# Dose less, not more



## plantbrain

So is there any data on the sediments in these same locations and does this include typical values all year, or just at the time the folks decided to take the measurements? 

You leave out the sediments and other critical aspects, then it really no longer supports such contentions 

Kasslemann made a big deal with water column, but then did not bother to test the sediments(I asked her directly in person). The plants are obviously growing and the ferts need to come from somewhere. She turned and went the other way quickly. If you study aquatic weeds, you know they are growing well, they must be getting the nutrients from somewhere, the water or the sediment. Also, while the habitat for the plant sis rather small, the river is really massive and unidirectional massive flow, so the plants never run out of the very low level of nutrients really........whereas we do not have this option for aquarium management. 

Rather than testing and relying on other folk's data, why not test and see for yourself?

I have Erios, wimpy Rotala's, Hydrothrix, and a dozen other stem plants that are considered tougher.........and yet I can garden and scape very easily and without much effort, but...I am consistent.










I have no issue growing any species you can name. Some plants do quite well in lean or rich sediments, or lean or rich water column also.

The polish claims on D diandra are entirely false, I have some of the densest D diandra in my 120 Gal and SAPS, SFBAAPS members have seen it in person, there's no such issue. All it takes is for a few folks to falsify such claims to invalidate them as the sole reason.

This is VERY easy weed to grow in EI or most any other routine.









Yawn...........


Funny, I have 7ppm of PO4 in this tank.......just look at all that stunting.........

3. I agree on that, but neither does high nutrients and high light, nor does low light and low nutrients..... either.........
maybe it's less to do with nutrients as far algae?

4. I'm not sure what maxing out CO2 means really, I add just enough for a particular tank, sometimes this is 60-70ppm, sometimes 40ppm, depends on the tank. Also depends on the plant species involved.

I have little issue growing any species and gardening with it, I dose these so called issue level ppm's and find no adverse effects.

Maybe I have a magical wand that grows plants?

Regardless, the point is in the results above, it does not state why they had problems, of which there maybe be MANY, it only states, very precise, and clear.....what it cannot be due to solely independent of other factors.

EI or ADA, or most methods are not particularly precise, nor do they need to be. Aquarist mess many things up and blame nutrients for it, does not mean that nutrients are the blame. 

Unless you are careful and test each one, step by step to see if it's true, you cannot know and even then.....all it takes is for one or two people to falsify what you thought was true.

You can rule out and falsify a hypothesis like thos eproposed, and I think you can see clearly the lack of support the above 120 Gallon ilustrates. Rather than squabble, let's pony up and show results that support your contention rather than starting off with a "pre drawn" conclusion. 

You add things, test and see if you can disprove your hypothesis. If you cannot, then you tentatively accept that hypothesis as true.........but, that does not imply you did not have an issue in your test methods......nor that it is true. All it takes is for someone who does add high PO4 to D. diandra to blow that claim out of the water.

We have plenty of local members who can attest to the results also.

BTW, what are your CO2 and light levels since you state that they are very high?

Mine sit at 50-60umol in the above tank. Same as ADA's tanks.
Amano seems to manage and eek by with his scapes at these same light intensity curiously. The top ranking ADA contest tank has 40-50umol of light. 
Rich sediment is also dosing high levels of nutrients, just a different location.

Just because low ppm's of nutrients exists at that point in time of the grab sample/season, does not imply that habitat is always like that , nor does this imply that it is best for horticulture either.

ADA tends to use the sediments more than the water column.
I use both, but ADA and myself do seem to use the same light, the same water changes and the same care routines and focus on gardening. I arrived at this stuff independently. 

Seems like good advice to me.


----------



## sewingalot

snausage said:


> The thread is incredibly long and english doesn't directly translate into polish very well, so I'll give you the crux of the findings:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Plants in the high N and P tank grew more quickly, but exhibited longer internodes and poorer coloration.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Excess P can potentially stunt certain plants like didiplis diandra.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. High light along with low nutrient concentrations does not promote the growth of algae.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Maxing out your CO2 isn't very important.
> 
> 
> 
> My own experiences are similar to the findings of this hobbyist: essentially, very high light tanks with lean water column dosing produce the best looking plants and reduce maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> So, my question is why do so many hobbyists insist on dosing high levels of nutrients, injecting tons of CO2 and using low/medium light?


 

I hope that your thread goes better than mine did. I never really got a chance to discuss anything as I bailed it once it became another fert war. It would be wonderful if this topic could actually be discussed without the same old rhetoric spewed ad nauseam. Those that want to make it into the same old argument should in reality be ignored or directed to my old thread to vent some more. That is the only way you'll get a positive conversation going in my personal experience. Oosurfin was an excellent example of how to carry on a productive conversation even though he didn't agree with everything being said. It would be great to see more posts like that on here.

I agree with you 100%. What I find extremely ridiculous is the claims our hobby makes such as eutrophication does not actually exist. Many of these claims made on here is based on heresay or one group of findings, not actual cold hard data. I've found scientific article after article disputing more than half the claims made on here. Nice to see you are willing to bring up a new idea!

This is what I have personally found with adding nutrients into the water column. Leave these tanks alone for a few weeks or longer. Don't dose, forget to adjust anything and see how quickly it degrades. Take a tank that is mostly substrate fertilized, and do the same thing. Results speak for themselves. These tanks that are fertilized through the water are mostly unstable and not able to take even the slightest bit of neglect. It works, but not unless you are willing to put the time into it.


----------



## Wasserpest

There are many ways to successful planted tanks. Old news, but that's what makes this so interesting, and leads to neverending discussions of what's "right" and what... not, supposedly.

Just one thing I wanted to mention... you can't really take data from a billions gallon river, and try to apply it to our intensely planted tanks. You will be hard pressed to find a collection of plants like the tank examples that Tom posts in nature.

In any case, nobody forces you to excessively spoon powders into your tank. A long time ago we were all content with 5-10 ppm of NO3.


----------



## sewingalot

Wasserpest said:


> There are many ways to successful planted tanks. Old news, but that's what makes this so interesting, and leads to neverending discussions of what's "right" and what... not, supposedly.


Hey Wasser, you bring up a great point here. Do you think this is a part of the hobby that will always be debated as it is more human nature to do so? Or do you think there will eventually be a new method discovered in the long term? I often see the lighting progressing, the tanks and even co2 equipment. Yet, it seems the nutrients is always argued. It is rather amusing to me.

Here is a question though. Why can't a river be used as an example to grow plants? Couldn't you set up a biotope and only grow those plants and mimick just those water conditions? I think often times, some plants require more or less of one nutrient and that explains why they may not fair well in certain environments. Kind of like if you give tomatoes too much nitrogen.


----------



## wkndracer

sewingalot said:


> Why can't a river be used as an example to grow plants? Couldn't you set up a biotope and only grow those plants and mimick just those water conditions? I think often times, some plants require more or less of one nutrient and that explains why they may not fair well in certain environments. Kind of like if you give tomatoes too much nitrogen.


(imo) For most it's a boring tanks without a wide range of plants.


----------



## snausage

Tom Barr,

The figures presented for the Tasek Bera system are averages from _4 years worth of data_, so no, the data isn't a one time snapshot of conditions in Malaysia. The Rio Guapore data is from analyses taken by Tetra in July of 1987; Kasselmann mentions that july is a period vigorous plant growth in this system. She does not elaborate on Tetra's statistical methods, so we don't know how many different samples were taken. 

If you actually read my post or Kasselmann's book,_ you'd realize that she didn't do this testing herself, but simply reported the findings of other researchers._ So when you asked her why she didn't take corresponding soil samples, I'm assuming she realized that there wasn't much of a point answering questions posed by someone who didn't read her work. 

The same goes for the findings posted on the polish thread. If you had deigned to read it, you would have realized that the author initially thought an increase in Fe levels caused the didiplis to stunt, but further testing showed that it was more likely due to high PO4 levels.

As far as your 120g tank goes, it's odd that the downoi is about one third the size of the stems. That wouldn't seem right to most people, especially the polish hobbyist, whose d. diandra puts yours to shame.

To everyone else: *Please read my post and the thread on the Polish forum carefully.*


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums

Very interesting thread snausage, thank you. Looking forward to reading more into this. Good healthy stuff.


----------



## snausage

sewingalot said:


> It would be wonderful if this topic could actually be discussed without the same old rhetoric spewed ad nauseam. Those that want to make it into the same old argument should in reality be ignored or directed to my old thread to vent some more.
> 
> 
> This is what I have personally found with adding nutrients into the water column. Leave these tanks alone for a few weeks or longer. Don't dose, forget to adjust anything and see how quickly it degrades. Take a tank that is mostly substrate fertilized, and do the same thing. Results speak for themselves. These tanks that are fertilized through the water are mostly unstable and not able to take even the slightest bit of neglect. It works, but not unless you are willing to put the time into it.


I welcome the old arguments so long as they stick to the facts and stay on topic. What I really want to avoid is people derailing the thread by asking whether such-and-such an amount of nutrient x, y or z is adequate or arguing over what one another's agenda is. 

I've had the same experience regarding tanks with a decent amount of nutrients in the substrate. I used to be on the road 2-4 days a week, so I just started dosing nutes in response to any apparent deficiencies. I basically only dosed traces and the most minimal amount of N, P and K for quite some time and the plants looked great.


----------



## sewingalot

I am looking forward to seeing this thread progress. It will be interesting to see where it goes. I am finding that if a plant can survive me, it can survive anything. That's what I am learning. Anyway, to stay on topic, do you have more articles such as the one you posted? I will say that I read it twice when you posted it over in my thread and was impressed at the amount of data they gathered. I would love to read more. Any point in the right direction would be appreciated.


----------



## wkndracer

snausage said:


> I've had the same experience regarding tanks with a decent amount of nutrients in the substrate. I used to be on the road 2-4 days a week, so I just started dosing nutes in response to any apparent deficiencies. I basically only dosed traces and the most minimal amount of N, P and K for quite some time and the plants looked great.


this last part sounds strangely familiar but I've contributed what I consider success to taming my urge to go big on lighting.


----------



## Fishly

I think the "right" dosing partly depends on your own maintenance style; whether you like to do something with your tank every day or want to be able to leave it alone sometimes will determine what dosing method will work best for you. 

Don't forget that in the wild, plants are often growing in murky water covered in algae, so they're probably getting less light than you think and their health is often poor. People can starve and still grow and reproduce, but they look best when they're healthy. Same with plants. Since we are trying to grow plants that look good, the conditions found in the wild may not be appropriate for an aquarium.


----------



## roadmaster

Hard to mimick condition's in streams or river's inside glass box of water where there are no tide's, rain's,or runoff (rainy season) that influence nurient delivery or removal of excess nutrient's/pollutant's if any.
Some folk's speak of the downside to EI ( water changes), but in fact most folks who keep fishes along with plant's, perform weekly water changes anyhow, so this does not equate to much concern in my view.
Other's cite the daily dosing of water column as a possible detriment/hassel, but have no such issues with feeding fishes daily. (auto dosing eliminates some concern's).
Other's say we are polluting the water with chemical's when in truth,,,we begin polluting the water in closed system the moment fishes are added along with fish food's, that often contain's bunches of chemical compounds along with by-product's of amimal protein's.
I ask... why not provide plant's with food from both location's? why does it need to be one way or another?
If you are happy with the way your plant's respond, and wish to try another way then fine,these thread's contain much to consider and I enjoy hearing about the different types of nutrient delivery.
In closed system,, nutrient's must come from us in one way or another, Whether it is via substrates, or water column. becomes in my mind.. a matter of opinion's and while opinion's are a good thing, Not same method will maybe work for everyone.
I have a small tank with sand 20 gal and largely anubia,java fern,java moss.
Nutrient delivery through water column has proved more beneficial than sediment.
Also run low light,Non CO2 80 gal with enhanced substrate (Eco complete,Osmocote root tabs) and I also add approx 1/4 EI dosing once a week or two as per Tom's Non CO2 method.
High energy tanks, (like this term) also perform well with either method of nutrient delivery according to photo's/info provided with regards to their care.
Also have a sand over dirt tank 10 gal ,with assorted crypt's ,vals,anubia, penny wort, and Cherry shrimp's that receives only trace (Flourish) once a week and it does well also albeit a bit slower than the other's.
all tank's are polluted with fish,fish food,fish waste,nutrient's from one source or another,and all receive these on regular basis some leaner than other's.
Adding nutrient's to water column in my view, is no more tedious than feeding fish, and plant's will use them where they find them.
So now it seem's to me ,,that we are left with opinion's, which some seem to give more weight to. 
This is good unless one begin's attacking other method's .


----------



## Razorworm

settle it in the Octagon :hihi:


----------



## sepehr

Aren't most of the plants in the hobby ''semi-aquatic'' anyways? Except for a few species such as elodea which doesn't need high amounts of nutrients and lights? Most tropical rivers don't look like anything like our crystal clear planted tanks. We all go out of our way to grow & keep semi aquatic plants totally submerged...hence they need our help for tons of ferts, lights, & co2 to stay healthy. 

My point is that it might be very true that in streams and rivers there aren't high levels of no3 & po4 because there aren't any demanding ''aquatic plants'' needing the nutrients but in our tanks with all these wimpy ''semi-aquatic'' plants, the needs are diffrenet.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## plantbrain

snausage said:


> Tom Barr,
> 
> The figures presented for the Tasek Bera system are averages from _4 years worth of data_, so no, the data isn't a one time snapshot of conditions in Malaysia. The Rio Guapore data is from analyses taken by Tetra in July of 1987; Kasselmann mentions that july is a period vigorous plant growth in this system. She does not elaborate on Tetra's statistical methods, so we don't know how many different samples were taken.
> 
> If you actually read my post or Kasselmann's book,_ you'd realize that she didn't do this testing herself, but simply reported the findings of other researchers._ So when you asked her why she didn't take corresponding soil samples, I'm assuming she realized that there wasn't much of a point answering questions posed by someone who didn't read her work.
> 
> The same goes for the findings posted on the polish thread. If you had deigned to read it, you would have realized that the author initially thought an increase in Fe levels caused the didiplis to stunt, but further testing showed that it was more likely due to high PO4 levels.
> 
> As far as your 120g tank goes, it's odd that the downoi is about one third the size of the stems. That wouldn't seem right to most people, especially the polish hobbyist, whose d. diandra puts yours to shame.
> 
> To everyone else: *Please read my post and the thread on the Polish forum carefully.*


You had to go to Poland to find something I falsified easily in my tank sitting right in front of me?

Not only did I read Kasslemann, in PERSON, I saw her presentation on the topic. Without the total nutrient sources for the plants(water and sediment sources), you have an incomplete picture.

My Downoi is actually quite MASSIVE, ask any local members, anyone that has bought from this same tank. You might be seeing the side shoots. You can also see my feedback in my sales threads..........which I sell a great deal of plants on monthly. 

The D diandra is also a very dense thicket, it would be light limited and shade itself if it got/could get any denser, the tank has 15 ppm PO4 as KH2PO4 dosed a week, ADA As also has high PO4.

You can say anything you like, but the results in this tank clearly falsify the claim. You can see it clearly.

Research that is more specific and refutes that algae or poor plant growth occurs at higher N and P:

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf

There's no correlation between plants and nutrients.

Plants can live and grow in most systems, not just the ones you personally like to pick and chose:icon_idea

I've not stated otherwise either.
Plants, not nutrients, define the system.



sewingalot said:


> I am looking forward to seeing this thread progress. It will be interesting to see where it goes. I am finding that if a plant can survive me, it can survive anything. That's what I am learning. Anyway, to stay on topic, do you have more articles such as the one you posted? I will say that I read it twice when you posted it over in my thread and was impressed at the amount of data they gathered. I would love to read more. Any point in the right direction would be appreciated.


That's a point I've not stated otherwise, they can live in a very wide range of habitats. The issue here is that some seem to believe that plants MUST grow in non limiting conditions ONLY, I... nor anyone has ever stated that.

It's a rather obvious common sense thing that many tanks will grow plant fine for the user with less. But adding more works fine also:wink:
Plants can exist and do pretty well in a wide range of habitats and nutrient levels, and locations for the nutrients.

Is this somehow surprising or something?
The next questions are why, how, what factors are involved that allow them to grow in a wide range of conditions? What is optimal for the individual user/goal for the aquascape?

The last question is as varied as the user.

I have to wonder, there's no rich CO2 in many of these lakes, rivers etc.......but that is given a free pass. Some places there are high levels of CO2 also. I see many newbies being goaded into using CO2 gas, when in many cases, they might not have that goal.



roadmaster said:


> Hard to mimick condition's in streams or river's inside glass box of water where there are no tide's, rain's,or runoff (rainy season) that influence nurient delivery or removal of excess nutrient's/pollutant's if any.
> Some folk's speak of the downside to EI ( water changes), but in fact most folks who keep fishes along with plant's, perform weekly water changes anyhow, so this does not equate to much concern in my view.
> Other's cite the daily dosing of water column as a possible detriment/hassel, but have no such issues with feeding fishes daily. (auto dosing eliminates some concern's).
> Other's say we are polluting the water with chemical's when in truth,,,we begin polluting the water in closed system the moment fishes are added along with fish food's, that often contain's bunches of chemical compounds along with by-product's of amimal protein's.
> I ask... why not provide plant's with food from both location's? why does it need to be one way or another?
> If you are happy with the way your plant's respond, and wish to try another way then fine,these thread's contain much to consider and I enjoy hearing about the different types of nutrient delivery.
> In closed system,, nutrient's must come from us in one way or another, Whether it is via substrates, or water column. becomes in my mind.. a matter of opinion's and while opinion's are a good thing, Not same method will maybe work for everyone.
> I have a small tank with sand 20 gal and largely anubia,java fern,java moss.
> Nutrient delivery through water column has proved more beneficial than sediment.
> Also run low light,Non CO2 80 gal with enhanced substrate (Eco complete,Osmocote root tabs) and I also add approx 1/4 EI dosing once a week or two as per Tom's Non CO2 method.
> High energy tanks, (like this term) also perform well with either method of nutrient delivery according to photo's/info provided with regards to their care.
> Also have a sand over dirt tank 10 gal ,with assorted crypt's ,vals,anubia, penny wort, and Cherry shrimp's that receives only trace (Flourish) once a week and it does well also albeit a bit slower than the other's.
> all tank's are polluted with fish,fish food,fish waste,nutrient's from one source or another,and all receive these on regular basis some leaner than other's.
> Adding nutrient's to water column in my view, is no more tedious than feeding fish, and plant's will use them where they find them.
> So now it seem's to me ,,that we are left with opinion's, which some seem to give more weight to.
> This is good unless one begin's attacking other method's .


Well, I think folks should step back and see what types of tanks have good plant growth and nice horticulture.

ADA obviously..........non CO2 tanks from year's past, low light CO2 tanks, with or without water column N and P, rich sediments, rich water column.

We can find good examples with ALL methods, not just one.

I've run tanks with these types of conditions. If a newbie or an advanced hobbyists ask me a specific goal and level of horticulture they want, I can help them.

If all I am is an ADA fan boy, I'm more limited.
If all I suggest is EI low light and rich sediment and water changes, again, I am also limited in the scope of help I can offer.
If all I can offer is high light and lean water column, daily dosing etc.....again, I'm limited.

If all you have is one method, then this is what you know. If you are able to do each method, then you have a better comparative model to work with.

But...........horticulture is NOT LIMITED to a dosing method, as all dosing methods do in fact add some fertilizer.

Good horticulture can make up for a bad method or poor managed dosing.

Put another way: dosing and methods do not define or imply anything about a nice aquascape, we have plenty of examples where we have good scapes with a wide range of parameters.

This is not surprising. There's (much) more to aquascaping/aquarium keeping than mere nutrient water column dosing.

Below we have examples at different CO2/light levels where in fact..we have growth in all cases:










Light in umol is 24, 89 and 250.

If you can grow plants in each of the 9 matrices above, then you have mastered each method.


----------



## snausage

More data:

** mg/l is equivalent to ppm


*Rio Uruguay Catchment Area, Argentina*

Plants: eichornia azurea, hygrophila guinensis, nymphoides sp, egeria najas, myriophyllum aquaticum, cabomba caroliniana v. caroliniana, eleocharis sp

Values:

Conductivity: 18 microsiemens/cm

Ca Hardness: 0.31 dH

Mg Hardness: 0 dH

NO3: 0.6 mg/l

PO4: 0.1 mg/l

K+: 0.2 mg/l

Fe: nd

*Rio Sipao, Venezuala*

Plants: tonina fluviatilis, eichhornia diversifolia, bacopa sp

Values:

Conductivity: 12.2 microsiemens/cm

Ca Hardness: 0.13 dH

Mg Hardness: 0.10 dH

NO3: nd

PO4: nd

K+: 0.50 mg/l

Fe: ---


----------



## snausage

Fishly said:


> Don't forget that in the wild, plants are often growing in murky water covered in algae, so they're probably getting less light than you think and their health is often poor. People can starve and still grow and reproduce, but they look best when they're healthy. Same with plants. Since we are trying to grow plants that look good, the conditions found in the wild may not be appropriate for an aquarium.


The habitat pictures and descriptions in Kasselmann's book clearly illustrate that the wild specimens were in excellent health and grew in dense patches.


