# I can't find the balance between healthy plant growth and algae and it is driving me crazy.



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

Hello everyone, 



I have recently set up a new planted tank. I have been out of the hobby for several years but recently got the itch. I previously had a tank set up but had lots of algae issues and eventually gave up out of frustration. I feel like I am close to that again which is very discouraging. 



This time, I have a Fluval Spec V set up. I will list some more details below:


Tank: Fluval Spec V (all-in-one 5 gallon set up with built in filter compartment)
Light: Current USA Satellite Plus Pro
CO2: Pressurized (approx 1.5 pH drop, probably too much as my betta gets lethargic during CO2 hours)
Stock: Betta
Substrate: Aquasoil
Weekly maintenance: 50% WC, rinse filter media

Fertilizer: DIY solution (ppm per week below)
N: 15 P: 2 K: 20 Fe: 0.5 (as CSM-B) 

One of the benefits of the Current USA Satellite Plus Pro is its adjustability, however I just can't seem to find the balance with this thing. Either my plants are growing slowly and sparsely, or they become covered with hair/fuzz/thread type algae. I don't have any livestock that eats algae in the tank (amanos, etc), but I feel like I should be able to find this balance without having to rely on algae eating organisms. 

I need help. I'm begging for help. I don't really know what to do next. I have tried changing light intensity but as I stated earlier, can't find that balance. I think I need to be more patient and not keep changing things so much, but I don't know where to start. I feel that when I start my lights too low, the plants grow poorly making them weak, then when I ramp my light up, the plants are vulnerable and the algae attacks. 

I'm wondering if anyone has used this specific light on this specific tank perhaps? Would be really helpful to know what % you have the light on if so. Please help me! Thank you!


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

You said this setup is new, but how long are we talking here? Also it might be helpful to post a photo.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

The answer is fairly simple, it's just not fun: assuming your fertilizers and co2 are correct, and that your light is strong enough for your tank height and plants, your light should only be on long enough per day yo grow your plants and not algae. For a new tank, this could be a max of two hours a day for a few months.

Secondly, make sure you are actually doing your water changes and siphoning up detritus regularly.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

ElleDee said:


> You said this setup is new, but how long are we talking here? Also it might be helpful to post a photo.



It is very new. The tank has been set up since January, however I only started the plants/co2/fertilizer in June. So probably only a month or so with plants. Here are some photos:




































Ddrizzle said:


> The answer is fairly simple, it's just not fun: assuming your fertilizers and co2 are correct, and that your light is strong enough for your tank height and plants, your light should only be on long enough per day yo grow your plants and not algae. For a new tank, this could be a max of two hours a day for a few months.
> 
> Secondly, make sure you are actually doing your water changes and siphoning up detritus regularly.



I have not considered this. I have my light on for 6 hours per day as I have read that is the minimum for plant health. I have been leaving it at 6 hours but decreasing intensity to try to find the balance. I did not realize I could potentially try stronger light for more robust growth for only two hours per day. I guess I would do this mainly until I was able to increase plant mass and then slowly increase it? 



That brings up another thing I have thought about: how long should I wait between making changes? Should I change something then wait two weeks to see if there are effects? Is that too long/too quick? Thanks again for your help!


----------



## victorusaconte (Jun 20, 2020)

Check my pictures to confirm my tips

My tips:
1-dont let the airstone on during light period. While the plants are doing photosynthesis and acquiring CO2 from your system, they are already producing O2 for your tank. PLUS the airstone will make your CO2 evaporate and plants wont catch it.

2- lightning period of 6 hours for new tanks, 8 hours if required by plants and 12h in case of specific necessities of your tank. 

3- try having plants like the floating ones and those which get their nutrients from water the column, this tactic will make the algae fight with these plants for nutrients and won't grow up

4- snails, shrimps, loaches, catfish will take of it, only in certain quantities cause you dont want to level up the nitrites and overstock.

5- liquid fertilizers + strong light + long light period = algae

6- NEVER FIGHT YOUR TANK (choose the right plants, right light time and spectrum, right dosage of anything...) that will create harmony in your system

%PICTURES: 
First: Timer with airstone at night and Co2 + light at day.

Second: hygrophila (water nutrient catcher), snails, and duck weed (floating plant)


Third: anacharis (water nutrient catcher) and shrimps


Fourth: dojo loach and the airstone turned off during day time






























Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I think that you have 80-100 PAR at ~10", so I'd tend to want a short photoperiod initially, as @Ddrizzle mentioned.

The smaller the tank, the more sensitive it is to variation. This may or may not be the solution, but I would try the following:

Reduce the water change amount to maybe 10% twice a week until things stabilize, A 50% water change is going to give you a big CO2 variation once a week, which is ok when you have a good, stable plant mass. The Aquasoil is going to throw parameters off for a while, so you may have to adjust water changes to compensate. Again, the watchwords for parameters are: stable, stable, stable. Initially, you would also probably benefit from an Excel treatment to tamp the algae down until you have a month or two behind you. I'd do a half ml/gal right after each water change.

You are probably overdoing it with the CO2, as your Betta is telling you. It's more important to have stable CO2 than high CO2. A 1 point pH drop should be plenty and I'd run it 24/7.

Test for NO3, PO4, GH, KH and TDS if you can. Between your dosing and the substrate you may have balance issues that would need to be brought under control. The Aquasoil may eliminate the need for some dosing.

Good circulation and gas exchange are also important.


----------



## victorusaconte (Jun 20, 2020)

Deanna said:


> I think that you have 80-100 PAR at ~10", so I'd tend to want a short photoperiod initially, as @Ddrizzle mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In my quote i forgot to add the CO2 overdosing fact, i turn my co2 for 2 hours daily only and as u can in the pictures, im propagating and planta are going crazy lol, growing a lot

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Ok, one month in means that your algae issues are right on schedule! Don't get discouraged yet, because it's really, really normal to have algae problems at this point. Usually the diatoms/brown algae shows up first and then other forms have their moment in the sun. I found this video really helpful for giving me a framework to understand algae growth:






I have low tech Walstad-style tanks, but even though he's not talking about that system specifically, the bottom line is the same: get a mass of healthy plants growing, and your algae problems will resolve. 

Right now you are figuring out your nutrient/light/CO2 balance (which I can't really help you with specifically, but other people will), but there's another factor to keep in mind: your plants are all new and converting from emersed to submersed growth. Getting through this process can be *rough* because it is stressful and slows your plants down and can cause a lot more melting or unhealthy plant tissue and these things are great for algae. The sooner you have all submersed growth, the happier you will be. 

In the meantime, you might really consider getting a cleanup crew to help you out. Don't tie your hands behind your back because in theory you shouldn't need them, try to stack the deck in your favor!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Some valid advice above. However, hair/fuzz algae is typically too much Fe. Diatoms and green dust algae are the typical types you see go in phases of a new tank set up. 

At some point you might try backing csmb down to .3 per week or so. And personally Id go with 3 ppm PO4 per week instead of 2. Is the soil new too, as in June? If so do 5 ppm po4/week for the next month or so. Fresh soil sucks up tons of PO4

Your plants look OK to me, which is a good sign. Keep everything super clean, 70% water changes instead of 50 wouldnt be a bad idea either


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

To add personal experience instead of the light rule I mentioned above... I have the same light and tank height as you (almost) and I had the same issue you did until my tank filled out with about 50% of it being plant mass.

I was just telling people how I went four weeks without a water change in another thread because I know my tank well enough at this point. I didn't fertilize in the last two. By the end of the fourth week, I JUST started getting algae and performed a very large 70% water change. Due to the type of algae that popped up (a couple black beard) my best guess was a dirty tank (very high TDS, other measurements OK), not unhealthy plants (per past experience). Made sense.

At that same moment I also cut off about 50% of my fast growing plants out. Guess what? A week later I had green spot algae for the first time in months (black beard dissappearEd so I knew the tank water was clean enough). I attribute that to the loss of plant mass and the reduced allelopathy to keep the algae away. Nothing else changed.

High, healthy plant mass = no algae. You don't have this yet.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Your plants couldn’t care less if they get 10hr @60% or 6hr @100%. A photon is a photon. Light energy is accumulative. 

