# Ideal Phosphate levels?



## [email protected]

Please someone explain this to me, coming from reef tank I’m use to 0.000 phosphates 

My new high tech planted tank has about 10-20ppm nitrates and when I test phosphates with salifert test kit it’s almost 0

And I’m getting some kind of black algae or Gsa it blows off when I turkey bast it ...

I bought Tropica fertiliser both specialist and premium not sure which I should use? And Phosphorus by flourish incase 

Do I dose Phosphate? Or keep it low at 0


----------



## madcrafted

With nitrates at those levels, you'll want at least 1-2 ppm of phosphates.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Roughly 10:1 NO3O4


----------



## [email protected]

So I dosed phosphorous from flourish as recommended morning I tested now still 0 , do I dose everyday until I read 1 ppm? And is it safe for fish shrimp?

Do I also dose Tropica Specialised fertiliser(nitrate,ammonium,phosphorus) or I don’t dose this yet because there is 10-20ppm nitrates already?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

[email protected] said:


> So I dosed phosphorous from flourish as recommended morning I tested now still 0 , do I dose everyday until I read 1 ppm? And is it safe for fish shrimp?
> 
> Do I also dose Tropica Specialised fertiliser(nitrate,ammonium,phosphorus) or I don’t dose this yet because there is 10-20ppm nitrates already?


Flourish recommended is 2.5ml per 20 gallon which delivers .132ppm PO4
These low amounts are hard to detect.
24.5ml would bring 20 gallons up to 1.3ppm.
Seachem can be hard on the wallet too! :grin2:

My Cory's and RCS have not melted yet! >

Zorfox planted tank calculator can be downloaded to your PC.
It can resolve dosing problems and you don't need to understand molecular weights etc...

The tropica product I am not familiar with but an EI dose would require 22ml.
Based on the rotalabutterfly.com calculator.

What are your existing nitrate levels from??? Phish???

In a new tank I just dose immediately to desired level.


----------



## madcrafted

I remember having to dose a bit more than 1 mL per gallon of seachem's phosphorus to bring level just over 1 ppm. It goes quickly. I now use the dry form (KH2PO4) for saving costs.

Here's a nifty little dosing calculator that can be used for measuring out your ferts, whether using a premixed solutions like seachem or dry salts: Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator


----------



## Deanna

Who REALLY believes the ratios matter? Besides, measurements of 1 ppm are as likely to be near zero as they are to be 2 ppm.


----------



## [email protected]

My nitrate levels were like 40ppm from cycle I got it down to 10-20 okay so this algae is starting because of 0 phosphates? Does that mean that 0 phosphates and 10-20 nitrates plants cant use because no phosphates?

Do I dose Tropica fertiliser now that I have nitrates already or no??

And also wanted to be clear, do I dose phosphorus until test shows 1ppm?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Deanna said:


> Who REALLY believes the ratios matter? Besides, measurements of 1 ppm are as likely to be near zero as they are to be 2 ppm.


If dosed based on calculator you will be there, sometimes due to inaccurate testing by users one may fall short.

Ratios are absolutely meaningless.:grin2:

The horse will not drink @ every water crossing! >


----------



## [email protected]

Ok bottom line , if ratios don’t matter why do I need 1ppm phosphates?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

"Master Po: [after easily defeating the boy in combat] Ha, ha, never assume because a man has no eyes he cannot see. Close your eyes. What do you hear? 
Young Caine: I hear the water, I hear the birds. 
Master Po: Do you hear your own heartbeat? 
Young Caine: No. 
Master Po: Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet? 
Young Caine: [looking down and seeing the insect] Old man, how is it that you hear these things? 
Master Po: Young man, how is it that you do not? 

Dose the phosphate.
1-2ppm of PO4 will never hurt a planted tank.

In general macros can be lathered on.
Micros can be another story and/or debate.


----------



## [email protected]

Ok I will dose but I dose 1ppm worth or until I get a reading of 1 ppm?


----------



## Jeff5614

You'll want to dose 1 ppm. That would apply to anything else you're dosing as well ( NO3, Fe, etc.).


----------



## Deanna

[email protected] said:


> My nitrate levels were like 40ppm from cycle I got it down to 10-20 okay so this algae is starting because of 0 phosphates? Does that mean that 0 phosphates and 10-20 nitrates plants cant use because no phosphates?
> 
> Do I dose Tropica fertiliser now that I have nitrates already or no??


That's right: if your plants are starved for one of the macros, they are limited and will take very little of anything else. This forum is replete with examples of moderate loadings (3-5ppm ...and more) of PO4 taming GSA. Note: this is GSA, not other forms of algae. You have two problems and both are sourced in PO4: limited growth and GSA.

Nitrates have been shown to pose no problem up to 100 ppm. @Greggz works wonders at 60 ppm (if I recall correctly). I've run PO4 in the 20 ppm area, as a test, with an NO3O4 ratio of almost 1:1. No issues. I'd be happy to do it again if someone will tell me what to look for regarding a negative reaction.

Chances are, when you put some PO4 into your tank, you'll see NO3 drop as plant consumption increases, so keep an eye on that. Your plants are sucking up every bit of PO4 they can find, which is why it's at zero despite your fish providing some and the Tropica providing some. You have a high-tech tank (according to your info), you need EI levels of ferts. Put the Tropica Specialised back in and dose it according to this calcualtor: Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator. Monitor the NO3 and PO4 as you may need to increase dosage if you see one of them becoming limiting.


----------



## OVT

To be pedantic, ratios do matter.

Before we get ourselves into a debate, please consider:

1) Balanced (i.e. 20-20-20) agricultural fertilizers are not common
2) EI is not a 1-1-1 fertilization method
3) KH2PO4 => K+ +H2PO4 with H2PO4- + H2O <---> HPO42- + H3O+
4) N and P role in eutrophication (reduced o2 levels) and algae blooms in lakes (i.e. West Point Lake in GA)
5) Phosphate role in acid-base balance and effects of high/low levels in blood

Or more down to earth: 50% bread + 50% butter. Do you eat all of it? If not, who gets to eat the leftovers?


----------



## Greggz

[email protected] said:


> Ok bottom line , if ratios don’t matter why do I need 1ppm phosphates?


You may or may not need 1 ppm PO4. Each tank is different.

But in general, the idea of EI dosing is to have non limiting nutrients. That being MORE that what is necessarily needed.

In my heavily planted tank, if I ran PO4 at 1 ppm, my tank would crash. Not enough available P, which affects uptake of other nutrients. For my plants to be happy, I need more like 5+ in the water column. I know some others who need more like 3 ppm. You need to determine what is optimal in YOUR tank. This requires some trial and error and close observation of plants.

In my personal experience, I can create more problems with too little than too much. Plants that are starving become weak and stunted, and can be magnets for algae. Concentrate on growing plants, not defeating algae.

I've experimented with dosing very high levels of P. Easily 10+ in the water column. No algae outbreaks, and happy and healthy plants. Drop that down to 1 ppm, and look out. Plants rebel and algae flourishes.

Other things to consider are PAR level and plant mass. Assuming you have your CO2 dialed in well, how hard you drive the tank (PAR) and how much plant mass you have will affect how many nutrients are required. You might start at one level that works now, but when your plant mass increases, you may find your tank will demand more. 

My point is that there are many variables. There isn't a standard dosing (or ratio) that works for everyone. If that were true, each new tank could just follow a recipe and have instant success. Rarely works that way.


----------



## Deanna

OVT said:


> To be pedantic, ratios do matter.
> 
> Before we get ourselves into a debate, please consider:
> 
> 1) Balanced (i.e. 20-20-20) agricultural fertilizers are not common
> 2) EI is not a 1-1-1 fertilization method
> 3) KH2PO4 => K+ +H2PO4 with H2PO4- + H2O <---> HPO42- + H3O+
> 4) N and P role in eutrophication (reduced o2 levels) and algae blooms in lakes (i.e. West Point Lake in GA)
> 5) Phosphate role in acid-base balance and effects of high/low levels in blood
> 
> Or more down to earth: 50% bread + 50% butter. Do you eat all of it? If not, who gets to eat the leftovers?


I don’t think those points are necessarily cogent, but I do believe that plants CONSUME nutrients primarily in a fixed ratio. However, that doesn’t mean we need to DOSE to match the ratio. We only need to be sure that we don’t limit or overdose. 

Taking on your points, which are the grist for a debate (not a bad thing):

1) This is primarily an economic issue. They want to be as close to consumption needs as possible or farmers will only buy from the manufacturer that gets the job done at the cheapest price. Overdose is always possible: e.g.; you can burn your lawn out with too much nitrogen. 
2) EI is about ensuring unlimited nutrients. The ratios being supplied are an attempt to assure unlimited nutrients. Look at the Rotala Butterfly calculator where their ratios of N are closer to 5:1 than 10:1. 
3) Chemistry
4) Our tanks are not lakes. We can balance O2, which is probably why my fish survived when I was dosing to maintain 20 ppm PO4.
5) I didn’t analyze my fish’ blood.
6) I also don’t eat 99% bread with 1% butter (I shouldn’t eat any).

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just going back-and-forth to flesh it out.

Take a look at the post #951 here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread-64.html#post10948785, where @burr740 provides info regarding the important aspect of concentration. This, alone, points to the need to overwhelm the plants capabilities of consumption to be sure that each part of the leaf surface gets it’s minimum need, which is also a function of circulation.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Nitrates have been shown to pose no problem up to 100 ppm. @Greggz works wonders at 60 ppm (if I recall correctly). I've run PO4 in the 20 ppm area, as a test, with an NO3O4 ratio of almost 1:1. No issues. I'd be happy to do it again if someone will tell me what to look for regarding a negative reaction.


 Would you drink tap water if it had 100 ppm NO3 and 20 ppm PO4?


----------



## OVT

Aren't we contradicting ourselves?

N > 40 ppm is bad
P > 10 is fine

In other words, how that residual / extra / un-used X ppm of P (or anything else) is affecting your tank? Is it not the case of "too much of a good thing"?

My statement that ratios do matter is my oppinion. My bullet points in the previous post were not intended as arguments. They were intended as starting points for the interested to do their own reaserch on effects of nutrient pollution.

Like on most any subject, absolute statements grab my attention because I belive that everything is relative and does not exist in isolation. Reapeating the same statement over and over does not make it true. 

But in the words of Pope Francis (and many others): "Who am I to judge?"


----------



## Kubla

Edward said:


> Would you drink tap water if it had 100 ppm NO3 and 20 ppm PO4?


Depends on how much water it is but what does that have to do with fish or plants? I also wouldn't drink the water out of my tank that is healthy for fish and plants and I wouldn't put tap water in my tank without modifying it first.


----------



## [email protected]

HOLY [censored][censored][censored][censored] YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT 

I DOSED 1ppm phosphorus I test my Phosphate it’s still 0 but my Nitrates dropped from 10-20ppm to 5-10 ppm so I dosed 1ppm phosphorus again today


----------



## Maryland Guppy

You have found the limiting factor!


----------



## [email protected]

I’m so shocked


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Would you drink tap water if it had 100 ppm NO3 and 20 ppm PO4?


I wouldn't drink my tank water, no matter what was in it! Would you?

However, you raised my curiosity. I looked it up and found that the guidelines of 10 ppm were developed for infants. Humans older than that can drink it without harm, although I wouldn't want to do it long term. They went on to say: "Tellingly, though, the notes accompanying the Guidelines state that bottle-fed infants can consume up to 100 mg/l."

For livestock, the guidelines are that nitrates should not exceed 100 ppm.


----------



## OVT

Deanna said:


> I wouldn't drink my tank water, no matter what was in it! Would you?


Oh, I am sure you would, and from a puddle, and from a toilet, when you have no other choice. The fish don't have that choice though.

EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act: https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations

A bit of trivia: South Africa is the first country in the world that included "safe drinking water is a human right" in their Constitution.


----------



## Deanna

OVT said:


> Oh, I am sure you would, and from a puddle, and from a toilet, when you have no other choice. The fish don't have that choice though.
> 
> EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act: https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations
> 
> A bit of trivia: South Africa is the first country in the world that included "safe drinking water is a human right" in their Constitution.


That's correct and note the emphasis on infants. The question wasn't around what governments require, it was around whether or not it was safe for me to drink 100 ppm water and I am not an infant.

Fish are not humans. Note also that the government regulations specify that livestock should not exceed 100 ppm. I would put my fish into the category of livestock. So, according to our gov't, 100 ppm is safe for our fish. They go on to say that up to 300 ppm "water by itself should not harm livestock or poultry" and, no: I'm not going to try 300 ppm of NO3 in my tank.

Interesting about the omniscient South African gov't statement. "They" always know what's best for us. In fact, I don't think that any food purchased in a grocery store doesn't contain something that is known to the state of CA to be a carcinogen. I wonder when they will get around to specifying safe levels of all nutrients in our fish tanks. That would sure help us with EI.


----------



## Deanna

[email protected] said:


> HOLY [censored][censored][censored][censored] YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT
> 
> I DOSED 1ppm phosphorus I test my Phosphate it’s still 0 but my Nitrates dropped from 10-20ppm to 5-10 ppm so I dosed 1ppm phosphorus again today


I'd put more in: try to maintain 3-5 ppm. Why keep limiting your plants? Plus, the higher ppm will help inhibit the GSA.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Fish are not humans. Note also that the government regulations specify that livestock should not exceed 100 ppm. I would put my fish into the category of livestock. So, according to our gov't, 100 ppm is safe for our fish.


*Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals*

_The main toxic action of nitrate is due to the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen. 

Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals increases with increasing nitrate concentrations and exposure times. In contrast, nitrate toxicity may decrease with increasing body size, water salinity, and environmental adaptation. 

Freshwater animals appear to be more sensitive to nitrate than marine animals. A nitrate concentration of 10 mg NO3-N/l (USA federal maximum level for drinking water) can adversely affect, at least during long-term exposures, freshwater invertebrates (E. toletanus, E. echinosetosus, Cheumatopsyche pettiti, Hydropsyche occidentalis),fishes (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmo clarki), and amphibians (Pseudacris triseriata, Rana pipiens, Rana temporaria, Bufo bufo). 

Safe levels below this nitrate concentration are recommended to protect sensitive freshwater animals from nitrate pollution. Furthermore, a maximum level of 2 mg NO3-N/l would be appropriate for protecting the most sensitive freshwater species. _

Please see 
Page 1261, Table 3, Comparative toxicity of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to fishes
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5eb8/62b20729b804521991a7567eb38a96629ec4.pdf


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> I'd put more in: try to maintain 3-5 ppm. Why keep limiting your plants?


Do this


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> *Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals*
> 
> _The main toxic action of nitrate is due to the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen.
> 
> Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals increases with increasing nitrate concentrations and exposure times. In contrast, nitrate toxicity may decrease with increasing body size, water salinity, and environmental adaptation.
> 
> Freshwater animals appear to be more sensitive to nitrate than marine animals. A nitrate concentration of 10 mg NO3-N/l (USA federal maximum level for drinking water) can adversely affect, at least during long-term exposures, freshwater invertebrates (E. toletanus, E. echinosetosus, Cheumatopsyche pettiti, Hydropsyche occidentalis),fishes (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmo clarki), and amphibians (Pseudacris triseriata, Rana pipiens, Rana temporaria, Bufo bufo).
> 
> Safe levels below this nitrate concentration are recommended to protect sensitive freshwater animals from nitrate pollution. Furthermore, a maximum level of 2 mg NO3-N/l would be appropriate for protecting the most sensitive freshwater species. _
> 
> Please see
> Page 1261, Table 3, Comparative toxicity of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to fishes
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5eb8/62b20729b804521991a7567eb38a96629ec4.pdf


10-20 ppm??!! I think this study may have other than scientific aims. According to this, just about all of us should have dead fish floating in our tanks. However, they do admit that their study is limited and suggest that longer term studies are required to support this one theory. They also suggest that it is nitrate-sensitive fish that we should be most concerned about and which, apparently, I don't have in my tank.