----------



## snausage

sepehr said:


> Aren't most of the plants in the hobby ''semi-aquatic'' anyways? Except for a few species such as elodea which doesn't need high amounts of nutrients and lights? Most tropical rivers don't look like anything like our crystal clear planted tanks. We all go out of our way to grow & keep semi aquatic plants totally submerged...hence they need our help for tons of ferts, lights, & co2 to stay healthy.
> 
> My point is that it might be very true that in streams and rivers there aren't high levels of no3 & po4 because there aren't any demanding ''aquatic plants'' needing the nutrients but in our tanks with all these wimpy ''semi-aquatic'' plants, the needs are diffrenet.
> 
> Just my 2 cents


You bring up a good point about seasonal growth patterns, but the data includes several true aquatic plants that are submerged year round (cabomba, tonina, etc). Such plants obtain the majority of their nutrients through the water column and their roots are primarily for anchoring them in areas with swifter currents.


----------



## houseofcards

So what is the point of the thread OP, that plants can grow and grow well in low concentrations? I don't think many will dispute that. 

Personally I think it's easier to maintain those low levels in nature since it's a tremendous ever-refreshing system compared to our closed glass boxes. Even if we do add the ferts it's still easier to bottom out if we don't watch the setup. Nature's bottom is much deeper even if it's lean. Just because that works in some systems in nature doesn't mean it is practical in the hobby. If your going to duplicate nature why not go all the way and bring your tank outdoors. BTW some natural outdoor planted aqua systems are not that attractive IMO.


----------



## snausage

roadmaster said:


> I ask... why not provide plant's with food from both location's? why does it need to be one way or another?
> 
> In closed system,, nutrient's must come from us in one way or another, Whether it is via substrates, or water column. becomes in my mind.. a matter of opinion's and while opinion's are a good thing, Not same method will maybe work for everyone.
> I have a small tank with sand 20 gal and largely anubia,java fern,java moss.
> Nutrient delivery through water column has proved more beneficial than sediment.


Thanks for your reply.

I am not advocating an either/or approach to fertilization. I'm simply trying to show other members that: 1) plants inhabit nutrient poor waters, and 2) there are potential downsides to overdosing.


----------



## RipariumGuy

Do plants absorb nutrients from the water column via their leaves, or from substrata via roots? It think that is a root question we will have to answer here. 

So far I have found that a decent group of plants absorb the vast majority of their nutrients from their leaves (see here http://www.apms.org/japm/vol25/v25p30.pdf and here http://www.jstor.org/pss/2258568) If that is so, that wouldn't this disprove Mr. Barr's argument? 

I understand that many plants (ie, amazon swords) prosper greatly from the addition of root tabs. Is this because the root tabs are placed around their roots systems, or could it be because the nutrients from the root tabs diffuse through the substrate and are absorbed by the leaves of the swords? 

This may seem very off topic, but the data found has, as mentioned be taken of the water columns of the said rivers/lakes. For this data to be valid in support of the idea that less nutrients are just as good (or better?) than growing aquatic plants with excessive nutrients, then we first must figure out where aquatic plants absorb nutrients from. 

@Sewingalot - I have really noticed the lack of solid, scientific evidence supporting out mad methods as well. I think if we are going to reach the full potential of the hobby, we are going to need to change that.

(Oh crap.. I think I just derailed the thread.... If I did, tell me and I'll delete this).


----------



## snausage

plantbrain said:


> You had to go to Poland to find something I falsified easily in my tank sitting right in front of me?
> 
> Not only did I read Kasslemann, in PERSON, I saw her presentation on the topic. Without the total nutrient sources for the plants(water and sediment sources), you have an incomplete picture.
> 
> My Downoi is actually quite MASSIVE, ask any local members, anyone that has bought from this same tank. You might be seeing the side shoots. You can also see my feedback in my sales threads..........which I sell a great deal of plants on monthly.
> 
> The D diandra is also a very dense thicket, it would be light limited and shade itself if it got/could get any denser, the tank has 15 ppm PO4 as KH2PO4 dosed a week, ADA As also has high PO4.
> 
> You can say anything you like, but the results in this tank clearly falsify the claim. You can see it clearly.
> 
> Research that is more specific and refutes that algae or poor plant growth occurs at higher N and P:
> 
> http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf
> 
> There's no correlation between plants and nutrients.
> 
> Plants can live and grow in most systems, not just the ones you personally like to pick and chose:icon_idea
> 
> I've not stated otherwise either.
> Plants, not nutrients, define the system.


Kasselman's data is the most comprehensive scientific data I've seen on habitats supporting a vast array of plants utilized by aquarists. If you have better data from South America or SE Asia, please post it.

The data I have posted is specifically related to aquarium plants. The paper you linked did not mention specific plant species so, at present, it doesn't tell us anything relevant to the discussion. 

Your d. diandra isn't going to win any blue ribbons at the state fair. It has poor coloration and is short.


----------



## Dempsey

Adam,

I have seen your tanks and plants in person. They really are AMAZING! Whatever you are doing really seems to be working great for you. I know it's been a while but I remember that you did have a ton of light on them with no algae...

I think the one tank had DIY co2, right? Those plants were awesome!

For myself, I have been dosing EI with 4x54 T5HO about 20" above my 75g. For me, this has been working great also. Much easier to dose all ferts that the plants will need instead of waiting for signs that they need this or that. Just my opinion.

I think that everyone has one same goal. To grow healthy plants. That being said, there are other goals, of course. Maintenance being the big one for most...

In the interest of other hobbyists, I am willing to "throw my tank to the wolves", if you will.. Meaning that I am willing to see if lots of light and dosing less ferts will produce healthy plants with no algae.

How would you suggest that I start? I have almost every dry fert known to man.

Should I start with a big WC and start from scratch? Drop the lights closer?

I am not joking here. I am really willing to do this. 

Please let me know what you would do with this tank. I do have pressurized co2 also.


----------



## Bahugo

Really hope this thread doesn't turn into the same as the old thread. 

How do you dose your tank Snausage? I would love too try something different.


----------



## Jeff5614

Bahugo said:


> Really hope this thread doesn't turn into the same as the old thread....


But we're so comfortable with and used to the same old thread  .


----------



## Francis Xavier

The answer to all dosing questions is:
dose what the plants need. Don't dose what they don't need.


----------



## Hoppy

Francis Xavier said:


> The answer to all dosing questions is:
> dose what the plants need. Don't dose what they don't need.


And, to build a fortune, "buy low and sell high":biggrin:


----------



## houseofcards

Jeff5614 said:


> But we're so comfortable with and used to the same old thread  .


These threads always turn sour when one method is put forth for all. Obviously there is enough real world evidence that proves many methods work and they are all tied to lifestyle.


----------



## Jeff5614

houseofcards said:


> These threads always turn sour when one method is put forth for all. Obviously there is enough real world evidence that proves many methods work and they are all tied to lifestyle.


I like your thinking but these threads usually turn into the superiority of one method over all the others carried out with a religious/political fervor.


----------



## DarkCobra

houseofcards said:


> These threads always turn sour when one method is put forth for all.


And they will always turn sour, because the same people consistently show up, proceed to dominate the thread with the same rhetoric, and refuse to give other like-minded individuals any chance to discuss alternate methods without disruption.

This topic interests me, and has direct relevance to issues I've been experimenting with. But I no longer view this forum as a useful venue for discussion on it. Better to look to other forums, where like-minded people are in the majority; or at least where harsher moderation doesn't allow for a few people to squash every opposing viewpoint's threads.


----------



## ua hua

Jeff5614 said:


> I like your thinking but these threads usually turn into the superiority of one method over all the others carried out with a religious/political fervor.


I totally agree and after reading through the thread in the Polish forum I see that this debate is just as divided across the pond. I don't believe any one method is superior to another so one should just choose which one works best for them. A healthy discussion would help the hobby as a whole but egos and promotion of ones products always get in the way.


----------



## Dempsey

ua hua said:


> I totally agree and after reading through the thread in the Polish forum I see that this debate is just as divided across the pond. I don't believe any one method is superior to another so one should just choose which one works best for them. A healthy discussion would help the hobby as a whole but egos and promotion of ones products always get in the way.


I also agree. This is very tempting to me also. I have seen Adam's tanks in person and I am willing to give this a try. 

My original post was serious. I am willing to give this a try. Methods like these have always peeked my interest.

I used to grow indoor terrestrial plants in my younger days... When I just had cheapy lights from HD, I could get these plants to grow but they were always leggy and sometimes needed support in the beginning because they would "sky rocket" up to the weak lights...

I then got high power sodium lights. From the time the the seeds would sprout, the plants grew awesome... The grew slow, wide, bushy and super healthy. Once they had the light that they needed they didn't try to reach for the sun, I guess?

I have always wondered why we don't use these same ideas in growing our plants under water.

With that said, again, I am willing to give this type of method a chance. I am willing to give any method a chance!

EI has been nothing but good to me but another method could work better. Who knows.

If 5 people show me pics of there beautiful tanks and they say that they fertilize with rabbit poo by adding 4 pellets daily and their tanks look amazing, I will give it a try! roud:

What's the worst that could happen? I just go back to dosing what worked better for me.


----------



## snausage

Dempsey said:


> Adam,
> 
> I have seen your tanks and plants in person. They really are AMAZING! Whatever you are doing really seems to be working great for you. I know it's been a while but I remember that you did have a ton of light on them with no algae...
> 
> I think the one tank had DIY co2, right? Those plants were awesome!
> 
> For myself, I have been dosing EI with 4x54 T5HO about 20" above my 75g. For me, this has been working great also. Much easier to dose all ferts that the plants will need instead of waiting for signs that they need this or that. Just my opinion.
> 
> I think that everyone has one same goal. To grow healthy plants. That being said, there are other goals, of course. Maintenance being the big one for most...
> 
> In the interest of other hobbyists, I am willing to "throw my tank to the wolves", if you will.. Meaning that I am willing to see if lots of light and dosing less ferts will produce healthy plants with no algae.
> 
> How would you suggest that I start? I have almost every dry fert known to man.
> 
> Should I start with a big WC and start from scratch? Drop the lights closer?
> 
> I am not joking here. I am really willing to do this.
> 
> Please let me know what you would do with this tank. I do have pressurized co2 also.


Hi Clint. Nice to see you posting again!

If I were you, this is more or less what I would do:

1. Drop the lighting to 10". I know you keep a ton of fish in your tanks, so start with a short (6hr) photoperiod after the adjustment and then gradually increase it. This is just to help the fish adjust to more light, since many become stressed with intense illumination. 

2. Nice big wc. You routinely do 75%, right? That should be great.

3. Start dosing to the following approximate targets:

NO3, 8-10 ppm/weekly; PO4 0.75-1ppm/weekly; K 10+ ppm/weekly (however much K you provide when dosing NO3 and PO4 should be fine); Fe 0.5-1ppm weekly; Traces perhaps half of what you currently dose. 

I'm unsure of what your gH is, but I assume it's fine. Maybe a couple teaspoons of MgSO4 in case your tap doesn't have much Mg. 

4. Observe and tailor it to whatever you want. Using the approximate values above, I now do wcs once every 2 weeks on my overstocked high tech tank and once a month on my plant only high tech. For my overstocked tank, I only dose NO3 once a week due to fish waste. The only thing I really pay attention to in that tank is PO4 since I've realized that most fish foods don't seem to provide enough P relative to the fish waste. A good way to counter this is to feed more freeze-dried live foods instead of flakes and pellets.

Good luck!!!


----------



## snausage

ua hua said:


> I totally agree and after reading through the thread in the Polish forum I see that this debate is just as divided across the pond. I don't believe any one method is superior to another so one should just choose which one works best for them. A healthy discussion would help the hobby as a whole but egos and promotion of ones products always get in the way.


+1......

Did you find the thread on the Polish forum informative???


----------



## snausage

DarkCobra said:


> And they will always turn sour, because the same people consistently show up, proceed to dominate the thread with the same rhetoric, and refuse to give other like-minded individuals any chance to discuss alternate methods without disruption.
> 
> This topic interests me, and has direct relevance to issues I've been experimenting with. But I no longer view this forum as a useful venue for discussion on it. Better to look to other forums, where like-minded people are in the majority; or at least where harsher moderation doesn't allow for a few people to squash every opposing viewpoint's threads.


I agree with what your saying, but I do think that of late there has been a concerted effort on this forum to reduce fundamentalism surrounding ferts. Your posts are always well researched and thought provoking, so I encourage you to contribute to the thread. 

Now back to the plants!!!!


----------



## snausage

houseofcards said:


> Personally I think it's easier to maintain those low levels in nature since it's a tremendous ever-refreshing system compared to our closed glass boxes. Even if we do add the ferts it's still easier to bottom out if we don't watch the setup. Nature's bottom is much deeper even if it's lean. Just because that works in some systems in nature doesn't mean it is practical in the hobby. If your going to duplicate nature why not go all the way and bring your tank outdoors. BTW some natural outdoor planted aqua systems are not that attractive IMO.


That's what I used to think prior to reading Kasselmann's book. In the data I posted, many of the systems have levels of macros that are either zero or not detectable (nd). Unlike our tanks, once a certain nutrient concentration hits zero, it takes much longer for natural systems to accumulate a higher nute concentration.


----------



## Dempsey

snausage said:


> Hi Clint. Nice to see you posting again!
> 
> If I were you, this is more or less what I would do:
> 
> 1. Drop the lighting to 10". I know you keep a ton of fish in your tanks, so start with a short (6hr) photoperiod after the adjustment and then gradually increase it. This is just to help the fish adjust to more light, since many become stressed with intense illumination.
> 
> 2. Nice big wc. You routinely do 75%, right? That should be great.
> 
> 3. Start dosing to the following approximate targets:
> 
> NO3, 8-10 ppm/weekly; PO4 0.75-1ppm/weekly; K 10+ ppm/weekly (however much K you provide when dosing NO3 and PO4 should be fine); Fe 0.5-1ppm weekly; Traces perhaps half of what you currently dose.
> 
> I'm unsure of what your gH is, but I assume it's fine. Maybe a couple teaspoons of MgSO4 in case your tap doesn't have much Mg.
> 
> 4. Observe and tailor it to whatever you want. Using the approximate values above, I now do wcs once every 2 weeks on my overstocked high tech tank and once a month on my plant only high tech. For my overstocked tank, I only dose NO3 once a week due to fish waste. The only thing I really pay attention to in that tank is PO4 since I've realized that most fish foods don't seem to provide enough P relative to the fish waste. A good way to counter this is to feed more freeze-dried live foods instead of flakes and pellets.
> 
> Good luck!!!


Awesome! 

In preparation for your response, I didn't dose anything today. I did dose on Sunday after my big water change(yes, you are correct). I dosed via EI on Sunday so..., That should be okay for the week? As for micro's, I should dose half of my current dose 3x/week?

I have been adding 1tsp of GH Booster after my water changes also. I do have MgSO4 though. Like I said, I may have every fert known to man. 

My fish load has decreased since last we spoke. A few rainbows, oto's, pygmy corries, NB pleco's, kili loaches and tons of shrimp. I have been feeding them flakes, pellets, wafers and frozen brine. I will pick up from freeze dried though.

How about the CO2? Should I slowly decrease the amount that I am injecting? It has seemed that with this tank, I have to inject a whole lot of co2 or I get algae.

I am actually very excited to give this a try. It would be nice to see the "full power" of what these lights could do. Hey, this is a 6 bulb fixture.... Should I add the other 2 bulbs??:bounce:


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

i used to dose flourish line. very low ammounts. my plants grew great actually with 72 watts over them.. HOWEVER algae always existed. black brush, and green dot were my enemies
lower c02 concentrations. but that was the beginning. im interested to see how this turns out


----------



## Jeff5614

Dempsey said:


> Awesome!
> 
> In preparation for your response, I didn't dose anything today. I did dose on Sunday after my big water change(yes, you are correct). I dosed via EI on Sunday so..., That should be okay for the week? As for micro's, I should dose half of my current dose 3x/week?
> 
> I have been adding 1tsp of GH Booster after my water changes also. I do have MgSO4 though. Like I said, I may have every fert known to man.
> 
> My fish load has decreased since last we spoke. A few rainbows, oto's, pygmy corries, NB pleco's, kili loaches and tons of shrimp. I have been feeding them flakes, pellets, wafers and frozen brine. I will pick up from freeze dried though.
> 
> How about the CO2? Should I slowly decrease the amount that I am injecting? It has seemed that with this tank, I have to inject a whole lot of co2 or I get algae.
> 
> I am actually very excited to give this a try. It would be nice to see the "full power" of what these lights could do. Hey, this is a 6 bulb fixture.... Should I add the other 2 bulbs??:bounce:


Dang, Clint! You know this experiment of yours can only end in abject failure don't you? You'll end up with a tank of sick, stunted plants and thriving, healthy, happy algae. Of course I'm only teasing. It will be interesting to see how it goes so be sure and keep us posted. Best of luck! Not that luck has anything to do with it, but I digress...


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums

> Best of luck! Not that luck has anything to do with it, but I digress...



Sometimes when I stare at my tanks wrong they explode in deadly algae. 
or, if I forget to even look at them they turn on me.


----------



## Dempsey

I would be lying if I said I wasn't nervous. But, if this dose work for me, great! If others can do it, I should be able to also. 

I have seen Adam's tanks. Whatever he is doing is working great. So let's hope it works half as well for me. I will keep everyone posted on this thread if that's okay with him.

I don't want to hijack this thread.


----------



## zergling

It should work Clint -- the numbers that snausage brought up *might* be "lean", but doesn't look limiting at all. Unless you're derping around with reef-worthy lighting :hihi:

Speaking of, have you mentioned what lighting you're using Clint? Better yet, do you know if somebody (or yourself) have PAR readings of the lighting you're using? I mean, 40 par on the substrate is worlds different than, say, 100 on the substrate.


----------



## Dempsey

zergling said:


> It should work Clint -- the numbers that snausage brought up *might* be "lean", but doesn't look limiting at all. Unless you're derping around with reef-worthy lighting :hihi:
> 
> Speaking of, have you mentioned what lighting you're using Clint? Better yet, do you know if somebody (or yourself) have PAR readings of the lighting you're using? I mean, 40 par on the substrate is worlds different than, say, 100 on the substrate.


Well..... Reef worthy? I have ran less over soft corals.:hihi:

It's a 6x54watt T5HO fixture. I am only running 4 bulbs though. I don't have access to a PAR meter... There is a club up the road from me. Never went to a meeting though. Not a member. I have been to there auctions though. Maybe I should join.


----------



## astrosag

How do you, Tom Barrand snausage, see dosing ferts with low-light tanks (decent photo period of 6-8 hours)?


----------



## zergling

Dempsey said:


> Well..... Reef worthy? I have ran less over soft corals.:hihi:
> 
> It's a 6x54watt T5HO fixture. I am only running 4 bulbs though. I don't have access to a PAR meter... There is a club up the road from me. Never went to a meeting though. Not a member. I have been to there auctions though. Maybe I should join.


Wait, I thought you can keep softies under good 'ol PC lighting :flick: . Heck, I think folks were growing corals in T8 VHO before halides came in the picture.....

Is it a TEK? T5HO output vary based on ballasts, reflectors, and cooling. 

I think 4x54W of TEK T5HO on your 75g should be right smack at high light (where's Hoppy? ). Your tank should be a good data point on the dosing levels that snausage is preaching.


I'm actually starting to think this thread should be titled "Dose just enough / Lean dosing".


----------



## Dempsey

zergling said:


> Wait, I thought you can keep softies under good 'ol PC lighting :flick: . Heck, I think folks were growing corals in T8 VHO before halides came in the picture.....
> 
> Is it a TEK? T5HO output vary based on ballasts, reflectors, and cooling.
> 
> I think 4x54W of TEK T5HO on your 75g should be right smack at high light (where's Hoppy? ). Your tank should be a good data point on the dosing levels that snausage is preaching.
> 
> 
> I'm actually starting to think this thread should be titled "Dose just enough / Lean dosing".


 
I did. I had them under a 4x65watt CF Coralife fixture. That's what I mean by I grew them under less light then I am running now.

This fixture is a T5HO Sunlight Supply fixture. I have attached the link.

I noticed some clado in my tank the other day. I did move a spray bar in that direction. Maybe its from that flow.. I moved it back expecting to see it slow down but it hasn't. I also added root tabs a week or so ago. Wonder how all of this light will help the clado along??


----------



## Dempsey

I just dropped the lights down to 10". The pic might not look like it but that is a butt load of light!


----------



## Dempsey

Looks to be clado to me.... Please, someone tell me its hair algae... Should I hold off on this change and do a blackout first? :angryfire


----------



## chad320

Its clado. I have never seen a healthy tank without it. The trick is to let it grow a little spot where it wont be seen. I wouldnt worry about a sudden outburst of it.


----------



## zergling

The Sun Blaze has the flat reflector, right? If so, I'm guessing it's about a slot below TEK's in terms of light output.

I've only had clado once -- which was quickly dealt with by upping CO2 and adding 2 dozen amanos. I'm sure others will chime in.


----------



## Dempsey

zergling said:


> The Sun Blaze has the flat reflector, right? If so, I'm guessing it's about a slot below TEK's in terms of light output.
> 
> I've only had clado once -- which was quickly dealt with by upping CO2 and adding 2 dozen amanos. I'm sure others will chime in.