Slightly slower but still healthy growth IMHO is preferable, less times between pruning.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Do we actually know that? That's making a big assumption that all plants are able to take in photons and process them at the same rate. Right? We already know this is not the case for things like hard water minerals for hard vs soft water plants.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

burr740 said:


> Some valid advice above. However, hair/fuzz algae is typically too much Fe. Diatoms and green dust algae are the typical types you see go in phases of a new tank set up.
> 
> At some point you might try backing csmb down to .3 per week or so. And personally Id go with 3 ppm PO4 per week instead of 2. Is the soil new too, as in June? If so do 5 ppm po4/week for the next month or so. Fresh soil sucks up tons of PO4
> 
> Your plants look OK to me, which is a good sign. Keep everything super clean, 70% water changes instead of 50 wouldnt be a bad idea either



Thank you for your advice, Burr. I have read a lot of your posts over the years as you appear to have had a ton of success and I have always found it interesting that your troubleshooting typically involve nutrient titration. This seems to go against Tom Barr's EI theory at a superficial level but I think it probably doesn't truly because EI assumes high plant mass, which I do not have, correct? Regardless, I trust you as I've seen your success over the years so I will give this a try as well. My aquasoil was added probably around February, but I haven't started dosing ferts until last month. Would you try the Fe change first since my plants look healthy, or does too much P not usually cause algae issues? 






Ddrizzle said:


> High, healthy plant mass = no algae. You don't have this yet.



I have suspected this as being a large part of my problem, however what I can't figure out is how to get to the point of having high, healthy plant mass. I haven't ever considered going below a 6 hour photoperiod as you tend to see 6-10 hours quoted online, so maybe that will help... 2 hours at high intensity light or something. 



Since you have the same light as me with approximately the same height, I would be interested to know your settings. Are you running it at 100% in all White/R/G/B?





DaveKS said:


> Your plants couldn’t care less if they get 10hr @60% or 6hr @100%. A photon is a photon. Light energy is accumulative.
> 
> Slightly slower but still healthy growth IMHO is preferable, less times between pruning.



I see 6-10 hours cited frequently on this and other sites. How about 2 hours of high intensity light (~120-135 par), as suggested above? It's very interesting to me and I'd like to try that, unless others feel that would be starving my plants of light. 



Thanks for all the help!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

If you havent dosed ferts til recently the PO4 action is still going on. Personally, I'd raise that before doing anything else (fert-wise)


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

DaveKS said:


> Your plants couldn’t care less if they get 10hr @60% or 6hr @100%. A photon is a photon. Light energy is accumulative.


Personally I don't think that is true and certainly not for all plants. Plants requiring high-intensity light will not receive it no matter how long the lights are on. If that was the case there would be no reason to buy stronger lighting when you could just run your weaker lights longer (which would please most people.) When plants are shaded in our tanks or even outdoors some will die off even though they are receiving some light all day.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> Personally I don't think that is true and certainly not for all plants. Plants requiring high-intensity light will not receive it no matter how long the lights are on. If that was the case there would be no reason to buy stronger lighting when you could just run your weaker lights longer (which would please most people.) When plants are shaded in our tanks or even outdoors some will die off even though they are receiving some light all day.





DaveKS said:


> Your plants couldn’t care less if they get 10hr @60% or 6hr @100%. A photon is a photon. Light energy is accumulative.
> 
> Slightly slower but still healthy growth IMHO is preferable, less times between pruning.


Yeah, it depends on how much light your 100% is as well as the needs of your individual plants. 

Plants have a limit to how many photons they can use in a given time. They have a limited number of photoreceptors, and it takes time and resources for the plant to capture the energy from each photon, so past a certain point additional light is useless to the plant and can be harmful. (Excess light is less damaging for aquatic plants because the water is protective, but they still can't use it and spurs algae growth.) 

So, here's a ridiculous example: I have a plant that needs the energy of 100 photons per day and a light that I can make whatever intensity I want. If the plant can handle a maximum of 20 photons an hour, then you can run your light at 20 photons/hour for 5 hours, or 10 photons/hour for 10 hours and it won't make a difference, you get your 100 photons either way and the plant is good. But if you run the light at 50 photons/hour for 3 hours, even though the plant is being hit with 150 photons, it can only use 60 of them, so it's going to have a deficit, and possibly negative effects from the excess light. If you run the light 24/7 at 2 photons/hour, it's only going to get 48 photons a day and have a bigger deficit. 

Obviously actual plant light needs are much, much higher, but the principle is the same. The tricky part is we have no way of knowing what our plants precise needs are nor the exact amount of light they are getting. We have to triangulate with stuff like PAR values and information about the plants we have, but nothing beats looking your actual plants in your actual setup and seeing how they are responding.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

burr740 said:


> If you havent dosed ferts til recently the PO4 action is still going on. Personally, I'd raise that before doing anything else (fert-wise)


I guess I should try this then. The substrate is “UP Aquasoil,” a brand out of somewhere in Asia that I have come across. It is not ADA, it is a bit cheaper so I went with that. Not sure if it will have the same phos-lowering effects (I imagine all aquasoils would?), but it’s definitely worth a try.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

cab395 said:


> I guess I should try this then. The substrate is “UP Aquasoil,” a brand out of somewhere in Asia that I have come across. It is not ADA, it is a bit cheaper so I went with that. Not sure if it will have the same phos-lowering effects (I imagine all aquasoils would?), but it’s definitely worth a try.


Yeah all aquasoil types do that. Adding extra PO4 will really make a big difference during the first couple of months. Try an extra 5 ppm all at once after doing a water change, then the normal dose throughout the week


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

I've dealt with alage many times at this point. My most recent discovery is that I can put my light on 100% for an hour or two depending on how I feel for about 5-7 days and it will get rid of the algae while barely affecting the plants.

Some of the faster grows like rotala do slow down in that time, but there isn't another healthy option imo. Get rid of the algae while your plants grow, do big water changes to make sure it's not over fertilization. Now be careful here because if you dont have newer aquasoil and haven't fertilized, the problem could be lack of ferts. However, if you're plants look healthy and are growing this is likely not the issue.

To be clear, I've done 5 day blackouts and my tank was still fine. The algae straight up dissapeared but the faster growers shrunk a bit. The method above worked to get rid of algae while putting less of a dent in my plant growth.

As for dealing with dosing + aquasoil, I think the theory from reading walstad's book is that if your plants are rooted, you don't need to worry about the soil sucking up any type of good nutrient from the water column. The soil does its job to collect nutrients for the roots while the roots keep that area of the soil healthy. Plants like buce and anubias that don't root in the soil probably don't have the same nutrient requirements as they grow slower.

The ecology of this stuff is fascinating and I highly suggest picking up walsrad's book. If you take the time to read it you'll understand the entire tank on a deeper level and lots of questions just aren't issues anymore. 

Simply put, a natural environment just takes care of itself. You just need to take care of the inputs (food) and outputs (water change) because nature can't do that here. You need to get your plants to the point they can perform their role, especially if you're trying to speed the process up with ferts and co2.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Ah yes, the search for balance aka the never ending saga of what causes algae. ADA thinks water column ferts cause algae, while Tom Barr and many other influencers like Green Aqua think not. The search for truth continues...


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Yeah all aquasoil types do that. Adding extra PO4 will really make a big difference during the first couple of months. Try an extra 5 ppm all at once after doing a water change, then the normal dose throughout the week


+1.

I changed over to Landen soil, and during the first few months it sucked up PO4 like mad. 

Your pic of the algae is exactly what mine looked like if PO4 ran too low. I have seen the same with many other tanks as well.

I would not only add an extra dose, but also bump up your normal dosing. Instead of 15:2:20 try maybe 15:5:20 for a few weeks. I would also take a mid week reading to see where things are. I dosed PO4 at amounts that would make your head spin in the first few months, but whenever it bottomed out things got wonky. PO4 is nothing to be afraid of, and plants love it. In this initial phase don't be afraid of lathering it on. 

And remember, things don't change overnight, so whenever you make changes give it time to see the real effect. 

It would also be helpful to know the approximate PAR level at substrate. Both too much and too little can be an issue. 

Sounds like CO2 is good. I would make sure to create good surface agitation for aeration. Don't worry about off gassing, CO2 is cheap in the scheme of things. 

And remember CO2 and O2 are not mutually exclusive. You can have high levels of each. If you have good oxygen levels, CO2 will have less effect on your livestock, and keeping oxygen levels high is just good for the tank in general. 

Good luck and looking forward to seeing where this goes.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

I've got to disagree about the PO4 aspect personally. As I mentioned, if you have soil, th3 soil sucking it up is normal and natural. The roots will have access to it.

I actually made a mistake when I was starting out and trying EI where I thought I was supposed to MAINTAIN the levels throughout the day, not dump that much in each time.

So I ended up pouring monopotassium phosphate into my tank every day until it was around 2-3 ppm. It took a couple of months but eventually the soil was saturated.