I'd like to proffer another, more recent, observation that may counter this study, at least regarding our types of fish:



> I've kept the NO3 at 160 ppm for 3 weeks, no issues, as long as it is from KNO3, not over fed fish, dead fish etc......
> 
> Typical NO3 is about 20-30ppm and I've bred numerous so called sensitive softwater fire and lots and lots and lots of shrimp, fires and CRS's.
> 
> So the answer is that the max level is actually quite high(over 100ppm NO3) if you are trying to kill fish with KNO3.
> 
> Likely much more for many species.
> 
> So when folks suggest a ppm for a certain species, this is hardly absolute, many are just basing this not on real experiences and test with say KNO3, rather, error on the safe side for what they think....is right.
> 
> But if someone has added a lot of KNO3 over a long time frame on many tanks and bred fish and shrimp etc......it brings into the validity of the claim.
> There are 101 ways to kill fish, but KNO3 dosing at say 50ppm or less ain't one of those. And 10-30ppm is a pretty big easy to hit range anyone can hit for the most part, even without a test kit.


Source: Plantbrain, 2012, http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/165814-whats-max-nitrate-level.html


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> However, they do admit that their study is limited and suggest that longer term studies are required to support *this one theory*…I'd like to proffer another, more recent, observation that may counter this study, at least regarding our types of fish:
> 
> Source: Plantbrain, 2012, http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/165814-whats-max-nitrate-level.html


*Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals*
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5eb8/62b20729b804521991a7567eb38a96629ec4.pdf
Scroll down to the last three pages numbered 1265, 1266 and 1267 to see the list of 79 Referenced studies supporting the data, versus your one homemade article.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> *Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals*
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5eb8/62b20729b804521991a7567eb38a96629ec4.pdf
> Scroll down to the last three pages numbered 1265, 1266 and 1267 to see the list of 79 Referenced studies supporting the data, versus your one homemade article.


You do know who Plantbrain is ...right?

Also, why aren't all of my fish dead with NO3 typically in the 20-30 ppm area? Studies have many objectives. I even know of one that claims humans are responsible for global warming.

The study makes no reference to fish tanks.


----------



## houseofcards

These studies are rarely if ever applicable to a home aquariums. They even say more studies are necessary to see the effects of different parameters like PH, hardness, dissolved oxygen, disease, etc, etc in conjunction with N levels. 

I see no sampling error information (unless I missed it) they took a few specimens of each from what looks like one location and put them in a laboratory environment and started subjecting them to different levels of N. That is hardly adequate to prove anything that would yield reliable results, especially for a home aquarium.


----------



## burr740

It's amazing how my Fire Reds breed like rabbits in 50+ ppm NO3 considering how "toxic" it is. 

Must be some kind of Super Strain Bionic shrimp


----------



## madcrafted

burr740 said:


> It's amazing how my Fire Reds breed like rabbits in 50+ ppm NO3 considering how "toxic" it is.
> 
> Must be some kind of Super Strain Bionic shrimp


Haha, yeah. Neos are pretty hardy little shrimp. I wouldn't advise those levels in a bee shrimp tank but it's common to see thriving Neos in tanks with 20-40 ppm or even higher apparently.


----------



## Jeff5614

Deanna said:


> You do know who Plantbrain is ...right?


I'm pretty sure Edward is aware of who Tom is.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> It's amazing how my Fire Reds breed like rabbits in 50+ ppm NO3 considering how "toxic" it is.
> 
> Must be some kind of Super Strain Bionic shrimp


Burr you should know by now these studies have very little to do with actual home aquariums. But that doesn't slow down the citing them for the sake of argument.

Not let's offer up more personal experience. 

I've kept Rainbows for almost 40 years. Most always the NO3 can easily get to 50ppm plus. Sometimes well more. But much like your Bionic Shrimp, I must be lucky. They grow, mature, display beautiful colors, and many times live past a decade. Quite a long life for the breed.

And I completely agree with what Tom Barr said. If you set out and your intention was to try to kill your fish by subjecting them to polluted 50 ppm conditions, I believe you would be sorely disappointed. Notwithstanding studies and internet fodder, I have never seen it be successful.

Personally I rely on experience and what I can see with my own eyes. And this goes for all things growing plants as well.......studies may be interesting for some.......but most arguments can be rebutted almost as easily as turning the chart upside down.

In the end, trust your experience.......remember..............the tank don't lie!!:wink2::wink2:


----------



## Deanna

Jeff5614 said:


> I'm pretty sure Edward is aware of who Tom is.


I thought he did, but it seemed as though Tom was being placed in the trash bin with the "one homemade article" comment about Tom's study. That made me second-guess whether or not he did know the value of Barr's opinions.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Personally I rely on experience and what I can see with my own eyes. And this goes for all things growing plants as well.......studies may be interesting for some.......but most arguments can be rebutted almost as easily as turning the chart upside down.
> 
> In the end, trust your experience.......remember..............the tank don't lie!!:wink2::wink2:


You can find studies to support most arguments in this hobby one way or the other. But hardly ever do you see legitimate research conducted on an actual aquarium. For that all we have is the anecdotal experience of others. 

But when enough experienced users have demonstrated success with a certain something, that's far better proof to me than what happened one time in a trout stream or corn field


----------



## OVT

$1? $5?

We've sold plants to each other and his prices were always higher then mine. As to oppinions vs studies, there is at least semantical difference.


----------



## [email protected]

If I maintain 3ppm then I have to keep Nitrates at 30?


----------



## Deanna

[email protected] said:


> If I maintain 3ppm then I have to keep Nitrates at 30?


Nope. Not from my side of the table. That's the whole point of the above discussions. You are generally safe anywhere from 10 up to 100, but most fall in the 10-30 area. Some do find that higher levels benefit their particular situation. Play around until you find the level where your plants make you happy and then dose to keep those levels.

You can see other opinions, above, on both the levels and the ratios. In my tank, NO3 runs in the 20-25 area and is all due to fish, i.e.; I don't add NO3. I do have to add PO4 to maintain 3-5 ppm. So, by pure coincidence of my particular setup, I have a ratio that ranges between 4:1 and 8:1, but I don't target a ratio.

however, based upon some of the challenges presented by other members, I am considering giving my wife 100 ppm doses of NO3 in her water and watch her for a week. I'll let you all know the results.


----------



## [email protected]

Ok but keep 3-5 phosphates when I dosed 1ppm next day went to 0


----------



## [email protected]

Ok I see I only have 1 guppy in there lol and 6 RCS


----------



## Deanna

[email protected] said:


> Ok but keep 3-5 phosphates when I dosed 1ppm next day went to 0


Is it a REALLY big guppy (a foot long)? If not, you are certainly going to have to dose NO3. Have you looked at the Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Calculators & Information calculator yet? That can help. You should also learn the full EI concept. Here is a good place to start: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/517945-ei-concept-explained.html.

Regarding the PO4, or any nutrient, I like to first determine what the target level to have in the water is. My target is the level the day of my water change (which is once a week). I do this because I dose all my P, K, GH and KH components once a week right after my water change. As an example; my PO4 generally reaches 2-3 ppm by weeks' end and I start by adding about 8 ppm. Micros I dose every other day, but I may change this to daily, along the lines of what is being discussed in http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread-64.html#post10948785.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Big Guppy with Teeth??? >


----------



## Greggz

MG since when do you have Phish???


----------



## Maryland Guppy

All my Moscow guppies have been sold!
I had to go along with the foot long guppy story.>
Guess it is about time to change my signature pic???


----------



## Jeff5614

Deanna said:


> I thought he did, but it seemed as though Tom was being placed in the trash bin with the "one homemade article" comment about Tom's study. That made me second-guess whether or not he did know the value of Barr's opinions.


I gotcha. I'm sure there's not a single person in the forum that doesn't know of Tom Barr's contribution to the hobby. I was just trying to be a bit tongue in cheek. Sometime things get lost in translation.

That being said most of us know of Edward's contributions to the hobby also and the dedication to it that that they both have.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Just wanted to throw a spanner into this discussion. I run most of my tanks with pretty low nitrate levels, most tanks measure less than 5ppm NO3 in the water column, and my ratios are way off, my dosing is closer to 2:1 NO3O4 wise. Dosage rate is about 1ppm of NO3 per day or less. There isn't a plant I cannot grow well. Some species are a tad more sensitive to low fert levels, such as ludwigia pantanal, but generally the main difference between richer levels and leaner levels is that plants grow more slower in leaner conditions. Of course being overly lean or deficient can result in poor growth. But I do think that EI fans over exaggerate the nutrient levels necessary for growing most tanks/plants. For both CO2 and ferts, there is a minimum effective dosage as well as diminishing returns. 

some benefits of lean dosing:
- slower growth (for those who do not want so much maintenance)
- easier aquascaping for those that require plants line up at a certain height
- less runaway algae issues when things go wrong
- more stability due to slower cycles of pruning/replanting/overcrowding

For folks wondering what tanks can look like with low NO3 levels, low Fe levels (0.05ppm per day) (maybe low by EI standards ? )

This was one of the tanks that I ran lean levels on:









other tanks with lean dosing, but high lighting


















closeups of macrandra









proserpinaca palustris









Blood vomit, HC, buceps



















Some thinking that I think is good for a forum that is pretty much EI-centric. (primarily because the forum is mostly north american). Most of the world's planted tanks don't run on EI, how do they grow plants ? Most European and asian style tank levels are no where near EI levels in anything.There is a lot of exposure in this forum to the benefits of doing EI (I need not repeat them here), but I find that there is little exposure to the other end of the spectrum. I think it is good for folks to try out a few different approaches, explore a greater range of approaches before finding what suits their style of tanks.


----------



## houseofcards

I don't think anyone is saying you can't run a tank on lean levels (at least I'm not.) There are plenty of dosing regimes that do that. The real issue is are their problems running at higher levels in terms of tolerance. EI to me is sort of like the 50% water change. You don't have to do it, but if you do you'll insure that nothing goes to far off center and the plants won't run short. 

At the end of the day, this is a hobby. There are all levels of hobbyists and not all of them will stay on top of their tanks enough to make sure nothing runs out with a lean dosing schedule. So there are disadvantages to running lean as well in terms of lifestyle and hobbyist dedication to pull that off.


----------



## Edward

Xiaozhuang said:


>


 Daily dose:
1 ppm NO3
0.5 ppm PO4
0.05 ppm Fe

Water column:
< 5 ppm NO3

Excellent results, how do you handle CO2?


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Edward said:


> Daily dose:
> 1 ppm NO3
> 0.5 ppm PO4
> 0.05 ppm Fe
> 
> Water column:
> < 5 ppm NO3
> 
> Excellent results, how do you handle CO2?


Adjust by observing plants actually. In the times where I actually measured CO2 levels, its usually around 1 point pH drop or so.



houseofcards said:


> I don't think anyone is saying you can't run a tank on lean levels (at least I'm not.) There are plenty of dosing regimes that do that. The real issue is are their problems running at higher levels in terms of tolerance. EI to me is sort of like the 50% water change. You don't have to do it, but if you do you'll insure that nothing goes to far off center and the plants won't run short.
> 
> At the end of the day, this is a hobby. There are all levels of hobbyists and not all of them will stay on top of their tanks enough to make sure nothing runs out with a lean dosing schedule. So there are disadvantages to running lean as well in terms of lifestyle and hobbyist dedication to pull that off.


Yes there are advantageous and disadvantageous to each method. I have been lucky enough to observe tanks (in person, not just through pictures) across 4 continents by now, and I have to say that ironically, EI folks have as much trouble controlling their tanks. I don't say this to diss the method per se. I used EI a plenty in the (recent) past, and quote Barr's methods more than anyone else in my website or youtube. From what I observe, aquarists are not particularly good at controlling high speed tanks - this is something Barr and I both say quite often. Most of the US folks that do international competitions; Mioke, Cory hopkins, Hiep hong, etc use the leaner approach due to having more control. My advise is for folks to try both ends of the spectrum before deciding - most folks tend to think that there is only 1 method to success.... and it is hardly so.


----------



## Deanna

Xiaozhuang said:


> Just wanted to throw a spanner into this discussion. I run most of my tanks with pretty low nitrate levels, most tanks measure less than 5ppm NO3 in the water column, and my ratios are way off, my dosing is closer to 2:1 NO3O4 wise. Dosage rate is about 1ppm of NO3 per day or less. There isn't a plant I cannot grow well. Some species are a tad more sensitive to low fert levels, such as ludwigia pantanal, but generally the main difference between richer levels and leaner levels is that plants grow more slower in leaner conditions. Of course being overly lean or deficient can result in poor growth. But I do think that EI fans over exaggerate the nutrient levels necessary for growing most tanks/plants. For both CO2 and ferts, there is a minimum effective dosage as well as diminishing returns.
> 
> some benefits of lean dosing:
> - slower growth (for those who do not want so much maintenance)
> - easier aquascaping for those that require plants line up at a certain height
> - less runaway algae issues when things go wrong
> - more stability due to slower cycles of pruning/replanting/overcrowding


Your points are not lost on most of us. Basically, you are throttling your plants by limiting one, or more, of their inputs. Until about two years ago, I ran beautiful low-tech setups for decades and I was happy with the look and growth (low maintenance). I then switched to high-tech and, for me, it was mainly about light. I wanted a brightly lit tank (fish are my main interest) and figured I'd go for the lush plant look as well.

The problem, as always, came in with the light ...which is algae. I have been able to maintain high light (60-80 PAR at the substrate) for 13 hours a day (a few siesta's thrown in) only by maintaining a high rate of growth in my plants. Any disruption to this, and various forms of algae appear almost instantly. Do you know what your PAR values are and the photoperiod? That may well explain why you can put a limit on plant growth without our natural enemy appearing.

Your "benefits of slower growth" are the Shangri-La for us all ...but for that darn light issue.


----------



## houseofcards

Xiaozhuang said:


> Adjust by observing plants actually. In the times where I actually measured CO2 levels, its usually around 1 point pH drop or so.
> 
> ..My advise is for folks to try both ends of the spectrum before deciding - most folks tend to think that there is only 1 method to success.... and it is hardly so.


I agree. And yes it's lifestyle as well as cultural as this hobby is much deeper in other parts of the globe than N.A. The very fact that your able to run a successful tank lean and others in great excess to me shows how much latitude there is to growing plants and the exact numbers stand for very little.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

It is worrying, to observe on this forum - how one sided the methodology is.... 
It just as worrying, to observe the equivalent on asian side forums where some folks subscribe to the ADA methodology/dosing system and cannot accept anything else.
And in those cases, I show them the benefits of richer dosing methods; and it is just as difficult for them to accept that having more ferts in the water column isn't reckless/dangerous.

I find that sometimes folks get married to a method as a way to reduce cognitive dissonance to past efforts. It is also natural for folks to have found success with one particular method to readily recommend it to others. However, if others can present good results with differing methods, one should also not be to quick to dismiss their methodology.
I think it makes sense to master the full spectrum of possible approaches. One of the things Barr whine to me privately about, is that far too many people are obsessed with just one approach - whereas the world of planted tanks is truly diverse, whether is it in aquascaping approaches or plant growing approaches.


----------



## madcrafted

While I don't doubt some people having success with such lean levels of macros, I don't think my high tech tank would appreciate it very much. I tried running around 5 ppm of nitrates and 1 ppm of phosphorus and my plants looked like crap. Pale and stunted in growth. There's other variables to consider. Like having an inert substrate such as I do. My light also averages 100 PAR at substrate level, with my moss tree getting about 250-300 PAR. I'm dosing 2-3 ppm phosphate with nitrates around 20 ppm. Two days later phosphorus is barely detectable and my nitrates look to be around 5 ppm. I don't have a heavily planted tank either... not even close. 

On the same token, I have some lobelia cardinalis growing perfectly fine in a bowl of tap water sitting in my window sill. lol


----------



## Greggz

Xiaozhuang said:


> Just wanted to throw a spanner into this discussion. I run most of my tanks with pretty low nitrate levels, most tanks measure less than 5ppm NO3 in the water column, and my ratios are way off, my dosing is closer to 2:1 NO3O4 wise.


Dennis your post really deserves it's own thread, as I think it is a fascinating discussion.

Yours is the only tank I have seen run at those levels. Not that there aren't more out there, but it's the only one I've personally run across. Probably has much to do with where I am looking, I'm sure. Are there sites out there where others are having the same success as you with your methods? I would love to learn more.

In my experience, whenever I get levels too low, the tank rebels. Plants stunt, melt, and in general start dying, becoming magnets for algae. I'm wondering how that is so different in your tanks? Is it that my plants have become accustomed to EI level dosing? Or something completely different?

And the beauty of your tanks speak for themselves. They are truly stunning. But I've yet to see anyone here duplicate what you do with any success. Why is that? I mean I love your tanks, but I just can't figure out how you do it, and why the reaction to those levels of ferts is so different for many others.

