# Types of fertilization methods to discuss



## chad320 (Mar 7, 2010)

I follow the thirsty tomato plant method. If it looks unhappy, I analize what I think its wanting and try to get it to perk its leaves back up. With so many variables and styles of tanks, with all of the different varieties of plants, my opinion is that there isnt any, or will ever be any set in stone rule of fertilization. I wait for my tank to find its balance and do as little as possible to disturb it. Only when my plants show signs of "the thirst tomato plant"


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

I adhere more to the 'Eastern' fertilizer philosophy, although I still dose macros and micros. I dose TPN 3x weekly, N/K 2x weekly, and P 1x weekly. N is dosed to approx 10 ppm and P is about 0.75 ppm. Water change is only once every 2 weeks.

I stumbled onto this regime because my schedule is crazy right now. I'm glad though, because it seems far superior to everything else I've tried in terms of dosing. 

I've always been a big believer in rich substrates, hence why I shell out $27 per 9 liter bag of aquasoil.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

sewingalot said:


> 1. Closely follow a method you decided to use, be loyal to this method but without really understanding it, defend it until you are exhausted and created enemies.


Amen.

I follow the Western approach. There are a few issues with it:

1) More nutrients, more CO2, and less light is the answer to everything. Simply browbeat any problem into submission; rather than trying to isolate and understand the cause, then correct it with a more targeted approach.

2) That answer is often a kneejerk reaction, given by people who don't even bother to read the specifics of your setup. As an example, at one point I was told this for three months, and my protests that it wasn't working led only to circular arguments. When in fact I had plenty of nutrients and CO2, and my only problem was that I had _insufficient_ light to grow healthy plants; even though I repeatedly gave my lighting specs for everyone to see.

3) And if that answer ultimately fails you, and you try to seek other answers or discover something new, you too must be browbeaten into submission. With people regurgitating the same dogma, that anyone in the hobby for a few years had heard hundreds of times, until any productive discussion is impossible. I think at this point some of the same folks who made the biggest breakthroughs and initially helped us advance, are now only holding back advancement through their aggressive posting tactics. I've been self-censoring on this forum for years now. There are things I do that I _never_ mention, and others that I only bring up when feeling particularly adventurous.

The Eastern approach of root-feeding seems superior in many respects. It's only logical the plants will like it more, and the algae like it less. Though I can only speak from limited experience here, what keeps me away from it is:

1) Ironically, I hate terrestrial gardening, and anything that resembles it too closely. Making mudpies for a month (MTS) is not my idea of a good time. Neither is digging in my substrate to add ferts or other amendments. Playing with dry or liquid ferts and tests reminds me only of chemistry, which I like. I suppose I'm a bit weird. :hihi:

2) Ready-to-use substrates, like Aquasoil and such, lose performance with time, or break down and become messy. Others start messy. All substrates can become depleted. Soil can become anaerobic. Layers become hopelessly mixed. I prefer to redo my tank when I choose, and spend reasonable amounts of time with my tanks every day; rather than having my substrate dictate large, unexpected demands on my time or wallet, which may lead to rapid deterioration if I ignore.

3) When I do have time and inclination, I like to rescape, adjust parameters, and experiment far too much to be practical for these kinds of substrates.

4) I also like high light tanks, and fast growing stem plants, as I believe they contribute much to providing a healthier enviroment for fish. But they require frequent trims. With water column ferts, they're still getting nutrients when you cut their roots off, and they just keep on going with little effect. Although I haven't tried it, I doubt the same applies with substrate ferts only.

5) This approach attracts the naturopaths, homeopaths, conspiracy theorists, and every other kind of irrational and superstitious people. Just a few can ruin any discussion. Not much different than the Western zealots really, but they at least _pretend_ to be grounded in science.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> I've been doing a lot of research the past year or so on the methods of fertilization. There seem to be a few main thoughts:
> 
> 1. Closely follow a method you decided to use, be loyal to this method but without really understanding it, defend it until you are exhausted and created enemies.
> 2. Fertlize more than the plants will ever need, reset the tank as needed.
> ...


Agriculture/Horticulture is a Science and there's no west vs east muckery involved. You cannot argue with Liebig's law, that is why it is a "scientific law". All the Commercial Aquatic Plant Growers in each country all use similar methods...........but labor cost define most of the differences there, NOT culture. Hobbyists are the one's that get this confused, not the researchers or commercial growers.

As long as the plants grow, hobbyists do not care...........and few ever bother to really test methods and master each one. 

I do not see this as a east vs west thing at all, I see folks everywhere having the same old problems and they have them for the last 15 years or so I've been helping folks. I see these same views in the East and the West. I've been active on forums for a decade in both locations. Some approaches to scaping perhaps.........but little else.

But, I suggest folks to try different methods, and I take my own advice too, I have non CO2 no enriched sediments, some tanks have plain sand and CO2.........some high lots of stems, others mostly ferns and slower growing........

I've manged to master each. Hard to help a wide range of folks if all you are is a one trick pony.


----------



## chad320 (Mar 7, 2010)

This is true. A one trick pony is a tough candidate for teaching others. I second trying out different styles. There are simply too many varieties of plants to nail down a set rule or instructions of how to run your own tank without doing it yourself. Different plants like different scenarios and you cant really pin "East" vs. "West" other than a personal preference for what you are trying to achive.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Liebig's law can be argued, just as any law in science can. A law is a law only until there is overwhelming evidence to disprove it like the *Titius–Bode* law was disproven. Any method can and _*SHOULD*_ be discussed if it elightens others to advance or at least come to an understanding as to why they follow the method they do, not "it works, why question it?" There was a time that cigarettes were perscribed by doctors as a health supplement. It took nearly 50 years to show they were wrong. What if we all just stopped questioning the hobby and just let the few that proclaimed to be wise and knowing run the logistics for us? I am sorry, but I am not about to pick up a sign or my pitchfork and slay the ogres because I don't agree with the masses. I question things and will always question. Why do we need to be censured for bringing up silly discussions? What harm does it cause to question?

Perhaps it is my fault for saying Eastern versus Western. The point of this thread is to get others thinking outside the box. Dark Cobra has the right idea. What I meant by East vs. West could have easily been worded as light vs. dark, rich vs. poor, manual vs. standard, etc: basically different approaches to the hobby. I am interested in discussing the philosphy of planted tanks, the why behind the methods. Not the same old "I don't agree with your idea, so let's all dismiss it" approach. Seriously, what if this was discussed 15 years ago and already determined and mastered by others? I really don't care about that silliness.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

I somewhat agree with the unfortunate split in the hobby from East to West, but not along the lines that Sara has presented. I see it more in the equipment being used, the availability of different plants, substrates, components, etc. But this is for a different discussion.

All and all, I found from my experience that Liebig's law is a valid pedestal for this hobby to lean against.

Too many times we see people using "manufactured substrates", premixed ferts saying dose this for this, techy light fixtures banging insane lights,etc. Too many "pre-packaged" goods can sometimes, in my personal opinion, disconnect to many variables in our aquariums.

Fertilization is something always debated. The law of minimums was proven to me over my experiences and I hold true to it.

I use MTS substrates, and I dose the water column on top of it. I also run low CO2 infusion and have 208 watt T5 HO that are running for a good portion of the day. You can kick and scream and say, why do you dose if you use MTS substrates? Why are do you run lean on your CO2? Guess why? It works for ME. I found the balance that works and until it implodes, I am running with it.

I am no "testing" kinda guy. In fact, I don't even own a test kit. I go with whats working.

Dose, don't dose, its up to the hobbyist. Understanding what your plants need to grow is the important factor. They need nutrients and light (I lump CO2 in nutrients). Limiting one is the limiting factor.

I applaud discussion, and certainly things should be questioned. But I also think that reality is something that can't be lost site of. Plants need light and food. End of story. Up the lights, up the nutrients. Low light, less nutrient demand. Whether the "excess" is the root cause of "other problems" I can't prove or disprove.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You could throw a lot of science on the different fert methods, etc, and I'm sure there is much to learn, but whether it's east vs west or high/low light and tech the human element is one variable that affects all setups. 

Personally I' have always dosed my tanks to excess and for the same reason I am 90% off stems I just don't have the time to do all the trimming and/or worry about something running out. If your relying on the substrate and dosing a minimal amount as the substrate depletes then you are probably needing to spend more time monitoring things on a daily basis. Personally I would not be in this hobby any more if I had to test every parameter and worry about something being to far out of range. By dosing in excess, religiously changing water it eliminates the two largest obstacles to success, plant deficiencies and organic build up. But even if this is done the one thing you can't graph is someone's dedication to their setup. Professional companies, long-time hobbyists generally have a more steadfast commitment since there is more at stake and this would affect the level of their success compared to a typical hobbyist under the same parameters.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

+1 to Liebig's law. But it only defines the minimum limit for nutrients. What about the maximum?

All living things also have limits in the amount of a nutrient they can reject if unneeded, which is sometimes also dependent on the ratio between two or more interacting nutrients.

Some say it's impossible to reach these limits for plants in an aquarium with any sensible dosing regimen. And mention hydroponic solutions as an example of how high you can go.

But in hydroponics, only the roots are submersed in the solution; not the leaves. You can also foliar feed terrestrial plants by spraying their leaves with ferts, but with a more dilute solution. Otherwise, burns, stunting, and other injuries are possible.

Terrestrial plants get their nutrients from the soil. Their roots are designed to be the source of nutrient intake, or rejection if necessary. No need for them to have developed the ability to handle excessive nutrient levels absorbed through leaves, as it simply doesn't happen in nature.

Aquatic plants will have developed different abilities, according to the environment they came from. With some 400+ different plants in the hobby, from diverse environments, we can't expect all of them to grow equally well under the same conditions.

We can provide an environment that works for most plants, most of the time. Linking this back to hydroponics, you can use Hoagland's hydroponic solution for aquatic plants. But when used for this, it's recommended to dilute it to 1/4 or 1/5 of it's hydroponic strength. Why not use it full strength, 1/2, or even 1/3? I don't really know. But I have some trust in whoever came up that recommendation to have a good reason.

At 1/4 dilution, Hoagland's is 55ppm N, 8ppm P, 59ppm K; just to name the macros. We can exceed those using standard EI recommendations, given certain other factors; like fish load, plant type and load, lighting, etc. Some of these factors are highly objective, and will be interpreted differently by everyone.

So it is absolutely no surprise to me that a few people encounter problems, that can only be addressed by nutrient _reduction_. NOT limitation.

I understand that Sewingalot's intention for this thread was to discuss the hobby, rather than the hobbyists; both of which I critiqued as harshly in my first post as I felt necessary to adequately describe my thoughts. I regret having to go there, but to me the hobby and hobbyists are inseparable.

My biggest disappointment with this hobby is that any method is too often considered infallible by those who support it. Any failure or anomalous observation is blamed on hobbyist error. While this is actually true most of the time, and a healthy skepticism is necessary to filter these out; I do not believe it's true _all_ the time. For that minority, they have to deal with a brick wall of resistance from the community. These special cases are the ones that properly investigated, rather than summarily dismissed, will advance our hobby.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> All living things also have limits in the amount of a nutrient they can reject if unneeded, which is sometimes also dependent on the ratio between two or more interacting nutrients.
> 
> 
> Aquatic plants will have developed different abilities, according to the environment they came from. With some 400+ different plants in the hobby, from diverse environments, we can't expect all of them to grow equally well under the same conditions.
> ...


I totally agree. Aquarium plants come from a diverse array of habitats and naturally have different needs. In terms of nutrients though, most of them inhabit waterways with very low nutrient concentrations/conductivity. The most variable factors are Ca/Mg and CO2 concentration and even the highest natural concentrations are lower than what we maintain in our tanks. Meanwhile, the concentration all other macros/micros is very, very low.

I think it would be good for the hobby if people focused less on nutrients and more on other cultural requirements, like water pH, temperature and substrate composition In other horticultural hobbies, these factors are obsessed over, while planted tank hobbyists rarely give them much thought.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> For instance, in the Western culture, the approach is often found to be more is better: high water nutrients, high co2. Yet, in Eastern cultures it often the opposite: high nutrients in the substrate, little to none in the water and low, manageable co2. Polar opposites as if they were magnets flipped pushing away from one another. I find this extremely amusing as it just goes to show we still have a long way to go in this hobby and it is constantly changing.


I agree with this east/west distinction and think it's entirely applicable concerning the disparate methods used by asian and american hobbyists. 

Asian hobbyists more or less follow the ADA playbook- aquasoil and powersand substrate, heavy dosing of K and micros, N and P is taken care of by the fauna, 30% weekly water change, and low co2 concentrations. 

Although aquasoil seems to be the norm amongst american hobbyist with high tech tanks, most of us wind up dosing way more N and P than asians ever seem to maintain in their tanks. Americans also seem to combat algae by dosing MORE N and P, instead of less, which I believe in anathema to the 'Eastern' methods. 

The thing I find most odd is that although asian hobbyists dose less ferts and inject less co2, they use wayyyyy more light and in general have healthier looking plants and less algae issues than americans.


----------



## niko (Mar 8, 2006)

Someone told me about this thread because for some time on APC I've been having a (mostly) monologue about how fertilizing the water makes very little sense and yet most people in the US do exactly that.

So here are some "things that make you go "hmmm"..."

*1.* ADA, ADG, Bubbles, Oliver Knott do not fertlize the water. Why do we insist doing it then? Here get an eyefull:

Amano, watch in High Definition if you can. How he does it - look below, item 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0dQrSu2VSg

ADG. If you think that they drive their head all around Houston to dump fertilizers in their tanks you are mistaken:
http://aquariumdesigngroup.com

Bubbles. Uses resins to remove N and P. How is it that the stem plants in this tank of his are beyond beautiful then?:
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Gallery2010/Gallery2010_1_Infinite.htm
And the rest of the galleries:
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Aquascape Front PageF1.htm

Oliver Knott. He will not tell you how he does things. He's a salesman, nothing else. But he does not dump fertilizers in his water either:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella


*2.* Most of the time we like to have too many different plants in a glass box. This glass box is not a real lake or a river. So to keep the plants alive we need to... *get away from what Nature does*. Sounds reasonable, I guess. What does not sound reasonable is why do we try to go against Nature.

Our tanks are not a river. Our tanks are different. Tom Barr has told us that according to all his scientific insight we must have high concentrations of chemicals. Because it makes plants grow.

I wonder what Amano really thinks of dumping spoons of dry ferts in his tanks. What he thinks of EI. Or PPS. I guess if asked he would diplomatically get away with the popular "there different ways of doing things...". Yes indeed. I agree 100%. And some are guaranteed to bring you algae sooner or later.

As I harp on about the same thing all over again (*Rich substrate + Clean water + Good filtration*) I really see how easy it is to see that dumping dry chemicals in a glass box with a few gallons of water makes little sense.

*3.* I can sit and write down exactly how the ADA system works. This information is not clearly available in English and no "pro" aquacaping outfit cares to publish it on an orderly manner. The system makes a lot of sense and we all know what kind of tanks it produces. 

As a result of lack of knowledge most of us have started to do things that are simply funny. I too have an EI tank. 6 or so years old. The algae is minor and ever-present. In the past I've had an EI tank with zero algae. As all of them - as soon as I stop maintaining it it goes bad. The EI tanks that are stable have not developed because of EI.

:::
So here it is; I'm not going to post or look at this thread after I submit my post. I don't want to listen to Tom Barr or anybody's hostile/explanatory comments to what I just posted. Take it or leave it. I know what I'm talking about and sadly the people that know what's what in this hobby do not post on any of the aquascaping forums. I wish they did - even in the style I just did. My hope is to make some people think, that's all. I'm not attacking anything else but lack of common sense. Moderators can delete this post if they see fit, no problem. 

--Nikolay


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

I do what works for me: EI. Logical or not, it's a pretty guaranteed method that doesn't take extra "thought." I have better things to think about.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

niko said:


> Someone told me about this thread because for some time on APC I've been having a (mostly) monologue about how fertilizing the water makes very little sense and yet most people in the US do exactly that.
> 
> So here are some "things that make you go "hmmm"..."
> 
> ...


I know you don't plan to check back on this thread, but I still have to say this: you tell us repeatedly that dumping ferts into the water makes little to no sense, but you never once explained exactly why. I'd like to hear why. It's hard to give credit (though it may be due) to your post when you harp on something over and over but never really counterargue any point. I've heard from Tom why we dose EI, but I have not heard a 'why not" from you; just that it doesn't make sense and there are examples of people who don't do it. I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning so that I can look at it from your point of view, because I can't do that just from reading that post. I can sum up your whole post into one sentence: "EI doesn't make sense." I'm hoping to hear you elaborate, although sadly, since you aren't checking, we'll never get it, so it sounds like a terribly incomplete argument to me that I can take little from. And I'm not some EI zealot trying to harp on you at all. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint, but you have provided me with nothing to do so.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

What I find to be really sad is the "underground" plant society that is taking place in this hobby. There are many, many people that don't agree with the most common methods out there and believe much like Nikolay and myself. Often we are forced to communicate by pms since there is often a war mentality when the EI method and other similar water column methods are criticized. I have seen countless threads where someone brings up the method failing for them, and immediately they are dismissed and told they are wrong and screwed up. Rarely do you see anyone try and help that member as we should be doing. It becomes instead an "I'm right, you're wrong" battle. I have been told I am the failure, and even attacked for helping another member (bsmith) with his algae issue. And when I did the "experiments" as we were told to do and found evidence contradicting the accepted standards, I was told I was hurting the hobby with "fear mongering" or that this was discovered years ago. This is really ridiculous if you think about it. If a method is tried and true, then the personal attacks shouldn't be a factor and the same messages shouldn't be preached over and over. Rather, we should listen to one another, discover new methods and ask ourselves why when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to prove many of these accepted principles are not completely correct.

Instead, there are always the ones that will parrot "It works for me, why question it?" Why not? If we don't question the hobby, how will it ever advance? If these methods are so infalliable, why is there even algae forum? I dedicate myself in this hobby toward algae as I feel it is greatly misunderstood. For instance, there are several articles supporting Liebig's law toward algae growth. In the ocean, they found that iron was the limiting factor and was causing algae to die off. When they added it back in, it flourished and helped change the environment for the positive in that area. Scientists apply the same principles to algae as to plant growth. Yet, we are told nutrients don't feed algae. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet when we question, we are simply told we are incapable of understanding because we are hobbyists or we are plain wrong and then bombarded with the same rhetoric until ultimately, most of us abandon the threads and move on to pms. 

So the question becomes are these "proven" methods really proven when the opposition is squashed before they have a chance to speak out?


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> What I find to be really sad is the "underground" plant society that is taking place in this hobby. There are many, many people that don't agree with the most common methods out there and believe much like Nikolay and myself. Often we are forced to communicate by pms since there is often a war mentality when the EI method and other similar water column methods are criticized. I have seen countless threads where someone brings up the method failing for them, and immediately they are dismissed and told they are wrong and screwed up. Rarely do you see anyone try and help that member as we should be doing. It becomes instead an "I'm right, you're wrong" battle. I have been told I am the failure, and even attacked for helping another member (bsmith) with his algae issue. And when I did the "experiments" as we were told to do and found evidence contradicting the accepted standards, I was told I was hurting the hobby with "fear mongering" or that this was discovered years ago. This is really ridiculous if you think about it. If a method is tried and true, then the personal attacks shouldn't be a factor and the same messages shouldn't be preached over and over. Rather, we should listen to one another, discover new methods and ask ourselves why when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to prove many of these accepted principles are not completely correct.
> 
> Instead, there are always the ones that will parrot "It works for me, why question it?" Why not? If we don't question the hobby, how will it ever advance? If these methods are so infalliable, why is there even algae forum? I dedicate myself in this hobby toward algae as I feel it is greatly misunderstood. For instance, there are several articles supporting Liebig's law toward algae growth. In the ocean, they found that iron was the limiting factor and was causing algae to die off. When they added it back in, it flourished and helped change the environment for the positive in that area. Scientists apply the same principles to algae as to plant growth. Yet, we are told nutrients don't feed algae. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet when we question, we are simply told we are incapable of understanding because we are hobbyists or we are plain wrong and then bombarded with the same rhetoric until ultimately, most of us abandon the threads and move on to pms.
> 
> So the question becomes are these "proven" methods really proven when the opposition is squashed before they have a chance to speak out?



When is it _not _something they're doing wrong? 

-Too much light
-Dose X more 
-CO2 is insufficient 

There are only these 3 problems that exist in this method. I find it easy to troubleshoot...Problems arise when new hobbyists jump in bright eyed and buy the biggest lights and the most expensive equipment and get effed over by being too impatient.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

Unfortunately in this hobby, like many, if you don't do it the "popular" way, you do it _wrong_. There are a lot of people who have been doing this longer than I have, and even with more success. But to be frank, RootMedic/Pfertz/ADA ferts are FAR from EI dosing. yet somehow they work. I spend a considerable amount of time explaining to people that despite not giving them levels close to EI, RootMedic will work. I guarantee it, with my bottom dollar. 

What bothers me is that when someone asks a question like this, as Sewingalot likes to do(asking questions is good, no?), everyone goes all Rex Grigg on them and freaks out and says that it is this way vs that way and this culture vs that. I don't think that was the question, was it? What am I missing here that says every time there is a question about this stuff it has to digress from the topic and belittle others thoughts just because they have a different belief(and motive) than you. Pretending we don't all have some sort of motive(even just our egos) is nonsense. 

It seems when people want to follow option 6, and understand what plants actually need or want, a group of people jump on the bandwagon and say that why bother, when we KNOW EI works. Well guess what? Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes people like to tweak and adjust and fiddle with things. How in the hell did EI, RG reactors, ADA, and RootMedic get developed if we don't fiddle with anything? 

Obviously, I manufacture a product for people who don't necessarily want to fiddle with every detail. But if they do, they can easily use wet's calculator to see what they are giving their ferts(I approached wet to have my products added to the calc). But when people want to talk philosophies it seems that we get all American in their face and do the "my way or the highway" approach like we're marching down the highway to Baghdad. 

This isn't THAT complicated. But that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to explore the possibilities of everything involved. I'll throw myself under the bus. 

I sell several products that many in the "West" say are garbage. Tom Barr was one of the first to call out my tourmaline-p product. But here is the deal: if people want to use it, and feel that it does good for them, and notice differences(despite what science tells us) then why can't we let them do it. Not everyone cares about every last penny they spend. If they did, they wouldn't buy anything I have for sale. They'd all support Tom's friends at Aquariumfertilzer.com and GLA and we'd have nothing to talk about. 

I do think there is a difference between east and west when it comes to dosing. The germans differ some too. Nutrient rich substrates are something that are much less common here. Substrates like eco, flourite, sand, and gravel take over here. They outsell ADA and the other options(and simple soil) by leaps and bounds. Mostly because of availability and pretty packaging, but the difference is there. 

I know I'm wasting my time here. I can already see the responses, but don't really much care.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

OverStocked said:


> Unfortunately in this hobby, like many, if you don't do it the "popular" way, you do it _wrong_. There are a lot of people who have been doing this longer than I have, and even with more success. But to be frank, RootMedic/Pfertz/ADA ferts are FAR from EI dosing. yet somehow they work. I spend a considerable amount of time explaining to people that despite not giving them levels close to EI, RootMedic will work. I guarantee it, with my bottom dollar.
> 
> What bothers me is that when someone asks a question like this, as Sewingalot likes to do(asking questions is good, no?), everyone goes all Rex Grigg on them and freaks out and says that it is this way vs that way and this culture vs that. I don't think that was the question, was it? What am I missing here that says every time there is a question about this stuff it has to digress from the topic and belittle others thoughts just because they have a different belief(and motive) than you. Pretending we don't all have some sort of motive(even just our egos) is nonsense.
> 
> ...


It's only natural that different forums tend to become groups of different people who believe different things. That's just human nature. EI tends to be very prevalent here, no doubt partly due to Tom Barr's strong presence here. However, in the short time that I've been here, I haven't seen nearly as much belittling, aside from a few individuals (some of whom carry more weight than others), as you and sewingalot seem to think there is. Maybe that's because I havent' been here long enough, I don't know. I think a lot of people here know that EI isn't the only way out there. It's just one way of doing things, and nobody says that you have to do it to run a successful tank. I certainly never felt that way and still don't. It's plainly obvious that there are many ways to run absolutely stunning tanks. EI is just the most prevalent of this group, based on my observations.

However, when posts like Niko's post happen, I think it hurts his image a ton, at least in my eyes, because when I think about recapping his post, it ends too early. I like where he's trying to go and would love to hear more, but he never even started; he just cried and that was the end of it. Where's the "EI doesn't make sense. Here's what I do, and here's why. This is how it differs from EI and this is what I believe and why it makes sense to me"? I see none of that and all crying. From my perspective, which is an individual reading this thread to learn and gain information, what am I supposed to do with a post like his? It gives me no information other than some links to other people who do it differently, and we already know there are tons of ways to do it that all work. I want to hear more of the reasoning behind it. To be fair, I have heard far more from Tom about why EI works, what its limitations are, and how to proceed about ensuring success than I have about all other methods combined. Maybe that's a product of being on this forum and people who say otherwise being forced to trade PMs, but until I get to hear more about other methods, I can't learn about them and try them out. I've even read more from Tom Barr about managing a low maintenance, low fert, dirt tank than I have heard from anybody else, and I think that that's a shame. Anyways, I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who would love to hear the things that you have to say.

