, and the fact that he tests, retests, and utilises his tests in a dynamic aquarium environment puts him and his theories far and above the effort I've put in myself, but as an actual fertilizing regime, it takes this out of the hobby level and into the "work" level. There are "buffer zones" for all of the elements, and they're fairly thick zones. This is why people dose EI. They can assuredly stay in these zones (tap water nutrients not withstanding) and have ease of use at the same time. No muss, no fuss. Thick, colorful tanks they can enjoy and still call it a hobby.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

sewingalot said:


> 5. Start adding PO4 back slowly (1 gram for every 500 gallons) in addition to the nitrate until GSA disappears. That'll be the amount of phosphate to use on a weekly basis.


With "disappears" meaning you clean all GSA off the glass daily, and the reappearance of any GSA meaning you still need more phosphate. It would be more accurate for the author to say stops growing, since "disappears" might make people think _existing_ GSA goes away.

A thought occurs to me here. In a low light tank, is a single day enough time to accurately determine if GSA is still growing?



sewingalot said:


> 6. This is where I get lost. I believe you add back micros at this point at a lower dose, but I am not sure at what amount.


If I understand correctly, you start with just enough micros to add 0.1ppm iron/week, relying on signs of iron deficiency to tell you if it needs to be raised; or the presence of certain algae to tell you if it needs to be lowered. Just like everything else in this method, dosing is determined experimentally by results.



sewingalot said:


> The two problems I had were the fact the plants suffered greatly from micros being withheld for several days. Plants were growing in white or not growing well during the two weeks I tried this.


Yes, he says this:

_"If you come from the PPS or EI, before you start using the MCI you should decrease the amount of Po4 and Fe in your water, otherwise, the Kno3 generic protocol will take several weeks to produce Po4 zero and the plants will suffer a lot for lack of micros/Fe, etc."_

I would expect that requires multiple large water changes up front.

But what if you also have root tabs? Or a heavy fish load and light planting, which would prevent PO4 from reaching zero in a reasonable timeframe, if ever? Would this prevent the nitrate protocol from working properly?

Also, I didn't see a rationale for stopping micro dosing in the first place.

Without judging the relative merits of determining dosing experimentally vs. other systems, it does seem there are some caveats and things that need to be clarified.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

jargonchipmunk said:


> your plants will need much higher nutrient levels once they get going than they will during this few week long "burn in" coarse. Hence, you'll have to repeat this process again with a "full tank" and again with a "trimmed tank" to even get close to knowing what you'll need during those common cycles of high tech tanks.
> 
> Why bother, when simply adding what the plants will need during the "full tank" side of the cycle is just as good for the "trimmed tank" side of the cycle? A lot of work goes into planted tanks already, no sense adding MORE. Even if you discount the work aspect of this method, I believe it to be fatally flawed for the reasons above. Your tank goes through cycles of growth that you'd have to follow with dosing when attempting to run so lean.
> 
> ...


You are correct that this is why a lot of people dose EI, PPS Pro or any other method. However, I think there are also a lot of us out there that enjoy the 'tinkering' of the hobby, not just the add this, this and this and sit back and enjoy.

Personally, I love learning about the make up of plants themselves, how nutrients interact with each other, how co2 interacts with plants and fish health and what not. It's the experimentation that gives me drive to keep going. If I had to stick to a method like EI (which I do on one tank), I'd get bored. I like to challenge methods too much. I like the idea of lean dosing to prove I can get just as nice results. That is what is so great about this hobby. Not one method is the "Right" method. There are numerous ways to fertilize, provide carbon, and lighting. I've tried everything from natural planted tanks to high light, high tech. 

My favorite so far? My mineralized soil tank with no other fertilizing supplementation. However, I get bored with it because it is truly the easiest planted tank to care for and get wonderful plant growth from some very difficult species. That's why this tank is at my moms. :wink:



DarkCobra said:


> If I understand correctly, you start with just enough micros to add 0.1ppm iron/week, relying on signs of iron deficiency to tell you if it needs to be raised; or the presence of certain algae to tell you if it needs to be lowered. Just like everything else in this method, dosing is determined experimentally by results.


This is probably where I went wrong in the beginning. This makes me want to start the process all over again for experimental sake. I really think his article is wonderful in the point it gets you thinking about how fertilizers interact with one another and without any present. For instance, I never realized the close relationship of po4 and kno3 before this or the fact micros could really make such an impact in one week's time. The middle of my blyxa was growing in white!

I truly think there is more to the article than I am understanding and I love the idea behind it. I just really wish I could understand the translation better.

Am I the only one that is not satisfied with just using a particular method? Does anyone else have an experimental bug in them? Please tell me I'm not alone in this situation.


----------



## Lycosa (Oct 16, 2006)

*CURSE* the tiny 'back' button on my mouse that jumps to the previous page and makes me lose what I just typed!



> No muss, no fuss. Thick, colorful tanks they can enjoy and still call it a hobby.


+1.. well said. 