Anyway, really want to learn more. How much light is on the Mermaid Weed? What kind of CO2 level? 

And if you are ever in the area, can you come teach me yours ways???:grin2:


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Deanna said:


> Your points are not lost on most of us. Basically, you are throttling your plants by limiting one, or more, of their inputs. Until about two years ago, I ran beautiful low-tech setups for decades and I was happy with the look and growth (low maintenance). I then switched to high-tech and, for me, it was mainly about light. I wanted a brightly lit tank (fish are my main interest) and figured I'd go for the lush plant look as well.
> 
> The problem, as always, came in with the light ...which is algae. I have been able to maintain high light (60-80 PAR at the substrate) for 13 hours a day (a few siesta's thrown in) only by maintaining a high rate of growth in my plants. Any disruption to this, and various forms of algae appear almost instantly. Do you know what your PAR values are and the photoperiod? That may well explain why you can put a limit on plant growth without our natural enemy appearing.
> 
> Your "benefits of slower growth" are the Shangri-La for us all ...but for that darn light issue.


My tanks are actually very brightly lit.... 
My 3ft tanks are lit by dual BML XBs sitting on the rim; its way beyond 150par on the substrate level









The reddish plant pictures you see above come from ADA90p lit by 8 X T5 tubes ; the substrate par is closer to 200 than 100.... which accounts for the strong coloration.










I do not know how to say this without folks heads spinning away on this forum, but you can limit growth and get a totally algae free tank. It is not unlimited growth that prevents algae. It is the absence of unhealthy plants and organic waste that makes for an algae free tank. And you can have healthy plants with limited nutrients. My added caveat to this is that choosing what nutrient to limit matters. In my tanks it is nitrogen that is limited - and to not go into an overly technical discussion, down regulating growth by limiting nitrates is safer than say limiting potassium or iron. Also, using a rich substrate as a backup ensure than no plant truly goes into an unhealthy state of deficient. It forms a "floor' in that sense - if a plant is getting too starved, it'll just channel more energy into root growth, reaching into new areas of the substrate where there are nutrients ( as terrestrial plants do). So the methodology is not as simple as "starve your plants". There is of course effort into observing consistently state of plant health, adjusting the actual dose, maintaining substrate richness, etc


----------



## madcrafted

Greggz said:


> Yours is the only tank I have seen run at those levels. Not that there aren't more out there, but it's the only one I've personally run across. Probably has much to do with where I am looking, I'm sure. Are there sites out there where others are having the same success as you with your methods? I would love to learn more.


Same here. Teach me. haha

I suspect lighting. It is the driving force of a tank. It just doesn't appear by those photos that the light is lacking in intensity. Then again, it's a photo. Hard to tell.

Bump:


Xiaozhuang said:


> Also, using a rich substrate as a backup ensure than no plant truly goes into an unhealthy state of deficient.


This may have quite a bit to do with it. My shrimp tanks use active substrate and plants seem to do really well in there with absolutely no ferts, minus what is naturally occuring and bits of uneaten shrimp food. My lights are pretty weak on those tanks, though.

You have some beautiful tanks for sure. Nobody can dispute that.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Greggz said:


> Dennis your post really deserves it's own thread, as I think it is a fascinating discussion.
> 
> Yours is the only tank I have seen run at those levels. Not that there aren't more out there, but it's the only one I've personally run across. Probably has much to do with where I am looking, I'm sure. Are there sites out there where others are having the same success as you with your methods? I would love to learn more.
> 
> In my experience, whenever I get levels too low, the tank rebels. Plants stunt, melt, and in general start dying, becoming magnets for algae. I'm wondering how that is so different in your tanks? Is it that my plants have become accustomed to EI level dosing? Or something completely different?
> 
> And the beauty of your tanks speak for themselves. They are truly stunning. But I've yet to see anyone here duplicate what you do with any success. Why is that? I mean I love your tanks, but I just can't figure out how you do it, and why the reaction to those levels of ferts is so different for many others.
> 
> Anyway, really want to learn more. How much light is on the Mermaid Weed? What kind of CO2 level?
> 
> And if you are ever in the area, can you come teach me yours ways???:grin2:


Hmm actually, my levels are not very lean (shocking !). The largest collection of tanks run on super lean levels are actually the ADA tanks - you can see examples of these in ADA gallery, Sumida, Forestas submersa (portugal), you guys probably can check out videos of all of the above in youtube. I describe their dosing approaches on my website https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/fertilisers-how-to.html This is not to say I think that their approach is good (I think it is too lean). But you can see that even with that level of leaness - they can grow a lot of types of plants well enough. 90% of ADA tanks will test less than 5ppm of NO3 in the water column after the first 6 months. Their rich soil does compensate - and using rich soils is something I would recommend in every tank that can do so; you can check out the various reasons beside nutrients in the same website I linked above. 

Also, remember what I said about choosing which nutrient is limited; ADA tanks are N limited, but they have plenty of K, Fe, traces etc....


----------



## Deanna

Xiaozhuang said:


> My tanks are actually very brightly lit....
> My 3ft tanks are lit by dual BML XBs sitting on the rim; its way beyond 150par on the substrate level
> 
> The reddish plant pictures you see above come from ADA90p lit by 8 X T5 tubes ; the substrate par is closer to 200 than 100.... which accounts for the strong coloration.
> 
> I do not know how to say this without folks heads spinning away on this forum, but you can limit growth and get a totally algae free tank. It is not unlimited growth that prevents algae. It is the absence of unhealthy plants and organic waste that makes for an algae free tank. And you can have healthy plants with limited nutrients. My added caveat to this is that choosing what nutrient to limit matters. In my tanks it is nitrogen that is limited - and to not go into an overly technical discussion, down regulating growth by limiting nitrates is safer than say limiting potassium or iron. Also, using a rich substrate as a backup ensure than no plant truly goes into an unhealthy state of deficient. It forms a "floor' in that sense - if a plant is getting too starved, it'll just channel more energy into root growth, reaching into new areas of the substrate where there are nutrients ( as terrestrial plants do). So the methodology is not as simple as "starve your plants". There is of course effort into observing consistently state of plant health, adjusting the actual dose, maintaining substrate richness, etc


I don't see any fish! Are they hiding? I don't think that I could get nitrates below 20 ppm with my fish load. The organics are constantly being added in mass. Coincidentally, in a few weeks (after a current experiment I'm running, I am planning to add methanol to my tank to drive the NO3 down to test the theory about low nitrates being good (saw it elsewhere on this site). You may be right that the nitrate is the key.


----------



## houseofcards

Xiaozhuang said:


> .The largest collection of tanks run on super lean levels are actually the ADA tanks - you can see examples of these in ADA gallery.


Do you happen to know how long the average tank is setup for at the ADA Gallery?


----------



## Immortal1

Xiaozhuang said:


> It is worrying, to observe on this forum - how one sided the methodology is....
> It just as worrying, to observe the equivalent on asian side forums where some folks subscribe to the ADA methodology/dosing system and cannot accept anything else.
> And in those cases, I show them the benefits of richer dosing methods; and it is just as difficult for them to accept that having more ferts in the water column isn't reckless/dangerous.
> 
> I find that sometimes folks get married to a method as a way to reduce cognitive dissonance to past efforts. It is also natural for folks to have found success with one particular method to readily recommend it to others. However, if others can present good results with differing methods, one should also not be to quick to dismiss their methodology.
> I think it makes sense to master the full spectrum of possible approaches. One of the things Barr whine to me privately about, is that far too many people are obsessed with just one approach - whereas the world of planted tanks is truly diverse, whether is it in aquascaping approaches or plant growing approaches.


I agree, on many occasions this forum can be very one sided. Just some of my observations - there are those who have had great success growing ______ by adding _____ amount of fertilizer and it works perfectly. But, somebody in a different part of the country (or World) tries to exactly match that persons success and fails miserably. Case in point, I have had very poor success in growing Euro plants in general. I believe it mostly has to do with my water source. I receive very health plants from someone that has very soft water only to learn they don't like my very hard water.

I also suspect there may be other water source variables that may help one person run very low amounts of fertilizers and another person needs something much different to grow the same plant.

The odd variable to the above is those who use R.O. water. In theory they should be able to recreate the exact same water condition as anywhere on the planet. But, it does not always seem to be that easy.

I personally have been down several roads with my tank and fertilizer methods. I started out with PPS Pro method. Did ok, but not great (likely MANY other problems, not PPS Pro). I then went with the E.I. method. Had better success - but did I also fix some other problems? I am now realizing that with my current fish load and current level of nitrate in my tap water, that I really don't need to dose any NO3 and my plants have never looked better. Would I recommend this to my neighbor or someone 5,000 miles away - probably not.

"the world of planted tanks is truly diverse, whether is it in aquascaping approaches or plant growing approaches" Agree with this 100%

Bump:


Deanna said:


> I don't see any fish! Are they hiding? I don't think that I could get nitrates below 20 ppm with my fish load. The organics are constantly being added in mass. Coincidentally, in a few weeks (after a current experiment I'm running, I am planning to add methanol to my tank to drive the NO3 down to test the theory about low nitrates being good (saw it elsewhere on this site). You may be right that the nitrate is the key.


I would be very interested in your results.


----------



## Jeff5614

Immortal1 said:


> I agree, on many occasions this forum can be very one sided.


That's been the case for as long as I've been a member although it does seem to have improved over the last couple of years. Non EI discussions seem to be a bit more tolerated without having some that consider it heresy that needs to be put down as soon as possible.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

houseofcards said:


> Do you happen to know how long the average tank is setup for at the ADA Gallery?


It depends on the aquascape... some as long as 5 years, others they change after a year. They also change out plants that don't grow well for easier species. 


I do think that different water supplies lead to different outcomes. So knowing how to compensate for what is or isn't in the water supply takes technical skill. However, again when I speak to successful aquarists, whether from Europe or US or asia... they all seem to have the same fundamental concepts. Again, quoting barr on this - most problems come from CO2 control rather than anything else.

I don't agree with the idea that Europe plants function differently from asia etc. Principally, because I know how the global supply chain for aquatic plants work - and a lot of the Europe plants come from asian based farms and I've grown a fair share of plants coming from either US or Europe as well - I see 0 difference based on point of origin, and through sharing notes with successful aquarists from those regions - our methods overlap perfectly. I've shared notes with Barr, Vin kutty from the US, competition folks from Brazil, Dutch aquascapers, Japanese IAPLC winners.... if anything I'm surprised by how similar our methods are...

Bump: More more interesting approach to consider:

No Co2 (low tech), lean nutrient levels, but high lighting.
In this hairgrass tank, I use a 20w CFL 3 inches above the 3 gallon tank. Even accounting for the inefficiencies of using a CFL lamp, you can imagine the par levels in the short tank.

Decent carpet, but algae free... how so without CO2 ? - ultimately it is plant health and tank cleanliness that are the arbiter of whether the tank remains algae free. If you can have good plant health, it matters not, what your nutrient levels measure. To this end, I would also recommend more folks spend more time observing their plants - and change their dosages according to that... rather than measure and plan for to hit target levels.


----------



## Deanna

@Xiaozhuang:

What are your nitrate levels?

Please bear with us as we pound away with questions, but you have dumped an interesting enigma on us. I am trying to find a reason that your setup won't work for me because, if I can't, I may have to - gulp - reconsider my methods.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

For the low tech tank... same as the others it measures below 5pmm, closer to 2 and below.



Deanna said:


> I don't see any fish! Are they hiding? I don't think that I could get nitrates below 20 ppm with my fish load. The organics are constantly being added in mass. Coincidentally, in a few weeks (after a current experiment I'm running, I am planning to add methanol to my tank to drive the NO3 down to test the theory about low nitrates being good (saw it elsewhere on this site). You may be right that the nitrate is the key.


yea, photographing fish is hard.... you'll see them in my tank vids though.
Regarding limiting NO3... some plants are more affected by it negatively (ludiwigia pantanal, cuba, some macrandras), others are very tolerant. As a side effect for some species (rotala rotundifolia, ludwigia arcuata, brevipes, hygro pinnatifida ) they only get much redder with NO3 limitation - you'll never see these get truly red in an EI tank. You can see the comparison for rotala H'ra on this page:https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/plant-guide-rotala_rotundifolia.html











Also on a side point that is gonna grow into another discussion.... I really don't think folks should target levels by measuring water column concentration of ferts per se. I think a better method is by comparing dosage rates (ppm per day or week). This is due to a mix of measurement errors, (test kits innate vulnerabilities, calibration issues) as well as tank chemistry (precipitation, substrate uptake etc). In short I think folks should compare their results in the manner of - if I dose X ppm this month and change to dosing Y ppm for the next month, what are the changes I observe in plant health/growth. And just choose X or Y that gives better results.


----------



## Deanna

Xiaozhuang said:


> For the low tech tank... same as the others it measures below 5pmm, closer to 2 and below.
> 
> Also on a side point that is gonna grow into another discussion.... I really don't think folks should target levels by measuring water column concentration of ferts per se. I think a better method is by comparing dosage rates (ppm per day or week). This is due to a mix of measurement errors, (test kits innate vulnerabilities, calibration issues) as well as tank chemistry (precipitation, substrate uptake etc). In short I think folks should compare their results in the manner of - if I dose X ppm this month and change to dosing Y ppm for the next month, what are the changes I observe in plant health/growth. And just choose X or Y that gives better results.


Thanks. I think it must be the nitrates. I have good growth and nutrient uptake but, because of the heavy fish load (about 35-40 in a 29 gal, plus a damned gourami that is 7-8" long), I don't dose NO3 at all and my NO3 level rarely drops below 20 ppm. Perhaps we, in the US, simply overload our tanks with fish? An interesting test would be to see what would happen in your tank if you maintained a 20-30 ppm level of NO3.

I do think the test kits are close enough to be useful. I've calibrated mine with known NO3 levels.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Deanna said:


> Thanks. I think it must be the nitrates. I have good growth and nutrient uptake but, because of the heavy fish load (about 35-40 in a 29 gal, plus a damned gourami that is 7-8" long), I don't dose NO3 at all and my NO3 level rarely drops below 20 ppm. Perhaps we, in the US, simply overload our tanks with fish? An interesting test would be to see what would happen in your tank if you maintained a 20-30 ppm level of NO3.
> 
> I do think the test kits are close enough to be useful. I've calibrated mine with known NO3 levels.


I have run enough tanks with higher nitrates to know... growth rates speed up, internodes elongate slightly, plants that grow red with nitrate limitation turn greener. And unless the tank is very clean, coupled with high light one gets increased chances of green dust algae on glass and hardscape. With the leaner regime, I wipe my glass once every 6 months or so. Very densely planted tank have more immunity to this, but hardscape dominated tanks are more vulnerable. The later reason is why most hardscape focused competition folks use a leaner regime. Privately, I always joke that GDA is an EI disease - its virtually absent in ADA style tanks. But don't let barr hear this, lol. The later reason (clearing up of GDA), is why a good portion of US competition aquascapers use a leaner dosing approach... but yes, another can of worms


----------



## Deanna

Immortal1 said:


> I agree, on many occasions this forum can be very one sided. Just some of my observations - there are those who have had great success growing ______ by adding _____ amount of fertilizer and it works perfectly. But, somebody in a different part of the country (or World) tries to exactly match that persons success and fails miserably. Case in point, I have had very poor success in growing Euro plants in general. I believe it mostly has to do with my water source. I receive very health plants from someone that has very soft water only to learn they don't like my very hard water.
> 
> I also suspect there may be other water source variables that may help one person run very low amounts of fertilizers and another person needs something much different to grow the same plant.
> 
> The odd variable to the above is those who use R.O. water. In theory they should be able to recreate the exact same water condition as anywhere on the planet. But, it does not always seem to be that easy.
> 
> I personally have been down several roads with my tank and fertilizer methods. I started out with PPS Pro method. Did ok, but not great (likely MANY other problems, not PPS Pro). I then went with the E.I. method. Had better success - but did I also fix some other problems? I am now realizing that with my current fish load and current level of nitrate in my tap water, that I really don't need to dose any NO3 and my plants have never looked better. Would I recommend this to my neighbor or someone 5,000 miles away - probably not.
> 
> "the world of planted tanks is truly diverse, whether is it in aquascaping approaches or plant growing approaches" Agree with this 100%
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I would be very interested in your results.