However, I got algae, especially green spot and black beard algae like mad, and then some of my plants started stunting and the roots rotted on others.

This is all conjecture but I will defer to the point about letting soil play its role. Now if the soil runs out... yeah you'll definitely have problems.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> ...PO4 is nothing to be afraid of, and plants love it. In this initial phase don't be afraid of lathering it on.


It's definitely an interesting "debate" if you could even call it that. Don't get me wrong your "preaching to the choir" as you know I have plenty of macros including PO4 in the water column and don't have any issues.

And then there's ADA who's playbook is to provide all PO4 in the soil and non in the column. They do state in their literature that PO4 can cause algae. I've also started up plenty of ADA soil tanks and only dosed K and micros which is similar to their own ferts for the first 6 months or so and there was no algae issues. Maybe if the tank is driven hard enough the ferts in the soil aren't enough and ADA type tanks aren't driven as hard as yours and some others here. So it could be one size, one blanket statement won't work for all setups.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Maybe if the tank is driven hard enough the ferts in the soil aren't enough and ADA type tanks aren't driven as hard as yours and some others here. So it could be one size, one blanket statement won't work for all setups.


I think you summed it up well.

You won't see many weedy flowery stems in ADA tanks. Deny Pantanal column ferts and it will rebel....quickly. And many other stems as well.

So yes, I completely agree, much depends on the plants/goals of the tank.

And as you know, folks like Tom Barr dose full EI into aquasoil tanks. The idea is the best of both worlds, nutrient rich soil and rich water column as well. Burr is pretty much at EI levels as well in his Landen tanks.

Bump:


Ddrizzle said:


> I actually made a mistake when I was starting out and trying EI where I thought I was supposed to MAINTAIN the levels throughout the day, not dump that much in each time.
> 
> So I ended up pouring monopotassium phosphate into my tank every day until it was around 2-3 ppm. It took a couple of months but eventually the soil was saturated.


No one is suggesting raising the level to 2 or 3 ppm everyday. 

But even then, if you have BBA, stunting plants and rotting roots, likely other problems causing it. 

Did you get it solved? Pics?


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

It was a mix of an overly dirty tank and particularly too much potassium sulfate ruining the substrate. There was plenty of green spot algae.

De-conflating thoughts here - green spot algae is the the most obvious sign of too much phosphate from experience so far.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

I like this idea of increasing phosphate. I haven't considered the possibility of the soil absorbing it and pulling it out of the water column. Are there any effects of N or K that should make me adjust my dosing, or should the 15:5:20 regimen suggested provide enough N and K? Excited to try this...


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Ddrizzle said:


> It was a mix of an overly dirty tank


BBA almost always comes down to this, it loves a dirty tank. You won't find it in well maintained tanks regardless of dosing.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> BBA almost always comes down to this, it loves a dirty tank. You won't find it in well maintained tanks regardless of dosing.


This I am 100% sure of. And the more light you have the cleaner your tank has to be in way of plant uptake and/or water changes or other methods to remove waste.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Asteroid said:


> It's definitely an interesting "debate" if you could even call it that. Don't get me wrong your "preaching to the choir" as you know I have plenty of macros including PO4 in the water column and don't have any issues.
> 
> And then there's ADA who's playbook is to provide all PO4 in the soil and non in the column. They do state in their literature that PO4 can cause algae. I've also started up plenty of ADA soil tanks and only dosed K and micros which is similar to their own ferts for the first 6 months or so and there was no algae issues. Maybe if the tank is driven hard enough the ferts in the soil aren't enough and ADA type tanks aren't driven as hard as yours and some others here. So it could be one size, one blanket statement won't work for all setups.


I think most guidelines that ADA gives are specific to their way of running a tank. Not that you can't apply some of them to an inert gravel, full on EI tank, for example, but you have to know what you're doing with regards to a planted aquarium to a certain degree before you start mixing and matching methods.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

Just mixed up a new batch of 15:5:20, going to try this plus 0.3 of Fe per week to see where it gets me. Only have the lights on for two hours per day at 100% to see if that will make any difference as well. Trying all of this at once to hopefully get on the right track then will have to figure out if I can go back to increasing my photoperiod. 

By the way, per the manufacturers PAR data, should be about 135 par at the substrate, so pretty high light.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Jeff5614 said:


> I think most guidelines that ADA gives are specific to their way of running a tank. Not that you can't apply some of them to an inert gravel, full on EI tank, for example, but you have to know what you're doing with regards to a planted aquarium to a certain degree before you start mixing and matching methods.


Yep, I agree, I just find it interesting how torn the community (even professionals are on the P04 water column thing causing algae.) I think most here in the states run a hybrid system by using aquasoil and EI dosing the column. For me the only common denominator in all tanks is waste and the processing of it. If it's not processed quick enough the result is algae. Light is the proverbial gasoline on the fire.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Asteroid said:


> Jeff5614 said:
> 
> 
> > I think most guidelines that ADA gives are specific to their way of running a tank. Not that you can't apply some of them to an inert gravel, full on EI tank, for example, but you have to know what you're doing with regards to a planted aquarium to a certain degree before you start mixing and matching methods.
> ...


This combo of soil and EI is why I think walstad's book is so critical in understanding the ecology of a tank with soil. The chapters on nutrients and soil substrate was eye opening. She's obviously a bit biased against high tech but that doesn't take away from the science she shares.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

cab395 said:


> I like this idea of increasing phosphate. I haven't considered the possibility of the soil absorbing it and pulling it out of the water column. Are there any effects of N or K that should make me adjust my dosing, or should the 15:5:20 regimen suggested provide enough N and K? Excited to try this...


PO4 is the only one to get affected like this


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

cab395 said:


> Only have the lights on for two hours per day at 100% to see if that will make any difference as well. Trying all of this at once to hopefully get on the right track then will have to figure out if I can go back to increasing my photoperiod.
> 
> By the way, per the manufacturers PAR data, should be about 135 par at the substrate, so pretty high light.


With 135 PAR at the substrate you are stepping on the gas hard. Means you better have everything else dialed in and a good amount of healthy plant mass or it's an invitation to algae.

I would dial that down until things get established. 

IMO you would be far better off running the light at maybe 80-90 PAR for maybe six hours rather than two hours at full blast. I've not seen anyone document success at two hours of light. For your plants to be healthy and robust you need more.


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

There's a lot of good advice here. From personal experience you definitely want to take your foot off the gas pedal (the lights). Cut it back significantly, not in terms of total hours but % of intensity. Start much lower, then work your way up by increasing the lights very slowly giving it lots of time and patience. Also, increase the plant mass significantly, adding fast growing stem plants which will soak up the extra nutrients. But plant densely, this is an old cardinal rule in the planted tank hobby.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

i've done a two hr peak in the middle of a 5 hr light period, but I've never done two TOTAL hours. Dimming is fine as long as there's enough intensity for whatever your trying to grow. Running dim light all day for a plant needing high intensity light will not work.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I've successfully maintained healthy plants at a 3 hr photoperiod with ~110 PAR. I ran a 5-gal next to my 29-gal and used a Beamswork FSPEC on it. Tested it at 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours two weeks each, starting with 6 hours. The plants used were AR mini, Rotala Wallichii and DHG. Speed of growth varied, but overall health was comparable. This was with plentiful ambient light, which certainly is a factor.

I doubt that the OP is getting 135 PAR, uinless Current has dramatically increased their power but, usually with such product improvement, a company will create a new name for the product. My guess is that it is closer to 100 PAR, maybe less.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/1278305-current-satellite-plus-pro-18-quot%3B-par-readings.html


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Just restating that my go to for 100% algae removal is no light for 4-5 days, with big water changes each day.

I offered my other go to of 2 hours of light a be abuse it keeps the plants from degrading while also removing the alagw. For extreme cases I'd still go with the blackout though.

I have a current led pro light pushing about 70 par to the bottom at 100% measured with my par meter.

Where the plants may pause growth, the algae dies.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Ddrizzle said:


> Just restating that my go to for 100% algae removal is no light for 4-5 days, with big water changes each day.
> 
> I offered my other go to of 2 hours of light a be abuse it keeps the plants from degrading while also removing the alagw. For extreme cases I'd still go with the blackout though.
> 
> ...


