# I am the only one switching to easy green?



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

I am a new member but I have been watching and reading on this forum for a while now. Finally decided to dive in and get involved as i think this is the best community for my kind of fish keeping. 

I wanted to start a thread about fertilizers. I know there have been many threads on this before but I think this one will be slightly different. Usually people start with the most simple ferts (all in one or macro + micro), as I did, and then ramp their way up to NPK + micros then to EI.

For the past year or more, my preferred system has been a low daily dose of the seachem line. I got some easy green to try out on one of my breeding tanks and I have come to love it so much that I am fully switching over to the easy system and supplementing for deficiencies when i see them.

The one pump/10gallon is just so fast and easy I couldn't justify doing the whole seachem regime. I want to know if I am the only who has found themselves going back to the simple all in ones.

Yes EI is the cheapest route but I would argue the most work (mixing, dosing, waterchanging ect.), seachem is the most expensive but IMO the most comprehensive line backed by the best science, but easy green is, well easy. Being somewhat of a geek (I'm a career scientist) I love to tinker and test water and mix up the perfect ratio of ferts in my graduated cylinders, which is why it pains me to say I'm switching over. It's cheaper than seachem, less work than EI, and so darn easy... My hands are tied >

Am I alone?


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Try NilocG Thrive, a bottle that treats 10k gallons is $9 less than easy green. But it’s also more concentrated than easy green on most elements. Fe for instance is .13% in EG, Thrive is .42% but nitrate is about same in both.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

You could always buy the salts then make your own solution.

Same thing you are buying, but at a fraction of the cost. I could go make a bottle in about 2 minutes, about the same time it takes to place the order. 

If you could see how much dry fertilizer is in a bottle of Easygreen/Thrive, you would realize you are mostly paying for water/marketing/shipping.

But in the end, if it seems easier to you, then do what works for you.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

How is Seachem backed by the "best science" exactly?

Easy Green is OK, it's just pretty low in most things from what I understand. Ive never actually tried it. Whether anything works is going to depend on the type of tank a person has. 

If you're looking for EI levels of something, definitely go with a Thrive product, or Dennis Wong's APT EI in a bottle (amazon)


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I am a new member but I have been watching and reading on this forum for a while now. Finally decided to dive in and get involved as i think this is the best community for my kind of fish keeping.
> 
> I wanted to start a thread about fertilizers. I know there have been many threads on this before but I think this one will be slightly different. Usually people start with the most simple ferts (all in one or macro + micro), as I did, and then ramp their way up to NPK + micros then to EI.
> 
> ...


 I tried Thrive for 8 months as a cheaper alternative to Seachem products. My plants have slowely declined over this period. I will go back to the Seachem line- despite its price- because I had such better results. I wonder if Easy Green would be a better "all-in-one" than Thrive. Hmmm. I might try it.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Discusluv said:


> I tried Thrive for 8 months as a cheaper alternative to Seachem products. My plants have slowely declined over this period. I will go back to the Seachem line- despite its price- because I had such better results. I wonder if Easy Green would be a better "all-in-one" than Thrive. Hmmm. I might try it.


Since the basic chemicals, for the most part, are identical and just in varying ratios, it would be interesting to know what was different in the Thrive from your particular Seachem dosing regimen that caused the decline. As you switch back to Seachem, it will be interesting to see if you actually get a rebound ...and what might be the cause.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Deanna said:


> Since the basic chemicals, for the most part, are identical and just in varying ratios, it would be interesting to know what was different in the Thrive from your particular Seachem dosing regimen that caused the decline. As you switch back to Seachem, it will be interesting to see if you actually get a rebound ...and what might be the cause.


I could see the most difference in the growth of my anubias and java ferns. I had much more vigorous growth with the Seachem line. If that tells you anything.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Discusluv said:


> I could see the most difference in the growth of my anubias and java ferns. I had much more vigorous growth with the Seachem line. If that tells you anything.


If you were dosing their 3 macros and Flourish (comp), the main difference will be the ratios being altogether different. However, the Flourish Nitrogen is half complexed ammonium and plants do prefer that to NO3. Maybe the ferrous vs. ferric iron difference. Don’t anubias benefit from a good supply of iron? Maybe the ferrous form is better/easier for them. More likely just the weightings difference. All speculation, of course, and I wonder if you would benefit from urea dosing.

Even more interesting since both of those plants are such slow growers and need only low levels of nutrients.


----------



## butchblack (Oct 25, 2019)

FWIW I've been using Easy Green on all my tanks. I've had the best luck with it on my 20L low-tech basically some java moss and a plant that I'm not sure what it is, possibly Amazon sword

It's the leaf plant either side of the java moss.









It works ok on my 75g but I haven't dialed in the co2/lighting/ferts yet, close, I'm hoping my thinning out the Amason swords allowing them to get more light will help. We'll see. I have Tiger Lotus in that tank so I also add extra iron and periodically add some root tabs.

Also, Cory at Aquarium co-op recently had to raise his prices, so I'll have to see how they compare with what I can get locally. I may also look into the Niloc Thrive.


----------



## Sam the Slayer (Dec 18, 2019)

Here is their mix per pump per 10 gallons







Would probably work for most low tech but low on phosphates and using edta iron would throw more ratios off for most people’s ph’s in higher tech. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## butchblack (Oct 25, 2019)

DaveKS said:


> Try NilocG Thrive, a bottle that treats 10k gallons is $9 less than easy green. But it’s also more concentrated than easy green on most elements. Fe for instance is .13% in EG, Thrive is .42% but nitrate is about same in both.


According to their instructions Thrive is half as concentrated as Easy Green. Their 1L bottle is rated for half the amount of gallons treated of Easy Green. I may have to look into mixing my own. Does anyone have any feedback on how long a mix would last? Or is there no effective expiration with a mixed solution?


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

burr740 said:


> How is Seachem backed by the "best science" exactly?
> 
> Easy Green is OK, it's just pretty low in most things from what I understand. Ive never actually tried it. Whether anything works is going to depend on the type of tank a person has.
> 
> If you're looking for EI levels of something, definitely go with a Thrive product, or Dennis Wong's APT EI in a bottle (amazon)


I suppose there is some room for debate about why seachem is backed by the best science, but I think if you actually look into how much real science is going into each product you will clearly see my point. Of all the brands of ferts mentioned in the thread so far, seachem is the only one with Chemistry PhD's on their pay roll and they are also the only ones with a full laboratory. After all the company is actually called seachem laboratories. They perform highly controlled studies and have 35 years worth of measurable data. Not a hill I am going to die on, but i don't think you can show me another company that puts as much scientific testing and real data behind their products (i.e. highly controlled and recorded).

I think any fertilizer will "work" in any tank, its more about the skill of the aquarist in knowing how to keep the balance. I have tried mixing the salts, I have tried seachem's line, I've tried easygreen ect... they all grow plants. My point with this thread is about where peoples priority lie? With "estimated index" (EI) as described and created by tom barr, the idea is that you estimate the amount needed and err on the side of too much but do a large (50%) water change at the end of each week to get rid of the excess. 

I don't generally change water weekly in my tanks (controversial topic of course) so the estimated index method has me doing more work than all the other methods. Because powdered salts are SSOO concentrated, I find I cannot dial in the exact amount needed to dose the tanks to not have to do a water change. As hobbyists, when we use powdered salts in the small volumes we are making them up in, the standard deviation is very high. If you add a tenth of a gram more one week, or your scale rounds up a little, the amount of nutrients changes drastically requiring you to do the large water changes so you dont build up excess. Because seachem and easy green are made in such large batches, their standard deviation between batches is so small it is negligible. For that reason, i can use seachem very precisely so that I don't have excess nutrients require me to change water all the time. Similarly, the ratios of nutrients are very consistent in easy green so if I find three pumps of easy green plus one mL of seachem phosphate gives me growth without deficiencies or excess I am set and do not have to weigh and mix salts and change lots of water frequently. 

Hopefully what I am trying to get across is making sense. EI is obviously the cheapest but I think you can see why it requires the most work for me. That is why my go to has been seachem for a long time, less work. I think if you look at the hobby as a whole, newbies use all in ones, guru's use either individual liquids (like seachem), or powders. I am of course speaking in generalities, but I think the cheap vs easy decision is one that plagues many long time hobbyists.

I personally have found the middle ground in Easy Green (pick any all in one) plus light supplementation as needed :nerd:

Bump:


Discusluv said:


> I tried Thrive for 8 months as a cheaper alternative to Seachem products. My plants have slowely declined over this period. I will go back to the Seachem line- despite its price- because I had such better results. I wonder if Easy Green would be a better "all-in-one" than Thrive. Hmmm. I might try it.


You should try it! Depending on what plants you have you will still have to supplement something but since you are already doing seachem that will be super easy to dial in!



Sam the Slayer said:


> Here is their mix per pump per 10 gallons
> View attachment 898469
> 
> Would probably work for most low tech but low on phosphates and using edta iron would throw more ratios off for most people’s ph’s in higher tech.
> ...


Iron and Phosphate mess all fertilizers up. They have the opposite charge of most of the chemicals in your ferts so they act like a magnet aggregating your fertilizers and precipitating them out of solution making them unavailable for plants to use. That is why people say not to dose macros and micros together, they basically cancel each other out. Also most of the phosphate that goes into your aquarium comes from the fish food, so personally I appreciate the low phosphates.

EDTA is a surfactant. We use it in the scientific field to break up cell membranes, or keep things in solution. That is the purpose of it in easy green. The EDTA is coupled to the maganese and the iron and the other heavy metals with positive charge, to keep them in solution so they do not ruin the whole mixture. That is why they are listed together on the label. Instead of just iron and magansese, it is Iron EDTA, and Maganese EDTA ect. That is why easy green is able to mix the macros and micros, where other brands dont. You will not get edta in your EI powders, and you dont want to add it straight because it will kill a lot of things (BB). 

Cory said in a video a couple years back when he released easy green that it matters what order you add things in. You have to mix the Iron and EDTA separately, the maganese and EDTA separately, mix everything else separately, and then mix them together. This very special formulation is what makes easy green easy. 

Like I said, I am a career scientist and I use EDTA in my lab often (as well as potassium nitrate, and potasium phosphate ect). This is probably far too in depth for the average aquarist but if anyone is going to appreciate this kind of information, I believe they are on this forum. 

All ferts will grow plants when used in balance. It is a question of cost, amount of work, and user experience


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I suppose there is some room for debate about why seachem is backed by the best science, but I think if you actually look into how much real science is going into each product you will clearly see my point. Of all the brands of ferts mentioned in the thread so far, seachem is the only one with Chemistry PhD's on their pay roll and they are also the only ones with a full laboratory. After all the company is actually called seachem laboratories. They perform highly controlled studies and have 35 years worth of measurable data. Not a hill I am going to die on, but i don't think you can show me another company that puts as much scientific testing and real data behind their products (i.e. highly controlled and recorded).


Yeah I get what you're saying. But...Ive seen plenty of chemists who know all about molecules but cant grow sensitive plants. Many have been on these forums. They are usually the ones with the strongest opinions. They use big words but for some reason never seem to be able to show a nice tank of their own. It's funny

Scientific data, controlled and recorded, isnt much use if it cant be applied in real time to a real aquarium. More often than not...it cant. 

You said it, later on in your post. A lot comes down to the aquarist and how they handle a particular set up. Ferts are rarely the deciding factor. Of course different set ups have different requirements. Thrive might work great for one person, Seachem liquids might work better for another.

All plants need the same nutrients, in the same general ratios. Add more or add less. Beyond that, there are more important things to look after

If easy green works well for you then by all means use it.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

burr740 said:


> Yeah I get what you're saying. But...Ive seen plenty of chemists who know all about molecules but cant grow sensitive plants. Many have been on these forums. They are usually the ones with the strongest opinions. They use big words but for some reason never seem to be able to show a nice tank of their own. It's funny
> 
> Scientific data, controlled and recorded, isnt much use if it cant be applied in real time to a real aquarium. More often than not...it cant.
> 
> ...


I see and respect your point, all talk and no walk. I'll be sure to tag you when I get around to starting my tank journals :wink2:


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I see and respect your point, all talk and no walk. I'll be sure to tag you when I get around to starting my tank journals :wink2:


Oh I wasnt throwing that at you, at all. Its just typical behavior that always seems to be the case. My point was, just because Seachem has a chemist on the payroll doesnt make it any better than anything else.

And yes please make a journal, everyone loves reading journals and how somebody is doing things, including myself. I hppe your tanks do great!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> Yeah I get what you're saying. But...Ive seen plenty of chemists who know all about molecules but cant grow sensitive plants. Many have been on these forums. They are usually the ones with the strongest opinions. They use big words but for some reason never seem to be able to show a nice tank of their own. It's funny


Amen to this. 

