# the water parameter guide (what are we aiming for)



## lithevantim (Feb 10, 2010)

The idea of this thread is not to identify the perfect water parameters but to identify and limit the most acceptable range for each water parameter.

within what limits is the most suitable level of phosphates, nitrates. etc


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Depends on the type of tank. Depends on how you run it too.

Generally in the USA it's widely accepted to dirty up the water with N, P and what not. There are 2 widely used "methods" that give guidelines how to grow plants by adding fertilizers in the water - EI and PPS. Both keep the tanks unstable and in need of intervention on a regular basis. Hobbyists that follow these "methods" cannot leave their tanks unattended for more than a week or two. There have been many heated discussions about the 2 "methods". The truth is that both of them are wrong ways to run a planted tank - producing great results if you are there to make it happen.

A better way is to keep the nutrients in the water at 0 or close to 0. That's not a widely used approach in the USA. If you are interested learing about it search for the information yourself.

If you would like to be an active member of this community you need to endlessly discuss/give advice about nutrients in the water column. Normally the range is about 0.1-1.0 for P, 1-15 for N, 10-30 for K, and about 0.1 for Fe. Mg and Ca also have some "good" levels that I'm not aware of but generrally the GH should be about 3-6 (few people discuss the ratio of Ca/Mg). All the numbers are in ppm. All the numbers are pointless to pursue. Getting them "just right" will not necessarily make your plants looking great. 

A completely different approach is the so called "Natural" tank that uses very rich subtstrate, low light and infrequent water changes. It's a completely different from a lush green tank stuffed with tons of different plants looking their best. It works but it needs to be setup right and to understand the processes that make it work. 

Those are the facts. I gave you shapshot of the state of the planted tank hobby on APC and TPT. You could spend a long time trying to figure these things for yourself. Hope that my post gives you a perspective.

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Niko, you must be trolling.

You've contradicted popular methods, put up obvious straw men of them, etc. then offered your own methods as a baseless statement with no supporting information.

To reply in kind, I do not support 0ppm in the column; it requires too many water changes or phosphate/nitrate absorbents. I support peeing in ones tank as it obviously provides both nitrogen and phosphorous.

Nothing personal, but if you're going to stir the pot it'd be nice if you backed things up so that there's a little more to reply to


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

We can argue. But it's pointless. Here's why:

*1.* Look what Amano does to the water. It's exactly what I said:

"...nutrients in the water at 0 or close to 0.."

*2.* I also said that the other ways to run a planted tank can lead to a lush plant growth. But the tanks need constant care (EI, PPS) or a very careful setup to properly settle down and establish ("El Natural").

I told you before - read my posts carefully. My goal is to look at this hobby with a critical eye and try to see and give a perspective. We wouldn't be talking algae all day on these forums if most of us ran planted tanks in a smarter way.

From my posts the original poster - lithevantim - will get the idea that there is no point in chasing specific numbers. I also gave him the "normal" values that are widely accepted in the USA hobby. He can try to maintain them and hopefully learn that they are not a cure for all problems, just a general guideline. There is more to a planted tank than numbers.

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

You pretty much presented your preferred method as superior to all others with none of the commonly accepted drawbacks. From there you presented every other method as inferior through criticizing them while leaving your own in a perfect light. If you're going to provide a bias view on a thread with a premise that already inspires debate, I'd think that backing up your statements with facts would be a step in the right direction. At least expand on your conjecture rather than making a simple declaration followed by a general contradiction. It would also work if you were to show the down-side of doing nutrient-limited columns so that your statements seemed a little less one-sided.

Saying that because Amano can take pictures of a nice looking tank and publish them says nothing about the details of the system beyond being able to publish a nice picture of it given the full freedoms of photography tricks. There's no real argument connected to a method there.

Once again, if you're going to stir the pot, please try to back up your statements a little better.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Lithevantim, you asked a very broad question. In general, macronutrients become more available to plans at high pH, while micronutrients become less available at high pH. Neutral pH range seems ideal for most plants. Below is a general table from Univ. of Wisconsin, showing typical relative concentrations for many micro/macronutrients.

http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~barak/soilscience326/macronut.htm

Many dosing methods follow similar proportions of macros and micros for the water column. WC is necessary if the dosing concentrations are more than what plants will consume until the next dosing time.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Philosophos said:


> You pretty much presented your preferred method as superior to all others with none of the commonly accepted drawbacks. From there you presented every other method as inferior through criticizing them while leaving your own in a perfect light. If you're going to provide a bias view on a thread with a premise that already inspires debate, I'd think that backing up your statements with facts would be a step in the right direction. At least expand on your conjecture rather than making a simple declaration followed by a general contradiction. It would also work if you were to show the down-side of doing nutrient-limited columns so that your statements seemed a little less one-sided.
> 
> Saying that because Amano can take pictures of a nice looking tank and publish them says nothing about the details of the system beyond being able to publish a nice picture of it given the full freedoms of photography tricks. There's no real argument connected to a method there.
> 
> Once again, if you're going to stir the pot, please try to back up your statements a little better.


You have a good point about the system behind some pretty pictures of planted tanks. Why instead of talking about these things to him you have an allergic reaction to my posts? I'm trying to get lithevantim to understand the same thing. That looking at numbers only is not very useful.

Anybody can find the information themselves. This is the second time you get annoyed with my way of saying things. There are good reasons for looking/finding things yourself. I'm not going to give any specific information because it will either become a fighting ground or it will get ignored. Once again - there are good reasons for looking/finding things yourself.

So, if you decide to post in this thread again: Instead of getting annoyed with me you could post something relevant to lithevantim's original question. Give him a good direction.

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

If I'm annoyed it's because I like a good debate over nutrients, but you don't seem to be interested.

To make sure I have things straight, it seems that your statements include giving a bias opinion towards the methods you use, and that they contradict what is currently accepted. You also refuse to provide evidence to support your claims. If this is the case, then there's nothing much to discuss along this line. I've asked what I could, pointed out what I want to, and I'm content.

As for mathematics vs. aesthetic, I'm not a good one to talk to. I believe that a sense of aesthetics is the result of a series of chemical reactions that can be quantified. The question is whether or not we can do the math.

Turning do dosing...

I've never seen a good refutation of non-limiting nutrients as a principle to achieve healthy growth (>10ppm NO3, >10ppm K+, >1ppm PO4 so long as it's not toxic, which is a wide range). I've also never seen one that gets people past being concerned with nutrients and on to light:CO2 ratios. It's a good place to start, and it can create a fairly easy to keep tank if you simply dial back the light and dose a little liquids with the fish food. Compressed CO2 is not compulsory, high light is not required, testing can be minimal, water changes can vary extremely. One thing that it does not do is create the morphology created by nutrient limitation.

Looking at nutrient-limiting column methods (ppm's vary depending), I've seen good reason to limit as a method of manipulating morphology beyond what light and CO2 levels can offer. I have seen those who use it have to tolerate a ton of algae compared to non-limiting nutrients, and generally work harder on a tank with the same sort of PAR levels. I would say that it's a great tool if you're trying to push out some growth to get the look you want for competition time, and that the nutrient you should limit depends on how you want to manipulate the growth. It is not mutually exclusive to any method that I know of; even specific methods that are generally non-limiting accept limitations so long as the effects are understood.

