# Problems with plants which appear at "recommended levels"



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

I have had my planted tank for 5 years now. During these years i used different dosing methods but a few days ago i was about to throw my tank through the window... I'm really giving up on the hobby.
When i set up my first planted tank i used commercial fertilizers. One of them was macro which included all NPK nutrients. However, only potassium was in high supply; the rest - phosphorus and nitrogen doses were very small. NO3 and PO4 usually were at very low levels: max. 5 and 0.2 ppm respecitvely. The macro fertilizer i used contained probably NH4OH (ammonium hydroxide).
The micro fertilizer (produced by the same firm) was extremely concentrated - the recommended dose added to the tank was about 10 times higher than TPN (or old TMG) adds.
The water was reconstituted to achieve GH = 2 only. CO2 never exceeded 15 ppm (according to pH/KH relationship). Despite very low NO3 and PO4, very soft water, low CO2 the plants grew like crazy. They also were very colorful. I had some issues with 2 or 3 plants however. These were cabomba species. They showed severe nitrogen deficiency and didn't grow at all. I didn't know that it was nitrogen deficiency at the time.
Then i was told about Estimative Index. When i added much more NO3 in a few days many plants got stunt real bad. The symptomps included mainly dwarfed growing tips and deformed young leaves.
Estimative Index followers always tell the above problems are caused by too low CO2. I bagan to inject much more CO2 than before. Some day i saw some dead fish, some were gasping for air. It was a clear sign for me there was too much CO2. Despite so high CO2 the plants still suffered. I tried to maintain high CO2 for 2 years but the plants were always stunted - no matter it was 20 or 60 ppm of
CO2. Being frustrated i stopped dosing some much CO2 and NO3. In a few days plants begin to recover. New shots grew quickly. No deformations, no dwarfing. I also noticed that stunted tips appear when potassium is too low (10 ppm or less). I took water samples to laboratory several times to measure K and NO3. The NO3 results were compared to my NO3 test kit and they were very similar.
I can't really grow my plants when NO3 is close to 10 ppm. They quickly get stunted (dwarfing, deformations). Whenever i write about the problem with higher NO3 causing issues i'm always "beaten" by EI followers that high NO3 is not the cause, the cause is too low CO2. Some people i know have the same problem: higher NO3 = dwarfing and deformations. If CO2 is really in shortage how i can add more ? Some people i know throw CO2 mist at the plant or use other CO2 distributing techniques in the tank but without success. I can say without fear of contradiction that higher CO2 DOES NOT work in my tank. I believe there is another issue which i don't know about.

High potassium problem

When i discovered that too low potassium causes dwarfed plant tips i added much more of it routinely. Usually i dosed 20 ppm or more to changed water (50% WC a week). It worked nicely for a 2..3 weeks but i noticed plants got severe chlorosis each time i added more than 20 ppm of K. The chlorosis resembled iron deficiency so i added lots of iron but it didn't work. Adding daily 0.5 ppm of iron (and some manganese as well) induced massive hair algae bloom, green dust on the glasses and water turned murky. Obivously it didn't reduce chlorosis on leaves. I tried other micronutrients but without success. When i stopped dosing more K plants quickly recovered from chlorosis and got good colors but some species grow much slower. Any time i add more than 15..20 ppm K they get severe chlorosis. Some people tell higher K is not a problem and the cause of chlorosis is not induced by potassium. 
Tom Barr and his disciples drumm to me that i should add more NO3 and CO2 to succeed.
I really add tons of NO3 but the only results i get is stunting. I really don't know why it doesn't work. A person i know had beautiful tank in which he added 50 ppm K to changed water (50% WC) and TONS of micros. When i attempted to use his fertilizing method in my tank (mainly higher K) i always get severe chlorosis and stunting. Also some of us who use Seachem Equilibrium (which adds lots of K) don't see any problems with plants. Once i wrote to Seachem and asked them whether so much K causes problems and they said that the amount dosed from their product very far from excess.
Why is that ? Are there other "mysterious" micros or nutrients needed by plants that we don't know about which must be in good supply in order not to experience any higher K or NO3 issues ? 
I really don't believe it's CO2... I just can't add more or maybe i should grow my plants directly in liquid CO2 instead...


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

If high NO3 is your problem, why is it that some of us can push to doses as high as 45ppm NO3 and get great growth? Why is it that some of the first aquatic plants kept thrived with a modified Hoagland solution, and then continued to do so after being scaled to somewhere in the ballpark of 1/10th the levels in things based off Conlin and Sears? EI isn't the only one to push NO3, and certainly not the highest.

So your NO3 goes up and your plants die... post hoc ergo protper hoc? The correlative of NO3 rising may not be the whole of the direct cause. Is it possible that perhaps your stunting related to a low level of PO4 in proportion to the level of NO3 being provided, causing a second nutrient deficiency that is commonly known to cause stunting? You haven't listed your full fert routines so its kind of hard to figure out what else is going on.

I'm also wondering why you'd use the KH-pH-CO2 method based on your tanks column, given its massive margin of error. There are more buffering systems in your aquarium than just carbonate, and most titration kits have a margin of error of 17.86ppm. Get your self a drop checker if you want semi-accurate numbers to work from, or watch your plants and fish.

I can't figure why you'd have a K+ deficiency if you were ever following EI. If your plants were dwarfing due to a deficiency of K+, I'd imagine you'd have some nice pinholes in at least a few of your plants to go with it. This is another reason I'm indicating towards PO4, and wouldn't mind knowing your full setup/dosing.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

I don't have my nutrient research info with me, nor have I memorized all of that massive amount of data, but I do have a few things to point out... all nutrients are dependant upon other nutrients in order to be utilized efficiently. An example would be nutrient x which will only be used by plants if nutrient y is offered in correct amounts no matter how much nutrient x is added. This basic chemistry applies to nearly every nutrient. There is a really cool chart out there that shows this in detail and for every nutrient, but I cannot remember what it is at the moment. Deficiency symptoms in one plant may be due to the lack of a completely different nutrient. I hope this helps some...