A predictable pattern for sure.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I suppose there is some room for debate about why seachem is backed by the best science, but I think if you actually look into how much real science is going into each product you will clearly see my point. Of all the brands of ferts mentioned in the thread so far, seachem is the only one with Chemistry PhD's on their pay roll and they are also the only ones with a full laboratory. After all the company is actually called seachem laboratories. They perform highly controlled studies and have 35 years worth of measurable data. Not a hill I am going to die on, but i don't think you can show me another company that puts as much scientific testing and real data behind their products (i.e. highly controlled and recorded).
> 
> I think any fertilizer will "work" in any tank, its more about the skill of the aquarist in knowing how to keep the balance. I have tried mixing the salts, I have tried seachem's line, I've tried easygreen ect... they all grow plants. My point with this thread is about where peoples priority lie? With "estimated index" (EI) as described and created by tom barr, the idea is that you estimate the amount needed and err on the side of too much but do a large (50%) water change at the end of each week to get rid of the excess.
> 
> ...


Thanks @HerpsAndHerbs 


I am going to order it today. If it gives me the results of Seachem line I would be very happy !


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Because powdered salts are SSOO concentrated, I find I cannot dial in the exact amount needed to dose the tanks to not have to do a water change. As hobbyists, when we use powdered salts in the small volumes we are making them up in, the standard deviation is very high. If you add a tenth of a gram more one week, or your scale rounds up a little, the amount of nutrients changes drastically requiring you to do the large water changes so you dont build up excess. Because seachem and easy green are made in such large batches, their standard deviation between batches is so small it is negligible. For that reason, i can use seachem very precisely so that I don't have excess nutrients require me to change water all the time. Similarly, the ratios of nutrients are very consistent in easy green so if I find three pumps of easy green plus one mL of seachem phosphate gives me growth without deficiencies or excess I am set and do not have to weigh and mix salts and change lots of water frequently.


There is no exact amount to dose a tank. It's simply not that precise of a hobby. If you add a tenth gram more in a solution, in practical application it's pretty much meaningless to the tank. 

I would imagine there is more deviation between "pumps" than gram scale measurements into a solution. 

For instance, if you make a 1000ml solution to dose a 50G tank to 5 ppm NO3 with a 20 ml dose, you would add 77.15 gm of KNO3. If your scale was off and you added 79 grams, your effective dose would now be 5.11 ppm NO3 per dose. Just saying 0.11 variation in a dose means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. 

And I just don't get the reference to being able to dose Seachem "precisely"? You could create a solution for any ratios/ppm's that you want to. You could make it 5.00 ppm per dose.....or 1.25 ppm per dose. Just saying dry salts has nothing to do with EI dosing. You can dose any method (PPS/PPS Pro/PMDD) making a solution from dry salts. The big advantage is being able to fine tune the mixture/ratios to meet the needs of your individual tank (and cost).




HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Iron and Phosphate mess all fertilizers up. They have the opposite charge of most of the chemicals in your ferts so they act like a magnet aggregating your fertilizers and precipitating them out of solution making them unavailable for plants to use. That is why people say not to dose macros and micros together, they basically cancel each other out.


IME, both for myself and observing other successful planted tankers, having to dose macros/micros on opposite days is pretty much a myth. Personally I've been front loading weekly macros and dosing micros daily for years. Personally I've never seen anyone have an issue dosing same day vs. alternating days.

Even Tom Barr has said as much.



HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Also most of the phosphate that goes into your aquarium comes from the fish food, so personally I appreciate the low phosphates.


This very much depends on the tank. You will find that high light tanks full of fast growing showy flowers need a considerable amount of PO4. In fact, low PO4 can be a real problem. Weak plants not at peak health are a magnet for algae. Just saying, most plants love PO4, and there is nothing to be afraid of. 

But again, that very much depends on the tank. A low light tank full of slow growing easy plants will need much less of everything.




HerpsAndHerbs said:


> All ferts will grow plants when used in balance. It is a question of cost, amount of work, and user experience


This is true. But keep in mind, in the scheme of things, fert dosing is not the primary reason for the success of a planted tank. Correct light levels (in relation to goals/plants), CO2, and maintenance are equally important. A well managed well run tank can get by well on a variety of dosing schemes. But perfect dosing can't save a tank that is not well balanced in all regards.


----------



## Sam the Slayer (Dec 18, 2019)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Iron and Phosphate mess all fertilizers up. They have the opposite charge of most of the chemicals in your ferts so they act like a magnet aggregating your fertilizers and precipitating them out of solution making them unavailable for plants to use. That is why people say not to dose macros and micros together, they basically cancel each other out. Also most of the phosphate that goes into your aquarium comes from the fish food, so personally I appreciate the low phosphates.
> 
> EDTA is a surfactant. We use it in the scientific field to break up cell membranes, or keep things in solution. That is the purpose of it in easy green. The EDTA is coupled to the maganese and the iron and the other heavy metals with positive charge, to keep them in solution so they do not ruin the whole mixture. That is why they are listed together on the label. Instead of just iron and magansese, it is Iron EDTA, and Maganese EDTA ect. That is why easy green is able to mix the macros and micros, where other brands dont. You will not get edta in your EI powders, and you dont want to add it straight because it will kill a lot of things (BB).
> 
> ...


I just meant that you could use a better chelate to achieve the same results as EDTA but still be available in the typical pH that aquarist have. 

I listen to Cory a lot and it seems he just chose a micro mix to use that the manufacturer had available. “what makes easy green easy is the pump action” which he mentioned in a recent video. Not to take anything back I definitely see the need for a good all in one for his target audience which is people who are newer to the hobby and just want some thing that works.....ish (could be easily improved). He could have made it better by choosing a different chelate but instead chose to sell more iron in a single bottle of EDTA iron called easy iron. Good business move but seems like there is still room for improvement. 

Regarding Cory I think he is moving the hobby in a positive direction and making it easier with his videos to get people to stay in the hobby and get others into the hobby so nothing but kudos there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

butchblack said:


> According to their instructions Thrive is half as concentrated as Easy Green. Their 1L bottle is rated for half the amount of gallons treated of Easy Green. I may have to look into mixing my own. Does anyone have any feedback on how long a mix would last? Or is there no effective expiration with a mixed solution?


To reach the same target level of Fe you will need to dose 3.4x more easy green than thrive reg. Easy Iron comes in a 2nd bottle so you will also need to buy it, which throws the AIO fert system out the window. But having finer control of iron levels might be a +.

For my low tech tank I dose Thrive at around 1/3 strength.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

*Lots To Think About*

I am disappointed to hear that scientist hobbyists have such a poor reputation on this forum. Hopefully I can help change that, although it does not seem I am off to a great start. 

Instead of quoting everyone, i will just tag them otherwise this post will be far too long.
@Greggz 
While I would agree there is no "exact" amount to dose a tank I am of the opinion there is a relatively fine range that if you go outside of, you will have issues. I think the correct range is highly dependent on how often you do water changes. I change water once every two or three weeks on most of my tanks and I think the fact that my schedule does not allow super consistent water changes means my range for error is that much smaller. If I were to do 50% weekly, that range would be quite large. 

I completely agree that the 0.11ppm makes no difference on a regular schedule, but if you compound that error and let that 0.11ppm build for several weeks, IME you do eventually run into problems.

My point with seachem, or any large scale liquid supplier, is that their margin of error when weighing and mixing is much smaller because their scale is larger. I use graduated cylinders to measure out my liquid (seachem) which helps me ride that line of dosing without excess. In addition to the amount you would weigh out (assuming you aren't just using spoons), you also have the error in the amount of water you are dissolving it in. In short, a consistently premixed liquid simply allows me to be more precise than dry, which in turn helps me ride that line (or range).

Your point that the pump head is far less precise than either liquid or dry self mixing is well taken. So far it has worked for me, but the long term (several months +) effects are yet to be seen. The fact that the pump head variability has not caused problems is a testament to your previous point that there is no exact amount to achieve the desired results.

I suppose you are right EI can be done with any type of fertilizer, I have just only heard it in the context of dry ferts.

I think we probably just have different experiences based on how much water we are changing as well as plant load water volume ect...

I also did not believe that you couldn't mix macros and micros, but I did actually do my own tests and its a very interesting topic. if, for example, you dissolve your dry ferts directly into the aquarium and dose both on the same day, the water volume is so large aka the concentration is so low you probably will not see any precipitation. If you dissolve macros in one stock bottle and micros in another stock bottle and dose into your aquarium, the same is true: no visible precipitation. If however you try to mix your own AIO, dissolving micros and macros into the same stock bottle, you get a precipitate after ~1hr. I don't know exactly how much is lost and/or how much less effective it is, but the plants certainly cannot uptake the precipitate. 

Yes, plants love phosphate. As I mentioned in a previous post a lot of times I add 1 mL of seachem PO4 depending on how much I am feeding. For that reason, I appreciate being able to control the PO4.

Lastly, I completely agree ferts do not make or break a tank and they are in a dynamic relationship with all the other elements, however, this thread was just about ferts.
@Sam the Slayer
You certainly could choose a different chelate. I have not noticed any pH swings by dosing EG. I am curious, have you?
@DaveKS
I am only saying that I am trying out easy green as a base layer and supplementing as needed. The AIO idea exclusively is already out the window. I am just using easy green to cheaply get the majority of my ferts in the water and the fine tune the rest.

I did not mean to start any arguments about what dosing method or regimen is best. After all, as many have said on this thread, there is not a "right" way to dose a tank. As the title of the thread suggests, I was just trying to see if anyone else was using AIO's to make their personal dosing regimen easier. It seems as though many of you do, or at least have tried based on the number of people referencing EG and Thrive. Curious why no one has mentioned Dustin's Grow Juice?
@burr740
I don't have time right now to do a whole tank journal thread but here is a sneak peak at some of my current projects. This is my 100G paludarium build. Its a tricky one because the dirt at the water line constantly adds organics to the water column. (trying to attach photos but it is not entirely intuitive as a forum newbie).

The little planters are an ongoing experiment of mine with dirted plant pots. I want a system for good growth that will allow me to sell root feeders to my LFS without them looking like crap in the store after a few days. Example: crypt melt

I feel like for my first thread here I should have chosen something less controversial than fert regimens, yet I find myself broaching the subject of dirted tanks...

Oh well, I have never been particularly good at making friends anyway :nerd:


----------



## Ddrizzle (Jan 30, 2019)

This screams of a marketing post.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I feel like for my first thread here I should have chosen something less controversial than fert regimens, yet I find myself broaching the subject of dirted tanks...
> 
> Oh well, I have never been particularly good at making friends anyway :nerd:


Nice post and I would not worry about the topic at all. 

A good healthy discussion is always welcome here. In the end we are all on the same side, or at least we should be.

Seeing your tank puts some of your earlier posts in context. I have no experience with that type of tank, but it looks interesting. I imagine fert demand would be very low.

Do you keep other tanks as well? 

Anyway, welcome to the board and look forward to learning more about your projects. And btw, starting a journal is a great way to become involved in the community.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Ddrizzle said:


> This screams of a marketing post.


I have no affiliation, nor do I sell any fertilizer products.



Greggz said:


> Nice post and I would not worry about the topic at all.
> 
> A good healthy discussion is always welcome here. In the end we are all on the same side, or at least we should be.
> 
> ...


Thanks @Greggz and @Discusluv ! I too appreciate a healthy discussion and it is amazing how much you can learn from fellow hobbyists. 

I do. I keep many tanks. I have been in the hobby for about 6 years now. I recently had a big move and had to break everything down and put in storage as I was couch surfing for a few months. The paludarium is now my most established tank. I have several hundreds of gallons worth of tanks back up and running but I am still working back to my former glory. My primary focus right now are the plants that sell well so I can get back to funding my hobby at a break even pace. As much as I take pride in the rare sensitive plants, they don't sell well around me. Lots of crypts, swords, lilies, java fern ect are the only money makers here. Right now my rarest species is probably fissiden nobilis. The paludarium is primarily planted with lobelia cardinalis which is a favorite of mine for its versatility. It can be back, fore, or mid ground if tended and fed properly. 

I don't currently have any super demanding water column feeders except for some purple cabomba. I will start a tank journal soon, just will take time to get all the build pics and changes together. 

The fert demand is not as low as you might think but I think the terrestrial dirt pulls some of it out of the water column... It has been a doozy to dial in


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I am disappointed to hear that scientist hobbyists have such a poor reputation on this forum. Hopefully I can help change that, although it does not seem I am off to a great start.
> 
> Instead of quoting everyone, i will just tag them otherwise this post will be far too long.
> 
> ...


 You are very Welcome! Please dont let this topic and the opinions that followed discourage you from taking part in the forum.

For some reason the strongest opinions come out during discussions on fertilizing. They also often combust and need moderator intervention. Such an interesting dynamic-- 

Anyways. 

Like was mentioned, start a journal and let us in on what you have going on with your tank/tanks.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Curious why no one has mentioned Dustin's Grow Juice?


Everyone has their customer base and folks who like their product. Dustin is more involved in other places and to be honest, anyone with a high light co2 injected tank trying to grow lush colorful stems is..probably... beyond using that.