Attempting to create zero-nutrient columns is something I have never understood. I have not seen any good premise for doing so as of yet, and I have not heard any arguments for it go unrefuted. In all, I think it would be a whole lot easier for someone who supports this method to speak for it rather than having myself debate with straw men.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

niko;534071
A better way is to keep the nutrients in the water at 0 or close to 0. That's not a widely used approach in the USA. If you are interested learing about it search for the information yourself.
[/QUOTE said:


> I had some time after dinner and read up on what you inferred in the following thread, with its extension to TPT forum:
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...nteresting-thread-amano-tanks-very-low-2.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Goldier, I'd agree with what you said about zero-nutrient columns if not for the fact that any species of algae I know of can adapt for any deficiency in the column, and their nutrient equilibrium requires lower ppms of any nutrient than any vascular plant can make use of. My understanding is that by the time you're dosing the column in a way plants can make use of, you're already feeding the algae well.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Dan, yes the algae could be fed at the same time, but if the algae were cleaned before starting such method, or the tank was stocked heavily with plants to begin with, the algae would lose a foothold to re establish themselves.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

The issue is that algae will actually uptake nitrogen 10-100 times more efficiently than the plants; it is able to vastly out-compete macrophytes. This paper outlines a very broad test on this very topic in relation to nitrogen:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/118/m118p247.pdf

And the information it provides isn't new to the hobby, but rather disregarded:
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2739-Nitrogen-uptake-kinetics

This is my big issue with the concept of algae control through limiting the column, especially when people turn around and say, "Just dose a little bit."

If anyone has access to the papers Galvan et al., 1996; Unkles et al., 2001 I wouldn't mind getting my hands on them either. They seem to say a lot about nutrient equilibrium that furthers the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure Tom interpreted them well enough here: http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2783-Uptake-kinetics-for-algae-vs-higher-plants

However I'd still like to figure things out for myself some.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

I haven't read the papers but the abstracts, but I think these are the ones Tom mentioned. Unkles paper for fungi, Galvan for algae. The files are attached.

It's true that enzyme kinetic of algae is much lower than higher plants, but plants make up for much larger surface area - stem, leaves, roots that can absorb nutrients to compete with algae. I lived near Chesapeake Bay before, and every algae bloom corresponded with the nutrient rich water in the bay that normally was not.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Bay/hab/


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Arghhh, the attachment limit is only 97 Kb, so the files were not attached.

The abstract:

Apparent genetic redundancy facilitates ecological plasticity for nitrate transport

Shiela E. Unkles1,2, Degen Zhou3, M. Yaeesh Siddiqi3, James R. Kinghorn1 and Anthony D. M. Glass3

1. School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9TH, UK
2. Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
3. Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada

Correspondence to:

James R. Kinghorn, E-mail: [email protected]

Received 9 August 2001; Accepted 24 September 2001; Revised 24 September 2001
Abstract

Aspergillus nidulans possesses two high-affinity nitrate transporters, encoded by the nrtA and the nrtB genes. Mutants expressing either gene grew normally on 1-10 mM nitrate as sole nitrogen source, whereas the double mutant failed to grow on nitrate concentrations up to 200 mM. These genes appear to be regulated coordinately in all growth conditions, growth stages and regulatory genetic backgrounds studied. Flux analysis of single gene mutants using 13NO3- revealed that Km values for the NrtA and NrtB transporters were approx100 and approx10 muM, respectively, while Vmax values, though variable according to age, were approx600 and approx100 nmol/mg dry weight/h, respectively, in young mycelia. This kinetic differentiation may provide the necessary physiological and ecological plasticity to acquire sufficient nitrate despite highly variable external concentrations. Our results suggest that genes involved in nitrate assimilation may be induced by extracellular sensing of ambient nitrate without obligatory entry into the cell.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Biol Chem. 1996 Jan 26;271(4):2088-92.
Nitrate and nitrate are transported by different specific transport systems and by a bispecific transporter in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.

Galván A, Quesada A, Fernández E.

Departamento de Bioquimica y Biologia Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain.
Abstract

Nitrate transport mutants from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and strains derived from them upon transformation with plasmids containing the C. reinhardtii nar2/Nrt2;1 or nar2/Nrt2;2 genes have been used to study nitrate and nitrite transport systems. Mutants lacking nitrate assimilation clustered genes showed a high affinity nitrite transporter activity (system 3), which was subject to ammonium inhibition and appeared to be independent of a functional nar2 gene. Transformants carrying nar2/Nrt2;2 recovered a high affinity nitrate transporter activity (system 2) and showed nitrite transport activities with properties similar to those in nonrecovered high affinity nitrate transporter activity (system 1) together with a considerably enhanced nitrite transport activity. Nitrite transport mediated by system 1 was very sensitive to inhibition by nitrate at microM concentrations. Results strongly suggest that three nitrate assimilation related high affinity transport systems operate in C. reinhardtii: one specific for nitrite, a second one encoded by nar2/Nrt2;2 specific for nitrate, and another one encoded by nar2/Nrt2;1, which is bispecific for these two anions.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Ya, the abstracts I've found before. I hate how scientists expect us to pay for the results of thousands of dollars of testing sometimes :wink:

Plants can uptake from root, stem, leaf, etc. but algae doesn't even differentiate between these parts, and the pathways are similar. The first paper I posted also makes the point that algae has an exponentially higher surface area to volume ratio (SA:V) so algae out-competes on both factors.

As for algae blooms and eutrophication, most environments that macrophytes are found in are already CO2 limiting if nothing else. Adding nutrients to non-limiting levels in a CO2 limiting environment will best drive the biggest nutrient hog algae that requires the least CO2 and best matches other parameters. In our tanks, BBA tends to fill that roll, and in low light/high O2 under the same conditions it's diatoms that pop up for me.

Now, phosphate/human induced eutrophication aside, in your average lake you'll find that during the summer the temperature of the water hanging out in the littoral zone (or anywhere in the first thermocline) increases a whole ton. In some cases this alone is enough to kill plants off which increases the NH4; this compound alone induces certain algae but not others. On top of that, the large increase in temperature also does a good job of dropping out O2 and CO2 levels at the same time. As the algae caries on, conditions can become hypoxic which will further disfavor macrophytes, once again because of equilibrium issues along with heavier chemical respiration. The type of algae would also shift as the season wears on possibly; diatoms once heavily dependent on spring runoff or early summer storm turbulence that favor chemical respiration may be forced to head off into a spore stage and sink. The hypoxia loving cyanobacteria (not actually algae) would dominate with photosynthesis and ability to use NH4 more extensively.

That's just a little bit of what thousands of species of algae can do, and I'm only speaking in general terms of some cyanobacteria and some diatoms under certain circumstances. Species equilibrium is complex stuff, and it's not even remotely easy to figure out in situ.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

goldier said:


> ...So with the right proportions of macros and micros, the plants can be fed daily with just a small amount (after adjusted for fish load) that will be nearly all taken up by plants a few hours after dosing - can be during peak photosynthesis period with high light and extra CO2 pumping. Then the water column returns to near zero nutrient state. Since the plants are fed daily (or regularly), they are not starving of anything in pristine water devoid of nutrients most of the time. Algae? What algae, despite good light and CO2 when there's no or little food after the feeding is done?
> 
> This method probably works best for plants with comparable growth rates and nutrient uptakes. This method, IMO, have the common root in bonsai culture that the Japanese carry over to aquatic hobby.
> 
> ...