Flat reflector? Nope. Individual reflectors.

I have Amanos in there now and have another 10 coming sometime next week. Fingers crossed. I am really curious to see if by me not dosing anymore Macros for the week will help.

Time will tell...


----------



## Dempsey

chad320 said:


> Its clado. I have never seen a healthy tank without it. The trick is to let it grow a little spot where it wont be seen. I wouldnt worry about a sudden outburst of it.


Fingers crossed!


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums

Your tank is healthy enough to combat that spec of clado, your a miles away from infestation. Look how healthy that tank is folks!


----------



## plantbrain

astrosag said:


> How do you, Tom Barrand snausage, see dosing ferts with low-light tanks (decent photo period of 6-8 hours)?


All my tanks are low light already

With less light, we also have less algae and CO2/fert levels are easier to target, and if anything does go wrong, you have a lot more time to respond and catch the error vs high light.

It's like driving 80 mph vs 30 mph, 30 mph is safer and better gas mileage(more efficient), however, 80 mph will still get you there, just need to be more careful.

I've never once stated that less ferts is bad.........or that they do not grow plants. Some seem to imply I suggested this, I never have.

Like the chart with different rates of growth for light/CO2, this same relationship also applies to nutrients.

Here we see that we have growth even if there's very little nutrients:









The error range is smallest however in that range. So if you add just a little more, you see huge increase in growth, or very little if you go the other way.
If you are in the A or B range, you end up being more limiting there than say if you are little off on CO2.

If you add more ferts, then the CO2 issue becomes pronounced. This led many to believe that limiting ferts was the reason that algae did not become an issue for PMDD and similar methods.

Still, most every method does the same thing: adds some ferts somewhere.. Most methods are more similar than they are dissimilar actually. And we see plants grow in most all cases......just like we also find in natural systems.........this is due to the plants defining the system, not the nutrients(unless seriously out of whack)

PMDD suggested lean dosing in the past, then it was PPS which seems o me to be identical to PMDD in it's target dosing. PMDD produces nice tanks also, and leaner dosing has always been done by a no# of folks. 

This leaner approach tends to take more skill and observation since it is dependent on dosing(which many of us are forgetful of), versus what I often suggest which is more a lower light approach, lighting is inherently extremely stable, the most stable of any parameter we have. Ferts move around daily to weekly, CO2: minutes etc.

So light is the easiest to work with, but you can limit tanks using CO2 also.
I rarely ever see* CO2 being debated with the same zeal*. I wonder why that is given a free pass and why limiting that is not a priority.

CO2 kills more fish and shrimp than any nutrients, so I see there is little risk involved with ferts.........the evidence clearly shows that.........but not so with CO2.

This seems backwards if you are concerned about livestock or care. Now those ferts can be insanely lean. And even more flexible.

Are there trade offs? Yep. Same with non limiting values or high light or or or......

So I agree with D Walstad strongly and it's a really good method for newbies.
Still, I think more effort should be placed on a decent moderate low light, good ferts, and if you miss here or there, the ferts are never critical.........good CO2 management and then good care like water changes, good pruning, trimming, cleaning filters etc. 

But the CO2 thing really is a sticker for newbies........I do not try and sway them on that one. You can still do a very nice scape without any water changes or test kits, high light or CO2.

Example:










So how does limiting ferts, CO2 affect growth and light usage?









With more stress, you lower the light use efficacy.
Ole/Troel's matrice above also shows this. 

How about maintaining a semi stable fert level?









Plants become more efficient at higher concentrations.
They grow larger, thicker, lose less leaves etc.

How about water column + soil sources of ferts and growth responses?









I suggest this above and a higher ppm value that's somewhat stable.
I suggest moderately low light etc............but...........that is NOT the only method I suggest either(there's dozen or so). Plenty suggest high light, CO2 already. I really do not need to suggest it.

Still, what is your goal? Not mine.......but yours? Ferts might seem interesting at some point as you get into the hobby, but they are of min consequences for most folks who scape and garden a lot. I really do not pay that much attention to them any more, but I do know what I add.

I can easily falsify claims about stunting, algae, you cannot grow this or that at ppm X. People do not like to have their advice falsified. I actually do. Then I do not have to try and see or investigate further on that hypothesis:tongue:



Dempsey said:


> Flat reflector? Nope. Individual reflectors.
> 
> I have Amanos in there now and have another 10 coming sometime next week. Fingers crossed. I am really curious to see if by me not dosing anymore Macros for the week will help.
> 
> Time will tell...


IME, adding Amano's from day 1 is key, they keep most of the algae at bay. 
Then it does not get a foot hold.

Better them ...than you.


----------



## ua hua

Dempsey said:


> I just dropped the lights down to 10". The pic might not look like it but that is a butt load of light!


 
Clint, your tank looks beautiful already so I'm defintely curious how your change in your routine will fair. Keep us posted as this is a topic that needs to be discussed more openly.


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> IME, adding Amano's from day 1 is key, they keep most of the algae at bay.
> Then it does not get a foot hold.
> 
> Better them ...than you.


Very true. The funny thing is, I have had about 30(not sure of the actual number now though. I have had some jumpers and some taken by kribs) or so in there for close to a year I guess? I think they have lost interest in algae. :hihi: Can this happen? I have been giving them wafers. maybe they like them now? I did stop giving them wafers when I noticed the algae. I am hoping that the new ones trigger them to start eating algae again.

I just didn't want them to starve. They have been growing so very slow. I just figured I had to feed them because I didn't have enough algae. :icon_smil


----------



## Dempsey

ua hua said:


> Clint, your tank looks beautiful already so I'm defintely curious how your change in your routine will fair. Keep us posted as this is a topic that needs to be discussed more openly.


Thanks! 

I will take some close up pics tonight so I/we can have a starting point. With the high lights, like Tom said above, I know results will come quicker then later. Good or bad. I will just have to look closely at the plants every night and see if they are telling me anything.


----------



## sepehr

Dempsey said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I will take some close up pics tonight so I/we can have a starting point. With the high lights, like Tom said above, I know results will come quicker then later. Good or bad. I will just have to look closely at the plants every night and see if they are telling me anything.


Nice pic of Fedor roud:


----------



## Dempsey

sepehr said:


> Nice pic of Fedor roud:


Fedor is the baddest man on the planet!

Here are a few "baseline" pics. Where some plants stand now.

I forget the name of this one but it only gets purple on the under sides when it gets close to the top.




















The Pantanal should be brighter, IMO. Same with the others.










The L. Aromatica should be a whole light brighter. It doesn't get bright until it reached the top. Then again, sometimes it does. Not sure why though. In this pic, it has no color.









Mac Red. Should be darker IMO, even this low. I just hacked it down a whole bunch and sold to HD Blazingwolf. So this pic is 20+stems hacked low.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

which btw it arrived in spectacular condition. 

and once again. WAYY more blyxa than i anticipated. my 29gallon is now a blyxa-scape
much rearranging is in order at this point

take in mind also. your plants were used to lower light levels there will be about a 2 week adjustment phase. algae will be at its worst during this time if it makes an appearance

oh and if u look left of the mac red. there is an MTS so it would appear i am probably going to have them now


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> which btw it arrived in spectacular condition.
> 
> and once again. WAYY more blyxa than i anticipated. my 29gallon is now a blyxa-scape
> much rearranging is in order at this point
> 
> take in mind also. your plants were used to lower light levels there will be about a 2 week adjustment phase. algae will be at its worst during this time if it makes an appearance
> 
> oh and if u look left of the mac red. there is an MTS so it would appear i am probably going to have them now


Na... You should be safe. I just added a few yesterday to feed my assassins. :icon_wink They normally pick them off within minutes of being in the tank.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

well i wasn't complaining. like i said. if it happens accidentally i'll be happy i just wasnt ready to commit purposefully


----------



## ua hua

I think your plants are showing really good color but I understand that you are your worst critic when it comes to your tank. I think the first picture looks like P. Stellatus. I have been wanting to try the Patanal for some time now and after seeing yours I will definetly be getting that soon. As far as L. Aromatica I had to get rid of that weed because it grew so fast but mine never showed the purplish red I see in some photos. It started to show some color as it grew towards the top but not deep redish purple.


----------



## zergling

Clint, sorry, wrong description of the reflectors. I know they're individual, but the reflectors are basically like this -- /\ right? Or do they now put parabolic reflectors like in the TEK?

Anywho, your tank looks very nice already. So if the [N-limitation -> more reds] holds true for your tank, then you should see much more reds soon. 

I've seen this in my own tank with rotalas, but not dosing / reducing nitrates leads to diatoms in my tanks. So I just place rotalas in a spot where they're allowed to grow tall and get more PAR, and get redder.

Of course, folks will argue that N-limitation induced reds on plants = stressed plants......that's the part I'll leave alone LOL!


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

about this. im getting frustrated for the first time on my tank. i've raised and raised lights less and less lights.
i can't turn up c02 more. my fishies are at the point where i can't tuirn it up more they are very lazy as it is while its on.
i've compared my tank pictures with other peoples and i for sure have less light than most people that have beautiful red plants.. my plants turned red when i first got the new light and hung it 3 inches over the tank (19 inches over substrate). now at 34 inches above substrate. no red. AND BBA i cannot get rid of it. i dose EI full on. extra micros. extra iron 

needless to say im curious where this more light thread is going because im tried and true. c02 plus low light and good ferilizers equals good plant growth. my old batch of macranda started wilting when i moved lights away. ludwig glandulosa is pinkish barely. mostly green
i even fert the substrate


----------



## snausage

Clint,

As far as CO2 goes, you're definitely gonna want to bump it down a notch. I've never bothered with drop checkers or even tried estimating the co2 levels in my tanks. Just careful observation is sufficient IME.

BTW, I'm super jealous that you have room to do terrestrials under HPS lighting. I've wanted to get a 250 watt MH fixture and a Hortilux Blue bulb forever, but I've barely got enough space for my tanks!!!


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

snausage said:


> Clint,
> 
> As far as CO2 goes, you're definitely gonna want to bump it down a notch. I've never bothered with drop checkers or even tried estimating the co2 levels in my tanks. Just careful observation is sufficient IME.


 
i'm curious as to why you say down. from what i've gathered more light means more c02 is needed

Elaborate please!!


----------



## sepehr

HD Blazingwolf said:


> about this. im getting frustrated for the first time on my tank. i've raised and raised lights less and less lights.
> i can't turn up c02 more. my fishies are at the point where i can't tuirn it up more they are very lazy as it is while its on.
> i've compared my tank pictures with other peoples and i for sure have less light than most people that have beautiful red plants.. my plants turned red when i first got the new light and hung it 3 inches over the tank (19 inches over substrate). now at 34 inches above substrate. no red. AND BBA i cannot get rid of it. i dose EI full on. extra micros. extra iron
> 
> needless to say im curious where this more light thread is going because im tried and true. c02 plus low light and good ferilizers equals good plant growth. my old batch of macranda started wilting when i moved lights away. ludwig glandulosa is pinkish barely. mostly green
> i even fert the substrate


When I first started I had 4 X 54 watts T5HO's over a 75 gallon tank. I didn't know much about ferts & I had the co2 at 2 bps. All my plants had rich, nice colors and everything grew like crazy but I also encountered a few types of algae which turned into a big problem. Then alot of people told me to cut down on the lights to two or even one bulb. They told me about EI & to crank up the CO2 as well.

Gradually the algae came under control but some plants began to grew slowly & some lost their red color...they became brownish instead. NOW that I know about ferts and found the sweet spot as far as the co2 goes, I went with 4 X 54 watts T5HO's again. The red plants IMMEDIATELY recovered their true colors once again and everything started growing like weed. There is still a small amount of BBA & GSA here and there but hey who doesn't have some.


----------



## Dempsey

snausage said:


> Clint,
> 
> As far as CO2 goes, you're definitely gonna want to bump it down a notch. I've never bothered with drop checkers or even tried estimating the co2 levels in my tanks. Just careful observation is sufficient IME.
> 
> BTW, I'm super jealous that you have room to do terrestrials under HPS lighting. I've wanted to get a 250 watt MH fixture and a Hortilux Blue bulb forever, but I've barely got enough space for my tanks!!!


Sweet! This should save me from having to get it filled every 2-3 months. 

Yeah, those HPS were nice. But that was back in the day, before marriage. :thumbsup: I had a special room for my special plants.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Dempsey said:


> Yeah, those HPS were nice. But that was back in the day, before marriage. :thumbsup: I had a special room for my special plants.


buwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Craigthor

Definitely following this thread...


----------



## snausage

HD Blazingwolf said:


> about this. im getting frustrated for the first time on my tank. i've raised and raised lights less and less lights.
> i can't turn up c02 more. my fishies are at the point where i can't tuirn it up more they are very lazy as it is while its on.
> i've compared my tank pictures with other peoples and i for sure have less light than most people that have beautiful red plants.. my plants turned red when i first got the new light and hung it 3 inches over the tank (19 inches over substrate). now at 34 inches above substrate. no red. AND BBA i cannot get rid of it. i dose EI full on. extra micros. extra iron
> 
> needless to say im curious where this more light thread is going because im tried and true. c02 plus low light and good ferilizers equals good plant growth. my old batch of macranda started wilting when i moved lights away. ludwig glandulosa is pinkish barely. mostly green
> i even fert the substrate





HD Blazingwolf said:


> i'm curious as to why you say down. from what i've gathered more light means more c02 is needed
> 
> Elaborate please!!


I recommended a gradual reduction in co2 because co2 is really just another nutrient. If you want to reduce nutrients, but keep the system in balance, I therefore think its wise to cut everything down including co2.

What type of filtration does your tank have and what is the stocking like? Would you say it's overstocked for a high tech planted tank? What types of plants do you have? I've always felt EI is really only suited to a tank packed with fast growers. 

I would definitely recommend cutting down the micros and fe to normal levels. You'll probably also want to get a bottle of excel to knock out the bba.


----------



## Craigthor

Would love some ideas for doing this with my tank... Here is what I currently have going on:

150g 72x18x30
2 Eheim 2262
2- Hydor 200 watt inline heater
2- AP.com Carbon Doser EXT5000 CO2 reactors
Dual SS Dual Stage CO2 regulator attached to a 20 lb tank
4- Hydor Koralia 1s hooked to a Hydor wavemaker

3- 150 watt Coralife Aqualight advance fixtures with ADA green bulbs 11 am- 5 pm
3- T5NO Coralife Freshwater fixtures 7 am- 9 pm

ADA Amazonia Substrate
Currently EI dosing

Craig


----------



## happi

i have tried many methods of EI dosing, sometime plants suddenly did well and then suddenly really bad, i always kept my EI dosing at a higher levels. i never really tried or kept the dosing at lower levels, because i was suggested that keeping the excess nutrients will only benefits the plants, but i no longer agree with this. i still suffer from algae problems, co2 is very high, nutrients are non limited. then where the H*** this algae is coming from and why plants are not doing so well. my foreground plants suffered the most during this time while stem plants were ok. 

i am going to test your method and i have a feeling that it wont let me down this time. i have a story to tell which was cut off by many people arguing with me, just like they are arguing with you now.

if i remember correctly, i was gone for 3 days without dosing the tank and it was only dosed for the first 2 days, first day 8ppm N, 10ppm k, 1ppm P and 2nd day csm+b and when i came back home after 3 days i looked at the ludwigia pantal and it was nice red and looked like it was grown about 3" just in 3 days. but now days not so great because nutrients are 3 times more stronger. 

i am going to do a big water change and see how this works out for me.


----------



## snausage

Craigthor said:


> Would love some ideas for doing this with my tank... Here is what I currently have going on:
> 
> 150g 72x18x30
> 2 Eheim 2262
> 2- Hydor 200 watt inline heater
> 2- AP.com Carbon Doser EXT5000 CO2 reactors
> Dual SS Dual Stage CO2 regulator attached to a 20 lb tank
> 4- Hydor Koralia 1s hooked to a Hydor wavemaker
> 
> 3- 150 watt Coralife Aqualight advance fixtures with ADA green bulbs 11 am- 5 pm
> 3- T5NO Coralife Freshwater fixtures 7 am- 9 pm
> 
> ADA Amazonia Substrate
> Currently EI dosing
> 
> Craig


I just skimmed through the last 10 pages of your journal..... I'm guessing you're the type of person who isn't into moderation 

I'm curious why you're looking for an alternative to EI, since you don't seem to mention any issues in your thread.

I would suggest you bring your nute levels down to what happi suggested below: NO3 10 ppm; PO4 1 ppm; K 10+ ppm; Fe 0.5 ppm


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> i have tried many methods of EI dosing, sometime plants suddenly did well and then suddenly really bad, i always kept my EI dosing at a higher levels. i never really tried or kept the dosing at lower levels, because i was suggested that keeping the excess nutrients will only benefits the plants, but i no longer agree with this. i still suffer from algae problems, co2 is very high, nutrients are non limited. then where the H*** this algae is coming from and why plants are not doing so well. my foreground plants suffered the most during this time while stem plants were ok.
> 
> i am going to test your method and i have a feeling that it wont let me down this time. i have a story to tell which was cut off by many people arguing with me, just like they are arguing with you now.
> 
> if i remember correctly, i was gone for 3 days without dosing the tank and it was only dosed for the first 2 days, first day 8ppm N, 10ppm k, 1ppm P and 2nd day csm+b and when i came back home after 3 days i looked at the ludwigia pantal and it was nice red and looked like it was grown about 3" just in 3 days. but now days not so great because nutrients are 3 times more stronger.
> 
> i am going to do a big water change and see how this works out for me.


I had a very similar experience with my first 'real planted tank.' The consensus on the forums was: dose according to EI, set your co2 to the max, use low-moderate lighting, and do weekly 50+% water changes. This worked well until I started trying more demanding plants. I think l. glandulosa and r. wallichi were the first stems that always looked like crap and got me thinking about doing this differently.

Long story short, I realized that the best looking tanks in the AGA competition used extremely high light but only dosed K and traces. That's basically what formulated my current approach and the Kasselmann book provided the raw data that backed it up.


----------



## Dempsey

Not joking man. I am excited about this. I am going to keep my journal updated also. There are a whole lot of other folks interested in this also.

I think this is great really. I know it's not anything new... But lots of folks, including myself, have found a method that worked and stuck with it.

If I can get these plants to grow the way I think they could or the way my special plants grew indoors under HPS lights, you have no idea how happy I will be.:icon_smil


----------



## happi

snausage

i have 50g 2x54 t5ho or i can switch to 4x65w Pc lights, right now the tank is lit by 2x54w t5ho and i just did the 75% ro/di 25% tap water change. dosed 1/2 tsp of K and N, half of 1/8 tsp of p, 3tsp of Mg sulfate, this will be done 1x a week and i wasn't clear on the Fe part. how much csm+b should i dose? 

i just want to make sure i do this correct. 1/4 tsp csm+b 2x week along with 1/8 DTPA 11% 2x week. correct me if am wrong.


----------



## astrosag

So Snausage, what would you recommend for my tank ....

2 X 24W PC 6500K at about 24" above substrate
20G
Eco-complete + root tabs
I dose excel (irregularly - recommended dosage), Flourish Comprehensive 2x a week (recommended dosage)
50% water change
No CO2 (and I'd like to keep it that way for now)

Things like the wisteria are growing well but it does have brown spots on some of the leaves - not sure if its nutrient related - however other leaves are bright green and spotless. I'd like to see more growth in my crypt parva and bronze wendtti. I have issues with green spotted algae on my glass but its nothing I can't handle. Should I be doing more?


----------



## happi

astrosag said:


> So Snausage, what would you recommend for my tank ....
> 
> 2 X 24W PC 6500K at about 24" above substrate
> 20G
> Eco-complete + root tabs
> I dose excel (irregularly - recommended dosage), Flourish Comprehensive 2x a week (recommended dosage)
> 50% water change
> No CO2 (and I'd like to keep it that way for now)
> 
> Things like the wisteria are growing well (but they always do). I'd like to see more growth in my crypt parva and bronze wendtti. I have issues with green spotted algae on my glass but its nothing I can't handle. Should I be doing more?



i think he already said once a week for:

N 10ppm
P 1ppm
K 10ppm+ 

Traces (i would guess 2-3x week)


----------



## Craigthor

snausage said:


> I just skimmed through the last 10 pages of your journal..... I'm guessing you're the type of person who isn't into moderation
> 
> I'm curious why you're looking for an alternative to EI, since you don't seem to mention any issues in your thread.
> 
> I would suggest you bring your nute levels down to what happi suggested below: NO3 10 ppm; PO4 1 ppm; K 10+ ppm; Fe 0.5 ppm


Always looking to try something new and if it can provide less labor in the process well as the old saying goes... work smarter not harder.

Mostly i have never known anything but EI but if I can get superb growth out of less well.......