But it might work great for you. Tons of other people too idk. It doesnt look like you have or are planning a very demanding tank. Is it even going to have CO2? (may have missed that, I havent read every word here) 

If you're just trying to have a nice low-tech (no co2) then just about anything with a complete range of nutrients will suffice


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

I find that I like my hobbies to be different than my job. As a scientist, I don't run an aquarium like I would a normal scientific endeavor. To be honest, most of my hobby corresponds better to process engineering. Why would you expect someone to come home and spend money to do the job that they likely spend many hours a week doing already? (I haven't spent only 40 hrs a week on science since probably my 2nd year of undergrad)

Chemistry PhDs are likely more useful to Seachem to get their nutrients into a bottle, not find the best nutrients to put in the bottle.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

burr740 said:


> Everyone has their customer base and folks who like their product. Dustin is more involved in other places and to be honest, anyone with a high light co2 injected tank trying to grow lush colorful stems is..probably... beyond using that.
> 
> But it might work great for you. Tons of other people too idk. It doesnt look like you have or are planning a very demanding tank. Is it even going to have CO2? (may have missed that, I havent read every word here)
> 
> If you're just trying to have a nice low-tech (no co2) then just about anything with a complete range of nutrients will suffice


The paludarium by nature has to have very high surface agitation so I would be wasting my money on it in there to be honest. I have done the pressurized CO2 stem plant tank and its just too much maintenance for me. The paludarium is a display and if I pumped CO2 in there the plants would be breaching the surface in 24-48 hours... Ask me how I know lol. 

In my other tanks I personally like the low and slow CO2 method as i don't have the most time for maintenance. I use a passive diffusion system instead of constant pressure. Solenoid just comes on for a short burst to fill up and upside down glass container calibrated to the right size for the given volume of water. It keeps my CO2 high enough for my taste and it lasts A LOT longer. The trick is just finding the right volume of gas to last one photoperiod :grin2:

That all being said I am using the EG plus supplemented seachem regimen on all my tanks. It works the same way on the CO2 and non CO2 systems, its just a question of how much you put in. I think to an extent that is true of all fert regimens. Whether you are pumping in 30 b/s or 1 b/s they need the same ratio of nutrients. Now I am gonna get in trouble because it is true that certain plants want more of a particular nutrient than others so when you increase the rate of growth nutrient x depletes more. I get all that. 

The point of the concept is that you can cover your bases with an all in one, and then dose extra of nutrient x to get the balance. Now if you have 30b/s CO2 and all H'ra of course AIO stops becoming effective and starts becoming cost prohibitive. As we have established thats not really my style and I don't think that is representative of most of the hobby.

To summarize the whole idea in a non-controversial way, I think AIO's, like easy green, are good for a lot more than just the newbies fert! :thumbsup:


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> I find that I like my hobbies to be different than my job. As a scientist, I don't run an aquarium like I would a normal scientific endeavor. To be honest, most of my hobby corresponds better to process engineering. Why would you expect someone to come home and spend money to do the job that they likely spend many hours a week doing already? (I haven't spent only 40 hrs a week on science since probably my 2nd year of undergrad)
> 
> Chemistry PhDs are likely more useful to Seachem to get their nutrients into a bottle, not find the best nutrients to put in the bottle.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I will have to think about that. I wouldn't say I approach the hobby like a scientific endeavor either. I don't think that would be very much fun lol. Personally I don't find one affects the other beyond translatable knowledge and tools. I do, however, think the somewhat obsessive compulsive need for precision that many of my colleagues and I share permeates all things; job, hobby, or otherwise. I also admire the hobby because the technical expertise and knowledge required to set up a balanced ecosystem makes every aquarist a scientist in a way.

Love your pic BTW. I actually have a beaker figurine on my bench :grin2:


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I will have to think about that. I wouldn't say I approach the hobby like a scientific endeavor either. I don't think that would be very much fun lol. Personally I don't find one affects the other beyond translatable knowledge and tools. I do, however, think the somewhat obsessive compulsive need for precision that many of my colleagues and I share permeates all things; job, hobby, or otherwise. I also admire the hobby because the technical expertise and knowledge required to set up a balanced ecosystem makes every aquarist a scientist in a way.
> 
> 
> 
> Love your pic BTW. I actually have a beaker figurine on my bench :grin2:


Eh, I enjoy this hobby for different reasons. I wouldn't call what most folks do in the hobby real science (myself included).

My approach to the hobby is far less precise and driven by precision. I am more of the Bob Ross type that enjoys the happy accidents. [emoji846]

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Eh, I enjoy this hobby for different reasons. I wouldn't call what most folks do in the hobby real science (myself included).
> 
> My approach to the hobby is far less precise and driven by precision. I am more of the Bob Ross type that enjoys the happy accidents. [emoji846]
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I actually never said I approach the hobby as a scientific endeavor or that what people do in the hobby is "real science" but I'll take the bait anyway.

If learning and maintaining the nitrogen cycle isn't a study of microbiology, i don't know what is. 
If learning all of the macro and micro nutrients needed by plants, and learning how to spot their deficiencies isn't a study of botany, I don't what is. 
If monitoring pH, gH, and kH isn't a study of chemistry, I don't know what is.
I could go on, but I will end with this:
Setting up and maintaining an ecosystem in your home is a study of nature.
If the study of nature isn't science, I don't know what is.

Just as Bob Ross painted nature on his canvases, we put nature on ours.

To each, his own. Cheers mate


----------



## Sam the Slayer (Dec 18, 2019)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> @Sam the Slayer
> You certainly could choose a different chelate. I have not noticed any pH swings by dosing EG. I am curious, have you?


I just meant the ph of the water in the aquarium. EDTA will start to degrade above a ph of 6 where as dtpa will hold until about 7.5. So when they say you’ll get x amount fe per dose which would be false for most people which will also have an effect on the rest of the ferts. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I actually never said I approach the hobby as a scientific endeavor or that what people do in the hobby is "real science" but I'll take the bait anyway.
> 
> If learning and maintaining the nitrogen cycle isn't a study of microbiology, i don't know what is.
> If learning all of the macro and micro nutrients needed by plants, and learning how to spot their deficiencies isn't a study of botany, I don't what is.
> ...


You quite literally said " I also admire the hobby because the technical expertise and knowledge required to set up a balanced ecosystem makes every aquarist a scientist in a way.". I was simply disagreeing with this. This is not to denigrate those in this hobby, just acknowledging that "experimenting" in our tanks, is not the same as running a real experiment. It's kind of in the same babe that the plural of anecdotes is not data.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I'll confess that I skipped ahead when I saw some scientist/lab tech bashing. I've been in the hobby over 50 years, but I'm a fishkeeper that uses plants for water purification. Oh I really like my planted tank with surreal naturalization. However, most of my tanks leverage fast growing floating plants to make for better water for the fish. I only use enough ferts to keep the plants growing well. With that in mind, EI just doesn't make sense to me. I've tried different brands but right now I'm trying Select Aquatics Rapid Grow plant fertilizer. But instead of the dosing method Greg Sage suggests, I'm adding a little after each water change. I'm not far enough along to swear by it yet, but it sure seems cost effective. (I too like the "all-in-one" ferts, but don't much like the cost...especially since they're mostly water.)
Different strokes for different hobbyists...what works best is what works best for you!


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'll confess that I skipped ahead when I saw some scientist/lab tech bashing. I've been in the hobby over 50 years, but I'm a fishkeeper that uses plants for water purification. Oh I really like my planted tank with surreal naturalization. However, most of my tanks leverage fast growing floating plants to make for better water for the fish. I only use enough ferts to keep the plants growing well. With that in mind, EI just doesn't make sense to me. I've tried different brands but right now I'm trying Select Aquatics Rapid Grow plant fertilizer. But instead of the dosing method Greg Sage suggests, I'm adding a little after each water change. I'm not far enough along to swear by it yet, but it sure seems cost effective. (I too like the "all-in-one" ferts, but don't much like the cost...especially since they're mostly water.)
> Different strokes for different hobbyists...what works best is what works best for you!


I have been wanting to try Greg Sage's mix actually! I am also a fishkeeper first who enjoys the beauty of plants as well as how much they help me with my water. I totally agree with what you said about EI being too much for that kind of tank. 
One thing we really haven't touched much on is how much fish load affects the amount of fertilizer needed. I generally overstock and over filter my tanks. Because they are over stocked I feed a lot of food per water volume which puts a lot of phosphates and nitrates in the water everyday. I also remineralize my RO water with seachem equilibrium which is loaded with potassium. So my NPK's are already decently high before I dose anything, at least for a low CO2 tank. I think that could be another reason why an AIO might work for me but not work for someone @Greggz or @burr740. 

Knowing Greg Sage doesn't do CO2 and also runs heavily stocked tanks and autofeeders, I bet his fert would be perfect for me. I have been wanting to try it for a while now so hearing that it works well for you gives me a bit more motivation. Does anyone else use his ferts?



Sam the Slayer said:


> I just meant the ph of the water in the aquarium. EDTA will start to degrade above a ph of 6 where as dtpa will hold until about 7.5. So when they say you’ll get x amount fe per dose which would be false for most people which will also have an effect on the rest of the ferts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I actually really hadn't considered that. You are certainly right, dtpa would be a better choice. Kudos!

I don't think it degrades but I get your point. EDTA has four carboxyl groups each of which loose a hydrogen at a different pH. The pka of EDTA's four carboxyl groups are 2, 2.7, 6.2, and 10.3. So even at the pH of 6 its already a 2- which I would think is enough to chelate ferric iron. When they do the chelation they do it at a pH above 10 so they have the 4-, but once ionically bound it should be relatively stable above pH 3.

I found this paper "Effect of pH, light, and temperature on Fe–EDTA chelation and Fe hydrolysis in seawater (Sunda et al, 2003)" which suggests in salt water ferric-EDTA begins to significantly dissociate at 7.7. Of course the sodium will help with the hydrolysis, but i wasn't able to find a freshwater reference. I'm very curious about this! @Sam the Slayer if you have any references about how much ferric EDTA dissociates above 6.3 I would love to read them!

It is amazing how much I can learn from other hobbyists!



Bunsen Honeydew said:


> You quite literally said " I also admire the hobby because the technical expertise and knowledge required to set up a balanced ecosystem makes every aquarist a scientist in a way.". I was simply disagreeing with this. This is not to denigrate those in this hobby, just acknowledging that "experimenting" in our tanks, is not the same as running a real experiment. It's kind of in the same babe that the plural of anecdotes is not data.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I meant only that the aquarist is a little bit of a scientist at heart. I never said experimenting in the tank was the same as running a real controlled experiment. Obviously I agree they are not the same which is why I said seachem was backed by the best science, because they actually did the controlled studies. I think this whole thread really is evidence that the planted aquarist is at least dabbling in science.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Edit: I just read a post from @Greggz on @burr740 tank journal. I will quote it here, assuming that isn't against the rules? Page 118 for reference.

"As to adjusting ferts based on fish load, here are my thoughts. Base your dosing on what the tank tells you, not what you think should happen. Every time I lowered NO3 thinking the fish load would take care of it, some plants rebelled and I ended up going back up. I don't factor in a thing for fish load, and just dose based on what the plants are telling me."

For some reason sometimes it wont let me edit a post, and I have to do back to back... anyone know why?


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I actually never said I approach the hobby as a scientific endeavor or that what people do in the hobby is "real science" but I'll take the bait anyway.
> 
> If learning and maintaining the nitrogen cycle isn't a study of microbiology, i don't know what is.
> If learning all of the macro and micro nutrients needed by plants, and learning how to spot their deficiencies isn't a study of botany, I don't what is.
> ...


Love this. So, so true.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Edit: I just read a post from @Greggz on @burr740 tank journal. I will quote it here, assuming that isn't against the rules? Page 118 for reference.
> 
> "As to adjusting ferts based on fish load, here are my thoughts. Base your dosing on what the tank tells you, not what you think should happen. Every time I lowered NO3 thinking the fish load would take care of it, some plants rebelled and I ended up going back up. I don't factor in a thing for fish load, and just dose based on what the plants are telling me."
> 
> For some reason sometimes it wont let me edit a post, and I have to do back to back... anyone know why?


If more than a few minutes has passed you need to enter in a "reason for editing" the post. The field is right about the "Save" tab.