Hey! That's the best post about running a planted tank I've seen since 2002. Seriously. It basically "uncovers" Amano's secrets.

That's the essence that explains the crazy parameters that Amano prints as very much "N=0, P=0" under every tank picure in his magazine. The problem is that he gives a snapshot of the parameters without explaining how it all actually works. Apparently he describes how everything works in sources that very well maybe available to us in the US but we don't bother to translate/read them.

Also we are very comfortable doing what everybody else is doing - EI and PPS. Many people have versions of these two "methods" and that's all we know.

I remember the time when Edward was about to popularize his PPS. It took a lot of time, many posts, patient explanation of what's what. And arguments of course. We can't help - it we have to have drama. More or less Edward did a monumental internet forum work to try to promote something he believed in.

Maybe one day someone will put forth the same effort to popularize the right principles to run a planted tank. The hobby has been in a rut for a long time now. Most people don't read the information that is out there already. Trying to shed light on a "new way" to run a planted tank is a big task. I'd rather motivate people to find things themselves than try to "tell them the truth".

It's a hobby after all. Not a Sunday Aquatic Plant school with sermons and a preacher. It also has many facets that suit different people.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

There are a lot of interesting things about running the nutrients at 0 or close to 0. Algae are not only completely missing but also you can leave the tank be for a long time and not have any issues.

You can let the water evaporate half way, never even look at the tank, never feed the fish (if you have any), never fertilize. A lot of plants still do well in such crazy conditions. They will not grow fast but they will not die. Actually some plants will really take off in such a tank. Only very demanding plants will suffer - for example Giant Hygro. Even stems will do fine in such a tank. 

Such a tank requires proper setup. It's nothing special, nothing that we don't know about. Main thing is to let Nature help you. You can blast the tank with a lot of light (and not fertilize!). Or you can run it very dim. 

It's the ultimate stable tank. That's what EI and PPS have failed to achieve. They give you the feeling that you are doing something to help the plants grow and flourish. You fertilize, change water, watch for trends and adjust your fertilization accordingly - a nice feeling of control. You cannot just leave such tanks by themselves. You need to adjust the light, CO2 and so on. A truly stable tank is different.

But who cares? 

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Niko, you're insulting every other method and supporting your own with unsubstantiated claims or assertions. You have refused to provide facts to back your opinion outright. You then say you want to do it in order to avoid an argument, but you continue in the same behavior of unsubstantiated claims and attacks.

Please show a little more respect for the rest of the hobby.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Philosophos,

I gave you a link to a website where you can learn a lot about what I'm talking about. Things that have never been discussed on APC or TPT. Things that EI an PPS are yet to consider. Years after the Japanese and the Germans use them.

You responded saying that you are not going to read anything because I'm bad for this hobby.

My god!

Ah yes! Look at my new signature.

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I just downloaded half a century of published information from an aquatic plant journal. The page you linked me to is a hobbyist site that will be poorly translated by google from Russian. The priority there isn't hard for me to decide. It had nothing to do with anything between you and me.

However, I would read the site you linked me to as a bit of prefacing for a good, clean debate. This does not seem to be a possibility between us. I can let that go.

All I'm asking here is that you behave in a slightly more civil way.

One way or the other, this is not the place to drag a dispute on. I'm going to step back from this thread, and I'm going to ask you to do the same out of respect for the forum. Maybe we can have a little peace this way.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Noone but us 2, maybe 4, is interested in this thread anyway.

Bye-bye.

--Nikolay


----------



## Andy Ritter (Nov 26, 2008)

niko said:


> Noone but us 2, maybe 4, is interested in this thread anyway.
> 
> Bye-bye.
> 
> --Nikolay


That's not true. I'm finding all of this quite entertaining. 

Andy


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

Andy Ritter said:


> That's not true. I'm finding all of this quite entertaining.
> 
> Andy


Indeed.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

Hi Goldier,



goldier said:


> And when people get tired of the above, allez hup to El Natural, and prepare to sacrifice the fast growth, lush, diverse flora to the simple, slow pace life . Some like it because it's low in maintenance, and has sustained micronutrient effect. But it too, won't last forever.


How long is forever? Why do you think it won't last that duration?


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Philosophos said:


> Ya, the abstracts I've found before. I hate how scientists expect us to pay for the results of thousands of dollars of testing sometimes :wink:
> 
> Plants can uptake from root, stem, leaf, etc. but algae doesn't even differentiate between these parts, and the pathways are similar. The first paper I posted also makes the point that algae has an exponentially higher surface area to volume ratio (SA:V) so algae out-competes on both factors.


Yea, luckily, I can still access published papers due to my affiliation with a local university, but with increasing budget cut, it is a matter of time when a fee would be imposed.

As for the algae SA:V ratio, the ratio surely indicates their super efficiency compared to higher plants when absorbing nitrogen. Although when in a typical planted aquarium with lots of plants and with little algae, SA of algae would be a very insignificant factor compared to that of plants. And that when the plants can compete with algae successfully in that context.

The algae species in the bay have adapted to the cooler summer water there as compared to the warmer water below the Dixie line. So CO2 may not be a limiting factor. Light, heat, O2 and nutrients are what they need, and evidences have shown that higher nutrient level in the water correlates to more frequent algal blooms. The home aquarium settings (light, temp, nutrients, CO2) are conducive to both plants and algae growth, so I think if we play these factors to the plants' advantages, algae problem would be minimised.

Hi Bartoli,

I can give you an answer in a more analytical way intertwined with my philosophical thoughts based on my own gardening experiences, and with soil substrate in my outdoor pond over the years, but let's not forget the guru of El Natural method would give the most satisfactory answer for you, please be patient  Or you could find the answer in the book.

Nikolay,

Sorry you may not participate more in the thread, but I just want to say, hey I've cared , and I've managed to learn this much so far.

I saw your different perspectives (probably due to your own life experiences) and the reasons why you're not satisfied with certain practices. Your posts in this thread and other threads gave me lots of thoughts on the whys and hows people gravitate to a particular method. All have advantages and disadvantages relative to one's preference. I see it can feel insulting when someone voices disapproving opinions of a method. I probably raised more than a few eyebrows when I lamented about the commercial soil leaching nitrogen in water - but the El Natural folks are mostly quite genteel 

Perhaps, a similar example of the close-to-zero nutrient is posted in the El Natural forum, in the sticky section thread "High tech vs. Low tech (El Natural)" by forum member EMc. It can be run without CO2 nor frequent dosing like Amano's setup with certain kind of plants and lighting. I had lived and worked in Japan for some time, and can converse a little Japanese, read Katakana, Hiragana and very limited Kanji, that gives me some insight on their thought processes, but that's just a drop of water in the pond when it comes to translation. It would be nice if the Japanese translations are not lost; or it could be that such 0 nutrient info is only circulated in Japan. Amano style is certainly not for my lifestyle. My next aquarium setup would be a composite, including elements of zero nutrient, EI, PPS, El Natural. Ja, I've got to make a name for it haha. Anyway, thanks for posting. I think the EI method is very adaptable, and it is good that Wet has modeled many dosing behaviours in his calculator. You folks are great in your own way of doing things.

Now, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

goldier said:


> Hi Bartoli,
> 
> I can give you an answer in a more analytical way intertwined with my philosophical thoughts based on my own gardening experiences, and with soil substrate in my outdoor pond over the years, but let's not forget the guru of El Natural method would give the most satisfactory answer for you, please be patient


No problem, Goldier. I like analytical answers and am all ears!