That's my "3rd party" perspective of this.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

You started participating in this thread early... You're no longer a third party. Niko has made some amazing moves in planted tanks too. He helps sell what I consider the best substrate on the market, and ADG does amazing work. If everyone used ADA substrates I wouldn't have even gotten into business. 

And the idea of substrates right with a little in the water is where I went when I started oneSTEP just a few weeks back. 

Part of why many don't preach their beliefs is because they get shut down here fast. If it isn't EI, it isn't anything. While PPS Pro isn't my style, if someone wants to test lots more power to them. THe response is too often that This works, why bother doing anything else. 

Well what do we do when it doesn't work? When we're smart enough to understand why it works, and what I have to do to make it work, and the plants still aren't happy.... What then?

Niko wasn't crying. By no means. And he gave the photo evidence to prove that his thought procoess works. THe photo proof similar to what tom does showing us his tanks. Tom's tanks are gorgeous, but when he sees something that isn't what he's currently seeking, he tends to degrade or belittle it to some extent. It hasn't always been this way. But that seems to be where we're at right now. 

I'd be happy to write how I feel about dosing and the like. THe trouble is, as soon as I do THe EI Clan is on it like a fat kid on cake and it is just me trying to sell products. As if we're not all trying to sell something. 

If you really want to hear what I have to say, perhaps I'll take a little more time(and a few less beers) to clearly type it out. But your initial attitude is still that you are inclined to doubt someone just because they didn't want to hassle with someone, or hassle with the bs that usually follows these threads. I actually spent several hours typing and deleting posts for this thread. I wanted to avoid it. It is bad business for me to come into these things. I sound like a pompous ass and I push buttons. 

But sometimes standing your ground is good business too. What I want to hear is why people who say EI diddn't work for the are automatically assumed to have done something wrong. IF sewingalot says something didn't work for her, I'm guessing it wasn't as simple as too much light or not enough co2. I spew that crap all day long. I know it truer than true. Too much light, too little ferts and too little co2 are the cause of co2.... but that does not make the inverse the only cure.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Say someone uses your product and it doesn't work for them? What has happened? Have you or they gone wrong? Certainly you wouldn't want to say that your own formula is "bad." You'd want to know the conditions of their tank and want to know what amount of your product they're using....It's the same idea really. I don't really see any of this "shutting down" you're talking about. The questions are always along the same lines regardless of what's being used because we only have so many problems: 

-deficiencies
-slow growth
-algae 

There are only so many solutions: 

-Change dosing 
-Change CO2/ lighting 

The question is the preponderance of evidence in favor of EI pointing out that it works...And there are wonderful examples of soil tanks. I want to say both work just fine...but why can't you just use both? Dose column and have a rich substrate. I think I'm missing something...what are we arguing about?


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

OverStocked said:


> You started participating in this thread early... You're no longer a third party. Niko has made some amazing moves in planted tanks too. He helps sell what I consider the best substrate on the market, and ADG does amazing work. If everyone used ADA substrates I wouldn't have even gotten into business.
> 
> And the idea of substrates right with a little in the water is where I went when I started oneSTEP just a few weeks back.
> 
> ...


Maybe I haven't been here long enough to have been exposed to the prolonged belittling, so I can't chime in on that more than I already have. I don't know how true it is; it very well could be right on.

As far as my initial attitude towards doubting someone just because they didn't want to deal with the hassle, how can I believe it if you don't tell me any more about it than what it is? I don't automatically believe something just because someone said so. People didn't believe that the earth was round and not flat until someone (probably Columbus) sailed out west and didn't fall off the Earth. With EI, I know what the regimen is, the principles of how it works, and a little bit of the background behind it (Liebig's law, plant uptake graph from Tom Barr, etc.). One thing I'm missing (and I'm not sure anybody can answer this yet) is why the excess ferts don't cause algae. I can believe that there are cases of this because of pics and such of tests where it did not, but I have not heard any solid proof of the reasoning, whether it be allelopathy of plants and algae or something else. So I can see how plants grow using EI really clearly, and I believe that. I can see that in some cases, it doesn't cause algae, and I "believe" that, but I still have no idea how it works with no explanation either, so I can't fully buy in and say I understand it. Similarly, if you'd care to share your philosophies and the reasoning behind it, I would read and think about them the same way. I'd actually very much like to get more detailed and different takes on fertilizing other than EI. I don't think there's been enough of that here. But yeah, you're right. I have that initial attitude that if someone doesn't take the hassle of explaining, then I won't buy in. I wouldn't buy in to EI either if it wasn't explained to me.

As far as Niko's post goes, I believe that he is extremely successful and knowledgeable, and he definitely deserves credit for the things he's done, but in his post he basically says "EI doesn't make sense" and "here's some pics, videos, and threads of other people who don't use EI and succeed in planted tanks." Great, now why doesn't EI make sense? He's saying that EI doesn't make sense because people have used other methods and they work? If I said that walking from point A to point B didn't make sense, and my explanation was that it didn't make sense because other people have also gotten from point A to point B by riding on a unicycle while juggling flaming knives and breathing fire, are you going to believe me? I certainly believe that you can get from point A to point B with multiple methods (ok, maybe nobody can do it while doing all the things that I just said ), but doing one doesn't mean that the other "doesn't make sense", as Niko wanted to push. He offers an explanation of how he likes to do it (maybe everybody already knows, but I don't, and "fertilize substrate + clean water + filtration" doesn't give me a reason why fertilizing the water won't also help), but that doesn't tell me why EI doesn't make sense, yet he comes in complaining big time about how he's been mistreated and he won't check the thread again because people will bash him. Well guess what? He's right. I'm bashing him. Not because I blindly believe EI or don't believe that he's done fantastic work with planted tanks with his own methods that work, but because of the ridiculousness of his own post. What's he trying to say other than crying about EI and how he doesn't like it?

proactive edit: I think I've said enough about that post forever, so let's just leave it at that. I know where Niko stands on the issue, and I know that he knows what he's doing very well, although it's a shame that he can't share more of his philosophies. I've clicked on all the links he provided, but they didn't really help me dive into other methodologies. They just showed me pics/clips of some other tanks and linked to a couple commercial sites that I really don't know what to do with to learn from.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

I think all systems that works including natural systems have things in common; that is adequate Carbon (CO2 or CaCO2) with adequate light.

Ferts are easy to figure out. Just look at the plants and they'll tell you.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

I really hope that this thread turns into a civil conversation that can only be beneficial to all but more often that not it seems to turn into ones taking sides. There is alot to be learned in this ever evolving hobby that is why things are so much different than they were 10-20 years ago. While some may not agree with certain methods such as Tom's EI dosing method I have to say until others in the hobby come forward and are more forthcoming with why they do things the way they do it's hard to have a healthy disscussion. I have tried different forms of dosing methods and I never find one to be better than the other. There is so many variables other than ferts so it's not always a simple answer one way or the other. While I have had good success with the EI method of dosing thats not to say that I haven't had issues either. Maybe others such as Oliver Knott and Amano should come forward and explain their methods to this community. I have to give Tom credit for at the very least being very open and forthcoming with his method. It's way more than others are doing in this hobby. Thats not to say that I completely agree with EI being the only way or best way but it works for some. It seems to me that all others are almost secretive to the reason as why they do things the way they do. I agree that there needs to be more dialouge and comparison to other methods when it comes to this hobby. This hobby should be about sharing ones trials and tribulations with each other to help all involved rather than using this hobby to sell ones products or protect ones ego.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

It is hard the have a healthy argument with people who are never wrong. I gladly welcome it and have some articles in the works that relate to this mess.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

ua hua said:


> I really hope that this thread turns into a civil conversation that can only be beneficial to all but more often that not it seems to turn into ones taking sides. There is alot to be learned in this ever evolving hobby that is why things are so much different than they were 10-20 years ago. While some may not agree with certain methods such as Tom's EI dosing method I have to say until others in the hobby come forward and are more forthcoming with why they do things the way they do it's hard to have a healthy disscussion. I have tried different forms of dosing methods and I never find one to be better than the other. There is so many variables other than ferts so it's not always a simple answer one way or the other. While I have had good success with the EI method of dosing thats not to say that I haven't had issues either. Maybe others such as Oliver Knott and Amano should come forward and explain their methods to this community. I have to give Tom credit for at the very least being very open and forthcoming with his method. It's way more than others are doing in this hobby. Thats not to say that I completely agree with EI being the only way or best way but it works for some. It seems to me that all others are almost secretive to the reason as why they do things the way they do. I agree that there needs to be more dialouge and comparison to other methods when it comes to this hobby. This hobby should be about sharing ones trials and tribulations with each other to help all involved rather than using this hobby to sell ones products or protect ones ego.


I think ua hua sums it up really nicely. We've seen a lot of stuff about EI. I can only speak for myself, but I am itching to see more of other stuff because I think that we've only just scratched the surface. Nobody seems to want to share though, as there's a big scarcity of threads here about stuff other than EI and the workings behind those methods. So Justin, if you would like to publicly share your fert methods, I think there'd be plenty of us who want to see it. I have not ever bashed a method, and I really have no right to do so.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

OverStocked said:


> It is hard the have a healthy argument with people who are never wrong. I gladly welcome it and have some articles in the works that relate to this mess.


I just want to clarify that I'm not the type that thinks that EI is the best way to do things. Just as I stated that I have had success using this method but I have had problems also. I think that people in this hobby need to learn to evolve and compare methods rather than being on one side or the other. Things are ever changing in this hobby and usually for the better.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

ua hua said:


> I think that people in this hobby need to learn to evolve and compare methods rather than being on one side or the other. Things are ever changing in this hobby and usually for the better.


Also agree with this. The problem I have with this is that out of all the time that I've been here, it's always been "EI this" and "EI that" to the point where that's the only thing I know since I haven't seen anything else. I've read about PMDD and PPS Pro on the PPS website, but to be honest, it was hard to glean as much information as has been provided about EI here. I've also seen Justin's RootMedic ferts in pump bottles promoted with positive feedback, but I really know nothing about the products and what the goal/principles behind that are. Is it hitting just the right amount of ferts? Is it something else? These are things about alternates to EI that I don't know because nobody has made a big push for them. And even if Justin is trying to sell the product, I think there's a lot to be gained from making his principles clear and letting us all know what he feels about the subject. I know I'd read it.


----------



## willknowitall (Oct 3, 2010)

nikos comments about tom barr are a crock of [email protected]$^%^

''Tom Barr has told us that according to all his scientific insight we must have high concentrations of chemicals''

just after tom posted how he encourages others to try different ways of doing things. lol

anyway. i use a modified ei dosing method now because i find it fairly easy and works for me
that does not mean i dont question my growing system or think there are other ways
in fact im confident there are better ways of doing things. lol

the idea of having very fertile substrate and no water dosing sound good in theory. but i would think that you would really have to work at that a lot to get good result
or be lucky but not learn anything

that being said.it seems reasonable to me that a highly fertilized substrate would be leaching nutrient into the water column continually
also what about all the plants that are not attached by their root to the substrate
fish and fish food are adding nitrogen and phosphate to the water column as well
and what about trace, is that not adding ferts to water, like are added in the links niko gave

there is obviously a lot of different systems that give great results
many may need lots of errors and fine tuning before they work well
sometimes its just luck
when i first stated planted tanks i had a 400 halide 24 inches from my substate
no added water column fertilization. no co2.......no algae, this went on for years
makes sence .....no, lucky ..... i guess
plant didnt grow all that well though:smile:


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

willknowitall said:


> the idea of having very fertile substrate and no water dosing sound good in theory. but i would think that you would really have to work at that a lot to get good result
> or be lucky but not learn anything


I think it depends on how strict the definition of "no water dosing" is, but I think it's good in theory and it can be good in application, too. It's not luck, it's just not as promoted to us. We just don't hear enough about it. Even in the thread, Niko pointed us to some tanks that are great with very little water dosing. It's clear you can achieve things both ways. I haven't a clue how to do it (and I think that's the problem with EI being prevalent here, even the fertilizing sticky just has EI stuff on it), but I don't think you have to get lucky. There is a repeatable process based on sound logic in there. I don't know if just adding the standard osmocote root tabs and leaving everything else be would work. My logic says dosing the water a bit in addition can't hurt, but maybe someone will chime in with why leaving the water alone is good or alternate ideas.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> Why do we need to be censured for bringing up silly discussions? What harm does it cause to question?


I'm not censuring anyone, I'm saying it does not make sense.
If you can support that it does, then proceed, self censuring it's not my issue:redface:



> Perhaps it is my fault for saying Eastern versus Western. The point of this thread is to get others thinking outside the box. Dark Cobra has the right idea. What I meant by East vs. West could have easily been worded as light vs. dark, rich vs. poor, manual vs. standard, etc: basically different approaches to the hobby. I am interested in discussing the philosphy of planted tanks, the why behind the methods.


This philosophy is not grounded in fact, it's more about belief.
I not a minister or a philosopher.

There's little issue about what grows aquatic plants. Management can argued per user application and goal. Folks have known what and how aquatic plant grow for a very long time. 

The main differences tend to be the rates of growth, the size of the plant leaves, crowns, and these are defined by Liebig's law. You are not going to escape this fact by dismissing it, it will haunt you as long as you grow plants.

If you think you can disprove it, then by all means.......do tell.
It is the very basis for modern horticulture.

Which is what we do, once that is done..........then we scape and master the artistic and aesthetic side typically and no longer focus much on the basics of growth. Some of us do this backwards, but most proceed this path.

Plants(both aquatic and terrestrial can take up ferts foliar or roots.......it's not just aquatics that can do this, but aquatics are exposed to this often times. We can grow 99% of all aquatics terrestrially also, so we can use things like the dry start method etc.

I think most of the hobby based squabbling occurs because many see correlation and assume = cause..this is typically with fert dosing routines where a routine(any) cures all that ails. 

Sometimes it is all light, they did not have enough, but few test it.
CO2 is the most common issue and the most lethal.
Fert's is the 2nd most limiting issue.
Light is rarely an issue, but.....in some cases it might be.

Hard to say and generalize. Better to treat each person individually.
But....this requires you to know a lot about each method to meet each person's goal. Some folks are just better off with a richer sediment as a matter of habit. Some better at a mix, others are much more non CO2.

If some makes a claim such as lower PO4 = less BBA.........there are reasons why and we can test this claim.

All it takes is a few cases falsifying it to reject it and look for another possible cause. This is no longer mere belief. I do not play the political questioning approaches to discredit such logic. This is done to Science everyday for various agendas. I'm well aware of them.


----------



## willknowitall (Oct 3, 2010)

veece wrote ''I don't think you have to get lucky. There is a repeatable process based on sound logic in there.''

im not saying you have to be lucky, i meant you can be lucky but thats not preferred

the only reason i can see not to add ferts to the water is to do with algae
with good ei dosing high co2 and low light algae doesn't seem to be a problem
how ever with higher lighting maybe highly fertilized substrate and low water 
fertilization may be beneficial

the benefit i find with using inert substrate is i have less mess if i disturb the substate (uprooting stem plants for instance) and allows for the option of filtering thru the substrate which wouldn't be possible with a rich subsrate


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> What I find to be really sad is the "underground" plant society that is taking place in this hobby. There are many, many people that don't agree with the most common methods out there and believe much like Nikolay and myself. Often we are forced to communicate by pms since there is often a war mentality when the EI method and other similar water column methods are criticized. I have seen countless threads where someone brings up the method failing for them, and immediately they are dismissed and told they are wrong and screwed up. Rarely do you see anyone try and help that member as we should be doing. It becomes instead an "I'm right, you're wrong" battle. I have been told I am the failure, and even attacked for helping another member (bsmith) with his algae issue. And when I did the "experiments" as we were told to do and found evidence contradicting the accepted standards, I was told I was hurting the hobby with "fear mongering" or that this was discovered years ago. This is really ridiculous if you think about it. If a method is tried and true, then the personal attacks shouldn't be a factor and the same messages shouldn't be preached over and over. Rather, we should listen to one another, discover new methods and ask ourselves why when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to prove many of these accepted principles are not completely correct.
> 
> Instead, there are always the ones that will parrot "It works for me, why question it?" Why not? If we don't question the hobby, how will it ever advance? If these methods are so infalliable, why is there even algae forum? I dedicate myself in this hobby toward algae as I feel it is greatly misunderstood. For instance, there are several articles supporting Liebig's law toward algae growth. In the ocean, they found that iron was the limiting factor and was causing algae to die off. When they added it back in, it flourished and helped change the environment for the positive in that area. Scientists apply the same principles to algae as to plant growth. Yet, we are told nutrients don't feed algae. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet when we question, we are simply told we are incapable of understanding because we are hobbyists or we are plain wrong and then bombarded with the same rhetoric until ultimately, most of us abandon the threads and move on to pms.
> 
> So the question becomes are these "proven" methods really proven when the opposition is squashed before they have a chance to speak out?


Adding non limiting nutrients is a simple method protocol used in Plant Science to make them independent, thus rule those possible issues out. Then they can look elsewhere if they have issues. This makes helping people based on what they can fix and do much easier. Or isolate it better.
Either way, its better/closer to resolving things than the prior case.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

We are NOT targeting individuals here folks. Sorry for those that are getting emotional on this topic, but I will be overseeing this discussion with an iron fist from here on. 

Enough with the personal attacks and keeps things on the methods, not the people.


----------



## londonloco (Aug 25, 2005)

Edit: removed quotes, thinking my post would have been removed also....

Applauds both sewingalot and DarkCobra..been tired of the bs for literally years also....drove me away from this site several times. Came back recently, decided the delete button was my friend. 



sewingalot said:


> Which is your position and why? If you don't know why and just followed what everyone else told you is best, isn't it time to find out why that is? I thought this would be a fun topic to bring up for discussion for all members. Now remember to argue for your side but not to attack the other side as can often happens in this subject of the hobby. :icon_wink


To get back to the subject of THIS thread....Depending on the fish you want to keep, your water, substrate, lighting, there are so many variables, I don't think there is one solution. I have 7 planted tanks set up. Each tank inhabits different fish with different needs. 

I use a solution based on PPS PRO and RootMedic root tabs in 3 of my older planted tanks (non digging cichlids) with soil substrate, changing over from EI a few years ago when I set up multiple tanks. I do WC's weekly, and found 50% wc's on 7 tanks took too much time and used a lot of water. I have a well, and with EI I was servicing the system 4x a year. With PPR Pro, I do 20% wc's weekly, cut my well service in half. Do I have algae, occasionally. When I start noticing it, keeping up with wc's and removal, gets rid of it. PPS fits my life style (mins to dose) and my wallet. 

This past year I set up two Tangy tanks with PFS as substrate, excel for carbon and RootMedic complete tabs. These are my cleanest tanks...algae is present, but only if you look closely.

Last month I set up my first Walsted NPT (tropical and rainbows), 75g with 2x24W T5HO's, low low light, dark tank. Too soon to comment other than been 6 weeks, no ferts, no co2, no algae yet. 

I plan on setting up a nano with ADA Aquasoil (shrimp tank), never used it, want to try it, for shrimp, using part well, part RO water. I'm sure this will be another learning curve.

I have decided recently the less light, the less algae, on my tanks with my well water, which is very high out of the tap in TDS (so high I have never dosed micro's). Turning off bulbs and raising lights has helped reduce algae more than anything else I have done, and my plants don't seem to have been affected. All this has proved is with my tanks, it works. May not work for others....


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

For efficient fertilization of nutrient elements which your plants require at each stage of their growth. For healthy growth of aquatic plants, a balanced supply of trace elements such as Iron, Boron or Molybdenum is necessary in the water. Furthermore, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium which are often called the three major (or macro) nutrients for plants, are also often found lacking in the aquarium. ADA adopted the STEP fertilization system which corresponds to each stage of growth, or growth Step of your aquatic plants. The Green Brighty STEP Series, enables efficient supplement of nutrient elements to meet the requirements of all your aquatic plants which change in time. A full line of specially formulated supplements were developed also to target specific issues such as color loss, stress after trimming, and algae resistance. 
http://www.adgshop.com/Liquid_Fertilizers_s/2.htm


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

I would love to learn some more about not dosing the water column can anyone discuss this method in more detail here? With the way I want to do maintenance on my tank EI is not the method for me personally. so far its looking like my tank is going to follow a PPS-pro style because I wont have to do massive water changes every week. While I don't care for the daily dosing I haven't seen options talked about much that don't focus on other styles. I have chosen higher light because I like the look, its the reef keeper in me, and I like the options it gives me to keep anything. I am using tek2 reflectors and 2 39w T5HO's over my 40 gallon breeder tank. I already had co2 equipment from the reef tank I kept so I will be high tech for sure. I have seen plenty of EI stuff and want to know about more options that will work with my limitations. I have made my self some osmocote + root tabs for my eco complete substrate. Sooo where do I go from there? What are my options that fit with my system? What don't I know about yet that makes one system work for my needs over another system? These are the things the community needs to know, I am the community, you are the community and I am looking for your hand in the matter. 





In an attempt to keep the thread on track I have separated these sections and urge anyone reading what is below to show restraint and not comment on it but rather dwell on the ideas behind it. Gatekeeper, If need be remove it. I think it is important that everyone knows each community goes through growing pains and this one is no different. My thoughts below come from someone who holds no alliances and simply sees a correlation between communities and individuals actions in 2 different places and hobbies.


IF and only IF you are interested in my thoughts on this community highlight the section below....

I find this thread interesting and reminds me of some things going back to my reef keeping days. From what I see from some of the what I assume to be the MAJOR players in this hobby, I consider myself a noob and an outsider, is methodology. I have always been more of a lurker and will continue to be simply because you can learn much more when you listen and stop talking. With reef keeping you can do it a million different ways and people in the community divide into sub groups like the planted scene has done IE: El Natural, EI, PPS, Hi-tech, low tech and this list goes on and on. I think these sub groups are great But I have honestly been watching this forum for maybe 2-3 months and I feel like there is more turf war going on than helping and free exchange of ideas. I currently think that while more expensive reef keeping might just be easier than plants. The reason why is because people are more willing to converse and exchange ideas in a non hostile manner and want to push the hobby further with experimentation and trying new ideas regarding flow, lighting, supplementation etc. With fertilization what I see in front of me is how Metal Halide users and, at that time, the new adopters of T5HO fought about years ago, the ability to use something different and get the same or better results. Shifts in the method are going to happen as we learn more, that is a good thing for everyone! What would help this community more than anything now is to bring down the wall and get back to the roots of what these places should be about. HELP! I want to learn about different ways of keeping plants healthy because its going to be really annoying to dose ferts all the time. I would love to see more topics stay on track and less hostility. I have seen some of the most amazing hard coral reefs that have nothing more than power heads and lights and water changes that doesn't mean it cant be done a different way or that its the best way to do it. So why can't our community accept different ways of doing this and when specific types of input are not wanted they are force fed or run off? I have seen people run out of forums/get the ban hammer before even when they had come up with hobby changing ideas and methods because they could not keep their tone on the forum non-offensive. Once they were gone the community flourished.


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

BruceF said:


> For efficient fertilization of nutrient elements which your plants require at each stage of their growth. For healthy growth of aquatic plants, a balanced supply of trace elements such as Iron, Boron or Molybdenum is necessary in the water. Furthermore, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium which are often called the three major (or macro) nutrients for plants, are also often found lacking in the aquarium. ADA adopted the STEP fertilization system which corresponds to each stage of growth, or growth Step of your aquatic plants. The Green Brighty STEP Series, enables efficient supplement of nutrient elements to meet the requirements of all your aquatic plants which change in time. A full line of specially formulated supplements were developed also to target specific issues such as color loss, stress after trimming, and algae resistance.
> http://www.adgshop.com/Liquid_Fertilizers_s/2.htm


This type of system reminds me of something from reef keeping called ZEOVIT which had lots of little steps. lots of really expensive additives and equipment that produced really awesome looking coral. The main differences people saw was a more pastel look in their corals as well as better polyp extension and in some cases faster growth over different systems of reef tank care. Its focus was keeping nutrients in check through targeted care of the bacterial system that breaks down waste and keeping other additives at very specific levels. What do the aspects of the above system do long term and how are they beneficial? Will I see thicker stems or higher leaf density? In the long term is the system cost effective versus other styles of fertilization in regards to the way the plants look? Can these same benefits be reasonably attained through substrate fertilization or a different combination of methods? Have you personally used these products, if you did when you started to use them how did your maintenance structure change versus the system you changed from?