Algae needs more than 2 hours of light to grow well. This is the reason that is given for the "Siesta" concept, although I was never able to firmly convince myself that Siesta's work in my tank (my photoperiods, though, have always been longer than 2 hours). Is it possible that your blackout isn't the cure but, simply the lack of a longer photoperiod with 2 hours of light? Unfortunately, the test I mentioned, above, did not include algae (none ever developed). Of course, an absence of light will eventually eliminate all plant life, including algae. I've read, elsewhere, that 4-hours seems to be the point where algae starts to benefit and this, if true, would presumably also be affected by intensity.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Ddrizzle said:


> Just restating that my go to for 100% algae removal is no light for 4-5 days, with big water changes each day.
> 
> I offered my other go to of 2 hours of light a be abuse it keeps the plants from degrading while also removing the alagw. For extreme cases I'd still go with the blackout though.


If you have a bad enough algae problem that you need a blackout or two hour photo period, then something is really off. Better to find the root cause of the problem. If you have not changed anything, algae will be right back when the lights are back on. 

Just saying that should be a method of last resort, and if you are at that point then you better be reassessing everything you are doing. If not you are just delaying the agony of going through it again.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Greggz said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> > Just restating that my go to for 100% algae removal is no light for 4-5 days, with big water changes each day.
> ...


Yes, I fixed it by cleaning the tank and letting plants grow. Last time, the tank was young, I didnt have enough plants and I had a bumch of thread algae. After the third day of the 2 hour rule, the threads dissapeared.

I don't know if I can state this in any other way (per my experience) at this point - 2 hour photo period has never damaged my plants. At worst, it will slow their growth which will pick back up later. In the meantime, algae dissapears.

It's not a last resort IMO. The last resort should be dosing with peroxide since you've failed to understand your tank's balance up until that point and just need to give yourself more time to figure it out before your tank is completely overtaken.


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

I find it interesting that high PO4 in reef tanks will always cause an algae farm yet people say the opposite in planted tanks. I have two tanks going right now with 2 different fert methods and the amount of interaction required of both is night and day.

ADA way - no N or P dosing but lots of nutrients in soil with low water column dosing
The rest way - heavy water column dosing with weekly resets required via water change

Both are high PAR and in fact the ADA way has ~30% more PAR

The tank that's not ADA way is always in a fine line between algae and no algae and in order to stay in the right side of the line it requires more work. Basically miss a water change and I'm screwed.

And yes the ADA way can grow stem plants no problem as evident by the stem heavy tanks they've shown off recently. Even Filipe Oliveira has said recently that unless you are into planted tanks for a living the ADA way is considerably more manageable when it comes to long term upkeep for a normal person who just likes to have a tank in their house.

Needless to say I am now switching all my tanks to the ADA way since I like having multiple tanks and keeping my sanity along with them. Started the PO4 stripping on that one with GFO as for some reason stripping that out of the tank has been a pain unlike nitrate which has just been huge water changes.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

I think the eventual problem with the ADA way is that the nutrients eventually run out. I do agree it's ridiculously easy though. The first 3-6 months of a tank on soil has crazy growth and its hard to get wrong except right in the beginning with light balance imo.

Enter column dosing, or hard mode.


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

Ddrizzle said:


> I think the eventual problem with the ADA way is that the nutrients eventually run out. I do agree it's ridiculously easy though. The first 3-6 months of a tank on soil has crazy growth and its hard to get wrong except right in the beginning with light balance imo.
> 
> Enter column dosing, or hard mode.


I think the whole running out of nutrients with the ADA way is overplayed as well. I mean ADA has you pack the crap out of the soil with nutrients from the get-go. There's no way that stuff is going to run out that quick and you are a recharge away with some tweezers and fert sticks anyway.

I've been watching the masterclass videos by Fukada, Sim, Chow, etc. and I found it interesting that they all seem to use the ADA way. Granted they all keep their scapes for about a year to year and half because of the competition aspect but I think most people do that anyway as well.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

Greggz said:


> With 135 PAR at the substrate you are stepping on the gas hard. Means you better have everything else dialed in and a good amount of healthy plant mass or it's an invitation to algae.
> 
> I would dial that down until things get established.
> 
> IMO you would be far better off running the light at maybe 80-90 PAR for maybe six hours rather than two hours at full blast. I've not seen anyone document success at two hours of light. For your plants to be healthy and robust you need more.



I see, I will try to figure out what setting gives my lights 80-90 PAR




Deanna said:


> I doubt that the OP is getting 135 PAR, uinless Current has dramatically increased their power but, usually with such product improvement, a company will create a new name for the product. My guess is that it is closer to 100 PAR, maybe less



My light is 8" from the substrate, and this is from Current USA's website. Are you saying this is inaccurate?











Ddrizzle said:


> I have a current led pro light pushing about 70 par to the bottom at 100% measured with my par meter.



What is your distance to the substrate? Is it about 18 inches? If so, that chart looks pretty accurate, if shallower, would be interested to know so I can know whether to adjust my lights. Thanks!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I have a similar concern about nutrient exhaustion with active substrates. I'd rather not have to change out my substrate every couple of years. Although it can be mostly "charged" by EI-type dosing for many nutrients, it will lose most nutrients if water column dosing is not high (but why would anyone dose EI with ADA?). In any case, it will run out of nitrogen. Nor would it be dramatically observable. Nutrients would start to vary gradually, probably unnoticed. For the same reason that I use RODI water, I use inert substrate: consistency of nutrient control.

I don't see it as more work (my tank doesn't seem to be on a fine line with algae) and I do miss water changes sometimes with no effect. It takes me about a half-hour / week to do everything I have to do to maintain my 29 gallon. In fact, I am about to start an experiment with increasing time gaps between w/c's to see how well things go, but I run nutrients much lower than EI.



cab395 said:


> My light is 8" from the substrate, and this is from Current USA's website. Are you saying this is inaccurate?!


Based upon, at least, those two links I provided: yes, I believe that Current's specs are overstated for real time use. There are different factors that impact these measurement and manufacturers are going to pick the best possible data sets.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Based upon, at least, those two links I provided: yes, I believe that Current's specs are overstated for real time use. There are different factors that impact these measurement and manufacturers are going to pick the best possible data sets.



Hmm, interesting. I wish I had PAR meter to test myself. The first link you posted cites 120 par at 9" about 1" away from mid-line, so it doesn't seem like a stretch that it would be 135 par at 8" directly below the fixture. Again, wish I could measure it myself!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

cab395 said:


> Hmm, interesting. I wish I had PAR meter to test myself. The first link you posted cites 120 par at 9" about 1" away from mid-line, so it doesn't seem like a stretch that it would be 135 par at 8" directly below the fixture. Again, wish I could measure it myself!


Depending upon where you live, you may be able to join a local aquarium club. They often have things, such as PAR meters, to loan to members. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is really only a matter of finding the right balance with the photoperiod. Lower intensity, up to a point, means that longer photoperiods will benefit plants. However, some plants do need PAR well above 100 to perform at their best.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Depending upon where you live, you may be able to join a local aquarium club. They often have things, such as PAR meters, to loan to members. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is really only a matter of finding the right balance with the photoperiod. Lower intensity, up to a point, means that longer photoperiods will benefit plants. However, some plants do need PAR well above 100 to perform at their best.



Oddly enough over the last two days of running 100% for 2 hours, and upping the phos dosing/lowering the Fe dosing, the top 1/2" or so of my rotala look super healthy and are turning red and without algae. The algae that was there previously is still there, but the plants have been pearling strong during those two hours and appear to be growing. Wondering if things are going to start to turn around. I also started dosing excel today. 



2 hours seems like such an unnaturally short photoperiod, but maybe it is worth giving it a try for a week or two to see what happens... can always increase incrementally at this new dosing regimen, I guess?


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

My light is about 4 inches to the top of the water, and then about 9 inches of water to the top of the substrate for that 65/70 par when the light is at 100%

As for the photo period, I'd argue that plants don't get sun shining straight down on them for 6 hours a day. It just depends on the environment surrounding the water and the angle of the sun.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

@Deanna Osmocote+ is my go-to for "recharging" soil, much less fertilizer in the water column and less of a risk of algae. Plus the ammoniacal nitrogen in Osmocote is like rocket fuel for plants. It's funny that you mention inert being more forgiving to lax maintenance, as I've found the opposite with aquasoils being more forgiving if you forget to fertilize or change water.

I had a lot of trouble keeping the substrate clean in my tanks that were running BDBS, though I will say it is very easy to plant in to. I still haven't tried inert gravel for growing plants, that's next on my to-do list. Do you have a favorite inert substrate?


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

There is a product made by aquaforest that I have been thinking about trying called AF Natural Substrate which they say it's basically a sponge for nutrients that you put a 1-2cm layer on the bottom of the glass, then your power sand and then your Amazonia or whatever other soil you like. The AF stuff is supposed to just soak up all the excess nutrients in the water and store it to keep your active soil going for a very long time.