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Sttockinng is welll within reason. 9 neons, one anngel, 6 ottos. Sunsun 402b, koralia nanoo 425. Lighting tek 24 inch 4 bulb running 2 34inch over substrate. Bulbs are geisemann midday and aqquaflora (the roseate bulb) photoperiod is 9-1/2 hours. C02 is 13 hours.

mostly stem plants
lu repens, lud glandulosa, bacopa carolina, hygro difformis, pogostomon yatabensis, lud rubin, blyxa japonica, crypt wendtii / sp red oh and rotala macranda
substrate is layered with laterite, peat, soil, capped with 2 inches of flourite black


----------



## Dempsey

zergling said:


> Clint, sorry, wrong description of the reflectors. I know they're individual, but the reflectors are basically like this -- /\ right? Or do they now put parabolic reflectors like in the TEK?
> 
> Anywho, your tank looks very nice already. So if the [N-limitation -> more reds] holds true for your tank, then you should see much more reds soon.
> 
> I've seen this in my own tank with rotalas, but not dosing / reducing nitrates leads to diatoms in my tanks. So I just place rotalas in a spot where they're allowed to grow tall and get more PAR, and get redder.
> 
> Of course, folks will argue that N-limitation induced reds on plants = stressed plants......that's the part I'll leave alone LOL!


Sorry, I missed this. They aren't quite like /\ this... They are more curved. I am trying to get a close up pic of the TEK to compare but can't find a good pic.


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> snausage
> 
> i have 50g 2x54 t5ho or i can switch to 4x65w Pc lights, right now the tank is lit by 2x54w t5ho and i just did the 75% ro/di 25% tap water change. dosed 1/2 tsp of K and N, half of 1/8 tsp of p, 3tsp of Mg sulfate, this will be done 1x a week and i wasn't clear on the Fe part. how much csm+b should i dose?
> 
> i just want to make sure i do this correct. 1/4 tsp csm+b 2x week along with 1/8 DTPA 11% 2x week. correct me if am wrong.


I would just stick with the t5ho lighting.

I've never used csm+b so I don't know the concentrations/dosing. Just make sure you don't overboard with the the Fe.


----------



## snausage

astrosag said:


> So Snausage, what would you recommend for my tank ....
> 
> 2 X 24W PC 6500K at about 24" above substrate
> 20G
> Eco-complete + root tabs
> I dose excel (irregularly - recommended dosage), Flourish Comprehensive 2x a week (recommended dosage)
> 50% water change
> No CO2 (and I'd like to keep it that way for now)
> 
> Things like the wisteria are growing well but it does have brown spots on some of the leaves - not sure if its nutrient related - however other leaves are bright green and spotless. I'd like to see more growth in my crypt parva and bronze wendtti. I have issues with green spotted algae on my glass but its nothing I can't handle. Should I be doing more?


Bring the lights lights down and try to dose excel on a regular schedule. I would recommend od'ing the excel, but I'm really not that familiar with it and it could probably get pricey after a while.


----------



## snausage

HD Blazingwolf said:


> Sttockinng is welll within reason. 9 neons, one anngel, 6 ottos. Sunsun 402b, koralia nanoo 425. Lighting tek 24 inch 4 bulb running 2 34inch over substrate. Bulbs are geisemann midday and aqquaflora (the roseate bulb) photoperiod is 9-1/2 hours. C02 is 13 hours.
> 
> mostly stem plants
> lu repens, lud glandulosa, bacopa carolina, hygro difformis, pogostomon yatabensis, lud rubin, blyxa japonica, crypt wendtii / sp red oh and rotala macranda
> substrate is layered with laterite, peat, soil, capped with 2 inches of flourite black


Definitely need to bring the lights down. I've got 3 24 watt t5 ho tubes approx 20" or less from the substrate in my 25 high. I think I might even have the same light fixture as you. Just make sure the crypts are well shaded by the stems or you might get a bit of rot.


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> i think he already said once a week for:
> 
> N 10ppm
> P 1ppm
> K 10ppm+
> 
> Traces (i would guess 2-3x week)


I personally use:

N 8ppm
P ~0.5-0.75ppm
K ~12ppm

Traces are via TPN, which I never seem to dose on a regular schedule.

Water change is 50% ever 2-3 weeks.

I've been on this routine since the beginning of September and its been great.


----------



## happi

snausage said:


> I personally use:
> 
> N 8ppm
> P ~0.5-0.75ppm
> K ~12ppm
> 
> Traces are via TPN, which I never seem to dose on a regular schedule.
> 
> Water change is 50% ever 2-3 weeks.
> 
> I've been on this routine since the beginning of September and its been great.



thanks bro

its day 2 today for me and we will see how the things will turn out to be.


----------



## Craigthor

snausage said:


> I personally use:
> 
> N 8ppm
> P ~0.5-0.75ppm
> K ~12ppm
> 
> Traces are via TPN, which I never seem to dose on a regular schedule.
> 
> Water change is 50% ever 2-3 weeks.
> 
> I've been on this routine since the beginning of September and its been great.


Is this your total dose and how often do you dose it?

Craig


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

So for my 29 high. Im going to drop lights 14 inches. Should i turn on more bulbs? Follow ur dosing and turn down c02 probably? What should be my target area?


----------



## darkoon

plantbrain said:


> All my tanks are low light already
> 
> With less light, we also have less algae and CO2/fert levels are easier to target, and if anything does go wrong, you have a lot more time to respond and catch the error vs high light.


Tom, since you have low light, have you tried dosing 1/2 or 1/4 of what you're currently dosing? if so, did you run into any fert deficiencies? 

i tried both pps and EI, can't really tell the difference in terms of plant growth and colorization, then i down graded from T5HO to T8, i cut down ferts to probably 1/8 of EI if not less, the plants are still doing well.


----------



## plantbrain

darkoon said:


> Tom, since you have low light, have you tried dosing 1/2 or 1/4 of what you're currently dosing? if so, did you run into any fert deficiencies?
> 
> i tried both pps and EI, can't really tell the difference in terms of plant growth and colorization, then i down graded from T5HO to T8, i cut down ferts to probably 1/8 of EI if not less, the plants are still doing well.


I get more GSA with less. Each tank will pull out a diffetrent ppm per day/week etc. Could be due to denitrification, could be due to some specific species.......could be due to the neglect, could be due to poor CO2 or circulation from clogged filters, many things can reduce the uptake.

EI is, by design, an upper bound. So dosing less than EI and having no net impact is going to occur plenty. This will also occur plenty and even more so if you also have rich sediments as a source.

Why not dose and have less rich sediments?

Why such a heavy concern, I shall call it outright FEAR over the water column? I've never understood that aspect. There's no risk in the sediment nor the water column if the ferts are high.
*
However, there is also no need to lard it on if you have reduced slowly from a non limiting assumption like EI to hit a nice lower dosing.*

I've never said anyone should and must do that(lard it on regardless), only that there is no risk in doing so. There is a HUGE difference between what I've actually stated and what other myths are being implied.

PMDD did fine for many folks and still does. the levels are clearly the same targets as PSS or lower EI. EI came directly from PMDD and was modified to target most any tank regardless of light and plant species types.
Rather than starting too lean and moving up, it started high and could be reduced to suit.

This way you have the optimal reference before settling on what unique dosing range you desire. Then if less water changes are your thing, you can extend that frequency and %.

I dose roughly 40ppm of NO3 per week, this is to target about 20ppm in my tanks. ADA's data suggest that plants take up to 15ppm of NO3 per day.
The highest I've ever measured is 8ppm only after a particularly N stressed tank was dosed after a week of being "hungry". 4ppm daily or so might be a high average, but I also have a fair amount of fish and feed them also.
3-4ppm is more typical of a stemy planted tank with good light, CO2.

So some NH4 is entering in this. Still, 20ppm a week is roughly the uptake and maintenance range for me. Big water change knocks this down to 10ppm or a little less, then I add 15ppm of so, and end up with 20-25ppm after the water change day. 

The plants also adapt to lower, or higher levels depending on the concentration, so at 20ppm, they use less energy uptake transporters than they do at say 2 ppm of NO3 or at 0.2ppm etc. Maintaining 2ppm or 0.2ppm becomes much tougher than maintaining say 20-30ppm...........

Daily dosing can maintain a closer tolerance..........if you so chose to do so. Divide the dose for the week by 7 instead of 3 etc. Hardly that big of a deal.

You can also chose to do 2-3-7x a week water changes also. Automated water changes allows this to be done easily. Then you can get much tighter ranges and automated dosing etc.

I'm not sure why so many assume EI or any dosing method need be so darn rigid It's not and that's no surprise.

As far as color, I've done the lean dosing, we all did in the late 1990's and not just me, most folks did. We were all very fearful of higher ppm's and the nice tank would end an algae farm. Fe, NO3, maybe NH4, K+ was given free reign(we added mad amounts), PO4 of course..........CO2 and light also made huge changes during that time.

We spent a lot of time wondering about color aesthetics, I suggested the lower N, caused stress and less Chl a which is high in N, thereby unmasking all the nice red we wanted. But.........I'm less sure about that these days. I've manged to do so without the higher light and without the leaner ferts. I also increased the rate of growth, which is likely what is unmasking the red nicely at higher ppm's.the rate of growth is faster...so the expression of the red is more pronounced, even though the NO3 are higher and non stressful.

Could be, not sure.

Many stated that higher NO3 would induce less red. I made this hypothesis myself what? 10-12 years ago. I falsified it. I also had little color change and was able to cultivate plants with nice red color without going to leaner lower levels. 

I think folks should honestly explore both ends of a range, not just one that suits their own assumption, rather, challenge their own assumptions and see if they are true or not.

I think you will find a very wide range if you do. Like the non CO2 method I suggest to many folks, it's 10X less than EI, or more.........but I still add the same things.

CO2 is a huge issue however, light also, I'm not sure about spectrum, but there's some evidence that different bulbs pull out some tastier reds, even at the SAME PAR.

A bad assumption is that 30ppm is suitable for all plants regardless of light. Mine run 45ppm, 55ppm and 70ppm, 50-233% more than the typical non limiting assumption/advice for CO2. That's a lot more. Each tank will also have a unique CO2 demand and optima.

This is also done in the same manner as ferts, you start high as you think, and it's often higher than 30ppm.........but not always.
Then taper off till you see a negative impact after 1-2 weeks at the "new" range.

Again, we use the plants/algae etc as our test kit.

Now we can test the light. With a light meter and a suspension light, we can adjust up/down the light from there.

Same thing again.

Now you have run the entire range of light, CO2, ferts and location of ferts.

For most folks having troubles, algae, or management, lower light, better CO2 typically fixes most issues. Good care like filter cleaning, water changes etc. EI will never fix those nor will ANY dosing method.


----------



## snausage

Craigthor said:


> Is this your total dose and how often do you dose it?
> 
> Craig


Those are the approximate weekly targets. The macros are generally split in half and dosed 2x weekly.


----------



## snausage

HD Blazingwolf said:


> So for my 29 high. Im going to drop lights 14 inches. Should i turn on more bulbs? Follow ur dosing and turn down c02 probably? What should be my target area?


Just stick with running 2 bulbs for now until you get comfortable with your new routine. I feel like co2 is impossible to accurately measure, so just bump it down a bit and see what happens. As far as weekly targets, you should probably start with the 10-1-10.

The biggest thing is observing your tank; make sure you write down the changes your making, note your daily doses, check the health of the plants, etc.


----------



## Dempsey

snausage said:


> Those are the approximate weekly targets. The macros are generally split in half and dosed 2x weekly.


Ohh, good to know. I will start that this Sunday. As for now, I added all Macro's last Sunday... Either way, noticing some awesome changes and I still haven't had to clean the glass!


----------



## happi

Adam you said to add more P if gsa start to appear, gsa use to appear in my tank even when i was dosing 4+ppm of P per week.


----------



## happi

Clint, i agree with you about the glass still being algae free, mine looks the same as well. my glass would cover with algae within 2 days normally. ludwigia pantal was showing great improvement as well.


----------



## JoraaÑ

Interesting reading here....


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Dempsey said:


> Ohh, good to know. I will start that this Sunday. As for now, I added all Macro's last Sunday... Either way, noticing some awesome changes and I still haven't had to clean the glass!


 
I'VE NEVER not noticed awesome new growth under high light situations. beautiful colors and fast plant growth. HOWEVER. what i have noticed is that old leaves get bba on them and turn mushy
then when u trim, those old leaves that got less light get even more bba and so on.. that's going to be the real test for me


----------



## Jeff5614

happi said:


> Clint, i agree with you about the glass still being algae free, mine looks the same as well. my glass would cover with algae within 2 days normally. ludwigia pantal was showing great improvement as well.


Happi,

You might find Frank's thread interesting. Especially posts 9 and 13.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals-photo-album/155525-ada-adg-gallery-journal.html


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> Adam you said to add more P if gsa start to appear, gsa use to appear in my tank even when i was dosing 4+ppm of P per week.


IMO, gsa appears as the result of too much N relative to P. That's why I recommend dosing a little extra P in response to GSA.


----------



## Dempsey

Okay, so here will be my macro dose.

1000ml bottle

8tsp KNO4
1/2tsp KH2PO4

60ml doses 2x/week

The doses come out to:
1/2tsp KNO3
1/32 KH2PO4
per dose.

I will also be adding 1tsp of GH Booster after the water change.

How does that sound?


----------



## plantbrain

I have not cleaned my 180 Gal tank's glass for months often times, I dose 15ppm NO3 and 5ppm PO4, 3x a week. Even then, it's more just a habit to keep on top of having a clean tank.
The same treatment is done on the 120 Gal. 2x vs 3x a week likely will make little difference to my tanks also, as this is happened.
But it also never caused any algae issues either. I agree with Frank's assessment. GSA has long been linked to CO2 and PO4, not just PO4 or some ratio.
None of my tanks have any issues with GSA or GDA or any algae for that matter.

for any of you who think I have not suggested less in the past or have not had experiences with it, I refer to an article I wrote 15 years ago when everyone dosed less.
http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html

5-10ppm for NO3
0.2-0.5ppm for PO4

http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html

Worked well also.










Cuba from a richer dosing tank:









but higher lighting..........

More light= more CO2= more ferts.
Less light= less CO2= less ferts.

That's the so called "balance".


----------



## Storm

happi said:


> if i remember correctly, i was gone for 3 days without dosing the tank and it was only dosed for the first 2 days, first day 8ppm N, 10ppm k, 1ppm P and 2nd day csm+b and when i came back home after 3 days i looked at the ludwigia pantal and it was nice red and looked like it was grown about 3" just in 3 days. but now days not so great because nutrients are 3 times more stronger.


A lot of red colored plants will lose their color if there is an excess of nitrates in the water column. If you're having trouble keeping color in your plants, try reducing N and see if that helps. If you're keeping fish as well you might not even need to dose N.


----------



## Dempsey

Little update. I am going to be trimming today. Should have done it yesterday but didn't have enough time... So.... I will have a package to sell later today. Here are some quick pics.


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> I have not cleaned my 180 Gal tank's glass for months often times, I dose 15ppm NO3 and 5ppm PO4, 3x a week. Even then, it's more just a habit to keep on top of having a clean tank.
> The same treatment is done on the 120 Gal. 2x vs 3x a week likely will make little difference to my tanks also, as this is happened.
> But it also never caused any algae issues either. I agree with Frank's assessment. GSA has long been linked to CO2 and PO4, not just PO4 or some ratio.
> None of my tanks have any issues with GSA or GDA or any algae for that matter.
> 
> for any of you who think I have not suggested less in the past or have not had experiences with it, I refer to an article I wrote 15 years ago when everyone dosed less.
> http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html
> 
> 5-10ppm for NO3
> 0.2-0.5ppm for PO4
> 
> http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html
> 
> Worked well also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba from a richer dosing tank:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but higher lighting..........
> 
> More light= more CO2= more ferts.
> Less light= less CO2= less ferts.
> 
> That's the so called "balance".


 
For me, this is trial and error. Of course it's easy to just read about this or that and say "yes, I understand" but to try it, that's a different story. You have always been one to say "try it". I know this is because most people learn by trial and error. This also helps the person to better understand why they are dosing this or that, what works better, what makes the plants melt, etc...

One thing that has always been in the back of my head was the results from growing terrestrial plants under high light vs. low light.

They would always be leggy and just shoot for the sky under low light. Once they had hight light, they grew thick slow and healthy, not trying to reach for the sky.

I am not sure if this is an even comparison between aquatic and non but, this has always made me think.

One thing that I have noticed and you have said this too. In high light, things happen fast. If you are lacking this or that, it shows. If you have too much of this or that and not enough "this" it shows.

For aquatic, this brings us to CO2. The beast. This is truly the hardest to master. This, IMO takes a long time. I still have yet to conquer this.

This being said, EI has been nothing but awesome to my tanks. I am still using it on my low tech tanks.

Maybe, hight light might be good for folks new to the hobby, hear me out...

With hight lights, you add this or that, you see results in 1-2 days. With low lights, it could take 1-2 weeks. Of course this is much more wiggle room but I don't want to wait a week or two. :hihi:

IMO, at least with me, I want to see fast results. This helps me learn. I know that you never said not to do this. You are just trying to help people realize what you have years ago. One day I am hoping to get to where you are now.

Now, this is just a thought but a thought out one. Maybe EI isn't for beginners. Maybe it is for folks who have mastered CO2 already. Maybe folks should have high light and dose low to see what makes the impacts. I know for me, seeing is believing. Easier to learn when it's in your face.

I know that nothing I have just said, you haven't said before. Maybe some new folks to this hobby need to see what 1ppm of PO4 does vs. 4ppm for plants. 

I hope this makes sence.


----------



## willknowitall

[QUOTE=plantbrain;

A bad assumption is that 30ppm is suitable for all plants regardless of light. Mine run 45ppm, 55ppm and 70ppm, 50-233% more than the typical non limiting assumption/advice for CO2. That's a lot more. Each tank will also have a unique CO2 demand and optima.

tom ,what is the ph of your tank water when you have 55ppm , 70ppm co2
i would assume its very low, you have no issues with nitrifying 
bacteria and or any effect from the toxic ammonia form , due to ph fluctuation at night when co2 is off


----------



## happi

Clint, your Cuba looks nice, keep us update with everyday results, please take a look at foreground plants as well to see how they are doing with this new dosing method. 

good luck


----------



## Francis Xavier

Just for the record - the effect co2 has on pH is kind of like a 'pretend,' pH swing. It effects fish health for sure - but for plants and water parameters and beneficial bacteria it has little effect. At least not insofar as my observation has been: and I focus a lot on the bacteria base of an aquarium.

There's a huge difference on low pH as a result of co2 injection and low pH as a result of tannins or decaying organic matter (acidic) water. 

Really, the negative effect on biological and organisms from too much co2 injection is a lack of oxygen and death via asphyxiation, which happens in small / microscopic organisms the same it does in animals, etc.

This means that the precise co2 chart isn't exactly the most accurate thing on the planet, it's a good general guideline (as most things are in this hobby, it's hard to be exactly precise for every condition, if not impossible). 

What it does mean is that you need to learn how to balance co2 injection with plant and fish response. The maximum co2 you can inject is different based on plants (and their absorbtion rate (of light, water parameters, nutrients, growth rate etc), if they are properly intaking co2, then they are releasing an approximate amount of oxygen into the water as a result of photosynthesis, which keeps fish and beneficial bacteria in balance, however this can't be supported at night without lights on, so oxygen is then supplemented for cellular respiration and produces co2, which is why co2 is so harmful at night and oxygen so beneficial on the whole ecosystem.

Which means that healthier plants in softer / more neutral / stable water, with the appropriate lighting will consequently absorb more co2 than plants which are not healthy and in hard water that clogs the cell pores of plants and limits their ability to absorb co2 and nutrients. 

It's all a very beautiful cycle really, once you can start wrapping your head around it, the more you'll be able to read into one organism acting one way being an indication to increase or decrease the other variables and to balance the equation out, in such imprecise terms.

It's not about high nutrients or low nutrients being better or worse - it's just about finding the right combination per each planted aquarium, which is always going to be a little bit different than the one next to it based on light periods (age of light bulb), exact water parameters, volume of water, types of plants in the aquarium, type of fish, volume of fish, so on and so forth. Which means it's a lot of adjustment!


----------



## Hoppy

Hard water clogs the plant's cell pores? I don't recall hearing or reading that before. At what hardness level does this occur?


----------



## Francis Xavier

It's more common knowledge in agricultural circles for gardens, etc. But essentially harder water leaves behind calcium carbonate and salts that build up over time and decrease the plant's ability to take up nutrients.

It also has this effect on the substrate itself - over time even Aqua soil can calcify and become useless due to excessively hard water concentrations. 

Basically pH's 8 and over are the worst off and you're much better off using RODI at that point. Anything over 7.5 is a bit rough and you're basically adding another layer of challenge to your growing.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

REALLY? so assuming the worst. susbtrate is calcified. plants are calcified. is it possible to reverse this. plants im sure can handle themselves if conditions changes. however what do you do about the substrate? change it? add lots of peat to ur filter for the next few months?


----------



## Hoppy

Francis Xavier said:


> It's more common knowledge in agricultural circles for gardens, etc. But essentially harder water leaves behind calcium carbonate and salts that build up over time and decrease the plant's ability to take up nutrients.
> 
> It also has this effect on the substrate itself - over time even Aqua soil can calcify and become useless due to excessively hard water concentrations.
> 
> Basically pH's 8 and over are the worst off and you're much better off using RODI at that point. Anything over 7.5 is a bit rough and you're basically adding another layer of challenge to your growing.