----------



## Natalia (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi Kekon,

I usually stay away from discussions about fertilizers for exactly the same reason. My experience is very similar to yours. When I just started, I tried to maintain EI recommended levels of NPK, light and CO2 with results similar to yours - ugly, stunted plants and a great deal of frustration. I probably red and implemented every single EI related post with no success. 

Having gotten tired of this, I decided to go with lower levels of N and P (2.5ppm, 0.1ppm respectively) and only 10ppm of CO2 (measured with RedSea test kit). In fact, I do not add these at all-only what fish produce. Never tested K but I add 1ppm daily and do 3x25% water change a week, so it is not likely to be high. I use rather hard well water and dilute with RO water to get GH of 8 and KH of 4. I do add traces via Flourish. My lights are approx. 2.5 wpg. I have 2-year old Aquasiol Amasonia II as a substrate in one tank, SoilMaster Select and EcoComplete in two others. My tanks have been doing great for several months now! My rotalas (macrandra, colorata and magenta) and ludwigias are redder than they have ever been and everything is growing crazy. The tips of my Bacopa caroliniana turned nice copper color and the leaves proably tripled in size. I need to trim every week or two.

If you look what Amano uses in his tanks, his numbers are MUCH lowers than EI numbers. I have seen other posts on this forum where people came to the same conclusions ( if you can, find posts by Jason Baliban, these were very helpful to me). If this works for Mr. Amano, why not for us.

Here is my question to you: Why not to go back to what worked for you in the past. Probably all you need is to make a minor adjustments to your traces. But because every aquarium is different you need to experiment and find what works for you. 

I indeed noticed that certain EI followers are rather unnecessarily agressive in defending their view of the universe. But if a different scheme works for you why would you care?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Natalia, I'm not understanding why you'd discredit EI because it doesn't work for you, while it does work for others, and then state that because Amano sells it, that it must be the best method that works for everyone. Isn't this going from unrepresentative sampling and a base rate fallacy to argumentum ad verecundium?

I've seen both methods succeed and fail, and I've found that the variable isn't the method; it's the aquarist.

I'm also wondering how you can typify an EI user, given that not everyone who does EI only uses EI, or even thinks and relates to others in remotely the same way. What differentiates the people who use EI from any other hobbyist? I'm sure every great name you can mention has tried the methods of their contemporaries, and understands their strengths and weaknesses just as any other good hobbyist would.

-FST


----------



## Natalia (Sep 15, 2008)

Philosophos,

By no means did I try to discredit anything, you must have misred. What I said was that both EI and low fert methods work, but which one is the best depends on your tank. To me if both methods work, there must be some component X or a combination of individual micros/macros that is far more important for plant's health then just high or low N&P. 

In my case, I went with low ferts, it works well. Could you explain why on earth I should go out of my way and try to fine-tune the EI that DOES NOT WORK IN MY TANKS? However, if you use it in your tanks I have no problem.

PS: I do believe that having made hundreds of beautiful tanks, Takash Amano represent a very significant sample of this hobby.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree that people should use what works for their tanks. What confuses me is that people switch without asking themselves why a method is or isn't working. For myself, I only switch methods when I know why they're inferior or incompatible with my needs; usually it isn't too much of a dig.

I use EI, but I also use other methods; some of them don't have a name, but they grow very nice plants under very low tech. I'm working at trying to figure out why they work so well, and why some of the growth patterns appear the way that they do.

I agree, Amano makes nice tanks, and he gets a lot of coverage. What are you trying to say with this?

I'd also like you to explain the bit about what causes EI users to be any different in their aggression levels than any other hobbyist. Do their testosterone levels increase some how?

-Philosophos


----------



## inwu (May 14, 2009)

Hi Dryn,

Could you post the link of the chart that you mentioned? Thanks!


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

I'll try to get it tonight (its on an ex's computer) if I can. I do remember that it was very, very helpful - if not aquatic plant specific. I had to go earlier, but my point was that there are many, many different combination for ferts that we don't even fully understand so that arguing about one way working and another not working is usually futile. Every tank and setup is different. Even the water source is different from one house to the next, or even one sink to the next!

The horticultural recommendation is to start with an overdose of ferts coupled with frequent waterchanges and slowly lowering the amount of ferts until algae loses its hold and the plants thrive at the desired level of growth (which depends upon your personal preferences). The reverse would also work, but could be detrimental to the plants and encourage observers to try to determine deficiencies through common signs of deficiencies, but much more is happening that we understand and this method isn't as good.

Any recommendation that anyone can give - mine included - will both work and have its problems at the same time. You must find your own level. Succeeding in this is one of the greatest rewards our hobby offers. If anyone could do it - everyone would!


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Philosophos said:


> What confuses me is that people switch without asking themselves why a method is or isn't working.
> What are you trying to say with this?
> I'd also like you to explain the bit about what causes EI users to be any different in their aggression levels than any other hobbyist. Do their testosterone levels increase some how?
> -Philosophos


I believe you have answered your last question with all the preceding ones. I know you are trying to help but both Natalia and Kekon have told you why they switched. It didn't work. We may never know why... I wouldn't keep doing something that I saw was killing my plants just because I didn't know why. Most of us out here are trying to get a handle on how plants grow. It's not A+B=C. That is for sure. If it were there wouldn't be threads like this. I have 5 tanks. I think I'm dosing them all the same, but I get different results in each. There are just too many variables.

I think we get somewhere when we let people have a little breathing room. We all have pretty much the same goal, but to pretend this is easy doesn't help. It's better just to meet people where they are, with their issues and try to offer help, not defend a methodology.



Dryn said:


> Any recommendation that anyone can give - mine included - will both work and have its problems at the same time. You must find your own level. Succeeding in this is one of the greatest rewards our hobby offers. If anyone could do it - everyone would!


Very well said!


----------



## Natalia (Sep 15, 2008)

Philosophos,
Ok, let me comment on some of your points.