Thinking theoretically you can supercharge your soil with nutrients and then just do very minimal water column dosing which would complement the ADA way.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

gjcarew said:


> @Deanna Osmocote+ is my go-to for "recharging" soil, much less fertilizer in the water column and less of a risk of algae. Plus the ammoniacal nitrogen in Osmocote is like rocket fuel for plants. It's funny that you mention inert being more forgiving to lax maintenance, as I've found the opposite with aquasoils being more forgiving if you forget to fertilize or change water.


Actually, I didn’t say that inert substrate is more forgiving to lax maintenance (lax maintenance is not ever easily forgiven in this hobby). The only maintenance aspect that I mentioned involves water changes, where I have not had problems as the result of missed w/c’s. In fact, I do agree that active substrates offer more protection if consistent water column dosing is not possible …for a year or two.

I see value to active substrates for beginners as it will compensate for errors during the learning process, but I don’t want to have to start guessing with problems due to the inevitable fluctuations from various degrees of nutrient exhaustion due to a dying substrate, even if it can be given life support for an additional year or so. In the case of ADA AS, doesn’t it, essentially, turn to mud in 3 years or so, requiring full replacement?

I have to say that I am also not a fan of root tabs. As mentioned in my post, I strive for consistency and root tabs are not predictable enough, IMO, to satisfy my nutrient consistency goals. All nutrient needs by virtually all plants we typically see in our hobby can be serviced by water column dosing. 



gjcarew said:


> [MENTION=315458]Do you have a favorite inert substrate?


I’ve tried many different inert substrate over the decades. Currently (for about 3 years), I have 2 inches of CaribSea "Super Naturals" Peace River over an inch of CaribSea Sunset Gold (sand). The only reason that I chose the Peace River was primarily the look I wanted and, secondarily, the weight (to hold plants in place) and diameter of the particles (for circulation).


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

gus6464 said:


> There is a product made by aquaforest that I have been thinking about trying called AF Natural Substrate which they say it's basically a sponge for nutrients that you put a 1-2cm layer on the bottom of the glass, then your power sand and then your Amazonia or whatever other soil you like. The AF stuff is supposed to just soak up all the excess nutrients in the water and store it to keep your active soil going for a very long time.
> 
> Thinking theoretically you can supercharge your soil with nutrients and then just do very minimal water column dosing which would complement the ADA way.


Hmm, interesting product. It is a peat and clay mix with some sort of micronutrients mixed in. The product website recommends not laying aquasoil over it, but gravel. I think this is supposed to replace soil itself? I wish this had more information about the nutrient content, but also I wonder about how the peat would affect the pH.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

@gus6464 do you have any pics of the tanks you run ADA style?

It would help to see what mix of plants you are keeping to put things in perspective. 

IMO, different tanks with different mixes of plants and different goals respond best to different approaches.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I see value to active substrates for beginners as it will compensate for errors during the learning process, but I don’t want to have to start guessing with problems due to the inevitable fluctuations from various degrees of nutrient exhaustion due to a dying substrate, even if it can be given life support for an additional year or so. In the case of ADA AS, doesn’t it, essentially, turn to mud in 3 years or so, requiring full replacement?
> 
> I have to say that I am also not a fan of root tabs. As mentioned in my post, I strive for consistency and root tabs are not predictable enough, IMO, to satisfy my nutrient consistency goals. All nutrient needs by virtually all plants we typically see in our hobby can be serviced by water column dosing.


I agree that aquasoils are easier for beginners. They can definitely build up a good amount of mulm and experience some breakdown, but I think a lot of the "mud" that people experience with aquasoils are due to never gravel vacuuming/cleaning the substrate. Felipe Oliveira and Dennis Wong both have good videos about cleaning aquasoils. 

I can't comment on the longevity of aquasoil. I haven't had it turn to mud, but I also haven't had any aquasoil tanks for more than 3 years due to the frenetic pace at which I rescape my tanks.

Root tabs are a valuable tool IMO. With water column dosing, you just have to hope that your plants, as @Greggz likes to put it, "like the soup you're serving." Root tabs allow you to target dose certain plants while keeping the water column lean for others. In terms of consistency-- well my plant mass varies greatly from week to week and throughout the week as things grow. I probably take close to a pound of plants out of my 22 gallon every two weeks. The nutrient demands of the plants are constantly changing, so I am not so worried about making sure the amount being dosed is consistent so much as watching for deficiencies and addressing them as needed. 

It seems like you've been in this hobby for a quite a bit longer than I have and therefore think of things at a longer time scale with regards to substrate lifespan, consistency etc. Not trying to say you're wrong, just that we have different approaches.

That Peace River gravel looks pretty perfect. As I mentioned before I struggled with BDBS and I think part of it was limited root growth due to compaction/small grains size and a lack of circulation in the substrate. I'll have to try that out next time I try an inert substrate!


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

cab395 said:


> 2 hours seems like such an unnaturally short photoperiod, but maybe it is worth giving it a try for a week or two to see what happens...


Something to think about is that many tropical aquatic plants are growing in rivers and streams with dense vegetation along their banks. So they might only be getting direct sunlight when the sun is directly above them from 11 am- 1 pm daily, and the rest of the time they are shaded by marginal vegetation and the river banks themselves.

Granted it's not a perfect comparison since your aquarium light is not nearly as strong as sunlight, but you can still see how a 2-hour photoperiod would not necessarily be "unnatural."


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

gus6464 said:


> I find it interesting that high PO4 in reef tanks will always cause an algae farm yet people say the opposite in planted tanks. I have two tanks going right now with 2 different fert methods and the amount of interaction required of both is night and day.
> 
> ADA way - no N or P dosing but lots of nutrients in soil with low water column dosing
> The rest way - heavy water column dosing with weekly resets required via water change
> ...


How much Ca and Mg do you have in the ADA tanks? Reason I ask is because low dosing routines or ADA style dosing just doesnt work for me. Even a recent 20L I set up with, at the time a lot of crypts and slow growing stuff, few stems here and there...it just doesnt work until I start pouring in the nutrients. 

After several attempts over the years with similar results, the only thing I can think of as to why is because my tap comes with 40 ppm Ca. I can drop everything else but not that. My theory is because Ca is fairly high, other nutrients have to be dosed at higher levels to achieve the right balance. Maybe if I could roll with 10-15 ppm Ca it would work. 

Because I believe you. I believe everybody else who reports good results with low routines. It just doesnt work in my tanks. None of them, never has, and it's always been a mystery to me why.



gus6464 said:


> I think the whole running out of nutrients with the ADA way is overplayed as well. I mean ADA has you pack the crap out of the soil with nutrients from the get-go. There's no way that stuff is going to run out that quick and you are a recharge away with some tweezers and fert sticks anyway.


The only thing aquasoils really run out of is NH4. Everything else (sans a few anions which arent there to begin with) gets replenished from the water column dosing via the high cec. Unless a person is barely dosing the water column, then its a different story. 

But with decent water column nutrients it will last years. I have a 4 year old ada as tank that grows plants just as well now as it ever did. The soil is dusty as hell from degrading a good bit. Nevertheless I can take a plant thats not doing well in sand stick it in there and it'll take right off


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

burr740 said:


> gus6464 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting that high PO4 in reef tanks will always cause an algae farm yet people say the opposite in planted tanks. I have two tanks going right now with 2 different fert methods and the amount of interaction required of both is night and day.
> ...


In walstad's book there is a page or so about hard vs soft water plants. The theoretical conclusion was that plants that require hard water will suffer in soft water, but soft water plants will not suffer in hard water.

I'm sure there are extremes that would damage any plant, but it might be worth a read if you're interested due to the explanation within.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Ddrizzle said:


> In walstad's book there is a page or so about hard vs soft water plants. The theoretical conclusion was that plants that require hard water will suffer in soft water, but soft water plants will not suffer in hard water.
> 
> I'm sure there are extremes that would damage any plant, but it might be worth a read if you're interested due to the explanation within.


Anything in the book is only relatable to an 'el natural' tank. I don't believe it translates to other methods.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

Asteroid said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> > In walstad's book there is a page or so about hard vs soft water plants. The theoretical conclusion was that plants that require hard water will suffer in soft water, but soft water plants will not suffer in hard water.
> ...


I wouldn't go that far personally. I'd say everything applies until it doesn't. I look at high-tech with tap water as just speeding up the normal process outside of extreme circumstances.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Ddrizzle said:


> I wouldn't go that far personally. I'd say everything applies until it doesn't. I look at high-tech with tap water as just speeding up the normal process outside of extreme circumstances.