Now you got me curious as to your thoughts on that quote??:wink2:


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> You quite literally said " I also admire the hobby because the technical expertise and knowledge required to set up a balanced ecosystem makes every aquarist a scientist in a way.". I was simply disagreeing with this. This is not to denigrate those in this hobby, just acknowledging that "experimenting" in our tanks, is not the same as running a real experiment. It's kind of in the same babe that the plural of anecdotes is not data.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


You miss the point completely. Science is also the curiosity all have for the natural world. I think everyone can tap into this curiosity and try to, in their own natural intelligence, explain these rhythms through experience- to themselves. No it is not conducted in a lab, under controlled parameters or put under rigorous peer-review- but, it is an appreciation fore the natural world that can make all "a scientist in a way". Just like was said.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Greggz said:


> If more than a few minutes has passed you need to enter in a "reason for editing" the post. The field is right about the "Save" tab.
> 
> Now you got me curious as to your thoughts on that quote??:wink2:


Thanks, very helpful!
I've actually spent an hour or so thinking about that quote. It has to be true that feeding-->amonia-->nitrite-->nitrate increases the amount of nitrate available to plants. Why would that amount be negligible is really the question. 
I have not actually tested how much nitrate is added with each feeding, I just, as you say, "listen to the plants". Certain foods have higher or lower phosphates, but the ammonia has to be produced by the fish (assuming you aren't wildly overfeeding) so it should, in theory, just be a function of how many "calories" are being processed.
I really don't know but I am kicking around a couple ideas. The bows are big and consequently have big poops. I keep much smaller fish, I also keep lots of shrimp which process the fish poop down even smaller. I wonder if there is any correlation between amount of available nitrate produced, and the size of the final waste product after exhausting the food chain. Granted a lot of the fish produced ammonia is going to be liquid, but I have to imagine a lot of it also comes from their solids. I also wonder, since you keep bows and cannot keep shrimp, if the waste products coming from your snails has different bio-availability from the waste products of my shrimp.
Who knows, but I am really enjoying pondering the topics that have been coming up on this thread :grin2:


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Discusluv said:


> You miss the point completely. Science is also the curiosity all have for the natural world. I think everyone can tap into this curiosity and try to, in their own natural intelligence, explain these rhythms through experience- to themselves. No it is not conducted in a lab, under controlled parameters or put under rigorous peer-review- but, it is an appreciation fore the natural world that can make all "a scientist in a way". Just like was said.


I understand the point, I am just disagreeing with it. From my perspective, there is a pretty clear distinction between conducting science and enjoying a hobby that involves scientific topics. I make that distinction because I am much more interested in the hobby for the latter rather than the former. Not because I want to denigrate the hobby or those in it. I love this hobby, please don't take this as a knock. Perhaps what I am saying would be more palatable as the hobby is more of an observational science than an experimental one? We can agree to disagree on this, but I don't want anyone to think that I meant anything negative to this hobby or it's hobbyists. I just happen to think that those rigors that are not in place in the hobby make a world of difference. 

The thing I disagree with (and why I chimed in at all) are the strange metrics that seem to get applied from time to time. Above it was said that scientists drop in and act like they know what they are talking about, but we never see them growing sensitive plants. Why should it be assumed that was ever their intention? The was another thread (that got locked) where someone was told that they don't know much about lighting because that person doesn't aquascape particularly well. I don't get it and don't think these non sequitur metrics of success are helpful.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> I understand the point, I am just disagreeing with it. From my perspective, there is a pretty clear distinction between conducting science and enjoying a hobby that involves scientific topics. I make that distinction because I am much more interested in the hobby for the latter rather than the former. Not because I want to denigrate the hobby or those in it. I love this hobby, please don't take this as a knock. Perhaps what I am saying would be more palatable as the hobby is more of an observational science than an experimental one? We can agree to disagree on this, but I don't want anyone to think that I meant anything negative to this hobby or it's hobbyists. I just happen to think that those rigors that are not in place in the hobby make a world of difference.
> 
> The thing I disagree with (and why I chimed in at all) are the strange metrics that seem to get applied from time to time. Above it was said that scientists drop in and act like they know what they are talking about, but we never see them growing sensitive plants. Why should it be assumed that was ever their intention? The was another thread (that got locked) where someone was told that they don't know much about lighting because that person doesn't aquascape particularly well. I don't get it and don't think these non sequitur metrics of success are helpful.
> 
> ...


I like what you said here. I think that phrasing is definitely more palatable. I am not sure that we disagree much at all really because I was never trying to make the point that the hobby is an experimental science. 

I agree completely that some metrics that get applied don't make sense. I was equally troubled by the metric of choosing to grow sensitive plants vs non-sensitive plants. Having healthy sensitive plants is a testament to the skill of the aquarist but not having sensitive plants is not a testament to someone's lack of skill.

Personally, I have grown sensitive plants in many tanks many a time. I do not, however, currently have any sensitive plants and I don't feel that my enjoyment of the hobby is any more lacking for it. There are also a great deal of incompatibilities in this hobby. There are many fish that cannot tolerate large pH swings caused high levels of CO2 that are a necessity for some plants. Additionally some fish require water parameters that are just not good at growing plants, high pH and hard water for example. This is a planted tank forum though so I think, to a degree, it is to be expected that the focus is on the plants.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Above it was said that scientists drop in and act like they know what they are talking about, but we never see them growing sensitive plants.


I didnt say scientists. I said people with a chemistry background. It may have come across like I was saying that's how chemists or scientists are in general. I did not mean it that way at all.

I only meant that people who tend to chime the loudest in and tell everyone else they are wrong about ferts usually throw out a bunch of chemistry talk and lean on it to back up their claims. Anyone who's been around this place for very long knows the type Im talking about. if not then they probably dont.

I meant no offense to all the scientists and chemists out there, I assure you.


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I like what you said here. I think that phrasing is definitely more palatable. I am not sure that we disagree much at all really because I was never trying to make the point that the hobby is an experimental science.
> 
> I agree completely that some metrics that get applied don't make sense. I was equally troubled by the metric of choosing to grow sensitive plants vs non-sensitive plants. Having healthy sensitive plants is a testament to the skill of the aquarist but not having sensitive plants is not a testament to someone's lack of skill.
> 
> Personally, I have grown sensitive plants in many tanks many a time. I do not, however, currently have any sensitive plants and I don't feel that my enjoyment of the hobby is any more lacking for it. There are also a great deal of incompatibilities in this hobby. There are many fish that cannot tolerate large pH swings caused high levels of CO2 that are a necessity for some plants. Additionally some fish require water parameters that are just not good at growing plants, high pH and hard water for example. This is a planted tank forum though so I think, to a degree, it is to be expected that the focus is on the plants.


Perhaps I am too sensitive in my own view of what a scientist and science are. I have personally seen it watered down quite a bit and think that has eroded the trust many have in science, but that is a topic for another forum.  Either way, I didn't intend to make it a big deal.

I think that one's success in this hobby, or any other, should be measured versus that person's intent, not someone else's. I happen to prefer big low tech jungles. Could I keep a high tech tank and chase water chemistries all over the place and meticulously maintain a tank? I think so, but that would feel like work to me and not a hobby. I like my hobbies to be a change of pace. I feel like if i am engaging in my hobby and I am getting what i want from it, then I've been successful.

Back to the topic of an all in one fertilizer, I prefer to us dry ferts. I have a 210 gallon tank with a sump, so it isn't terribly difficult to just dump the salts into the sump to dissolve them. I think I might get winded trying to use one of those pumps set up for 1 pump per 10 gallons. 

Bump:


burr740 said:


> I didnt say scientists. I said people with a chemistry background. It may have come across like I was saying that's how chemists or scientists are in general. I did not mean it that way at all.
> 
> I only meant that people who tend to chime the loudest in and tell everyone else they are wrong about ferts usually throw out a bunch of chemistry talk and lean on it to back up their claims. Anyone who's been around this place for very long knows the type Im talking about. if not then they probably dont.
> 
> I meant no offense to all the scientists and chemists out there, I assure you.


Fair enough. I too have ran into the type as well. Its always fun when those arguments start contradicting themsleves. I think anyone that has had the experience of getting a PhD in chemistry has usually had the notion of knowing everything about anything beaten out of them.  I wasn't trying to call you out on the statement in general, it was an example of the application of the metric in general. If I seem overly opinionated on something, its not because I think i know everything about it, its because I'm and a$$hole. Its a congenital character flaw. 

Bumping to add that I don't think poorly of the high tech, high maintenance tank, but its just not my cup of tea. Especially right now with a busy job and young kids. I don't get as much time as I'd like with the tank, so I prefer to have more of it sitting with a beer in my hand and enjoying the view. Maybe when I retire.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Perhaps I am too sensitive in my own view of what a scientist and science are. I have personally seen it watered down quite a bit and think that has eroded the trust many have in science, but that is a topic for another forum.  Either way, I didn't intend to make it a big deal.
> 
> I think that one's success in this hobby, or any other, should be measured versus that person's intent, not someone else's. I happen to prefer big low tech jungles. Could I keep a high tech tank and chase water chemistries all over the place and meticulously maintain a tank? I think so, but that would feel like work to me and not a hobby. I like my hobbies to be a change of pace. I feel like if i am engaging in my hobby and I am getting what i want from it, then I've been successful.
> 
> Back to the topic of an all in one fertilizer, I prefer to us dry ferts. I have a 210 gallon tank with a sump, so it isn't terribly difficult to just dump the salts into the sump to dissolve them. I think I might get winded trying to use one of those pumps set up for 1 pump per 10 gallons.


I think another aspect of this discussion is how many tanks a person has. As you allude to here, a high tech tank generally requires a lot more monitoring (not to mention the expense). If you have many tanks, there simply isn't time to do your due diligence to all of them at the high tech level. At least I don't have the time for that.

I too, like the big jungle/nature feel myself, but at the same time cant take my eyes from a flawless dutch. 

Yeah, pumping 21+ times would be silly, not to mention you'd go through a bottle in a week. Having a sump would make the dry fert system a breeze but I am too much of a coward to drill my big tanks. I am definitely going to have to try the Greg Sage stuff.

On another note do you do anything once a thread has run its course or just leave it?


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> On another note do you do anything once a thread has run its course or just leave it?


Regardless of how dead the horse is, continue beating it until you find another.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> I understand the point, I am just disagreeing with it. From my perspective, there is a pretty clear distinction between conducting science and enjoying a hobby that involves scientific topics. I make that distinction because I am much more interested in the hobby for the latter rather than the former. Not because I want to denigrate the hobby or those in it. I love this hobby, please don't take this as a knock. Perhaps what I am saying would be more palatable as the hobby is more of an observational science than an experimental one? We can agree to disagree on this, but I don't want anyone to think that I meant anything negative to this hobby or it's hobbyists. I just happen to think that those rigors that are not in place in the hobby make a world of difference.
> Thank you for that clarification. I see now what you were trying to say. The misunderstanding was my own.
> 
> 
> nt from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk






Quote:
Originally Posted by *Discusluv* View Post 



The thing I disagree with (and why I chimed in at all) are the strange metrics that seem to get applied from time to time. Above it was said that scientists drop in and act like they know what they are talking about, but we never see them growing sensitive plants. Why should it be assumed that was ever their intention? The was another thread (that got locked) where someone was told that they don't know much about lighting because that person doesn't aquascape particularly well. I don't get it and don't think these non sequitur metrics of success are helpful.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk 



Agree with this 100!


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Discusluv said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Discusluv* View Post
> 
> 
> ...


I most likely didn't present it well. I communicate much better face to face. Sigh, I remember when we were allowed to do that. [emoji846]

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Marc Gallagher (Jul 10, 2016)

Inputs and outputs, measurable data and observations. It is somewhat of a black box experiment in which I suppose the plant physiology would be the black box. Anyhow, I was doing the premixed solution for a while, but I noticed some batch to batch variation in that companies product, specifically, sometimes there would be a lot of precipitate in their solutions and sometimes none at all. Had to go back to making my own.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Thanks, very helpful!
> I've actually spent an hour or so thinking about that quote. It has to be true that feeding-->amonia-->nitrite-->nitrate increases the amount of nitrate available to plants. Why would that amount be negligible is really the question.


IMO is has to do with how the NO3 is generated.

For instance, with my tank I run three large filters which are cleaned at least once every three weeks. I perform a 70% water change at least once a week. I feed my Bows once a day at a rate most would consider sparingly (fish need far less food to survive/thrive than most realize). I remove any dead/decaying plant matter on a regular basis. Gravel is vacuumed with every water change.

Even with a tank full of Bows, my tank does not generate enough NO3 for my heavily planted high light tank, so it gets regular dosing to bring NO3 up.

Contrast that with a tank that generates NO3 from overfeeding, lack of filter cleaning, lack of vacuuming, lack of general maintenance that has loads of dissolved solids in the system.

While both may have Nitrates in the 30-40 ppm range, IMO there is a world of difference.

So in my opinion, it's not only how much NO3 is the system, but how it got there. And fish waste is only part of that equation.




HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I have not actually tested how much nitrate is added with each feeding, I just, as you say, "listen to the plants".


Many folks start with preconceived notions or expectations. They "think" they know what should happen. Like you say, my preference is to "listen" to the plants. When I got started, I asked a well known person on another forum how he would dose my tank. He said EI type dosing would be a waste in my tank. I went with that theory for a bit, but found the tank did better every time I bumped things up. In the end it was trial and error and finding what worked best in my particular eco system. 

So again, my main point was that you should believe what you see, not what you think should happen. Takes time, patience, and lots of closely observing plants.


----------



## irishspy (Oct 22, 2007)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Am I alone?


Nah. Just stared at behind your back. :wink2:

I went the same path as you: the full Seachem line for my 20-longs. I switched to Easy Green for the convenience, and it's worked great*. I'm satisfied with it. That said, there are a lot of good all-in-ones on the market. I'd tell people to try different ones until you find the one that works best with your water and plants.

(To be fair, my tanks run medium-high light, and I recall reading here some time a go that the basic Seachem line is formulated for low-light tanks. I may be misremembering, but that could have been one of the sources of the algae problem I was having at the time.)

When I do set up another tank, I'd like to give NilocG or Brightwell a try.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

I've been really enjoying lurking in this discussion. 