Even though I read only a fraction of the posted messages, I have subscribed to this thread. As long as your reply is in this thread, I will see it.

Thanks.


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Andy Ritter said:


> > Originally Posted by niko
> > Noone but us 2, maybe 4, is interested in this thread anyway.
> >
> > Bye-bye.
> ...


Yup. Me too... i have been reading all the posts... just havent written. maybe when Philosophos and Niko figure out a way of 'ignoring' each other's "style" they'll keep adding their interesting info. As it is now... i think its not fair to simply drop out of the conversation. Both have interesting things to say, just differently said.

Anyway... i'm also facing this (water column) dilemma myself. I'm running Natural/low tech tanks; incredibly warm (normally 80-82F, sometimes reaches 84F)... and have been podering whether to keep water column nutrients at 0 or to have somethings available...

At first, i let water nutrients drop; but i got BGA. Can't say if it was directly/exclusively connected. Now I am dosing a little KNO3 and everything is doing a whole lot better... left the tank comepletely unattended (out of town) for about 4 days last week; in the past i would have come back to some algae... now i came back to an overgrown jungle.

So, I don't think having either a lean or a nutrient rich column is the defining factor on algae. Seems to me HEALTHY PLANT GROWTH and an established aquarium are the only common factors in all algae free environments.

So to the original question: What are we aiming for?
We are aiming for healthy plant growth and stability. Exact numbers dont matter; and this is why many methods produce good results with varying work/input/expenses.

There's various ways to achieve it... but numbers will always be half empty. Most people cant even get an accurate number on their parameters, others simply dont bother. Others have their numbers all figured out, and still get algae and/or stunted growth 

Which method i prefer? 
i think a lean water column is better. Its closer to nature and its much more stable. Takes a lot less work too. However, most aquariums have an absolutely un-natural fish/plant density...


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

i thought i was the only one that enjoyed Niko Vs Philosophos.

having done EI and now NPT's, i absolutley prefer el natural, or a version of it.


----------



## Aquaticz (May 22, 2009)

I also have been reading this tread as it developed and hope it continues


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

EI works great for me.


----------



## londonloco (Sep 25, 2005)

taggin along......


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Dielectric said:


> i thought i was the only one that enjoyed Niko Vs Philosophos.
> 
> having done EI and now NPT's, i absolutley prefer el natural, or a version of it.


x2 
on the whole statement  

While I must admit (not really having tried it myself) that EI works, I agree with what Niko said: With EI people dont really get a stable/balanced system. What you get is a (forced) stabilized system. It works, but is extremely fragile and work/attention intensive.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

I too had followed the exchange with interest. But for an exchange to be informative, people must be willing to substantiate on what they had said. When someone makes a claim like:



goldier said:


> And when people get tired of the above, allez hup to El Natural, and prepare to sacrifice the fast growth, lush, diverse flora to the simple, slow pace life . Some like it because it's low in maintenance, and has sustained micronutrient effect. But it too, won't last forever.


I expect some kind of reasoning to help others understand the thinking behind, not some handwaving:



goldier said:


> I can give you an answer in a more analytical way intertwined with my philosophical thoughts based on my own gardening experiences, and with soil substrate in my outdoor pond over the years, but let's not forget the guru of El Natural method would give the most satisfactory answer for you, please be patient  Or you could find the answer in the book.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Not hand waving, but deferring to the expert for the best answer, since a question similar to yours has been asked earlier, as recent as nearly 4 weeks ago:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/26458-what-el-natural-step-step-8.html

Unlike Amano, the expert is around from time to time, so again please be patient and the questions will be answered in the order they're received


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

Hi Goldier,

When I express an opinion, only I know for sure why I had such an opinion. Other people can guess at the reason, but they were just guessing. After all, there can be all kinds of different, or even conflicting, reasons why two persons happen to share the same opinion. Thus, I am the most authoritative source for the reason behind my opinion.

But when I relay someone's opinion, for example by quoting a source, then I am just quoting someone's opinion. In that case, the opinion is not mine. Thus, the ownership is not on me for providing the reason behind.

When you wrote:



goldier said:


> And when people get tired of the above, allez hup to El Natural, and prepare to sacrifice the fast growth, lush, diverse flora to the simple, slow pace life . Some like it because it's low in maintenance, and has sustained micronutrient effect. But it too, won't last forever.


You were not quoting anyone. You were expressing your opinion. Thus, the most authoritative person to provide the reasoning is you yourself.

So, Goldier, would you mind share with us the thinking that you had when you wrote the above? In particular, what did you mean by "forever"? What kind of duration you had in mind when you wrote that? Also, why did you think a tank wouldn't last that duration?

Thanks.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

the 0 water column niko is suggesting is entirely reasonable when we think of input (and input v water changes is the only reasonable way to measure levels at the hobbyist level) and a long term aquascape. think an island or hardscape layout heavy with epiphytes/anubias/microsorium/bolbitus sp and moderate fish stock with moderate to frequent feeding. it's also silly to apply the method of heavy dosing to any tank. folks who have grown -- and I emphasize grow -- many a scape understand that there's a difference between, say, high growth stem tanks with healthy feritlization and long term/gomer style tanks with a focus on stability and a mostly static layout. repectfully, the application of some method to every tank just reads as fanboyism. this applies to ei, pps, walstad, aaront, Amano, or what have you.

(I blame my phone and this rye with soda for any typos. I also think it weak anyone would drop out of a conversation amongst fellow plant nerds. this is one of the best threads in this fertilization forum in recent memory. well done. keep posting. and bust my balls if you'd like - I won't take it personally  <3 )


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Allright,

This is going to be one of my most blunt posts. If anyone has something to say against what I lay out here they better be very, very well prepared. If all you have to say is "EI" or "PPS" you better read on. There are a few people that can elaborate on the things I will say here at a level that makes sense. And they will just support what I say. Also they will not respond to this post.

I sound cocky, but this is because you don't hear the voice of my tone. If you could it would be a matter-of-fact tone.

In my "bye-bye" post I tried to manipulate an audience that I didn't even know existed. I wanted to see if anyone is really interested in running a tank better. From the discussion it looked like there was a vague interest. Now I see that there are people that are actually interested and ready to discuss, argue and in general inject some excitement in this hobby and move it forward.