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

oosurfin. 
No I haven't used these products. My point is simply that ADA uses them. At best they have a substrate that lasts maybe a year and needs supplimental fertilization along the way. So where is the big difference?


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

BruceF said:


> oosurfin.
> No I haven't used these products. My point is simply that ADA uses them. At best they have a substrate that lasts maybe a year and needs supplimental fertilization along the way. So where is the big difference?


Is there a way to recharge the ADA substrate, or is it like other substrates that need to supplement with root tabs after a given amount of time? I am sure this has to do with my utter noobness but I don't know what point you are trying to make by saying ADA uses them or asking what the difference is. Are you saying that even ADA can't support a planted tank with out water column fertilization? Also another question for my own clarity and understanding, when you ask "where is the big difference? do you mean in regards to other fertilization systems like EI and PPS? I am honestly ignorant about the real facts of keeping a nice looking planted tank and attempting to learn in a thread that I think could be totally awesome. I can set you up an awesome stoney reef but plants are a real work in progress for me. I would be interested to know what each of these ADA products are comprised of and if it is something that is easy to replicate at the hobbyist level. If there are major changes that are on a time scale, like @3 months plants need more iron, why cant this be done with dry fertilizers? Also are these changes seen by many hobbyists or just people using ADA products? I know using zeovit brings is own set of issues that other reef keepers didn't experience.


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

niko said:


> Someone told me about this thread because for some time on APC I've been having a (mostly) monologue about how fertilizing the water makes very little sense and yet most people in the US do exactly that.
> 
> So here are some "things that make you go "hmmm"..."
> 
> ...


i see polished stainless canisters and co2 when i "look below"... what are you getting at?
i also see liquid bottles of varying substances, scaping tools and food dosing instruments made of pretty glass. enough liquid bottles to know that there are ferts in some of them...

i assume adg informs their clients as to a proper routine on maintenance and/or dosing accordingly just like any other half-decent in-home aquarium service. otherwise every aquarium service would start each day off by traveling from client to client for daily maintenance, feeding, etc.. clientèle would be very limited and expense would be very high for any traveling service given the alternative to semi-educated clients. mornings would be dreadfully hectic feeding all those fish...

bubbles uses resins... ok... so do some aquarists. doesn't mean they don't fert the water column. as a matter of fact, you can see for yourself in the link you provided there's a list of water column ferts that are dosed to that same tank. n+p seem to be lacking in the liquid department, but with a decent bio-load, large amounts of water displacement from hardscape an extremely fertile substrate and the resins for n+p removal only replaced on a bi-monthly basis there should be plenty enough to go around in the water column. not to mention target dosing k and a softener resin replaced monthly that likely exchanges ions for k as well.

if oliver is knott sharing, then how did you get his secrets? if you have his secrets and/or secrets of your own that you can post so elusively/vaguely, why not share them if they work? pps, pmdd, ei, mci, ada, etc. methods are posted freely all about the web. if they're all wrong (dependent upon cleanliness and fertilization to grow healthy plants) then what is the right way?

i'm not against nature in any way. however, i'm not sure i have the room for several thousands of gallons of reservoirs to set up all the natural environments/elements to make my 50 gallon thrive with its current bio-load. i suspect such is the same for most aquarists. thus we have little bottles full of "natures cures" and fertilizers dissolved in water. personally, i prefer to use the powders that are often dissolved in that water as water gets to be pretty expensive over the course of time. but that's a cost analysis on my part after spending several years attempting to find out what's in those bottles.

given the size of amanos home tank, i suspect he's not dosing with 1ml squirt bottles. i wonder what he thinks of adding a liter of fertilizer every day. i suspect he could just call it shrink. i also suspect the concentrate for his liquid products includes some powders and/or dissolved solids. maybe he adds powders directly to his substrate? maybe i'm a little kooky for thinking what i've seen to be true isn't just some camera tricks and amano and his followers only add natural ingredients to their tanks at any time?

i see what you're getting at. the "eastern approach" or nature aquariums approach is apparently the way to go. but i don't see what you're getting at in the essence that you're blowing smoke and apparently not willing to lay it on the line although you have no problem attacking a specific (or many specific) train(s) of thought(s). this is one reason why this hobby is at the point it is. some folks have found ways to improve the hobby and have been more than willing to share and educate each other, while others have stood on their soap boxes and preached the "i'm right and infallible, while you're wrong" train of thought without contributing anything positive or useful. if that be the case, where do you think the hobby is headed? seems obvious to me. but that hasn't changed many folks' approaches somehow.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

dundadundun said:


> i see polished stainless canisters and co2 when i "look below"... what are you getting at?
> i also see liquid bottles of varying substances, scaping tools and food dosing instruments made of pretty glass. enough liquid bottles to know that there are ferts in some of them...
> 
> i assume adg informs their clients as to a proper routine on maintenance and/or dosing accordingly just like any other half-decent in-home aquarium service. otherwise every aquarium service would start each day off by traveling from client to client for daily maintenance, feeding, etc.. clientèle would be very limited and expense would be very high for any traveling service given the alternative to semi-educated clients. mornings would be dreadfully hectic feeding all those fish...
> ...


You're attacking the enemy, not the idea. 

THe idea is clear. Nutrient rich substrates, little to no water column dosing. We've been told long now that the best way to do things is to fertilizer the water column heavily and it will work the best. However, if you see there are amazing results with basically no water column dosing. That is all Niko is saying and I'm not sure why people can't get past it.


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

OverStocked said:


> You're attacking the enemy, not the idea.
> 
> THe idea is clear. Nutrient rich substrates, little to no water column dosing. We've been told long now that the best way to do things is to fertilizer the water column heavily and it will work the best. However, if you see there are amazing results with basically no water column dosing. That is all Niko is saying and I'm not sure why people can't get past it.


:drool: what enemy?

nutrient rich substrate = leaching into water column. the water column still has nutrients whether we like it or not.

what i saw discretely/ambiguously (and if you look, you'll see it too) through his post is that N+P are dosed through the substrate where they're readily taken up by root systems, but K is apparently still dosed in the water column.

so... not exactly the macros in the soil, micros in the water plain distinction i'm getting by what folks are suggesting. seems the idea isn't as clear as the folks suggesting are attempting to make it out to be since they aren't seeing (or posting) that distinction.

confusion... "but if you just follow..." ... that's what i'm seeing...

but if you have the money and want to spend it on the least economical means to an end.

the alternative that supports this thinking is the el natural method. still eventually (just like any other method) needs supplementation or a complete start over from scratch. and keep in mind, any and all supplementation will make it into the water column regardless.

what i see with the removal resins is simple, really. since everything leaches in the tank, the plants have the first crack at it... then "excess" is removed (when the resins are fresh enough) when it goes through the filter.

but, yet you market liquid ferts. so i assume you support the "what works for you" train of thought by necessity.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

dundadundun said:


> :drool: what enemy?
> 
> nutrient rich substrate = leaching into water column. the water column still has nutrients whether we like it or not.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there is some leaching into the water column from the soil but if you look at the analysis ADA provides of their tanks you'll see that there is less than 1 ppm of NO3 in the water column.

Yes, ADA does supplement the water column also. Green Brighty Step 1 and 2 provide varying amounts of traces and iron. Green Brighty Step 3 provides traces, Fe and K. A different Step is used depending on the tanks age. Green Brighty Special Lights provides additional N and P for tanks that have a lot of fast growing stems and don't get enough macros from the AS. The recommended dosage for Green Brighty Lights adds an additional 0.2 ppm/day of NO3 and 0.2 ppm of PO4. Brighty K is a potassium supplement that adds over 3 ppm/day of K at the recommended dosage for tanks that require more K.

So it appears that even though there is leaching with AS water column fert levels are pretty minimal except for potassium.

The numbers I provided for ADA ferts are available on TheBarrReport. Tom performed an analysis of the ADA line and had it verified by an independent lab. You can also get the numbers from Wet's fert calculator.

http://calc.petalphile.com/


----------



## farrenator (May 11, 2011)

I am fairly new to seriously keeping planted tanks (less than 1 year) so I haven't really been exposed to much of the histeria surrounding this issue. Perhaps this gives me the view point of a large number of aquarists - I want to use a method that works and I don't particularly care why, as long as it is effective and relatively easy. In that sense water column dosing and substrate dosing are similar - they can provide nutrients in excess so the plant takes what it needs. A main difference is the method of uptake, leaves/stems vs. roots. Isn't it great that plants are flexible and can adapt to each?

So, getting to the original post, here are my thoughts:

1. Closely follow a method you decided to use, be loyal to this method but without really understanding it, defend it until you are exhausted and created enemies. - *This seems shortsighted and ignorant.*
2. Fertlize more than the plants will ever need, reset the tank as needed. - *Easy, controlable method. Good for people who don't want to or have other things to do than worry about what is going on in their tank.*
3. Fertilize based on what the plants need not a bit more. - *Great idea, but takes a lot of work, testing, studying plants - this is what I am trying to do right now. It is a work in progress and it has been 3+ months....*
4. Substrates are the key, water column dosing isn't necessary. - *Easy, controlable method. Good for people who don't want to or have other things to do than worry about what is going on in their tank. I'd love to try dirt tank but got into ferts after tank was set up for 1yr +*
5. Fertilization methods? What are those? Who cares? My plants grow great without anything but sunlight and guppies. - *Used to be me until I got sick of algae.*
6. Fully comprehend your tanks needs from filtration to fertilization. Approach each tank in a rhythmic manner. *The Zen of fishkeeping? For advanced aquarists - not the typical plant grower.*

*I guess my main point is that plants are malleable and will adapt to whatever fert method you choose, as long as it is stable. With this understanding, hobbyists are free to choose the method that fits their lifestyle. How can anyone say their method of fertilization is 'better' than another if the systems grow great plants?*


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

Jeff5614 said:


> I'm sure there is some leaching into the water column from the soil but if you look at the analysis ADA provides of their tanks you'll see that there is less than 1 ppm of NO3 in the water column.
> 
> Yes, ADA does supplement the water column also. Green Brighty Step 1 and 2 provide varying amounts of traces and iron. Green Brighty Step 3 provides traces, Fe and K. A different Step is used depending on the tanks age. Green Brighty Special Lights provides additional N and P for tanks that have a lot of fast growing stems and don't get enough macros from the AS. The recommended dosage for Green Brighty Lights adds an additional 0.2 ppm/day of NO3 and 0.2 ppm of PO4. Brighty K is a potassium supplement that adds over 3 ppm/day of K at the recommended dosage for tanks that require more K.
> 
> ...



great points and good info. :thumbsup: thanks for chiming in.

so, you're saying that i can dose those same targets with powders and most likely end up with the same results? *gasp* :hihi: i will not share so as not to upset some people, but i recently did a cost analysis/comparison assuming maximum dissolution ratios of liquid/store bought vs. powder/diy supplements that knocked my socks off. i dread what knowing how little a company could put ferts-wise into a bottle would do to that bottom line as the cost per ppm was already well over a 10:1 ratio on product alone. not to mention complacency and constant shipping due to the necessity to re-order when your bottles are empty. i spend $40-$50 per couple years whereas some folks with tanks half my size would need to spend $400-$800. ouch! the time it takes me to put everything together for easy dosing more than pays for itself at $50 per hour. 

unfortunately, right now, i'm not using specialized substrates with good cec or pre-infused with nutrients. however, i will say the way my tanks are set up now, if i were to let no3 drop to 1ppm, i know the outcome... and it's not good. this is despite root zone fertilization.

i've seen as much as i can get my hands on when it comes to toms analysis'. i've got to get on the ball and get me a charter membership over there to see what i'm missing. i do especially enjoy his information concerning par on ada specific bulbs, though. saved me a ton of trouble at just the right time a couple years back.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

OverStocked said:


> You're attacking the enemy, not the idea.
> 
> THe idea is clear. Nutrient rich substrates, little to no water column dosing. We've been told long now that the best way to do things is to fertilizer the water column heavily and it will work the best. However, if you see there are amazing results with basically no water column dosing. That is all Niko is saying and I'm not sure why people can't get past it.


I've said both sediment and the water column = the easiest method to manage non limiting growth from ferts, not just water column alone.

You can go either way or both. Good thing with the sediment= once added, provides long term nutrients. VERY easy to manage. Water column= no depletion over time, also easy to add.

The main point here is that growth RATES are defined more by light intensity/duration and the use CO2 enrichment or Excel etc.............nutrients and their location/s are fairly far down on the list, but aquarist seem to love to squabble over them.

As long as the plants have nutrients SOMEWHERE, sediment or water column or both, they will get them either location. They are opportunistic. If nothing is in the water column, then they will try to go after the sediment. This is common sense and very well established and demonstrated in many research studies. Cerdergreen and Mandsen have an excellent paper on this(2001). 

ADA and all the others do in fact add ferts to the water column. Traces are ferts...........so not adding water column ferts or adding less does not appear to be particularly useful.

If the light is less/reduced, the plants are limited in some fashion......then the demand for ferts will also be reduced.........so less is required to produce growth, the rate of growth is different however.

That rate of growth is what drives demand.

So it's common sense once again to note and see that different planted tanks will have different rates of growth. Some tanks that have less light or less something.........will be fine with adding less ferts. 

Classic example here: a non CO2 planted tank. 
This tank gets no water changes and I dose hardly much at all, maybe once a week:










The rate of growth is slow.

So let's look at the rates of growth under different CO2 and light:









This is not me personally, this is from Troels and Ole.
In EACH case, there is....in fact growth...........

They added non limiting nutrients to make sure that they where independent however. Then adjusted different treatments of light and CO2. Then measured the growth rate weekly. 

This pretty much covers the gambit of RATES of growth and methods used by hobbyists independent of nutrients.

As we can see, these rates span 17X difference in growth. Obviously, we'd expect this to also playh a role in the uptake of the non limiting nutrients. In the low light/CO2 combo..........we'd expect what? Massive uptake of nutrients???? No, the reverse, very little, the lowest.........and at high light and CO2? The highest.

Rich sediments start out rich and very much non limiting, leach large amounts of ferts into the water column. Then over time, they deplete. But, by then, the plants have all grown in and are doing well, so the system is a lot more tough and resilient to dosing and care. If large amounts of biomass are trimmed and removed over the next 1-4 years, then more ferts will be needed, mostly N.

Fish waste can supply some, but the tanks do tend to be run N limiting. 
You can test and verify this yourselves.

I conclude the same thing as Ole and Troels, I buy the evidence and the argument. Still, not everyone will have the same goal, so other methods work well for various goals, some HATE water changes........so EI or ADA is not the best method for them. People also have many habits and behaviors that we cannot attribute to a method, they might not be able to follow or care for things as much as they would like.

You can try super lean water column........but.........if you have a rich sediment and it's fairly new, under 6months, you still have a rich water column likewise, trying a rich sediment + rich water column dosing also is interesting, as is trying very low light, low, med and higher lighting.

Not for the newbies..........but more for the intermediate folks. Then you can see for yourself, rather than happenchancing upon some combo that worked for you at one point in time. A good assumption is that *all methods work*, in the fact that plants will grow in all cases......as illustrated by Ole and Troel's matrix of growth above...........but the *rates change*.

That drives management.

What drives the rates mostly?

Light=>CO2=> ferts.
You are not going to escape that.
This same pattern can be seen for each of these big 3:









You can see the same growth rate change in light as it increases along a gradinet, or CO2.......or nutrients............

However, in order to test this independently, you must have the other two at a non limiting level.

EI and Hoagland's solution are very similar in this respect targeting the D range. This does not imply that all fertilizers should be done this way regardless, but it's a good way to find the non limiting range and then adjust from there. This gives a reference of what the D range looks like, if all you have seen is A or B, you have no reference to compare to.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

farrenator said:


> *I guess my main point is that plants are malleable and will adapt to whatever fert method you choose, as long as it is stable. With this understanding, hobbyists are free to choose the method that fits their lifestyle. How can anyone say their method of fertilization is 'better' than another if the systems grow great plants?*


1st point is true.
Better for them....well if their goal is a certain thing, then yes it is better for them. However, is that goal better for those that they also help?

No. Not always.

We really should not impose CO2 enrichment or any particular method unless they say things like you did, "I do not want to test water".....or "I do not have the experience to know what non limiting growth looks like" etc.
We can say which better suits a management goal better than say another.........and then justify that.

A newbie likely should not have a tank with 250 umol of T5 light, a whacky CO2 set up on the cheap..........then have all Anubias and Discus. Better to go with some tetras, higher grade CO2 system, lower light about 30-40umols.

But, many advanced folks also do this same method.

Or many really hate the idea of adding CO2 entirely.

"Why add it?? My plants still grow without adding it!"

And they are correct also.

If you look at the chart, you can see what CO2 does to growth rates at each light intensity.

Maybe fewer water changes and less work are more important than gardening more frequently? Then a non CO2 system might be best and much less issues will be concerned with water changes or dosing or sediment types.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

dundadundun said:


> great points and good info. :thumbsup: thanks for chiming in.
> 
> so, you're saying that i can dose those same targets with powders and most likely end up with the same results? *gasp* :hihi: i will not share so as not to upset some people, but i recently did a cost analysis/comparison assuming maximum dissolution ratios of liquid/store bought vs. powder/diy supplements that knocked my socks off. i dread what knowing how little a company could put ferts-wise into a bottle would do to that bottom line as the cost per ppm was already well over a 10:1 ratio on product alone. not to mention complacency and constant shipping due to the necessity to re-order when your bottles are empty. i spend $40-$50 per couple years whereas some folks with tanks half my size would need to spend $400-$800. ouch! the time it takes me to put everything together for easy dosing more than pays for itself at $50 per hour.
> 
> ...


Sure you can dose the same targets with dry ferts or make up your own solutions and dose that way. A lot of us, myself included, at times prefer to buy some of their ferts already in a bottle with water ( Flourish, Pfertz, RootMedic, ADA, etc. ) It's not that dosing one is better than another, sometimes convenience outweighs cost and one persons idea of convenience isn't necessarily anothers ( I think I managed not to offend any dry or wet fert users with that sentence  ).


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> EDIT: I have updated my thread title and also added this disclaimer: I am a hobbyist and my posts should be taken with a grain of salt. It is my attempt to have a pleasant discussion on the whys and hows of fertilization. Not us versus them mentality. Sorry if this was not clear and caused confusion.
> 
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research the past year or so on the methods of fertilization. There seem to be a few main thoughts:
> ...


What a thread!  and a mixed bag of replies. 

or 

What was the thread originally about? 


Read this today so I don't know what the edit's changed but can only guess reading what has been left behind. Bicker and blah blah is how it still reads for the most part even after the mentioned edits. 
What is my position? Is that what I see Sara asking? (seems like a simple question asked in english)

*"Which is your position and why?"

* I can't pick from #1 through 6 as a main focal point driving my hobby.
My tanking choice is a mixed approach based on results and life needs. 

Substrate *AND* water dosing. 

The EI method alone didn't suit my situation with source water issues complicating changes and an ever changing work load that could create calendar months where I literally couldn't touch the tanks for lack of time. 
Lighting ultimately drives the bus so even with the topic being fertilization my answer starts and ends with the control of light energy. Reduce the lighting and reduce the demand so when on vacation or working 7/12's is my simplest answer is I cut back on the high techs. Having either tablet supplements or enriched substrates (read _enriched_ _substrate_ as dirt :smile means dosing can also be dropped or drastically cut without a complete system failure when life gets too busy. That defines my tanking I think.

Tanks without dirt receive new root tablet supplements ever 3 months or the plants suffer, algae and the dreaded BBA follow,,, every time I miss the calendar it happens without fail so every ninety days. 

I'm not dosing enough into the water column and know it to reduce the need for water changes. With a rich substrate could I eliminate water dosing all together? Sure, but why? Removing it would drain my substrate reserves faster and doing both works well for me while at higher light levels. Again my opinion is light defines the rest of the maintenance and care needed to maintain the tank. 

Normal routine:
After a major trim and water change I'll dose the water column to 2ppm PO4 and 10ppm NO3.
I dose a CSM+B/Fe solution (soup) almost daily. 
Currently doing 5ml/20g per day on the soup for all but the low light systems.
The high light tanks need extra KH2PO4 once a week. (experience)
Nitrate demand? I keep bigger fish or have young getting fed several times daily so I don't see a demand for it beyond bio-load. (experience)
All other ferts., Ca, Mg go in based on indication of a problem or tested levels NOT scheduled in weekly dosing. The water changes seem to hold minerals where they need to be. 
2-5ppm PO4 and 15-30ppm NO3 maintained as target ranges. 
K2SO4 dosed weekly for 15ppm if I don't do a WC on the tank that week. 

WC is done based on rising TDS readings or the parameters getting hosed up otherwise a 2-4 week rotation on all the tanks.
With lighting from <1wpg to 3.6wpg, CO2 injected or non the water parameters I want to remain in the same range.
(Knowing wpg = old, outdated and not completely accurate but easy to note for a range without a PAR meter.)

Seems to work for me LOL.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> That rate of growth is what drives demand.


I need to correct this Tom. Its misleading. Its really,

_*Light intensity is what controls potential*_ rate of growth which is what drives _*nutrient *_demand.




wkndracer said:


> Lighting ultimately drives the bus so even with the topic being fertilization my answer starts and ends with the control of light energy. Reduce the lighting and reduce the demand....
> 
> Again my opinion is light defines the rest of the maintenance and care needed to maintain the tank.


Couldn't agree more.


This should be the basic premise that people need to grind into their heads before making any recommendations to anyone or even better, how to diagnose their own problems if they are having one.

Are my lights to strong or too much? Are they on too long? Do I have enough nutrients IN THE TANK (NO MATTER HOW THEY GOT THERE), to sustain growth of the plants under these lighting conditions.

If you can answer yes to all of those, then move on to the more problematic issues that trouble aquarium keeping, ie, is the aquarium clean, are my filters dirty, do I have some fish dead somewhere that are leaching naughty no no goo into my water column, etc. etc.

The reality, people need to calm down about fertilization. We are all, yes all, ultimately doing the same thing in some way shape or form. Some do it lean, some do it by providing excess, some by "sneaky substrates" (Like me!). People who don't understand fertilization will continue to be confused by this thread and probably get turned off.

K.I.S.S. Find your method and stick to it. Feel free to talk about it, but we are not on some quest to find the grail or anything. Its just ferts. There are plenty of success stories on this forum to prove that there is a solution out there. We CAN grow plants without invasive algae and even make it look good!

There will continue to be the never ending debate to this topic. I think its a work in progress and people should keep talking about it. There are tons of "methods" that have been exposed to the hobby and what works for one, will not always work for another.

But it should never get personal. Just sayin. :icon_mrgr


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

Gatekeeper said:


> _*Light intensity is what controls potential*_ rate of growth which is what drives _*nutrient *_demand.
> 
> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> ...


I agree with this a lot. I think a lot of the newbies out there (and me, who, if I may deem so myself, is just barely transitioning out of the newbie phase), have a big problem with diagnosing problems. I bet there are people like me who have read all the info a whole bunch of times, yet when we try to apply it, something goes wrong, and we are unable to diagnose. Sometimes we don't know what questions to ask, but sometimes, and this is the case for me most of the time, I know which questions to ask but not what the answers are. Overall, it's pretty simple for a higher growth rate tank: up the CO2 level, make sure you pick a fert regime that works and makes sense to you, and use light to control everything. But when something goes wrong, I think a lot of newbies don't know how to answer the questions. Am I giving adequate CO2? I guess it depends on the light intensity. Am I giving adequate ferts? Well I tried to dose EI but maybe there's something I'm missing... maybe there's something weird in my water... and that uncertainty leads them to not be able to answer questions to get to the source of the issue. It's hard to diagnose if the fert method is responsible at first.

And to answer sewingalot's initial question: I'm currently using EI with substrate fertilization, but I don't know if I want to be and I don't know if that's the best for my tank. If certain plants grow well and others do terribly, I don't know what has gone wrong (see paragraph above). It certainly can't be the ferts since it's EI, right?! But once again, there's no confident diagnosis, and therein lies the problem of why people don't grasp on to certain fert methods right away. Some work for some, others work for others, very few can get all to work, and even fewer understand the things going on behind it when things go wrong.



> But it should never get personal. Just sayin. :icon_mrgr


you are right. :angel: <-- ok, maybe that's not me LOL


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Veese,

I completely understand what you are saying. We all were beginners and there is no "real" answer that I can provide you, but only guidance based on my experiences to date. They are the following (hope this helps).

1. When starting a planted tank, avoid fish and critters for as long as you can. This gives you a wide range of options to not only experiment but feel confident in doing massive things without detriment to the fish or critters. Heck, I've done 100% water changes. LOL.

2. Use nutrient rich substrates in some form. I don't mean eco complete or flourite. I consider those to be something of a cosmetic approach to the planted aquarium. They provide some function, but I think there is alot more you can do without dealing with them. Some like there look, and if you are one of them, use it. But add something under it to give it some more. (I personally will never use eco again, I think it has caused more problems for me than good, but this is for another discussion).