Bunsen Honeydew said:


> The thing I disagree with (and why I chimed in at all) are the strange metrics that seem to get applied from time to time. Above it was said that scientists drop in and act like they know what they are talking about, but we never see them growing sensitive plants. Why should it be assumed that was ever their intention? The was another thread (that got locked) where someone was told that they don't know much about lighting because that person doesn't aquascape particularly well. I don't get it and don't think these non sequitur metrics of success are helpful.


Ugh, that attitude is so vile. I greatly admire giant high-tech aquariums with 15 billion plant species, an immaculate fish community, and scaped to the gods. Who doesn't? But come on! This is a time- and money-intensive hobby most people have to prioritize. I am in the (terrestrial) horticulture industry and while my garden at home does have some rare and unusual plants I've picked up over the years, I don't have anything super finicky and demanding. This is not because I don't know what I'm doing - it's because I know how much free time I have to devote to the yard and I'm choosing accordingly. Prioritizing is even more important with aquariums because it's a closed ecosystem and if something dies it affects everything else. 

It seems like so many arguments on this forum come down to people not wanting to admit that there are many paths to success. (There are many to failure also >) The best is finding an old thread where people are fighting and I can see that multiple users have been banned.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Greggz said:


> IMO is has to do with how the NO3 is generated.
> 
> For instance, with my tank I run three large filters which are cleaned at least once every three weeks. I perform a 70% water change at least once a week. I feed my Bows once a day at a rate most would consider sparingly (fish need far less food to survive/thrive than most realize). I remove any dead/decaying plant matter on a regular basis. Gravel is vacuumed with every water change.
> 
> ...


I grow out a lot of fry to sell to LFS and because I want a high turn over rate, I feed as much as I can. I run VERY high biological filtration in addition to under gravel filters in all my tanks. I do 30% water changes at most once every two weeks and that is usually does not include gravel vac (I top of with lightly remineralized RO, seachem equilibrium mostly to make up for the potassium and calcium the plants consume). I clean my filters once every few months. I test my water several times a week so I know my fish are safe and healthy (i use tank tracker to log and graph all my parameters over time, runbo test strips and API master if something is out of whack). My tanks also get broken down and deep cleaned once every 6 months to a year. I also don't give any mind to TDS except when remineralizing RO.

We have MASSIVELY different maintenance routines and dosing routines. Obviously you are getting your desired results and for the most part so am I. People would certainly say your methods are more kosher and safer than mine, but just like you said IMO that is mostly because they think they know what should happen. I have and will catch a lot of hate for my low maintenance approach but it works for me. I grow plants, I have healthy thriving fish, and I enjoy myself. 

Wild how much disparity there is in aquarium keeping.



irishspy said:


> Nah. Just stared at behind your back. :wink2:
> 
> I went the same path as you: the full Seachem line for my 20-longs. I switched to Easy Green for the convenience, and it's worked great*. I'm satisfied with it. That said, there are a lot of good all-in-ones on the market. I'd tell people to try different ones until you find the one that works best with your water and plants.
> 
> ...


Good to know I am not the only one surprised by its efficacy. It has kind of been established but not stated here, the AIO's really only make sense in smaller water volumes but they do work. I also run medium to high light, but seachem worked for me. I will go out on a limb and say dosing powders into a 20 long is a quick road to algae.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> ... I will go out on a limb and say dosing powders into a 20 long is a quick road to algae.


A very weak limb. :surprise: What am I missing here, can you elaborate.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> A very weak limb. :surprise: What am I missing here, can you elaborate.


If you are dosing powders, you are likely either using a scale or a standard spoon. Each of those have a standard error rate. That error rate will be the same whether you are dosing a 20 gallon or a 200 gallon but it will have a much greater impact on the 20 gallon.

Of course all the other things that have been said on this thread still apply. If you're doing 50% water changes every week (or 70%) that rate of error won't be able to build up. Because powders are 100% concentrated, and AIO are dilute, the rate of error is very different.

Obviously, it is not impossible to have a successful regimen this way, it is just much harder.

Editing again to clarify further. I didn't say nor do I mean you can't do it without getting algae. What I mean is that that particular method is a QUICK road to algae. Let make an example. If algae results at 5ppm of imbalance, and your dosing regimen has a 10% error rate, you will reach that 5ppm much faster in a small volume when dosing highly concentrated ferts. 10% of a 1% solution is a tiny amount of error. 10% of a 100% solution is a much larger amount of error. 

It is the same reason why water chemistry in a large tank is more stable than a small tank.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> You could always buy the salts then make your own solution.
> 
> Same thing you are buying, but at a fraction of the cost. I could go make a bottle in about 2 minutes, about the same time it takes to place the order.
> 
> ...


This is what I do. I made my own all-in-one and put it in an easy green bottle for easy dispensing. I did have trouble with incomplete dissolution though, and I'm also curious if I'm going to find a bunch of precipitate in the bottom of the bottle as I just ran out yesterday and am making a new batch tonight.

I'd love a recipe critique to make sure I'm not doing anything clearly wrong:

For a 500 mL bottle, add:
9.26 g KNO3
4.86 g KH2PO4
2.3 g CSM+B

Add 10 mL per 80 L tank volume to produce:
1.5 ppm NO3
.7 ppm PO4
5.2 PPM K
.04 PPM Fe
.42 ppm mG

I add this 4x per week. I'm also dosing 1/4 tsp Equilibrium per 5 gallons of water changed to raise GH as my tap water has no calcium or magnesium in it.

I've thought about breaking out the auto doser again, but I think the squirt bottle is honestly less stressful than wondering if the auto doser is working correctly.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

gjcarew said:


> This is what I do. I made my own all-in-one and put it in an easy green bottle for easy dispensing. I did have trouble with incomplete dissolution though, and I'm also curious if I'm going to find a bunch of precipitate in the bottom of the bottle as I just ran out yesterday and am making a new batch tonight.


I hope you will update us about the precipitate!


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> ...
> Editing again to clarify further. I didn't say nor do I mean you can't do it without getting algae. What I mean is that that particular method is a QUICK road to algae. Let make an example. If algae results at 5ppm of imbalance, and your dosing regimen has a 10% error rate, you will reach that 5ppm much faster in a small volume when dosing highly concentrated ferts. 10% of a 1% solution is a tiny amount of error. 10% of a 100% solution is a much larger amount of error.
> 
> It is the same reason why water chemistry in a large tank is more stable than a small tank.


From a scientific standpoint I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but fundamentally i think you are incorrect in the context of dosing. 

I think this can be summed up in what you previously stated. 



HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Wild how much disparity there is in aquarium keeping.


It is huge. One can run a successful setup (healthy plants, fish, no algae) and carry for example 0.8 ppm no3 or 80ppm. We are talking dosing not nutrient buildup from organic decay. Even with water changes my tank easy builds up to 80 no3 without issue. Any hi-tech tank would need water changes not just because of EI dosing, but for organic build-up. The less plants you have, the more you probably need water changes, or organic removal media. The more plants you have, the less water changes you could probably get away with in terms of dosing buildup, it's still prudent to do them to reduce any organics. In a high tech system with strong lighting even a tiny amount of organics could cause algae. 

Any setup that allows organics to build up (i.e. Walstad) is limited in someway, either by the type of plants you can grow or designing an aquascape with lots of hardscape but minimal plants (i.e. iwagumi) since the light used needs to be on the weaker side. Strong light and high organics is the fastest way to algae. 

So from Walstad to High-Tech, one thrives on organics the other despises it. Yes your right, lots of disparity.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> From a scientific standpoint I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but fundamentally i think you are incorrect in the context of dosing.


 I will happily be corrected if I am, just not sure I understand what you are trying to explain. Why would an imbalance not occur faster in a small volume?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> We have MASSIVELY different maintenance routines and dosing routines. Obviously you are getting your desired results and for the most part so am I.


Yep, there a LOT of ways to manage a tank. If one demonstrates success, I am interested in learning more.

The differences also have much to do with ones goals.

A tank full of sensitive fast growing flowery stems is a completely different animal than a tank of slower growing low light plants. I have kept both, and they both can be equally appealing in different ways. 

I have said many times what I do is not for everyone. You have to enjoy the process, or it could quickly become a burden. Others prefer a lower maintenance slower growing approach. I did just that for decades and understand and appreciate it.

In the end, if someone finds a method that works for them and helps them meet their goals, then I am all for it. Makes no matter to me if it is polar opposite of my methods.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I will happily be corrected if I am, just not sure I understand what you are trying to explain. Why would an imbalance not occur faster in this situation?


Can you elaborate a little more on the imbalance and what you think the issue would be.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Because powders are 100% concentrated, and AIO are dilute, the rate of error is very different.


I have a question, and this is not an argument. I'm truly curious.

If one makes a solution, how is that different than buying a solution?

If a solution you make adds lets say NO3O4:K at 5:1:5 per dose, and a commercial solution adds 5:1:5 per dose, what makes them different? They add dry salts just like you do.

I would argue that a small error in the amount and timing of water changes has a much larger effect (accumulation) than a gram scale error when making a solution. For instance, if you change 40% instead of 50% of your water, total accumulation down the road increases by about 25%. Skip a water change or two and the same thing, your accumulation will be considerable higher. 

Just saying in the scheme of things there are lots of other things that can affect actual levels in an aquarium. IMO, a gram scale error is little to worry about. 

Now if one if using tsp measurements, well those can vary by a very wide margin. I did a kitchen table experiment on this a long while back and it was pretty interesting.

This is the kind of science you get around here...........:grin2::grin2:
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-part-deux-aqua-soil-3-15-a-137.html#post11162589


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> Can you elaborate a little more on the imbalance and what you think the issue would be.


There are many different types of algae and they are caused by a great many things, but in this example an imbalance would consist of too much or too little of a given nutrient.

IME common examples of this would be too much or too little of phosphate, potassium, and iron. IME nitrate alone in excess does not lead to algae.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Let make an example. If algae results at 5ppm of imbalance


What exactly is a 5% imbalance? 

If it's what I think it is, then I am not too sure about your premise. At least it is something that I have never seen.

I have used loads of different schemes in both low tech and high tech tanks for decades. I would guess I have "imbalances" well over 5%. But I have never once seen an algae outbreak from a slight change in ferts. In fact, as far as algae outbreaks go, IMO fert dosing is very rarely the cause (except for under dosing) except in extreme circumstances. There are loads of reasons for an algae outbreak, but minor changes in dosing is not one of them.

Is this something you have observed? Do you think it is repeatable? I'd like to hear more.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> There are many different types of algae and they are caused by a great many things, but in this example an imbalance would consist of too much or too little of a given nutrient.
> 
> IME common examples of this would be too much or too little of phosphate, potassium, and iron. IME nitrate alone in excess does not lead to algae.


Well @Greggz already answered this. I realize there is a certain mind set / culture that believes that dosed ferts cause algae, it just doesn't appear to be true or very realistic to me. I personally have been running between 40-80 ppm of no3 and 2-5 ppm of P for over a year now in my signature tank and if I told you how clean the plants are and how healthy the fish are it would sound like bragging. Tom Barr (EI inventor) doesn't believe this either nor do many established influencers in the hobby. 

You might ask why do I keep it that high? Mostly because I don't test on a regular basis so I always just dose full EI because I don't want to run out of something. Once you run out and the plant shows deficiency you've already started the process of spores becoming algae because ammonia is being produced by the "sick" leaves. One reason EI is so popular is that testing is "optional" for many setups. It is an Estimative Index an being off by 5, 10, 15% doesn't account for any real issues.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Regardless of how dead the horse is, continue beating it until you find another.


Better to just leave it.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Greggz said:


> I have a question, and this is not an argument. I'm truly curious.
> 
> If one makes a solution, how is that different than buying a solution?
> 
> ...


If you are making your own solutions from powder using a scale and then using that solution to dose in the case of the macros you mentioned, IMO there is no difference at all. 

I will, however, indulge myself and play devil's advocate. 

Each time you mix up and dissolve your solution you have the variability of the weight and the amount of water you are dissolving it in (again assuming you are not using spoons which many people do). One batch may be slightly more concentrated or slightly less concentrated than another. If you make up 6 months worth of solution that error will be the same and have very small impact. If you make a weeks worth of solution that error will be the same and have a larger impact. In practical application I don't think you would notice this at all but it is still definitely happening. Companies making very large scale batches will experience this in such small degrees you wouldn't be able to detect it. The variability of how much of the stock solution you are dosing would be the same whether it is home made or store bought if you make it at the same concentration. If you make your macro solution at a higher concentration (which many people do) now you have a similar variability but in a much smaller volume. For example, 1mL of homemade solution will be much more variable than 10mL of seachem NPK in the context of repeated day to day dosing assuming the same variability per measurement (like using the same graduated cylinder or measuring cup).

Also, I have never heard of anyone chelating their own metals at home, so if you want to mix your own AIO stock solution you will get the afore mentioned precipitation and consequent reduction in its effectiveness. As mentioned before I don't know how much less effective it is but it is still definitely happening.

Also many people (as they have mentioned on this thread) just add the powder straight to the aquarium per dose, resulting in the highest amount of variability. 

