# A Eureka Moment? Am I finally onto something here?



## taekwondodo

My A. Renekii has never looked this good.

After years of trying to overgass my fish, combined with spoonfulls of EI or various other strategies, I am starting to firmly believe a majority of us are asking the wrong questions when we see a curled-up leaf or twisted stem - that question being, "what nutrient am I deficient in?".

The problem I've always had with EI (and even with PPS, to an extent) is that i was always having to do 70%+ resets or my NO3 (Lamotte) was through the roof (over 40 ppm top end of the Lamotte kit). After the "big" reset, things would go just "ok" for a few weeks but never real great - so the phrase "you don't have enough CO2" would be said - when in fact I knew I was well over 30ppm. Measure NO3 a few weeks later - again, as long as I was dosing some NO3 via EI I was well into the upper-end of my Lamotte kit.

Now, when I was younger (and much more stupid), I used to really be into "house plants"  and used to do a lot of this hydroponically (with HID and CO2). Whenever I would over fertilize, I would get curly and twisting leaves and stems and the plants would significantly stunt - sound familiar? I would have to flush the system and go back to the basics - and it would take a few weeks for the house plants to start growing normal again, but once they did, everything would go well until I tried to overdrive the plants again with Nitrogen. (oh - for clarification, I am an honest contributing member of society today who votes conservatively and the only HID lights I have today are over my reef tank )

I'm now starting to firmly believe that stunting, curling and just plain all out weird growth in my tank resembles what I've seen in poorly and overly fertilized "house plants" - twisted and curled up leaves - and that as long as we have a usable amount of P, N or K, it doesn't matter how little it is as much as it matters that there isn't too much of it.

Thinking this through - I did a lot of reading (threads by kekon were very valuable in my thought process) and everyone was focused on the "ratios", particularly between Ca and NO3 - but then others were having valid and perfectly awesome growth with pure RO water. The common denominator between a lot of these threads wasn't so much the ratio - it was that none of the successful "notes" indicated any significant excesses of N except when they were having problems - and then trying to coorellate this to some ratio of N to K or N to Ca. Again, what I saw in most of these threads was that the plants did best when N was present in small amounts but not in abundance.

That being said, I left EI about a month ago because it just wasn't working no matter how much I adjusted the CO2 or lighting levels I was always surprised by the build-up of NO3. That and continual GDA covering the glass (and no amount of "GDA cycling" solved this problem).

So I went to PPS Pro as an alternative - and - after a few weeks I was still having NO3 build-up. Next step, I cut my PPS pro dosages in half and measured to ensure I wasn't ever spiking my NO3 above 15-20 ppm (targeting a steady 5-10ppm).

For the last couple of weeks, my A. Renekii has slowly started to straighten out and I swear that right now, I have the best growth coming out of A. Renekii I have ever seen (above the twisting, etc). I will add a picture when I get the chance...

As Archimedes said when he jumped out of the tub: "Eureka!"


----------



## Freemann

Well to be sincere you say nothing new to me. I have come to the same conclusions concerning keeping NO3 dosing really low, for me aswell high NO3 stunts the plants around 1,2 ppm No3 daily here is enough. I had very similar problems when I tried to use EI. On the other hand in my case at least adding a bit more KH2SO4 (0,5-1 ppm) than that added from KNO3 will improve plant growth even more. At the same time I find that keeping the Fe, TE a bit on the high side will help even more the look of this previously curly plants.


----------



## jeff5614

Freemann, what are your PO4 levels like?


----------



## Freemann

I add 0.2 ppm PO4 daily. Growth on the tank at the moment is superb (including the so called difficult ones) on all species, no algae whatsoever. Only complaint is a few light green leaves on some species.


----------



## Brilliant

Guess what?!?! If you dont have alot of light you dont need alot of nutrients!

Instead of reading kekon go read PJAN. Keeping a 'positive pressure' of nutrients is what I've noticed works best. EI is dose it every few days and your good because of lasting excess then reset because all tanks are not the same and one recipe needs to work for all. In my case my tank would eat up EI and I was always left wondering why people cry excess...ofcouse I do not run EI on my lower light tanks so no need to go crying about it. IMO PPS is just EI but daily and little tweaking...almost perfect...