Since the original topic of this thread is "What are we aiming for?" and it only means nutrients it's best to clearly point out that nutrient concentrations only are just a piece of a big puzzle. Here's a set of questions that you need to have a definite answer to:

1. Does your substrate play an important role in the initial stages of the tank's development?
2. Does your substrate play an important role in the long term maintenance of the tank?
3. For how long your filter provide constant, uninterrupted flow?
4. Why is your filter media choosen and placed as it is?
5. How many tank volumes go through your filter per hour?
6. What is the flow pattern inside your tank?
7. Why would controlling the water temperature be important in the initial stages of the tanks development?
8. What is the pH optimal for both plant growth and conversion of waste to NO3?
9. Is the conversion of Ammonia to Nitrate the only waste reducing process in your tank?
10. How is your tank setup to reduce accumulation of organics?
11. Why would you want to run an atomizer inside the tank?
12. Why would you want to shut off the CO2 at night?
13. Why would you want to have air running at night?
14. Why would you run the CO2 only in conjuction with the high light?
15. Why would you choose AquaSoil instead of mixing your own equivalent?
16. Are Kelvins and wpg the basis of your light bulb selection?
17. Do you need to flush your biofilter often for optimal performance?
18. How do you determine the needed volume of your biofilter media?
19. Does your biomedia clog?
20. How stable is your tank?
21. What do you have to do to the tank when you have to be away?
22. What is surface scum and how do you deal with it?
23. Does a 6 year old tank differ in any way than a 2 month old one?
24. What do you do different in the initial stages of the tank's development?
25. Can you use Activated Carbon in a planted tank?
26. Why would you use Purigen in a planted tank?
27. How long it takes for a tank to establish well?
28. Why you should see a planted tank as a very unique system that cannot mirror Nature perfectly?
29. Why change 30-50% of the water weekly?
30. Do you see a planted tank as a system that you need to maintain or a system that has a lot of mechanisms in place to support itself with very little interference?

Ok, 30 questions that you better have a good answer to. If you don't know most of the answers and you have a beautiful planted tank then great. Don't tell me about it as a proof that none of the knowledge matters.

And now - the "cold shower":

ADA has detailed answers to all of the questions. And more. They have not found or invented the answers to all the questions.

EI has a blanket answer to all the questions - "load the water with nutrients and do big water changes". Tom Barr has never included answers to the above questions as part of EI. He may have given answers to a few of the questions on his website.

PPS has a blanket answer to all the questions - "find a ballance between the fertilization and how much the plants use". Edward has never included answers to the above questions as part of PPS. He may have given his answers to a few of the questions on different websites.

El Natural has a lot of answers but it's a very different approach and a lot of the questions do not apply to it. I'm not familiar with it in details but I think clear answers to some of the above questions will only benefit that method.

The answers to the 30 questions is what I'd like people to find out. Not to favor ADA, EI or PPS without knowing why.

--Nikolay


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Nikolay,

To be fair, EI and PPS aren't addressing the whole system but just the fertilization bits, and I think that advantageous when presenting the requirements for planted aquaria to new folks. Those 30 questions and the rest others may have is a lot to digest, and so we split it into parts. We see how helpful this is in the subforums of APC and other planted sites, for example. 

Perhaps this is where ADA has their biggest advantage: (as close as we can probably get to) an out-of-the-box solution for the guy or gal with the budget and desire to grow plants. 

Going back to systems as a whole, we should remember that the guy with a 20 gallon tank will see the cost of EI (water changes) as acceptable while going through the learning curve of levels, whereas the gal with a huge tank or environmental responsibility may prefer the work of a PPS (water column) or Walstad (substrate) tank with very little water changes. In other words, if we're going to remind folks that they should look at the systems available, we should also remind beginners that they can make the system they want for their perfect tank.

Also, while I understand why EI specifically is not your cup of tea, I think it unfair to lump the body of Plantbrain's work as that subject. His ideas for non-limiting nutrients (the dump) with maximum limits (the flush) only deals with the nutrient half. If we were to create a "Plantbrain System," it would probably also include a nutrient-rich substrate with ~moderate light and plenty of CO2. I think similar could be said of an "Edward System."

I also think that any of the folks mentioned here will say they've made these systems to help beginners and intermediate folks get a better understanding of said parts of the aquatic system, not necessarily as end-all be-all guides to the whole system. But maybe I am wrong.

<3


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

the water parameter guide (can of worms) 

I dont like pigeon holes. I guess I prefer tanks that cannot be classified. ;-D


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

With all this talk we maybe going somewhere. 

I look down at EI and PPS because they don't give a good understanding how a planted tank is run. For anyone new it looks like as long as you pump CO2, have good light and fertilize you should be fine. That works fine. But the truth is the tanks are extremely unstable, especially EI. Sooner or later most people have a problem. And there are very few answers when you don't really know how it all works:

"Change more water"
"Increase/Decrease the fertilizing"
"Increase/Decrease the light"
"Rinse your filter"
"Use Excel"
"Do a blackout"

That's it. We have all seen "Help me" threads that just die because noone can suggest anything else. Because we just don't know what to say.

EI and PPS are not seen as just fertilization. To any new person, an to many old timers, EI and PPS are true methods. They are supposed to take care of it all. ADA helps establish these wrong views because they don't provide any really useful overview of how they run a planted tank. So what we have today, 2010, is EI and PPS and that's it. No answers to 30 or so basic questions.

I don't want to bash EI or PPS. I don't want to glorify ADA either. But someone should start drawing attention to the awkward situation. It took a monumental effort to bring both EI and PPS to the level of acceptance they enjoy today. It looks that it may take an even greater effort to pull the hobby further.

What I want is for us to understand this hobby more. To know about the experience that Dutch aquarists have. About the German experience and knowledge. The Japanese way of "adopting" things and connecting the dots in a unique and elegant system. Do you know that on one Russian forum there's talk about different techniques for cleaning the glass before applying silicone and verifying the results with an electron microscope? Do you know that about the year 1900 a book was published in English that talks about Oxygen bubbles and CO2 in a planted tank? Knowledge, knowledge all over. And here we argue about EI/PPS vs. ADA and Tom, Edward, and Amano could care less too.

Lately I've been thinking about a new direction of this hobby. It's taking the concepts of Diana's El Natural and adding some high tech things. I know of at least one person that is doing that. I don't think the idea is very far fetched. We should start seeing that separating "high tech" and "low tech" tanks as two completely different and impossible to combine systems is a wrong way to view a planted tank. On Pereiro's website there is an article in Spanish that describes the two systems as completely different approaches too. I think it's about time we take this hobby to the next level of understanding.

But, believe it or not, I fear that in this journey behind many corners we will discover polite Japanese smiling and nodding agreeably.

--Nikolay


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

*sigh* maybe I'm bad at ignoring people, but this is getting a little absurd. It seems like there's also little interest in keeping things sane, and the mods haven't said a word.

Niko, perhaps you should ask the people developing these methods that you're criticizing how they would answer your 30 questions. Perhaps you could actually give them your responses to why you think their answers are right or wrong, and you could discuss this all with the minds behind the methods you are attacking. These people aren't hard to reach, and setting up straw men to beat on isn't very tactful, or rational. Setting up straw men that say, "I don't know" to a list including some very easy questions is just downright transparent.

I'd answer the full list of questions myself, but you seem pretty firm on the concept of not providing evidence to me (or anyone else on this thread for that matter). If you do the same with Edward and Tom, I predict a similar response from them.

If anyone else would like to start a thread based on column nutrient limitation methods, I'm all for some chatter or debate. Goldier, I liked where our discussion was headed; it seemed rather common sense. I like the idea of exploring new ways to keep a tank; trying new things is how we move foreword. Still, it's nice to have a little evidence now and then 

Anyhow, this really is my last post. I just couldn't resist pointing out the obvious.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

niko,

I agree -- we are getting too caught in methods and names of systems instead of focussing on the plants. Healthy plants are resilient and tough, and this is why I think you are wrong about the stability of something like EI, and I'll tell you why.