_"What confuses me is that people switch without asking themselves why a method is or isn't working."_

How do you imagine asking youself this question in practical terms? When I first started my tank I tried to use the EI method. I carefully followed what is usually recommended: increase NO3 to 20ppm, PO4 to 1-2ppm, K to 20ppm, pressurized CO2 to 30ppm, reduce the light. My tank was not looking good. Any other suggestions you would offer as to what parameter to change? If you want to be scientific you would need to conduct a rather large-scale study and test all parameters such as lights, CO2, N, P, K and all traces by changing one parameter at a time. Then you would be able to choose the best condititons. It is easy to say but not easy to do. For example, to test 10 parameters each having just tree values (high, medium and low range) you would need to set up (10,3)=10!/(10-3)!=720 tanks!!! And yes, it will also depend on which plants and fish you put in.

The next best approach is to swich to some other method that works for other people. So far I know only of three commonly used methods: EI, high-tech low ferts (let's call this Amano method for simplicity) and Walstad method. I tried EI, it did not work. I tried Amano's, it seems to work. No need to go further.

When you say that "people should ask themselves" perhaps you should keep in mind that people who experience these problems are often new to the hobby. It takes some time to process all the confusing information. And untill this happens, you have to rely on the advice of the others.

_"I agree, Amano makes nice tanks, and he gets a lot of coverage. What are you trying to say with this?"_

Very simple: if he makes such nice tanks he must know what he is doing. There is a good chance that what works for him will work for the others.

_"I'd also like you to explain the bit about what causes EI users to be any different in their aggression levels than any other hobbyist. Do their testosterone levels increase some how?"_

Ahhhhh, what an interesting idea. It would not be too difficult to test....
I did not say all EI users, I said CERTAIN EI users.

By the way I like the previous post by Dryn, right to the point.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

TexGal said:


> I think we get somewhere when we let people have a little breathing room. We all have pretty much the same goal, but to pretend this is easy doesn't help. It's better just to meet people where they are, with their issues and try to offer help, not defend a methodology


I think you're trying to diffuse something that isn't a heated argument  I'm just being curious, not malicious here. I'm also not trying to defend any methodology within the hobby specifically, rather I'm trying to understand why people fail to reproduce so universally replicated results. Some of it seems to lay more with the issue of epistemology than anything from what I've observed; the outcome of this thread will hopefully give me some insight to that idea.



Natalia said:


> How do you imagine asking youself this question in practical terms? When I first started my tank I tried to use the EI method. I carefully followed what is usually recommended: increase NO3 to 20ppm, PO4 to 1-2ppm, K to 20ppm, pressurized CO2 to 30ppm, reduce the light. My tank was not looking good. Any other suggestions you would offer as to what parameter to change? If you want to be scientific you would need to conduct a rather large-scale study and test all parameters such as lights, CO2, N, P, K and all traces by changing one parameter at a time. Then you would be able to choose the best condititons. It is easy to say but not easy to do. For example, to test 10 parameters each having just tree values (high, medium and low range) you would need to set up (10,3)=10!/(10-3)!=720 tanks!!! And yes, it will also depend on which plants and fish you put in.


Pressurized CO2 to 30ppm through KH/PH method or through 4KH drop checker and plant/fauna observation? What about Mg and Ca? Traces? Maintainance routines? Did you calibrate your test kits before trusting them?

Believe it or not, EI isn't a new concept in its targets or ratios outside of adding more PO4, and they predate Tom Barr's development of the method. Leibig's law of the minimum, which is the non-limiting nutrient bit, applies to more than just aquatic plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum Most of the tests you're suggesting aren't necessary because they've already been done. I'm just curious as to why people give up so fast.

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

kekon - you sound frustrated!
which happens often enough to me. 
but there was a time when I did fight instability much more often than today. 

I notice that you increased NO3, fine - heres what I do when I want to raise something (or lower it) - move other things relative to what you change. For example manage macros together -- add more NO3, add more PO4 also. I pick a ratio like N 5:1 / 4:1 for example and add them relative to each other. wait a bit and see what happens next, changes can be sudden or slow. as biomass increases, dosing should change. you may need to do a more frequent water change as the tank matures, maybe you can do them less often. how to know when your specific setup needs a tweak? catch something before its a real problem?

try to take observation notes when things are good and not good, in between you will see a tipping point and you can use those cues to help know when its time to do something. after a while you will see a pattern develop and if you annotate dosing notes with visual observation you'll start to get a feel for how your tank responds to what you do. dont forget to record when you miss a dose, miss water changes etc. all good info to look at later.

water changes are a time to clean up and check flow, rearrange or trim to keep things from being stagnant. flow helps with plant health and CO2 distribution. removing particles and debris helps water quality. A big 90% or more water change is a 'reset' opportunity. start over and rebuild the water column. sometimes it comes to that.

all sounds like common sense (or maybe nonsense  ) but it has helped me. gardening is relaxing (right?), and I like to stare at my tanks for a long time, finding patterns in growth vs time and dosing. dont feel rigid in your plan -- dont need to use a standard plan - those dont work for all mixes of spp. Be honest when you critique it in your notes and you'll see good patterns to follow, patterns to avoid. best of luck!


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> If high NO3 is your problem, why is it that some of us can push to doses as high as 45ppm NO3 and get great growth? Why is it that some of the first aquatic plants kept thrived with a modified Hoagland solution, and then continued to do so after being scaled to somewhere in the ballpark of 1/10th the levels in things based off Conlin and Sears? EI isn't the only one to push NO3, and certainly not the highest.
> 
> So your NO3 goes up and your plants die... post hoc ergo protper hoc? The correlative of NO3 rising may not be the whole of the direct cause. Is it possible that perhaps your stunting related to a low level of PO4 in proportion to the level of NO3 being provided, causing a second nutrient deficiency that is commonly known to cause stunting? You haven't listed your full fert routines so its kind of hard to figure out what else is going on.
> 
> ...