But, in agricultural circles the plants are terrestrial, growing in air, not water. Their roots are always in hard water, unless the soil is very rich in humus, like peat based soils. It is easy to see how calcification or salt buildup could occur in plant tissue above ground in the air, but I wonder about how it could occur in aquatic plants. Do you know of anything I could read to learn more about this - not extremely technical, of course?


----------



## Dempsey

happi said:


> Clint, your Cuba looks nice, keep us update with everyday results, please take a look at foreground plants as well to see how they are doing with this new dosing method.
> 
> good luck


Will do! I am actually going to be pulling the MM out. It spreads way to fast and goes in every direction. I am thinking about trying HC again now that I removed the kribs. They ate all plants. The would always uproot the HC in the past.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

MM? i love candy. do share


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> MM? i love candy. do share


haha Marsilea Minuta.

Pics coming shortly.


----------



## Dempsey

Here is a pic as of this afternoon. I trimmed everything down yesterday. Now I would like to see how the plants grow from the ground up.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

i can't remember. did you drop the lights or did you just turn 2 more on?


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> i can't remember. did you drop the lights or did you just turn 2 more on?


 
I dropped the lights to 10" above the tank. I think I had them at 25" before? 25-30". Somewhere around there. Still just running 4 bulbs.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

that's rediculous! im at 34 over substrate which is 18 over the top of tank. when i had close to 10 over tank.. all i had was problems. so far so good but now the trim is what im really after

i wanna see how things grow now


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> that's rediculous! im at 34 over substrate which is 18 over the top of tank. when i had close to 10 over tank.. all i had was problems. *so far so good but now the trim is what im really after*
> 
> i wanna see how things grow now


Yeah, it is still a little scary. So far so good though.

With the lights 10" about the tank, they are about 27-28" from the substrate.

The trim?


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

yeah u said u were doing a huge trim. i wanna see how the new growth looks


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> yeah u said u were doing a huge trim. i wanna see how the new growth looks


 
Ohhh, Gotcha. Me too.


----------



## happi

Adam,

what level the Mg and Ca should be when dosing your method? i thought no one had said anything about it. normally EI said 7ppm of Mg and 30ppm of Ca, if i remember correctly.


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> Adam,
> 
> what level the Mg and Ca should be when dosing your method? i thought no one had said anything about it. normally EI said 7ppm of Mg and 30ppm of Ca, if i remember correctly.


Ca and Mg levels are totally dependent on your plants and the values in your tap water. 

My tap water is quite soft: ~3 dgH and ~1dkH. For my tank with soft water loving plants, I don't add any Ca or Mg. For tanks with hard water crypts, downoi, etc I increase the gH to approximately 10dgH.

I would say 5-8dgH is a good universal range.


----------



## darkoon

hmmm.. didn't know downoi likes hard water, they seem to thrive in my soft water tank.


----------



## Gatekeeper

plantbrain said:


> Research that is more specific and refutes that algae or poor plant growth occurs at higher N and P:
> 
> http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAM...macrophyte.pdf


This is not 100% accurate Tom. Read the abstract again. There is one snag in their findings here which I don't think you will disagree with, but it should be clarified.



> It was only at the highest levels of nutrient concentrations that submersed macrophytes were predictably absent and the lakes were algal dominated.


I didn't look to see what the "highest levels" were, but its evident that there seems to be a breaking point based on this research.

However, reading further....



> The phosphorus–chlorophyll and phosphorus–Secchi depth relationships were not influenced by the amounts of aquatic vegetation present indicating that the role of macrophytes in clearing lakes may be primarily to reduce nutrient concentrations for a given level of loading. Rather than nutrient concentrations controlling macrophyte abundance, it seems that macrophytes acted to modify nutrient concentrations.


Breaking into this language, it would appear that the plants help "offset" trophic conditions of waters for the most part. With this understanding, it clearly shows that a controlled and balanced "EI" dosing regime can be sustained, as long as levels do not reach the "high point".

However.... I don't like that they keep refering to secchi depth and its correlation. Turbidity can be caused by too many variables, water flow and velocity, suspended soil particles (which can vary from lake to lake), etc. however, if it transports a nutrient loading into water column, then it could be a significant variable.

In addition.... 


> In going from macrophyte-dominated to algaldominated lakes, there was an increase in average values for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and chlorophyll, with a decrease in average Secchi disk depth.


Then of course this is all bunked by this lovely statement:


> We did not find submersed plants in 85 of the lakes we sampled, many of which had been stocked with herbivorous grass carp.


How the heck can you do case study on plant growth and algae comparison when one of the parts of the study is subject to volatile consumption???

I also don't like that no evaulation was provided for water temperature and its potential cause and effect of these measured values.

This is decent research, but I am not sure the case study is something I would hang my hat on, but its a decent launching point.


----------



## happi

any update on this thread?

here is my quick update:

plants seems to show more red color than before, however the growth is bit slower. plants looks algae free with more leaves on the stems.


----------



## Dempsey

happi said:


> any update on this thread?
> 
> here is my quick update:
> 
> plants seems to show more red color than before, however the growth is bit slower. plants looks algae free with more leaves on the stems.


I will post an update later tonight. But you update sounds just like mine.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Well instead of lowering lights. Of kept c02 the same reduced ferts and added a noonday burst of 4 bulbs instead of 10 hours of 2 bulb only. Equally. More reds. Glass algae happpening. New leaves are healthy but some of my less weedy plants do show some signs off bba


----------



## Dempsey

Here are some pics I took real quick. Don't have too much time tonight but hopefully tomorrow I can get some nice shots.


----------



## plantbrain

Keep in mind simply lowering the lights/increasing intensity, independent of the dosing, will increase growth and coloration.

I have consistently seem more glass algae with higher intensities.
With less light, virtually none.

Now some folks do not mind cleaning glass, others hate it. I do not mind if the tank demands it and it looks good. But there's a very strong link with glass algae and more light, give it time, you will see.


----------



## plantbrain

Gatekeeper said:


> This is not 100% accurate Tom. Read the abstract again. There is one snag in their findings here which I don't think you will disagree with, but it should be clarified. I didn't look to see what the "highest levels" were, but its evident that there seems to be a breaking point based on this research.
> However, reading further....
> Breaking into this language, it would appear that the plants help "offset" trophic conditions of waters for the most part. With this understanding, it clearly shows that a controlled and balanced "EI" dosing regime can be sustained, as long as levels do not reach the "high point".


So what is that high point?
Any ideas? What would you look for in the plant tissues to suggest this range has been reached?

I bet you a nickel not one person in this hobby has EVER stated a simple method to address that question. I'll give you a hint at the end and see what you think.

[/quote]
However.... I don't like that they keep refering to secchi depth and its correlation. Turbidity can be caused by too many variables, water flow and velocity, suspended soil particles (which can vary from lake to lake), etc. however, if it transports a nutrient loading into water column, then it could be a significant variable.
[/quote]

Since we also do not measure this, but we do measure epiphytic algae, as they did as well............that gets around that issue.

Phytoplankton can be strained and measured quantitatively for each lake, but it time of day dependent and depth dependent etc.

It's a lot more work, and I understand why such issues where not addressed, the paper does not seek to answer all questions about EVERYTHING, rather a limited scope, like any paper. Then the questions that are brought up, are another paper... some other day.



> Then of course this is all bunked by this lovely statement:
> How the heck can you do case study on plant growth and algae comparison when one of the parts of the study is subject to volatile consumption???
> 
> I also don't like that no evaulation was provided for water temperature and its potential cause and effect of these measured values.
> 
> This is decent research, but I am not sure the case study is something I would hang my hat on, but its a decent launching point.


And you have something better than is more applicable or something?
The authors (all of them), were very matter of fact, if you add more N and P, you just get MORE weeds growing, not algae if the system is 50% or more coverage. I asked them in person.

I can criticize any paper, but at some point you have to say I buy their results and while not 100%, I'm okay with it. I've dosed ferts to Hydrilla in outdoor tubs and many other species. Stuff grows like mad. I used shade cloth to control the light intensity,m every case they do far better with 5% shade cloth, not full sun or 50% shade cloth etc. 

Water temp and day length are both drivers, but at some point, you have fish or cut bait. Bottom line was there was little correlation between algae and aquatic plants based on N and P. Generaizing about how higher nutrients are bad is is not supported by this paper which looked at plants and algae(plankton and epipthyic) and where plants are present in high densities(30-50% or more coverage)

Unlike some papers which did not account for the P and N contained in the plants(eg Philips et al, 1978), this paper did. If you take Philips et al's results and include the plant's P content like they did for plankton, then there is no longer correlation, it's not just this one paper, there are several.
But there is limited research done on this topic really, and most of it is done in Florida.

You may also refer to older classic studies such Gerloff and a one young(at the time) Paul Krombhloz.

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

They used about 1/5th of Hoalgland's solution, which........at 210 ppm for most modified versions is roughly 40ppm.

You can see clearly.that the plants still grow and do pretty good at 2,4, 10, and 21 ppm of N, we still need to convert to NO3.

You can see that beyond 21 ppm, the % in the tissue starts to build up, this suggest that the plant is using NO3 as a osmoregulator rather than for growth, in other words, too much salt in the solution, so it's using it to prevent stress.

Still, that's pretty juicy NO3 levels.
Much less than I suggest.
Still, I've yet to find any upper bound for NO3 and PO4.
I've dumped a lot into tanks as errors as have many others, no dead fish or shrimp, no algae, not dead or harmed plants.

I've asked some of the same questions aquarist ask these old greybreads and gals, about all I could get out was that the plants compete with algae for light.

For ferts/CO2, the algae have an order or two of magnitude less demand, and almost never limited where plants also exist. Plants define the system, not the ferts. I really do not think there's wide spread evidence to the contrary.

My 120 gal has virtually no algae, herbivores and good care, but the ferts are juicy in the water and the sediment.

CO2 is good and stable, so is O2, light is moderate and I recently added more to see.

Like all the past examples, I have more glass algae. Prior, virtually none.

Can I simply clean the the glass more? Sure.
Can I simply add less ferts, sure, but I still get more algae either way with more light.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

plantbrain said:


> You can see that beyond 21 ppm, the % in the tissue starts to build up, this suggest that the plant is using NO3 as a osmoregulator rather than for growth, in other words, too much salt in the solution, so it's using it to prevent stress.
> 
> Still, that's pretty juicy NO3 levels.
> Much less than I suggest.
> Still, I've yet to find any upper bound for NO3 and PO4.
> I've dumped a lot into tanks as errors as have many others, no dead fish or shrimp, no algae, not dead or harmed plants.


what is the level you recommend if one were to ask? EI shoots for 20.
so besides the fact that plants contrl the situation as to how much of what you dose. what would be a standard average them of what u would suggest for N03?


----------



## happi

any new updates?


----------



## Dempsey

I am going to update as soon as my lights come on. I haven't been able to update daily as I have been away for work... This new dosing schedule has made traveling much easier though! Everything is still looking great. Some plants are growing faster but most are actually growing slower and thicker. I am happy so far. Pics to come later.


----------



## wet

That's exactly the kind of tank, species, and approach I'm interested in reading about Dempsey. Nice tank and plants!

There's also something to be said for plants keeping mobile nutrients in reserve (healthy and established plants are much more resilient than any other kind of plant) and for all the stuff you've added to the sediment (K+, Fe+, Ca+, poop, etc). So, cutting to lean dosing after months of EI can certainly be a plus, especially if you've already gotten the growth to fill the tank in, and the goal now is to maintain the density and improve color and stuff. 

Just thoughts.

Also, I'm not so sure folks who dose lean tanks mature their tanks more than a few months, max. I think lots of those guys use Aquasoil (lots of nutrients), bang out a scape, start with healthy plants, fill it in for two or three months, and then tear it down and start over.


----------



## Dempsey

Here are some pics. I'll try to get more later but wanted to get at least a few up.


----------



## Dempsey

wet said:


> That's exactly the kind of tank, species, and approach I'm interested in reading about Dempsey. Nice tank and plants!
> 
> There's also something to be said for plants keeping mobile nutrients in reserve (healthy and established plants are much more resilient than any other kind of plant) and for all the stuff you've added to the sediment (K+, Fe+, Ca+, poop, etc). So, cutting to lean dosing after months of EI can certainly be a plus, especially if you've already gotten the growth to fill the tank in, and the goal now is to maintain the density and improve color and stuff.
> 
> Just thoughts.
> 
> Also, I'm not so sure folks who dose lean tanks mature their tanks more than a few months, max. I think lots of those guys use Aquasoil (lots of nutrients), bang out a scape, start with healthy plants, fill it in for two or three months, and then tear it down and start over.


 
Thanks, Carlo!

You know... You bring up a few question/thoughts.... My substrate is eco-complete. I will one day switch to Aquasoil. Who knows, I may just top off what I have with 2" of Aquasoil.. Anyways.. I have be dosing EI in this tank for over a year and also adding root tabs every 3 months.

With that said, do you think that I will "run out of ferts' in the substrate, adding them every 3 months? I don't plan on entering any competitions... I also don't mind trimming or scaping.

What you said made allot of sense though. I never really thought of it like that. About the rich substrate. Hopefully I can keep rescaping withought Aquasoil in the meantime and without runing out of ferts in the substrate.

The plants seem to be doing better then ever, so far. Only time will tell...



wet said:


> Also, I'm not so sure folks who dose lean tanks mature their tanks more than a few months, max. I think lots of those guys use Aquasoil (lots of nutrients), bang out a scape, start with healthy plants, fill it in for two or three months, and then tear it down and start over.


That makes allot of sense also. This is not my goal though. Since I have lowered the lights and started dosing "just what is needed", most of the plants have actually started growing slower. Slower, thicker, they look healthier... better colors.. This is new to me and I have don't know who it will work out. So far, so good.

I don't mind fast growing plants. Not at all. BUT, if I could get them to grow slower, healthier, thicker and better color with more light and less dosing in the water column, I will give it a try and see how it works. Why not use the lights that I have? I have said this before and will quote myself.....

"I used to grow indoor terrestrial plants in my younger days... When I just had cheapy lights from HD, I could get these plants to grow but they were always leggy and sometimes needed support in the beginning because they would "sky rocket" up to the weak lights...

I then got high power sodium lights. From the time the the seeds would sprout, the plants grew awesome... They grew slow, wide, bushy and super healthy. Once they had the light that they needed they didn't try to "reach for the sun", I guess?

I have always wondered why we don't use these same ideas in growing our plants under water."


This, still keeps the wheels spinning in my head...


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

well for me. its because i can't

no amount of c02 keep BBA our of my tank

so that being said.. this plan is a no go for me. im glad its working for you but every tank is different and my plant will not tolerate that much light. sure some plants will get more color and yet more will turn to bba infested carpets.. ????


----------



## snausage

@clint: Glad to see everything is working out so well for you!!!!

@HDBlazingwolf: If you have the time, pm all the specifications of your setup, including: filtration, tank size, flora, fauna, average water params, water change schedule, and anything else you think is pertinent. Oh yeah, also include how long the tank has been running.


----------



## happi

here is an update from me:

for some reason there is a allot of algae on the glass and most stem plants started to rot from the middle and bottom of the stems. my ludwigia pantal is almost gone, its rotting from the middle of the stems. 

any suggestions.


----------



## darkoon

happi said:


> here is an update from me:
> 
> for some reason there is a allot of algae on the glass and most stem plants started to rot from the middle and bottom of the stems. my ludwigia pantal is almost gone, its rotting from the middle of the stems.
> 
> any suggestions.



how exactly are you dosing right now, and what's your setup?


----------



## plantbrain

HD Blazingwolf said:


> well for me. its because i can't
> 
> no amount of c02 keep BBA our of my tank
> 
> so that being said.. this plan is a no go for me. im glad its working for you but every tank is different and my plant will not tolerate that much light. sure some plants will get more color and yet more will turn to bba infested carpets.. ????


It very well maybe how the CO2 is distributed, the flow, the pruning, not just adding more of it, and even there...adding more slow and steady........and having ample O2 and surface movement etc plays a BIG role.

Could be all the loading in the tank, lots of detritus etc.
Lack of algae eaters. Off gassing somewhere.

Many possible reasons other.than merely adding less/more.
Dosing ferts is far simpler.

You might simply see if you can get an indirect CO2 effect, limit just PO4 strongly, plants tolerate this well.

PMDD used this correlation to justify their hypothesis, the hypothesis was falsified, however, the method itself does in fact work, just not for the reasons stated.

So a couple big water changes, and do not add PO4.

Next, see if you can add PO4 later without any BBA appearing or other algae.
Still, we have cases where both PO4 and low/high are added and no BBA in those tanks. So if it impossible to ruleout all possible causes......it is possible to rule a few things out as potential causes for algae, or poor growth etc.

I still have very nice rich growth and color without dosing less down to the B range in a growth model and it's not hard.


----------



## happi

darkoon said:


> how exactly are you dosing right now, and what's your setup?


50g tank
2x54w t5ho catalina fixture
2x rena xp2
koralia 1
pressurized co2, diffused by gla atomic diffuser

GH less than 5
KH less than 3
PH 6.2


dosing 5ppm of N, 0.5ppm of P and 6ppm of K 2x week. also adding 1tsp of gh booster during water changes. 1/4 tsp of csm+b 1/8tsp Fe 2 x week.


----------



## snausage

happi said:


> 50g tank
> 2x54w t5ho catalina fixture
> 2x rena xp2
> koralia 1
> pressurized co2, diffused by gla atomic diffuser
> 
> GH less than 5
> KH less than 3
> PH 6.2
> 
> 
> dosing 5ppm of N, 0.5ppm of P and 6ppm of K 2x week. also adding 1tsp of gh booster during water changes. 1/4 tsp of csm+b 1/8tsp Fe 2 x week.


To start, I would definitely recommend only dosing the csmb and cutting out the DPTA. Its been my experience that too much Fe can wreak havoc on a high tech tank.


----------



## happi

snausage said:


> To start, I would definitely recommend only dosing the csmb and cutting out the DPTA. Its been my experience that too much Fe can wreak havoc on a high tech tank.


Adam are you saying that Fe actually kills plants? what are the other signs to look for if Fe has been overdosed in the tank.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Tom, I posted in ur thread in journals. we had a nice discussion. things are being changed. but i was filling them in on things. i refuse to attempt more light until i get things under control.
That said. im still kickin my arse because i do believe its c02 still
i changed from a "poorly" built cerge reactor to a inline atomic diffusor which i personally didnt like. to a rebuilt cerge reactor that is AWESOME. using 2/3 less c02 than before based off needle valve placement. DC stabilizes 3 hours after lights on instead of 4 in the afternoon. ph is full 6.0 or less 1 hour after c02 on which also used to take about 4-5 hours to happen. SOOOO i'm really thinking this was my cause


----------



## m00se

How does the new Cerges reactor differ from the older one? I have one too, and I took it off in lieu of just putting the CO2 right into the intake of my FX5. I am happy with that arrangement but I've always had the Cerges in the back of my mind. I took it offline because the pump I was using was raising the water temp higher than I liked.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

the old cerge had a barb fitting on top which pushed air into the reactor but it had to build up before it became usefull.. not a problem added a few extra minutes of turn on time

the main difference is the c02 tub goes down into the reactor 4 inches. bubbled have to fight the incomming water to rise.. works much better. AND instead of using hardline pvc on the inside for the outflow. i used 3/4 i.d. rubber tubing. its bent so that its open end is opposite of the inflow of the reactor.. it is phenominal

reactor is also 2 inches taller than previous. i believe that helps

mine is also plumbed to the outflow of my cannister using 5/8 i.d tubing. i used 90 degree elbows to save space but to accomodate the loss in flow. elbows are 3/4 elbows which helped with flow restriction over previous elbows.. hose had to be forced a little. silicone gease helped in this aspect


----------



## darkoon

happi said:


> 50g tank
> 2x54w t5ho catalina fixture
> 2x rena xp2
> koralia 1
> pressurized co2, diffused by gla atomic diffuser
> 
> GH less than 5
> KH less than 3
> PH 6.2
> 
> 
> dosing 5ppm of N, 0.5ppm of P and 6ppm of K 2x week. also adding 1tsp of gh booster during water changes. 1/4 tsp of csm+b 1/8tsp Fe 2 x week.


did you mean 5ppm of NO3 or N? and 0.5ppm of P or PO4?
i also had plant melting issue not long ago after I changed the substrate, at certain spots some plants just melted, but some did just fine at the exact spot, so I shuffled plants around a bit.


----------



## happi

darkoon said:


> did you mean 5ppm of NO3 or N? and 0.5ppm of P or PO4?
> i also had plant melting issue not long ago after I changed the substrate, at certain spots some plants just melted, but some did just fine at the exact spot, so I shuffled plants around a bit.


5ppm of NO3 and 0.5ppm of PO4 2x week


----------



## darkoon

happi said:


> 5ppm of NO3 and 0.5ppm of PO4 2x week


did this just happen after your cut back your ferts? if so, up your ferting to the way it was to see if it fixes the issue.


----------



## Dempsey

I have found that in my tank so far, 7ppm of NO3 and 0.7ppm of PO4 2x week is working a better. Our tanks are different but maybe try that anyways. Since my bio load isn't large, I have been adding a tad more K via K2SO4 with my water change along with 1/2tsp of GH Booster.