I'll post it over on @Greggz http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-custom-micro-mix-thread-64.html#post10948785 thread since I've already started the topic there and it fits in with what has been going on there. However, it will probably be few months before I see something worthy of reporting ...unless there's a big surprise in there.


----------



## Deanna

Xiaozhuang said:


> I have run enough tanks with higher nitrates to know... growth rates speed up, internodes elongate slightly, plants that grow red with nitrate limitation turn greener. And unless the tank is very clean, coupled with high light one gets increased chances of green dust algae on glass and hardscape. With the leaner regime, I wipe my glass once every 6 months or so. Very densely planted tank have more immunity to this, but hardscape dominated tanks are more vulnerable. The later reason is why most hardscape focused competition folks use a leaner regime. Privately, I always joke that GDA is an EI disease - its virtually absent in ADA style tanks. But don't let barr hear this, lol. The later reason (clearing up of GDA), is why a good portion of US competition aquascapers use a leaner dosing approach... but yes, another can of worms


Yes, although I haven't seen GDA in some years. Seems that I, and those that want lots of fish, are doomed to provide unlimited nutrients to keep up with the heavy organics that cleaning (and Purigen) can't remove fast enough. Without uncapping the growth, GSA and various hair algae ramp up. I thought you might have a silver bullet, ah well. Maybe the methanol will safely allow us to control nitrogen. 

I'm curious, do the "competition folks" have heavy fish loads?

Might be helpful to know what your approach (methodology) to cleaning is. That is something we don't often discuss in depth.


----------



## Edward

Immortal1 said:


> I agree, on many occasions this forum can be very one sided.





Jeff5614 said:


> That's been the case for as long as I've been a member although it does seem to have improved over the last couple of years. Non EI discussions seem to be a bit more tolerated without having some that consider it heresy that needs to be put down as soon as possible.


 Yeah, it feels weird not to get banned for posting “lean is good”.


----------



## madcrafted

I suspect many of us have ran "lean" in the past, especially when battling algae. I can't say my plants were very healthy during that time. I struggled to find the right balance. EI worked better for me. Is it perfect?... nope. Does it work?... yup. Is there a better way?... probably, depending on your idea of "better". 

Many aquarist use conservative methods like PPS and have for a long time with success. This requires a more calculated and frequent dosing plan. Many people just don't want to spend that much effort on their tanks or simply don't have the time. This is usually why EI is typically recommended. It's a shotgun approach. It's not a conspiracy to overthrow the PPS folks. lol


----------



## Greggz

Dennis I think something being lost in this discussion is the PAR values you mentioned.

150 to over 200 PAR at the substrate is something not many of us here are familiar with.

I imagine uber clean conditions must be met? If so, what kind of routine?? I imagine the commitment level is very high.

And I am guessing very few if any fish? Do tanks like yours ever had much of a fish load? 

And on a side note. Take an award winning tank like Burr's. Inert substrate and EI dosing (yeah, oversimplified a bit!). Do you think his tank, or tanks like his, can benefit from your method??? 

And what about folks like me who keep a very heavily stocked Rainbow fish tank?? Can a tank like mine ever be clean enough to benefit from your methods? 

Sorry for the all the questions, but I've long been fascinated by your tanks. Basically goes against everything that has worked for me.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Most of the competition folks do not have heavy fish loads - primarily its also because the fish has to fit the scape aesthetically and smaller fish makes most tanks look larger by comparison. I don't agree with the general statement "doomed to provide unlimited nutrients to keep up with the heavy organics that cleaning (and Purigen) can't remove fast enough. Without uncapping the growth, GSA and various hair algae ramp up." but I'd have to see the exact tank and situation in question. What i do agree with is that having robust, large, fast growing, densely planted tank.... is algae resistant in any scenario (full sunlight, heavy nutrient load, etc) I do think most folks probably don't do as thorough a cleaning as they ought to... it just takes too much time and discipline. 

Good cleaning is directly how ADA gallery maintains algae free, sparsely planted, high light tanks - a difficult combination to manage. 









"I suspect many of us have ran "lean" in the past, especially when battling algae. I can't say my plants were very healthy during that time." 

I don't think one can use the term being lean universally. As I said before, being lean on potassium is not the same as being lean on nitrates. In the same way there is a difference in hormonal functions in the body whether one eats more protein vs more carbohydrates. So not all lean methods are equal.... If you're getting the results you want with EI, there is also no reason to switch regimes other than for experimental purposes.


----------



## burr740

Xiaozhuang said:


> - ultimately it is plant health and tank cleanliness that are the arbiter of whether the tank remains algae free. If you can have good plant health, it matters not, what your nutrient levels measure.
> 
> To this end, I would also recommend more folks spend more time observing their plants - and change their dosages according to that... rather than measure and plan for to hit target levels.


This needs to be quoted and spotlighted again, and read twice for most of us 



Edward said:


> Yeah, it feels weird not to get banned for posting “lean is good”.


No one has ever been banned for that. The problem is one side of the argument usually comes in guns blazing telling people all the ways what they are doing is wrong. 

It is much better to show examples demonstrating success with a particular method(s) like Dennis has done here. That's how you get folks to listen.




Greggz said:


> And on a side note. Take an award winning tank like Burr's. Inert substrate and EI dosing (yeah, oversimplified a bit!). Do you think his tank, or tanks like his, can benefit from your method???


Yeah...I havent dosed "EI" since my first catastrophic year in the hobby  Heavy dosing is a better way to put it.

You know for a couple of years I was the side show freak around here having to dose minute levels of micros (csmb). This was even before the big micro-tox train pulled into town. And even through all that I never fully jumped on board because too many folks were having good success dosing higher levels. But I digress...

I think there's a big difference in having a nutrient rich substrate and inert. You and I have blasting sand, which probably explains why our current set-ups with high light and high co2 could never survive on such low levels of NO3. At least I know mine couldnt, Ive tried several different ways in several different tanks. 

Im also interested in Dennis' thoughts or experiences running very lean nitrates with inert sub. If Im not mistaken most of the tanks posted above have either Aquasouil or a dirt base

Just another example of different set-ups needing different things, and no one way being right for all


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> And I am guessing very few if any fish? Do tanks like yours ever had much of a fish load?





Xiaozhuang said:


> Most of the competition folks do not have heavy fish loads.


Damn Phish! >


----------



## OVT

Facinating how the public oppinion turns on a dime. Dennis, and others, have been posting pictures of high light, lean tanks on TPT some 5 years ago but that was a heresy in the land of EI.

Amano started as a photographer, observing nature where competition for nutrients is the way of life. Mr Barr started in the land of plenty, the land with instant gratification mentality. The human nature of follow the leader kicks in and we end up with diverging methods in the hobby.

While we strive to imitate nature in our small glass boxes, while we are so focused on the short-term results, we overlook the nature's own way of dealing with invaders: bunch up, grow strong, squeeze out the undesirables. Algae? Dense healthy plants with with limited resources and the stronger species dominates the landscape. No magic and, for many in retrospect, the new common sense.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

"I imagine uber clean conditions must be met? If so, what kind of routine?? I imagine the commitment level is very high."

yes, at high light levels, mis-steps are exaggerated, you get green water in a flash if you have any spike in ammonia levels. or string algae immediately if CO2 levels are low. This is more of an experimental tank - its actually my farm/holding tank, while I aquascape the others. I don't think its a particular good approach although the plants grow well.


"And on a side note. Take an award winning tank like Burr's. Inert substrate and EI dosing (yeah, oversimplified a bit!). Do you think his tank, or tanks like his, can benefit from your method???"

I think it depends on the plant mix. Rotala rotundifolia (& variants) run on lean regimes very well, but other plants may not. So unless you limit it to growing just those species. On the same note, EI folks should avoid plants that need N limitation to grow truly red, as those species don't look particularly nice in EI tanks. (ADA tanks likes to choose these). Over time folks gravitate towards what grows well in their tanks and if you observe which plants are grown a lot more in this forum vs an asian/ADA focused forum - then you see the differences more clearly. One should choose a regime/plant mix that fit their aquascaping objectives. 

I would not recommend the inert substrate route to anyone. Except perhaps for shops that have a lot of inflow/outflow of plants where is daily uprooting for sales. Not that folks can't make it work, but it just takes a lot more tuning and adjustment, with less room for error in calibrations on so many aspects. In some sense, Joe's journals highlight the troubles of trying to dial in ferts when relying more purely on water column management alone, and the effort and acumen necessary to create good results. I could run my tank with EI ranges if I wanted to (which will become Barr-style setup, except that I lose the reds on plants that require N limitation to be red), but the opposite is not true as Joe says above. So the range of dosing error that I can survive is actually much larger if you think about it. 

The invention of ADA soil turned average aquarists into somewhat competent plant growers even when they had very little knowledge about dosing chemistry as it creates tanks that are very forgiving. This has allowed countries where aquascaping is relatively recent (recent in terms of aquascaping history) to quickly leap frog ahead - by allowing folks to focus more on aquascaping & design rather than spend time refining methods to grow plants. Rather than spend money on par meters and nitrate test kits, they spend money on hardscape. I know AGA competition and IAPLC competition first prize winners that have little notion of what a ppm is - much less test for any of the NPK levels. Many these folks end up forming the bulk of the international aquascaping competition winners. Do they grow plants better than folks on this thread ? Not necessarily so. In quite a few cases where I see the competition tanks in person, plant health is actually lacking. 

Following this train of thought, I think a good number of folks will be better off choosing an easier method, easier plant selection and spending more time on hardscape design and aquascaping in general rather than trying to grow/manage the widest variety of plants possible to the best possible outcome. If you can already grow 90% of commercially available aquarium plants well (and I think that everyone in this thread can), you should be spending more time on aquascaping and design instead of refining your growing methods further. I think that this will actually create more impressive, and more enjoyable tanks. You get more bang for your efforts basically by investing more time in hardscape skills rather than marginal gains in plant growing skill.

Over the years, I decreased my forum participation here a lot, because I realize it isn't leading me anywhere in terms of improving my tanks. Sure, my technical skill in growing plants improved, but beyond a certain extent, no one cares. (rather the crowd that does is the minority) Overall tank impression and hardscape work matters a lot more in terms of aquascaping - and the latter is what I want to focus on because there is a lot more art involved.


----------



## houseofcards

Lots of great information and also shows very clearly how ones approach to a planted tank/aquascape is rooted in culture, desire and lifestyle. Theres a lot of bandwidth on how to go about things.

I completely agree with the ADA soil comment noted by @Xiaozhuang I always called it the "The Substrate for Dummies" because it really does turn almost anyone into possessing a wet green thumb without worrying about too much else. If many of the ADA Gallery tanks are up for around one year they can get by without much N in the water column. I remember when I first used AS, I didn't dose anything but K and micros for 6 months and the lushness and health in those 6 months was unbeatable. 

The forum though has a wide variety of planted tank hobbyists so the majority just want to grow plants without algae and probably aren't even aware of the fine-tuning and growth differences in many plants under optimal conditions. Many also simply don't want to spend the money on getting AS so the inert substrate with good dosing certainly puts them in the game at very reasonable cost.

If Aquascaping contests are too the far right and the Walstad method is to the far left I would think most here fall somewhere in between as the former really isn't concerned with aesthetics while the later is all that. There are very few here in the U.S. anyway that will take their tanks to the level of entering IAPLC and do well. I think there are only around 15-25 entries per year from U.S. compared to around 600-700 for Japan. Even other Asian/European countries with far smaller populations have more entries than U.S.


----------



## Edward

Greggz said:


> Dennis I think something being lost in this discussion is the PAR values you mentioned. 150 to over 200 PAR at the substrate is something not many of us here are familiar with.


I’ve been using 250 Watt Metal Halide HQI 10K lights since 2004.


Greggz said:


> I imagine uber clean conditions must be met? If so, what kind of routine?? I imagine the commitment level is very high.


Self-regulated Ramshorn snail gang can do that. 










Greggz said:


> And I am guessing very few if any fish? Do tanks like yours ever had much of a fish load?


 It is part of the balance. 

Plant health is more important than plant growth to keep algae away. Also, the lower nitrate levels have been continuously supplemented with NH4 addition by the snails crunching on weak parts of plants before algae can get to it. This helps the plants with nutrients and also having very clean leaf surface to easily take nutrients and absorb light. 


burr740 said:


> No one has ever been banned for that. The problem is one side of the argument usually comes in guns blazing telling people all the ways what they are doing is wrong.


Don’t you remember the annihilation going on for years by organized groups of EI warriors? It took a decade to cool down the ongoing onslaught of non-EI methods. 


burr740 said:


> It is much better to show examples demonstrating success with a particular method(s) like Dennis has done here. That's how you get folks to listen.


 Agreed.


----------



## madcrafted

Excellent points, @houseofcards. I was always an inert guy myself until I started keeping caridina species shrimp. I had a hard time getting good growth with low levels of nitrates. I was using seachem ferts at first along with a GH booster and tap water. My first post here was about seachem ferts being too lean, matter of fact. Admittedly, I wasn't dosing as heavy as I probably should have on phosphorus, so that may have been my limiting factor. I kept nitrates around 5 ppm for a couple months even. Nothing but issues and I had GDA too, as well as every other kind minus stagghorn and BGA. 

I think finding that "balance" everyone speaks of isn't as easy as some make it seem. Some of the more seasoned aquarists may overlook certain aspects of how they are achieving great results when explaining their techniques to those of us who are less experienced. ADA Soil most likely is the key to success for many folks that aren't heavy handed with nutrients as houseofcards mentioned. I don't know for sure because I haven't used it. If I ever decide to step away from "diarama" style and shrimp tanks and try a tank full of stems, I'll most likely try some Amazonia. Most of the stuff I grow is glued to stones and driftwood, with the exception of a few rooted carpeting plants and a few stems sparsely planted about. Low dosing the water column doesn't fly here, or at least it hasn't for me.

I have tried the FSS and controsoil and have seen decent results in a "no tech" tank as I stated earlier. This is not really surprising to me, though. 

Having said all that, it's refreshing to see a different technique with such excellent results. I love the diversity in tanks and methods here at TPT... it just goes to show that there is no one right way to do things, or as the old saying around here goes: "there's more than one way to skin a cat". (I'm more of a dog person) lol


----------



## Deanna

If nitrogen is being dosed at a rate that causes consistent levels of NO3 in the range of 20-30 ppm, how can anyone consider an option to choose a lean dosing regimen for other nutrients? Add high light, and no supporting doses of other nutrients, and you get an algae farm. Do any lean-dosers have a recommendation to solve that problem?


----------



## Greggz

Well this truly is an interesting discussion, and I find it fascinating hearing from those using different techniques.

I am still fairly new to the hobby, and have never used an active substrate. Started with inert two years ago, so that is my only experience. 

I have a question about active substrates and tank longevity. I have seen some here go that route, have really great initial success, lush growth and color, then eventually crash and burn (SeanW a little while back). Is that typical? And how does one manage changes to the substrate over a long period of time?

Like I've said before, some of those substrates scare me. And I'm only half joking. With RO water and inert substrate, I feel like I am more in control, but maybe I'm wrong???


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> If nitrogen is being dosed at a rate that causes consistent levels of NO3 in the range of 20-30 ppm, how can anyone consider an option to choose a lean dosing regimen for other nutrients? Add high light, and no supporting doses of other nutrients, and you get an algae farm. Do any lean-dosers have a recommendation to solve that problem?


Well, such situation would cause alarm to go off.
If it was happening because of overdosing N and the overall condition was great then stop dosing N until normal level of 10 ppm comes back. However, if the aquarium is already in trouble then water change and readjusting nutrients are needed.

If it was happening because of having too many fish while not dosing any N then water changes are needed to keep NO3 normal. 

Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants?


----------



## burr740

I think Sean W's mistake was loading brand new AS up with a ton of Osmocote Plus. That's not an exaggeration, he literally used a ton of the stuff.

But Im not so sure its a "substrate for dummies" because you see folks have as many issues using AS as anything else.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Well, such situation would cause alarm to go off.
> If it was happening because of overdosing N and the overall condition was great then stop dosing N until normal level of 10 ppm comes back. However, if the aquarium is already in trouble then water change and readjusting nutrients are needed.
> 
> If it was happening because of having too many fish while not dosing any N then water changes are needed to keep NO3 normal.
> 
> Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants?