Philosphoos, I don't want to discourage anyone from using EI. I'd like to see the method working in my tank. I follow all the pieces of advice from anyone who uses EI with good results.
When i added more NO3 i also added more PO4 up to 2..3 ppm. I didn't helped at all. I doubt
CO2 is in shortage because plants pearl havily and fish die - if there is not enough CO2 why plants produce so much oxygen and all the glasses and plant are covered with bubbles ??? There is no guarantee the drop checker works well. Some folks used professional instruments to measure CO2 and to ensure there is decent level of and plants still suffered.



> I can't figure why you'd have a K+ deficiency if you were ever following EI. If your plants were dwarfing due to a deficiency of K+, I'd imagine you'd have some nice pinholes in at least a few of your plants to go with it.


Moderate potassium deficiency appear as stunted tips on some plants. You can read about it in literature. Pinholes appear when potassium deficiency becomes severe. These include Umbrosum and some Alterantera species. It always occured in my tank. I took water samples to laboratory and measured Ca, Mg, K, NO3 and i can assure you i know waht amount i add to the tank and what appears in the water column.
Don't misunderstand me - i do my best to make EI method work in my tank. EI works in thousands of tanks but it also does not work in another thousands ones and i want to know why it happens. It does not only depend on CO2, PO4, NO3 etc. I pretty sure there are many other factors that must be taken into account.



> Here is my question to you: Why not to go back to what worked for you in the past. Probably all you need is to make a minor adjustments to your traces. But because every aquarium is different you need to experiment and find what works for you.


Yes, i'm seriously considering the possibility of getting back to what worked. But there is a snag, though. The method i used depended on very lean N dosage. 90% of plants did very well but some like Cabomba, Blyxa Japonica (which are very "nitrogen-hungry plants") suffered. Maybe i should have increased N doses... I will try to do it again.



> all sounds like common sense (or maybe nonsense ) but it has helped me. gardening is relaxing (right?), and I like to stare at my tanks for a long time, finding patterns in growth vs time and dosing. dont feel rigid in your plan -- dont need to use a standard plan - those dont work for all mixes of spp. Be honest when you critique it in your notes and you'll see good patterns to follow, patterns to avoid. best of luck!


Thanks ashappard 
You raised my spirits


----------



## Natalia (Sep 15, 2008)

_"Pressurized CO2 to 30ppm through KH/PH method or through 4KH drop checker and plant/fauna observation? What about Mg and Ca? Traces? Maintainance routines? Did you calibrate your test kits before trusting them?"_

I have a drop checker with standard KH4 solution. Also have Red Sea test kit. There was no mistake in measuring. Besides, I kind of like my fish and will not follow an advice to increse CO2 untill they are gasping at the surface.

I regularly use NO3, PO4, Iron and GH/KH and Ca/Mg kits. I have not heard of any trace kit. Yes, I did calibrate my test kits. On each tank I have 10x filter circulation in addition to Koralia pumps on some of them. The maintenance is 3x25% WC weekly.

_"Believe it or not, EI isn't a new concept in its targets or ratios outside of adding more PO4, and they predate Tom Barr's development of the method. Leibig's law of the minimum, which is the non-limiting nutrient bit, applies to more than just aquatic plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%...of_the_minimum."_

I agree on this but I also agree with what Kekon wrote:
_"EI works in thousands of tanks but it also does not work in another thousands ones and i want to know why it happens. It does not only depend on CO2, PO4, NO3 etc. I pretty sure there are many other factors that must be taken into account."_

_"I'm just curious as to why people give up so fast."_

My main goal here is to have nice healthy tank so that I can enjoy it when I come home from work and not to prove whether EI works or not. At some point i figured I tried enought and decided that it is time to move onto something else. Besides, I rather like the fact that I no longer need to dump tons of fertilizers in my tank.
By the way my blyxa is doing great with just 2.5ppm NO3, it have grown so much that I had to give it away. Would you like some by any chance?


----------



## murdocmason (Aug 17, 2009)

well well well this little conversation is fiesty =) I'm curious to what the outcome will be is EI gonna take HTLF, or is walstad gonna beat them all =) well wait and see kiddies only 10 cents at the door lol anyways just wanted to add my 2 cents I tried EI and found just didn't work with my schedule not being around all the time to monitor my plants all day to see what nutrient I'm having deficencies or overdosing in or when during the day my fish start gasping due to plants slowing O2 output so I just went w/HTLF regime and it seems to work great for me but thats only due to my schedule =) hope I didnt stir the pot to bad =)
xXDOCXx


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

What is HTFL?


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Those NPK levels will not cause the problems you are stating directly, but indirectly they will. Ashappard suggested an excellent method in regards to upper nutes i.e. move them in ratio. Drive the plants harder with macros & Co2 results in them they seeking out traces more aggressively, if its not there then you will have deficiencies. You are using are already low due to your RO usage, possibly high PH depending on your KH and possibly inert substrate. Traces are very important to plant health, not just NPK CA or MG, those are simple parameters to adjust.



> Pinholes appear when potassium deficiency becomes severe.


So will Manganese and low Co2



> Moderate potassium deficiency appear as stunted tips on some plants.


So is inconsistent Co2, Copper & Boron.