Let's take ashappard's sweet tank. I am picking this tank specifically because it is maybe the most impressive display of growth with difficult species I have seen -- there is no doubt ashappard can grow whatever he wants. As far as I can tell he keeps a non 0 (ie: dosed/EI/whatever you want to call it) tank with plenty of CO2 and liberal light, but he, like most folks who can grow whatever they want, doesn't hit specific targets unless he's in the mood to. He also has posted pictures of a couple of species that show characteristics I have not yet been able to get from my tanks, and so I have no doubt his dosing is good. Just great plants.

I have no doubt that he could walk away from the tank for weeks at a time with minimal pain. If the tank runs lean the plants will still grow and adjust and move nutrients it can move from old growth to new growth. His established tank appears to have more than enough organics to suggest nutrients will be available to plant roots for a long time. If he could teach a five year old how to feed the fish I bet that kid could add some nutrient mix ashappard mixed up and topped off water with fine plant growth if wanted. I'll bet if light was reduced algae would be minimal. But will that kid get plus plant health and effects ashappard shows us in his current pictures?

Healthy plants can pull from their reserves. Mature tanks are resilient. It does not matter what method gets us to that point: from that point forward healthy plants are healthy plants. And, overall, regular water column dosing with water changes _is_ stable. It only becomes unstable when we stop with input and water changes.

I can't speak for Japanese nor other methods popular in other countries because of my language barrier. But the US's contributions with fertilization levels/calculators, light (Hoppy's work in particular) and ways to measure CO2 is groundbreaking! We've got scientists like Cavan and Ghori posting on the regular. The technical inclination of American aquaria is good. The Russian forum being so focussed on aesthetics (implying they are past caring about algae/etc) is indeed impressive but we have plenty of great DIY projects by talented craftsmen on APC, too.

What I mean is that this may reflect cultural mindsets in the hobby, and I think we talk so much about fertilizers and CO2 and stuff because we happen to be wired so that it's interesting to us, and that perhaps Russians are DIYing clean/sweet tanks because it is better than the commercial options available there, or any number of other things.

And, come on man, there's a whole bunch of WTF in ADA's product line. They certainly have great products and a method. But if we (not you and I, but an analogue to these people preaching EI and PPS mindlessly) were to describe the _full_ ADA system to most folks, it would be "Use Aquasoil and Powersand as the base, use Lily Pipes and Pollen Diffusors for CO2, add lots of goofy things with goofy names to the substrate and water because... um, they are magical." To only pick their best products and call it a system is cherry picking, no?

I gave a shot at the 30 questions in my tank's journal, by the way. You're right: lots of talk here and it makes me want to do an experiment. I have something I want to try using my method first, but I am up for turning that established tank into a low nutrient/low maintenance one to prove these points and that any healthy tank is adaptable.

I may also be a bad person to ask because I think if you dose well (including CO2, substrate if you want), give enough light, and do regular water changes I really do think you'll grow plants fine. One of my lowest maintenance and successful tanks started as Walstad then added DIY CO2 and regular water changes with lots of crypts and a few stems, for example.

I'm particularly eager to read more of goldier's thoughts on these systems and plants and tanks and stuff v. his/her experience with Bonsai.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

wet said:


> I'm particularly eager to read more of goldier's thoughts on these systems and plants and tanks


Good luck!  I have yet to see goldier substantiating his following claim:



goldier said:


> And when people get tired of the above, allez hup to El Natural, and prepare to sacrifice the fast growth, lush, diverse flora to the simple, slow pace life . Some like it because it's low in maintenance, and has sustained micronutrient effect. But it too, won't last forever.


----------



## freshyleif (Jan 9, 2008)

So I just got a subscription to TFH for $1 and in it is an interview with none other than Mr. Amano himself. It is very interesting and I think it worth reading for all who are enjoying this discussion.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

A tested and successful commercial method we forget about in the US ($$$, availability) is Tropica's.

What do Tropica and ADA approach in a similar way? What do they do differently?


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

Since my last post, there have been many interesting discussions about various on-going methods. From these posts, I think we all have a common desire to do better, to move forward and to try new things. I have some thoughts about utilizing various methods in certain stages of an aquarium setup:

The zero nutrient column would be quite helpful in the beginning to prevent or minimize algae plague, provided that the substrate is not fertile soil like those of El Natural's, sorry . The daily dosing with zero nutrient column helps the plants to grow strong and establish themselves. Once the plants take the command, later when EI or PPS are used, algae would not present a problem. When the plants are established, they can be very forgiving of short term neglect - I agree with Wet on this point. If people still want to use the rich top soil, potting soil & such à la El Natural, they can soak the soil in a bucket and change the water as often as needed until the nitrogen levels are low enough, then put that nitrogen bleached soil in the aquarium, then plant, decorate, etc&#8230;This would be less stress to plants, fish since from this point on, frequent water changes are not necessary; with no green soup and algae blooms, the plants would have a good start on day 1.



wet said:


> To be fair, EI and PPS aren't addressing the whole system but just the fertilization bits, and I think that advantageous when presenting the requirements for planted aquaria to new folks.


I concur.



niko said:


> EI and PPS are not seen as just fertilization. To any new person, an to many old timers, EI and PPS are true methods. They are supposed to take care of it all.


This is also true from the posts I read on various forums.

EI can be labor intensive with frequent water changes, and a bit wasteful with unused fertilizers that eventually end up in sewage system. Since the method is used in small aquariums, its effect on water pollution is not perceived as problematic, most likely more on the run off of over-fertilizing lawn and golf courses.

El Natural, or Au Naturel and any variations as such really address the complex ecology of the planted aquarium. Its laissez-faire approach suits many beginners because no complicated dosing regimen of fertilizers are required. Its beauty lies in the simplicity but complicated interactions of bacteria, fauna and flora in mostly undisturbed water. Let it be until all nutrients are used up - could take a long time, but nothing lasts forever! And to address the impermanent nature of all things, take a look at this actual experience:

http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57762

An excerpt:

_"Here's some background information:

I started the tank 8-9 years ago after reading a very influential book called "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" by Diana L. Walstad. I highly recommend anyone who's into keeping a planted aquarium to read it. In it she stated out the way to go about doing up a low tech planted tank with one of the main focuses being the use of a soil based substrate.

That's exactly what I did, I went out, bought a big bag of potting soil and laid it down as the foundation of my tank. On top of that came some gravel for aesthetic reasons and then in went the plants. The idea is that the soil itself will have enough organic material to support the plants for a long time. And to my experience that is not far from the truth.

My tank has been low tech for a majority of it's life, no CO2, low light, no ferts, hardly any water changes, no cooling system at all, I never tested the water and it was even placed in a location where it gets a fair amount of natural light.

Over the years I only used ferts that were directly placed into the soil, I did this once every 6 months on average. I also changed the water only once every 6 months or so, as the book suggested.

Even though it was low tech, most of the plants flourished. The only plants I could never keep were mosses and riccia. Most leafy plants grew pretty well and went on to take over the tank.

It was only in the last year or so that I started to go semi-high tech with CO2, liquid fert, high light, cooling fan and so on. The reason for this was because I started to see signs of slowed growth and nutrition deficiency in my swords (left of tank). So I started trying different things to see if I could revive them, and so far I've only met with mild success."_

I assume in that posting, fertilizers were used because of low fish load, but eventually the substrate peters out, El Natural or else.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

goldier said:


> El Natural, or Au Naturel and any variations as such really address the complex ecology of the planted aquarium. Its laissez-faire approach suits many beginners because no complicated dosing regimen of fertilizers are required. Its beauty lies in the simplicity but complicated interactions of bacteria, fauna and flora in mostly undisturbed water. Let it be until all nutrients are used up - could take a long time, but nothing lasts forever! And to address the impermanent nature of all things, take a look at this actual experience:
> 
> http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57762
> 
> ...