In summary, the worst case scenario (speaking in terms of variability) for powders is that you are using spoons to do your daily dose straight into the aquarium. Tons of variability, totally different than using commercially bought liquids. In the case of using a gram scale to make a stock solution at a low concentration separating macros and micros, absolutely no difference at all (except for $$). 

Ok, now that I am done playing devil's advocate I will say:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I am not calling anyone's dosing regimen wrong. That would be quite an arrogant and foolish thing to say. I merely am trying to describe the efforts I make to dial my set up in so that I do not run into issues because of my necessarily irregular water change and maintenance schedule!*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Greggz and @Asteroid I am beginning to understand your point. If you are telling me that your tanks are constantly running in excess of all the nutrients, meaning algae constantly has all the ferts it could want to bloom and it isn't...

This was an interesting thread to me before but now it just went to another level. 

I would be shocked, along with what I think is the majority of the hobby, to find out that constant ferts in excess doesn't lead to algae. On the one hand I would be very happy because my life just got a lot easier but on the other hand I would be sad because of all the wasted time toiling over ratios and dosing.

Can you clarify that I am understanding you correctly? Constant macros and micros in excess do not cause algae? (In this scenario we are assuming ample CO2)

I do feel like that would only be the case if you have plenty of CO2 for the plants to use. If you are running a low/lower tech setup then carbon would be the rate limiting factor and you would then need to rebalance and then ratios would come back into play, right? But at the same time, if excess nutrients don't cause algae how come low CO2 causes BBA? The plants are still growing, just slower and the same excess nutrients are in the water...?

If that is truly the case, I have a lot of testing to do and am indeed incorrect about fert ratios making any difference at all. I am not yet fully convinced as I am a see it to believe it type, but if that is what you are telling me, I will give it a try.

If this is in fact the case what is the point of the tabletop experiment you are doing in the link? Why not continue to use spoons and dose extra?

If this is the case, then in a grow tank without fish, why change water at all? Why not just top of with RO? Why not do fewer water changes and just add heavy mechanical filtration to keep down organics?

I need to sleep on this because I am currently beginning to question everything I have ever known about growing aquatic plants. 

Lastly I realize I probably didn't make one thing clear. My efforts in trying to precisely dial in nutrient levels and ratios were, in theory, in order to not leave anything left for the algae to capitalize on.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

It seems to me that if you 1) get the light right (PAR, PUR and photoperiod(s)) for 2) a given CO2 level (anywhere between 2ppp and 40ppm), 3) practice good plant husbandry, 4) provide good circulation (all parts of all plants moving and good gas exchange) and 5) develop good cleaning habits (filter, tank and water changes), the very forgiving nature (adaptability) of most plants makes it almost difficult to screw them up via fertilizer or, conversely, it makes it much easier to see fertilizer issues.

Now, if I could only practice what I preach …but then it wouldn’t fun.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> It seems to me that if you 1) get the light right (PAR, PUR and photoperiod(s)) for 2) a given CO2 level (anywhere between 2ppp and 40ppm), 3) practice good plant husbandry, 4) provide good circulation (all parts of all plants moving and good gas exchange) and 5) develop good cleaning habits (filter, tank and water changes), the very forgiving nature (adaptability) of most plants makes it almost difficult to screw them up via fertilizer or, conversely, it makes it much easier to see fertilizer issues.
> 
> Now, if I could only practice what I preach …but then it wouldn’t fun.


+1.

Well said and I agree completely. In fact, read it several times over and it was very well put.

Manage a tank well, and you will get good results with a wide variety of dosing.

Manage a tank poorly, and there is no fert dosing that will save you. 

In the end, think growing plants, not defeating algae. Healthy plants beat algae every time.


----------



## HairyNoseWombat (Jan 14, 2020)

I love Seachem flourish comprehensive and their root tabs, its all I use, I tried those just add water dry mixes all they ever did was grow algae.

A 100 milliliter bottle of Flourish comprehensive for the planted tank costs me $12 I use 1 milliliter 2 times a week, do the math.

Heres some photos, I do not use CO2 or Excel.






















> It seems to me that if you 1) get the light right (PAR, PUR and photoperiod(s)) for 2) a given CO2 level (anywhere between 2ppp and 40ppm), 3) practice good plant husbandry, 4) provide good circulation (all parts of all plants moving and good gas exchange) and 5) develop good cleaning habits (filter, tank and water changes), the very forgiving nature (adaptability) of most plants makes it almost difficult to screw them up via fertilizer or, conversely, it makes it much easier to see fertilizer issues.


Geez Im in truoble as I hardly do any of that,I feed my Betta I change 50% of the water once a week and sometimes clean the glass, I never vacuum the substrate and have no idea what the PAR, PUR ratings are.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Well I lied, haven't slept on it yet lol
@Greggz and @Deanna I too read it several times and agree, very well put. I believe @Greggz, @Asteroid, and @burr740. Obviously it is working very well for them. It just has not been my experience. I wish it was, but for one or all of the many reasons that have been stated here, my tanks are very picky about how they want their fertilizer dosed. I don't recall who, but someone said they front loaded all their macros at the beginning of the week, and then dosed micros throughout the rest of the week. Again, I am shocked. My tanks would revolt! I have much testing to do in the coming months... I'll be busy.



HairyNoseWombat said:


> I love Seachem flourish comprehensive and their root tabs, its all I use, I tried those just add water dry mixes all they ever did was grow algae.
> 
> A 100 milliliter bottle of Flourish comprehensive for the planted tank costs me $12 I use 1 milliliter 2 times a week, do the math.
> 
> Heres some photos, I do not use CO2 or Excel.


I love your tank man. Absolutely love it. Right up my ally. That purple cabomba :drool: all time fave. Very cool to see such a nice tank with such a lean schedule. Do you run really short photoperiods?


----------



## HairyNoseWombat (Jan 14, 2020)

I use a Beamworks viva grow LED and it runs 10 hours a day


Theres more here on this tank.
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8-general-planted-tank-discussion/1308373-should-i-add-co2.html


PS

That purple cabomba? 

I got it at a chain pet store and it was marked Limnophila sessiliflora,


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

HairyNoseWombat said:


> I use a Beamworks viva grow LED and it runs 10 hours a day
> 
> 
> Theres more here on this tank.
> ...


AGAIN. Mind blown. 10 hour lights on, no CO2, low ferts, and all those reds.

*You're a wizard Hairy*

Looks just like my purple cabomba! Get a second opinion but I feel pretty confident thats what it is


----------



## HairyNoseWombat (Jan 14, 2020)

Would 15 Seachem root tabs in there count as low ferts?


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

HairyNoseWombat said:


> Would 15 Seachem root tabs in there count as low ferts?


Lol no... Probably not :grin2:

Just looked up Limnophila sessiliflora. Says it looks a lot like cabomba but is much less demanding. Things are starting to come together. I am looking at your tank going, "how is his cabomba doing that without CO2!"

There is also limnophilia indica. All look very similar


----------



## HairyNoseWombat (Jan 14, 2020)

Ok last 1, 

This is my no tech no fertiliser other than fish poo and mulum 6 footer, Again I never vacuum the substrate and only change 50% of the water once a week.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

HairyNoseWombat said:


> Geez Im in truoble as I hardly do any of that,I feed my Betta I change 50% of the water once a week and sometimes clean the glass, I never vacuum the substrate and have no idea what the PAR, PUR ratings are.


Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean that you didn't get it right.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Well I lied, haven't slept on it yet lol
> @*Greggz* and @*Deanna* I too read it several times and agree, very well put. I believe @*Greggz*, @*Asteroid*, and @*burr740*. Obviously it is working very well for them. It just has not been my experience. I wish it was, but for one or all of the many reasons that have been stated here, my tanks are very picky about how they want their fertilizer dosed. I don't recall who, but someone said they front loaded all their macros at the beginning of the week, and then dosed micros throughout the rest of the week. Again, I am shocked. My tanks would revolt! I have much testing to do in the coming months... I'll be busy.
> 
> 
> ...


Wow-- just wow!:surprise:


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Lol no... Probably not :grin2:
> 
> Just looked up Limnophila sessiliflora. Says it looks a lot like cabomba but is much less demanding. Things are starting to come together. I am looking at your tank going, "how is his cabomba doing that without CO2!"
> 
> There is also limnophilia indica. All look very similar


I would love to grow Limnophila sessiliflora (in theory), but it's a federally listed noxious weed in the US. I kept seeing it in youtube videos in European tanks and loved the look, but I didn't see it for sale anywhere I normally buy plants online and I'm pretty sure this is why. Anyone selling it in the US *should not* be doing so - it's illegal and irresponsible. It's also listed specifically in my state. 

Just a reminder - just like with fish, keep your tank trimmings out of your local waterways y'all, particularly if you are growing easier plants and are in a warmer state. Often the things that make them less demanding in an aquarium make them ferocious monsters in the environment.

Edited to add: if you are growing actual Limnophila sessiliflora in the US, I'm not going to tell on your or whatever. Just be extra careful with trimmings and don't sell or give it away. If you have it in an outdoor application like a pond, you really ought to get rid of it safely though.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ElleDee said:


> I would love to grow Limnophila sessiliflora (in theory), but it's a federally listed noxious weed in the US. I kept seeing it in youtube videos in European tanks and loved the look, but I didn't see it for sale anywhere I normally buy plants online and I'm pretty sure this is why. Anyone selling it in the US *should not* be doing so - it's illegal and irresponsible. It's also listed specifically in my state.
> 
> Just a reminder - just like with fish, keep your tank trimmings out of your local waterways y'all, particularly if you are growing easier plants and are in a warmer state. Often the things that make them less demanding in an aquarium make them ferocious monsters in the environment.
> 
> Edited to add: if you are growing actual Limnophila sessiliflora in the US, I'm not going to tell on your or whatever. Just be extra careful with trimmings and don't sell or give it away. If you have it in an outdoor application like a pond, you really ought to get rid of it safely though.


Your correct it is federally banned. Believe it or not, it's still being sold on ebay and by U.S. sellers. Any plant like L. sessiliflora and H. polysperma are incredibly non-demanding thus the outrageous growth in many environments. Even Cabomba is banned in many states.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> Your correct it is federally banned. Believe it or not, it's still being sold on ebay and by U.S. sellers. Any plant like L. sessiliflora and H. polysperma are incredibly non-demanding thus the outrageous growth in many environments. Even Cabomba is banned in many states.


I wish I was surprised, but I'm not. I don't expect retailers to keep up with noxious weed lists in other states, but violating the federal list gets you some serious bad karma. If an individual has a noxious weed in a glass box in their house they can be responsible about containing it, but if you are shipping it to strangers there's no telling what they are going to do.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1308485-100-gallon-paludarium.html#post11342549

I tagged some people but couldn't get everyone, just started this tank journal so check it out for some more context.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> @Greggz and @Asteroid I am beginning to understand your point. If you are telling me that your tanks are constantly running in excess of all the nutrients, meaning algae constantly has all the ferts it could want to bloom and it isn't...
> 
> This was an interesting thread to me before but now it just went to another level.


I guess that depends on what you consider excess. I have run levels of ferts that might make you faint. But again, I have to point out that is in the context of a very high light CO2 injected tank.

I can tell you this for certain. I can walk over to my tank right now and dump in another 5 ppm PO4 without hesitation. The ratio will be different, but I guarantee you no algae bloom. I know because I have done it many, many times. If I notice a leading indicator like Pantanal is droopy, I am not shy about boosting things quickly.





HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I would be shocked, along with what I think is the majority of the hobby, to find out that constant ferts in excess doesn't lead to algae. On the one hand I would be very happy because my life just got a lot easier but on the other hand I would be sad because of all the wasted time toiling over ratios and dosing.
> 
> Can you clarify that I am understanding you correctly? Constant macros and micros in excess do not cause algae? (In this scenario we are assuming ample CO2)


I guess that depends on who you follow in the hobby. I follow many world class plant growers, and I would say the notion that excess ferts causes algae is pretty much a thing of the past. Like I said, I have dosed some levels that would make your head spin!:grin2:



HerpsAndHerbs said:


> If that is truly the case, I have a lot of testing to do and am indeed incorrect about fert ratios making any difference at all. I am not yet fully convinced as I am a see it to believe it type, but if that is what you are telling me, I will give it a try.
> 
> If this is in fact the case what is the point of the tabletop experiment you are doing in the link? Why not continue to use spoons and dose extra?
> 
> If this is the case, then in a grow tank without fish, why change water at all? Why not just top of with RO? Why not do fewer water changes and just add heavy mechanical filtration to keep down organics?


Fert ratios are a tricky thing. I don't believe there is some magic ratio that will make everything perfect. Heck, even individual plants have individual needs that vary. So the trick is pleasing as many as you can at one time.

I do believe the elements interact with each other and there are positive and negative associations. Many times we have discussed the following chart...............










But I look at these as broad based relationships. That is you don't want things in terrible excess in one direction or the other. But in reasonable amounts there is wide latitude as to what will work. 