You can add nutrients in many forms to your substrate. You can buy prepackaged materials such as the ADA substrates and substrate additives, you can use root tabs or some other packaged root plugs (I am hearing good reviews about Root Medic products). Organic potting soils are a big craze and they are cheap and appear very effective. I use mineralized topsoil and swear by it. The recipe is easy to follow, but I would presume it has similar overall properties when its all said done to the organic potting soil. I also add some other little things that are part of the MTS recipe (and you can get all of these products right here in our power seller sales area). 

From here you can top dress the soil any way you see fit.

Root tabs would be the obvious choice if your tank is already set up.

3. Clean water. Dirty fish tanks will never ever give you any benefit. There is some validity to the El Natural method, but even so, this does not mean a dirty fish tank.

4. Dirty Filters. If you have a problem, filters can be the harbinger of doom. Just as much as filters help an aquarium, they also can just keep circulating the same thing over and over. Keep em clean! I make it a point to clean my filters every few months or so. Some claim you don't need to. But I am always of the advocate that if you are having issues, rule it out!

5. Check your light bulbs. Are they old? Old bulbs can be a problem. Are you bulbs an appropriate spectrum and temperature?

6. Count your fish! A dead fish can cause tons of issues. I always do a periodic look around for a fallen soldier. My shrimp usually clean up the occasional mess, but if you see one, pull it!

7. LOOK AT THE PLANTS. If they aren't growing, your doing something wrong. Start with the lights. If you got good lights, guess what your missing? Nutrients. Get em in there some how! Start with a carbon source, (CO2, excel) and work your way down. Understand what you have already put in the tank first (root tabs, soils, etc.) Its not rocket science. If you don't understand it, then ask who you got it from what they heck it is and whats its doing for you!

8. Ignorance can be bliss, but don't be naive either. Keep it simple, make small strides, not big steps. Remember, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This holds true for everything. Every tweak and change you make DOES SOMETHING. Look for it!

My last and final advice. 
Don't think you need to rid algae. You need to rid the cause of the algae first. This usually will eliminate algae with time. 9 times out of 10 folks, the answer is in my above statements. Balance is the key. Get things in harmony and things will fall into place before your eyes.

I swear there is something to say about allelopathy, but that is another unproven topic for another day.

Patience and have fun! Remember this is a hobby! 

P.S. Don't ever be afraid to start over. I find that it is needed sometimes. Some tanks can be so far gone that its just not worth it. This can be a fun challenge, take it as a point of motivation!

I need to drink beer now. I digress.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

Yep, I have read a lot of those points before. I actually go through almost all of those regularly (except for the ridding of algae, as I have clado, which likes plant-like conditions), but to keep this thread on point, I think what I was trying to say that it's hard to be confident in your fertilization method when you are starting out. Whenever anything goes wrong, it's hard to know that it's not the ferts and that you have ample nutrients being supplemented. That's part of the beauty of EI: You are supposedly overdosing your tank so that you know that you've got all your bases covered, and you don't have to worry about the toxic range because it's is really, really high. However, when I see plants that don't grow well in my tank, I still question: do I have a nutrient deficiency? And sometimes, I still don't know. I know that I've seen Tom say over and over again that "ferts are simple" and that it's the other aspects like CO2 (and lighting to a lesser degree) are complicated. Without the confidence that the principles are working, it's easy to blame it on the wrong thing. That's really what I wanted to say about various fertilization methods and why it's so hard to grasp onto them and make them popular. In a way, EI is an easier one to hold onto because in theory, you are covering all your bases nutrient-wise. Yet there are still plenty of ways to screw it up, as with all fert regimes, and just because it's easier doesn't mean it's better. 

As for my tank specifically, I was more just trying to give an example about fert methods and how I question them. I'm actually not doing that bad, although I'm not doing that great: click me 
I actually am already fertilizing through both osmocote plus tabs and RootMedic Complete tabs. The specific thing about my tank is that neither the H. tenellum nor the R. rotundifolia is doing well, while everything else is doing fine. Neither of these are demanding plants in terms of CO2 and light compared to the other plants, so when I think about the fertilization, it's hard to separate why certain species are doing great and yet these two are not. This is something that even details about the different fertilization methods cannot handle, because not all plants are the same. Anyways, we shouldn't get off topic. I just wanted to say about my perspective of why I think newbies are always in the ferts forum posting questions about ferts when it's really the other questions they should be asking, and ferts is only part of it, like you said.


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

Jeff5614 said:


> Sure you can dose the same targets with dry ferts or make up your own solutions and dose that way. A lot of us, myself included, at times prefer to buy some of their ferts already in a bottle with water ( Flourish, Pfertz, RootMedic, ADA, etc. ) It's not that dosing one is better than another, sometimes convenience outweighs cost and one persons idea of convenience isn't necessarily anothers ( I think I managed not to offend any dry or wet fert users with that sentence  ).


absolutely!

this is a fantastic discussion and i must extend my gratitude to the OP for starting it.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Gatekeeper said:


> I need to correct this Tom. Its misleading. Its really,
> 
> _*Light intensity is what controls potential*_ rate of growth which is what drives _*nutrient *_demand.


Let me correct it fully then.
The underlying on topic issue(dosing methods) with plants is a narrow view of plant growth. It ONLY addressed one aspect of the main three things that grow plants, and I did cover it, so allow me to make it plain and obvious:




Light drives the rates of CO2 demand which in turn, drives nutrient demand.



Light does not drive nutrients if the CO2 is limiting or absent. CO2 does obviously........if CO2 is independent and non limiting, then yes, you can say that light drives the potential. But only if the CO2 is truly independent. 

We must view plant growth *holistically* to understand why any downstream methods work effectively for a given location and concentration.
How does a plant grow? 

We cannot discuss dosing method issue in isolation without addressing light/CO2 and measuring those two, is not logical. You need a high and low range and perhaps a few in between, which is what Troels and Ole did, however, they only used 1 singe species for simplicity. 

You need to be able to isolate nutrients, CO2 and light from each of the other two to test them and see how they behave if you honestly "want to learn" more about plant growth and how they work. If you have dependencies issues in your methods, then your results and conclusions will be no good. 

An upper(non limiting) and lower bounds(strongly limiting as possible).
All other growth will fall in between those 2 ranges. This is fairly basic plant ecology type test and it covers all the bases in between. Which is why I often suggest a non limiting value and a very limiting value, eg: a EI dosed tank and non CO2 minimal dosed tank using the same light.

Now we could start at the barest of minimal dosing fert levels and then slowly add more and more to achieve the Cp critical point, or we could start at the D range and reduce slowly, at least starting at the D range would not have an already limited stunted growth, thus is a better candidate if optimal plant growth is the goal with the min amount of ferts. This assumes that Cp is the goal. Maybe you do not care, there's little risk, you might end up doing more water changes as a result. How much is too much ferts? Do we really need to do a water change at 30ppm of NO3? 60ppm? what are the risk there? This is a much more interesting question.

Still, you can keep larding it on without issues, D has the largest effective range of any concentration range. This is also true for CO2 till you start gassing the fish, light, well.......algae issues/less efficient use of light energy etc. 

Note, these are not my *personal views,* these are basic plant physiology, mineral nutrition. The research is from Tropica, the images are from mineral nutrient text from plant biology. The flow from light which drives CO2 demand is basic stuff from 8th grade science class and any general botany of general biotext will have the equations for photosynthesis in them. 
A few botany text will have the nutrients......but after the sugars and reduced carbons are produced. 

Maybe all of that is wrong and the Plant Fairy makes a special exception for each aquarist. Could be..........but I would not bet on it.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

VeeSe said:


> Am I giving adequate CO2? I guess it depends on the light intensity. Am I giving adequate ferts? Well I tried to dose EI but maybe there's something I'm missing... maybe there's something weird in my water... and that uncertainty leads them to not be able to answer questions to get to the source of the issue. It's hard to diagnose if the fert method is responsible at first. But once again, there's no confident diagnosis, and therein lies the problem of why people don't grasp on to certain fert methods right away. Some work for some, others work for others, very few can get all to work, and even fewer understand the things going on behind it when things go wrong.


Well, at least with EI, you can know that there's ample ferts, whether or not there's ample CO2 or light, that's another question........the goal is really to isolate to fix issues over the web using a simple method used in research and Science. 

There are excellent cases where each and EVERY method has successsful examples.....and exmaples where the tank is full of algae, clearly.............there's much more to the success than mere dosing, and ferts, sediments.

As I stated above, you cannot discuss this in isolation, it must be given the holistic view, each of the main requirements should be looked upon when diagnosis is done.

You have 3 dependent variables, with EI, now you are down to two. For light, a good estimation, experience by another, Light meter, perhaps a light curve(see hoppy's light charts). Now you are down to CO2, this one is trickier. Burned me many times, Amano (ask him this sometime if you get the chance) and most everyone if you have been in the hobby long enough. 
You are also going to make mistakes, we all do along the way, but it's not the method's fault. It's out own fault/assumptions.

Some of us learn from those mistakes, are curious and go back and try and master each method and then compare them to the others. We do not simply say that method is "bad", it may not be the best choice for a given management goal, or perhaps it might be. Those are up to us much more than what is the "right method". I'm afraid many hold the view that everyone should do their method since it's the one they happen to be successful at. It is understandable also, it's what they know and they honestly want to help you and any newbie.

Do not fault folks for that.

Trying to help and teach others helps them to learn, I'm no different myself.
And I've had lots of the same frustrations as any newbie. I made many many mistakes along the way, so did Amano. However, we did not give up. Amano spent 10 years in algae hell, I spent a good 3 years with one species.

How many newbes would give up if they had to go down that path as hobbyist?

A lot.

So things are much better than you might think today.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Gatekeeper said:


> Veese,
> 
> I completely understand what you are saying. We all were beginners and there is no "real" answer that I can provide you, but only guidance based on my experiences to date. They are the following (hope this helps).
> 
> ...


These are all good points.
Allelopathy we have haggled over in research groups over, the test methods I've suggested I've done so directly to such groups that actively study allelopathy. I've offered controls to test it, so far no one has ever show any evidence. I wish it where true. Adding activated carbon fresh every few days for 2-3 months seems plenty easy as to provide for a control. This is an exam question actually given in both grad and under grad classes in plant ecology. "How would you test if allelopathy was occurring? Detail an experimental set up". Then they leave you the rest of the page below to write your answer...........

Also why doesn't allelopathy occur between PLANT species in aquariums? Why in natural systems do we see low diversity then?

These are interesting questions, and off topic here. But I wish I could say there was real evidence for it. It'd make things really nice and make that beer taste better:hihi:


----------



## farrenator (May 11, 2011)

This is a slight aside but I wish there was some sticky or something that just stated this simple relationship in planted tanks. If I had known this from the get go it would have helped everything else (discussions of fert regimens, reasons for difference b/w high light high tech vs. low light low tech etc.) make sense:

"Light drives the rates of CO2 demand which in turn, drives nutrient demand. Light does not drive nutrients if the CO2 is limiting or absent."

How many people (me ) go to the LFS and say they want to grow plants? The proprietor sells them some high watt/intensity lights and says go for it. 2 months later the person comes back in complaining of algae gone crazy and the proprietor says excess nutrients are the cause so you should buy these resins etc or do more water changes. All the while one remains in the dark, frustrated because one is fighting a loosing battle.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

farrenator said:


> This is a slight aside but I wish there was some sticky or something that just stated this simple relationship in planted tanks. If I had known this from the get go it would have helped everything else (discussions of fert regimens, reasons for difference b/w high light high tech vs. low light low tech etc.) make sense:
> 
> "Light drives the rates of CO2 demand which in turn, drives nutrient demand. Light does not drive nutrients if the CO2 is limiting or absent."
> 
> How many people (me ) go to the LFS and say they want to grow plants? The proprietor sells them some high watt/intensity lights and says go for it. 2 months later the person comes back in complaining of algae gone crazy and the proprietor says excess nutrients are the cause so you should buy these resins etc or do more water changes. All the while one remains in the dark, frustrated because one is fighting a loosing battle.


I think this is common, most folks who have decent tanks try hard to stop this myth and the LFS often are reef folks..........or chains that know much less......they want to help, but are only limited by what they have been told.

They often like to sell some "cure", but the cure is to learn what grows plants.

The light CO2 matrix above really shows ALL the types of tanks out there........that grow plants. With that frame work..........only then can you discuss nutrient demands/methods/management. Otherwise we have no basis to compare and estimate the plant's needs.

A non CO2 tank gets not ferts or only rarely..........while others might need daily to 3-4x a week dosing at much richer levels. Fish loading also is a big deal, tap water nutrients etc.......

It's a complex issue and many give up on it.
Others get it and pick up on things faster though.
Green thumb and growing plants.

At least we do not have to water these plants.:icon_redf


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> At least we do not have to water these plants.:icon_redf


 
HAHA at least we don't have to supply c02 to terrestrial plants


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

After doing some more reading on different kinds of algae and fertilization methods I stumbled across this Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary thread. It seems like it takes some work to get everything set up and running but it is ultimately a fertilization tailoring system that comes with a direct system to cure the different types of algae that there don't always seem to be direct cures for. While EI has some remedies for the different types of algae, more ferts and more Co2, BBA and GDA seem to be reoccurring themes with the system. The only reason I use EI as an example is because that is what I have been exposed to the most in my few months here.

One thing I find very interesting is that there seems to be a level of acceptance and tolerance for algae in the planted community and I have not really experienced that in the reef keeping community. I won't disagree that algae is part of a natural system and you see it in the wild etc. this holds true for fresh and salt waters alike depending on where you are looking in the system. 

What I find interesting is that I haven't read anything similar to MCI that looks directly to the relationships between chemicals in fresh water planted tanks. Another thing that has me intrigued is that it has reproducible results when it comes to creating algae blooms. One fantastic example is right in the start up process of MCI, GSA is due to low PO4. I have read that GSA is due to low PO4 about 1000 times on different forums but I have never read anything about GSA being triggered by excessive NO3 vs bottomed out PO4. That could simply be because its common knowledge and not talked about much, I am not really sure. But MCI continues to go through each major type of algae we encounter and explains the chemical relationships and ratio imbalances to produce these different types of algae. The system seems to teach its users to use the flora and fauna as indicators to the systems health. 

The trade off I see with this system is the time investment and patients required to get the system stable versus something like EI where its dump and go. 

Coming from a reef background where patients is expected and not a virtue I don't really see an issue with the slow process of finding your systems needs. When I set up my next reef tank It will sit for at least 3 months with nothing more than water changes and top offs before I put live stock in it. While that may seem crazy to some people, with reef keeping creating a system of stability is the ultimate goal because you get the most return out of it. In a reef tank excessive anything become detrimental to the system as a whole. A 50% water change in a reef tank is dangerous unless you have parameters almost exactly the same as the tanks water. That may be one of the awesome things about planted tanks though, its possible to do that weekly with out too much fear. What I like about the MCI system is that it seems to teach its users to use the flora and fauna as indicators to the systems health just like you do in a reef tank. 

As a reef system grows so do the demands on different chemicals in the tank and that is no different than what happens as plants grow. In a reef tank you look for slowed growth then you go down the list of what could cause the slowed growth and test for it then move from there. For me testing takes seconds to do and gives you a nice baseline to work from. I know tests are not always accurate at the consumer level and that is just part of the low cost. What testing does is gives you a base line or idea of the levels to work from. I did this with my hard corals when growth slowed or corals started to change color I tested and worked from there. Ultimately you used your live stock as the single most important indicators of the systems health.

With those things in mind I was curious to this groups thoughts are on the MCI approach and why it is or isn't a good system to follow?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

oosurfin said:


> After doing some more reading on different kinds of algae and fertilization methods I stumbled across this Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary thread. It seems like it takes some work to get everything set up and running but it is ultimately a fertilization tailoring system that comes with a direct system to cure the different types of algae that there don't always seem to be direct cures for. While EI has some remedies for the different types of algae, more ferts and more Co2, BBA and GDA seem to be reoccurring themes with the system. The only reason I use EI as an example is because that is what I have been exposed to the most in my few months here.
> 
> One thing I find very interesting is that there seems to be a level of acceptance and tolerance for algae in the planted community and I have not really experienced that in the reef keeping community. I won't disagree that algae is part of a natural system and you see it in the wild etc. this holds true for fresh and salt waters alike depending on where you are looking in the system.
> 
> ...


Very good question and I'm looking forward to the responses although I must admit I have expectations that we'll see the same responses that would be give to PPS, PMDD, etc.


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

Jeff5614 said:


> Very good question and I'm looking forward to the responses although I must admit I have expectations that we'll see the same responses that would be give to PPS, PMDD, etc.


due to my rookie status I am even curious as to what that is. I am not sure if it will be considered furthering conversation or soap box rhetoric but I am interested none the less. All systems have room for improvement that is an unavoidable fact, When you profess perfection you are often left preaching it to yourself while others progress beyond you. 

I think one of the strangest things in the planted tank community is the view on algae that is often accompanied with a little hostility. Its here its natural accept the algae or move on. Why should I accept algae in my tanks? I didn't accept it in my reef tank why should I find it acceptable in my planted tanks. 

Unless you purposely try to have a small amount of algae to help feed different types of grazers there is only a very small acceptable amount of algae that should be easy to remove. IF the algae is not readily eaten by a tank inhabitant it IS a nuisance algae and there should be some way to avoid it. 

I appreciate EI for what it is, simple and strait forward, and you can't say that about many things in this hobby. But overall I find there is too much focus on it as opposed to other methods. If there is to be talk of EI it should be ways to improve it or ways of tailoring it in some manner. If that means blending it with another method, adjusting the fertilizer amounts to help avoid massive water changes or persistent types of algae associated with it then so be it. 

Maybe this isn't the place for that and that should be another thread But if this is the place for it then lets do it! What I am not looking for are people defending a style but more of a pros and cons vs another system that are objective. That style of discourse helps to progress the hobby and helps to move away from apparent bickering that is going on between the adopters of different styles. Some times a blending of methods leads to a style or system that is easy for everyone to follow and shouldn't that be the ultimate goal? A system that is easy to find and easy to follow that will help grow our plants as well as our community by making it easy for the new guy like me.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

to expound on EI.. it is tailorable. it begins with creating non limiting fertilization. its made to be EASY.
after u know what healthy plant growth looks like. start tailoring it and changing it to ur needs. only you can assess that, as every tank is different. there isn't a standard tailor rule because all tanks are different


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> to expound on EI.. it is tailorable. it begins with creating non limiting fertilization. its made to be EASY.
> after u know what healthy plant growth looks like. start tailoring it and changing it to ur needs. only you can assess that, as every tank is different. there isn't a standard tailor rule because all tanks are different


This is true.. Any method can be tailored, even the dirt tanks.. I've dosed dirt tanks (walstad tanks) once in a while when the plants don't look so good.

I dose a modified EI on my hi-tech. I dose normally but stop dosing the last 2 days. I hesitate to even mention a dosing 'method'. The key to all this is to get the light & CO2 balance first and I apply nutrients whether in the water column or substrate. 

I can confidently say I'm pretty good at growing plants and algae!


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

mistergreen said:


> This is true.. Any method can be tailored, even the dirt tanks.. I've dosed dirt tanks (walstad tanks) once in a while when the plants don't look so good.
> 
> I dose a modified EI on my hi-tech. I dose normally but stop dosing the last 2 days. I hesitate to even mention a dosing 'method'. The key to all this is to get the light & CO2 balance first and I apply nutrients whether in the water column or substrate.
> 
> I can confidently say I'm pretty good at growing plants and algae!


With your modified EI why don't you dose on the last 2 days? In regards to light and CO2 how do you know they are balanced? Also what is your water change schedule like? last question, What sorts of issues do you have with algae?


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> to expound on EI.. it is tailorable. it begins with creating non limiting fertilization. its made to be EASY.
> after u know what healthy plant growth looks like. start tailoring it and changing it to ur needs. only you can assess that, as every tank is different. there isn't a standard tailor rule because all tanks are different


I don't really have a place in the below conversation so I'll start out with it. Just because a plant can grow 2 or 3 inches per day does it mean that any slower amount of growth means that is unhealthy? I can give myself more human growth hormone or use steroids to help accelerate my growth and increase my muscle mass but does that mean because I don't I have unhealthy growth? This isn't a troll or bait question its an honest one. 


I agree EI is made to be easy, but the short and simple of it seems to be that MCI does the same thing starting from the ground up as opposed to giving it everything and then pulling back. For me the ground up method seems it would teach you more about your tanks inhabitants and their needs. Why is it that EI requires a tank reset every week as opposed to every 2 weeks or a 25% change once a week? Why isn't EI's starting point for the fertilizer concentration lower so only a 25% water change is needed weekly as opposed to a 50% water change? These seem like reasonable questions to me and I know Tom will chime in on the subject at some point. 

I admit my questions and thought processes are geared from my reefing background where you have to find equilibrium first and foremost. My old reef tank had great growth and stability and I did 1 30ish gallon water change per month on a 135g tank with a 15ish gallon sump/refugium. I would never dream of doing a 50% water change on a large reef tank because of the stress it would cause on the life in the tank.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

oosurfin said:


> After doing some more reading on different kinds of algae and fertilization methods I stumbled across this Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary thread. It seems like it takes some work to get everything set up and running but it is ultimately a fertilization tailoring system that comes with a direct system to cure the different types of algae that there don't always seem to be direct cures for. While EI has some remedies for the different types of algae, more ferts and more Co2, BBA and GDA seem to be reoccurring themes with the system. The only reason I use EI as an example is because that is what I have been exposed to the most in my few months here.
> 
> One thing I find very interesting is that there seems to be a level of acceptance and tolerance for algae in the planted community and I have not really experienced that in the reef keeping community. I won't disagree that algae is part of a natural system and you see it in the wild etc. this holds true for fresh and salt waters alike depending on where you are looking in the system.
> 
> ...


All you do is limit PO4 for awhile and it's a very round about way of dealing with algae. Takes awhile also. This is EXACTLY the same thing PMDD did prior(from which EI and most other methods in the water come from). (PMDD was done for many years and folks had a lot of experience with it and it was well accepted at the time.) Then once the other problem algae is addressed, then you bump the PO4 back up...........but then you are right back where you started. Does not address the root issue. It takes a very long path around it. 

Maybe some folks cannot fix that root issue and focus on the plants for whatever reason, well, they will try all sorts of things......... 
I've always come back to the basics: light, CO2 and ferts.
These are really all one needs to produce a nice garden and scape well.
Mastering those is the key........then things like algae are not much of an issue.

Folks that disagree with this have honestly not mastered them. Simple as that. 

I try to teach folks to grow plants, *not kill algae.*
Then I hope they will garden and scape nicely from there.

This is what your goal is, not learning every pit fall along the way.
As an old farmer once told me, * it's good to learn from experience, as long as it's not your own.*


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

oosurfin said:


> With your modified EI why don't you dose on the last 2 days? In regards to light and CO2 how do you know they are balanced? Also what is your water change schedule like? last question, What sorts of issues do you have with algae?


There's still plenty of nutrients in the tank toward the end so I don't dose the last 2 days. I keep the CO2 at around 30-40ppm, and lights at around 40 PAR at the substrate. A good indicator is by looking at the plants. There are signs in growth or lack of.

I change 40-50% every week in my high-tech. It's mainly for fish health. It's common in FW tanks although I change my low-tech tank every month or so. Tap water is constant to tank water so shock isn't an issue like in reefs. Algae is common in water ecosystems. I don't mind them since they don't take over my tank. BBA is an issue for me though. I don't like the way it looks. I find the green algae pretty


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

oosurfin said:


> I don't really have a place in the below conversation so I'll start out with it. Just because a plant can grow 2 or 3 inches per day does it mean that any slower amount of growth means that is unhealthy?


If it has algae and is stunted and small, yes, but if you want to reduce the rate of growth, raise the lights up a little, maximize light use efficacy, light is the gas pedal here, less light = less CO2 demand, so CO2 dosing is much easier= this leads to reduce nutrient demand , thus you have more wiggle room dosing ferts and CO2.........

I've long noticed in SG and the UK many of those aquarist used moderately low light and have far fewer issues getting this point across. More light is not better, it's more growth........if not more growth, then you are actually wasting the energy.

You have excess light and are not getting the full yield from it.
Why would you limit ferts and then crank the light only to have the plants not utilize it and have a lot more light available for algae growth?
That is the tail "wagging the dog". 

Light is the 1st choice ro reduce growth rates, followed by CO2.
You can do limitation methods to reduce growth also, typically it's PO4, keeping it at 0.2ppm or less, but ah........you must like GSA if you do this.
Some of us years ago tried "pulse" dosing. We add just a small amount 1-2x a week. This was due to fear of algae. This fear was unfounded and falsified.

I extended this same approach to Marine planted tanks also, see macro algae threads on RC forums also.

So sure, you can do it, and some do. I'm not sure it's all that great no a mystery either regarding why it "works". Plants grow better and look better with less algae and less energy using the light method to control growth rates.