Unless you are using super low lighting you are already asking for trouble with adding only 10~15 ppm Co2. Keep in mind your PH can affect the Fe chelate depending on your source which = precipitation and in turn causes chlorosis if already adding a low amount in the water column. If you add 2~3 KH this makes it even worse with an already low Co2. Remember 99% of traces are better utilized at lower PH as you already know 

Mimicking Amanos dosing routine without following his exact methods in regards to his tank setup will result in failure (using his complete system). Do you use aquasoil? If no, that's the first 'big' mistake and there several, the same applies to Oliver Knott 

My suggestion Kekon is to rethink your trace dosage, remix a better batch it it applies watching your ratios as you do not want to cause lockout issue either. Increase Co2 as well as keep it consistent. Don't give up just yet


----------



## marrow (Mar 4, 2007)

It sounds like you had something that worked fairly well until you went with EI. You noticed some problems with some nutrient hi demand plants. Why not go back to what worked for the most part and add a small amount more of nitrogen. Sometimes the situation calls for small changes rather then switching to whole new orthodoxies. After a few years with several tanks and limestone aquifier very high ph water, I finally switched to rain water last spring and next week I go to RO. I expect this may require some changes in my fert dosing and probably lead to some frustration but I intend to move slowly. With high ph , My plant growth has been excellent, my co2 use is extravagant and nothing ever gets very red. The parameters will be upset by my change but if something works I will stick with it and if it almost works I will try to tweak from there. Just consider it an experiment and note the results, and be glad you dont have the continual algae battles some other people have. It takes significant attention and at least a small amount of geekiness to get the ashappard/kookm/cavan/bryce, type of results. Remember Amano has a staff, fat budget and all his work is for the money shot, dont judge your tanks by the money shots of the top few. That is just unfair to your self and you likely deserve better treatment.


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> Those NPK levels will not cause the problems you are stating directly, but indirectly they will. Ashappard suggested an excellent method in regards to upper nutes i.e. move them in ratio. Drive the plants harder with macros & Co2 results in them they seeking out traces more aggressively, if its not there then you will have deficiencies. You are using are already low due to your RO usage, possibly high PH depending on your KH and possibly inert substrate. Traces are very important to plant health, not just NPK CA or MG, those are simple parameters to adjust.


I dosed tons of traces and the result was stunting as well. Some traces like copper and boron are the most toxic ones when overdosed and i think they cause serious problems. It was approximately 10x more traces than TMG fertilizer adds. Obsiously i realize some aquarists add huge amounts of traces without any negative effects. Some elements like titanium waorks as biostimulator and when it present in the water it forces plants to uptake much more traces than they normally need. Once i used fertilizer that contained titatium and it worked really well.

My water is not soft now - GH is 8. It contains 40 ppm Ca, 10 ppm Mg, 5 ppm Cl so i doubt there is Ca or Mg deficiency.
I just can't add more CO2 unless i want to have a tank without wish, believe me. I can't see any difference at increased CO2; plants still suffer. The main culprit in my opinion is elevated NO3 or NH4. When i dose less, i don't experience so many issues such as stunting, swarfing etc. Maybe the water circulation is poor; i'm going to install Hydor circulation pump but i rather doubt it will help.
I noticed some other issues connected with high NO3 as well. Most plants never get their full, red colours (except such species as Alterantera or Didiplis Diandra) Additionally stem plants grow exactly stright up; they look like very stiff pieces of wire. With lower NO3 they grow "loosely" that is, some stems grow sideways which looks more naturally for me.



> Remember 99% of traces are better utilized at lower PH as you already know


I know and i keep pH in 6.0..6.4 range. Electronic pH meter was used to confirm that. When CO2 is switched off pH goes to 7..7.2 so i believe there is enough CO2.



> It sounds like you had something that worked fairly well until you went with EI. You noticed some problems with some nutrient hi demand plants. Why not go back to what worked for the most part and add a small amount more of nitrogen. Sometimes the situation calls for small changes rather then switching to whole new orthodoxies


Yes, i agree with you. It seems i should have added little more N at the time. I will try to do it.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Natalia said:


> I have a drop checker with standard KH4 solution. Also have Red Sea test kit. There was no mistake in measuring. Besides, I kind of like my fish and will not follow an advice to increse CO2 untill they are gasping at the surface.


It's not so bad as you think; I've had my fish gasping a few times, but for the most part you can tell when to scale back just based on their respiration rate. Solid green with 4KH doesn't do it for me, so I push it to a light green, but drop checkers are an individual thing.



Natalia said:


> I regularly use NO3, PO4, Iron and GH/KH and Ca/Mg kits. I have not heard of any trace kit. Yes, I did calibrate my test kits. On each tank I have 10x filter circulation in addition to Koralia pumps on some of them. The maintenance is 3x25% WC weekly.


Is that iron test kit calibrating accurately? If so, what brand? I've yet to find a good one for under $30.



> I agree on this but I also agree with what Kekon wrote:
> _"EI works in thousands of tanks but it also does not work in another thousands ones and i want to know why it happens. It does not only depend on CO2, PO4, NO3 etc. I pretty sure there are many other factors that must be taken into account."_


Given the amount of time I spend on thebarrreport, I can tell you that most of the time in that other thousand tanks, it's because something basic has been over looked. Most of the problems I've solved for people involve lighting and CO2 levels/distribution, and making sure they aren't doing anything too screwy with their dosing. When it's none of that, what's left is usually a filter change or a low plant load.



> My main goal here is to have nice healthy tank so that I can enjoy it when I come home from work and not to prove whether EI works or not. At some point i figured I tried enought and decided that it is time to move onto something else. Besides, I rather like the fact that I no longer need to dump tons of fertilizers in my tank.


It's not about proving whether EI works. I have yet to see a major fertilization method turn out to be a complete failure. The real question is whether you understand your tank and the principles behind these methods well enough to reproduce any one of them. Creating a tank that works does not necessarily mean creating one that will continue to work unless you understand its intricacies (which improve your odds, but promise nothing). I find just, "doing what works" to be much like flying blind, and quite often these are the sort of tanks that I end up helping people fix.



> By the way my blyxa is doing great with just 2.5ppm NO3, it have grown so much that I had to give it away. Would you like some by any chance?


Normally I wouldn't turn it down, but my tanks are pretty full up right now; I've been turning plants in for credit at a LFS. Thanks for the offer thought.

-Philosophos


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> Most of the problems I've solved for people involve lighting and CO2 levels/distribution, and making sure they aren't doing anything too screwy with their dosing. When it's none of that, what's left is usually a filter change or a low plant load.