As to my tsp experiment, I do like to know what I am dosing into my tank. And once you get to a certain point, you begin to fine tune things to bring out the best in the most species. My dosing is not straight EI, but I guess you could say is based on EI. So I do like tweaking things here and there to see the effect on the tank in general, and sometimes on just an individual plant.

Bump:


HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I don't recall who, but someone said they front loaded all their macros at the beginning of the week, and then dosed micros throughout the rest of the week. Again, I am shocked. My tanks would revolt! I have much testing to do in the coming months... I'll be busy.


That be me!:wink2:

Front load macros daily dose micros for several years now.

Tank is better than ever.

Bump:


HerpsAndHerbs said:


> But at the same time, if excess nutrients don't cause algae how come low CO2 causes BBA? The plants are still growing, just slower and the same excess nutrients are in the water...?


BBA is one topic that has been debated to death, and there are loads of opinions out there on what causes it.

IMO, it is not caused by low CO2. Low CO2 is surely a factor, but it is usually in combination with too much organic waste (#1 contributor), too much/too little light, too much/too little flow, and sometimes too low of dosing (unhappy starving plants). 

It really requires a holistic approach and knowing everything about a tank that you possibly can, as it can be a combination of different triggers.

But again, it's a long topic and you will find loads of passionate threads here and elsewhere devoted to it.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

@Greggz thanks for the education and healthy discussion. Like I said before I will happily be corrected in the face of new evidence. I will try one of my tanks on your routine and see how it goes and let you know!

I still am not sure it will work for my type of tank keeping. I generally avoid high CO2 and fast growing stems because it requires a lot of maintenance, so the testing will definitely be revealing. I'll dedicate a tank to it and make sure to keep organics down. I don't have any plants that demand high CO2 right now so it won't be in the same context as yours but I am excited to see what happens!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> @Greggz thanks for the education


Ha....remember you get what you pay for!:wink2:

I'm only relating things that I have observed in my own tanks. And if you read enough of my posts, you'll see they often come with a disclaimer "Your mileage may vary".

If you've got a method that works, that is all that really matters.

And yes, I have enjoyed the discussion as well. I think you will find there are many here who have a lot of experience and much to add.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Well, I started doing some more research and found something very interesting. I started looking at some of the fertilization routines of the world class aquarists as was suggested to me @Greggz) and I came across this video by Felipe Oliveira. He is obviously a well respected well established influencer in the hobby.






In this video, it seems to me that he pretty unequivocally states that excess ferts cause algae and makes many of the exact same points I was trying to make. I realize this could come across as confirmation bias, and many of you can probably also pull references backing up your own points (if you can please do). 

It just makes me feel better to have someone as prominent as him confirm my past experiences. Like I said before, I was beginning to question everything I ever knew about growing aquatic plants. To me, this video is evidence that I am not going crazy, and many of the points I was trying to make are quite valid, at least in the context of the right tank. I think many of you who were disagreeing with the fundamentals behind my argument, are growing a lot of fast growing water column feeders.

I am curious if this video makes any of you think differently about my previous points? If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts @Greggz @Asteroid @burr740 @Deanna ect...

P.S. Let me know if you want me to stop tagging you in these posts. Not yet sure of proper etiquette on this forum.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Ive seen that video. Yes he's a well respected plant grower and obviously knows a lot about things. But...that video is basically a plug for Seachem fertilizer. I have no problem with that, its just how these things work. 

But its important to understand that for every "respected"opinion that says too much ferts cause algae, there are just as many respected people who think they dont.

Here's my opinion. Primarily there are two things that cause algae: Unhappy plants and dirty conditions.

Anything that makes plants stall or stop growing nice will cause algae. Healthy thriving plants just do not get it. The aquarium might get it, hardscape, substrate or the front glass, but a happy plant, or a happy leaf will never have algae. 

OD'ing ferts, especially micros can definitely make plants unhappy. In that regard yes, too much ferts cause algae. Too little ferts will also do it, not enough co2, not enough light - anything that the plants dont like is going to result in algae on said plants, and other places too if there is plant tissue degrading.

Dirty conditions is the other main cause of algae, especially in a fast moving high light tank. Mulm lying around, dirty filters, insufficient water changes. All that stuff feeds algae. It also directly affects plant growth.

Water changes for example are about more than removing ferts. It removes a lot of invisible dissolved organic waste that otherwise would feed algae and interfere with plant growth. This too is more pronounced in a fast moving high light set up. Its important to keep that kind of tank extremely clean. 

So...regardless of how you frame it, it all comes back to those two things

Feel free btw to tag me anytime. I dont do a whole lot of reading these days and probably wouldnt see a thread or post otherwise


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

@Xiaozhuang had a pretty good article on advancedplantedtank.com about nutrient tunnel vision. I'm convinced, with all the successful fertilization strategies from Filipe Oliveira to EI to the Rotala Kill Tanks, that fertilization really doesn't matter too much. I just saw on the low-tech planted tanks Facebook page some guy that was growing plants beautifully using chopped up banana and potato peels as fertilizer. CO2, light, and plant husbandry seem to be more important than ferts.

Also this was about 40 posts ago but I didn't find any precipitate in my DIY liquid fert mixture!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Exactly, ratios and balancing them into your tanks needs/uptake are only parameters that matter.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

@HerpsAndHerbs

As pointed out Filipe Oliveira is a very well respected aquascaper. I credit him with making the moss tree extremely popular. It was ground breaking at the time as he took 10th place in IAPLC in 2007 with his Syrah aquascape that was only 15 gallons. All other high-ranking tanks are much larger. I can assure you he wasn't using Seachem at the time. Not that there's anything wrong with Seachem (I use plenty of their products), but there is that $ thing. 

If you haven't seen it, I think you might enjoy this video from Green Aqua. Green Aqua is a major influencer, Aquascape Gallery/Shop Owner and ADA distributor. This guy Balazs Farkas has a good sense of humor and takes some of the seriousness out of it and he's not selling any specific product. In this video he gets to the whole ammonia/organic algae connection. 








burr740 said:


> ...
> Dirty conditions is the other main cause of algae, especially in a fast moving high light tank. Mulm lying around, dirty filters, insufficient water changes. All that stuff feeds algae. It also directly affects plant growth.
> 
> Water changes for example are about more than removing ferts. It removes a lot of invisible dissolved organic waste that otherwise would feed algae and interfere with plant growth. This too is more pronounced in a fast moving high light set up. Its important to keep that kind of tank extremely clean.
> ...


The above quote from @burr740 pretty much gets to the heart of it for me. Good maintenance trumps all, and gives you more wiggle room with lights, ferts and other variables that might not be ideal. It's probably the major reason you could setup two identical tanks and give them to two different people and get completely different results and success. It's also a large reason influencers have so much success. They're more dedicated and spend more time doing the "little things" like removing dead/dying leaves, food, keeping co2 constant, religious water changes, etc that will cause algae.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Since you tagged me, @HerpsAndHerbs:

I agree with anyone that states that too much fertilizer can cause algae. WHAT??!! Change the light and CO2 balance and you will get algae. Let organics get out of control, via absence of cleaning/water changing aspects (I believe this causes constantly changing nutrients/organics - mainly nitrogenous - that destabilizes plants), and you will get algae. You can find a balance (think ratios) at just about any level of total nutrients that will keep plants healthy. As others have mentioned, think Mulder’s chart: change one of your ferts too much and it can have a cascade effect on plant uptake of other ferts, with algae stepping in to capitalize on the newly stressed plants.

Any time you throw any part your tanks’ balance off, you destabilize healthy plants and they can weaken to the point where algae can take advantage of the increased organics caused by the sick leaves. It is much like the cytokine storm that we now know causes most of the COVID-19 problems. The plant’s begin spewing out nitrogenous organics that algae love and create comorbidities that make the plant even worse. Further, their dying leaves provide excellent platforms for algae to begin feeding upon directly.

As an example; @Greggz and @Asteroid both use NO3 at levels that would create algae in my tanks because their total package is adapted to this. They see plants destabilize when NO3 drops to even well above where I maintain NO3. If they were to overdose any other nutrient, they would likely also destabilize their plants. Some things, such as light alone, can cause algae, but not balanced fert levels if your plants are healthy.

Do the 5 things, well (either by design or by luck), that I mentioned in post #88 and you create a very large safety net which allows for a lot of slop in nutrient dosing before plants destabilize too much.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

I really like this video and it is highly relevant to the discussion:






It is from Dennis Wong, one of the people behind 2hr Aquarist and while they sell ferts, this video is primarily about theory and not specific products. It really digs into why different styles of dosing (high or low amounts) can be successful or can grow lots of algae. It is in line with what a lot of people are saying: if your plants are happy and growing, they can out compete the algae, but to get happy plants you need to balance your system. If there's an imbalance, the algae can and will take advantage of it.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

I really can't add much to the excellent posts of @burr740, @Asteroid, and others above.

They all point to taking a more holistic approach to a tank. Many times here someone will post a new "What's my deficiency" thread. Once you probe deeper and get more detail most times you find that the problem has little if anything to do with ferts.

It's usually a combination of other factors (light/CO2/Maintenance/etc). Until you get the entire tank in balance in relation to the type of plants in the tank, playing whack-a-mole with ferts rarely fixes anything. 

In the end, concentrate on growing plants not defeating algae. I just went through this myself after my substrate swap, and it was the right advice to follow.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> In the end, concentrate on growing plants not defeating algae. I just went through this myself after my substrate swap, and it was the right advice to follow.


It's funny because I take the same approach to my lawn, but in this case the weeds are the algae. When I get the grass really green, thick and full somehow the "algae" (weeds) disappear. I don't even use weed killer (excel/other chemicals in our tanks) to get rid of them. Just food for thought.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

There is a lot of great info on this thread! I think the video by Dennis Wong is perfect for this discussion! Thanks @ElleDee, I actually had no idea he had his own youtube channel; probably because he only posts a couple times a year, but I subscribed anyway.

Thanks to everyone who replied! I feel like I have a lot more information about what has made my fert routine work when it has, as well as when it hasn't. I have heard a lot of these things before piecemeal but I think taking it all in at once as well as seeing it in the context of everyone's own tanks has made it "click" a lot more. Hopefully, I am not the only one learning more from this discussion.

I'm excited to see how these new perspectives improve my husbandry!


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...much-some-fert-update-lab-test-results-2.html

I am posting the link to this thread because I think it represents a specific example about what has been discussed in generalities here. Many of the people who have been commenting here also have a presence on that thread but i wanted to round out the topic for someone who is casually reading this thread.






Another video from dennis wong stating detritus/mulm is the primary cause of BBA and GDA. Thought it had a place here.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Dennis Wong’s website is a wealth of aquarium knowledge.

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/blogs/beginners-planted-tank-101


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...much-some-fert-update-lab-test-results-2.html
> 
> I am posting the link to this thread because I think it represents a specific example about what has been discussed in generalities here. Many of the people who have been commenting here also have a presence on that thread but i wanted to round out the topic for someone who is casually reading this thread.
> 
> ...


I'm glad the video was helpful! I had seen the one you posted and have to point out that Diana Walstad says in her book that she never vacuums the mulm out of her substrate and considers it an important source of CO2. Her personal tanks do not look like Dennis Wong's, but again, there's another path to success. I do vacuum my substrate, but I'm going to set up a so-called no tech 5 gallon tank and see what happens if I don't. That tank is going to have wall-to-wall plants from day 1 though, something that is hard to pull off in a larger set up. We shall see.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

You could really setup a planted tank in many ways from Waldstad to ADA to "EI". There really is no right way, it's merely a matter of your objective and how much limitation you are OK with.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

ElleDee said:


> I'm glad the video was helpful! I had seen the one you posted and have to point out that Diana Walstad says in her book that she never vacuums the mulm out of her substrate and considers it an important source of CO2. Her personal tanks do not look like Dennis Wong's, but again, there's another path to success. I do vacuum my substrate, but I'm going to set up a so-called no tech 5 gallon tank and see what happens if I don't. That tank is going to have wall-to-wall plants from day 1 though, something that is hard to pull off in a larger set up. We shall see.


I definitely have experience with the no vac, built up mulm/detritis, Wastad-ish system. This has been the majority of my tanks for the past 6 years. IME the key to making that work is an undergravel filter (or at least trumpet snails or earth eaters) to pull the mulm down to the substrate where the BB and plant roots can actually do their job . IME this type of system will never be algae free, its just a matter of having the livestock that eats the algae. Lots of amanos, plecos, ottos ect... that can keep up with the rate of algae growth. When you do set up that system, i'd love to see it!

I love hearing what other people have gotten to work and I am in the mood to try something new so I am! I use many of the walstad principles (like siestas) in my tanks and have had what I would call great success. I think by the standards of a lot of the people here they might call them great failures but to each his own. I haven't had a rare plant species "dutchy" style tank since my last fish room in the old house, and I certainly never had one as impressive as the guru's tanks on here. If I can take some of the keys to success from the people here and apply them to my own tanks in my own way I think I will be a better aquarist for it. Who doesn't want less algae?