ADA uses this method and they also use rich sediments, which I support the same thing, but I add more water column ferts is all. There's always been a subgroup of hobbyist that believe but have not demonstrated that higher ppm's of plant ferts are detrimental to aquariums, plants, shrimp, fish etc.


Reef crowd is far more interested in testing and answering questions. There's more folks involved in the USA in that, planted tanks? Not many, not many at all.



> I can give myself more human growth hormone or use steroids to help accelerate my growth and increase my muscle mass but does that mean because I don't I have unhealthy growth? This isn't a troll or bait question its an honest one.


So go non CO2 and natural fish waste to support plant growth and reduce labor, reduce inputs and go for a sustainable model. But but but..........many want that CO2 dope. They sneer, as if the non CO2 method is for people who are not serious about planted tanks. I think the non CO2 methods meet the goals for more people than the CO2 enriched methods and the success rate is higher also.

I've long suggested folks use non CO2 methods as well as CO2 enrichment. It does not take much effort once set up and if you suffer multi tank syndrome.........this reduces labor far better than ANY planted or fish only FW method....refuge's in marine tanks offer similar benefits and ATS's, DSB's etc......

It is quite a reasonable question and many do not know the answer for their own and have not tried the method in earnest. So they are often not many well qualified to help folks with such tank goals. 

EI and the other methods are not that well suited.......but can be modified to suit, soil and enriched sediments are good regardless, but they are less critical as the rate of growth is limited by light/CO2...........see that matrix of % growth for lower light and no CO2 added..........the rate is quite low and fish waste and maybe once a week light dosing can meet that demand very easily. Even with plain sand.

Still, CO2 competition between species and higher light use efficacy can cause issues if you try and grow some species together, other folks want to make nicer gardens with any species. 

So these are different goals.
And ....different methods..........



> I agree EI is made to be easy,


I'd say simple, some do not view water changes as "easy". Still, any decent engineering minded person can add a simpler water changer or semi of fully automated version if they really dislike them.



> but the short and simple of it seems to be that MCI does the same thing starting from the ground up as opposed to giving it everything and then pulling back. For me the ground up method seems it would teach you more about your tanks inhabitants and their needs.


So a stunted plant and algae sounds like a good way? You need to think more about this this, I think you are falling for marketing talk and not logic.
It takes a long time and you have to wait as the plants recover also. 
Why not start high and then reduce till you see a slight deficiency or lull in growth? That teaches what you need to know.......how much if just enough to add to prevent things from becoming limiting.

You watch the plants and they are the test kit.
If you are good at watching and growing plants, this becomes pretty easy over time, but takes experience. If you mess with things like the MCI suggest, it's much harder to detect the subtle changes that are typical for planted tanks. Those are much longer and harsher changes that affect plant growth, not typical ones.



> Why is it that EI requires a tank reset every week as opposed to every 2 weeks or a 25% change once a week? Why isn't EI's starting point for the fertilizer concentration lower so only a 25% water change is needed weekly as opposed to a 50% water change? These seem like reasonable questions to me and I know Tom will chime in on the subject at some point.


It's quite arbitrary and the math was easy. 50% weekly = no more than 2X possible build up for the total dosed that week.Say you dose 20ppm a week of K+, then no more than 40ppm could ever get into the tank(assuming tap is K+ free).
If you'd like to see the results of this assuming a % of plant uptake, you can do this with a nice modeling calculator from Wet:
http://petalphile.com/#splash

Bookmark it as it's quite useful at predictive dosing.
This way you can assign a value you want to keep within.

You end up with a large error value if you chose. It's arbitrary based on how much risk you want to chose. But Wet's cal will give you few predictive scenarios. 

I do not know the upper limits where shrimp, fish and plants are negatively affected. 

Nor do most others either, it's a pretty big range really.
Folks have made some rather massive mistakes without ANY adverse effects we could detect. 

Still, with a simple start high and then progressively reduce the dosign till you note any negative impact in plant growth, then bump back up to the next highest level, one can easily change the water say 50% once a month without ANY issue if they modify it.

EI is not set in stone, none of these methods are, but many folks stick with whatever they have been told and a myth is born.

Here's one of my tanks that used that once a month method:





> I admit my questions and thought processes are geared from my reefing background where you have to find equilibrium first and foremost. My old reef tank had great growth and stability and I did 1 30ish gallon water change per month on a 135g tank with a 15ish gallon sump/refugium. I would never dream of doing a 50% water change on a large reef tank because of the stress it would cause on the life in the tank.


Reef has a big issue with water changes....they are great for reefs and you could do away with all sorts of infernal equipment, skimmers and the like........but.the trade off is the cost and effort to buy the salt mix and make it up/exchange the tank water. So test kits and all this AMPLIED steriodal approaches to removal have been done.

I can make the same case for amplified growth and ecosystem maintenance as you did for the higher tech planted tank:icon_idea
Where a simple water change eliminates all those test kits, skimmers and the like.......on a smaller reef or a mini reef, say 50 Gal or less, this is a well worth while, on a 450 Gal SPS tank, not so much. FW however is essentially free and very easy to add/drain. the energy cost are far less for planted tanks and the rates of growth and return for plant sales are far higher than reef tanks.

This is a garden type of tank of mine:









Takes some work, mostly picking and pruning, maybe 1 hour a week.
CO2, good light and such. I dose 3x a week. I have rich sediment and rich water column. I have a bunch of so called eclectic plants and desired species that many label hard.

This tank is the once a month water change with CO2:









This tank gets no water changes:

















Non CO2 etc, these last 2 have non enriched sediments.

And this tank is CO2/enriched sediment/Gets 70% weekly water changes and moderate low light:









I prune maybe 300$ worth of plants monthly.........from this one tank alone and have for the last couple of years. Shrimp, Sturisoma fish etc breed like mad.

The others I cull 100-200$ worth of plants from monthly. Shrimp and other species etc also add to the pot. They also look decent but pay for their own. 
Give me a little incentive to do the water changes and prune. 

Motivation is also something to ponder. Personal habits, and being honest about them. Some know they will not do much to their tanks, well, a non CO2 tank is good if you tend to neglect things. Maybe you like to grow and sell, well, more light, CO2 and work will be involved. 

Still, a reef grows much slower and disasters can occur and cost you far more than an algae bloom ever would in a planted tank. But they offer a different goal in the aquarium hobby also, I have one of those as well.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> Motivation is also something to ponder. Personal habits, and being honest about them. Some know they will not do much to their tanks, well, a non CO2 tank is good if you tend to neglect things. Maybe you like to grow and sell, well, more light, CO2 and work will be involved.
> 
> Still, a reef grows much slower and disasters can occur and cost you far more than an algae bloom ever would in a planted tank. But they offer a different goal in the aquarium hobby also, I have one of those as well.


Just curious, but what would you say that the goal of keeping a reef tank would be?


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

Tom this is right at you. Thanks for being thought provoking. 

You have posted a lot of information for me to look at and look into so it will take some time for me to respond. Obviously because of your time in this side of the hobby there is much history that I don't know when it comes to planted tanks and previously used methods. This may hinder my ability to have an equally thought provoking conversation in return. But my hope is that I help to initiate people that are more knowledgeable than my self to help perpetuate this thread.

A short thought on the MCI approach, I admit I mostly skimmed the method but what I did read I found interesting which is why I brought it up. As of now I am mostly undecided on my method of choice other than PPS-pro sounds like it fits the bill for me. I wont have my ferts until early next week, at that point I should see the cycle finishing up soon after and I can get to dosing and moving my fish from my nano. 

I will get back to this thread after some though and attempted education. In the mean time I really encourage more people to join in on the discussion and talk about the options available. I would love to hear more from people that successfully use methods other than EI simply for my own education on the subjects. I feel like this thread has simmered down quite a bit from the start and open discourse on the different methods could be had.


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Couple of random thoughts.

People seem to forget there was a time when no one (or very few) did water column fertilization. It was adopted after the Sears-Conlin paper (and Tom's work), in the early/mid 90's, by many in order to get rid of algae. If lean water columns were the answer problems would have been solved along time ago. Some things have changed for the better and some for the worse since then. At that time, 3 t12 tubes the length of a tank would be considered high light, that probably doesn't represent much more then the available light for 1 t5ho with reflector now.

A rich substrate is good, doesn't matter what else you are going to do with your tank. Plants need nutrients to grow and having a ready supply always there is never a bad thing. It allows for missed doses, it allows for increased demand as plant load increases, its the cushion you need.

I see fertilization more as a continuum, then separate methods. Really plants don't care where they get their nutrients from as long as they are available. At one end you have a "Walstad" tank, at the other EI. You can have a successful tank anywhere from one end to the other given adequate CO2 and nutrients for the light provided. (To the best of my knowledge, ADA tank systems are Walstad tanks after the marketing department is through with them.)


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

oosurfin said:


> I don't really have a place in the below conversation so I'll start out with it. Just because a plant can grow 2 or 3 inches per day does it mean that any slower amount of growth means that is unhealthy? I can give myself more human growth hormone or use steroids to help accelerate my growth and increase my muscle mass but does that mean because I don't I have unhealthy growth? This isn't a troll or bait question its an honest one.
> 
> 
> I agree EI is made to be easy, but the short and simple of it seems to be that MCI does the same thing starting from the ground up as opposed to giving it everything and then pulling back. For me the ground up method seems it would teach you more about your tanks inhabitants and their needs. Why is it that EI requires a tank reset every week as opposed to every 2 weeks or a 25% change once a week? Why isn't EI's starting point for the fertilizer concentration lower so only a 25% water change is needed weekly as opposed to a 50% water change? These seem like reasonable questions to me and I know Tom will chime in on the subject at some point.
> ...


growth rates don't determine healthy plants. healthy plant tissue and stems determine healthy plants. less light will mean slower growth. same with other nutrients. IF you are balanced between light c02 and nutrients you could grow so slow as to trim one every few months but still be healthy. or grow 4 inches a week and still be healthy. growth rates aren't the issue. you don't see animals grow a lot faster when healthy. just don't get sick (plants dont get algae)


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

oosurfin said:


> Tom this is right at you. Thanks for being thought provoking.
> 
> You have posted a lot of information for me to look at and look into so it will take some time for me to respond. Obviously because of your time in this side of the hobby there is much history that I don't know when it comes to planted tanks and previously used methods. This may hinder my ability to have an equally thought provoking conversation in return. But my hope is that I help to initiate people that are more knowledgeable than my self to help perpetuate this thread.
> 
> ...


any method works if you do it right. only you can determine if ur plants are getting what they require to be healthy. you can even make ur own method. if u could grow FW plants in a salt substrate. please by all means, share how you did it. too many people argue over what's best. none of its best. i would personally argue that EI is EASY. not the best. there is no best. i believe why most people push for EI is its ease of use. if u dose EI, 95% of all applications the only other thing left to balance is light and c02. some people have jungles where the other 5% comes to play where EI has to be tailored.

I use EI. and follow it fairly close. after 2 months of straight use of it. i've tailored it to my needs. reduced some ferts, increased others one of which is my micromix. its all up to you!


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

“ADA, ADG, Bubbles, Oliver Knott do not fertlize the water. Why do we insist doing it then? “ It strikes me that this statement is not correct. 
Many people have insisted over the years that Innes was wrong when he stated that “It has been proven many times that Fish Fertilize Plants.” He goes on to state that if you must add something perhaps you should try “making a liquor from pulverized sheep manure…” , bone meal or perhaps some root tabs. (p 114) I’m not so sure he was as wrong as people have insisted time and again. I once had a planted tank with no fish that had been neglected for a long period. One day I just started adding fish food and within days I could see the plants responding. 
It strikes me that with a richer substrate it may be advisable to ‘repot’ the tank on a more frequent basis. Some of us might even see that as an enjoyable feature of the method. 
Somehow we all need to add fertilization to our fish tanks. How we do that seems to vary based on a few alternatives though they seem to not be all that different. Some things like how many fish are in the tank, how much food gets put into the tank and what the chemistry of the water out of the tap is in the first place seem to get lost in these equations.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

BruceF said:


> “ADA, ADG, Bubbles, Oliver Knott do not fertlize the water. Why do we insist doing it then? “ It strikes me that this statement is not correct.
> Many people have insisted over the years that Innes was wrong when he stated that “It has been proven many times that Fish Fertilize Plants.” He goes on to state that if you must add something perhaps you should try “making a liquor from pulverized sheep manure…” , bone meal or perhaps some root tabs. (p 114) I’m not so sure he was as wrong as people have insisted time and again. I once had a planted tank with no fish that had been neglected for a long period. One day I just started adding fish food and within days I could see the plants responding.
> It strikes me that with a richer substrate it may be advisable to ‘repot’ the tank on a more frequent basis. Some of us might even see that as an enjoyable feature of the method.
> Somehow we all need to add fertilization to our fish tanks. How we do that seems to vary based on a few alternatives though they seem to not be all that different. Some things like how many fish are in the tank, how much food gets put into the tank and what the chemistry of the water out of the tap is in the first place seem to get lost in these equations.


I think there's enough anecdotal evidence that each approach works. The big difference is the ADA is more of a surgical strike at what the tank needs fert-wise while EI is more of a bomb drop (not to say the bomb could be big or small). ADA I'm pretty sure doses the water column daily if needed. I personally have never seen a problem with the bomb drop. The interesting thing is that both methods require large water changes weekly. So whether the water column is lean of ferts or heavy comparably the water change is necessary to keep the tank organically clean. I know the EI method is keeping ferts from building up, but it's also removing a fair amount of organics. On Gatekeeper's list - #3 Clean Water is really at the heart of either method working IMO. Clean water allows more flexibility with light, fert dosage, etc.

I would not be in this hobby anymore if I needed to micro management the tank and watch closely if fert levels are bottoming out. I just don't think it's realistic for many. The EI type approach for me anyway is more realistic.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> I do what works for me: EI. Logical or not, it's a pretty guaranteed method that doesn't take extra "thought." I have better things to think about.


 
+one.
Can describe eight way's to serve up snapping turtles. No one way better than another and result's are good tasting turtle.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

niko said:


> Someone told me about this thread because for some time on APC I've been having a (mostly) monologue about how fertilizing the water makes very little sense and yet most people in the US do exactly that.
> 
> So here are some "things that make you go "hmmm"..."
> 
> ...


 
Pfffft, you gotta do better than this. 
Nobody who know's what's what post's here or on other forums ?
You do not wish to hear anything other than that which you agree with is my perspective.
Can get that from the old woman.:icon_lol:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, both myself and Amano like large water changes, but..I do find the criticisms against EI and the myths put forth to bolster what someone would like.....to believe.........seem curiously absent when Amano also states large water changes as part of the ADA method.

Why is that?

Why is it that only EI gets the poo poo treatment in 99% of such discussions and how horrid all those water changes are??? Be consistent and fair in your argument/debate, philosophy. 

Many, have not been. Some of these same folks are ironically ADA fanboys/girls. 

ADA has VERY non limiting ferts......in the sediments. The first few months are really pretty juicy. I've stated this many time before in such typical discussions like this one: the TOTAL nutrient source from both the sediment and water column must be addressed, not just the water column. 

There is no good reason to keep truly larding ferts on if you do not need them. Reducing the dosing slightly and progressively from a non limiting value (Typically hoagland's solution) is how all those deficiency pics and agricultural studies where done. Liebig did a similar thing. The error range is large, but folks should be able to easily hit 10-30-40ppm NO3 range with EI and modifications. I sit at 10-20ppm most of the time. 

The cost issue is a not an issue for hobbyists since DIY ferts are next to nothing in cost. Maybe commercial brands with all that $$$$ water with a tiny bit a ferts makes it an issue? Could be. Maybe all the folks saying that newbies should and must test.......even though they do not tell them to calibrate the test kits? Could be. 

So since the question in the OP's posed sediments are some glorious way to dose ferts(I agree)........how might hobbyists test sediments for fertility? How long might these sediments last nutrient wise?

Yes, we have had these discussions(see MTS threads here) and no one yet, except a few folks in Europe.....have bothered to test their sediments, and I've suggested how to do so. 2 simple questions that remain unanswered except by.........myself. 

I only measured 2 types of sediment over time. Sand and inert sediments, well, no need (They actually increase in fertility over time though).


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> So since the question in the OP's posed sediments are some glorious way to dose ferts(I agree)........


enjoying the ongoing posts that are on topic but not able to read this in the OP, was it edited out?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

wkndracer said:


> enjoying the ongoing posts that are on topic but not able to read this in the OP, was it edited out?


I think the OP is intact.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

wkndracer said:


> enjoying the ongoing posts that are on topic but not able to read this in the OP, was it edited out?


No, the OP is intact. I think, as seems to be the case in almost every one of these arguments I've ever seen and participated in... some people take discussion of an argument contrary to what they believe or "know" as some sort of personal attack. They tend to respond with more emotion than they even realize. 

At the same time, they don't even realize how they come across to people. It seems as though people are only able to argue that they are right, and not that sometimes, even the "right" way doesn't work for people. I think we should see a pattern in noticing that sewingalot didn't come back to this thread. She saw where it was(and still is) headed. People can't seem to remove the personal from this. Even the most scientific of response in this thread come off as very condescending and argumentative. 


I've read through niko's post a few times and I do not think it warrants the responses he's gotten. I think the understanding he has of this is much deeper than many people who are so quick to say he's full of it could wish to have. Supporting something other than what you personally support or believe does not make them wrong by default. 

But, because of the tone of this thread and the way people have responded, I can already tell how I'll be responded to.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You mean the conversation has continued underground via PMs? 

If I was a newbie coming into this hobby and happened upon this thread. I would have found the backdoor and got the hell out of here as fast as possible and switched my hobby to model airplanes. 

These threads always come across as a battle to see who has the biggest test tubes. It's a wild west show of scientific papers and theory and trying to win the minds of the forum majority.
Planted tanks are a HOBBY. They are not perfect science. There are many ways to do things and the reason I believe people get passionate is because their method works for them. It has become very clear to me anyway, that planted tanks are tied to lifestyle and certain things, especially fertilizing works for some and not for others because of that.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> I think the OP is intact.





OverStocked said:


> No, the OP is intact. I think, as seems to be the case in almost every one of these arguments I've ever seen and participated in... some people take discussion of an argument contrary to what they believe or "know" as some sort of personal attack. They tend to respond with more emotion than they even realize.
> 
> At the same time, they don't even realize how they come across to people. It seems as though people are only able to argue that they are right, and not that sometimes, even the "right" way doesn't work for people. I think we should see a pattern in noticing that sewingalot didn't come back to this thread. She saw where it was(and still is) headed. People can't seem to remove the personal from this. Even the most scientific of response in this thread come off as very condescending and argumentative.
> 
> ...


Thanks for both the replies. I do appreciate you sharing you're opinion on how the topics have been handled by many Overstocked. I agree with nearly all you're assessments on the 'mood' conveyed here but had strangely hoped for more. Condescending and argumentative is exactly how I read much of it. I posted what I thought of how it was trending along with what I do tanking plants with at least a little clarity I thought as I follow no 'method'.

Yet have just found myself returning repeatedly, reading (in wonderment at the tone many times) hoping to see methods discussed that might peak my interest. 

The handling or grabbing at niko's post in quotes that simply seem to not end as a bone to be chewed by one after another is sad to me as a member. 
I prefer TPT and rarely log in over on APC but his post caused me to return and (imo) this is no idiot. Member search, review his posts and threads. I found them more interesting than this thread so far.

Wish I could ignore some things to better effect but sure I'll check back LOL 

back to APC :hihi:


----------



## Bahugo (Apr 18, 2011)

sewingalot said:


> What I find to be really sad is the "underground" plant society that is taking place in this hobby. There are many, many people that don't agree with the most common methods out there and believe much like Nikolay and myself. Often we are forced to communicate by pms since there is often a war mentality when the EI method and other similar water column methods are criticized. I have seen countless threads where someone brings up the method failing for them, and immediately they are dismissed and told they are wrong and screwed up. Rarely do you see anyone try and help that member as we should be doing. It becomes instead an "I'm right, you're wrong" battle. I have been told I am the failure, and even attacked for helping another member (bsmith) with his algae issue. And when I did the "experiments" as we were told to do and found evidence contradicting the accepted standards, I was told I was hurting the hobby with "fear mongering" or that this was discovered years ago. This is really ridiculous if you think about it. If a method is tried and true, then the personal attacks shouldn't be a factor and the same messages shouldn't be preached over and over. Rather, we should listen to one another, discover new methods and ask ourselves why when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to prove many of these accepted principles are not completely correct.
> 
> Instead, there are always the ones that will parrot "It works for me, why question it?" Why not? If we don't question the hobby, how will it ever advance? If these methods are so infalliable, why is there even algae forum? I dedicate myself in this hobby toward algae as I feel it is greatly misunderstood. For instance, there are several articles supporting Liebig's law toward algae growth. In the ocean, they found that iron was the limiting factor and was causing algae to die off. When they added it back in, it flourished and helped change the environment for the positive in that area. Scientists apply the same principles to algae as to plant growth. Yet, we are told nutrients don't feed algae. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet when we question, we are simply told we are incapable of understanding because we are hobbyists or we are plain wrong and then bombarded with the same rhetoric until ultimately, most of us abandon the threads and move on to pms.
> 
> So the question becomes are these "proven" methods really proven when the opposition is squashed before they have a chance to speak out?


I honestly think this is the best post in this thread. I am one of those people who *fear* talking about *my* experiences openly in threads, because if I contradict something that is against the grain of the dictated norm I am told I am doing something wrong. I don't have science too prove what I experienced so I am wrong. I talk too people through PM's because I like too hear their uncensored opinion on things, and they can honestly say their results with X Y Z and not fear being targeted by followers of certain philosophies. I can't stand the sense of hostility towards people who ask simple questions, especially when it is towards people who are new too the hobby and don't have all the knowledge that is out their" and they get the generic response "Find the root of your problem, do big water changes, and dose EI." And if they ask any other questions it is the same response. There are very few people who go out of their way too truly help these people with their issues, and I commend them for doing it because they are often greeted by a very hostile crowd if they say anything against the norm, and I find that most people help them through PM's. I, for one, will respond too several people through PM's with advice or my experience too avoid hostility directed towards me. 

There are people who *really do want help on the forum*, and I really dislike the mentality of "Click this link, you should research yourself noob." "Obviously your EI dosing is off" "You need more Co2". 

Ei dosing should not be the end all be all dosing method acceptable on a forum, and if people wish too stray from that they need to research elsewhere, because if there are posts about fertilization methods it often turns into a debate like this, people getting into the argument of defending EI dosing. Nikolay got very hostile responses for saying something contradicting too the norm, and people wounder why he doesn't wish too go out of his way too post further on his philosophies. Would you? I wish he would because there are several people out there who would love too hear about other fertilization methods instead of having too google other methods used by different people because all other varieties are shot down here. I am fairly positive that Sewingalot did not want this thread too go down this path of the constant bicker why EI does it better then X Y Z. 



OverStocked said:


> No, the OP is intact. I think, as seems to be the case in almost every one of these arguments I've ever seen and participated in... some people take discussion of an argument contrary to what they believe or "know" as some sort of personal attack. They tend to respond with more emotion than they even realize.
> 
> At the same time, they don't even realize how they come across to people. It seems as though people are only able to argue that they are right, and not that sometimes, even the "right" way doesn't work for people. I think we should see a pattern in noticing that sewingalot didn't come back to this thread. She saw where it was(and still is) headed. People can't seem to remove the personal from this. Even the most scientific of response in this thread come off as very condescending and argumentative.
> 
> ...


I really agree with this statement. I wish that we could openly discuss other ways of fertilization that people have had success with in a healthy manner.




plantbrain said:


> Why is it that only EI gets the poo poo treatment in 99% of such discussions and how horrid all those water changes are??? Be consistent and fair in your argument/debate, philosophy.


With all due respect and I don't mean this in an ignorant way, but you really open yourself up too it. You do not allow people too voice their opinions or let people talk about other fertilization methods without budding in with your opinion and _belittling_ comments. I really wish that some of your comments were edited out by moderators, and I am not talking about this thread, but some of your responses too people in the past throughout different threads are very belittling too the point where I have felt bad for the person. Sometimes I wish you would give the lectors a rest, we know you have healthy tanks and we know that people have great experiences with EI dosing, but why is it that people aren't allowed too try their own things or talk about other methods? Yeah, you said near the beginning you encourage people too try different options, but it always ends up with the same theme of EI dosing being superior in the long run. Nobody is trying to discredit you by discussing other methods too maintaining healthy plant upkeep. 

I can get from Chicago too Florida in countless ways, some may be quicker, but that doesn't make it the best way. Just because growth is *fastest *one way, doesn't make it the best way.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

wkndracer said:


> Thanks for both the replies. I do appreciate you sharing you're opinion on how the topics have been handled by many Overstocked. I agree with nearly all you're assessments on the 'mood' conveyed here but had strangely hoped for more. Condescending and argumentative is exactly how I read much of it. I posted what I thought of how it was trending along with what I do tanking plants with at least a little clarity I thought as I follow no 'method'.
> 
> Yet have just found myself returning repeatedly, reading (in wonderment at the tone many times) hoping to see methods discussed that might peak my interest.
> 
> ...