You hit the nail right on the head, from my perspective. I don't dose any form of nitrogen (my N dosing couldn't be leaner), but my fish keep doing their own dosing behind my back. If we want lots of fish (too many by some standards) we cannot have lean dosing with high light. There are just too many organics, unless we change water almost continuously. I can only see EI as an option. Even with the best substrate possible, you can't fight the organics in the water column.

My fish are extremely healthy - bright colors, very active, live for years and no disease in many years (due to UVS IMO). I have perhaps 10 pond snails. They would be multiplying like mad if there was uneaten food left over.

So, it seems to me, if you want a Japanese garden in your aquarium, with high light and lean dosing, you need to minimize your fish. It's a balancing act between high light and fish load.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> … If we want lots of fish (too many by some standards) we cannot have lean dosing with high light.


 Why not? Keep waste under control, it is there because of the choice of fish anyway, and dose normal (lean) levels of nutrients for the plants.


Deanna said:


> There are just too many organics, unless we change water almost continuously.


 Of course we cannot keep an elephant in the garage, something’s got to give.


Deanna said:


> I can only see EI as an option.


 I don’t see what the connection is. Dumping more pollution on top of waste?


Deanna said:


> So, it seems to me, if you want a Japanese garden in your aquarium, with high light and lean dosing, you need to minimize your fish. It's a balancing act between high light and fish load.


 I don’t think you need to minimize, just use common sense, back to the elephant. 

Allow me one more time: 
Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants? Anybody has an answer?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

burr740 said:


> I think Sean W's mistake was loading brand new AS up with a ton of Osmocote Plus. That's not an exaggeration, he literally used a ton of the stuff.
> 
> But Im not so sure its a "substrate for dummies" because you see folks have as many issues using AS as anything else.


Did not realize it was loaded with Osmocote, not so good.
Again with AS people don't follow the WC routine in the beginning.
Then wonder why the NH3 levels melt the plants.



Edward said:


> Allow me one more time:
> Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants? Anybody has an answer?


Usually the fish are way overfed in most tanks.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Why not? Keep waste under control, it is there because of the choice of fish anyway, and dose normal (lean) levels of nutrients for the plants. Of course we cannot keep an elephant in the garage, something’s got to give. I don’t see what the connection is. Dumping more pollution on top of waste? I don’t think you need to minimize, just use common sense, back to the elephant.
> 
> Allow me one more time:
> Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants? Anybody has an answer?


Waste is under control on the assumption that cleaning the filter once / wk and 60% w/c (plus various catfish and Amano's) is the most we want to do.

You're right about the elephant, but the elephant has priority and it is very healthy. So, to keep a lushly-planted aquascape as the LOWER priority, we must dose-up to meet the waste pile left by the elephant. If we don't dump more pollution (nutrients other than NO3) on top of the waste (NO3), the plants won't out-compete algae (back to Liebig's law).

No: I don't have an answer to whether or not overfed plants are unhealthy. Judging by my tank, they are not, but I do have nagging concerns about interactions/interference among the 'stuff' we dump in the water. I don't know how to get at optimal levels and don't believe it is possible without very expansive studies and each tank has it's very own 'butterfly effect' that probably defies analysis.

You know my uncontrollable 20-30 ppm level of nitrates from organics, my high light and CO2 in the 35-40 ppm area. What would you dose concerning the other ferts/minerals in such a setup? I'd be willing to try, but we'd have to approach each variable or group of variables gradually. I should also say that I don't follow pure EI, other than the concept Liebig's law. My actual dosing is designed around targets set at non-limiting (hopefully) levels. I'd rather fly above the clouds than above the tree tops.


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Allow me one more time:
> Overfed animals are usually not as healthy, what if the same applies to plants? Anybody has an answer?


As usual I can only speak to my personal experience.

In my tank, overfed plants are far healthier than underfed. No question about it. But again, that's in my tank. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Deanna

houseofcards said:


> Lots of great information and also shows very clearly how ones approach to a planted tank/aquascape is rooted in culture, desire and lifestyle. Theres a lot of bandwidth on how to go about things.
> 
> I completely agree with the ADA soil comment noted by @Xiaozhuang I always called it the "The Substrate for Dummies" because it really does turn almost anyone into possessing a wet green thumb without worrying about too much else. If many of the ADA Gallery tanks are up for around one year they can get by without much N in the water column. I remember when I first used AS, I didn't dose anything but K and micros for 6 months and the lushness and health in those 6 months was unbeatable.
> 
> The forum though has a wide variety of planted tank hobbyists so the majority just want to grow plants without algae and probably aren't even aware of the fine-tuning and growth differences in many plants under optimal conditions. Many also simply don't want to spend the money on getting AS so the inert substrate with good dosing certainly puts them in the game at very reasonable cost.
> 
> If Aquascaping contests are too the far right and the Walstad method is to the far left I would think most here fall somewhere in between as the former really isn't concerned with aesthetics while the later is all that. There are very few here in the U.S. anyway that will take their tanks to the level of entering IAPLC and do well. I think there are only around 15-25 entries per year from U.S. compared to around 600-700 for Japan. Even other Asian/European countries with far smaller populations have more entries than U.S.


Couldn't agree more on the aesthetics issues. As I've watched some the judgments at the contests, there is a sameness to the expectations that doesn't appeal to me. Some cultures are all about the art aspect to gardening, I don't see that in the US. I don't believe that it is ever a good idea to declare what "beauty" is (in the eye of the beholder ...and all that). So, I think that this forum is an excellent platform to help those that struggle to achieve beauty in their own eyes. I also benefit occasionally from others experiences here.


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Why not? Keep waste under control, it is there because of the choice of fish anyway, and dose normal (lean) levels of nutrients for the plants.


Who said that lean dosing is "normal"??

Plenty of people are quite successful EI dosing, which is what I assume you are referring to.

In my experience, I've seen more people improve their tanks by going from lean to rich dosing, than going from rich to lean. Of course, I am sure there are interesting examples of both, but I have seen it be successful enough times to know it is worth exploring for many.

Why can't both be valid? If two tanks beautifully presented are using polar opposite methods, does that mean that only one is valid and the other is a myth? Not in my book. I find them all interesting and worth learning about. Finding which works in YOUR tank to meet YOUR goals is the key.


----------



## houseofcards

burr740 said:


> ...
> But Im not so sure its a "substrate for dummies" because you see folks have as many issues using AS as anything else.


Well I should have added you can't look at it funny, it's very unforgiving if disturbed. >


----------



## OVT

Obviously, our individual oppinions reflect our personalities and mine leans much closer to analytical then artistic, always trying to trace an effect back to the cause and looking outside of the hobby for similarities. Comparing starvation to obesity at their extremes brings a moral undertone to the conversation, a conversation I'd rather push outside of TPT.

Are fat plants happy plants? They are happier then dead plants, would be my guess. But when we take the survival out of the equasion, we collectively start searching for "healtier" alternatives, subconsciously in hopes of prolonging the survival. Why are we advocating a balanced diet for ourselves, our kids, and our pets? Why do we declare war on obesity? Why do we look for organic, pesticide free, free range, non-GMO foods?

Why the same approach is not applicable to plants?

Once we look outside of individual health, we turn to our environment because we see a direct correlation. The plants might be fat and happy in that GA lake until a higher level life form starts dumping nutrients left and right. The plants do not win that war, algae takes over and the higher level life form starts passing laws to clean up the mess it started in the first place. The elephant might be fat and happy ,but I am not sharing his garage (and I am moving out of the neighborhood).

When it comes to overstocked tanks, we'd better be ready to take our own medicine. We are not in a position to advocate cleanliness to others when our own house is a mess. We make a choice, we pay the price. No news here.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Waste is under control on the assumption that cleaning the filter once / wk and 60% w/c (plus various catfish and Amano's) is the most we want to do.
> 
> You're right about the elephant, but the elephant has priority and it is very healthy. So, to keep a lushly-planted aquascape as the LOWER priority, we must dose-up to meet the waste pile left by the elephant. If we don't dump more pollution (nutrients other than NO3) on top of the waste (NO3), the plants won't out-compete algae (back to Liebig's law).


 Out-compete algae? How, algae grow where plants cannot due to low nutrients, it is impossible to starve algae.

You mentioned Liebig Law? I keep posting about this Flaw-Law for some time and it is still alive? Why? It has been proven to be wrong. 

The study is using two essential entities to prove that the Liebig’s Law doesn’t apply to aquatic plants; light and CO2. This is what the research paper says;

_“Even in modern textbooks, you may still see the assertion that only one resource may limit plant growth at a time. This has also been known as the Liebig’s Law… For terrestrial plants, this has been known to be wrong for several decades. Within the aquatic plant science, concurrent limitation of more than one resource has been an accepted concept for at least twenty years. “

“… the stimulation of growth when both light and CO2 are increased was larger than the additive contribution from each individual parameter… An additive relationship would suggest 6.0% per day but the growth rate from combining light and CO2 was 9.2% per day.”

“…resource limitation is not as simple as Liebig suggested. Many resources are able to substitute for each other or at least reduce the symptoms of limitation. “_

http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/PlantedAquaria_2001_2_22.pdf 

Back to your aquarium, when you change 60% water a week, you can forget about the waste because we still don’t know if what the NO3 test kits say is actually bioavailable, especially under very high light. So I would dose complete fertilizer, including N. The small amount plants need will not cause other problems. 



Deanna said:


> My actual dosing is designed around targets set at non-limiting (hopefully) levels. I'd rather fly above the clouds than above the tree tops.


 You need to choose, plant farming or aquascaping.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Where is Marcel when you need him? >


----------



## Edward

Greggz said:


> In my tank, overfed plants are far healthier than underfed.


 I see, so there are only fat people and starved people. 


Greggz said:


> Who said that lean dosing is "normal"?? Plenty of people are quite successful EI dosing, which is what I assume you are referring to.


 Who said that? Me, ADA, maybe Dennis and many more, just as any other dosing levels is normal to other people. Should one side opinion be censored?



Greggz said:


> In my experience, I've seen more people improve their tanks by going from lean to rich dosing, than going from rich to lean. Of course, I am sure there are interesting examples of both, but I have seen it be successful enough times to know it is worth exploring for many.
> Why can't both be valid? If two tanks beautifully presented are using polar opposite methods, does that mean that only one is valid and the other is a myth? Not in my book. I find them all interesting and worth learning about. Finding which works in YOUR tank to meet YOUR goals is the key.


 Agreed.



Maryland Guppy said:


> Where is Marcel when you need him? >


 Why? He can’t keep Wallichii alive.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Out-compete algae? How, algae grow where plants cannot due to low nutrients, it is impossible to starve algae.
> 
> You mentioned Liebig Law? I keep posting about this Flaw-Law for some time and it is still alive? Why? It has been proven to be wrong.
> 
> The study is using two essential entities to prove that the Liebig’s Law doesn’t apply to aquatic plants; light and CO2. This is what the research paper says;
> 
> _“Even in modern textbooks, you may still see the assertion that only one resource may limit plant growth at a time. This has also been known as the Liebig’s Law… For terrestrial plants, this has been known to be wrong for several decades. Within the aquatic plant science, concurrent limitation of more than one resource has been an accepted concept for at least twenty years. “
> 
> “… the stimulation of growth when both light and CO2 are increased was larger than the additive contribution from each individual parameter… An additive relationship would suggest 6.0% per day but the growth rate from combining light and CO2 was 9.2% per day.”
> 
> “…resource limitation is not as simple as Liebig suggested. Many resources are able to substitute for each other or at least reduce the symptoms of limitation. “_
> 
> http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/PlantedAquaria_2001_2_22.pdf
> 
> Back to your aquarium, when you change 60% water a week, you can forget about the waste because we still don’t know if what the NO3 test kits say is actually bioavailable, especially under very high light. So I would dose complete fertilizer, including N. The small amount plants need will not cause other problems.
> 
> You need to choose, plant farming or aquascaping.


Apparently, we believe in different science sources. Let's not get into a my-paper-against-your-paper contest.

I never said I could starve algae. I know that can't be done. Out-compete is not a phrase that means destroy the competitor. It means to do better. Gets back to the healthy plants mean unhealthy algae, which I thought you also believed in.

Please explain the NO3 viability issue vis-a-vis the test kit issue.

Regarding dosing: what dosing regimen, specifically, e.g.; x ppm PO4 x times weekly, for 21 net gals would you recommend?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Edward said:


> Why? He can’t keep Wallichii alive.


Just had to throw poo on the wall and see if it would stick.
His name came up at a meeting the other day, I won't repeat the comments.>


----------



## OVT

Xiaozhuang said:


> I would not recommend the inert substrate route to anyone. Except perhaps for shops that have a lot of inflow/outflow of plants where is daily uprooting for sales. Not that folks can't make it work, but it just takes a lot more tuning and adjustment, with less room for error in calibrations on so many aspects. In some sense, Joe's journals highlight the troubles of trying to dial in ferts when relying more purely on water column


I disagree because different people have different goals. While some focus on aquascaping, or growing plants, or home decoration, others just want some slice of water to fall asleep in front of. 

I salivate over tanks on Dennise's webiste. I have some idea of what it takes. But what about the newcomers? They read up on the majic of AS or dirt and expect that tank in their living room in 2 weeks. They crash and burn and leave the hobby. For some of us, these tanks set the bar and push us forward. But very few of us make it a vocation.

My oldest remaining tank, some 15+ years and counting. No rimless low iron glass here nor active substrate. Generations of cories and guppies. I enjoy this tank. I slave on others. Just took this picture, no cleaning, trimming, color adjustment - it is what it is. No pretenses.


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Where is Marcel when you need him? >


Yeah MG, just like with Marcel, Edward is taking what could be a very productive discussion, and one I was personally finding very interesting, and turning it into another one that crashes and burns. 

It's predictable and a shame. Here we go again. I'm checking out on this one.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I don't check out on any of them unless they get really bad.

Marcel has done some very good experimentation with documented results.
Got p'd off and ditched us all.

I don't like the drama but respect the surveys, study and information.

I'm trying to be very open minded most of the time.
It is truly difficult to sift through the BS and truth.

I poke at many things just to raise the roost.
Never sure at how to absorb it all though.

Being the mystery that it is and all of our tanks being different one may never know!


----------



## OVT

Deanna said:


> [
> I don't dose any form of nitrogen (my N dosing couldn't be leaner), but my fish keep doing their own dosing behind my back. If we want lots of fish (too many by some standards) we cannot have lean dosing with high light. There are just too many organics, unless we change water almost continuously. I can only see EI as an option. Even with the best substrate possible, you can't fight the organics in the water column.


You like fish and I respect that.

If your primary concern is with N levels due to fish waste then I see multiple options besides EI and constant water changes. What were your results with increasing plant mass instead?

I mean, it is your vodka but I would use mine as intended before I pour it into a fish tank.


----------



## Jeff5614

Greggz said:


> Yeah MG, just like with Marcel, Edward is taking what could be a very productive discussion, and one I was personally finding very interesting, and turning it into another one that crashes and burns.
> 
> It's predictable and a shame. Here we go again. I'm checking out on this one.


I'm not seeing that, just differing opinions. Let me encourage you to stick around. We see successful tanks with ADA dosing and successful tanks with EI dosing and then we see tanks that do poorly with one or the other and when switched to the other scheme do well. It would be good if this thread could help us sort some of this out and your contributions to the thread are valuable, just as everyone's have been.


----------



## Deanna

OVT said:


> You like fish and I respect that.
> 
> If your primary concern is with N levels due to fish waste then I see multiple options besides EI and constant water changes. What were your results with increasing plant mass instead?
> 
> I mean, it is your vodka but I would use mine as intended before I pour it into a fish tank.


Yes, N is all coming from the fish. Plant mass is at the max I want, right now. I'm still waiting for a few to fully grow in following a tear-down to replace substrate (another reason I don't like active substrates). I don't see an opening for additional plant mass to put a dent in the nitrates. Any other ideas to reduce NO3 are welcome.

It's a commercially packaged methanol product, so my Stoli won't be wasted.


----------



## burr740

My advice to beginners trying to make sense of it all is to listen to the folks who arent afraid to say what they do and show the results. You'll notice the ones who really know what they are talking about rarely spend time bashing another method.

So often in threads like this the ones who are most vocal about what is "bad" rarely offer up a successful alternative. They cannot articulate why their method is better, or even what their method is specifically, much less show you the results. 

Reminds me of politicians who spend all their time bashing the opposition rather than focus on their own positive aspects. That's usually because there arent many. 

"Here's what I do and these are the results -" Trust those folks.