What I love most about this hobby though is how much diversity it offers. For some, like the author of MCI, it appears that calculating precise fert dosage methods is fun or at least worthy enough to become 'part' of the hobby. Others simply enjoy growing plants, and are more interested in the look of the tank and leave the groundwork for people like the author. What is awesome, is that although I might not agree with his method, I'm glad he's out there doing what he does and sharing it. It's all these off-shoots of the main goal of owning a planted tank that make the hobby a great one. There's so much to learn, or so little, depending on one's personality and overall goal. The nice thing is we can arrive at the same place.. a beautiful tank that is growing well. Many different talents lend themselves nicely to being a planted tank enthusiast. Here, art can meet science and find good company.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

sewingalot said:


> Am I the only one that is not satisfied with just using a particular method? Does anyone else have an experimental bug in them? Please tell me I'm not alone in this situation.


You're not alone! Sometimes I like to just sit back and enjoy the tanks, but eventually the bug strikes again.

Then I have to play. Change tanks around, read everything I can find and see if any new correlations jump out at me, etc. Usually it goes nowhere, but once in a blue moon something happens that makes it worthwhile.

To my knowledge, I was the first to suggest using Excel as a spot treatment. The funny thing is I'd never actually used Excel at the time; I just noticed that in whole tank treatments, people reported nearly identical effects on algae with H2O2 and Excel overdose. H2O2 was being used successfully as a spot treatment, so why not Excel? Someone was willing to try it even though I had not, then a few others... and now it's a common technique.

None of this would have been possible without a few "bug bites". 



Lycosa said:


> What I love most about this hobby though is how much diversity it offers. For some, like the author of MCI, it appears that calculating precise fert dosage methods is fun or at least worthy enough to become 'part' of the hobby. Others simply enjoy growing plants, and are more interested in the look of the tank and leave the groundwork for people like the author. What is awesome, is that although I might not agree with his method, I'm glad he's out there doing what he does and sharing it. It's all these off-shoots of the main goal of owning a planted tank that make the hobby a great one. There's so much to learn, or so little, depending on one's personality and overall goal. The nice thing is we can arrive at the same place.. a beautiful tank that is growing well. Many different talents lend themselves nicely to being a planted tank enthusiast. Here, art can meet science and find good company.


Agreed, and I could not have said it more eloquenty!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I remember this guy, we had a quick debate, the idea was using excess non limiting nutrients to run through a series of algae blooms to get to an easier to eradicate type. Then address that one and you are back to where wanted to be, works mainl on high light systems etc.

My take is very different.

I know what drives plant growth and have not strayed from this point from the beginning decades ago. This is the goal of the aquatic gardener........most algae issues are not really algae issues, they are plant growth problems, algae are TEST indicators (they are used as environmental indicators for research in streams for the EPA et al) that the nutrients/light/CO2 are not adequately balanced for plant growth/gardening goals.

To test plant growth independently, you MUST isolate the parameter of interest. Non limiting nutrients are dosed so the nutrient limitation do not influence the test results for say light and CO2 interactions.

Ole, Troels, Claus did this for this study:

http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

This way nutrients are independent from the result, thus are not confounding.

This same approach can be used with a good light range, say 40micrmols and rich CO2, say 35ppm and verify and reference these readings with known calibration standards. Then try a wide range of nutrients individually one at a time, with the others at known non limiting values.

You might try more light, say 80 and 150 mico mols after this and see how this affects plant growth and you might need more CO2 as well.

Green Water also reduces other species of algae and can be used in the same/similar manner as Christan suggest with GSA. Lots of work, fiddling, and you have algae plagues, and a lot of trial an error. I hate GSA and it does not ensure you solved the CO2 issue either. low PO4 and/or low CO2, both potential issues if you have GSA. 

I think effort would better spent on lower light/CO2 focus/current etc, and then lastly, nutrients. ADA's system is based around easy to add non limiting nutrients(at least for the 1st year or so) with rich sediment ferts.........low light(virtually every well scaped ADA tank I've measured has low light, regardless of W/gal ranges) and rich good CO2+ water changes(which also seem to help add CO2, and help plant growth).

If you have focused well on growing plants with lots of wiggle room(low light/good CO2/current/sediment ferts), then anything to do with nutrients in the water column will have a much wider range, flexibility, more wiggle room and less chance of algae, since the plant growth is easier to manage.

Ole, Troels, and Claus also arrive at this conclusion, ADA, indirectly.

When plants grow well, algae does not.
This is a simple concept, and one observation I've not strayed far from.
Then the algae issues are not much of a problem.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Dark Cobra, I knew there was a reason I liked you. That excel tip is excellent.  Lycosa, very well said! I love your explanation of the hobby. I am excited this topic was brought up. It is so nice to discuss different ideas for algae control. This may not be the method I chose to use, but if someone else gains from it, that would be fantastic!

I personally have to thank Christian_rubilar for getting me more interested in the hobby outside of just following directions. What I find great is learning how to push the limits of the hobby and going beyond the main stream approach. Plus, I've taught myself more about chemistry this year than I did knew while in school.

I went back and read the article again and I think I am going to try this on again on one of my smaller tanks as an experiment. I am experimenting on so much lately! (Runs off to update her notes.)

Great job on getting a conversation started, DavidZ!


----------