I did however just add 20 Espeis Rasboras which may also help with good feeding.


----------



## happi

darkoon said:


> did this just happen after your cut back your ferts? if so, up your ferting to the way it was to see if it fixes the issue.


i will up it by little more, my bio-load is also very low.


----------



## Dempsey

Few pics after the WC today. Things are still growing great! Couldn't be happier at the moment.


----------



## happi

clint tell me more about your substrate


----------



## Dempsey

Eco-complete with root tabs. That's it. I plan to upgrade to AS or at least top it off with it.


----------



## Dempsey

Adam,

Quick question. You said that extra Fe has caused you algae in the past. What kind of algae? I have some Clado that the Amano's are dealing with. Would extra Fe help Clado in your opinion? Just curious since I am still dosing a little extra Iron and have some Clado.

Risking losing the colors, I still like dosing more Fe. Maybe I could lower it the amount that I dose...

Just looking for some input.

Thanks!


----------



## happi

this is the only pic i have for now, Cuba was red but soon after i went back to my regular dosing it went back to green. i dosed 6 tsp of Mg and 1tsp of Ca today, wanted to see if Mg will fight some of the algae i had lately. am also dealing with cynobacteria, but cure is on its way. 

well here is how mine looks like for now:


----------



## Dempsey

What kind of algae had Mg helped you with in the past?


----------



## happi

Dempsey said:


> What kind of algae had Mg helped you with in the past?


i am not 100% sure if it did help the algae or not, but this is what i have heard and followed it. at that time my plants did very well compared to now. 

quick update: since Tom said too much P doesnt cause algae, i tried this couple of days ago. i added 1/4tsp of P along with 1/2tsp N 1/2tsp K and boom the next day, algae was on the glass within 24 hours. normally the algae on the glass appear after couple of days. plants also looked stunted or you can say they looked dead, did not look normal to my eyes.


----------



## Hoppy

Suppose your plants were phosphate limited before, but at the slower growth rate that resulted, there was plenty of CO2 available to support that growth. Now, you remove the phosphate limitation, and the growth rate goes up significantly, but now the plants are carbon limited - insufficient CO2 to support their growth rate. This could lead to the available CO2 being hogged by the more vigorous growing plants, causing a bad shortage of CO2 for the other plants, so they stop growing. And, the unhealthy plants lead to increased algae problems. I don't know that this is what was going on, but couldn't it be?


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

Ive had upwards of 7ppm of phosphates before with 20-60 ppm nitrates varying. Never had algae related to those. Ive overdosed iron mg calcium all micros. All macros and have not yet found a correlation for specific ratios or limits for what is too high or too low. Ive yet to surpass 200ppm nitrates but i felt the need to go no further. This was when i first planted and plant mass wasnt sufficient to absorb the nutrients. Either way light and c02 have been almost all of my algae problems. And to that effect i only deal with bba at this point. Plants are healthy enough to fend off everything else


----------



## happi

HD Blazingwolf said:


> Ive had upwards of 7ppm of phosphates before with 20-60 ppm nitrates varying. Never had algae related to those. Ive overdosed iron mg calcium all micros. All macros and have not yet found a correlation for specific ratios or limits for what is too high or too low. Ive yet to surpass 200ppm nitrates but i felt the need to go no further. This was when i first planted and plant mass wasnt sufficient to absorb the nutrients. Either way light and c02 have been almost all of my algae problems. And to that effect i only deal with bba at this point. Plants are healthy enough to fend off everything else


i have gone through more than you did. i been changing my EI dosing time to time for last 2-3 years. there was a time when i use to use my tap water and it was very high in Ca and there was no Mg in the tap water at all, i still remember that i use to dose 1/4 tsp of Mg and 1/4tsp of K2SO4 during water changes (50% weekly) and i would add 3ppm of N 3x week (9ppm total) and 1/4 tsp of csm+b 3x week. plants were doing so well at that time, i was not adding any P at that time, never seen any algae at all in my tank. one day i decided to try different methods and things went wrong since then, i am now using RO water because i want to keep some plants which i could not in my tap water. i been dosing extra of everything including P and results weren't so great. some plants are covered with algae and i have to remove algae from glass almost everyday. 

i did my 70% water change today with 10% tap water added, i might start using 100% RO soon after this week test. added 1/2 tsp of N 1/4tsp of K2SO4 and 2 tsp of Mg, did not add any P this time. did not add Ca because that 10% water contain some already. i will add 1/4tsp of csm+b 2-3x week to see what kind of results i will get. 

my old dosing method was similar to this beside everyday dosing:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html


----------



## plantbrain

happi said:


> my old dosing method was similar to this beside everyday dosing:
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html


Same here, but I found out I had high PO4 in the tap, I tried RO for a few years on various tanks, PITA........

Everyone was freaking out since I had high PO4 and no algae, no GSA etc......so that method got modified and we ended up with this method:

You will note these are about 3-4x leaner than EI can be depending on what targets you assume to be non limiting, which obviously.......will vary tank to tank.

http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html

If you can keep a 5-10ppm for NO3 and confirm it with a standard reference and do this for each tank you have, I'll be impressed, sounds easy, but to confirm you are actually doing that and the PO4.........and the K+........
Not so easy, measuring CO2 over the entire light cycle, even tougher, but easy with RO + 100% reconstituted. Timing has a lot to do with success also, as does simply getting the tank off to a good start and aggressively beat any issues back. 


These last few tanks I've done have had no issues, and that is entirely 100 % independent of nutrients and sediment type. That's 9 tanks.

So why not apply this to the sediments as well? Add less not more?
How can you account for sediment supply?


----------



## Dempsey

Update from last night. I took some shots before I went to bed.


----------



## happi

clint your plants are showing more red than before, in my tank i loose red when there is high N. is there any way you could test out your N to see where its at from day one till the end of the week. 

i have cut out the P from my dosing 2 days ago and i will post the results here soon.


----------



## Gatekeeper

Want red plants, have a read.

Dempsey, some of the best looking stems I have seen on this forum in a while. Lush, vibrant and healthy. Well done.


----------



## Dempsey

happi said:


> clint your plants are showing more red than before, in my tank i loose red when there is high N. is there any way you could test out your N to see where its at from day one till the end of the week.
> 
> i have cut out the P from my dosing 2 days ago and i will post the results here soon.


Funny you ask that because I was wondering the same thing. I just ordered a Hagen NO3 kit and a Sera PO4 kit last night. Hoping to have them next week some time.


----------



## Dempsey

Gatekeeper said:


> Want red plants, have a read.
> 
> Dempsey, some of the best looking stems I have seen on this forum in a while. Lush, vibrant and healthy. Well done.


Thanks!

That was actually a good read.


----------



## happi

Gatekeeper said:


> Want red plants, have a read.
> 
> Dempsey, some of the best looking stems I have seen on this forum in a while. Lush, vibrant and healthy. Well done.


thanks for the link, but i do not fully agree with that, i had the same light on my tank whenever i changed the dosing, plants showed different colors, more green when N was very high and more toward red color when it was low. 

keep in mind i never said no N at all, i said low N, less than 10ppm, i use to have 30ppm or higher when plants looked more greener.


----------



## Dempsey

happi said:


> thanks for the link, but i do not fully agree with that, i had the same light on my tank whenever i changed the dosing, plants showed different colors, more green when N was very high and more toward red color when it was low.
> 
> keep in mind i never said no N at all, i said low N, less than 10ppm, i use to have 30ppm or higher when plants looked more greener.


One thing I can say is that I am dosing 5ppm of NO3 2x week. 10ppm total. With the lights that I have over the tank now, these doses maybe gone in a day or 2. Who knows. That's the reason why I ordered the kits. I am really interested in what is actually going on.

With EI, I never even gave a second thought. Never had any issues either. Now that I am challenging the boundaries, I would love to know what the plants are actually taking in.


----------



## zergling

Clint, I'm sure you can already here the TPT crowd chanting

Full tank shot!
Full tank shot!
FULL TANK SHOT!

:hihi:


----------



## Gatekeeper

happi said:


> thanks for the link, but i do not fully agree with that, i had the same light on my tank whenever i changed the dosing, plants showed different colors, more green when N was very high and more toward red color when it was low.
> 
> keep in mind i never said no N at all, i said low N, less than 10ppm, i use to have 30ppm or higher when plants looked more greener.


I looked into this a bit more and I think we both may be right. More to follow on this once I can understand some of these technical terms I keep stumbling over.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

happi said:


> i have gone through more than you did. i been changing my EI dosing time to time for last 2-3 years. there was a time when i use to use my tap water and it was very high in Ca and there was no Mg in the tap water at all, i still remember that i use to dose 1/4 tsp of Mg and 1/4tsp of K2SO4 during water changes (50% weekly) and i would add 3ppm of N 3x week (9ppm total) and 1/4 tsp of csm+b 3x week. plants were doing so well at that time, i was not adding any P at that time, never seen any algae at all in my tank. one day i decided to try different methods and things went wrong since then, i am now using RO water because i want to keep some plants which i could not in my tap water. i been dosing extra of everything including P and results weren't so great. some plants are covered with algae and i have to remove algae from glass almost everyday.
> 
> i did my 70% water change today with 10% tap water added, i might start using 100% RO soon after this week test. added 1/2 tsp of N 1/4tsp of K2SO4 and 2 tsp of Mg, did not add any P this time. did not add Ca because that 10% water contain some already. i will add 1/4tsp of csm+b 2-3x week to see what kind of results i will get.
> 
> my old dosing method was similar to this beside everyday dosing:
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html


it really doesn't matter who has gone through more. the point is i'll add 20ppm of po4 if u like and if it causes algae ill poop a brick for you.. because so far it hasn't. if i limit po4 the only thing that is suffering is my plants. sure they will do fine for a long time without it. plants have been shown to handle low po4 very well.. it just doesn't mean u have to. in not also saying u need to dose more. im just saying its irrelevant. dosing more po4 does not cause algae unless there is a problem elsewhere. po4 is a safe limiting nutrient which is why pmdd and all the other light fertilizer methods chose to use it in small quantities because plants tolerate low po4 well. they do not tolerate that low of nitrates period.. whether it be susbtrate or water column. wherever the plants get it. unless its rediculously low light which i do have one tank like that.. it bottoms out below 3 ppm nitrate and plants stop growing preoperly and look terrible. but i can not dose po4 for over a week and they will grow fine froom the small amount of food i feed the shrimp...


----------



## Dempsey

zergling said:


> Clint, I'm sure you can already here the TPT crowd chanting
> 
> Full tank shot!
> Full tank shot!
> FULL TANK SHOT!
> 
> :hihi:


I am by no means a scaper... Once I get ADA As I will be changing everything. I say this now anyways... I will definitely need help from folks here!


----------



## Rockhoe14er

wow your tank looks amazing. I have a question on what you did dempsey. Did you basically double your par on your plants and cut your EI dosing down a lot to 2x dosing of 7ppm NO3 and .5 ppm Phosphates and this is what happened? 

Did you change your co2 at all? Hows the algae growth?


----------



## Dempsey

Rockhoe14er said:


> wow your tank looks amazing. I have a question on what you did dempsey. Did you basically double your par on your plants and cut your EI dosing down a lot to 2x dosing of 7ppm NO3 and .5 ppm Phosphates and this is what happened?
> 
> Did you change your co2 at all? Hows the algae growth?


Thanks!

Well, I really can't answer about the PAR since I don't have a meter... I dropped the light fixture from 25-30" from the top of the tank to about 10".

I would assume the lights triggered the new colors in the plants but I really don't know. They also seem to be growing slower now but much thicker, healthier and more colorful.

I am dosing about 5ppm of NO3 twice a week along with about .6ppm of PO4 twice a week. I am also adding 1tsp of Barr's GH Booster a week after the water change.

As for CO2 I am in the 30ppm range. I was much higher before. Guessing I am about 3-4bps now with a Rex style reactor.

I do have some Clado but the Amano's are keeping it under control for the most part. It is only growing on my substrate and that is one of the reasons that I am going to be changing/adding ADA AS.


----------



## Rockhoe14er

Why did you decided to lower the co2 when you upped the lights?


----------



## Dempsey

Rockhoe14er said:


> Why did you decided to lower the co2 when you upped the lights?


I lowered everything else. High CO2 and low NP and K is just a waste of CO2, IMO.


----------



## Dempsey

If I see issues, of course I will add more of what I think the plants need. This will help me learn more about the plants needs, also, I hope.:hihi:


----------



## Rockhoe14er

well your tank looks great. I have been trying to figure out reds for a while now too.


----------



## Dempsey

Rockhoe14er said:


> well your tank looks great. I have been trying to figure out reds for a while now too.


Thanks! I know some folks don't care either way about the reds and some could kill for them. I can go either way but ATM, I really enjoy them. I just don't know how to arrange them...


----------



## zergling

Dempsey said:


> I am by no means a scaper... Once I get ADA As I will be changing everything. I say this now anyways... I will definitely need help from folks here!


Scape shmape. It's very nice!

So, how long have you been on the lean dosing now?


----------



## Craigthor

Just curious how your guys' tanks are doing still. Any new pics? thinking about giving this method a whirl.

Craig


----------



## plantbrain

Dempsey said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Well, I really can't answer about the PAR since I don't have a meter... I dropped the light fixture from 25-30" from the top of the tank to about 10".
> 
> I would assume the lights triggered the new colors in the plants but I really don't know. They also seem to be growing slower now but much thicker, healthier and more colorful.
> 
> I am dosing about 5ppm of NO3 twice a week along with about .6ppm of PO4 twice a week. I am also adding 1/2tsp of Barr's GH Booster a week after the water change.
> 
> As for CO2 I am in the 30ppm range. I was much higher before. Guessing I am about 3-4bps now with a Rex style reactor.
> 
> I do have some Clado but the Amano's are keeping it under control for the most part. It is only growing on my substrate and that is one of the reasons that I am going to be changing/adding ADA AS.


25-30" away is too far..........frankly.

14" is typical for ADA and many of my own tanks, which is why a PAR meter is the only comparative way to really get at what light is being delivered.

It's like guessing what the CO2 is without ever measuring it.

Some do okay there also:icon_excl
Still, it looks much more like you were light limited, too much so, prior.
You still had growth, but the limiting factor was light and it was very much limited by light.

In other words, you can limit light too much for nice horticulture. 
The PAR meter could have told you this also. Nutrients/CO2 cannot be compared when the light is so different. I dosed 10ppm years ago, and most kept the NO3 around 5-10ppm.

Point of fact, I dose 3x the NO3 and still have the same color. So there's more to it than the nutrients alone. When I did this, I used more light though. For many tanks, this amount of light is just not needed though.
Stemy planted color, sure, I have more on my 120, and it seems to help, but the ferts are higher.

Tap water can also be a source of nutrients also, so see what that is also.
And if you do test, make sure to use a reference. Lamotte have consistently been the best test kits over the last 20 years in the hobby, well worth the cost.


----------



## plantbrain

Dempsey said:


> Thanks! I know some folks don't care either way about the reds and some could kill for them. I can go either way but ATM, I really enjoy them. I just don't know how to arrange them...


Simple way is to keep most of the species you have in the rear as background plants and then perhaps the A reineckii come down at a diagonal trough one of the 1/3 sides and make a plant "street"(low in front, high to the back of the tank). Green foreground, maybe some different textures etc.
Keep maybe 10-20 stems and try to fluff them out nicely so they are even and growing equally well.

Some species can be allowed to hit and creep on the surface for a few days before a good trim. Then you take the pic after a few days. Water change the day of the trim(after), then water change the day of the pic(early am right as lights come on, then take pic later than night, about 6-7 hours in).


----------



## dafil

Dempsey,your K is only from KNO3 and KH2PO4,is it?
So your K dosing must be around 6-7ppm weekly.Is there any deficiency simptoms?


----------



## Dempsey

Craigthor said:


> Just curious how your guys' tanks are doing still. Any new pics? thinking about giving this method a whirl.
> 
> Craig


 
I will take some pics Today. Things are still going great!


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> 25-30" away is too far..........frankly.
> 
> 14" is typical for ADA and many of my own tanks, which is why a PAR meter is the only comparative way to really get at what light is being delivered.
> 
> It's like guessing what the CO2 is without ever measuring it.
> 
> Some do okay there also:icon_excl
> Still, it looks much more like you were light limited, too much so, prior.
> You still had growth, but the limiting factor was light and it was very much limited by light.
> 
> In other words, you can limit light too much for nice horticulture.
> The PAR meter could have told you this also. Nutrients/CO2 cannot be compared when the light is so different. I dosed 10ppm years ago, and most kept the NO3 around 5-10ppm.
> 
> Point of fact, I dose 3x the NO3 and still have the same color. So there's more to it than the nutrients alone. When I did this, I used more light though. For many tanks, this amount of light is just not needed though.
> Stemy planted color, sure, I have more on my 120, and it seems to help, but the ferts are higher.
> 
> Tap water can also be a source of nutrients also, so see what that is also.
> And if you do test, make sure to use a reference. Lamotte have consistently been the best test kits over the last 20 years in the hobby, well worth the cost.


So, me dropping the lights could have been the thing that this tank needed all along.

It's funny you mentioned the tap. I just tested it the other day. I calabrated the kits first of course. It's about 15-20ppm NO3 and 1ppm of PO4. Pretty good tap water if you ask me!


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> Simple way is to keep most of the species you have in the rear as background plants and then perhaps the A reineckii come down at a diagonal trough one of the 1/3 sides and make a plant "street"(low in front, high to the back of the tank). Green foreground, maybe some different textures etc.
> Keep maybe 10-20 stems and try to fluff them out nicely so they are even and growing equally well.
> 
> Some species can be allowed to hit and creep on the surface for a few days before a good trim. Then you take the pic after a few days. Water change the day of the trim(after), then water change the day of the pic(early am right as lights come on, then take pic later than night, about 6-7 hours in).


Thanks Tom!

I will have to use those tips. IMO, the plants do look best right at lights on and then right before lights out. It's neat to see the tank change in those few hours also.



dafil said:


> Dempsey,your K is only from KNO3 and KH2PO4,is it?
> So your K dosing must be around 6-7ppm weekly.Is there any deficiency simptoms?


 
I am also dosing 1tsp of Barr's GH Booster after the weekly water change. I know I posted that I was dosing 1/2tsp but that was a typo. I will go back and fix that.


----------



## happi

here is my update:

Adam and Clint, i have made my own daily solution which bring out similar results as Adam's dosing. IMO daily dosing worked better for me and i can tell which deficiency occur during this time. 


my dosing is based on modified version of PMDD, i was dosing less than 1 ppm of N everyday and no P at all in my tank. there was no deficiency of P for the first week, i assume there was plenty from previous water change, plants did well.

80% water change, no P added at all, depending on fish and fish food to provide the P. there was no green spot algae on the glass or plants, plants looked very healthy and showed more red color. this entire week there was no sign of algae any where in the tank and plants did even better, the only change i made was increased the N to 1.5 ppm per day. 


i kept the same dosing routine and started adding 0.5 ppm of P 2x weekly, plants did well but green spot started to show up again, but this time it was not bad as it use to be. mostly heteranthera zosterifolia was the first one to show all kind of symptoms of deficiency. i noticed that it was melting on some areas, i have increased my doses of N to 2ppm per day now and this plant is the first one to respond to it.


did water change and no added P at all, same plant to show the first sign of P (looks similar to N deficiency). however other slow grower stem plants did not show much of deficiency. i have yet to add P to see what will happen next. i will update with the results soon. 


as of right now:


dosing PMDD, 2ppm of N everyday, 1/2tsp GH booster during water change, using 100% RO water. switched from T5 to PC, using 4x65w PC over 50g tank. 


conclusion:

adding P did bring the spot algae, but having 0 P will also melt the plants away slowly. adding 2ppm of N daily works well. i also need to increase the Fe just a bit, adding extra Fe through DTPA 11% brought some hair algae (very thin and hard to see, but its there). i will only use bit more CSM+B.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

well techincally i have my own update. rich water column still.
80% weekly water change. turned on UV light which i used to hate doing

daily EI dosing. switched to cerge reactor again. increased turnover rate. lights 31 inches over substrate. upped c02 slightly.. only algae present BBA and its slowly going away

fish health has also improved and are more active plants are responding well but growing slower


----------



## Rockhoe14er

@dempsey What did hoppys chart of t5ho say you were at before you moved your lights down vs what does 
It say you have now. I was just curious to find out your par estimation. 

Also how long is you're photo period?


----------



## Dempsey

Rockhoe14er said:


> @dempsey What did hoppys chart of t5ho say you were at before you moved your lights down vs what does
> It say you have now. I was just curious to find out your par estimation.
> 
> Also how long is you're photo period?


I was at low light before I dropped them down. Now it is high light. I don't know what kind of T5HO's he used though. If they were TEK's, I may be medium-high. Mine aren't TEK's.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

what fixture are u using demp? i find im at high light with my tek and im rasied higher than u


----------



## Dempsey

From what I gather, the teks are brighter then what I have. I am using a sunlight suppy fixture. Close to this model.


----------



## Rockhoe14er

Dempsey said:


> From what I gather, the teks are brighter then what I have. I am using a sunlight suppy fixture. Close to this model.