_

The fact that one person's 9-year old NPT shown signs of "slowed growth and nutrition deficiency" does not mean all similar aged NPTs will have that type of problem. Therefore, when you use that case as the basis of your repeating claim that a NPT cannot last 'forever', Goldier your reasoning is flawed!_


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

bartoli said:


> The fact that one person's 9-year old NPT shown signs of "slowed growth and nutrition deficiency" does not mean all similar aged NPTs will have that type of problem. Therefore, when you use that case as the basis of your repeating claim that a NPT cannot last 'forever', Goldier your reasoning is flawed!


Strange reasoning. If the person followed the Walstad method faithfully according to the book, his/her experience would still not be considered valid because the substrate would not last. Then, what were the flaws in his/her doing or limitations from the method itself?

Here is another 'flawed' conclusion about the soil substrate in the Walstad method lasting about 10 years:

http://theaquariumwiki.com/Walstad_method

Also, I think that would be a weakness and a flaw without you providing a real evidence on the contrary showing that an El Natural soil substrate lasts forever, and explaining why. Make me a believer. If you are not following the Walstad method, then please tell what your method is so we can learn from it and make it last forever 

Let's hear and learn more about El Natural from the few brave, good men and women.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

goldier said:


> If the person followed the Walstad method faithfully according to the book, his/her experience would still not be considered valid because the substrate would not last. Then, what were the flaws in his/her doing or limitations from the method itself?


Who knows? I did not bring that case into this discussion. You did! I merely pointed out the flaw in the way you were using that case for your claim.



goldier said:


> Here is another 'flawed' conclusion about the soil substrate in the Walstad method lasting about 10 years:
> 
> http://theaquariumwiki.com/Walstad_method


First you cited someone's posting on his 9-year old tank. After I pointed out the problem in using that case, you then cited from a wiki. But at best these are just secondary sources. Since you are making claim about Ms. Walstad's method, don't you think you should cite from her book?

But then Goldier, have you read Ms. Walstad's book? Don't tell me that you hadn't even read her book when you have been so 'brave' to make a broad claim about her method. If you'd read it, then cite from it to support your claim.



goldier said:


> Also, I think that would be a weakness and a flaw without you providing a real evidence on the contrary showing that an El Natural soil substrate lasts forever, and explaining why.


"A weakness and a flaw" of what? Mind you, I merely pointed out the reasoning problem in the way you tried to support your claim. I did not put up any NPT claim against yours.



goldier said:


> Make me a believer. If you are not following the Walstad method, then please tell what your method is so we can learn from it and make it last forever
> 
> Let's hear and learn more about El Natural from the few brave, good men and women.


Yes, let's hear from the _responsible_ brave people. It is one thing to sprinkle claims but quite another to substantiate them.

Goldier, please substantiate your claim that a NPT won't last forever.

Thanks.


----------



## jballauer (Apr 1, 2010)

First post and newbie to the dosing schemes. I have a new 100g planted tank, 2.6 wpg of pcf lighting, Milwaukee controller and compressed CO2 injection, just recently cycled. About 23 varieties of plants, growing steadly, and I've had fish in it (lots of them) from day one. 

Started dosing ferts using an EI model, which as a method is admittedly quite flexible and variable. Three days later, plant growth is in overdrive. My A. ulvaceous grew three leaves, 6 inches tall in 30 hours. 

As I said, growth was quite good before dosing, but now it's kinda the way I like it. Those who follow EI dosing should be smart enough not to follow consistent dosing amounts, but rather by interpreting the system and responding in kind. Of course it's an unstable system. Cool challenge if you ask me!

That said. I'm a landscaper; one of my careers. I apply macros early and late in the growing season and micros (iron) in the middle of our Texas summers. The idea is that the healthy lawn outraces the weeds and chokes them out. Likewise, it assures weekly cuttings and an extended growing season. 

Now, if my clients just watered their lawns appropriately, given appropriately lighting, I can assure you that people would still have beautiful green lawns. Ferts aren't so much required, but they help the lawn become more efficient in terms of growth. 

EI (and I assume the other nutrient-rich methods) require you to be responsive and active. Thank goodness. If it didn't, I think I'd have little interest in doing this...which is one of the reasons why I took a break from the hobby 15 years ago (it was boring and took too much time to reestablish my tanks after moving residences). Today, I can afford high-tech and I expect to see massive, crazy growth in my plants. I want to dose, prune, play with water chemistry, and learn about my little ecosystem in a glass box. I want to come home from work, take notes in my journal, observe fish behavior, and see which plants had a good day. 

I'll make mistakes, but I wouldn't learn anything in life if I didn't make them. I figure forums like this will help me learn to correct them.

El Natural and low nutrient methods sound positively boring to me. Are those systems stable and more bulletproof? Sure. But for me, that method would get relegated to my second or third or fourth aquarium. Good way to keep some plants on hand and growing in a back room while I spend most of my time playing with my big tank.

EI is a tool that I will use. One of many. It's not rocket science, nor was it ever intended to be. And it's certainly not the only way. But if you are like me, you want optimal grow rates and have little desire to be a passive observer.

Therefore, I have little desire in knowing the perfect way to run a planted tank...I'd rather discover it myself.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *goldier*
> If the person followed the Walstad method faithfully according to the book, his/her experience would still not be considered valid because the substrate would not last. Then, what were the flaws in his/her doing or limitations from the method itself?
> 
> *Bartoli: *
> Who knows? I did not bring that case into this discussion. You did! I merely pointed out the flaw in the way you were using that case for your claim.


Looks like you rather turn a blind eye to new evidence. Yes, you were busily trying to find my flaw while you don't even know the answers to my questions from an actual case. I was counting on your contribution to the discussion about El Natural method, but so far there is nothing other than "your reasoning is flawed", or "sprinkle claims" or "please substantiate". Come on, I would rather spend my time reading Philosophos', Niko's, Wet's and others' thoughts on how to better this hobby than your empty words like those.



bartoli said:


> First you cited someone's posting on his 9-year old tank. After I pointed out the problem in using that case, you then cited from a wiki. But at best these are just secondary sources. Since you are making claim about Ms. Walstad's method, don't you think you should cite from her book?
> 
> But then Goldier, have you read Ms. Walstad's book? Don't tell me that you hadn't even read her book when you have been so 'brave' to make a broad claim about her method. If you'd read it, then cite from it to support your claim.


Ahh, your trouble with the sources. Real life examples are more valuable and interesting than reading from book, especially when the book only makes assumption without any credible sources to back it up, therefore I do not consider it a good practice to cite such tertiary literature (i.e books), and I guess you're not part of the academic circle to be able to differentiate between secondary & tertiary sources.

But why asking such questions, Bartoli? Haven't you got the hint from my very first response to you many days ago that you would also find the answer you seek from the book without waiting for me to cite it:



goldier said:


> Hi Bartoli,
> 
> I can give you an answer in a more analytical way intertwined with my philosophical thoughts based on my own gardening experiences, and with soil substrate in my outdoor pond over the years, but let's not forget the guru of El Natural method would give the most satisfactory answer for you, please be patient  Or you could find the answer in the book.