----------



## houseofcards

Ah the scientist vs the hobbyist. It's a forum tale as old as time. 



burr740 said:


> ..
> "Here's what I do and these are the results -" Trust those folks.


That's exactly why the conversation with @Xiaozhuang was very fruitful and compelling. Why is it so many of the the "scientists/chemists" that chime in with usually an opposing view don't have anything to share of their own. This is a hobbyist forum. Information is great, but it needs to be demonstrated within the confines of a fish tank with all things being considering, not in the vacuum of a "laboratory". To substitute for the home aquarium they usually attach studies, etc from farming, hatcheries, etc. to make a point.


----------



## OVT

Deanna said:


> Yes, N is all coming from the fish. Plant mass is at the max I want, right now. I'm still waiting for a few to fully grow in following a tear-down to replace substrate (another reason I don't like active substrates). I don't see an opening for additional plant mass to put a dent in the nitrates. Any other ideas to reduce NO3 are welcome.


I know very little about your tank and that leaves me with a "standard recipe" to fall back on, which is plants -> bacteria -> chemical.
My list of plants in order of appetite is riparian -> floating -> submerged. As an aside, my by far favorite floater to consume KNO3 is water hyacinth which I used extensively in my high light tanks with no room for other plants.

If there is no room for any of those in all the usual places like the tank, planted HOB, or sump, then bacteria is next on my list of consumers. The info on your substrate swap is of particular interest as I would expect the bacterial colonies to take a hit on substrate and on hardscape.

Assuming that filter(s) is maxed out on bio media, then using binding media would be my last, and the least preferred, option. Something along the lines of https://www.apifishcare.com/product.php?id=547#.WucKFTZlA1I.

My personal guiding principal is that KNO3 is food and food rarely goes to waste in nature. If that is true, then finding desirable consumer(s) is the way to go.

Here is my "high tech", jungle tank under 6 x t5 with AS turning to mud (notice water hyacinth in the back corners):










yet another, front and back, with 50/50 substrate:



















And, lastly, my own "elephant in a garage" high light, innert substrate, no co2 tank:


----------



## Greggz

Jeff5614 said:


> I'm not seeing that, just differing opinions. Let me encourage you to stick around. We see successful tanks with ADA dosing and successful tanks with EI dosing and then we see tanks that do poorly with one or the other and when switched to the other scheme do well. It would be good if this thread could help us sort some of this out and your contributions to the thread are valuable, just as everyone's have been.


Hey Jeff I appreciate that.

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit. I too am very interested in hearing about different methodologies that produce successful results. When someone like Dennis documents his success, it gets my attention, no question about that.

But when someone starts referring to dosing ferts with fish in the tank as dumping pollution into waste, and questioning peoples common sense, well it can devolve quickly into a shouting match, and IMO the hobby does not benefit. 

Anyway, sorry if I got a bit out of line. I am enjoying the discussion, and hopefully it continues in a productive fashion. I think there is much to be learned and shared.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> My advice to beginners trying to make sense of it all is to listen to the folks who arent afraid to say what they do and show the results. You'll notice the ones who really know what they are talking about rarely spend time bashing another method.
> 
> So often in threads like this the ones who are most vocal about what is "bad" rarely offer up a successful alternative. They cannot articulate why their method is better, or even what their method is specifically, much less show you the results.
> 
> Reminds me of politicians who spend all their time bashing the opposition rather than focus on their own positive aspects. That's usually because there arent many.
> 
> "Here's what I do and these are the results -" Trust those folks.


Well put Joe.

Much better articulation than my comments. Especially the part about folks who bash other methods.

Personally I try to add a caveat to almost all of my conclusions.......it's only based on what I have experienced in my own tank, and here it is. May or may not help you, and your mileage may vary. 

And heck, let's face it, half the time I've come to a new conclusion before long........ Just look at my P dosing roller coaster! It's been all over the map!:grin2:


----------



## Deanna

OVT said:


> I know very little about your tank and that leaves me with a "standard recipe" to fall back on, which is plants -> bacteria -> chemical.
> My list of plants in order of appetite is riparian -> floating -> submerged. As an aside, my by far favorite floater to consume KNO3 is water hyacinth which I used extensively in my high light tanks with no room for other plants.
> 
> If there is no room for any of those in all the usual places like the tank, planted HOB, or sump, then bacteria is next on my list of consumers. The info on your substrate swap is of particular interest as I would expect the bacterial colonies to take a hit on substrate and on hardscape.
> 
> Assuming that filter(s) is maxed out on bio media, then using binding media would be my last, and the least preferred, option. Something along the lines of https://www.apifishcare.com/product.php?id=547#.WucKFTZlA1I.
> 
> My personal guiding principal is that KNO3 is food and food rarely goes to waste in nature. If that is true, then finding desirable consumer(s) is the way to go.
> 
> And, lastly, my own "elephant in a garage" high light, innert substrate, no co2 tank:


Thanks for the depth of response. That's my list as well which brings me, as a last resort, to the point of methanol. My thinking, based upon reading, is that I can quickly bring NO3 down with the methanol and, possibly, control it easier on a short-term basis. However, keep in mind that I don't believe that I have a problem. I'm perfectly good with NO3 at 20-30 ppm. All my comments about nitrates are about two, unrelated, issues:

1) That lush plants, under high light, in an animal farm (high fish load) producing high organics, is not likely to work with lean dosing.

2) As an experiment (to see if lean dosing and brighter reds in my RA is at all possible), I want to temporarily be able to crash nitrates into the 3-5 ppm area. 

I don't think that BB will help in any way to reduce NO3. After all, they are the thing that efficiently create the [not harmful] NO3.

PS: I would choose your "elephant in a garage" tank. To my tastes, the other tanks are too confining/overcrowded by plants for my zoo tastes. Mine has more plant mass than your "elephant in a garage" tank, but much less that your other tanks.


----------



## houseofcards

Edward said:


> I’ve been using 250 Watt Metal Halide HQI 10K lights since 2004.


It's not a matter of whether you can use a 250 in practical terms, it's a matter of how high the light is set whether the light would be unlimited or limited in what it can grow and in combination of husbandry and plant mass/health how pristine it keeps. ADA has used 250 for their larger tanks as long as I can remember. 

Do you have a picture of one of your tanks under the 250 MH that we can see?


----------



## OVT

Greggz said:


> But when someone starts referring to dosing ferts with fish in the tank as dumping pollution into waste, and questioning peoples common sense, well it can devolve quickly into a shouting match, and IMO the hobby does not benefit.
> 
> Anyway, sorry if I got a bit out of line. I am enjoying the discussion, and hopefully it continues in a productive fashion. I think there is much to be learned and shared.


A co-worker recently told me "attack the problem, not the person" when a professional discussion got a bit heated. That advise got stuck in my head.

Similarly, a comment from my MA Master to "leave your attitude at the door".


----------



## Edward

PPS-Pro Aquatic plant fertilizer Photography
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...pro-aquatic-plant-fertilizer-photography.html


----------



## houseofcards

Are those under the MH 250? FTS?


----------



## Edward

houseofcards said:


> Are those under the MH 250? FTS?


They come from number of aquariums (13) with PAR 60, PAR 75, PAR 110, PAR 400 and Pellia having sunlight.
Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Light Calculator


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> It's a commercially packaged methanol product, so my Stoli won't be wasted.


 You know there is no methanol in Stoli, almost none to be precise. Stoli is water with 40% ethanol that makes people healthy. But methanol makes people blind and dead.


Deanna said:


> Please explain the NO3 viability issue vis-a-vis the test kit issue.
> Regarding dosing: what dosing regimen, specifically, e.g.; x ppm PO4 x times weekly, for 21 net gals would you recommend?


Hi,
Maybe this can help you with your extra nitrates first.
I have tried this on three aquariums, 50 gallon, 90 gallon and 125 gallon for six months. I have added larger canister filters filled with, in flowing order, one inch filtration foam and lava rock, the common barbeque red lava rock sold by garden centers and Home Depot. It must be at least one inch in size. 

You know how it works. On surface, aerobic bacteria converts NH4 to NO2 to NO3. This is how you are getting so much NO3. Fish waste N is only NH4. 

Though, what is different about the lava rock is its porosity. It is partially porous, allowing NO3 slowly seep through while not having enough O2. It is the perfect condition for anaerobic bacteria which converts NO3 to N2 gas. You will see continuous stream of tiny gas formation coming out of the filter outlet. There is your NO3 leaving the aquarium as N2 gas. 

I have tested this, more N I dosed more it removed leaving too little to plants. It didn’t matter what form I used, same with NH4SO4, urea, CaNO3 or KNO3. On the 125 gallon aquarium, plants needed 1.75 ppm NO3 a day and the lava rock filter removed additional 4 ppm NO3 a day. I didn’t go any further. 

If it works then you can dose inorganic N of your choice to the plants.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> You know there is no methanol in Stoli, almost none to be precise. Stoli is water with 40% ethanol that makes people healthy. But methanol makes people blind and dead.
> 
> Hi,
> Maybe this can help you with your extra nitrates first.
> I have tried this on three aquariums, 50 gallon, 90 gallon and 125 gallon for six months. I have added larger canister filters filled with, in flowing order, one inch filtration foam and lava rock, the common barbeque red lava rock sold by garden centers and Home Depot. It must be at least one inch in size.
> 
> You know how it works. On surface, aerobic bacteria converts NH4 to NO2 to NO3. This is how you are getting so much NO3. Fish waste N is only NH4.
> 
> Though, what is different about the lava rock is its porosity. It is partially porous, allowing NO3 slowly seep through while not having enough O2. It is the perfect condition for anaerobic bacteria which converts NO3 to N2 gas. You will see continuous stream of tiny gas formation coming out of the filter outlet. There is your NO3 leaving the aquarium as N2 gas.
> 
> I have tested this, more N I dosed more it removed leaving too little to plants. It didn’t matter what form I used, same with NH4SO4, urea, CaNO3 or KNO3. On the 125 gallon aquarium, plants needed 1.75 ppm NO3 a day and the lava rock filter removed additional 4 ppm NO3 a day. I didn’t go any further.
> 
> If it works then you can dose inorganic N of your choice to the plants.


Thanks, Edward.

Yes; I know about the Stoli, but it does have some methanol in it, just less than others. Anyway, I'm not going to be using vodka. Was just joking back with @OVT's joke.

I was thinking about an anaerobic bacteria filter, as well. What I was going to do was to make a tiny filter with just a couple hundred ml of Matrix or Siporax in it and then run flow at 1-2 ml / hr (yes: per HOUR). I've read that this can be extremely effective in reducing NO3. Would still have the main canister running for aerobic BB. Have you ever tried that approach?

However, with my wc today (it's Monday ...right?), I added a bag of 3x recommended Purigen quantity to see if I can pull the organics down with just that. If it doesn't - and I'm doubtful - I will try anaerobic before I go to methanol.

If I can achieve control over my NO3 level, even down to zero, I will try using it as the flywheel/limiter in a PPS regimen test.


----------



## OVT

Team effort. I like that. Should do more of. More productive then squabbling.


----------



## Phil Edwards

Deanna said:


> Who REALLY believes the ratios matter? Besides, measurements of 1 ppm are as likely to be near zero as they are to be 2 ppm.


I do. My analysis of aquatic plant tissue resulted in a 10:1 to 15:1 N ratio.


----------



## Deanna

Phil Edwards said:


> I do. My analysis of aquatic plant tissue resulted in a 10:1 to 15:1 N ratio.


As you may have read further, I clarified my position on this. I agree, based upon data such as yours, that plants do have some fixed ratio of nutrient CONSUMPTION (not sure that it necessarily matches tissue analysis studies - the infamous "Streetlight Effect" in science). Where I take issue is that I don't believe that DOSING ratios have any importance. So long as the concentration (non-limiting) of nutrients in the water column is high enough to provide, ideally, every part of a leaf with access to it's own individual nutrient consumption levels, there is no need to worry about ratios. This includes luxury uptake aspects.


----------



## houseofcards

Edward said:


> They come from number of aquariums (13) with PAR 60, PAR 75, PAR 110, PAR 400 and Pellia having sunlight.
> Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Light Calculator


So just so understand what I'm seeing here (and they are nice pictures). Are these all from your tanks or are these submissions from people using PPS PRO? Also most are macro or individual plant shots. What I wanted to see was FTS of tanks with the MH 250 for example and what if any it's limitations (stock, plant mass ,etc.) were. 

Not trying to be argumentative, because I never once said anything negative about PPS, but by the same token I have countless pics of similar shots using EI without even testing, just knowing I dose in excess. The tanks are pristine and even the rocks and other static objects don't have algae under good light. The fish are perfectly healthy long-term.

On your website you state "PPS-Pro system is easy to use and is the least expensive system in comparison to any other fertilizer. It is designed especially for aquascapers who want a system that is performing well, doesn’t need much testing and tweaking and also works with all lights and substrates, no water changes and large water changes. Entirely 100% planted aquariums with reasonable fish load."

What kind of tanks are the no water change tanks using PPS-Pro?


----------



## Edward

houseofcards said:


> So just so understand what I'm seeing here (and they are nice pictures). Are these all from your tanks or are these submissions from people using PPS PRO?


 My aquariums.



houseofcards said:


> Also most are macro or individual plant shots. What I wanted to see was FTS of tanks with the MH 250 for example and what if any it's limitations (stock, plant mass ,etc.) were.


 Limitations, I don’t know, not as intense as sunlight?

There are 63 plant pictures, should be plenty. 

PAR 400, FTS









PAR 400, FTS









PAR 400









PAR 400 with passive CO2 reactor









Here you can see 2 fixtures 250 Watt MH HQI reflections on the bubbles









PAR 400 with passive CO2 reactor









and the rest I don’t remember


----------



## Xiaozhuang

On a side note folks should really stop using the term "unlimited growth rates" because of EI because firstly, EI is still limiting (read barr's notes on this), and if its not nutrients being the limiting factor then light/CO2 usually is. The more accurate way to describe EI is that it gives a lot of buffer in terms of plant growth requirements, whereas if you do a lean dosing system like I do with low nitrogen, one has a smaller margin of error. So again, folks should say that their tanks do better with faster growth rates than slower growth rates or that their tanks do better with more buffer. (which is the intrinsic reason for EI - to have a large enough buffer for stable growth)

On anaerobic media usage - I think Bio-home media works well in that fashion, but is costly; never tried the lava rock method myself yet.

I think that on one hand, EI's biggest contribution to the hobby is that it makes people aware that aquarium plants require a certain set of nutrients to survive and it can be done through regular dosing. I'm not crediting it with being the first or anything, but because it is the most widely written about system (at least in English circles), many folks find out about nutrients and aquariums through reading about it. The downside is that far too many folks are fixated on it when diagnosing issues. oH I have a yellow leaf ! must be some nutrient issue - when in reality, tons of issues are not actually nutrient related; could be CO2, water parameters, and most commonly - some form of human error in maintaining stability or pruning etc. "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail"... 

Similarly, the obsession with the nutrient angle often leads to wrong analysis. oh I dosed less today, and the algae went away. or I dosed more today, and the algae went away. Question is, would algae have gone away with no changes to the regime anyway as it often does when growth stabilizes? The problem with many hobbyists tanks is that they are run in a manner that is not particularly stable, add in the biases of self-reporting and a bias towards their favourite system of doing something, hobbyists are terribly unreliable as far as data collection go. One of the most popular questions in the low tech forums; can I grow (insert short ground cover) in my low tech tank ? Averagely, I think that 5% of people do succeed while 95% of folks fail, but you can be sure that it is those 5% will be the ones who post "sure you can", and have a nice tank pic to show off. The better ones may have a methodology to explain how they arrived at that point, but in many cases, its sheer luck - and if they can't explain their method to success, then the ones following their advice will fall under the general statistics of 95% failure rate.

I'm not commenting on anyone specific on this thread with regards to above (as it is I still haven't read through the whole thread or seen most of everyone's tanks) - just stating general observations of such groups in general. Question is; how to avoid such statistical pitfalls ? 

I think folks that do take the effort the document their methodology fully and over a long time period should be commended. Burr and Barr are the two that I know of. These are useful to learn from if you can replicate similar conditions and equipment. Unless your water is terrible, its really not all that different, so I do think that this is a reasonably good method. Having a lot of spare time, and being very consistent yourself about recording results and testing both upper and lower ranges of everything also works... but many hobbyists prefer to stay in one comfort zone and usually do not have that much resources to test everything. 