Once i threw CO2 mist from diffuser directly at affected plant, close to the filter outlet and it did not improve anything. Most plants rock with water flow caused by filter pump (so the water circulation is not bad) and it does not help. It's not CO2 issue in my opinion. I tried it for a few years without success. Only such plants as Cabomba, Blyxa and Zosterifolia did well in higher NO3.
I found another strage thing. When i had algae problems i applied 3-day blackout to get rid of them. During this period i turn-on aeration in the tank. In the darkness many plants grew much more than with lighting on. The aeration removes most of CO2 from the water so why the plants grew so fast in the darkness virtually without CO2 ?



> I find just, "doing what works" to be much like flying blind


On the other hand T.Barr used to say "if something works for you, keep going with that"...


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

kekon. I once dismissed your complaints about the way your plants were growing. You described strange symptoms and what all your nutrient levels were with great detail. At the time you thought you had a boron deficiency, but I assumed that you were missing some macro nutrient and pushed for that conclusion. Then several years later my plants had the exact same symptoms that you described and I eventually concluded that the CSM+B I was using was somehow depleted of boron and that I had a boron deficiency. Your description of the boron problem was spot on, very accurate, and it was very insightful of you to actually figure out that you had a boron deficiency when there is virtually no literature on it. 

My point is, I believe the things that you say are happening are actually happening as you describe them. I urge you to keep tinkering and try and figure out what the problem is, I hold your findings in high regard. I definitely don't think the problem is with too little CO2. I think there is some kind of micronutrient imbalance. Either too low or too high, perhaps a ratio is off? I think even if you set up a tank that can grow plants with some new method, you should still keep another tank going with your current setup that doesn't work simply so you can find out what is causing the problem.

Have you considered that maybe some of your dry fertilizers have expired? If they are several years old then perhaps they are no longer absorbable by plants.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

kekon said:


> Once i threw CO2 mist from diffuser directly at affected plant, close to the filter outlet and it did not improve anything. Most plants rock with water flow caused by filter pump (so the water circulation is not bad) and it does not help. It's not CO2 issue in my opinion. I tried it for a few years without success. Only such plants as Cabomba, Blyxa and Zosterifolia did well in higher NO3.


Try a needle wheel modded power head. How high is your filtration? How high is your plant density? I've had basically no problems I could attribute to high NO3, so I can't say I relate. Outside of correlation, is there any reason to think it was solely high NO3 in and of its self rather than the relation of NO3 to other nutrients?



> I found another strage thing. When i had algae problems i applied 3-day blackout to get rid of them. During this period i turn-on aeration in the tank. In the darkness many plants grew much more than with lighting on. The aeration removes most of CO2 from the water so why the plants grew so fast in the darkness virtually without CO2 ?


 That would be because plants store nutrients back and metabolize through the calvin cycles just as fast at night as they do in the day. Algae can't do this, so you removed the competition.

Aeration does not remove CO2 from the water; people seem to forget that the air we breath contains somewhere in around 400ppm CO2. I run aeration in my non-co2 tanks for this precise reason, and it works well. This process is also related to the Calvin cycle and uses the enzyme RuBisCO to do its work of glucose conversion.

In short, your plants still need light and CO2, but luckily they've got nutrient backups. Trying to say that they don't need CO2 when the majority of their mass is carbon is something I don't expect to see proven out any time soon.



> On the other hand T.Barr used to say "if something works for you, keep going with that"...


"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

More seriously, I don't like argumentum ad verecundium as a stand-alone. I'm critical of what everyone has to say, even if I don't always voice it.

If this is Tom's opinion, and there is no outside context, then I have to disagree. I mess around with working systems constantly, and I know he does too. The hobby would stagnate without it. After spending hours on end helping individuals with their tanks, I like to see them contribute something to the hobby, and that isn't going to happen through just doing what works all the time.

-Philosophos


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> I've had basically no problems I could attribute to high NO3, so I can't say I relate. Outside of correlation, is there any reason to think it was solely high NO3 in and of its self rather than the relation of NO3 to other nutrients?


As i mentioned, i had plants that grew extremely well in high NO3 (blyxa japonia, cabomba species, hemiansthus callitrihoides). These plants did well even in low CO2 (i suppose it was below 20 ppm).
But i really can't grow Altermatera, Umbrosum, Polsperma and Macrandra. I can agree that the problem may be connected to relation of NO3 to other nutrients but which ones ? Increasing PO4, K and adding tons of traces didn't work. The only thing i observed that high GH helps somewhat; usually people who use very hard water (say GH 15dGH or more) don't experience stunting at high NO3 (at least it is not as severe as with softer water). But this solves the problem to lesser extent only.
When it comes to filtration it is 800l/h (tank capacity is 200 liters). Most plants are moving constantly when the filter is on so i don't think the water circulation is poor. I will install Koralia Hydor circulation pump to see if it helps (1500l/h)



> Aeration does not remove CO2 from the water; people seem to forget that the air we breath contains somewhere in around 400ppm CO2


I agree; but i also find pH rising significantly when i do it. Let's wait till i get Hydor pump and see what happens.



> Have you considered that maybe some of your dry fertilizers have expired? If they are several years old then perhaps they are no longer absorbable by plants.


Yes, but most of the fertilizers are still up to date (the expiry date is 2011). I thought some of them could be contaminated with something so i bought another ones from other supplier but it didn't change anything. I pay special attention on chelator expiry date as they organic ones and go bad much faster than K2SO4, KNO3 etc. But still, their expiration date is 2010 so they can be used.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Wait a minute Kikon... H. polysperma is an invasive weed. If you're having trouble growing it under any of the more common methods, then the deviation is probably with what you're doing differently. If you're limiting NO3 to grow it, then it's probably to mask an issue with something else. I've grown polysperma; it lives up to its name as a weed under EI conditions. Were you the one posting about it on thebarrreport a while back?

Just wondering... how soft is your water? ppm Ca/Mg?

-Philosophos


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> Were you the one posting about it on thebarrreport a while back?


No, i'm not a member of thebarrreport.