Well nothing wrong with a Walstad tank, but it really is in many ways the complete opposite of a hi-tech tank. It's been demonstrated quite convincingly that when we richly dose the water column in hard water many plants stunt severely, This wouldn't be recognized in a Walstad tank since the idea is not to dose the column. Also there are many plant species that you simply won't see in a Walstad tank due to light, co2, fert limitation of that system.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

gjcarew said:


> I agree that aquasoils are easier for beginners. They can definitely build up a good amount of mulm and experience some breakdown, but I think a lot of the "mud" that people experience with aquasoils are due to never gravel vacuuming/cleaning the substrate. Felipe Oliveira and Dennis Wong both have good videos about cleaning aquasoils.
> 
> I can't comment on the longevity of aquasoil. I haven't had it turn to mud, but I also haven't had any aquasoil tanks for more than 3 years due to the frenetic pace at which I rescape my tanks.


It does seem to be great for beginners and, as @burr740 mentioned, can go longer than 3 years, but he heavily loads his water column which, as T Barr pointed out in a study, does continue to re-charge the sediment. I think that this would happen with any high CEC substrate. As I mentioned, for me, with much lower dosing, I don't think I would get beyond the initial period. Even ADA recommends finding a way to re-charge it after 2-3 years or get it out of there.

ADA also warns that, as it turns to mud, there is a high risk of cyanobacteria developing and to use that as an indication that it is time to replace it. However, I suspect that if you clean it thoroughly, you could pull out the the finer particles and leave larger particles that might encourage better circulation and extend the lifespan. Is that what you were referring to regarding the cleaning of aquasoils?



gjcarew said:


> It seems like you've been in this hobby for a quite a bit longer than I have and therefore think of things at a longer time scale with regards to substrate lifespan, consistency etc. Not trying to say you're wrong, just that we have different approaches.


Yes, I'd be happy if I could leave my substrate in place for either 1) the rest of my life or 2) until/if I get tired of it.



Asteroid said:


> It's been demonstrated quite convincingly that when we richly dose the water column in hard water many plants stunt severely


I've been under this impression as well but, as @burr740 just mentioned, his water is very hard (10 dGH?) and he heavily doses other nutrients to counter-balance the 40ppm Ca. We all know that his plants aren't stunted. If you have any comments on this, @burr740, it would be interesting to hear your perspective.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I've been under this impression as well but, as @burr740 just mentioned, his water is very hard (10 dGH?) and he heavily doses other nutrients to counter-balance the 40ppm Ca. We all know that his plants aren't stunted. If you have any comments on this, @burr740, it would be interesting to hear your perspective.


I should have actually said high KH. The idea here is that the high KH does not play well with high ferts, which you wouldn't experience in a Walstad setup.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Asteroid said:


> I should have actually said high KH. The idea here is that the high KH does not play well with high ferts, which you wouldn't experience in a Walstad setup.


I was thinking the same thing in reverse - long day:laugh2:


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

burr740 said:


> How much Ca and Mg do you have in the ADA tanks? Reason I ask is because low dosing routines or ADA style dosing just doesnt work for me. Even a recent 20L I set up with, at the time a lot of crypts and slow growing stuff, few stems here and there...it just doesnt work until I start pouring in the nutrients.
> 
> After several attempts over the years with similar results, the only thing I can think of as to why is because my tap comes with 40 ppm Ca. I can drop everything else but not that. My theory is because Ca is fairly high, other nutrients have to be dosed at higher levels to achieve the right balance. Maybe if I could roll with 10-15 ppm Ca it would work.
> 
> ...


This is what I do. I make RO water and then I take tap which goes through my sediment and carbon filters and mix it with the RO until I hit 120 TDS. Doing this gives me the following parameters:

Tested with a Sensafe iDip 570 (one of the best pieces of aquarium equipment I've ever bought)









The Mg test is auto calculated by the software based on my CA and KH.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Ddrizzle said:


> In walstad's book there is a page or so about hard vs soft water plants. The theoretical conclusion was that plants that require hard water will suffer in soft water, but soft water plants will not suffer in hard water.


You have this backwards, or the book does. Hard water plants typically do fine in soft water. Soft water plants, like Syns, Tonina, certain Erios, etc -absolutely have to have soft water. By that I mean a very low KH. 

Not talking about GH, which is the sum total of Ca and Mg (primarily) That may be what she means, idk. There probably is a handful of species that "require" a high KH, but I cant think of any right off hand.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

burr740 said:


> Ddrizzle said:
> 
> 
> > In walstad's book there is a page or so about hard vs soft water plants. The theoretical conclusion was that plants that require hard water will suffer in soft water, but soft water plants will not suffer in hard water.
> ...


Yes, GH


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

gus6464 said:


> This is what I do. I make RO water and then I take tap which goes through my sediment and carbon filters and mix it with the RO until I hit 120 TDS. Doing this gives me the following parameters:
> 
> Tested with a Sensafe iDip 570 (one of the best pieces of aquarium equipment I've ever bought)
> 
> ...


So you have about as much Ca as I do, which would indicate that my Ca level is not the reason low doing has never worked. The mystery continues...


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

It’s not a mystery, it’s all about balance/ratios. 

You can’t have high Ca levels and not bring Mg, K and micro up to balanced ratios to work with that Ca level. High Ca levels will block or partially block uptake of about 7-8 other nutrients, only way to bring system back into balance is either to cut Ca levels or bring other levels up slightly to reach equilibrium. 

When a ecosystem is out of balance everything suffers, plant growth stalls, algae comes forward, declining water quality starts having a effect on fauna in tank. Eventually ecosystem your trying to foster in tank will collapse. 

The higher the light and CO2 your running in that system the quicker that system collapse can happen.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

DaveKS said:


> It’s not a mystery, it’s all about balance/ratios.
> 
> You can’t have high Ca levels and not bring Mg, K and micro up to balanced ratios to work with that Ca level. High Ca levels will block or partially block uptake of about 7-8 other nutrients, only way to bring system back into balance is either to cut Ca levels or bring other levels up slightly to reach equilibrium.


Yeah I still feel like this is the reason


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Yeah I still feel like this is the reason


I've been thinking about testing this theory out.

Like you, I can't seem to lower macros without negative results. 

With my RO water, I can set any parameters that I want. Right now my Ca:MG is 30:15. Might try lowering everything in same ratios just to see what happens.


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

Isn't the Ca:Mg ratio supposed to be 3:1 or 4:1 instead of 2:1?


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

gus6464 said:


> Isn't the Ca:Mg ratio supposed to be 3:1 or 4:1 instead of 2:1?


Per this conversation, the real danger is the raw amount being too high, less so the CA:MG ratio.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

My tanks do best with 2:1 Ca:Mg, which is just where it wound up using what Ive found to be optimum Mg levels, not to hit a certain ratio. K is also highly relevant. The more K the more Mg is needed. Most things do best when those two are close. My water column stays around 20 Mg and 25 K (icp tested)


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

When I first moved from low-tech to high-tech, I ran with EI and had good success. However, I was always uncomfortable with high TDS. We know that high TDS (especially high nitrates) are not good for fish long term (especially the types that dominate my tank) and half of my interest is for the fish. So, I decided to move down the dosing levels …and my plants crashed. I quickly reversed this and searched for a solution. To do so, I had to go to RODI to avoid the constraints imposed by my tap water. 

Ultimately, I fell on the side of ratios, but became convinced that fixed ratios are more and more forgiving the higher the absolute quantity (e.g.; I maintain 2:1 Ca:MG from a 20ppm Ca level), which meant that I had to believe that ratios are correct, but variable, with lower levels requiring some abandonment of fixed rules. With TDS still in mind, through a hydroponics route, I came to find ionic balancing to be useful in keeping things right as nutrient packages are pushed up and down. Now, with Mulder’s chart in mind, I filter nutrient adjustments through an ionic balancing calculator.

Is this much more complex and questionable than necessary? Yes, but it suits me. I sometimes think I’m a fool for not taking the advice I peddle to beginners: find an AIO and dose until you like the results, but then it wouldn’t be fun.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

gus6464 said:


> Isn't the Ca:Mg ratio supposed to be 3:1 or 4:1 instead of 2:1?


IMO Mg is under dosed in most set ups.

That being said, whatever works for anyone is great. But for me, more Mg makes everything better. 

Tried it over and over, and always works out the same.....at least for me.


----------



## cab395 (May 25, 2018)

So it has been 7 days since my first post and I have implemented several changes based off of everyone's advice. I am seeing improvements! Thank you everyone for the advice!