Collection of photos done in a certain style really doesn't say much. Successes are over-reported compared to failures. But folks will never escape the need to ask for help in solving their issues, so a better statistical count is for example, in the 100 folks that have X problem, how many of them run system1, and how many run system2. My own count is when folks message me for help that have X problem run system1 and how many run system2. Because I am quite well known, even folks with very well run, competition grade tanks come to me with their problems, so I get the hidden count of issues that even perfect looking tanks face. The other good method is checking out a large number of tanks (run in different styles) in person; this works if you do commercial work, or are privileged enough to travel around to see folks and their tanks. 

I came to realize that fast tank has fast tank problems while slow growing tanks have slow tank issues, and both algae issues and plant growth issues are more closely tied to non-nutrient issues than nutrient levels (unless the guy is totally off in his dosing approach). I see the same number of problems from either EI or leaner systems among aquarists; they just take different forms. This was both some what surprising, but also disappointing ( in earlier years, I thought of EI somewhat as a silver bullet). The majority of plants (99%) can be grown well in both fast and slow systems within a large range of fert levels. In that sense, plants and planted tanks are extremely forgiving in terms of nutrient levels if the other aspects are taken cared of well. On that angle, fert problems are the easiest problems to solve because changing fert levels is an easy action. Getting folks to prune or do cleaning consistently ? Much harder... Getting folks to think seriously about CO2 and gaseous exchange? Even harder... especially if it entails changing their favorite piece of equipment or spend effort to change their plumbing setup.

WIth that angle, almost every tank/method has to been "seen" or analyzed holistically, rather than just represented by its current water column dosing system. This makes learning much more troublesome... as the answers gain complexity. 

The advantage of the ADA system is that it comes as a whole; there are prescribed lights, filters, substrate... even tank dimensions are standardized. Lean dosing is only 1 part of it, and for folks that want examples of lean dosed tanks that do well over long term... the countless ADA setups across the globe (but rarer in the US) is a good statistic. I find that the system has areas of weakness and am no fan of it myself, but I find as a system it is standardized enough that there is so widespread successful application of it that it gave rise to much of the international aquascaping competition sphere. So in that sense, its hard to argue about its effectiveness with regards to producing a generally decent planted tank.

The downside of EI as methodology is that besides the commonly know nutrient levels and water change schedule, nothing else is standardized. There is a lot more uniformity among ADA tank outcomes, and a lot more randomness in EI tanks. This doesn't mean the later is an inferior method - it just means that it is harder to comment on such tanks or their problems without asking a lot of details as setups vary a lot. And add in the inconsistency of human efforts.... I think for most folks, one can gain a lot more by focusing on the non-nutrient angles of planted tank keeping, or at least asking more questions in that direction.


----------



## Deanna

@Xiaozhuang, don't want to quote all of the above, but addressing your good comments.

I think that what you're saying, regarding our/any forums' approach is, first; there is little that we can do to infer causes when virtually every solution offered to problems is based in anecdotal evidence and, second, by implication; perhaps a thread that attempts to create a problem solving flow chart, e.g.; starting with a list that begins with light, CO2 and maintenance and drives down from there, might help more to flush out problems than simply offering the ad hoc solutions we all do based upon our knowledge/experience. There do seem to be plentiful guides on setting things up, but few, if any, comprehensive solution check-lists/processes (nutrient deficiencies being the only one that comes to mind). Of course, all of the above is Mom, apple pie and the view from 40,000 feet. Now, how can a forum organize such an approach as you seem to be implying is needed (and I agree)?


----------



## Immortal1

Xiaozhuang said:


> "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail"...


Over the last 3 years I have learned a lot regarding the interaction between plant health and the various available nutrients. But I have a VERY large collection of bent nails. 
My goal moving forward is not learning how to straighten the nails, but realizing I don't need the hammer.

Your web site is full of very useful, straight forward advice. And it is greatly appreciated, at least by me. I have made minor changes, based on your suggestions / observations to how I deliver my CO2 and I believe that has made improvements to the tank and plant health. Certain types of algae (GDA, GSA) continue to be my main issue, but from careful observations I believe the problems are lessening. 

Your comments and perspectives on this site, and this thread are of great value.


----------



## Greggz

Xiaozhuang said:


> And add in the inconsistency of human efforts.... I think for most folks, one can gain a lot more by focusing on the non-nutrient angles of planted tank keeping, or at least asking more questions in that direction.


Dennis I really enjoyed the whole post.

If I could focus on one thing, it would be the comment above.

Playing whack a mole with ferts rarely works.

I've often thought that getting the other things right, like CO2, lighting duration and PAR, flow, gas exchange, tank maintenance (filter cleaning, water changes, vacuuming, trimming, pruning, controlling plant mass, etc) all are more important than ferts. 

This is a tough concept for many. The thing most don't see is that the most successful tanks have one thing in common......they work harder at it. More attention to detail. It's not luck.

Once you get the other things right, you have a much wider range of fert dosing that will be successful. 

It took me awhile to grasp that. 

I look at it this way. You need to have the engine running before you can fine tune it. A lot has to be going right before fine tuning dosing will have meaningful results.

As always, just based on my personal experience.


----------



## MCFC

So what is the ideal phosphate level? 

Haha I'm just joking around. In honesty, this thread has been a big eye opener. I was pretty convinced EI was "the best", but Dennis' pics have put some serious doubt into that assumption. I now have a desire to try and set up a "lean" tank with the same plants as my EI tank and see what happens .


----------



## Greggz

MCFC said:


> So what is the ideal phosphate level?
> 
> Haha I'm just joking around. In honesty, this thread has been a big eye opener. I was pretty convinced EI was "the best", but Dennis' pics have put some serious doubt into that assumption. I now have a desire to try and set up a "lean" tank with the same plants as my EI tank and see what happens .


Do it!!

Have no idea of how it might work, but I would love to follow along.


----------



## burr740

MCFC said:


> So what is the ideal phosphate level?


Enough for the plants but not so much that it interferes with the uptake and/or availability of other nutrients.


----------



## OVT

burr740 said:


> Enough for the plants but not so much that it interferes with the uptake and/or availability of other nutrients.


And keeps the plants from glowing in the dark.


----------



## houseofcards

MCFC said:


> .... I was pretty convinced EI was "the best", but Dennis' pics have put some serious doubt into that assumptions .


I don't think it's a matter of which is "best' it's a matter of what works for one's situation. EI works, period. There is no arguing that point. For most folks setting up a planted tank and want a healthy bunch of plants it's more than adequate for their needs.

Whether you choose a leaner dosed tank or use EI in excess the rest is a matter of your time and attention to the tank as well as good maintenance. Leaner tanks work as long as nothing runs out, but many people aren't that attentive. There are hobbyist and then there are 'hobbyists'.


----------



## OVT

houseofcards said:


> ... EI works, period. There is no arguing that point. For most folks setting up a planted tank and want a healthy bunch of plants it's more than adequate for their needs.


People learn and use EI, run a tank of their dreams, and do not come back to TPT with "algae", "deficiency", "no red" pleas for help. Let's assume everything is well in the land of EI.

But is EI the end of the road? Nothing worth improving? No room for EI Pro?

I don't think so.

This thread morphed into exchange of ideas, information, and euricas, spurred members to consider other methods and listen to althernatives without too much name calling. To me, that's progress and a road well worth traveling.

If we are all so happy with our tanks then why keep adding pages to this thread?


----------



## Edward

Xiaozhuang said:


> The advantage of the ADA system is that it comes as a whole; there are prescribed lights, filters, substrate... even tank dimensions are standardized.


 What’s your take on ADA not offering CO2/pH controllers?


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> What’s your take on ADA not offering CO2/pH controllers?


Probably because Aquasoil alters KH. 

If you're gonna run CO2 based on a PH value the KH needs to be rock solid.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Deanna said:


> @*Xiaozhuang*, don't want to quote all of the above, but addressing your good comments.
> 
> I think that what you're saying, regarding our/any forums' approach is, first; there is little that we can do to infer causes when virtually every solution offered to problems is based in anecdotal evidence and, second, by implication; perhaps a thread that attempts to create a problem solving flow chart, e.g.; starting with a list that begins with light, CO2 and maintenance and drives down from there, might help more to flush out problems than simply offering the ad hoc solutions we all do based upon our knowledge/experience. There do seem to be plentiful guides on setting things up, but few, if any, comprehensive solution check-lists/processes (nutrient deficiencies being the only one that comes to mind). Of course, all of the above is Mom, apple pie and the view from 40,000 feet. Now, how can a forum organize such an approach as you seem to be implying is needed (and I agree)?


Hmm forum participation is declining - that's the main issue, whereas I see a significant crowd in youtube and facebook. I think those plateforms are worse, but more convenient. I think that both have their limitations... I think we can change the overall culture in the forum through what the most active participants do or enforce (ie. folks in this thread). If you guys continually push to ask those that ask for help to declare their method of injecting/managing CO2, over time it may become the norm for folks to give more information on the state of their tanks. If you guys emphasize CO2 more than nutrients - attention will also move in that direction. I see this happening in facebook groups - things that are said enough become repeated, and those of us in positions to influence should make use of opportunities to change people's attention to what is important. Some things that we may take for granted; For example, in this forum, most folks know what a ppm is and can quote their dosing numbers in ppm. In many areas in asia - this does not exist; helping those folks solve issues is even tougher, even more ground work to do. On the side, I've also been building a website where I can cover more complicated issues such as analyzing growth problems or CO2 injection methodology. [hope to get it translated into more languages as well] We should be optimistic overall, because the hobby has progressed far more in recent years (globally) than in years past - the effect is diluted if you only gauge it by participation in this forum because it is a declining plateform, and many of the areas that see the most growth do not speak much english. (china, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey etc). 



houseofcards said:


> I don't think it's a matter of which is "best' it's a matter of what works for one's situation. EI works, period. There is no arguing that point. For most folks setting up a planted tank and want a healthy bunch of plants it's more than adequate for their needs.
> 
> Whether you choose a leaner dosed tank or use EI in excess the rest is a matter of your time and attention to the tank as well as good maintenance. Leaner tanks work as long as nothing runs out, but many people aren't that attentive. There are hobbyist and then there are 'hobbyists'.


There can be other objectives beside plants health. The two main reasons I dose lean is 
1. slow down plant growth. This is a real concern once you have tanks where the plant sizes need to stay within a small range to match the hardscape. Especially so for "photographic" or diorama style tanks where the lines have to line up for the camera angle. If you do not control growth rates you end up either wasting a lot of time on pruning/replanting, or over-pruning leading to deteriorating health. Plus, cheap asian farms means generally the prices of plants are not worth the effort selling, except for the rarest of species. So really there is not much incentive for fast growth except at the initial fill-in period. Some of the competition folks here tune down CO2 after the initial period to slow growth rates - it works but is even more risky than say N limitation. Without going too much into depth, N limitation also keeps some larger plants small enough to match hardscape, and for some species, also give more compact growth. 

2. Get redder plants for pictures. This is a real thing for quite a few species. Even the red Eriocaulon, and blood vomit reacts that way where you get redder leaves overall with N limitation. You can compare mine with those in Barr's tank below. If you think about how much emphasis this hobby gives to coloration or aesthetics, I do think that this is a valid reason for doing the lean method.









In EI style tank - even with Barr's super red heavy lighting...









There are of course some downsides to lean dosing. Depending how severely it is done; plants can be significantly less robust. They might not be unhealthy enough to trigger algae attachment, but they will be much less resilient to parameter or transplant shock. So a shop that is selling aquatic plants should do a more robust dosing regime if they want their plants to have an easier time transitioning in the customer's tank. For new folks, the same argument can be used in favour of richer dosing methods; it makes plants more resilient to poor water parameter management & other tank instabilities.The downside of growth ironically is growth itself; I've seen more carpets die in the long run due to lack of trimming than a lack of growth. I've also seen newbies give up the hobby because they couldn't/didn't want to deal with an consistently over-crowded tank. 


On pH controllers - I think they are costly and unnecessary... To add on to Burr's point, not only substrates can buffer KH but other metabolic processes in the tank can change pH levels over time. Using the pH probe method requires troublesome additional layer of calibration and maintenance. The main reason not to use the probe however, is that I find the best way to tune CO2 is by directly observing plant growth and livestock reaction. If you think about it, these are the end targets of the system. If your livestock show signs of suffering, it matters not if your probe says that your have exactly 30ppm of CO2 - you need to find ways to tune it down or improve O2/gaseous exchange in the tank. If your plants are showing signs of poor CO2 - similarly, you have to tune your CO2 up, or improve flow/gaseous exchange, regardless if your probe says that you have 30ppm of CO2. Every planted tank comes fully equipped with life that can help you tune your CO2 levels to exactly where they need be; the balance between livestock respiration and plant growth needs. No mechanical device can substitute human observation. ( at least for now)


----------



## Greggz

Xiaozhuang said:


> I think we can change the overall culture in the forum through what the most active participants do or enforce (ie. folks in this thread). If you guys continually push to ask those that ask for help to declare their method of injecting/managing CO2, over time it may become the norm for folks to give more information on the state of their tanks. If you guys emphasize CO2 more than nutrients - attention will also move in that direction. I see this happening in facebook groups - things that are said enough become repeated, and those of us in positions to influence should make use of opportunities to change people's attention to what is important. Some things that we may take for granted


Agreed. I am a relative newbie with little influence, but try to emphasize the above every chance I get. When I got started, I read and re read Burr's & Pikez's (Vin's) journals (many times over). It became apparent that dosing is only a small piece of the pie. Many heated arguments here about fert dosing methodology really have little impact for most, as there are loads of other things equally or more important. But who wants to talk about those things??

Managing CO2 is a great example. It takes effort to get it RIGHT. In my experience, the first moment I see something wonky, it's the first thing I check. Even a small variance can produce subtle negative effects in my tank. And then lighting, well change PAR by 30 either direction and watch things change. Interestingly, pretty much every successful planted tanker I follow can tell you their PAR value right off the top of their head. More importantly, they set up their lighting to produce that value.



Xiaozhuang said:


> On pH controllers - I think they are costly and unnecessary... To add on to Burr's point, not only substrates can buffer KH but other metabolic processes in the tank can change pH levels over time. Using the pH probe method requires troublesome additional layer of calibration and maintenance. The main reason not to use the probe however, is that I find the best way to tune CO2 is by directly observing plant growth and livestock reaction. If you think about it, these are the end targets of the system.


I have a different opinion here. In my tank, I have keep a large stock of mature long lived Rainbows. They take years to reach full maturity, and you can't just go out and buy another tank full. So for me, I rely on my pH controller as a fail safe. It gives me piece of mind, which is worth the cost, calibration, and maintenance. Might be true for others with expensive hard to replace stock.

I also use RO water dosed to reach KH 3, so my KH is always rock solid. I'm pretty amazed, I can see differences in the tank with just .1 change in pH drop. So for me, fine tuning is worth the effort.

Now take Pikez in his Going Dutch with Aqua Soil thread, and his wide pH variations made a pH controller pretty much unusable. So in the end, I guess....it depends.


----------



## houseofcards

Xiaozhuang said:


> ...There can be other objectives beside plants health. The two main reasons I dose lean is 1. slow down plant growth. This is a real concern once you have tanks where the plant sizes need to stay within a small range to match the hardscape. Especially so for "photographic" or diorama style tanks where the lines have to line up for the camera angle. If you do not control growth rates you end up either wasting a lot of time on pruning/replanting, or over-pruning leading to deteriorating health. Plus, cheap asian farms means generally the prices of plants are not worth the effort selling, except for the rarest of species. So really there is not much incentive for fast growth except at the initial fill-in period. Some of the competition folks here tune down CO2 after the initial period to slow growth rates - it works but is even more risky than say N limitation. Without going too much into depth, N limitation also keeps some larger plants small enough to match hardscape, and for some species, also give more compact growth...


I don't disagree with this, but again it's context. Are you speaking to me and a few other members in this thread or educating the forum? This type of reasoning and advantage would be more at home in more specific aquascaping/contest FB and/or forums like Aquascaping World. 

Here this would apply to maybe a handful of people. Although it's good information, almost no one here enters contests where they would be fine-tuning to that degree. When we start talking about camera angles and plant growth we are talking about an extreme dedication to one's tank which is necessary to have a chance at a contest. Remember there are only about 20 people from all of the United States that enter IAPLC. 