So you're using 4 T5HO lights with fair receptors ~40 inches above your substrate where before you were closer to ~52 inches above your substrate?


Also how long is you're photo-period.


----------



## Dempsey

That's about right. 9hrs.


----------



## plantbrain

So raise the lights back up and then you see if it was REALLY the dosing and not simply adding 2-3x more light...........if you have the same type of growth...then it was just the light...........

Most folks do not double check to see. Since they do not want to go back just to test. But now you have a reference to use to test and can easily correct it if it really was just the light.

The other thing is simply dosing more and see if it was the light and if the nutrients are independent after all.

Remember, plants define the system, when they are growing well, then the nutrients can be all over the place. If they where only growing so so because of strong light limitation, well..........yea........if you change several things, particularly adding say 2x more light, that alone is huge change....little can said about the other changes..which was the main hypothesis of the OP. 

I could send you a light meter if you wish and then return later.
I also have a Tek 4' fixture and can use the middle 4 bulbs. But bulb make might be different. I have giesemann's. 

Maybe the new hypothesis is "add more light, not less" for redder plants?
Question is, can you grow them in both cases?


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> So raise the lights back up and then you see if it was REALLY the dosing and not simply adding 2-3x more light...........if you have the same type of growth...then it was just the light...........
> 
> Most folks do not double check to see. Since they do not want to go back just to test. But now you have a reference to use to test and can easily correct it if it really was just the light.
> 
> The other thing is simply dosing more and see if it was the light and if the nutrients are independent after all.
> 
> Remember, plants define the system, when they are growing well, then the nutrients can be all over the place. If they where only growing so so because of strong light limitation, well..........yea........if you change several things, particularly adding say 2x more light, that alone is huge change....little can said about the other changes..which was the main hypothesis of the OP.
> 
> I could send you a light meter if you wish and then return later.
> I also have a Tek 4' fixture and can use the middle 4 bulbs. But bulb make might be different. I have giesemann's.
> 
> Maybe the new hypothesis is "add more light, not less" for redder plants?
> Question is, can you grow them in both cases?


I personally have never thought that less ferts made redder plants. I still don't, actually. I beleive it's the lights. The fact that I can dose less ferts for a tank this size is nice though. Just saves me some pennies.

Another good thing for myself is the learning curve. I can now see what dosing less of this or that will actually effect the plants or cause algae on the glass or whatever else.

I think it was you that said having high lights is like driving 100mph, if you make a mistake, the results happen fast. This is something that I may have needed to see. I am learning how my tank reacts to adding more or less of this or that. I am enjoying it right now.

Thanks for the offer on using your meter! I may have to take you up on that down the line. I am still trying to figure out what NPK are doing to the plants. I know I don't need to, I just like to understand what's actually going on in the tank. 

You have many years of experience, I have 2 years. :wink: I still have much that I would like to understand.


----------



## happi

wake up thread, BUMP.


----------



## Dempsey

Here is a quick update from my journal. I forgot to update this thread.

I will try to make some time and take some pics tomorrow or Friday.

"I have a little update today. I took pics before and after the water change on Saturday. The before shot only has 2 lights on and one of them being a color max, hence the real pink color. I took the pic right after I flipped the lights on for the pic. The second pic is a few hours of lights on after the water change with 4 bulbs.

I also finally received my new power-head. This thing kicks arse!! Really made a HUGE difference. Every once in a while when the tank was thick with plants and the flow was low, I would get diatoms or what I thought were diatoms. No more! There is not a dead zone in the tank anywhere. Very happy with this thing. 

I will try to get some better pics tonight or tomorrow.

Before









After


----------



## plantbrain

Now you just _need_...and ATI fixture, rimless 75, ADA AS, and Vortech :0

Those colormax bulbs make a huge picture difference.
I got some to see, I have some red wave and a couple of other pinkys, but I tend to like the mix of blue, purple and red, with some whites.
It's an experimentation really, the Gieseman look quite yellow to me now.

HD Blazing, that's just way too far from the water' surface for the lighting.
Like Dempsy's issues, addfing more light was the real factor in improvement. In general, 6-18" inches it a good working range for typical tanks hobbyist keep.

I have a client's that's 24", and another that's 36", but there's a lot of light and the tanks are huge.

Plants will handle lower, but not strongly limiting nutrients fairly well, but unless you can compare it to a something, say dying plants and plants at max growth, this does most hobbyists little good.

From a horticulture perspective, some have argued that limiting ferts is a better way to slow the growth(the OP's main point), but you can easily do this with 1 nutrient: PO4.

PMDD stated a long long time ago that the range was under 0.2ppm, but NOT ZERO, many confused limiting PO4 with less = is even better than some ...this is not the case and Paul sears never once said that zero was the goal, only that the PO4 should be the limiting factor. He even suggested adding PO4 if you got lower than 0.1ppm.

Clearly that worked well.

But........algae was not "cured" by the limitation, rather, the plants had slowed down enough to grow without such a high CO2 demand.

So stronger limitation can make CO2 management, thus algae management, indirectly, easier if you bother and fuss with daily fert dosing. Which is wildly popular belief, but you can still do it fine without less also and do it quiet well, but it requires good management. but that trade off is no different here, you have observe and watch the plant's response to ferts and fuss with that, vs fussing with CO2/current etc. 

However, this does not imply that this is the best method, nor teaches folks how to use CO2/light/current properly. All these things play into it. Most people frankly stink at CO2. Those that do get it right, tend to have the nicer scapes and results. .........And we can add a lot more ferts or CO2 without issue.

Now, if you can do both/several methods successfully, then you understand it. Some assume that because they managed to do one of the methods successfully, it's the only method, way, this is simply not the case.

So I would suggest sticking with one method you can fall back on, or know.....then try to branch out and see if you can adjust the CO2 up, or the ferts, or the light up or down and use some KNOWN standard for those.
This is tough for folks who have not yet gotten things correct, but once they do, they suddenly become loyal to that one method. This is true for EI or any method........PMDD was very very helpful for me initially. But I found many other factors that interested me and I found out that there was a far larger picture that developed.

Ferts, then CO2 and light, current filtration water changes, trimming etc.
It's not one thing. Never was. But we are tempted to look for and seek such silver bullets.

For many, PMDD was good, but when I had folks dose PO4, they where amazed at the growth responses.

But they had decent CO2, lower light etc back then also, still, there are always....a few folks that will not get it and have trouble. Same with this, and same with ADA and same with EI.

These methods do not fail, we do. Then we blame the method.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

14 inches over water is too high? u said ur average was between 10-14 is this now not the case?


----------



## plantbrain

HD Blazingwolf said:


> 14 inches over water is too high? u said ur average was between 10-14 is this now not the case?


I adjust them, depends on the tank, my target was/is about 50 umol typically.
But seldom is the fixture above 20" on the tank, rarely it'd be 10" or under. Seeing 52" to the sediment for a fixture is a bit nuts, that's a light issue, not a fert issue:icon_idea

The new ATI fixtures I can lower the lights more because the spread on the lighting is better. So less glass algae, easier to control with the dimmer controller at lower intensity, but ability to ramp up for temp blast, and much less energy use for the same amount of light umol's. I also increase the PAR efficacy of the fixture with less light overspill into the room.

On my stem planted 120 Gal, I adjust to much higher levels recently.
But not the other tanks. 










The light is still about 1 meter away from the hairgrass. Fixture is about 14" off the water, the tank is 25" tall, sediment 2" in the front. 2x 65W PC lights on a 60 Gal. 
This tank also only gets once a month water change and moderated dosing. I had about 80 Brass tetras and 12 leopard frog plecos, a few other fish. 
Just does not have the same demand and I tweaked the dosing to make it easier cause I'm lazy.

This tank ran itself.

Some tanks don't........ even if you do all the same things.
If you keep several tanks, you realize this, if all you keep and struggle with is one, you think every tank you do is the same, this is simply not true.
Still, unless the lights are VERY intense, raising them up beyond 20" is asking for a semi blackout.
Plants would look pretty ratty at 24" and likely slowly die except for the upper tips that are closer.

Take a look at Hoppy's chart for say 50umol and then add another 12" to the distance.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/105774-par-vs-distance-t5-t12-pc.html

What do you see regardless of the type of light at such distances?
It's pretty clear. Dosing will not solve that 1st step of photosynthesis no matter what you add.
This all goes back to Liebig's law on the min, for light, for CO2, for ferts.

There is no escape.


----------



## DarkCobra

Gatekeeper said:


> This is not 100% accurate Tom. Read the abstract again. There is one snag in their findings here which I don't think you will disagree with, but it should be clarified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was only at the highest levels of nutrient concentrations that submersed macrophytes were predictably absent and the lakes were algal dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't look to see what the "highest levels" were, but its evident that there seems to be a breaking point based on this research.
Click to expand...




plantbrain said:


> So what is that high point?
> Any ideas? What would you look for in the plant tissues to suggest this range has been reached?


There is a high point, and I've reached it. The suggestion that you need look at plant tissues to find evidence is ludicrous; and perhaps elitist, as you appear to be implying that one needs to be a biologist to make any useful observations. One only needs to look at the overall health of the plant, and if it is visibly poor, eliminate all other possibilities; which is possible in a closed and controlled system like an aquarium.

46G, high-light, heavily planted, heavy fish load. Over the past few months I've had a problem, which was getting worse. All plants were growing slowly. Many were barely growing at all, with severe stunting. Some perked up a bit briefly after each water change, then slowed down again later in the week; while green spot/dust simultaneously accelerated.

Since water changes had a positive effect, first I tried performing 50% water changes every other day. That solved it completely, and my tank never looked better; but was too much of a pain in the butt to continue doing. And the problem returned soon after discontinuing this regimen.

So next, I tried adding more CO2, more nutrients which the tap water might contain, and finally more of all nutrients. That was a complete failure.

Finally, I went back to EI recommendations for a few weeks, and tested. The results before the weekly water change: nitrates about 150ppm, phosphates about 30ppm. :eek5: Rechecking with another brand of test kits, and checking calibration on both, the results stood as accurate.

As a final verification, I weighed the fish food I added using a gram scale, and figured out the nitrogen content. After calculating the nitrate trend on paper between the food, KNO3 dosing, and plant consumption assumed at 2ppm daily, the result was right in line with the test results.

For the past three weeks, I've stopped dosing KNO3 _completely_, drastically reduced KH2PO4, increased K2SO4 to keep K dosage the same, and performed normal 50% weekly water changes. Plant growth and heath has improved with every water change and drop in nutrient levels. Last test, post-water change, was nitrates at 15ppm, phosphates at 4ppm; and that's about where I'm going to hold it for now.

Months before this issue began to affect _all_ my plants, it affected one plant in particular - Ammania Gracilis, which was heavily stunted and barely growing. I have one test recorded from that period, which showed my nitrates before a water change to be 100ppm. At the time, I disregarded it without further verification, assuming the test kit had failed; but now I know the test was functioning properly. Apparently Ammania is more sensitive to high nutrient levels than the rest of my plants. It didn't even perk up after a water change, which suggests it may be intolerant of nitrate levels as low as 50ppm; or perhaps similarly excessive phosphate levels. Certainly there are other particularly sensitive plants as well, as I've seen many individual reports of people experiencing progressively _better_ plant growth as they bring their nutrient levels down towards established minimums.

Despite their pitfalls, I have new respect for test kits; as I wouldn't have been able to diagnose this problem without them.


----------



## plantbrain

DarkCobra said:


> There is a high point, and I've reached it.


So well, what is it?



> The suggestion that you need look at plant tissues to find evidence is ludicrous; and perhaps elitist,


Yes, all Science is "elitist"?
Why ARE you injecting the personal card here might I ask? Elitism has nothing to do with this.

Plant tissue is a basic thing used to determine nutrient management in agriculture and in aquatic plants, and it was done in the references I cited:

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

These are the facts and the basic logic, whether they suit your view and personal feelings is quite another matter. This is not personal to me, but seems to be for yourself.



> as you appear to be implying that one needs to be a biologist to make any useful observations. One only needs to look at the overall health of the plant, and if it is visibly poor, eliminate all other possibilities; which is possible in a closed and controlled system like an aquarium.


I've never implied as such. We can use things from research, from Biology to make a much more informed approach and decision process, we do not need to be high fluting academics to do some basic stuff, but then again....we also do not need to have our heads buried in the sand either. 

Simple replacement test, common garden pot test, simply having a good well run tank as a reference, then go back and test the issue. These are all things hobbyists can do. Maybe Bubba has high PO4 and no algae, maybe Tammy Sue has low P4 and no algae also. Well, why might both cases be valid? Perhaps PO4 is independent. etc.......

Hardly elitist.



> 46G, high-light, heavily planted, heavy fish load. Over the past few months I've had a problem, which was getting worse. All plants were growing slowly. Many were barely growing at all, with severe stunting. Some perked up a bit briefly after each water change, then slowed down again later in the week; while green spot/dust simultaneously accelerated.
> 
> Since water changes had a positive effect, first I tried performing 50% water changes every other day. That solved it completely, and my tank never looked better; but was too much of a pain in the butt to continue doing. And the problem returned soon after discontinuing this regimen.
> 
> 
> 
> Been here. Done this.
> Same observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So next, I tried adding more CO2, more nutrients which the tap water might contain, and finally more of all nutrients. That was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Been here, done this, found it was current, good care, management, CO2......not a complete failure, but I have seen a few folks fail at it.
> Other tanks had NEVER had an isue however, the 60 cube above was never like the tank you had, but......I've had other tanks that were like yours, even though similar management was done.
> 
> You cannot make much of a comparative conclusion with a single tank one time. For many possible reasons, there are going to be failures. If say you had 5 tanks, then they all failed, then perhaps........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I went back to EI recommendations for a few weeks, and tested. The results before the weekly water change: nitrates about 150ppm, phosphates about 30ppm. :eek5: Rechecking with another brand of test kits, and checking calibration on both, the results stood as accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how might one get such results unless they modified EI and added more ferts/ or did less water changes?
> 
> You already KNEW what water changes produced.........and that is a good key to the root of the problem right there, not ferts.......
> 
> I've never suggested that above 30ppm for NO3 is of any positive benefit, however, I've said it does not hurt, but there's no good reason to run things that high.
> 
> My tanks tend to sit in the 10-20ppm NO3 range and about 3-6 for PO4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a final verification, I weighed the fish food I added using a gram scale, and figured out the nitrogen content. After calculating the nitrate trend on paper between the food, KNO3 dosing, and plant consumption assumed at 2ppm daily, the result was right in line with the test results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a reasonable rate of uptake for NO3 depending on the species and the umol of light for CO2 enriched tanks. ADA claimed 15ppm or so on some of their test, I never found much beyond 4-5ppm per day of sustained uptake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the past three weeks, I've stopped dosing KNO3 _completely_, drastically reduced KH2PO4, increased K2SO4 to keep K dosage the same, and performed normal 50% weekly water changes. Plant growth and heath has improved with every water change and drop in nutrient levels. Last test, post-water change, was nitrates at 15ppm, phosphates at 4ppm; and that's about where I'm going to hold it for now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds good and looky above, about where I sit.:icon_idea:hihi:
> So what's the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Months before this issue began to affect _all_ my plants, it affected one plant in particular - Ammania Gracilis, which was heavily stunted and barely growing. I have one test recorded from that period, which showed my nitrates before a water change to be 100ppm. At the time, I disregarded it without further verification, assuming the test kit had failed; but now I know the test was functioning properly. Apparently Ammania is more sensitive to high nutrient levels than the rest of my plants. It didn't even perk up after a water change, which suggests it may be intolerant of nitrate levels as low as 50ppm; or perhaps similarly excessive phosphate levels. Certainly there are other particularly sensitive plants as well, as I've seen many individual reports of people experiencing progressively _better_ plant growth as they bring their nutrient levels down towards established minimums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one plant I do know well, Ghori and I had a debate, he claimed it was excess K+ that stunted the species, I claimed it was CO2. 2002-2004 or thereabouts. My 120 gal tank is load with plenty of "wimpy touchy" plants.
> they all do exceptionally well with 45ppm of NO3 dosed, and 15 PO4, Fe about 1.5ppm, and K+, likely about 60ppm added weekly.
> 
> Many of these species are considered more touchy than A gracilus which becomes very large and massive in my tanks, getting about the same stem dia as a dime, 17-20mm etc across. I've seen lots of examples of stunted tip growth on this species.
> Perhaps the plant is more sensitive to CO2 than say to low nutrients?
> 
> This would explain why limiting a nutrient/s would help vs not in other cases.
> I do not doubt your observations..........there is no good reason to do so. However, the conclusion you make I do have cause to remain doubtful because you have not shown that higher NO3 is in fact the cause. Also, I have grown the plant at higher NO3 without stunting. (about 40-50ppm over time). It's been grown for a long time in the hobby and club locally , Erik's winning AGA tank had a huge stand of it, his K+ was well over 100 ppm. I do not recall the NO3, but we tended to target about 10-20ppm at the time.
> 
> Still, I do not advocate long term KNO3 dosing at more than 30ppm of NO3 in the tank's water. There's no good reason to do so except newbie or neglectful errors. We both agree on this point.
> 
> A. gracilus takes a longer time frame for recovery than many other species also, the side shoots will sprout and recover, but not the main tip often does not unless they are side shoots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite their pitfalls, I have new respect for test kits; as I wouldn't have been able to diagnose this problem without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same can be said for water changes.
> Still, test kits are useful when used correctly, which for yourself, was the case. I see little disagreement here and far more agreement:icon_idea
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

ok i understand tanks are different i run 2 lowtech 10's now with shrimp and rediculosuly low light led's.. plants grow geat. they run themselves mostly. 
however my 29 is 18 tall with lights 14 iinches over water substrate is 2 inches deep. my point is then.... that is 30 inches over susbtrate too much? im nowhere near 52 over substrate and im not ludicrusly high light. tank looks bright to me. much brighter than when i had two coralife fixtures sitting on the tank. MUCH brighter.. 

of course, i'd need a PAR meter to verify any of this.

also judging by the chart. until i reach noonday burst im probably at 40 par


----------



## DarkCobra

plantbrain said:


> I do not doubt your observations..........there is no good reason to do so. However, the conclusion you make I do have cause to remain doubtful because you have not shown that higher NO3 is in fact the cause.


True, but the only question in my opinion is whether it was the excessive NO3, PO4, or the combination of both that was at fault. All other variables were eliminated at some point or other during this process. Including CO2, because to produce a rise in CO2 (or other nutrient) levels large enough to create these results, I would have needed to lower NO3 or PO4 to the point of limitation; which I have not done. CO2 levels aren't so heavily affected by plant uptake in this particular tank setup anyway, because loss from outgassing exceeds consumption. I have to pump in a lot of CO2 to compensate, but at least it makes it easier to evaluate its effects more independently.



plantbrain said:


> I've never suggested that above 30ppm for NO3 is of any positive benefit, however, I've said it does not hurt, but there's no good reason to run things that high.


And there is my point of contention - you're stating that excess nutrients do not hurt.

No one should expect to successfully grow a tank full of varied aquatic plants fully submersed in undiluted Hoagland's solution, I'm sure we can fully agree on that.

And neither should anyone expect success with the lower, yet still largely excessive, nutrient levels I had. But virtually no one (and notably including yourself) is admitting a harmful excess is even a possibility; when in reality it is, and that is a fact that needs to be _acknowledged and made widely known_.

The nutrient levels I inadvertently reached eventually caused issues for _every_ plant in this tank, not just Ammania; and could be considered as harmful in general.

However, given a particular tank, with particular plant species, all with their own preferences and peculiarities; the optimal upper limits may be lower, perhaps _far_ lower in some cases. To find those per-tank optimal limits would require individual experimentation, but people must first be made aware that reducing nutrient levels may actually produce an improvement in some cases; and that's where I feel you've misrepresented the issue.


----------



## Dempsey

It's been a while but here is a quick update. I made a quick video while I was doing a water change this weekend. I will try to take pics this week if I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wr7mV76rA&feature=youtu.be


----------



## plantbrain

DarkCobra said:


> And there is my point of contention - you're stating that excess nutrients do not hurt.
> 
> No one should expect to successfully grow a tank full of varied aquatic plants fully submersed in undiluted Hoagland's solution, I'm sure we can fully agree on that.


So at what point do you have evidence that EXCESS nutrient do any harm and what type of harm might this entail? If a reduction in growth rate is the metric, then it would be a good thing for many wanting to slow the rates of growth down, that's long been the argument of those limiting nutrients vs not.

Harm needs defined and most hobbyist do not define what that harm is/is not.
The other issue is that excess is left open ended...no one says "87ppm of NO3 is detrimental". Then others come along and confirm it.
I've never seen one case where this has occurred in the hobby.
I have a couple of papers that confirm about this range for some plants species. 

Gerloff 1966 etc.

I agree that beyond say 30ppm there's no added benefit to dosing more.
But adding more than this to say 100ppm a pretty large wide margin of error, even above that, I am not sure, I only have evidence to about 80ppm etc and beyond. Those claiming it's bad above 10ppm or whatever, these folks have not tested this stuff, or tried to falsify their claims.

There are many examples over many years where folks dosed by accident high levels of KNO3 or PO4 etc. The world did not end. Nothing was harmed, no algae, no poor plant growth etc. 