Wkndracer and Bahugo have pretty much read my mind regarding the topic at hand. I can't think of anything more to add to either post other than for anyone who tires of trying to discuss more than one method of keeping a planted tank and having to put up with the crap that ensues, you might find a bit more freedom on APC.


----------



## tacks (Jun 19, 2006)

I have been here for awhile and don't post enough. This has been a great thread too read. I want to thank everyone who posted. I myself have a 150 tall heavily planted tank. I have co2 and tek lighting. I am old school and try to keep ferts out of the water column and a lot in the substrate. I have had my ups and downs but in general very good growth with little algae. Ed


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

I haven't had much time to any kind of research in regards to yesterdays posts because I am working a double today and only have a few minutes to read the posts for the day and make this response. 

below is an attempt from me personally to help get things back on what I felt was a forward moving track to some real discussion. 

I was hoping to see a little more focus on the topic and a little less focus on the bickering that has been happening because of different philosophies. we were getting away from that focus and its coming back around full swing to the bickering. If you are talking about the bickering you just as much the problem as the people doing it. 

Focusing on it like I am doing now encourages it. Think of small attention deprived children, they do bad things because they crave attention regardless of whether it is positive or negative attention, this is no different.

A very simple way to help perpetuate directional conversation is to pick a point you know a little bit about and ask...WHY?? then ask again WHY but with this variable or that variable. You will see me do it no doubt but I want to see different thoughts and opinions. 

This is a forum don't be afraid of hostility, ignore it and continue on. We don't always need moderators to shoo away and edit out crappy comments, simply ignoring it will help to get rid of it. It is the reaction to the annoyance that feeds the annoyance.


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

tacks said:


> I have been here for awhile and don't post enough. This has been a great thread too read. I want to thank everyone who posted. I myself have a 150 tall heavily planted tank. I have co2 and tek lighting. I am old school and try to keep ferts out of the water column and a lot in the substrate. I have had my ups and downs but in general very good growth with little algae. Ed


Ed,

I would love to hear more about how you go about keeping your tank. What sort of dosing do you do and what kind of maintenance schedule do you have?


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

OverStocked said:


> No, the OP is intact. I think, as seems to be the case in almost every one of these arguments I've ever seen and participated in... some people take discussion of an argument contrary to what they believe or "know" as some sort of personal attack. They tend to respond with more emotion than they even realize.
> 
> At the same time, they don't even realize how they come across to people. It seems as though people are only able to argue that they are right, and not that sometimes, even the "right" way doesn't work for people. I think we should see a pattern in noticing that sewingalot didn't come back to this thread. She saw where it was(and still is) headed. People can't seem to remove the personal from this. Even the most scientific of response in this thread come off as very condescending and argumentative.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'll have to repeat what a few others have said and say +1 to agreeing with the first part of your post. But Niko's post is a perfect example of what you just talked about. I know you've read his post multiple times, but he really did exactly what you mentioned. Yeah, we know he's a good guy and he's definitely full of knowledge from his posts on APC, but he does the same thing Tom does and that you described. He's clearly very frustrated, and maybe rightly so, but every time I read his closing to his post, I get a little sad that he had to close with that. 

What it comes down to is that Niko and Tom both know what they're doing and can do it really well. In addition, the core foundation of debating is to be argumentative, otherwise nothing ever gets disproven or proven or anything like that. That's why there are always so many rivalries surrounding great breakthroughs (and I'm not talking about just aquaria). You can do your best to keep it cordial and non-personal, but in the case of Niko and Tom, they both truly believe and "know", like you said, the logic behind their beliefs, and they fight hard to defend those beliefs. The harder you fight, the more that the once clear lines between objective and subjective, and theoretical and personal becomes blurred. After all, when you truly believe, you will defend hard, and attacks on those beliefs are, in your eyes, attacks ON you. And other people (like me) who have no idea of what to believe will get angry because it's difficult to even tell what they're trying to do; debate or attack.

But I, for one, actually like to see that, because, while yeah I'm super annoyed at first, it made me stop and realize that it's only because they care so much that they let themselves get frustrated because it's not so easy to get everybody to understand what they believe. So yeah, I got angry at Tom's posts when I first read them six months ago upon joining, and I got angry on Niko's first post that I've read on this forum, but now I can appreciate them afterwards. I still don't think Niko included enough information in his post though. =)


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

OverStocked said:


> No, the OP is intact. I think, as seems to be the case in almost every one of these arguments I've ever seen and participated in... some people take discussion of an argument contrary to what they believe or "know" as some sort of personal attack. They tend to respond with more emotion than they even realize.
> 
> At the same time, they don't even realize how they come across to people. It seems as though people are only able to argue that they are right, and not that sometimes, even the "right" way doesn't work for people. I think we should see a pattern in noticing that sewingalot didn't come back to this thread. She saw where it was(and still is) headed. People can't seem to remove the personal from this. Even the most scientific of response in this thread come off as very condescending and argumentative.
> 
> ...


you're not adding to the topic. on the contrary, further pulling it off topic and seemingly (to me at least) advocating picking teams per se'. this was my problem with nikos post in the first place (and i'm not emotional in the least about it). at least tom is giving scientific studies, data, correlation, etc.. adding to the discussion. maybe not how the OP intended, but definitely how the topic seems to be flowing with all this defensive crap going around. this forum is going to the dogs because of this and as one of the foremost respected members, being part of it is advocating it... even if it's to point fingers at others.

sad... very sad... especially when you stand to make a buck as well.


VeeSe said:


> Yeah, I'll have to repeat what a few others have said and say +1 to agreeing with the first part of your post. *But Niko's post is a perfect example of what you just talked about.* I know you've read his post multiple times, but he really did exactly what you mentioned. Yeah, we know he's a good guy and he's definitely full of knowledge from his posts on APC, but he does the same thing Tom does and that you described. *He's clearly very frustrated, and maybe rightly so, but every time I read his closing to his post, I get a little sad that he had to close with that. *
> 
> What it comes down to is that Niko and Tom both know what they're doing and can do it really well. *In addition, the core foundation of debating is to be argumentative, otherwise nothing ever gets disproven or proven or anything like that.* (and niko posted nothing to be proven/disproved nor did he post anything that proves/disproves anything) That's why there are always so many rivalries surrounding great breakthroughs (and I'm not talking about just aquaria). You can do your best to keep it cordial and non-personal, but in the case of Niko and Tom, they both truly believe and "know", like you said, the logic behind their beliefs, and they fight hard to defend those beliefs. The harder you fight, the more that the once clear lines between objective and subjective, and theoretical and personal becomes blurred. After all, when you truly believe, you will defend hard, and attacks on those beliefs are, in your eyes, attacks ON you. And other people (like me) who have no idea of what to believe will get angry because it's difficult to even tell what they're trying to do; debate or attack.
> 
> But I, for one, actually like to see that, because, while yeah I'm super annoyed at first, it made me stop and realize that *it's only because they care so much* that they let themselves get frustrated because it's not so easy to get everybody to understand what they believe and/or know. So yeah, I got angry at Tom's posts when I first read them six months ago upon joining, and I got angry on Niko's first post that I've read on this forum, but now I can appreciate them afterwards. *I still don't think Niko included enough information in his post though.* <---<< and that's the bottom line in a discussion of pros/cons of this vs. that... adequate *relevant *information =)


epic post... but this topic needs to be re-visited apparently at another time. it's unfortunate.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

dundadundun said:


> you're not adding to the topic. on the contrary, further pulling it off topic and seemingly (to me at least) advocating picking teams per se'. this was my problem with nikos post in the first place (and i'm not emotional in the least about it). at least tom is giving scientific studies, data, correlation, etc.. adding to the discussion. maybe not how the OP intended, but definitely how the topic seems to be flowing with all this defensive crap going around. this forum is going to the dogs because of this and as one of the foremost respected members, being part of it is advocating it... even if it's to point fingers at others.
> 
> sad... very sad... especially when you stand to make a buck as well.
> 
> ...


This has nothing to do with making a buck. Read where I suggested people rush out and buy RootMedic? Perhaps if you reviewed my responses to fertilizer suggestions throughout the forum you'd even know that I openly recommend or present ALL of the options to people and do not push my products outside of the Swap N shop. 

BTW, you did exactly what I was talking about and completely proved my point. 

I'd prefer you not suggest something relating to my ethics here though, since I've not once suggested anyone buy my product. 

There is little discussion here, just a group of people saying he's wrong. What I think is sad is that we can't get past the worshiping at people's feet and actually discuss what the topic was about. It appears some people think others crap daises.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

OK guys, let's keep this thread ON topic and AWAY from the interpersonal drama.

Debate ideas, not personalities.


----------



## farrenator (May 11, 2011)

lauraleellbp said:


> OK guys, let's keep this thread ON topic and AWAY from the interpersonal drama.
> 
> Debate ideas, not personalities.


OK, how about this for a start [flame suit on]:

Soil/substrate fertilized tanks -caveat - I don't have one, never have:
They seem great from the standpoint that, once you get past the initial stages where the substrate releases lots of nutrients into the water and perhaps (debateable) the need for water changes, it is an incredibly easy way to provide nutrients to the plants for a long time with minimal maintenance by the user. One inconvenience may be (I don't know, I don't have soil tanks) for those who like to scape a lot and are constantly rearranging their tanks, in that you may disturb the substrate leading to occasional nutrient seep into the water column. The same may happen for the person who grows lots of fast growing stems and is constantly clipping and uprooting. Is this a problem, I don't know, but lets talk about it. What about those who crop stems and plant the tops? Do the stems suffer until they are able to develop the root system to tap into the nutrients or are stems capable of absorbing nutrients through the stem while they are developing roots?

Water Column Dosing
These systems require a lot more oversight/maintenance by the user in that they need to add the ferts. This leads to people spending $$ on devising schemes to autodose, thus reducing the need for user input. This is beneficial to a person who travels a lot, or simply doesn't want to constantly be adding things to the tank. I don't think one can say that water column dosing necessarily requires more water changes than the soil tank because one can design a fert regimen that is pretty lean (PPS Pro, PMDD, MCI, modified EI - whatever). The downside is this requires a learning curve that simply is not there with a soil tank. One big advantage to soil tanks (other than reduced daily user maintenance) is that one is confident that plants have more than they need and will take what they want - like EI but through the soil.

This is not the most organized post since it was off the top of my head but I hope I introduced at least a couple of topics that can be discussed and prove useful to the community.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

farrenator said:


> OK, how about this for a start [flame suit on]:
> 
> Soil/substrate fertilized tanks -caveat - I don't have one, never have:
> They seem great from the standpoint that, once you get past the initial stages where the substrate releases lots of nutrients into the water and perhaps (debateable) the need for water changes, it is an incredibly easy way to provide nutrients to the plants for a long time with minimal maintenance by the user. One inconvenience may be (I don't know, I don't have soil tanks) for those who like to scape a lot and are constantly rearranging their tanks, in that you may disturb the substrate leading to occasional nutrient seep into the water column. The same may happen for the person who grows lots of fast growing stems and is constantly clipping and uprooting. Is this a problem, I don't know, but lets talk about it. What about those who crop stems and plant the tops? Do the stems suffer until they are able to develop the root system to tap into the nutrients or are stems capable of absorbing nutrients through the stem while they are developing roots?
> ...


Well I like that you try to organize it into pros and cons for the user as it relates to their lifestyle. I think that when you simplify it down like this, it's pretty easy. You have a ton of methods to choose from to make it work: pick one that suits your life and preferences and enjoy your plants.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

oosurfin said:


> I haven't had much time to any kind of research in regards to yesterdays posts because I am working a double today and only have a few minutes to read the posts for the day and make this response.
> 
> below is an attempt from me personally to help get things back on what I felt was a forward moving track to some real discussion.
> 
> ...


 
I just want to commend you on trying to make this thread a thought provoking conversation rather than feeding the negativity fire that usually ensues. I had a feeling this thread was heading in the wrong direction after the first page of posts which is why I posted what I did. This is a hobby which is ever evolving and without a open and healthy conversation it will never help anyone. Everyone involved in this conversation needs to check their egos at the door and just remember this is a hobby and it is supposed to be enjoyable.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

to comment. i prefer EI because its ease of use in starting a new planted tank. IMO there is no easier way to get a healthy tank started than EI
you get non limiting fertilization and the rest of the leg work is balancing light and c02 injection or non injection.

to give a pro of substrate. i've done a dirt scrimp tank and absolutely low the low maintenance of it. all i dose is micros and gh booster once per week. no c02 low lights. if it were fish id do ei but its shrimp abd the goal is to be easy so i can focus on my high tech dirt is awesome for this. downside is substrate cleaning. u can't do it unless u want a huge mess


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> If it has algae and is stunted and small, yes, but if you want to reduce the rate of growth, raise the lights up a little, maximize light use efficacy, light is the gas pedal here, less light = less CO2 demand, so CO2 dosing is much easier= this leads to reduce nutrient demand , thus you have more wiggle room dosing ferts and CO2.........


See for me this makes sense perfectly. I do have a question that goes along with this, if I am raising my lights and lowering my par over all wouldn't this limit the species of plant available to me? Its my understanding that you need higher light levels to maintain certain plants like HC or keeping red colors. While that does get off the topic of fertilization style I am still interested. But to bring it back around what exactly do you mean by "wiggle room" in regards to ferts and CO2? 



plantbrain said:


> I've long noticed in SG and the UK many of those aquarist used moderately low light and have far fewer issues getting this point across. More light is not better, it's more growth........if not more growth, then you are actually wasting the energy.
> 
> You have excess light and are not getting the full yield from it.
> Why would you limit ferts and then crank the light only to have the plants not utilize it and have a lot more light available for algae growth? That is the tail "wagging the dog".


I agree that balance is key and THAT more than anything is what I am looking for from my fertilization style/method/philosophy what ever you want to call it. If you can waste light then on the same coin you can waste water and fertilizer. Why is it any more important to not waste light or use it effectively than to not use fertilizer and water effectively? 



plantbrain said:


> Light is the 1st choice ro reduce growth rates, followed by CO2. You can do limitation methods to reduce growth also, typically it's PO4, keeping it at 0.2ppm or less, but ah........you must like GSA if you do this. Some of us years ago tried "pulse" dosing. We add just a small amount 1-2x a week. This was due to fear of algae. This fear was unfounded and falsified.
> 
> I extended this same approach to Marine planted tanks also, see macro algae threads on RC forums also.
> 
> ...


That is really interesting information and I appreciate it being brought to my attention. I haven't looked very thoroughly into ADA's methods mostly because I see them more as a company that has a product to sell more than a style and that is due to my own ignorance and I will have to re-evaluate that.



plantbrain said:


> Reef crowd is far more interested in testing and answering questions. There's more folks involved in the USA in that, planted tanks? Not many, not many at all.


I came from so. cal and RC was my home during my reef keeping days. I've spent a lot time talking to people tearing down tanks when they were leaving the hobby and those keeping many tanks at once because they were so close to me. I would guess that so. cal has one of the highest concentrations of reef keepers, I wont try to confirm that but the so. cal forum seemed to have more activity than a very large portion of RC as a whole. To top that off there were quite a few spin off forums that came from RC to help focus on the so. cal area. The fact that I came from reefing gives me a serious bias towards testing and I won't argue that at all. I think its important to use your test kits as well as your flora/fauna to diagnose the over all health of your aquarium.



plantbrain said:


> So go non CO2 and natural fish waste to support plant growth and reduce labor, reduce inputs and go for a sustainable model. But but but..........many want that CO2 dope. They sneer, as if the non CO2 method is for people who are not serious about planted tanks. I think the non CO2 methods meet the goals for more people than the CO2 enriched methods and the success rate is higher also.
> 
> I've long suggested folks use non CO2 methods as well as CO2 enrichment. It does not take much effort once set up and if you suffer multi tank syndrome.........this reduces labor far better than ANY planted or fish only FW method....refuge's in marine tanks offer similar benefits and ATS's, DSB's etc......
> 
> It is quite a reasonable question and many do not know the answer for their own and have not tried the method in earnest. So they are often not many well qualified to help folks with such tank goals.


I have personally made a choice to go high tech because of left over equipment I had from when I kept a reef and I am very interested in the different approaches to keeping this style of tank. I feel there are many options available and I am sure there are people out there with experience with those options that can talk about their pit falls as well as their victories. Which is really what I am after in this thread, knowledge from the people who use or have used all of these different approaches. I would love to hear from Niko more simply because he obviously has a lot to say about this subject and the approach others take. He said himself that the methods that they use are not well documented in english, that is sad because it makes it that much harder for myself and others to learn something new and different from their approach.




plantbrain said:


> EI and the other methods are not that well suited.......but can be modified to suit, soil and enriched sediments are good regardless, but they are less critical as the rate of growth is limited by light/CO2...........see that matrix of % growth for lower light and no CO2 added..........the rate is quite low and fish waste and maybe once a week light dosing can meet that demand very easily. Even with plain sand.
> 
> Still, CO2 competition between species and higher light use efficacy can cause issues if you try and grow some species together, other folks want to make nicer gardens with any species.
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I am after...different methods. I know there are people out there with things they want to say and I am all about hearing them as well as trying to engage them through honest questions and discourse. I think its terrible that people are in fear of ridicule and retaliation because of a different view point and are essentially in fear of sharing their knowledge. That kind of attitude only stands to bring about a "dark age" with regards to advancement and evolution of this hobby. I really think El natural approach is cool because of its ability to be mostly self sufficient and I might just try it some time.



plantbrain said:


> I'd say simple, some do not view water changes as "easy". Still, any decent engineering minded person can add a simpler water changer or semi of fully automated version if they really dislike them.


On a large tank I am all for auto mated setup and I will be sure to have one when I have the space available for something of that nature. Some people don't have the desire, space or ability to make that happen. But I would like to revisit something that you mentioned earlier. This is in no way a personal attack but simply the application of your own thoughts from a different angle. The application of EI dictates your maintenance schedule in regards to water changes, you basically have to reset your tank each week to avoid excessive build up. So from a tank maintenance stand point EI is the tail "wagging the dog". It just seems that there are other viable options out there that don't require this kind of weekly reset and I don't really understand why they seem to be considered a poor option. 




plantbrain said:


> So a stunted plant and algae sounds like a good way? You need to think more about this this, I think you are falling for marketing talk and not logic.


I apologize in advance because I want to stay away from bickering and talk more objectively about these different methods. This isn't an attack but an observation and break down of about 30 words.

I am only entertaining this because of the marketing aspect you bring up. I will break up the above sentences into a few different sections and work with them separately. I want to set the stage up properly for this so for a short time I would like to consider EI as you would any product you see for sale. 

Tom you are personally invested in a method that is widely adopted and has proven to work for many people. I think that is an amazing accomplishment to be a pioneer in any field or hobby. It really shows dedication and passion for something you love. Now for the break down, once again simply because of the marketing angle that was brought up.

To the question: No algae and stunted plants don't sound good to anyone so that is simply a bait style question. Its like asking someone if they like to be punched in the face. Then trying to sell them a protective mask for their face. The question is directly tarted at a very real deficiency in MCI but it comes along with a marketing twist. It is essentially used to Bolster EI's standing as a better product by not giving MCI credit where credit is due. It seems to me that MCI as come up with a reproducible way to combat each major group of algae that we come in contact with in our planted tanks and aims to be totally algae free. Someone spent a lot of time to figure out and document the complex chemical relationships that are active in our tanks all the time. While working from there they have figured out how to combat the algae, while growing the plants, based on what happens when these relationships are out of balance. I think that is really cool 

To the first part of your statement: In the long and short of it because of your personal investment into EI as a fertilizer dosing system you are no less prone to making marketing style statements, As seen above. So maybe those that don't question EI are subject to marketing talk and not logic because there could be an option available that could better suit their style while offering a non limiting fertilizer base. MCI or PPS-pro or whatever the option is it may be able provide that but not the excess that comes along with EI. Each system that I have seen so far has their own pitfalls, side effects, as well as victories and EI is no different. That is why I don't discount EI as an option for me when I start dosing my tank, we know its been successful as well as easy.

To the second part of your statement: This seems to be a marketing style attack. If I don't automatically subscribe to your idea of logic and buy your product I am somehow subject to fantasy and misdirection effectively putting me at a disadvantage. It is reminiscent of the late night male enhancement commercials that are on TV. The problem with that part of statement above has much to do with the many possible perceptions of what is said. I will assume that a cheap jab is not what you meant by what you said, but I could be wrong, and it could have been fully intended as a jab, If that is the case then I am truely disappointed. 





plantbrain said:


> It takes a long time and you have to wait as the plants recover also.
> Why not start high and then reduce till you see a slight deficiency or lull in growth? That teaches what you need to know.......how much if just enough to add to prevent things from becoming limiting.


There is really a great question here "Why not start high and then reduce till you see a slight deficiency or lull in growth?" I really like it because it engages the person you are talking with to think for them self and use their own experiences to help justify their decisions. You answer the question in a really good way as well! It gives a lot of credence to the EI method and exemplifies one of its major advantages. 



plantbrain said:


> You watch the plants and they are the test kit.
> If you are good at watching and growing plants, this becomes pretty easy over time, but takes experience. If you mess with things like the MCI suggest, it's much harder to detect the subtle changes that are typical for planted tanks. Those are much longer and harsher changes that affect plant growth, not typical ones.


How long does it take to know these changes are even happening? If they are that subtle and you are new to the scene how would you know? To push that question a little further, If they are that subtle how would you know its happening using EI? I don't think EI would be any less a victim of that kind of thing and that brings us back to marketing style statements. You pose your question as defect in the MCI system but don't account for your system being subject to same issue. It has nothing to do with MCI but more the fact that the plant keeper is a novice. 




plantbrain said:


> It's quite arbitrary and the math was easy. 50% weekly = no more than 2X possible build up for the total dosed that week.Say you dose 20ppm a week of K+, then no more than 40ppm could ever get into the tank(assuming tap is K+ free).
> If you'd like to see the results of this assuming a % of plant uptake, you can do this with a nice modeling calculator from Wet:
> http://petalphile.com/#splash
> 
> ...


I have seen wets calc. and it is pretty darn impressive to say the least. I plan to keep shrimp so its good to know If I choose EI I can screw up and not nuke my tank.




plantbrain said:


> Still, with a simple start high and then progressively reduce the dosign till you note any negative impact in plant growth, then bump back up to the next highest level, one can easily change the water say 50% once a month without ANY issue if they modify it.
> 
> EI is not set in stone, none of these methods are, but many folks stick with whatever they have been told and a myth is born.


I can't disagree with this kind of logic because its sound. It is easy to start high and work your way back so water changes aren't really large but you still provide your plants everything they need in a long term fashion. Mothods such as MCI could be used as a tailoring program for fertilizer concentrations because of its use of algae types to figure out if your ratios and balances are off. Which is the kind of ideas we should be discussing here because these are the kinds of things that help progress the hobby for everyone. 



plantbrain said:


> Motivation is also something to ponder. Personal habits, and being honest about them. Some know they will not do much to their tanks, well, a non CO2 tank is good if you tend to neglect things. Maybe you like to grow and sell, well, more light, CO2 and work will be involved.
> 
> Still, a reef grows much slower and disasters can occur and cost you far more than an algae bloom ever would in a planted tank. But they offer a different goal in the aquarium hobby also, I have one of those as well.


My motives are simple. I want a nice looking tank with nice looking fish that I can stare at for hours as well as tinker with if I get the hankering too. I feel like I will get that with a high tech tank. If I can sell some plants along the way then sweet that is a bonus and that may just be the byproduct of the high tech path I have decided to take. If you can't be honest with yourself about your personal habits then there are more issues than anyone here could help you with. The best part of keeping planted tanks is that you have a full array of options available to fit your own style whether that is low maintenance or commercial. I couldn't agree more about how costly a tank crash could be and I am proud to say I made it through with out having one. You are a smart guy Tom and I am excited to be able to have conversation with someone as accomplished as you in the planted tank world. You have amazing tanks and I hope I can get to a place where I can be proud of what I have grown and scaped. 

As for any of the questions I have asked above I encourage anyone one to answer them to help push this topic along in a directed way.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

farrenator said:


> OK, how about this for a start [flame suit on]:
> 
> Soil/substrate fertilized tanks -caveat - I don't have one, never have:
> They seem great from the standpoint that, once you get past the initial stages where the substrate releases lots of nutrients into the water and perhaps (debateable) the need for water changes, it is an incredibly easy way to provide nutrients to the plants for a long time with minimal maintenance by the user. One inconvenience may be (I don't know, I don't have soil tanks) for those who like to scape a lot and are constantly rearranging their tanks, in that you may disturb the substrate leading to occasional nutrient seep into the water column. The same may happen for the person who grows lots of fast growing stems and is constantly clipping and uprooting. Is this a problem, I don't know, but lets talk about it. What about those who crop stems and plant the tops? Do the stems suffer until they are able to develop the root system to tap into the nutrients or are stems capable of absorbing nutrients through the stem while they are developing roots?
> ...