Some people question the evidence of a scientific research; some people blindly accept a book's opinion as the gospel's truth. It takes all kinds.

The book cites many sources to back up many claims which I consider well done, except the assertion about substrate degradation over time without a reference, but purely opinion. I recall the book mentions about the plants in pots went bad just after a few years. Other information about the longevity (~8 years) of Ms. Walstad aquaria may likely be longer since after the book was published, that is why I repeatedly suggested you to wait for her comments. If you are unable to find the info about the time span of the soil substrate info in the book, let me know, I can help pointing you to the exact page numbers.

My posts are also for many other readers, not only you, for those who may not read the book, and can have more independent thoughts and observations. Some people must refer to books. Just be aware that book information is useful, but is not end-all, be-all as the information is referenced from studies that can be replaced by newer discoveries. Hence, new editions and revisions.



bartoli said:


> Goldier your reasoning is flawed!


I'm very far from perfect, but I'm afraid you did not know what you were talking about.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

goldier said:


> Ahh, your trouble with the sources. Real life examples are more valuable and interesting than reading from book, especially when the book only makes assumption without any credible sources to back it up, therefore I do not consider it a good practice to cite such tertiary literature (i.e books)


Asking you to cite from Ms. Walstad's book was trying to have you be fair to her method.

Being fair to a method requires that you fully understand the method, not just parts of it, before making a broad claim about the method. If you can support your claim by citing from the method source, in this case Ms. Walstad's book, then it is a demonstration that you understand her method well enough to make a credible claim.

Goldier, I assume you too want to be treated with fairness. Please treat Ms. Walstad's method with fairness by citing from her book to support your claim that a NPT won't last forever.

Thanks.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

I've been very fair in explaining my rationale, as seen in my previous post (in bold)



goldier said:


> Ahh, your trouble with the sources. Real life examples are more valuable and interesting than reading from book, *especially when the book only makes assumption without any credible sources to back it up, therefore I do not consider it a good practice to cite such tertiary literature (i.e books)*, and I guess you're not part of the academic circle to be able to differentiate between secondary & tertiary sources.
> 
> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> *The book cites many sources to back up many claims which I consider well done, except the assertion about substrate degradation over time without a reference, but purely opinion. I recall the book mentions about the plants in pots went bad just after a few years.*


Opinions/statements without evidence or studies to back them up are not worthy to cite.



bartoli said:


> Being fair to a method requires that you fully understand the method, not just parts of it, before making a broad claim about the method. If you can support your claim by citing from the method source, in this case Ms. Walstad's book, then it is a demonstration that you understand her method well enough to make a credible claim.


To demonstrate that you fully understand a method, you must also understand its limitations to be able to give a critique of the method.

Do you know/understand the limitations of El Natural method? Once you realize its limitations, which cause the soil to not last forever, you may rethink and perhaps will find a way to improve it. For a start, take a look at this thread in El Natural forum: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/70674-good-fish-food-source-potassium.html


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

wet said:


> I'm particularly eager to read more of goldier's thoughts on these systems and plants and tanks and stuff v. his/her experience with Bonsai.


Wet,

In bonsai practice, typically the plants are grown in a shallow dish or pot with little soil. Fertilizers are usually not added until after the 1st year. Fertilizing is used not to stimulate grow, but to keep the plants healthy while they remain miniature in size. Very diluted amount is used sparingly. The aerial advantage I read about them is that they can also utilize nitrogen in the air under certain condition. For aquatic plants, it is evidenced with abundant fertilizers as in EI dosing, the plants grow very quickly, they certainly are very healthy too. To slow down the growth rate (not to trim so often) while keeping them healthy, perhaps we can dose just enough and only as often as needed (this needs some experimenting). This brings back the zero nutrient concept Niko mentioned.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

goldier said:


> Do you know/understand the limitations of El Natural method? Once you realize its limitations, which cause the soil to not last forever, you may rethink and perhaps will find a way to improve it. For a start, take a look at this thread in El Natural forum: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/70674-good-fish-food-source-potassium.html


What makes a method a method is the way various parts are put together. Thus, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Goldier, making observations like you did on individual parts is not addressing the method aspect that makes use of those parts. You are dealing only with the parts, not the method. Therefore, it is unfair to base your claim about the method on just your observation on its parts. Right now you do not see the unfairness in what you are doing. May be someday you will.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

niko said:


> I look down at EI and PPS because they don't give a good understanding how a planted tank is run. For anyone new it looks like as long as you pump CO2, have good light and fertilize you should be fine. That works fine. But the truth is the tanks are extremely unstable, especially EI. Sooner or later most people have a problem.


See that just it. EI is not unstable at all its the person that is inconsistent. Give your tanks consistent light, co2 and follow EI and you will not have an issue. Short term or long term. You will have an issue if you forget to change water, fertilize or co2 runs out. Nobody tells you hey my co2 rank out for 3 days I forgot to dose a couple times and now my plants arent growing right or I have algae...they just tell you my plants arent growing right or I have algae hence the list you made.

I like PPS because it is not as wasteful as EI and refined. If the solutions were not garbage it would be excellent.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I agree - most information that people give about their tanks is incomplete. The hole thing is a dynamic system and you have to really get the whole picture when hearing about problems. When asking for advice with an issue some people list everything they find appropriate but I don't think that gives the whole picture either. 

A good example of "partial information" are the ADA tanks and the water parameters that everybody can see in any Aquajournal - without knowing how it all works be my guest and grow lush plants with zero or close to zero nutrients in the water column at all times. For years I struggled to figure out how they do it. I have probably have had time to learn enough Japanese to translate what I wanted to know so badly. But I'm different than all other people - I'm lazy and I like to waste my time...

I still believe that EI produces tanks that are unstable - in the sense that if you let the tank without any care for a week it goes to hell. I consider the system to be stable if you can let the tank be without any care for many weeks. I've said that before - some of my tanks I've let evaporate 1/2 way and there were no issues other than reduced plant growth and maybe minor spot algae. That is not to say I know how to run a planted tank like that every time. But that is what I consider "stable". Let an EI or PPS tank evaporate 1/2 way and see what happens. My experience doing that for even 10 days has been bad. Maybe someone that has done it will post a different experience.

--Nikolay


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

niko said:


> I agree - most information that people give about their tanks is incomplete. The hole thing is a dynamic system and you have to really get the whole picture when hearing about problems. When asking for advice with an issue some people list everything they find appropriate but I don't think that gives the whole picture either.
> 
> A good example of "partial information" are the ADA tanks and the water parameters that everybody can see in any Aquajournal - without knowing how it all works be my guest and grow lush plants with zero or close to zero nutrients in the water column at all times. For years I struggled to figure out how they do it. I have probably have had time to learn enough Japanese to translate what I wanted to know so badly. But I'm different than all other people - I'm lazy and I like to waste my time...
> 
> ...


I understand your gripe. EI does put excess fertilizers in the water column. This can make things go south quick in terms of algae. If you are missing water change or co2 your history.

Water changes are a key component of out of the box EI.

Many people myself included run EI light or custom version of EI. They take what they have learned from EI, for example what fertilizers to dose and what amounts and apply that to create new custom dosing plan. You can scale the dosing down to suit your tanks needs. For low kh loving plants you need to keep up with water changes but plants like anubias, crypts, echinos, mosses and ferns can go natural with ferts and even co2 boost.


----------