I have initiated the following changes:
- Lights were on 2 hours per day at 100%, yesterday changed to 3 hours per day at 100% due to improvements
- Started dosing excel
- Started dosing just 0.3 ppm Fe per week in CSM+B
- Started dosing 5 ppm/week of P, kept my N and K the same

The issue with changing a bunch of things at once is that you don't know which change caused the improvement. I have my theories but one cannot be sure. I plan on keeping on this way and increasing the light by 1 hour/week until I am at 6 hours/day photoperiod and then going from there. I have attached some photos of plants! I have noticed they seem a bit pale (especially ludwigia and rotala) and I am thinking may be from the short 2 hour photoperiod. Really feel like that helped overall though. 

Please let me know if you think you notice nutrient deficiencies/issues based off of these pics, thank you! I really do think they look better overall though that may be my untrained eye. Thanks again!


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

burr740 said:


> Yeah I still feel like this is the reason


Let’s start with this, the mulder chart. You 2 guys ( @burr740 and @gregzz) add ppm/ratios you find effective around this star/graph, also who would you think is a good candidate for a LED only user to add his contribution to this equation. That’s really what this all boils down to is ratios/balance and uptake, I’m also a firm believer that spectrum/equal diffusion across whole footprint of tank (T5 rule in this aspect) makes difference. Any LED user would be a derivative of this. 

Any of you guys who would like to add your feedback on ratios vs GH/PH/KH levels would be welcome, input on light, CO2, plant type and planting density and dosing routine would also be welcome. I’ll see what I can do about supplying graph with pdf form fillable fields when I get to work.


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

cab395 said:


> So it has been 7 days since my first post and I have implemented several changes based off of everyone's advice. I am seeing improvements! Thank you everyone for the advice!
> 
> I have initiated the following changes:
> - Lights were on 2 hours per day at 100%, yesterday changed to 3 hours per day at 100% due to improvements
> ...


I would expect lighter growth for sure. Whenever I do a blackout or lower the lighting I am taking a calculated maneuver which trades off plant growth for algae death.

And yes, changing more than one thing is a pain! I sometimes wish I had the space for multiple tanks to experiment with at once.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

DaveKS said:


> Let’s start with this, the mulder chart. You 2 guys ( @burr740 and @gregzz) add ppm/ratios you find effective around this star/graph, also who would you think is a good candidate for a LED only user to add his contribution to this equation. That’s really what this all boils down to is ratios/balance and uptake, I’m also a firm believer that spectrum/equal diffusion across whole footprint of tank (T5 rule in this aspect) makes difference. Any LED user would be a derivative of this.
> 
> Any of you guys who would like to add your feedback on ratios vs GH/PH/KH levels would be welcome, input on light, CO2, plant type and planting density and dosing routine would also be welcome. I’ll see what I can do about supplying graph with pdf form fillable fields when I get to work.


Is this the data you want?.. maybe we need to update it tho. hmm. 










from the thread: 

Share your Dosing


----------



## Notg2009 (Feb 6, 2016)

cab395 said:


> So it has been 7 days since my first post and I have implemented several changes based off of everyone's advice. I am seeing improvements! Thank you everyone for the advice!
> 
> I have initiated the following changes:
> - Lights were on 2 hours per day at 100%, yesterday changed to 3 hours per day at 100% due to improvements
> ...


Could u clarify if the improvements were regarding algae or plant growth or both? What type of algae do you have and is it getting better? Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

ipkiss said:


> Is this the data you want?.. maybe we need to update it tho. hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fwiw mine on the chart was during a lower K experimental phase me and a couple others were trying. Did OK for a while but soon proved to be far too little. These days Im back to keeping it about the same as NO3 or a little higher.

Currently weekly macros are (roughly)21/5/24 using KNO3, KH2PO4 and KSO4.

Micros custom blend at .1 - .12 Fe 3x week

Ca:Mg ~ 40:20. These are water column levels not dosing amounts

KH 0-1 in the soil tanks, 5-6 in the sand tanks. Dosing is the same for all


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Currently weekly macros are (roughly)21/5/24 using KNO3, KH2PO4 and KSO4.
> 
> Micros custom blend at .1 - .12 Fe 3x week
> 
> ...


Always interesting to see these numbers. We might need to revive the share your dosing thread again.

Are you still at 70% water change? If so they would adjust down a bit to show EI 50% WC equivalent.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Greggz said:


> Always interesting to see these numbers. We might need to revive the share your dosing thread again.
> 
> Are you still at 70% water change? If so they would adjust down a bit to show EI 50% WC equivalent.



Good observation, yeah I do 70-75% weekly. Not for nutrient resetting, but to remove other stuff like dissolved organics, just works a lot better for me. You're right it would translate to be leaner than someone doing 50%


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Good observation, yeah I do 70-75% weekly. Not for nutrient resetting, but to remove other stuff like dissolved organics, just works a lot better for me. You're right it would translate to be leaner than someone doing 50%


That's what I thought.

So your 21/5/24 is equivalent to 15/3.5/17.5 at 50% water change.

I always calculate mine to traditional EI 50% just for the sake of comparison.

For instance, when I list my current dosing as 10/5/15, I am actually dosing 14/7/21 but with 70% water change. And I agree, larger water change is better.

Goes back to my crusade to change the world into thinking of "target" dosing. Dosing the amount of water removed to a "target" or actual ppm goal of dosing. Makes more sense to me but was an epic fail!


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

I started doing 30% wc every other day and it's helped make tank upkeep be quicker. Less stuff I have to scrape and siphon out and seems to keep the bad stuff more at bay. Trimming if needed I only do on the last wc of the week.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Greggz said:


> Goes back to my crusade to change the world into thinking of "target" dosing. Dosing the amount of water removed to a "target" or actual ppm goal of dosing. Makes more sense to me but was an epic fail!


Lol, it's perfectly logical to do it that way, just a foreign way of thinking about it for most folks. Also, its easier to apply if youre front loading all at once. With daily stuff or 3x week, well, just not so easy for the avg hobbyist to think that way.

Something else that often gets lost in translation. Per week dosing amounts really means how much a person doses between water changes. Becuase thats where it resets and starts over.

We usually thing of per week as every 7 days. But if youre doing a water changes every 5 days, or twice a week, etc, how much you add every 7 days becomes irrelevant. "Weekly totals" really means the total added between water changes.



gus6464 said:


> I started doing 30% wc every other day and it's helped make tank upkeep be quicker. Less stuff I have to scrape and siphon out and seems to keep the bad stuff more at bay. Trimming if needed I only do on the last wc of the week.


This is an excellent way to fix a tank that's having issues. I usually go to 2x week 50% or so. Front load all macros after the water change, then a couple micro doses on the following days. Repeat. 4-6 weeks of that will cure a myriad of issues


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Like @Greggz, I've longed believe that a focus upon dosing is not nearly as useful as target level maintenance, which also impacts heavily upon w/c productivity (benefit given x quantity/frequency).

Until a month or so ago, I was doing 50% weekly w/c's and decided to try dropping to 50% every 10-12 days. As before, I immediately bring K and Mg to target, Ca and dKH to target within 2 days (due to use of CaCO3) and slower accumulation of N and P (due to urea and fish food daily dosing). Micros are also dosed daily. I also have about twice the normally recommend fish load, so organics should be a problem, but they aren't (I use no biomedia in my filter). I've noted no negative impact, as yet. I do have a very healthy and high plant mass, though. It's still early in this w/c reduction experiment but, so far, not a single bit of algae that I can find and virtually no change in TDS. Of course, I'm going to have to start making some adjustments if I continue/expand this reduction in w/c's to account for accumulation issues.

I know that some of you dose and maintain very high levels, although maybe not full EI levels, as compared to what I do (I target N/P/K in the 10/3/25 area with Ca ~20 and Mg ~10). Do you immediately bring your relatively high levels back to target following a w/c, or do you allow them to build via organics or daily dosing? I'm wondering why it is that you find w/c's in the 70% area so beneficial if not purely for nutrient reset purposes.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> Do you immediately bring your relatively high levels back to target following a w/c, or do you allow them to build via organics or daily dosing? I'm wondering why it is that you find w/c's in the 70% area so beneficial if not purely for nutrient reset purposes.


Like Joe said above, it's not about resetting the ferts.

It's about removing dissolved organics and keeping the tank uber clean. 

And like Joe mentioned above, performing 2x water changes weekly can cure a lot of ills.

Tom Barr talks about it quite often, and does so to get a tank in pristine condition for photo shoot or competition.