> Just wondering... how soft is your water? ppm Ca/Mg?


Ca: 40 ppm (CaCo3 + CaSO4 * 2H2O + CaCl2)
Mg: 10 ppm (MgSO4)
Cl: 5 ppm (CaCl2)
Na: 2..3 ppm

It gives GH = 8 and KH = 3 (german degrees)

When i used softer water (GH = 5) some plant tips were severely dwarfed and deformed (Umbrosum, Alternatera, Polsyperma) After increasing GH up to 8 i no longer notice severe dwarfing and deforming (only occasionally on very few plants) but the growth is much slower when NO3 is close to 10 ppm (i compared my test kit results with laboratory measurements and the difference is negligible for the purpose of planted tank hobby i think). I don't like high water hardness however, because it's like paradise for snails. They breed very fast and i have to remove dozens of them every day.
I will receive my Hydor pump in a week time and see if it helps...


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

So at 5dGH you were probably running something like 3dKH, leaving your GH a bit shorted. What happens with 8dGH and 20ppm NO3?

*edit* Zapins pointed out to me in PT chat that you may be rolling your own micros. Is that what you're doing?

-Philosophos


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> What happens with 8dGH and 20ppm NO3?


Very unpleasant things... 
Generally i observe very severe dwarfing on upper leaves and dissapearing growing tips (which resembles boron or calcium deficiency)



> *edit* Zapins pointed out to me in PT chat that you may be rolling your own micros. Is that what you're doing?


Yes, that's true. I've been doing it for 3 years now.
Once I used TMG many times but i basically can't see big differences between my own ferts and TMG. I experienced zinc deficiency when using TMG several times. It appeared as very tiny leaves on tips on Aromatica. The symptom went away always when i added 0.02 ppm of Zinc (it worked with Zinc EDTA chelator and also with non-chelated pure ZnSO4). I could see improvement usually in 4..5 days after adding zinc. Also, i tested several other micro fertilizers. 
(In Poland, many aquarists roll their own micro-ferts because many chemical compounds (chelators and salts) can be purchased in huge amound for very low prices)
A person i know has a tank where he doses 50 ppm K and adds TONS of micronutriens (it's approximately more than 1000% TMG dose) (sorry, the website is in Polish but you can see the photos of his tank)
He adds urea as a source of nitrogen (0.3 ppm of urea daily) but does not add any phosphate (he claims shrimp food contains enough PO4 for plants). Only potassium is in high supply.

http://www.roslinyakwariowe.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22875

When i tried to use his dosing method (especially high potassium additions) i got very severe chlorosis on most plants. No matter high Fe and Mn amounts i added to my tank - it didn't help.
I really don't know why it happens... this is another problem i have to solve because i can see some plants really appreciate high K levels.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, have you tried higher NO3 levels with other micros? 

-Philosophos


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*My 2 cents*

I have to admit that this whole thread pretty much sums up the state of growing plants in aquariums. Nobody really knows WTF they are doing!

Here is what everyone does in a parable.

A man goes to his doctor and says I have a runny nose, coughing, sneezing and generally achy, what should I do? The doctor says drink one cup of chicken soup each day for the next two weeks and your problem will go away. 
Sure enough in two weeks the problem goes away.

A woman goes to the doctor with the same problem. He tells her to go to a special spa in the north of Italy and take the cough cure. This costs $$$$$.

Ok the man and woman eventually meet and compare notes! The woman is outraged and goes back to the doctor. His response to her complaint is this, Things work differently for different people!" "You have to try different things until you find what works for you."

In fact, if they both did nothing, they would have been cured! Maybe that is the way with growing plants.

After doing this for about 1 ½ years, my personal experience is that growing plants is really very easy and you will wind up with way too many plants, throwing out more than anyone will take from you.

These are my recommendations:

Follow a plan and don't deviate because things don't look OK immediately.
Check everything you can regularly especially in the beginning. I check K, P, N, Fe, KH, CO2, pH, Ca, Mg and Cl.
When something gets out of range, Ie PO4 is too high, then do something, Ie add less PO4.
Never do anything different without a confirmation of you feeling by a test of some sort.
Do regular water changes 20 - 50% each week. 
Expect some algae and only do something about it when it becomes un esthetic. My feeling is that most algae problems will clear up with cleaning your tank and re-establishing your baseline.

My problem is that plants under these conditions grow way too fast and require a quarterly revamping of your aquarium. This is a real chore when you have to uproot your tank and throw away ½ of the plants in it in order to re-establish the base line.


----------



## Bryeman (Aug 24, 2009)

*Re: My 2 cents*



ray-the-pilot said:


> I have to admit that this whole thread pretty much sums up the state of growing plants in aquariums. Nobody really knows WTF they are doing!
> 
> Here is what everyone does in a parable.
> 
> ...


I had a dog... and his name was BINGO! Best thing I read in this thread and very true based on how I operate as well. Have a plan, give it time to develop, and don't abandon it after only 1 day. Once there's a problem, it won't disappear over night in most circumstances.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

have a plan and dont deviate from it is good, but dont forget flexibility 

as biomass changes and the tank matures you need to adjust to keep stability. learning to read plant cues is a good way to learn how to adjust as time increases. Its a very complex system and a few cheap test kits used every so often wont give you a clear enough picture. Trying to describe it accurately can be futile because we don't have labs next to our tanks. So when we try it can be a little comical, pseudoscience and even faith-based. two tanks next to each other with the same equipment plants and regime can behave very differently. 

but your eyes wont deceive you and watching the tank go through phases, changes, it will start to click if you do keep patience and try to see patterns in what you are doing and what is happening. Every try wont be perfect, but hopefully each time I have a mess I've learned something else not to do. Sometimes I learn the same lesson more than once because I'm also quite lazy.


----------



## kekon (Aug 1, 2005)

> Just out of curiosity, have you tried higher NO3 levels with other micros?


Yes, many times but there was not any big change.