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I definitely have experience with the no vac, built up mulm/detritis, Wastad-ish system. This has been the majority of my tanks for the past 6 years. IME the key to making that work is an undergravel filter (or at least trumpet snails or earth eaters) to pull the mulm down to the substrate where the BB and plant roots can actually do their job . IME this type of system will never be algae free, its just a matter of having the livestock that eats the algae. Lots of amanos, plecos, ottos ect... that can keep up with the rate of algae growth. When you do set up that system, i'd love to see it!
> 
> I love hearing what other people have gotten to work and I am in the mood to try something new so I am! I use many of the walstad principles (like siestas) in my tanks and have had what I would call great success. I think by the standards of a lot of the people here they might call them great failures but to each his own. I haven't had a rare plant species "dutchy" style tank since my last fish room in the old house, and I certainly never had one as impressive as the guru's tanks on here. If I can take some of the keys to success from the people here and apply them to my own tanks in my own way I think I will be a better aquarist for it. Who doesn't want less algae?


The no tech tank is already in process! I'm dry starting a hairgrass carpet and it'll be a bit before I flood it. I should really start a journal for it. 

I have to ask about your undergravel filter though! What kind of substrate do you use? How do you manage it so your plant roots don't clog it up? I've read that running a reverse flow undergravel filter prevents this from happening, but that wouldn't allow the mulm to settle. Whatever I read didn't have me convinced, so I'm running a HOB now. It's ok. It works, but the flow isn't as even, it's ugly, and I occasionally have to service it. I have fond memories of my UGF in my fish-only tank of yore.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

ElleDee said:


> The no tech tank is already in process! I'm dry starting a hairgrass carpet and it'll be a bit before I flood it. I should really start a journal for it.
> 
> I have to ask about your undergravel filter though! What kind of substrate do you use? How do you manage it so your plant roots don't clog it up? I've read that running a reverse flow undergravel filter prevents this from happening, but that wouldn't allow the mulm to settle. Whatever I read didn't have me convinced, so I'm running a HOB now. It's ok. It works, but the flow isn't as even, it's ugly, and I occasionally have to service it. I have fond memories of my UGF in my fish-only tank of yore.


I actually run UGFs on all my tanks. I saw profound improvements on my tanks when I put them on in terms of water clarity and root health. The only tanks I don't run UGFs on are sand tanks (by sand I mean really fine, think pool filter sand). I don't run any sand tanks anymore because I don't like the compaction and I think they are bad for plants. I also run pretty thick substrate layers, 2 inches at the lowest and with this thick substrate I have never had roots clog it. Some people don't like the look of the thick substrate layers which I get but I think all plants, UGF or not, benefit from a thick substrate. They have gotten hair structures down in there occasionally but it has never caused issues for me. I am also currently testing dirted planters which allow me a bit more flexibility with my soil types while running UGFs. You can see my initial tests in my tank journal.

Currently I have UGFs in all of the following substrates:

Quartz coarse gravel
Quartz fine gravel (think coarse sand)
Samurai Soil (buffering clay based aquasoil)
Eco-Complete
River pebbles

It is also worth noting that I don't think they would work well with aqua soils that break down over time (I've heard this can happen with Brightwell and others). I also wouldn't run it with dirt (duh). I also have never tried it with the coated soils like ADA substrate and I think a purist would consider it blasphemy to run UGF on an ADA style tank LOL.

To clean an undergravel filter system, I just hook a wet-dry vac up to the lift tube (like a shop-vac). Takes two minutes and it sucks all the crud out that settles on the bottom. I do this at the same interval I clean the rest of my filters. That being said, I have had people ask before about the dust that will inevitably work its way down through the gravel. IME I have seen this come straight back through the lift tube and "rain" back down on the surface and start the whole process over. I use the "dust" sprinkling around the lift tube as an indicator that it is time to pull out the shop-vac and clean my filters.

If you are doing dry start I assume you're also using aquasoil so I would check that your aquasoil isn't prone to breaking down. I usually just check mine by taking pieces that have been soaking and squishing them between my fingers. If they break up, probably not the best option for UGFs. 

I hope all this helps. It has worked for me :grin2:


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I actually run UGFs on all my tanks. I saw profound improvements on my tanks when I put them on in terms of water clarity and root health. The only tanks I don't run UGFs on are sand tanks (by sand I mean really fine, think pool filter sand). I don't run any sand tanks anymore because I don't like the compaction and I think they are bad for plants. I also run pretty thick substrate layers, 2 inches at the lowest and with this thick substrate I have never had roots clog it. Some people don't like the look of the thick substrate layers which I get but I think all plants, UGF or not, benefit from a thick substrate. They have gotten hair structures down in there occasionally but it has never caused issues for me. I am also currently testing dirted planters which allow me a bit more flexibility with my soil types while running UGFs. You can see my initial tests in my tank journal.
> 
> Currently I have UGFs in all of the following substrates:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info, this has been very helpful and I'll definitely check out your journal. My tanks use topsoil, so probably not the best fit for UGF as you said, but if I ever switch it up I'll keep this in mind.


----------



## Uncle_R (Jan 31, 2018)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I actually run UGFs on all my tanks. I saw profound improvements on my tanks when I put them on in terms of water clarity and root health. The only tanks I don't run UGFs on are sand tanks (by sand I mean really fine, think pool filter sand). I don't run any sand tanks anymore because I don't like the compaction and I think they are bad for plants. I also run pretty thick substrate layers, 2 inches at the lowest and with this thick substrate I have never had roots clog it. Some people don't like the look of the thick substrate layers which I get but I think all plants, UGF or not, benefit from a thick substrate. They have gotten hair structures down in there occasionally but it has never caused issues for me. I am also currently testing dirted planters which allow me a bit more flexibility with my soil types while running UGFs. You can see my initial tests in my tank journal.
> 
> Currently I have UGFs in all of the following substrates:
> 
> ...




Which UGF do you like best?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

Uncle_R said:


> Which UGF do you like best?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The one I like best is a really old one. I think it is penn plax but I haven't seen the model lately. Its white, corrugated, and has really thin slits which allows for a finer gravel. 

The new under gravel filters I have used are also the penn plax but the slits are wider by several mm which makes a big difference IMO. 

They don't make them like they used to and they don't make a lot of them lol. Its a good thing they don't break! (Kncok on wood)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Really interesting video here from Dennis Wong. In it he references an experiment from @burr740 where he tested with and without osmocote + in the substrate. I imagine this topic and particular experiment have probably been talked to death on this forum long before I arrived here. If someone knows where this thread is and has the link handy can you post it? I would very much like to give it a read through.

Again, I am finding myself relearning just about everything I "knew" about growing aquatic plants. I cant believe that there was such a small difference between root fed and water column fed plants. In the particular example of burr's test I imagine the difference between the two sides would be much greater if there were a lapse in dosing at some point (simulating a weekend away for example). Dennis Wong touches on this in the video saying that the nutrient rich substrate provides a constant nutrient resource with a longer dwell time.

I am applying this new knowledge in a retrospective manner to my style of aquarium keeping. I have almost always run UGFs which I think will, at least to some degree, create a more nutrient rich substrate. Applying this to my previous comments in this thread, I'm wondering if this has been responsible for my very lean style of dosing working as well as it has when it does work. Even if my water column nutrients run out, my plants have always had an abundance of organics at their roots.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Haha, I didnt even know Dennis had mentioned that. Here's the original thread 

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/876457-so-called-heavy-root-feeders-fact-fiction.html


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

burr740 said:


> Haha, I didnt even know Dennis had mentioned that. Here's the original thread
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/876457-so-called-heavy-root-feeders-fact-fiction.html


Thanks for this! At the end I think it got a bit muddled because there were a lot of people trying to be right instead of trying to learn something but I really enjoyed the read.

I am a little peeved that this type of information isn't more readily available and accessible to the beginners. Obviously the lucky beginner could stumble into this forum and find everything they need but there are so many influencers out there spreading notions that at this point I now realize are "quackery" to use the words of someone from that thread.

It's no one's fault of course and the right information IS out there, its just harder to find than it should be. I think I am just a little butt hurt rn that much of my toils for the past 6 years has been for naught. I still got results and I still grew my plants but man, it could have been WAY simpler than i was making it. Wish I made an account here 6 years ago


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Thanks for this! At the end I think it got a bit muddled because there were a lot of people trying to be right instead of trying to learn something but I really enjoyed the read.
> 
> I am a little peeved that this type of information isn't more readily available and accessible to the beginners. Obviously the lucky beginner could stumble into this forum and find everything they need but there are so many influencers out there spreading notions that at this point I now realize are "quackery" to use the words of someone from that thread.
> 
> It's no one's fault of course and the right information IS out there, its just harder to find than it should be. I think I am just a little butt hurt rn that much of my toils for the past 6 years has been for naught. I still got results and I still grew my plants but man, it could have been WAY simpler than i was making it. Wish I made an account here 6 years ago


Yeah, the experiment was basically over by then and people were starting to argue over the science of it all. I just stayed out out of it mostly.

But if you think that's something, you should've been around during the great micro-tox wars circa 2015. Now that was crazy..


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> But if you think that's something, you should've been around during the great micro-tox wars circa 2015. Now that was crazy..


Ah yes the famous micro tox wars. Many were bloodied and some are still scarred........and many are still banned!:grin2:


----------



## fermentedfunk (May 15, 2020)

*Its possible that EasyGreen doesn't actually contain phosphorus at all...?*



HerpsAndHerbs said:


> I suppose there is some room for debate about why seachem is backed by the best science, but I think if you actually look into how much real science is going into each product you will clearly see my point. Of all the brands of ferts mentioned in the thread so far, seachem is the only one with Chemistry PhD's on their pay roll and they are also the only ones with a full laboratory. After all the company is actually called seachem laboratories. They perform highly controlled studies and have 35 years worth of measurable data. Not a hill I am going to die on, but i don't think you can show me another company that puts as much scientific testing and real data behind their products (i.e. highly controlled and recorded).
> 
> I think any fertilizer will "work" in any tank, its more about the skill of the aquarist in knowing how to keep the balance. I have tried mixing the salts, I have tried seachem's line, I've tried easygreen ect... they all grow plants. My point with this thread is about where peoples priority lie? With "estimated index" (EI) as described and created by tom barr, the idea is that you estimate the amount needed and err on the side of too much but do a large (50%) water change at the end of each week to get rid of the excess.
> 
> ...


This might be relevant...but a couple weeks ago, I tested EasyGreen with my API Phosphate test, and it showed 0 phophate. I contacted Aquarium Coop looking for an explanation, and they just replied with a useless copy/paste from a iMessage with their manufacturer, who said they couldn't understand why I got those results. I asked for more followup with a real explanation why it is testing for 0 phosphate, and they never replied back. 

This is a video I recorded where I tested both Seachem Phosphorus and EasyGreen in the same dilution in water (both have same percentage of phosphorus printed on the label): 






As a scientist, do you have any idea what's going on here? I found several articles about mixing fertilizer that strongly suggested that if the other ingredients are not properly chelated, the phosphorus will be useless and precipitate out. It would be nice if someone else could test, or provide more input.


----------



## HerpsAndHerbs (Apr 28, 2020)

fermentedfunk said:


> This might be relevant...but a couple weeks ago, I tested EasyGreen with my API Phosphate test, and it showed 0 phophate. I contacted Aquarium Coop looking for an explanation, and they just replied with a useless copy/paste from a iMessage with their manufacturer, who said they couldn't understand why I got those results. I asked for more followup with a real explanation why it is testing for 0 phosphate, and they never replied back.
> 
> This is a video I recorded where I tested both Seachem Phosphorus and EasyGreen in the same dilution in water (both have same percentage of phosphorus printed on the label):
> 
> ...


Sorry for the delayed reply. Started going back to work last week and got busy. 

I don't know about that but I have some guesses. Even if it precipitated out in your bottle, you would still expect to see a lot of phosphate in your test. Alternatively, if it precipitates during the mixing before it is bottled I suppose all the precipitate could be at the bottom of the "vat" and none would make it into the bottle.

Sometimes chelating a molecule will block the binding sites for other molecules. It could be possible that what they are using for a chelate and or stabilizer binds the phosphate in a way that "hides" it from your test. There is also the possibility that they are using a form of phosphorus that the api phosphate test isn't recognizing.

I haven't tested phosphate levels myself but I have found I have to add phosphate in addition to the easy green so it would not surprise me if there was literally zero phosphate. 

I'll do some research!


----------



## fermentedfunk (May 15, 2020)

HerpsAndHerbs said:


> Sorry for the delayed reply. Started going back to work last week and got busy.
> 
> I don't know about that but I have some guesses. Even if it precipitated out in your bottle, you would still expect to see a lot of phosphate in your test. Alternatively, if it precipitates during the mixing before it is bottled I suppose all the precipitate could be at the bottom of the "vat" and none would make it into the bottle.
> 
> ...


Awesome, thanks! I'll be checking back to see if you discover any other info to unravel this mystery :nerd:


----------



## katiesfishroom (Aug 8, 2020)

I’m switching to something other than the Fluval Iron plus or whatever it is. It works pretty decent but it’s so complicated to measure for small tanks. I was planning on switching to Easy Green but I may look at one of the other recommendations posted also. I’m still really new to planted tanks and the pump system seems like the best option to me.


----------