Personally I front load right after water change, but doubt it really makes all that much difference.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Yeah water changes for me have nothing to do with nutrients. Its about keeping the invisible dirty stuff cleaned out of the system. Regardless of how much Im dosing, low or high, everything always does better for me with big water changes.

Although I understand that some people like doing less. Edward and his pps routines basically think of water changes as the devil, lol.

Maybe its because my tap is pretty decent but my experience has always been that plants love water changes and algae hates them


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Maybe its because my tap is pretty decent but my experience has always been that plants love water changes and algae hates them


And fish too!

My Rainbows colors are on fire right after a water change.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Greggz said:


> And fish too!
> 
> My Rainbows colors are on fire right after a water change.


I've never noted a color change, but I have no rainbows. Doesn't that put the burden on you to find out why the color improvement (assuming it means good things for the fish) so you can do it all the time and then sell it?


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

I haven't seen a tank, particularly hi-tech that doesn't benefit from water changes, the bigger the better as long as your dosing back in. 

To me this is about light and uptake (of organic breakdown.) If the uptake is lacking because you don't have a enough plants, then you need even more water changes to compensate. Nothing removes toxins in a quick, continuous manner then plants. But not all tanks are fruit salads or jungles. The more hardscape means less plants, so in those scapes the water changes are even more important. The more water you change the less the tank is limited by light and stock. 

I also don't think you have to "see" algae for it to have negative impact on plants. There can be some on the leaf surface that you don't really see and it starts to affect growth.


----------



## P.Isley (Feb 18, 2020)

Just managed to read through all of this now. Thanks everyone. Really a nice discussion and gave me some food for thought towards some adjustments to my RO remineralization routine, and a gentle reminder that elbow grease (cleaner tanks) is usually the critical factor. @Asteroid @Deanna @burr740 @DaveKS @Greggz (and everyone else who’s handle is too hard to remember!) ;o)


----------



## rajdude (Apr 13, 2020)

*Thanks but still a little confused*

Well, I just finished reading all the 7 pages in this thread. Pretty good information, THANK YOU....however I am still a little confused. I was wondering if someone can tell me in a concise and straightforward way what is this "balance" we planted tank guys talk about. I mean the "golden equilibrium" people talk about....I guess that is between, Fertilizer - CO2 - Light. How do we achieve that?

I have a new tank which is having similar troubles as the OP here. Lots of BBA and hair type algae

*Here is my list of questions:*

To reduce algae, which of these three things do I reduce: Fertilizer - CO2 - Light.
Do I push CO2 24 x 7?
People talk about varying CO2 causes algae. But then.. many recommend turning on CO2 one to two hours before lights come on, and turning it off an hour before lights off. Note: my CO2 levels drop dramatically during the night, checker turns totally blue in the morning.
What about temperature? 
Right now I am at 75F
I know there is a lot of talk in this thread about very granular control of water parameters. I am not sure if I would be able to do that myself.

*Here is what I have and do:*

Start: 2-3 weeks back 
75 gallon DT with a 30 gallon sump
Using RO-DI water, re-mineralized to 3GH using Seachem equilibrium
Inert substrate with root tabs
Doing PPS pro fertilizer schedule, NilocG Aquatic Labs' micros and macros every morning
2.5 gallon water change every evening, re-mineralized.
Lots of water flow in DT, ensured using two wave makers (heard stagnant water causes algae).
Two very high PAR capable lights (sb reef lights, freshwater version). 
I made the mistake of leaving them on for 6-8 hours a day for a week, algae went crazy. Now I am down to 4 hours a day....at around 50% warm white + 25% blue-white Plants pearl just fine.
CO2 injection, high pressure
Have tried dosing Metricide (Excel) Helped a bit

*Problems/Issues:*

Algae grower expert. Mostly BBA and hair algae.
Most plants are doing reasonably well, growing fast, other than the ferns, which are BBA infested. Sprayed them with 50% Metricide (approx=straight excel).....that helps, but they get infested again, within days.
HC is not doing good.
Many plants are growing roots from everywhere, yuck! What do I do? Cut them off?
*
Here is what it looks like today:*
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...ter-freshwater-conversion-3.html#post11393769


PS: thanks a bunch for replying and advising me.


----------



## ahem (Dec 27, 2014)

rajdude said:


> Well, I just finished reading all the 7 pages in this thread. Pretty good information, THANK YOU....however I am still a little confused. I was wondering if someone can tell me in a concise and straightforward way what is this "balance" we planted tank guys talk about. I mean the "golden equilibrium" people talk about....I guess that is between, Fertilizer - CO2 - Light. How do we achieve that?
> 
> I have a new tank which is having similar troubles as the OP here. Lots of BBA and hair type algae
> 
> ...


I don't think there is a single "golden ratio" and it is something you have to find for your tank. My experience is that while not the only factor, too much lighting is possibly the strongest factor in algae growth. That is followed closely by tank and water cleanliness.

BBA that grows on leaf edges indicates those plants are damaged. Algae is a response to the damage so that either needs to be corrected or remove those plants and start again. I can see BBA growing back after a dip because of that.


----------



## jaz419 (Jan 21, 2018)

rajdude said:


> *Thanks but still a little confused*
> 
> Well, I just finished reading all the 7 pages in this thread. Pretty good information, THANK YOU....however I am still a little confused. I was wondering if someone can tell me in a concise and straightforward way what is this "balance" we planted tank guys talk about. I mean the "golden equilibrium" people talk about....I guess that is between, Fertilizer - CO2 - Light. How do we achieve that?


Figuring out that “balance” is kinda what this hobby is all about. As far as I’m aware There’s no concise set of instructions anyone can give you, that you can follow to the letter and immediately strike that perfect balance. Every situation is different, and you kinda gotta figure out how to make it work with what you have. 

Take all the advice given and determine a reasonable starting point for your tank, and start trial and error-ing it. 

Maybe Try to find someone with a similar set up, and try to copy what they use and what they do... that could give you a solid start. 



> I have a new tank which is having similar troubles as the OP here. Lots of BBA and hair type algae
> 
> *Here is my list of questions:*
> 
> To reduce algae, which of these three things do I reduce: Fertilizer - CO2 - Light.





I personally always start by reducing light. I’ll go as low as 3 hours of peak light time with a short ramp on either side, if I’m really having issues with algae. This is always temporary and will go back to normal after I get things under control. 



> [*]Do I push CO2 24 x 7?
> People talk about varying CO2 causes algae. But then.. many recommend turning on CO2 one to two hours before lights come on, and turning it off an hour before lights off. Note: my CO2 levels drop dramatically during the night, checker turns totally blue in the morning.


Most people turn CO2 off around the same time the lights go off. Plants don’t uptake CO2 when they aren’t photosynthesizing. This means your CO2 levels can rise high enough to be unsafe for live stock over night. A more advanced way to keep your tank right at a certain CO2 concentration is to use a PH monitor, which automatically turns your CO2 on and off throughout the day/night just to maintain a set PH (CO2 and PH have a predictable indirect relationship)



> [*]What about temperature?
> Right now I am at 75F


I keep my tanks at about 72/73. I find I have fewer algae problems at slightly lower temps





> I know there is a lot of talk in this thread about very granular control of water parameters. I am not sure if I would be able to do that myself.
> 
> *Here is what I have and do:*
> 
> ...





When my tanks are young, I keep the lighting intensity down closer to 35% at peak. I have a different tank and different light than you... so again, there’s no hard and fast rules, BUT, I have a feeling those SB lights are pretty powerful, so you might want to try a lower intensity. Might also want to try a longer ramp in the morning and evening, and sacrifice peak light time. For Example if you did 1 hours ramp in the AM, 4 hours peak light @ 35%, 1 hour ramp down at night. Could even knock that peak down to 3 hours or so, and increase your ramp to 1.5 hours on either end.



> [*]CO2 injection, high pressure
> [*]Have tried dosing Metricide (Excel) Helped a bit






> *Problems/Issues:*
> 
> Algae grower expert. Mostly BBA and hair algae.
> Most plants are doing reasonably well, growing fast, other than the ferns, which are BBA infested. Sprayed them with 50% Metricide (approx=straight excel).....that helps, but they get infested again, within days.





Ugh BBA. When my plants get BBA....I just remove them. Or cut them down to uninfected nubs and hope they survive. I have not been successful in getting rid of large BBA issues without mass removal or just a complete tank re do.




> [*]HC is not doing good.
> [*]Many plants are growing roots from everywhere, yuck! What do I do? Cut them off?






> *
> Here is what it looks like today:*
> rajdude's "house of horrors" tank...
> 
> ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