One issue I think for those who dislike soil/sediment enriched method is a simple issue with how they scape and replant etc, thus...the horticultural and gardening aspects.

Inert sediments, hard etc...these tend to be forgiving, and the soil methods tend to be less so and can make a mess. Amano, Jeff Senske, Aqua Forest, myself........we all have shown and illustrated how to trim and prune different plants: you have a few basic ways: topping(usually good for soil type sediments) and carefully pulling the stumps up/ uproot-replanting type methods and then mowing of foreground plants.

Some species do better with topping, others need up rooted. If you can learn these techniques, then the soil sediments are simply wonderful.
Some scapes and ideas you might have lend themselves best to a single plain inert sand type of design, so being able to go all water column is a good method for that.

I'm a strong proponent of sediment sources for ferts, but I also like water column methods as well and they have their utility.

So it's impossible to suggest that only one method is going to meet all goals. When/where possible combining methods will provide that much more wiggle room. We are less concerned about build up on nutrients as we are running out of them. You can and should test this for yourself, then you'll know.

Dose high PO4, or NO3 and see the effects.
Perhaps some newbies might not want to do that, but many do so often by mistake. Then there's less concern and fear thereafter. You know what you did an there was no adverse effect, or .........risk. I do not ask folks to take my word for anything, test and try it yourself. 

Still, folks can mess up any method really really well. Then come back with a different method and be successful. Was it the method? Or was it now....they learned about good light or CO2 or simply took better care this time? Hard to say. 

Once an aquarist gets a decent looking tank going, like a reefer, they are not willing to risk destruction to test or experiment. But, if you want to know what will happen and answer the question, well........what choice do you have? Wait till someone else does it I suppose......

Good to learn from experience, as long as it is not your own.
Still, we learn by making mistakes. and then going back and seeing what we did wrong. I started out using sediment only, then went 1005 the other way with water column, then tried ADA AS, hated it initially!!! I really disliked the weight and I was a chronic uprooter. Took me awhile to come around back to it. Maybe 3-4 years. But hooked ever since.

I'm no different than most hobbyist. Some folks act like I know a lot, or believe in me much more than they should......I am in fact, very much ignorant.

So I ask questions and questioned things, if I cannot find an answer, I need to try and answer it myself. Still, do not discount any method, take a good look at it, see if you can master it. You will be better able to help others........and improve your own skills.

I often suggest for the CO2 folks to try a non CO2 method, or if you are an inert sediment user, try the enriched types, or tablets etc. Then if you have bad or positive results, try to figure out why and see if it makes some sense.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I personally think that EI is a good method for the starting hobbyist because it is simple. Once a person has been growing plants for awhile, they are most likely going to stray from established methods. This is human nature. Get into the hobby far enough and you will probably start building your own equipment as well.

Eventually many people (or myself at least) start going by feel rather than by recipe. If there's one thing that I have learned, whether it be growing aquatic, terraponic, hydroponic, aeroponic, plants, or just growing tomatoes in your garden, is that there is an enormously wide margin for error. Reducing or increasing any particular nutrient by 10-20% is probably not going to make any noticeable difference, even if you continue to do this for months.

The other issue I see often is that people like to fiddle with things too much. If you have algae in your tank, and start adding or subtracting nutrient "X" to try correcting, you don't know the real results 4 days later. 4 weeks later maybe (Still possibly too soon.).

Another problem is the absence of inflection in internet posts. It's difficult to determine the poster's mindset while reading their comments. It is easy to get the feeling you are being talked down to, or attacked even when this is not the intent. 

Some people will attack you or your views, but honestly, why get bent out of shape over it?

You can't have a discussion any topic with differing views without some arguing going on. Don't think for a second that the scientific community is any different. The character assasinations perpetrated by scientists toward their contemporaries are second only to those of career politicians.


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

farrenator said:


> OK, how about this for a start [flame suit on]:
> 
> Soil/substrate fertilized tanks -caveat - I don't have one, never have:
> They seem great from the standpoint that, once you get past the initial stages where the substrate releases lots of nutrients into the water and perhaps (debateable) the need for water changes, it is an incredibly easy way to provide nutrients to the plants for a long time with minimal maintenance by the user. One inconvenience may be (I don't know, I don't have soil tanks) for those who like to scape a lot and are constantly rearranging their tanks, in that you may disturb the substrate leading to occasional nutrient seep into the water column. The same may happen for the person who grows lots of fast growing stems and is constantly clipping and uprooting. Is this a problem, I don't know, but lets talk about it. What about those who crop stems and plant the tops? Do the stems suffer until they are able to develop the root system to tap into the nutrients or are stems capable of absorbing nutrients through the stem while they are developing roots?
> ...





VeeSe said:


> Well I like that you try to organize it into pros and cons for the user as it relates to their lifestyle. I think that when you simplify it down like this, it's pretty easy. You have a ton of methods to choose from to make it work: pick one that suits your life and preferences and enjoy your plants.


I agree with veese with the setup that farrenator used here. enriched soil tanks sound awesome. I am also curious to replanting and possible stunted growth when clipping stem plants as well, does anyone have any input on this? As well as constant regular rescapes, do people run into problems with nutrient rich water columns when plants are getting their nutrients from the substrate?


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> to comment. i prefer EI because its ease of use in starting a new planted tank. IMO there is no easier way to get a healthy tank started than EI
> you get non limiting fertilization and the rest of the leg work is balancing light and c02 injection or non injection.
> 
> to give a pro of substrate. i've done a dirt scrimp tank and absolutely low the low maintenance of it. all i dose is micros and gh booster once per week. no c02 low lights. if it were fish id do ei but its shrimp abd the goal is to be easy so i can focus on my high tech dirt is awesome for this. downside is substrate cleaning. u can't do it unless u want a huge mess


I can see the value EI provides here. You start your tank in a strait forward manner and there is little to mess up from a fertilization stand point and you have the ability to start your tank off strong and healthy. I like it and it makes sense. Have you adjusted your EI dosing at all since starting? Have you used any other methods of of water column dosing?


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

Sharkfood said:


> I personally think that EI is a good method for the starting hobbyist because it is simple. Once a person has been growing plants for awhile, they are most likely going to stray from established methods. This is human nature. Get into the hobby far enough and you will probably start building your own equipment as well.
> 
> Eventually many people (or myself at least) start going by feel rather than by recipe. If there's one thing that I have learned, whether it be growing aquatic, terraponic, hydroponic, aeroponic, plants, or just growing tomatoes in your garden, is that there is an enormously wide margin for error. Reducing or increasing any particular nutrient by 10-20% is probably not going to make any noticeable difference, even if you continue to do this for months.
> 
> ...


Does it really take a month or better to see changes in the plants? What about in the case of algae? It seems to me from most of my reading that once levels are corrected from being too low or too high algae seems to melt away quickly. That doesn't necessarily mean you are getting enough nutrients for your plants but I am curious from an algae stand point. 

Obviously we shouldn't spend all our time fighting algae but instead growing plants but what happens when you have algae and your plants grow great? What if your CO2 is maxed out with EI? Do we raise the lights or shorted the photo period? If that is the option we use what happens when we start to see problems with growth after a lighting change? 

Situation,
Maxed CO2
Adjusted Lighting 
Now seeing lull in growth based on lighting change but algae is still present


I want to know how that is handled in regards to EI.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

oosurfin said:


> See for me this makes sense perfectly. I do have a question that goes along with this, if I am raising my lights and lowering my par over all wouldn't this limit the species of plant available to me? Its my understanding that you need higher light levels to maintain certain plants like HC or keeping red colors. While that does get off the topic of fertilization style I am still interested. But to bring it back around what exactly do you mean by "wiggle room" in regards to ferts and CO2?


Glad the off topic horse hash did not scare you off, that was never the goal:icon_cry:

Well, this could potentially limit some species, I've often posed the question: what is a high light mandatory plant? 

I do not know what that is, most all aquatic plants are low light plants.
I've measured roughly 40umol as the lower limit for nice perky health(ah...what the heck does that mean??).

My downoi look better etc and so do a couple of stem plants like L pantanal...... at 45-50 umol. Still, I cannot say that this is the limit.............someone ELSE might come along and show nice plants at 35 umol and falsify my claim. I'd have to gladly defer to their data and correct mine. :thumbsup:

Maybe if adding more NH4 from fish waste or urea helped? 
Or the color spectral type of bulb used was more efficient?

Could be.........

CO2 and light:

Light hits the chloroplast=> this produces a few things, It produces ATP(energy/chemical "power") and NADPH (reducing "power"---vs say, oxidation/burning "power") and some extra H+'s and O2 from the splitting of water.

The ATP and the NADPH are then used in Calvin cycle to reduce CO2 into reduced sugars, which as you know when you eat sugar.....you burn it........and it releases energy for you and you give off.....CO2.........

So if you added lots of light, but not enough CO2.......this would choke the the ATP/NADPH pool in the chloroplast and reduce efficacy in the plant. It's like sitting at the stop sign rev-ing the engine but not going anywhere.........

The chloroplast has to do something with all that light energy and it does this via photorespiration and a few other methods(see Plant Physiology text for more info on excess light).

So.........if we add only a small amount of light to produce a small amount of NADPH/ATP, then as soon as it is produced, the Calvin cycle has CO2 waiting.....then all the light energy is used efficiently.

The plant can modify things and make more CO2 sequestering enzymes and amp up the CO2 side, or.....it can amp up and make more light harvesting complexes to gather more light if the plant is limited there. This typically can take 1-4 weeks time. The plant can allocate resources to where they are needed based ion the environmental conditions.

Plants cannot run or move away, they have to sit and deal with it.
Actually aquatic plants can autofragment and driftaway hopefully somewhere better. Many algae do this also.

Light is extremely stable for aquarist, CO2 can move all over and is the no#1 killer of fish in planted tanks where it's used. I do not think anyone would dare debate that one. So this makes it easier to hit a non limiting.good ppm range for planted tanks.

I have a light meter and have measured many planted tanks, ADA's AFA, mine. and many other hobbyists in SAPS, SFBAAPS, LFS's anyone where I can add the light meter.

Most nice tanks seem to all have a similar pattern regardless of the various watt/gal etc.....they seem to sit around 40-50umol along the bottom of the sediment.

A few tanks might be a tad higher etc.......but most fall into that group.
Id a newbie going to buy a 350$ meter? No way....but clubs can share the cost and defray it. This is quite helpful.

Now we have a quantitative measure for light and can compare reagrdless of the light fixtures or type or w/gal etc.

We have a standard measure. It's not 100% perfect, but it's pretty good.



> I agree that balance is key and THAT more than anything is what I am looking for from my fertilization style/method/philosophy what ever you want to call it. If you can waste light then on the same coin you can waste water and fertilizer. Why is it any more important to not waste light or use it effectively than to not use fertilizer and water effectively?


Well, you can chose which to waste, you will waste something no matter what, so being all "Green" really is not a good argument here. I use an economic model, but also one that causes the fish the min stress due to CO2 use.

Light cost more than water, water I can add to my landscaping etc, and less CO2 demand means = less chance of gassing the fish. It also reduces the growth rates of weedy plants that grow 2-4" or more a week.

So there's the trade off there.

In Australia, they are crazed over water and rightly so.........much more water conscience than the USA. So I often suggest a nice well done non CO2 method, eg...no water changes, but the rates of growth are small. 
Even there however, the water cost are still much much lower than electric cost.

Ferts and water are easy to manage. You can automate there items also(I have this done for clients). So I mostly just prune and garden their tanks once in awhile. 

Some folks REALLY REALLY hate water changes. Some simply neglect it and lack the motivation to do them, you can automate and make the method itself easier.....or you can simply not do water changes.

Many just stop and watch what happens. If the tank is well run.....typically nothing happens to their delight. So then they change say 25% once every 2 weeks, I have tanks where 1x a month, 50%, that all I did.
Plain sand.

etc.

I like to stay on top of my fish tanks and do them large and frequently, this was a habit from keeping fish mostly........but it keeps the planted tanks looking great also.

ADA, ADG, AFA, myself, Tropica, etc....we all agree in large frequent water changes, there is a STRONG consensus for CO2 enriched well gardened tanks. Good care goes along way, but the water change alone is the not the cure all either. It's all of the things that grow nice plants and produce a nice well groomed tank.

Sometimes, we have troubles not seeing the big picture there.

I'll add more in another post.

Tom


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

> That is really interesting information and I appreciate it being brought to my attention. I haven't looked very thoroughly into ADA's methods mostly because I see them more as a company that has a product to sell more than a style and that is due to my own ignorance and I will have to re-evaluate that.


ADA has a GREAT deal to offer hobbyist and the hobby as a whole. Scaping, pruning methods the AJ journal is a good thing to learn for horticultural pruning and scaping ideas. Amano has been telling hobbyist all his mistakes he has made over the decades, I freely do this as well. Good for new folks to hear that we are all very much human. The aesthetics of ADA are hard to argue with. I use them all the time, but my personal style aesthetic tends to be Dutch is some ways, but that's what I started off with, not nature style.

Certainly wise to look into it, but many become rabid fan boys too hehe, I'm a fan for sure, but maybe not quite that far. I have had a few heated debates with ADA stuff, but I've asked and researched a lot as well, including asking Amano directly. He is a heck of nice guy, not like me
Good sense of humor.



> I came from so. cal and RC was my home during my reef keeping days. I've spent a lot time talking to people tearing down tanks when they were leaving the hobby and those keeping many tanks at once because they were so close to me. I would guess that so. cal has one of the highest concentrations of reef keepers, I wont try to confirm that but the so. cal forum seemed to have more activity than a very large portion of RC as a whole. To top that off there were quite a few spin off forums that came from RC to help focus on the so. cal area. The fact that I came from reefing gives me a serious bias towards testing and I won't argue that at all. I think its important to use your test kits as well as your flora/fauna to diagnose the over all health of your aquarium.


I've spoken on macro algae there for the reef clubs. I would strongly urge you to get involved with SCAPE.

You will learn and form your ideas best this way and 10, 100X faster improvements in person in a local club, they have 70-100 active members at the meetings.

*If you do anything from this thread, do this.*
It'll save lots of $ and labor and time.



> I have personally made a choice to go high tech because of left over equipment I had from when I kept a reef and I am very interested in the different approaches to keeping this style of tank. I feel there are many options available and I am sure there are people out there with experience with those options that can talk about their pit falls as well as their victories. Which is really what I am after in this thread, knowledge from the people who use or have used all of these different approaches. I would love to hear from Niko more simply because he obviously has a lot to say about this subject and the approach others take. He said himself that the methods that they use are not well documented in english, that is sad because it makes it that much harder for myself and others to learn something new and different from their approach.


Most reefers tend to do well due to all that $ they are use to spending and the techy side of the higher tech tanks. They know CO2 and Ca reactors etc.

I think the methods are much more focused on good craftsmanship and horticulture and much less on ppm's and dosing methods in Japan. This is a Western assumption and one I see in Bonsai, Japanese building, carpentry, gardens and architecture. It's actually a quite practical philosophy. If you want to learn about that, then learn about each of those fields. ROTH's Tei-en' Journal of Japanese Gardening is a good quarterly English magazine that addresses many of the methods and views. You will quickly see where much of the inspiration ADA uses came from. Amano himself has tried many different things and getting them marketed and sold and used it also tough, lots of testing there also.

Since many are not good at dosing , they like Tropica's same advice, tell folks to under dose and then they use soil which is loaded with ferts. This makes it easier for the newbie....unless they muck and move their plants around, have poor CO2 etc, but at least the 1st 6-12 months are decent.

Enough to get the newbie hooked. Amano cannot hold each hand on the newbies, nor can I or anyone.......but folks can help them to be successful.
Takes everyone basically. And we all want new successful folks in this hobby. 



> This is exactly what I am after...different methods. I know there are people out there with things they want to say and I am all about hearing them as well as trying to engage them through honest questions and discourse. I think its terrible that people are in fear of ridicule and retaliation because of a different view point and are essentially in fear of sharing their knowledge.


Hopefully they do not view things that way. Still, you should be able to support and show your logic in the idea. If I think moon dust is the cat;s meow, I'll get poo poo'ed, but if I dose 4ppm of PO4 2a week, maybe not..........

Information is not "knowledge".



> That kind of attitude only stands to bring about a "dark age" with regards to advancement and evolution of this hobby. I really think El natural approach is cool because of its ability to be mostly self sufficient and I might just try it some time.


I agree.

The results do not lie, why those result are that way, is a matter of debate.
All methods work, why and how etc..those are the next questions.

The Tropica article really hits upon the various methods well, re read that article.



> The application of EI dictates your maintenance schedule in regards to water changes, you basically have to reset your tank each week to avoid excessive build up. So from a tank maintenance stand point EI is the tail "wagging the dog". It just seems that there are other viable options out there that don't require this kind of weekly reset and I don't really understand why they seem to be considered a poor option.


Because the management requires more work and effort, or....skill to notice where the critical point is where consumption = dosing. It's a trade off between progressively reducing and watching/observation where that Cp is.......many are lazy.....do not want to do that........will not do that due to personal habits............or testing and measuring,m which many also have a strong adversion to to.

Water changes are par for the course in this hobby, in reef tanks, it's less an issue, however, look at all that stuff required? Ca Reactor, skimmers, ATS, refuges, DBS's and testing, salt mix cost etc.

None of that here.

FW can be plumbed, piped direct to the tank, turn a value to change, turn another to refill, or automate with a solenoid or valve auto float refill. No testing now, and you KNOW what the dosing is. So you just deal with gardening and feeding fish.

Few folks test much, ironically I am one of them. Many do not use standard references for calibration to see if their test kits are correct, ADA is notorious for not testing, I think observing the plants and fish are the main ways, start high and then reduce from there.

That is VERY easy using autodosing. You adjust 5% less each week and observe. Once you hit Cp, then you reduce the water changes down(frequency/% or both). DIY ferts are basically free.
So waste does not mean much here, FW is dirt cheap and so are the ferts.
There is a cost associated with test kits,m and a waste component there also. Few folks got into the hobby to test, but most are okay with water changes as part of the chore. 

Still, water changes can be automated, test kits cannot unless you hire some kid to do it and the other things for you.

So either way, you can reduce the % water changes/frequencies if you wish....or waste a little bit........

Also, if you used good sediment sources, then there's less demand on the water column, so you can reduce the ppm's down even farther if you so chose, this offers a back up for ferts if the water column becomes too lean.
So, no matter which method you chose, the ferts in the sediment is no a bad idea really.

Win-win.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

> I apologize in advance because I want to stay away from bickering and talk more objectively about these different methods. This isn't an attack but an observation and break down of about 30 words.


haha, Not at all in your case:icon_cool
Does not bug me near as much as most.



> I am only entertaining this because of the marketing aspect you bring up. I will break up the above sentences into a few different sections and work with them separately. I want to set the stage up properly for this so for a short time I would like to consider EI as you would any product you see for sale.


I am not a markting guy, I approach this as a farmer.
I do not us poetry and fuzzy feel good approaches.
Maybe I should:icon_conf?



> Tom you are personally invested in a method that is widely adopted and has proven to work for many people. I think that is an amazing accomplishment to be a pioneer in any field or hobby. It really shows dedication and passion for something you love. Now for the break down, once again simply because of the marketing angle that was brought up.


Which method are we talking about? Ain't no one trick pony. :icon_mrgr
Non CO2? Daily dosng, EI, DSM, sediment methods, plain inert sediments, less light/more light??



> To the question: No algae and stunted plants don't sound good to anyone so that is simply a bait style question. Its like asking someone if they like to be punched in the face. Then trying to sell them a protective mask for their face. The question is directly tarted at a very real deficiency in MCI but it comes along with a marketing twist. It is essentially used to Bolster EI's standing as a better product by not giving MCI credit where credit is due. It seems to me that MCI as come up with a reproducible way to combat each major group of algae that we come in contact with in our planted tanks and aims to be totally algae free. Someone spent a lot of time to figure out and document the complex chemical relationships that are active in our tanks all the time. While working from there they have figured out how to combat the algae, while growing the plants, based on what happens when these relationships are out of balance. I think that is really cool


But PMDD already knew all this.......they did not add as much ppm's as say EI did........but the same type of reduction of algae was observed. 
When folks started adding PO4 to PMDD, suddenly all the algae went away.
This was prior to EI.

Paul and Kevin also spent a lot to time and effort, so did many folks developing PMDD. It's been on the web since 1995.

I question whether it is wise to focus on algae at all, rather, *the goal is to grow good healthy plants,* then algae is not much of an issue. ADA also holds this same view as do Tropica and many others. Amano and myself both ignored algae for many years and focused on the plants.

But many folks seek the silver bullet........the cure for algae.........but it's deceptively simple: grow the plants.

I think I got this from Amano, or Karen Randall, this is not my own saying, but it's one I found to be self evident.



> To the first part of your statement: In the long and short of it because of your personal investment into EI as a fertilizer dosing system you are no less prone to making marketing style statements, As seen above. So maybe those that don't question EI are subject to marketing talk and not logic because there could be an option available that could better suit their style while offering a non limiting fertilizer base. MCI or PPS-pro or whatever the option is it may be able provide that but not the excess that comes along with EI. Each system that I have seen so far has their own pitfalls, side effects, as well as victories and EI is no different. That is why I don't discount EI as an option for me when I start dosing my tank, we know its been successful as well as easy.


As stated many time prior, all methods have examples of failure and success, thus they all work well. Why they fail, often have less to do with the ferts, often more to do with light and CO2. I spend much more time on those than I do with ferts for clients and with helping folks.

You can simply add more PMDD or ADA etc.........and get up to the higher range or......add less EI, they both will target Cp. And all the methods do in fact add the same things: ferts.

Question is, should we start high and then reduce...or have a deficient plant, then raise it up? 



> To the second part of your statement: This seems to be a marketing style attack. If I don't automatically subscribe to your idea of logic and buy your product I am somehow subject to fantasy and misdirection effectively putting me at a disadvantage. It is reminiscent of the late night male enhancement commercials that are on TV. The problem with that part of statement above has much to do with the many possible perceptions of what is said. I will assume that a cheap jab is not what you meant by what you said, but I could be wrong, and it could have been fully intended as a jab, If that is the case then I am truely disappointed.


They do sell those Hydrilla pills for male enahncement :icon_mrgr



> There is really a great question here "Why not start high and then reduce till you see a slight deficiency or lull in growth?" I really like it because it engages the person you are talking with to think for them self and use their own experiences to help justify their decisions. You answer the question in a really good way as well! It gives a lot of credence to the EI method and exemplifies one of its major advantages.


Well, if you ask enough questions, eventually you get a goodie.
You can also try the other methods and see if you get stunting.....or a lull, and start low and then see.

I do to expect anyone to take my word for things, I prefer folks DO NOT.
I'd rather they ask the questions and see. Then they will know.



> How long does it take to know these changes are even happening?


1-3 weeks typically.



> If they are that subtle and you are new to the scene how would you know?


You will not, so sticking with non limitation values will avpoid this till you gain more experience and can reduce it and tweak, it removes one variable for the newbie.

Later, they can reduce and adjust, but in a new tank with new person, frequent water changes and good non limiting ferts is a wise approach, ADA uses the same thing I might add. Different source locations however. Both can be combined, my 120 Gal is such an example.



> To push that question a little further, If they are that subtle how would you know its happening using EI? I don't think EI would be any less a victim of that kind of thing and that brings us back to marketing style statements.


Newbies will not until they know what nice growth looks like, they would have to look at their tank and plants for signs of smaller tip growth, coloration......growth rates etc........leaf loss.........these also could be due to poor CO2...........but if the past growth was nice.........then it's likely, that the CO2 was good.

You need some reference, and often newbies really do not have this.

No method will cure that, but EI will rule out limiting ferts.
So one less issue to fret over of the light/CO2 and fert issue.



> You pose your question as defect in the MCI system but don't account for your system being subject to same issue. It has nothing to do with MCI but more the fact that the plant keeper is a novice.


Yes, the issue is the novice, less the method itself and then the other issue is light/CO2, which are larger players in the success of a method vs ferts.

MCI is addressing algae, as was PMDD, EI/ADA addresses plant growth.
ADA actually has far more ferts initially than EI does. But ADA does much leaner water column dosing. Yet they still tell folks to do large frequent water changes.

There are strong dependencies beyond just the fert method.
Newbies have a lot to learn, EI, or ADA AS (or both said a "wise man") rules out management issues with ferts, and latrer, after they get a hold on other facets of the hobby, they can better adapt and modify the dosing/reduce% water changes etc.

You do not have the benefits/experiences of a well seasons planted tank gardener right off the bat. That would be asking and expecting way too much. 

So you do waste, make mistakes, kill fish fish, get ALGAE ETC.
We all do. Fixing them and avoiding them comes with time.