> Check everything you can regularly especially in the beginning. I check K, P, N, Fe, KH, CO2, pH, Ca, Mg and Cl.


Once i thought i dosed too much Cl (i use RO) from CaCl2 but there is only 5 ppm Cl so any toxicity or definiency of chlorine can be ruled out.
The real problem is K. As i said, there is no dwarfing, deforming when i add more K but what terribly irritates me is SEVERE chlorosis which appear each time there is more than 20 ppm of K in the water column. When i lower it to 10..15 ppm most plants get very nice rich colors but so low potassium level causes NO3 to be very poorly taken up by plants and they grow slower.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Can you post some close-up pictures of the problems? I'm curious to see what they look like.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

ashappard said:


> have a plan and dont deviate from it is good, but dont forget flexibility
> 
> as biomass changes and the tank matures you need to adjust to keep stability. learning to read plant cues is a good way to learn how to adjust as time increases. Its a very complex system and a few cheap test kits used every so often wont give you a clear enough picture. Trying to describe it accurately can be futile because we don't have labs next to our tanks. So when we try it can be a little comical, pseudoscience and even faith-based. two tanks next to each other with the same equipment plants and regime can behave very differently.
> 
> but your eyes wont deceive you and watching the tank go through phases, changes, it will start to click if you do keep patience and try to see patterns in what you are doing and what is happening. Every try wont be perfect, but hopefully each time I have a mess I've learned something else not to do. Sometimes I learn the same lesson more than once because I'm also quite lazy.


I think you and I agree on the first part of your statement. As things change you need to modify what you do. That was what I meant by check first and then change.

As far as having a lab next to your tank, I'm not sure how I could keep my tank under control without one? You are adding a lot of powerful chemicals into your tank and unless you are following a rigorous plan like EI you have no way of knowing what the levels of these chemicals are after a very short time. I have no clue what a potassium excess looks like in Aternathea Renecki but I do know that no matter how bad the plant looks, the problem isn't caused by too much K because I check for that regularly. For me at least, if I don't have data to support what I am doing, then I might as well try chicken soup.

I'm sure that there are successful plant people who just "wing it" but I am a scientist and rather do things based on evidence and not just luck.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

consider this Ray, and of course no offense to you or other to people who do enjoy testing water parameters and find value in that :

many of us I assume are also terrestrial gardeners (yes?), and enjoy a fair amount of success without being scientists. I don't ever drag a cart of test devices into my garden, but I do have a routine. I prepare the soil when the season starts, I plant and then I watch/fertilize/trim/weed/harvest. I adjust as needed and learn something about plants every season. I had some bad seasons early on, but stuck with it - talked with experienced gardeners and learned what I could. Now its relaxing, peaceful and rewarding.

In a way you can draw a parallel to terrestrial gardening and the ADA system ( hold your groans please! ). I know a few people who use it, I cant afford it but either way heres my take from watching them - they prep the soil (substrate and various layers) and they plant and then begin a routine that is layered into 'steps'. If you pick the ADA system and _follow it_ you will have success. I've seen it done several times and without a single water test. Its a discipline, a method and its not scientific to the user - you are shielded from all of that. Its accessible to both the botanist and the hobbyist, provided you can afford the $$$. What we call the EI system is not as comprehensive, but could be expanded to be just as good. What EI comprises is a base for dosing regime, sensible ratios and levels to reduce the chance of limitation in the tank. Taking it a bit further would make it a complete system that would rival ADA.

winging it, as you call it - is really just the application of common sense things we have learned in this hobby about growing plants. Its not luck, I don't cross my fingers and hope for the best. Its repeatable and solid, but I wont make a fool of myself and try to describe my tank at the molecular level. I simply cant do it, and don't have the interest either.. As time goes on, I am more inclined to say that its not so very different from my experiences as a terrestrial gardener and that's significant - because when I first started this hobby I thought I needed all of the techno gadgets and test kits to be successful.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

ashappard said:


> consider this Ray, and of course no offense to you or other to people who do enjoy testing water parameters and find value in that :
> 
> many of us I assume are also terrestrial gardeners (yes?), and enjoy a fair amount of success without being scientists. I don't ever drag a cart of test devices into my garden, but I do have a routine. I prepare the soil when the season starts, I plant and then I watch/fertilize/trim/weed/harvest. I adjust as needed and learn something about plants every season. I had some bad seasons early on, but stuck with it - talked with experienced gardeners and learned what I could. Now its relaxing, peaceful and rewarding.


I could be wrong but I think the problem is that growing plants in an aquarium is not at all like terrestrial gardening!

People have been involved in agriculture for thousands of years. Scientific farming has been around for hundreds of years. There is a vast army of scientists, even now, working out every conceivable angle in farming from all sorts of perspectives. There is a whole body of government officials regulating and supporting the agriculture industry. If I have a problem I can go to a local agricultural agent and plug into a massive library of information. This stuff is so worked out that the simplest country bumpkin can grow anything.

In terms of aquarium plants, growing them has only been around in a modestly successful way for about 10 years. There is no science anywhere in this hobby. Everything is based on anecdotal information from people whose only qualification is that they have successfully grown some plants for a while.

When I read some of the advice given out I am appalled. A day doesn't go by when someone suggests jacking up your K based on holes in plant leaves!

Think about this! If you took a picture of your garden and brought it to your extension agent, do you think she would look at the picture and say add 10 pound per acre of 0,0,20? (Ie put a lot of K2SO4 in your soil). Don't you think she would ask for a soil sample and test it before making any recommendation?

Now I do believe that there are some people who by virtue of luck and intuition have pretty good control of their own aquariums but these people are not experts. They cannot give you accurate directions for setting up your aquarium so that it works every time from the start. And they certainly cannot tell you accurately why things have gone wrong in your aquarium. For me, this talent is the minimum requirement for an expert in this field. There are no experts in this field!

Ok this is my last rant on the dismal state of aquarium plant science. You can cover this if you like; however, if you want to continue the discussion it is best we do it as PM.


----------