If this was the case, we'd have to see it by dosing this same amount.
But that is simply not the case.

So there is little risk over dosing, even in gross cases. I'm sure there is a point, but I've yet to hear of hobby screwing up that bad. Still, no need to lard it on past 30ppm and no need to go less than say 10ppm either. 20ppm +/- a week is not a difficult target to hit.

My argument is not that the excess range is infinite and open ended, there has to be some point where fert salts will retard growth rates. 




> And neither should anyone expect success with the lower, yet still largely excessive, nutrient levels I had. But virtually no one (and notably including yourself) is admitting a harmful excess is even a possibility; when in reality it is, and that is a fact that needs to be _acknowledged and made widely known_.


And I question these so called "facts".
I've tested them and see little issue. 

I do in fact admit that excess at some point, I'll stick with 80-100 ppm or so
for NO3. I honestly have no clue to where and what ppm for PO4 is excessive. To plants or livestock.

This is a pretty big margin of error for dosing. That's the point.
Not fear, not testing and worrying if you are off 5ppm or 2ppm etc.
How come I keep talking ranges and no#, ppm's and test and the other folks are not? You only are looking at one side of the coin, not both sides. 




> The nutrient levels I inadvertently reached eventually caused issues for _every_ plant in this tank, not just Ammania; and could be considered as harmful in general.


Perhaps.
But...

All it takes is for 1-2 folks to have those same ppm's and well, there goes that hypothesis out the window. You can suspect and test it, but you cannot ever have 100% certainty that it is the cause. Still, as well design test can give us pretty good reasoning/rational to accept that say 80 ppm is a good upper bound.

We also can use a simpler rational, there's no added benefit to adding more than a usable range that's easy to hit. If it is very easy to hit 5-35ppm without much work/effort, it's easy etc..........why worry if we know the upper bound is 2-3x this?

Dempsy issue was more about the lighting, not the ferts.

If you did the large weekly water changes and followed EI, then there's no way unless the tap was loaded with NO3, you'd get much beyond 40-60ppm of NO3.

The math does not lie.




> However, given a particular tank, with particular plant species, all with their own preferences and peculiarities; the optimal upper limits may be lower, perhaps _far_ lower in some cases. To find those per-tank optimal limits would require individual experimentation, but people must first be made aware that reducing nutrient levels may actually produce an improvement in some cases; and that's where I feel you've misrepresented the issue.


True, we cannot say some plants are not different in their preferences.
I have the stated plants and have kept about 99% of the species in the trade. Some are picky but this is more to do with current/CO2/lighting perhaps.

I've yet to find some hyper sensitive nutrient ranges requirement for ANY plant species to date. If they all grow nicely together, and I add richer ferts/CO2/light etc.........well, then that falsifies those claims for the species at those ppm's.

I've never found such criteria to date using this dosing with ADA AS:

15ppm 3x a week(45ppm total)
5ppm PO4 3x a week
About 1-2ppm of Fe as proxy for all traces(CSM+B)
15ppm of K+ once a week

Tonina, Ludwigias, Synognanthus, Erios, Red plants, and I recently got some Ammannia etc. 

All in one tank:thumbsup:
and I'm heavily gardening, and scaping, making rows, documenting the progress, selling cuttings etc.....not just "sort of growing" them. 

I blamed the fire shrimp for the Erio attack, but the plant simply needed time and was moved around too much. So I falsely accused them. But I went back and tried the test again and did not move them, and they grew back, so I often go back and double check if I'm not sure. I'm still not 100% sure the cause, but I do know it's not the nutrients because that dosing has not changed.

Maybe CO2, maybe not feeding the shrimp enough, maybe acclimation, maybe moving the plants around too much. I can only say for sure what is not the case.

And that's the trouble with a lot of these types of things, we think it's something, and it may seem like it, but we are never 100% sure, we can falsify many things though and narrow the uncertainty down.

Many assume that the success of some is nutrients, but cranking the light up 2-3 x might be the real reason. So you go back and test it again and see. I still sometimes get nailed with CO2 and think that's not really it.....but later, I have me a good serving of crow. :redface:


----------



## amberskye

plantbrain said:


> So at what point do you have evidence that EXCESS nutrient do any harm and what type of harm might this entail? If a reduction in growth rate is the metric, then it would be a good thing for many wanting to slow the rates of growth down, that's long been the argument of those limiting nutrients vs not.
> 
> Harm needs defined and most hobbyist do not define what that harm is/is not.
> The other issue is that excess is left open ended...no one says "87ppm of NO3 is detrimental". Then others come along and confirm it.
> I've never seen one case where this has occurred in the hobby.
> I have a couple of papers that confirm about this range for some plants species.
> 
> Gerloff 1966 etc.
> 
> I agree that beyond say 30ppm there's no added benefit to dosing more.
> But adding more than this to say 100ppm a pretty large wide margin of error, even above that, I am not sure, I only have evidence to about 80ppm etc and beyond. Those claiming it's bad above 10ppm or whatever, these folks have not tested this stuff, or tried to falsify their claims.
> 
> There are many examples over many years where folks dosed by accident high levels of KNO3 or PO4 etc. The world did not end. Nothing was harmed, no algae, no poor plant growth etc.
> 
> If this was the case, we'd have to see it by dosing this same amount.
> But that is simply not the case.
> 
> So there is little risk over dosing, even in gross cases. I'm sure there is a point, but I've yet to hear of hobby screwing up that bad. Still, no need to lard it on past 30ppm and no need to go less than say 10ppm either. 20ppm +/- a week is not a difficult target to hit.
> 
> My argument is not that the excess range is infinite and open ended, there has to be some point where fert salts will retard growth rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I question these so called "facts".
> I've tested them and see little issue.
> 
> I do in fact admit that excess at some point, I'll stick with 80-100 ppm or so
> for NO3. I honestly have no clue to where and what ppm for PO4 is excessive. To plants or livestock.
> 
> This is a pretty big margin of error for dosing. That's the point.
> Not fear, not testing and worrying if you are off 5ppm or 2ppm etc.
> How come I keep talking ranges and no#, ppm's and test and the other folks are not? You only are looking at one side of the coin, not both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.
> But...
> 
> All it takes is for 1-2 folks to have those same ppm's and well, there goes that hypothesis out the window. You can suspect and test it, but you cannot ever have 100% certainty that it is the cause. Still, as well design test can give us pretty good reasoning/rational to accept that say 80 ppm is a good upper bound.
> 
> We also can use a simpler rational, there's no added benefit to adding more than a usable range that's easy to hit. If it is very easy to hit 5-35ppm without much work/effort, it's easy etc..........why worry if we know the upper bound is 2-3x this?
> 
> Dempsy issue was more about the lighting, not the ferts.
> 
> If you did the large weekly water changes and followed EI, then there's no way unless the tap was loaded with NO3, you'd get much beyond 40-60ppm of NO3.
> 
> The math does not lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, we cannot say some plants are not different in their preferences.
> I have the stated plants and have kept about 99% of the species in the trade. Some are picky but this is more to do with current/CO2/lighting perhaps.
> 
> I've yet to find some hyper sensitive nutrient ranges requirement for ANY plant species to date. If they all grow nicely together, and I add richer ferts/CO2/light etc.........well, then that falsifies those claims for the species at those ppm's.
> 
> I've never found such criteria to date using this dosing with ADA AS:
> 
> 15ppm 3x a week(45ppm total)
> 5ppm PO4 3x a week
> About 1-2ppm of Fe as proxy for all traces(CSM+B)
> 15ppm of K+ once a week
> 
> Tonina, Ludwigias, Synognanthus, Erios, Red plants, and I recently got some Ammannia etc.
> 
> All in one tank:thumbsup:
> and I'm heavily gardening, and scaping, making rows, documenting the progress, selling cuttings etc.....not just "sort of growing" them.
> 
> I blamed the fire shrimp for the Erio attack, but the plant simply needed time and was moved around too much. So I falsely accused them. But I went back and tried the test again and did not move them, and they grew back, so I often go back and double check if I'm not sure. I'm still not 100% sure the cause, but I do know it's not the nutrients because that dosing has not changed.
> 
> Maybe CO2, maybe not feeding the shrimp enough, maybe acclimation, maybe moving the plants around too much. I can only say for sure what is not the case.
> 
> And that's the trouble with a lot of these types of things, we think it's something, and it may seem like it, but we are never 100% sure, we can falsify many things though and narrow the uncertainty down.
> 
> Many assume that the success of some is nutrients, but cranking the light up 2-3 x might be the real reason. So you go back and test it again and see. I still sometimes get nailed with CO2 and think that's not really it.....but later, I have me a good serving of crow. :redface:


 ....i agree....just when ya think its one thing, you change it and something else happens. Process of elimination is surely the only accurate way of determining and measuring. In my VERY humble opnion, every tank is different and it takes a lot of juggling to find the right receipe. I can only say that for me, light is the driving and most important factor. The amount, strength and period of light governs all the other elements. Ive successfully run densely planted tanks with t5HO lights and ZERO Co2. The lights were only on 5 hrs per day. Ive successfully murdered a tank with T8 lights and 12 hour photoperiods. Im still undecided about fertz. I do know, the more fertz i give my plants the less algae I get, but combined with too much light, theres always a casualty. Fine tuniing as every tank is different...ok I'll zip my novice lips and await the gurus opinion


----------



## plantbrain

Here is Gerloff's paper, you might know the other guy, Paul, he use to post on the APD for years, guess he's still around. 

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

This is a generalized growth rate vs concentration of nutrients(or light, or perhaps CO2 also)










So there is a limiting range and excess range for any and all parameters. But the question is, how large are these ranges for each nutrient/parameter? 
If you cannot answer that and have some input, at the lower and the upper ranges, well, there's always a lot of speculation to be had on the internet.:redface:


Do plants adapt to lower, or higher levels of nutrients in their environment? Yes, they do:
This is for K+










Each concentration range has a special set of uptake transporters that are constructed by the cell. You could argue that stability within this range is the reason for better rates of growth at lower levels. Unfortunately I'm arguing with myself on this/these point/s. No hobbyists has offered this as support as far as I know.

Are folks standardized in their set ups? I mean does every one have the same PAR, color temps, sediments, CO2, etc? 

No, so those issues need addressed and asked about too.

There's just a lot more than nutrients alone to factor in, but all you need is a few cases where they do not cause an issue over a a certain range, to know that's not worth barking up that tree much longer. Maybe the issue was something unrelated to dosing? Seeks questions, not answers.


----------



## plantbrain

amberskye said:


> ....i agree....just when ya think its one thing, you change it and something else happens. Process of elimination is surely the only accurate way of determining and measuring. In my VERY humble opnion, every tank is different and it takes a lot of juggling to find the right receipe. I can only say that for me, light is the driving and most important factor. The amount, strength and period of light governs all the other elements. Ive successfully run densely planted tanks with t5HO lights and ZERO Co2. The lights were only on 5 hrs per day. Ive successfully murdered a tank with T8 lights and 12 hour photoperiods. Im still undecided about fertz. I do know, the more fertz i give my plants the less algae I get, but combined with too much light, theres always a casualty. Fine tuniing as every tank is different...ok I'll zip my novice lips and await the gurus opinion


Sounds like the missing ingredient your stew is CO2.

The other question is, how fast do you want to grow your plants and how much energy/labor input do you want to have to keep the tank a a specific goal.

Dempsy's goal is very different than say my non CO2 goal.
But Dempsy's goal compared to say the 120 Gal I have is likely much much closer. Having several tanks with different goals helps to expand and show the differences between these seemingly vastly different tanks. It is far more informational.

Tropica's matrix here shows the difference in growth rates for Riccia at various light and CO2 levels, this pretty much covers the lowest light non CO2 to the highest light CO2 enriched ranges hobbyists keep.










16X different in growth rates, that will imply(assumed) a 16X lower demand for ferts over the extremes there. In the test, they used a non limiting fert solution. This is also a non limiting fert solution used at the commercial aquatic plant grower's facility. They have a financial interest in maximizing ferts and production etc. 

We might not want the highest rates of growth.
Light perhaps, or CO2 could be used to reduce growth, but ferts can be also.
You could also change out species that require less care, trimming etc.


----------



## dundadundun

updates?


----------



## DarkCobra

plantbrain said:


> So at what point do you have evidence that EXCESS nutrient do any harm and what type of harm might this entail? If a reduction in growth rate is the metric, then it would be a good thing for many wanting to slow the rates of growth down, that's long been the argument of those limiting nutrients vs not.


I definitely wouldn't recommend adding huge doses of ferts to slow growth rate, as green dust algae also grew moderately fast at these levels. Light is the best control.



plantbrain said:


> There are many examples over many years where folks dosed by accident high levels of KNO3 or PO4 etc. The world did not end. Nothing was harmed, no algae, no poor plant growth etc.


All of those examples I recall seeing were one-time events. And had the nutrient levels reduced within a few days, either by scheduled or emergency water changes. Too short a time to make any meaningful observations.



plantbrain said:


> If you did the large weekly water changes and followed EI, then there's no way unless the tap was loaded with NO3, you'd get much beyond 40-60ppm of NO3.
> 
> The math does not lie.


The math is only as good as the variables put into it. If you ignore a significant variable entirely, it will most definitely lie.

Do the math for the tank parameters I listed, but including the additional nitrate contribution of 2.2g of food daily, containing 40% protein by weight.

Then see if you still think "there's no way unless the tap was loaded with NO3" for this to happen. 

I still have a net surplus of nitrates even if I add none at all.


----------



## Steve001

Francis Xavier said:


> It's more common knowledge in agricultural circles for gardens, etc. But essentially harder water leaves behind calcium carbonate and salts that build up over time and decrease the plant's ability to take up nutrients.
> 
> 
> It also has this effect on the substrate itself - over time even Aqua soil can calcify and become useless due to excessively hard water concentrations.
> 
> Basically pH's 8 and over are the worst off and you're much better off using RODI at that point. Anything over 7.5 is a bit rough and you're basically adding another layer of challenge to your growing.


I've seen this happen even in the wild. It's because plants are disassociating the bicarbonates and calcium carbonate in the water column for there carbon leaving behind calcium. I think it's predominantly calcium that utilized


----------



## roadmaster

DarkCobra said:


> I definitely wouldn't recommend adding huge doses of ferts to slow growth rate, as green dust algae also grew moderately fast at these levels. Light is the best control.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those examples I recall seeing were one-time events. And had the nutrient levels reduced within a few days, either by scheduled or emergency water changes. Too short a time to make any meaningful observations.
> 
> 
> 
> The math is only as good as the variables put into it. If you ignore a significant variable entirely, it will most definitely lie.
> 
> Do the math for the tank parameters I listed, but including the additional nitrate contribution of 2.2g of food daily, containing 40% protein by weight.
> 
> Then see if you still think "there's no way unless the tap was loaded with NO3" for this to happen.
> 
> I still have a net surplus of nitrates even if I add none at all.


 
Would not worry bout surplus nitrates. Feeding less food, and weekly water change should take care of it.


----------



## houseofcards

I've setup many different types of tanks from fast growing high light to slow growing low light to very sparsely planted tanks dosing high-end EI in each and every one of them and have never run into a problem. Practically speaking, I think with water changes, healthy plants the amount needed to cause a 'real' problem would be so high it isn't really applicable to the way most of us run planted tanks. 

If I had to watch and micro (no pun) manage my tanks I probably wouldn't have any. Not very practical with several tanks and a busy lifestyle.


----------



## Dempsey

dundadundun said:


> updates?


I have some updates. I will post some pics later. Not the best updates. I started getting some plants melting and some plants with holes and leafs falling apart and floating to the top.

I changed nothing since I started dosing this route and dropping my lights. I am guessing that the plants pulled all of the excess ferts from the substrate. I did add root tabs when I first started this. Has it been that long? They may be depleated...

I am going to start EI dosing again and see what happens. Who knows, this tanks requirements may actually be the EI amounts.

This time, I am going to start with EI and very slowly lean back one each.... I would love to see where I end up.

FYI, with calibrated test kits, NO3 and PO4 were chewed up pretty quick in this tank, even with my tap water(15-20PPM of NO3 and 1PPM of PO4).


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

i feel like i saw this comming
that was a lot of light

the recovery process will likely be filled with algae of some sort on old leaves

GOOD LUCK!!!!! i hope it goes well how old is the substrate i thik i remember u were going to use aquasoil

either way non inert substrates run out of nitrogen fast but the rest usually last a long time

u may just be needing more nitrogen... just a thought


----------



## happi

Dempsey said:


> I have some updates. I will post some pics later. Not the best updates. I started getting some plants melting and some plants with holes and leafs falling apart and floating to the top.
> 
> I changed nothing since I started dosing this route and dropping my lights. I am guessing that the plants pulled all of the excess ferts from the substrate. I did add root tabs when I first started this. Has it been that long? They may be depleated...
> 
> I am going to start EI dosing again and see what happens. Who knows, this tanks requirements may actually be the EI amounts.
> 
> This time, I am going to start with EI and very slowly lean back one each.... I would love to see where I end up.
> 
> FYI, with calibrated test kits, NO3 and PO4 were chewed up pretty quick in this tank, even with my tap water(15-20PPM of NO3 and 1PPM of PO4).


same happened here but, only under my t5ho lights. with the PC lights on my setup this dosing was doing ok and plant did quite ok. but i went with different route to test my own things now.


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> i feel like i saw this comming
> that was a lot of light
> 
> the recovery process will likely be filled with algae of some sort on old leaves
> 
> GOOD LUCK!!!!! i hope it goes well how old is the substrate i thik i remember u were going to use aquasoil
> 
> either way non inert substrates run out of nitrogen fast but the rest usually last a long time
> 
> u may just be needing more nitrogen... just a thought





happi said:


> same happened here but, only under my t5ho lights. with the PC lights on my setup this dosing was doing ok and plant did quite ok. but i went with different route to test my own things now.


Of course losts of us saw it coming but I was still very interested. Maybe I could have just added more NO3? K? Or whatever? I'm sure I could have figured it out but just didn't have time to in this past month, working long hours and traveling.

I am going to dose EI for a few weeks and then once the plants pop back, lean each fert down a tad at a time. 

I am just curious how low I can go and still have consistent results.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf

GOOD GOOD!!! im still interested in what u've found thus far

what kind of substrate do u have? is it fert loaded or inert?


----------



## Dempsey

HD Blazingwolf said:


> GOOD GOOD!!! im still interested in what u've found thus far
> 
> what kind of substrate do u have? is it fert loaded or inert?


I will keep everyone posted. I took some pics last night so I will size them and post them when I get home.

One thing that I forgot to mention in that the only plant that was really effected was the Starougyne repens. It was effected pretty bad though. Everyday I had to net floating leafs from the tank.

I am using Eco-Complete, so it's inert. Assuming that dosing EI for a year loaded the substrate with enough ferts to last a little bit. I do add root tabs also.


----------



## dundadundun

curious as to the specific root tabs you're using, Dempsey. might help understanding your timeline between starting this with good results and staurogyne annihilation.


----------



## Dempsey

dundadundun said:


> curious as to the specific root tabs you're using, Dempsey. might help understanding your timeline between starting this with good results and staurogyne annihilation.


Aquarium Fertilizers Root Zone Tabs.


----------



## plantbrain

Dempsey said:


> One thing that I forgot to mention in that the only plant that was really effected was the Starougyne repens. It was effected pretty bad though. Everyday I had to net floating leafs from the tank.


Starou does odd things if you change it too much, but it recovers well and will adapt to most any routine. Might take 1-2 week before the leaves stop shedding, but then it'll slowly sprout new leaves.

A sudden rise in temp did this, also happened when I ran out of CO2 for a few days. The N is the only thing that would be limiting in the sediment. IME, it's pretty forgiving, but longer term N stress compared to all those other taller and closer to the light, so they will take up the nutrients more than the low starougyne which is 12-20" farther away from the light.

Light drives CO2 uptake, which then drives the rates of N, P etc.........so if there's limited amounts of N or whatever...........they will often suffer more.
Many species can tolerate low nutrients..........others cannot.........
IME, Starougyne is pretty tough.


----------



## Dempsey

plantbrain said:


> Starou does odd things if you change it too much, but it recovers well and will adapt to most any routine. Might take 1-2 week before the leaves stop shedding, but then it'll slowly sprout new leaves.
> 
> A sudden rise in temp did this, also happened when I ran out of CO2 for a few days. The N is the only thing that would be limiting in the sediment. IME, it's pretty forgiving, but longer term N stress compared to all those other taller and closer to the light, so they will take up the nutrients more than the low starougyne which is 12-20" farther away from the light.
> 
> Light drives CO2 uptake, which then drives the rates of N, P etc.........so if there's limited amounts of N or whatever...........they will often suffer more.
> Many species can tolerate low nutrients..........others cannot.........
> IME, Starougyne is pretty tough.


Thanks, Tom. That makes sence. I guess I also forgot to mention that I ran out of CO2 for a day. And when it I hooked it back up I didn't realize that I had it very low for 2 days... I have done this in the past but it has only lead to algae so I didn't even take that into consideration. Esp, since it started looking like crap so fast. It really didn't start falling apart until about a week later. This makes sence though.

Thanks!


----------