> I have seen wets calc. and it is pretty darn impressive to say the least. I plan to keep shrimp so its good to know If I choose EI I can screw up and not nuke my tank.


If you plan on CRS's, then I'd suggest and non Excel/non CO2 enriched tank if you plan on breeding and producing ample no#'s. And reduced water changes and a close look at TDS. I've bred nice shrimp in EI dosed tanks, many have..but you get higher brood production in non CO2 tanks, which do not use water changes and EI type methods, it's NOT suitable for your goal.

I would strongly suggest non CO2 methods, and good soil/emergent/floating type growth etc.



> I can't disagree with this kind of logic because its sound. It is easy to start high and work your way back so water changes aren't really large but you still provide your plants everything they need in a long term fashion. Mothods such as MCI could be used as a tailoring program for fertilizer concentrations because of its use of algae types to figure out if your ratios and balances are off. Which is the kind of ideas we should be discussing here because these are the kinds of things that help progress the hobby for everyone.


Well, those algae have been known for sometime as indicators of what is wrong with a planted tank, I've them for years before hearing about the method. MCI used aspects of EI and non limitation to drive the levels down on one nutrient to induce the algae. Same with PMDD and indirectly a few other methods, including ADA after 1-2 years. I have no issues with the MCI method itself, but I'm a bit opinioned about focusing on learning how to grow plants, not silver bullets for algae, because....there are none.
These things tend to distract folks from where the efforts should be focused: growing plants, and scaping. 

Those are the goals we come into this hobby with, not add this other jazz.
EI is 90% or more of PMDD. Very little is my own doing. I have a modified version of PMDD+PO4 from 1996, but folks only remember me for EI. 
Never understood why.



> My motives are simple. I want a nice looking tank with nice looking fish that I can stare at for hours as well as tinker with if I get the hankering too. I feel like I will get that with a high tech tank. If I can sell some plants along the way then sweet that is a bonus and that may just be the byproduct of the high tech path I have decided to take. If you can't be honest with yourself about your personal habits then there are more issues than anyone here could help you with. The best part of keeping planted tanks is that you have a full array of options available to fit your own style whether that is low maintenance or commercial. I couldn't agree more about how costly a tank crash could be and I am proud to say I made it through with out having one. You are a smart guy Tom and I am excited to be able to have conversation with someone as accomplished as you in the planted tank world. You have amazing tanks and I hope I can get to a place where I can be proud of what I have grown and scaped.
> 
> As for any of the questions I have asked above I encourage anyone one to answer them to help push this topic along in a directed way.


Goals, now we have something to work with.
You start there, then you find the best management practice from there, for shrimp: non CO2/no excel and reduced water changes. there are some good threads here and some serious shrimp folks on TPT. Look into them.

I would suggets trying as CO2 enriched tank with ADA AS etc, or a full ADA set up if you can. One tank for critters, other for plants/gardenin an Amano shrimp, maybe some FW fish you like.

Another thing, what about a marine planted tank? Add nice blood shrimp etc, and some seagrasses?

I am not regulated to the FW genre. If it grows in water.........I like it.
I did enjoy your questions and approaches to this. Thank you for your effort. 





































See me on RC also. Macro, seagrasses etc.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

oosurfin said:


> I can see the value EI provides here. You start your tank in a strait forward manner and there is little to mess up from a fertilization stand point and you have the ability to start your tank off strong and healthy. I like it and it makes sense. Have you adjusted your EI dosing at all since starting? Have you used any other methods of of water column dosing?


yes i have adjusted. i dose extra micros, magnesium, and iron

i used to use seachem flourish line following recommended dosages and that was worthless... fast growth but unhealthy for my setup

the past friday i pulled up my flourite black
relayed with laterite, 1/8 inch peat, 1/8 inch dirt and capped with 2 inches of flourite black.. roots are growing in quite nicely. they clearly like the acid provided by the peat. and the nutrients provided by the dirt. leaf growth slowed during this process but plants are otherwise still healthy


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

Tom, 
You have been on RC for a while obviously and I may have met you at a frag swap or a meeting and not even know it, lots of people at those events. So as far as the horse hash goes, I have seen RC faaaaar worse than any of the shenanigans that are going on here. In my own eyes its par for the course, but no everyone can wade through the...swamp(substitute your own S word here)...and people have voiced their concerns on that subject so I will leave it be. Many people are timid by nature and put off by any kind of debate'ish style conversation and I respect that and try to approach things as diplomatically as possible in an attempt to bring people in and coax information and experience out of them. It is often the lurkers and the shy ones with the most to say but until somethings sparks them they remain that way. But this is making my brain burn and there is a more general after a night at the bar post is below.


once again lots of good info here, but I just got home from the bar and...its no time to put real brain power into this. I will also say there is some really good post action going on and I am excited to sift through it once I can pick through it in a more meaningful manner. please continue to post because I think this thread is starting to make some serious headway! 

I admit I wish there were more rookies here with questions because I almost feel like a conductor in an orchestra. I can't be the only one with these types of questions, there has to be other people. Don't be scared we are all in the same foxhole, so speak up and help me help all of us. This thread may be a little deep in the forum for most rookies so if you know someone that might be interested in the thread shoot them a PM and get them involved.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

While I agree that plants' growth and and overall health will suffer if any nutrient is limited, I disagree with the thresholds for unlimited nutrients posited by EI. 

All plants have different nutrient requirements and the basis for the EI dosing levels was apparently gleaned from studies examining weedy North American aquatic plants (vallisineria, etc). This doesn't mean that common aquarium plants, most of which originate from tropical climates in South America and South East Asia, have similar nutrient and environmental requirements.

If we examine the water analyses of tropical habitats that the majority of aquarium plants originate from, it's evident that mother nature provides far fewer nutrients to plants than members of this forum do.

The following data is from Christel Kasselmann's book "Aquarium Plants." The first data set was produced by scientist at Tetra and the second is from a habitat study published by Furtado and Mori.

*Note that values in mg/l are approximately equivalent to parts per million (PPM)

*Rio Guapore, Brazil*

Plants: several species of echindorus, cabomba furcata, eichornia diversifolia, and limnophila indica to name a few

Values:

Conductivity: 22 microsiemens/cm

Ca Hardness: 0.41 dH

Mg Hardness: 0 dH

NO3: <3 mg/l

PO4: 0 mg/l

K+: 0.35 mg/l

Fe: 0.21 mg/l

*Tasek Bera, Malaysian Peninsula*

Plants: several species of cryptocoryne, blyxa aubertii, hydrilla verticillata, barclaya motleyi, potamogeton wrightii

Values:

Conductivity: 14.2 microsiemens/cm

Ca Hardness: 0.05 dH

Mg Hardness: 0.06 dH

NO3: 0.107 mg/l*

PO4: 0.624 mg/l

K+: 0.56 mg/l

Fe: 0.64 mg/l

*there were also very low level reading of NO2 and NH4

According to EI these habits should only grow algae-the nutrients are undoubtedly "limited" and they're exposed to *way* more light than aquariums. Yet, the plants flourishing in these habitats undoubtedly have a lot of the same DNA as those growing in our aquariums.


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Interesting data Snausage but it doesn't necessarily account for nutrients available from a possibly(?) richer substrate then many hobbyists provide. Another consideration is the fact in most cases you are dealing with comparatively much larger volumes of water that conceivably would never entirely bottom out like a heavily planted aquarium could. I can easily conceive of an aquarium with very little/no water ferts if you do have a richer substrate, not sure how it works if you're not providing nutrients through that avenue. Interested to hear your thoughts.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

Canuck said:


> Interesting data Snausage but it doesn't necessarily account for nutrients available from a possibly(?) richer substrate then many hobbyists provide.


It doesn't provide hard data regarding the soil, but that doesn't mean we should assume that it's richer than something like aquasoil or a good batch of MTS. Perhaps it's poorer in nutrients than a lot of our substrates, but no one can say one way or the other until we're provided with the corresponding data.

Members can interpret the data however they like, but in my opinion, it seems that a large majority of aquarium plants have evolved to thrive in nutrient poor habitats. If you can't accept the fact that organisms evolve in response to their habitat, then there's no point discussing things scientifically.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

FWIW, It seems I remember reading in the MCI thread that for the most part plants from the Americas need more N than plants from Asia and Africa. If that's true, it might be something to consider when setting up a tank and how you feel about maintaining nutrient levels.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

mg/l in a 120 gallon aquarium that recirculates water is different that taking a test of constantly moving and changing water. those nutrients will always be available. where as in an aquarium we can only add and change water and nutrients. most people believe more light is better. more c02 is better.. light and c02 are also different in those areas as well.
to give an idea it may be .04 mg/l of nitrate but how many litres of water pass by the plant on a daily basis? .04 x 1000 litres accounts for a lot. in the aquarium water is a lot slower moving and its hard to efficiently spread due to plant mass, shape of tank and flow. those nutrients have to be saturated in the water for a plant to be able to get what it requires.

am i wrong? could be i have no science to back this up. just a thought that came to my mind


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> mg/l in a 120 gallon aquarium that recirculates water is different that taking a test of constantly moving and changing water. those nutrients will always be available. where as in an aquarium we can only add and change water and nutrients. *most people believe more light is better. more c02 is better..* light and c02 are also different in those areas as well.
> to give an idea it may be .04 mg/l of nitrate but how many litres of water pass by the plant on a daily basis? .04 x 1000 litres accounts for a lot. in the aquarium water is a lot slower moving and its hard to efficiently spread due to plant mass, shape of tank and flow. those nutrients have to be saturated in the water for a plant to be able to get what it requires.
> 
> am i wrong? could be i have no science to back this up. just a thought that came to my mind


They do? More light is NOT better. Tom has said this 15,000 times. If you keep light at a reasonable level, co2 doesn't need to be at an astronomical and dangerous level either. 

I do agree with snausage on the point that perhaps we're going to the extremes. Saturation is not necessary, and also not an accurate word to even describe EI. That is FAR from the Saturation point. To given an idea, the liquid concentrates of RootMedic Macro contain the highest saturation of potassium nitrate for water at sea level, room temp. I know, you didn't actually mean "saturation" so that is ok, here. 

However, I think we overestimate what natural soils have for nutrients. Here, in the midwest, the rivers are composed of sand/gravel. Lakes are usually a sand and soil mix. Obviously the soil is better than sand/gravel. However in our lakes, the plant mix is lower than rivers. Presumably(and confirmed) the rivers have a higher co2 level, as well as better light penetration(shallower and clearer). 

I think part of the point is a nutrient rich substrate means that a lower level similar to these natural tropical systems would be easier and more efficient. 

There is lots of good discussion in the last page of this thread.


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

while canuck seems to have missed the mark in the "splitting arrows" sense of missing the mark, i still believe he brings up a rational point that needs looking further into.

in nature, you're not going to find a river that's banks are covered with plants from north to south tip. however, the soil is infinitely deep and the water has an almost infinite volume.

while there's very little livestock in comparison to our tanks per area, there's also very little aquatic plant growth in comparison per area. there is one thing that arguably even fewer aquarists have looked at than those arguing the "holistic, naturalistic" approach... emergent growth... for which there seems to be much more abundance in natures rivers than many of our tanks.

so, while it's highly unlikely that river soil is more abundant in nutrients than AS or MTS and natures cure in a bottle is likely just a marketing scam aimed at selling a "complete system", there's also an increased carbon supplementation vs. nature and systems with emergent growth like paludariums, vivariums and ripariums that do exceptionally well with a more minimalistic approach to all aspects of supplementation (light, co2, ferts and soil).

but then again, we tend to want our plants to look healthier and live arranged packed more closely than nature tends to want.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

dundadundun said:


> while canuck seems to have missed the mark in the "splitting arrows" sense of missing the mark, i still believe he brings up a rational point that needs looking further into.
> 
> in nature, you're not going to find a river that's banks are covered with plants from north to south tip. however, the soil is infinitely deep and the water has an almost infinite volume.
> 
> ...


You bring up a good point about emergent growth. A lot of aquarium plants aren't truly aquatic and spend most of their emmersed. I think this fact lends more credence to the rich substrate/lean water column approach.

As far as soil being 'infinitely deep', I think the majority of geologists would disagree with you .


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

HD Blazingwolf said:


> mg/l in a 120 gallon aquarium that recirculates water is different that taking a test of constantly moving and changing water. those nutrients will always be available. where as in an aquarium we can only add and change water and nutrients.


I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. In general, planted tanks have very powerful filters (10x volume/hour) and good flow ensures that co2 and other nutrients are being distributed to all areas of the tank. If you're dosing 3-4x/week its not like the concentrations plummet back to zero on the days you don't dose.

As far as nutrients always being available in nature, you should note that the Rio Guapore sample did not contain any detectable Mg or PO4.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

OverStocked said:


> However, I think we overestimate what natural soils have for nutrients. Here, in the midwest, the rivers are composed of sand/gravel. Lakes are usually a sand and soil mix. Obviously the soil is better than sand/gravel. However in our lakes, the plant mix is lower than rivers. Presumably(and confirmed) the rivers have a higher co2 level, as well as better light penetration(shallower and clearer).
> 
> I think part of the point is a nutrient rich substrate means that a lower level similar to these natural tropical systems would be easier and more efficient.


A problem with analyzing the nutrient composition of soils is that nutrient availability is largely dependent on the microbial activity that breaks down the soil's organic components. However, analyzing the concentration of nutrients in the water column is a simple matter of measuring the pertinent ions.


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

EI is rich and I wasn't disagreeing with that, I just wanted to point out systems have to be looked as a whole. Aquasoil and MTS more then make up for a lean water column, AS for sure is richer then most "natural" aquatic soils but many people don't use these. What advice do we give them from there, replace their substrate (maybe), root tabs (easier) or dose the water column (easiest). Then we come to the crux of the matter, ferts in the water column may not be natural but is there any harm? People point to algae blooms due to increased nutrients but increased nutrients in some areas have resulted in unwanted plant growth. Obviously something is going to take advantage of the nutrients but is algae more competitive or is it just a factor of the habitat available. (Plants aren't going to grow in water that is too deep for example). 

PS for Dun, I thought I hit the mark I was aiming for


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Sometimes trying to duplicate everything in nature is not always a good think when it comes to home aquaria. Here's an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3MzqGWi6Nn8


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

snausage said:


> As far as soil being 'infinitely deep', I think the majority of geologists would disagree with you .


:tongue: i meant in terms of root growth vs. necessity for fertilization per a given plant, etc.. as opposed to 1" - 3"+/- in a tank. not so literally. of course there are places where this would seem redundant. lithophytes/epiphytes for example wouldn't need any _per se'_. aquatic or not.

another thing is footprint vs. height. i find it's much easier to grow (without carbon enrichment) plants quite well under less than favorable conditions (no ferts and just sand, etc.) in a tank with more surface area per volume. i suspect gas exchange has something to do with this.

i also find that completely submerged plants grow healthier/easier when emergent plants are included in the system... in larger volumes (plant mass) as well given the same carbon source.

so "system as a whole" makes sense, but without good root zone fertilization/soil/buffering/etc., i'm just not giving up dosing both zones. i've seen the alternative and sometimes folks just want what they want... and i wanted that free sand in the neighbors driveway. :thumbsup: the price was right at the time. overall cost is minimal with powders. less than the alternatives even at minuscule dosages. benefits are obvious.


----------



## dundadundun (Apr 8, 2010)

Canuck said:


> PS for Dun, I thought I hit the mark I was aiming for


fair enough. :hihi:


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

OverStocked said:


> They do? More light is NOT better. Tom has said this 15,000 times. If you keep light at a reasonable level, co2 doesn't need to be at an astronomical and dangerous level either.
> 
> I do agree with snausage on the point that perhaps we're going to the extremes. Saturation is not necessary, and also not an accurate word to even describe EI. That is FAR from the Saturation point. To given an idea, the liquid concentrates of RootMedic Macro contain the highest saturation of potassium nitrate for water at sea level, room temp. I know, you didn't actually mean "saturation" so that is ok, here.
> 
> ...



i said most people BELIEVE high light is a good thing. not that i prefer it. so a lot of people that haven't come around to the darker side (hehehe) will need higher fert levels

and of course im wrong. i had no science to back it up. just speculation


and besides HOW MANY TIMES HAS TOM SAID? 15,000 you say.. so there are still WAYYY too many people that think more light is better. sales reps still try to sell more light to people who dont know. 
i used to think more was better.. it doesnt take long to figure out what happens when u add more to an already unbalanced system.


----------



## wet (Dec 21, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> Sometimes trying to duplicate everything in nature is not always a good think when it comes to home aquaria. Here's an example.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3MzqGWi6Nn8


And another practical thing: for some aquarists more light and spending a couple hours with their tanks each week makes for a better hobby. For some folks, fast growing stem tanks gives them opportunity to play with trimming and see their results faster, while practically forcing them to take time out and garden for a while. These are pluses for many hobbyists.

I don't race cars or anything, but I imagine going 120mph is a lot more exciting than 65mph or 25mph. 

I think the best method keeps us interested and makes a beautiful tank. EI/PPS-Pro/ADA's systems are just ways to get there, but we all have different ideas about the best looking tanks and the easiest schedule and what we want from the hobby. It also cannot be said enough that EI/PPS-Pro/MCI/ADA/etc all basically say the same thing. (Pack the tank with plants, use adequate light, soil is a plus, keep feeding the plants, use CO2.)

I don't think recreating nature ever counts as a method, unless you have a 1K+ gal tank or continuous water changes at a high turnover, and even then...

Just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

wet said:


> It also cannot be said enough that EI/PPS-Pro/MCI/ADA/etc all basically say the same thing. (Pack the tank with plants, use adequate light, soil is a plus, keep feeding the plants, use CO2.)


I may get flamed for this but change the "is a plus" to "is a must" and you've covered Walstad and ADA. Granted Walstad doesn't use CO2 but notes the natural soil as a carbon source adequate for lower levels of growth. Both use the substrate as the major source of food for the plants.


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

Canuck said:


> I may get flamed for this but change the "is a plus" to "is a must" and you've covered Walstad and ADA. Granted Walstad doesn't use CO2 but notes the natural soil as a carbon source adequate for lower levels of growth. Both use the substrate as the major source of food for the plants.


i wont flame u. but soil is not a must. u can have a nice tank with gravel if u so choose. it all depends on how you wish to tackle plant care
u can even grow without gravel :icon_eek: just let them grow roots and fertilize the water!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

No soil, non CO2 and still looks nice, ADA aesthetic:










Nicer and easier to keep.
And many would argue, much more natural.
There is no enriched sediment. There are no algae issues(never have been)
There is no CO2 gas enrichment. No high or low light(40 umol at the surface of the tank)

This is NOT Walstad, nor ADA, nor EI nor PMDD.
I dose once a week and do not do any water changes. 

So..........what do you call this method?

What about the Dry start method?

The opposite of this is this tank:










Here I use ADA AS, rich EI type dosing(so both locations are rich in ferts) and CO2. This tank gets large weekly water changes. The water change is due to the trimming and gardening and mess one makes maintaining a decent garden. 

Both tanks have wet/dry filters, similar lighting etc. Neither have ever had any algae issues. These 2 tanks still are equal in their aesthetic........but VERY different in the nutrient dosing and CO2. Both tanks breed ample livestock and grow plenty of plants.


I have all of these combinations......... My 2 tanks above illustrate the results effectively.

I have found risk with excessive light, with poor CO2 care and respect, dead fish and algae. The only risk I've found I could be certain of with dosing, is not enough ferts, I've still never found an upper ppm level for K+, NO3, PO4, Fe or GH where we have a decline in growth or any risk. 

So why the free pass to light and CO2?
ADA suggest massive weekly water changes also, yet has a very lean water column, why would the aquarist need to do them if not for water column nutrient management?

Is Amano wrong? 

What risk are associated with each of the following upper/lower bounds?

High/low light,
CO2/no CO2 enrichment
Lean dosing of the water/rich dosing of the water
Rich sediment fertility/plain sand

Cannot each of these be done to high level of aesthetics? 
Many it's not the method ........and maybe it's the gardener???

Ponder that.



Canuck said:


> I may get flamed for this but change the "is a plus" to "is a must" and you've covered Walstad and ADA. Granted Walstad doesn't use CO2 but notes the natural soil as a carbon source adequate for lower levels of growth. Both use the substrate as the major source of food for the plants.


There's still CO2 in any non CO2 method from the air above, soil is not required.

You can do water column based non CO2 methods also. 
Another example:











wet said:


> And another practical thing: for some aquarists more light and spending a couple hours with their tanks each week makes for a better hobby. For some folks, fast growing stem tanks gives them opportunity to play with trimming and see their results faster, while practically forcing them to take time out and garden for a while. These are pluses for many hobbyists.
> 
> I don't race cars or anything, but I imagine going 120mph is a lot more exciting than 65mph or 25mph.
> 
> ...


Taking the devil's side again, is it the gardener, and not the method that make the end result?

BMP(best management practices) is another issue, but most every method can be forced and done to a high level with enough energy from the gardener. 

I think the question becomes what's the BMP for a given aesthetic/gardening goal?

Since many folks have a very wide range of views there, one needs flexibility and an array of methods that suit each trade off. No one method is suited for all goals. Same can be said for light and CO2 but hobbyists are very nutrocentric generally, always have been. 

I strongly urge the high light CO2 folks to try non CO2 methods, and likewise, I urge those in the non CO2 group to try the CO2 gas. Try enriched sediments if you have not, and vice versa.

Most have been happy with the results.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

niko said:


> ...
> So here are some "things that make you go "hmmm"..."
> 
> *1.* ADA, ADG, Bubbles, Oliver Knott do not fertlize the water. Why do we insist doing it then? Here get an eyefull:
> ...


I never understood why these are always quoted as being the way to do things. Firstly, they all do things differently, but all dose the water column, most on a daily basis. Bubbles aquariums uses anywhere from 5 to 6 wpg of T5HO lighting on three 2010 setups I checked. He also used Ammonia, Nitrate, Phosphate removal media in his filters in addition to having a heavily planted tank. So seems he pulls out all the stops to have algae free tanks and use highlight, possibly to achieve rich, and quick growth. 

Knott uses about 2wpg on many setups in addition he also uses a UV and an auto doser, so you could see they all go about things differently. 

The thing that really gets me is that there’s always this comparison to the way the Japanese do things versus the American way and ADA is used as an example. Last time I checked ADA was not a person, but a professional company selling aquariums as living art. Now I like ADA and what they have accomplished and their design, but do you think they are going to display their dirty laundry. They do not get lazy, they do not have family issues, the tanks displayed are taken care of by people whose job it is to make them look good. They are not typical of a Japanese household. For that matter all of the linked people/companies are professionals in the field and have a lot more at stake so their tanks will always look good. It’s just unfair to compare the typical American planted tank hobbyist to those entities. 

What, no one here has algae free tanks with growing plants by any other method. 
I think plantbrain said something about the 1st 6 months or so as being very juicy with Aquasoil. I totally agree with that. Even though ADA recommends dosing starting in week 2, you can really get away with dosing very little, but by the 6 month or so you are doing a full dosing schedule via the water column. 

BTW in most literature I’ve read, Amano fully expects algae to come along and lists ways to deal with it. Either through shrimp, carbon, and/or liquid solution. ADA even sells a product called the Pro Piker that was designed to pick BBA off of rocks. So I’m not really sure what the big secret is.


----------



## oosurfin (Jan 13, 2007)

At this point I am kind of at a loss and I am having trouble coming up with meaningful questions to ask. There is really so much information here yet a very large portion of it says the same thing. What I see here more than anything is that everything works good if your habits suite the method. I like the fact that people are discussing the habits of the aquarist because that is a very big function of these different styles. Ultimately the people with a real desire to push the hobby end up moving away from the prescribed methods and work from there. For me I have already started to look into slightly altered methods of pps-pro because of my use of RO water in my tank and the large water changes associated with EI, 20 gallons of RO is a pain to make in my little apartment. EI does sound really nice because you can focus on your CO2 and light ratios more at the start. 

I do have a question about EI. How were the fertilizer concentrations settled upon? With that in mind how much have they changed from the start? Have they been tailored up or down from there original form and if they have been changed, why where they changed?


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

If I could make another observation. When I read any of Tom's post, EI is described as: Use nutrient solution, ADJUST CO2 AND LIGHT, as necessary to maximize growth. Nutrients and water changes may be adjusted (reduced) depending on growth patterns. (Capitals for emphasis, simplified for brevity). The stickys on almost every forum describing EI read USE NUTRIENT SOLUTION, co2 and lights need to be high. In at least one post (on another forum), I mentioned that EI was all about CO2 but was promptly told I was wrong, that EI was all about nutrients. I view the nutrient mix for EI more as a test solution then most seem to. Granted its fine to use long term unaltered but dosing at those levels for many is more then is needed. Any comments?


----------



## Canuck (Apr 30, 2009)

How the final amounts were arrived at I can't say. I do know Tom's solution is a watered down version of Hoagland's solution which is used as a nonlimiting nutrient solution by botanists doing experimentation.


----------