IMO the easier, excessive nature of EI wins out here since these subtleties are not in the sights of most members.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

houseofcards said:


> I don't disagree with this, but again it's context. Are you speaking to me and a few other members in this thread or educating the forum? This type of reasoning and advantage would be more at home in more specific aquascaping/contest FB and/or forums like Aquascaping World.
> 
> Here this would apply to maybe a handful of people. Although it's good information, almost no one here enters contests where they would be fine-tuning to that degree. When we start talking about camera angles and plant growth we are talking about an extreme dedication to one's tank which is necessary to have a chance at a contest. Remember there are only about 20 people from all of the United States that enter IAPLC.
> 
> IMO the easier, excessive nature of EI wins out here since these subtleties are not in the sights of most members.


Many come to TPT for advice and they are just starting out.
They want to grow nice healthy plants with an easy method.
I agree some form of EI dosing is a big win for the largest % of people.

There are still those that are dosing nothing and killing/replacing plants all the time.
Some are phish poo only.

There are many different levels of commitment and dedication in the hobby.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> I have a different opinion here. In my tank, I have keep a large stock of mature long lived Rainbows. They take years to reach full maturity, and you can't just go out and buy another tank full. So for me, I rely on my pH controller as a fail safe. It gives me piece of mind, which is worth the cost, calibration, and maintenance. Might be true for others with expensive hard to replace stock.
> 
> I also use RO water dosed to reach KH 3, so my KH is always rock solid. I'm pretty amazed, I can see differences in the tank with just .1 change in pH drop. So for me, fine tuning is worth the effort.
> 
> Now take Pikez in his Going Dutch with Aqua Soil thread, and his wide pH variations made a pH controller pretty much unusable. So in the end, I guess....it depends.


A PH controller works in your case because you have inert blasting sand substrate which does not alter KH. Plus the fact that you reconstitute RO water to a set value so you know its the same every week (in theory a person's tap water could change)

The reason why it was a problem in Vin's tank is he had Aquasoil, which lowers KH.

*Why is that significant?* Because the KH value will be higher the first couple of days of the week, after a water change, then drop as the week goes on as a result of the Aquasoil.

For example if it's 7 after the water change (with the addition of new water) a couple of days later it's gonna be lower, might be 5, and by the end of the week it might be 3 or 4. 

Look at what happens to co2 if you keep the same PH, but the KH changes










That's why PH controllers arent a good idea using Aquasoil, because co2 wont be the same all the time




Greggz said:


> Agreed. I am a relative newbie with little influence, but try to emphasize the above every chance I get. When I got started, I read and re read Burr's & Pikez's (Vin's) journals (many times over). It became apparent that dosing is only a small piece of the pie. Many heated arguments here about fert dosing methodology really have little impact for most, as there are loads of other things equally or more important. But who wants to talk about those things??
> 
> Managing CO2 is a great example. It takes effort to get it RIGHT. In my experience, the first moment I see something wonky, it's the first thing I check. Even a small variance can produce subtle negative effects in my tank. And then lighting, well change PAR by 30 either direction and watch things change. Interestingly, pretty much every successful planted tanker I follow can tell you their PAR value right off the top of their head. More importantly, they set up their lighting to produce that value.


You know I have several tanks all set up the same. Same substrate, same filters, reactors, same type of lights and similar levels, and the same fert routine.

I like to keep a few of the same plants in each one as indicators.

Ludwigia red is a pretty easy plant but it's somewhat of a drama queen, quick to scrunch it's little face up if its not happy for some reason. It's also quick to get right again. Other species I like to keep in different tanks are more sensitive like Pantanal and Rotalas. 

Then there's algae, a little bba on the substrate all of a sudden, gda on the glass...

If I only had one tank I'd be thinking ferts all the time. Like Dennis said, everything looks like a nail if all you have is a hammer.

If the same thing happens in every tank then it's probably fert related. But if it only happens in one tank then it's not the ferts. 

Maybe flow is reduced because the filter needs cleaning, or CO2 has changed for some other reason (damn drifting needle valve). Maybe bio-mass is out of control and its time for a good trim. Maybe all those dead leaves I should've got out days ago are finally taking their toll

I am constantly amazed at little issues that show up in one tank but not the others. Issues that are commonly blamed on ferts but are usually due to something else. 

More often than not - good trimming and maintenance, or a lack thereof


----------



## hbosman

Red and yellow in chart are reversed. ;-)


----------



## burr740

hbosman said:


> Red and yellow in chart are reversed. ;-)


Yeah a bunch of them are like that. I linked a different one to avoid any confusion. :red_mouth


----------



## madcrafted

burr740 said:


> Maybe flow is reduced because the filter needs cleaning, or CO2 has changed for some other reason (damn drifting needle valve). Maybe bio-mass is out of control and its time for a good trim. Maybe all those dead leaves I should've got out days ago are finally taking their toll
> 
> I am constantly amazed at little issues that show up in one tank but not the others. Issues that are commonly blamed on ferts but are usually due to something else.
> 
> More often than not - good trimming and maintenance, or a lack thereof


^This.. and jumping the gun on intense lighting. Many algae issues stem from this. I think a lot of people are under the assumption that they need crazy amounts of light to grow out a lush tank. This very well may be the case with certain species at certain points in their growth phase but I think this aspect is exaggerated a fair amount of time. Even those energy hogs need a little time to settle in. Being able to easily raise your T5 fixtures should be considered when setting up a tank. If running LEDs is your thing, having a dimmer of sorts helps tremendously, IME. I can rid my tank of a majority of algae by simply lowering the overall intensity of the light. It lets me scale everything down and allow plants time to catch up.


----------



## houseofcards

The 10 minute daily tidy goes a long way.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> A PH controller works in your case because you have inert blasting sand substrate which does not alter KH. Plus the fact that you reconstitute RO water to a set value so you know its the same every week (in theory a person's tap water could change)


Yeah, I am controlling my KH.

In my case, I'm on a well, and I would have seasonal changes. Drought, snow melt, who knows what else? KH could change from 20+ to as low as 9. That and high TDS from well and softener are what made me go that way.

So as to tap water changing, well that is not just in theory. And it's true of municipal water as well. Seasonal changes, water being derived from various sources, chemical treatments, etc. can all change pH values. I'm just saying don't assume it never changes. 

And one other thing to keep in mind is that tap water can have CO2 in it. So degas it before testing for pH. If you are just setting out a glass of water, keep in mind it can take two or three days to completely degas. It can also be recently treated with chems, and pH can drop once it stabilizes. I've seen both. 

Even though I tightly control mine, I still take a glass out right after a water change, then let it sit for about three days then test the pH. It's just in case something that wonky has happened, I want to be aware. So am I nuts? Well, yeah maybe a little. But I just like knowing.


----------



## Immortal1

Some of what Joe said gives me much more insite as to why most people using Aquasoil don't bother with a pH controller. A little surprised that the KH value changes that much with Aquasoil. Would honestly think that would be more of a hindrance than a bonus. On the other hand, if I was using Aquasoil and my tap water, I likely could grow a wider range of plants (Ero's) as my tank KH would be in a more favorable range (i.e. less than 8 dKH). So, in the case of Aquasoil tanks, I am assuming having a decent needle valve would be of more importance. Get the co2 set where your plants and fish are happy and leave it! It's a fixed amount of co2 going into the tank regardless of pH / KH levels.

And Gregg, yes you are nuts. But then again, so am I :grin2:
Guess I never realized when I started a planted tank that knowing / understanding MS Excel would be a requirement, LOL


----------



## Edward

Immortal1 said:


> So, in the case of Aquasoil tanks, I am assuming having a decent needle valve would be of more importance. Get the co2 set where your plants and fish are happy and leave it! It's a fixed amount of co2 going into the tank regardless of pH / KH levels.


 That’s exactly how I do it with inert and alkaline substrates. Set it and forget it. 


Immortal1 said:


> On the other hand, if I was using Aquasoil and my tap water, I likely could grow a wider range of plants (Ero's) as my tank KH would be in a more favorable range (i.e. less than 8 dKH).


 And ADA is selling Softenizers to remove GH KH even further, cation exchange resin. 

Softenizer | ADA - PRODUCT - WATER CONDITION & TERATMENT


----------



## Immortal1

Hmmm, that sounds like an interesting product @Edward - might have to look into it.


----------



## Edward

Immortal1 said:


> Hmmm, that sounds like an interesting product @Edward - might have to look into it.


I don’t recommend doing it this way. 
The ADA Softenizer sounds about right in theory lowering KH but it is extremely impractical method for several reasons. Before the invention of RO I was intensively involved with using cation and anion exchange resins with aquariums for fish breeding and plants. 

Everybody today knows what DI cartridge that comes with RO unit does. It is made of half cation and half anion exchange resins mixed together. It removes tiny amounts of RO product remaining ions. Once exhausted it is disposed. The ADA Softenizer is made of cation exchange resins. The product is so small and unprotected it will get clogged before the end of its life and it can do only so much. RO unit without DI is much easier and cheaper alternative today.


----------



## markf

burr740 said:


> Enough for the plants but not so much that it interferes with the uptake and/or availability of other nutrients.


So at what point would P interfere with other nutrient uptake? I recently tested mine at between 5 and 10ppm and was considering if this could be causing some problems with stunting in AR and L. repens, also gda issues.

Thanks for all the input on this thread,very informative.


----------



## burr740

markf said:


> So at what point would P interfere with other nutrient uptake? I recently tested mine at between 5 and 10ppm and was considering if this could be causing some problems with stunting in AR and L. repens, also gda issues.



That my friend is the million dollar question! 

Outside of a lab the only way to know is observe the plants and adjust accordingly.

Most nutrients have an antagonistic relationship with certain other nutrients. A few have a synergistic relationship.

The antagonism occurs in different ways depending on the compounds involved. 

Sometimes it happens in the water column when two compounds react to combine into another unavailable compound, such as FePO4, or cause each other to precipitate out of solution.

Some nutrients compete for uptake by the plants. Other nutrients can interfere with the transport mechanism for something else. This all happens inside the plant.

It's not important to know all the sciency details, only that the possibility exists.

For example if you're dosing .2 ppm of Fe every day and still seeing a Fe deficiency, then the problem isnt lack of Fe but something else. Either the Fe doesnt remain in an available state for very long or something is interfering with it's uptake

Here is a handy little chart showing which nutrients can affect other ones, and in what way - either by helping or hindering









QUOTE - _The Mulder’s Chart shows how elements interact. The dotted lines show which elements enhance each other. The solid lines show which elements antagonize each other. _

** also notice the arrows. The arrows point to the nutrient being affected. Sometimes it's only one affecting the other, sometimes it can be both

The source article here offers a pretty simple explanation in layman's terms jsut to give you a picture.

It's nothing to get all hypochondriac over. Keeping the general ratios and amounts that are commonly recommended in our hobby typically works.

But it's good to be aware that some of the issues we see that appear to be a deficiency in one thing, are often being caused by something else, aka an induced deficiency.

Just because nutrients like P or K are generally considered non-toxic to plants, that doesnt mean we can run up 100 ppm without it affecting something else

The most likely to affect other things in my experience is Ca, K, P, Mg and Fe. Most hobbyists arent playing around with their Zn levels.

So for example if you have 60 ppm Ca in your tap water, then higher levels of certain other things may be required. Or if you're dosing really high levels of P and seeing other deficiencies, then it might pay to raise micros or whatever, or just reduce P and see what happens.

* BTW having 5-10 ppm of PO4 in the water column as you mentioned shouldnt cause a problem for much of anything. Unless you're trying to skate by with very low micros or have some other unique circumstance


----------



## markf

burr740 said:


> That my friend is the million dollar question!
> 
> * BTW having 5-10 ppm of PO4 in the water column as you mentioned shouldnt cause a problem for much of anything. Unless you're trying to skate by with very low micros or have some other unique circumstance


Thanks for the help, just thought maybe high p was giving me problems. Cant get AR and Ludwigia going. Thinking maybe either calcium and/or CSM+b


----------



## cab395

Edward said:


> I don’t recommend doing it this way.
> The ADA Softenizer sounds about right in theory lowering KH but it is extremely impractical method for several reasons. Before the invention of RO I was intensively involved with using cation and anion exchange resins with aquariums for fish breeding and plants.
> 
> Everybody today knows what DI cartridge that comes with RO unit does. It is made of half cation and half anion exchange resins mixed together. It removes tiny amounts of RO product remaining ions. Once exhausted it is disposed. The ADA Softenizer is made of cation exchange resins. The product is so small and unprotected it will get clogged before the end of its life and it can do only so much. RO unit without DI is much easier and cheaper alternative today.


I use an RO/DI from my reef tank. Do you say RO without DI just to save on costs? I'd imagine what little the DI takes out would be trivial and isn't really needed if you don't already have a unit.


----------



## Edward

cab395 said:


> I use an RO/DI from my reef tank. Do you say RO without DI just to save on costs? I'd imagine what little the DI takes out would be trivial and isn't really needed if you don't already have a unit.


 RO membrane removes ~ 95 % which is more than enough for planted aquariums so adding DI to remove the rest does nothing except the additional cost. For me it is one less component to worry about.


----------



## markf

Edward said:


> RO membrane removes ~ 95 % which is more than enough for planted aquariums so adding DI to remove the rest does nothing except the additional cost. For me it is one less component to worry about.


What about when tap has high levels of chloramine? Is di needed to remove ammonia?


----------



## Edward

markf said:


> What about when tap has high levels of chloramine? Is di needed to remove ammonia?


 DI is not needed to remove ammonia, the RO membrane does that and the little that goes through is plant’s ideal food. 
Ref.: Reverse Osmosis Rejection Percentages ?[censored]Pure Water Products, LLC

More important is taking care of chlorine, post #4, 
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...ers/1276617-chlorine-test-recommendation.html


----------



## cl3537

cab395 said:


> I use an RO/DI from my reef tank. Do you say RO without DI just to save on costs? I'd imagine what little the DI takes out would be trivial and isn't really needed if you don't already have a unit.


Depends on the TDS of your water < 200 is not necessary but helpful to have DI so you know you are starting with <10ppm ( a clean slate).
>200ppm it may be necessary to have DI as RO may not take out enough it depends on the hardness of your water.


----------



## Oso Polar

It should be really bad RO unit to let 10 TDS pass through in 200 TDS water.
For example, I typically get 5 TDS output - source water is usually around 270. Today, just measured: source - TDS = 225, after RO TDS = 3.


----------



## cl3537

Oso Polar said:


> It should be really bad RO unit to let 10 TDS pass through in 200 TDS water.
> For example, I typically get 5 TDS output - source water is usually around 270. Today, just measured: source - TDS = 225, after RO TDS = 3.


270 source,RO only and you get 5 TDS.
Well if your TDS meter is accurate that is great.

What filters are you using?


----------



## Surf

> Who REALLY believes the ratios matter? Besides, measurements of 1 ppm are as likely to be near zero as they are to be 2 ppm.



A reading of 1ppm can be zero depending on the test kit. If your test kit requires visual color matching like the API phosphate test kit then yes a reading of 1 could easily be 0. higher accuracy would eliminate the problem. I own a hanna checker. A computer reads the color and calculates the result and displays a number with an accuracy of 0.01ppm or 0.1ppm (depending on the range of the model you select). At $50 it is 2 to 3 times more than the API test kit but there is no worries about correctly matching color with a chart.

https://hannainst.com/products/chec...er/phosphate.html#/filter:parameter:Phosphate


----------



## Oso Polar

cl3537 said:


> What filters are you using?


 1 Micron Depth Sediment Filter + 0.5 Micron Carbon Filter


----------



## cl3537

Oso Polar said:


> 1 Micron Depth Sediment Filter + 0.5 Micron Carbon Filter


The RO membrane is what matters most not the sediment filters.
I was asking what brand of filters you are using.

If you have a built in TDS meter they are notorious for false low readings just an FYI.


----------



## Oso Polar

Yeah, I know, but you've asked about filters... ;-)


AFAIR it is a Filmtec membrane, 150 GPD. It is already 4 years old.
Got it from Buckeye Hydro.


HM Digital TDS-3 meter with automatic temperature compensation.


I'm not sure why you are surprised, IMHO my results are pretty common. The worst rejection rate for RO membrane (according to its specifications) that I've ever seen was 95%, usually it is 98% or better. The colder the water and higher the water pressure - the better will be the real rejection rate.


----------