In my train of thought ratios are key to dosing because one nutrient seems to run others out causing issues. Not that its too much one of one, it's just not enough of the other(s).

I would say you are finally onto something here. Nice to see your on the straight and narrow


----------



## taekwondodo

Brilliant said:


> Guess what?!?! If you dont have alot of light you dont need alot of nutrients! ....... In my case my tank would eat up EI and I was always left wondering why people cry excess


I had both massive amounts of CO2 AND between 130 and 260 watts of CFL (55g, depending on my lighting schedule) - and gassing and spooning the tank until fish were dead or dying. I always had excess NO3 when using EI - so much so that when I would finally measure the NO3 I (even right after a reset) I was shocked at how much NO3 was still in the tank. And I have lots of fast growers too - R. Indica, R. Macrandra, A. Renekii, H. Difformis, L. Aromatica, a floor of hairgrass, etc...

And the funny things, is I have and have had amazing tanks before - high and low light. My 5G at work is stunning and gets almost no fertilization and very low light - for a rule-breaker there I've got the best glosso carpet I've seen, hands down, anywhere.

Its only when I started subscribing to the "Internet forums"  and seeing/listening to "experts" was when I started having constant and never ending problems with twisting/curling and GDA. Before EI, I had a forest of R. Wallachi with the finest purple tips... then the stunting issues began and I started the search for "which nutrient am I deficient" - Turns out (IMHO) I was never deficient... I believe the problem was abundance.



Brilliant said:


> IMO PPS is just EI but daily and little tweaking...almost perfect...


And I realize that EI works for a lot of people - Its just never worked for me. Yes, in a way, both are adding nutrients to the tank on a schedule, but what I like about PPS over EI, is I know exactly how much is being added and I can add small amounts daily and not dump in large amounts every other day. By knowing how much I am adding in, I can feel more comfortable in running the tank on a more stable and predictable nutrient amount - and not get shocked by the testing of NO3 at the end of the week.


----------



## BryceM

For some perspective on this topic, go back a few years. It wasn't that long ago that the thought of actually adding NO3 or PO4 to an aquarium would have been viewed as ridiculous. Adding typical EI quantities would have been viewed as cruely destructive. They are waste products, after all.

A few people eventually realized a need for macro supplementation when they started driving light and CO2 to levels not previously attained. If a little is good, a lot is better - right? Maybe not. Things probably got a bit out of hand and they probably still are. For many decades people kept very nice planted tanks without ever dosing macros beyond what was supplied via fish food and maybe a little via the substrate. There is actually quite a bit of nitrogen available to the aquarium from the natural decay of plant material, breakdown of debris in the substrate (mulm), and from the waste products of the fish.

I've been experimenting with a heavily planted 46g aquarium for over 2 years. For the last 9 months I haven't added anything to the water but fish food. Not one single supplement. Not one bit of fertilizer. No traces, no macros. The tank is moderately stocked with 3 SAE's, 20 cardinals, 3 small praecox rainbows, 3 small corries, and 3 glass cats. I feed once per day. The tank contains java ferns, petite Anubias, Didiplis, Hydrocotyle, Hemianthus, Polygonums, Cyperus helferi, Eliocharis, Ludwigias, Hygros, and Rotalas. The plants are beautiful with intense coloration. Leaves on the hydrocotyle are slightly smaller than before and are less intensely green than before but everything grows like crazy. There is no stunting. The tank is 100% algae free - literally no algae whatsoever. The water is crystal clear with no protein surface film. It has 8x23W spiral compact fluorescents in a DIY hood with not much of a reflector. I add 1 bps of pressurized CO2 during the photoperiod. I do a 40% waterchange every 6 weeks or so, if I happen to remember. Substrate is 4" of charcoal SMS. I can't grow Pogostemon, Ludwigia senagalensis, or Rotala macranda in this tank, but apart from that, everything else does ok. It certainly looks healthy. There is no stunting......... What's so bad about a CO2 enriched moderate-light tank?

If I ever loose my mind and start supplementing this tank, I'd only use a little extra Fe and maybe a bit of K. Honestly though, why mess with a good thing?


----------



## Brilliant

For the record...I think EI is excessive in most cases. I also think if you notice a nutrient thats higher and running in excess consistently then you should lower dosing of that nutrient :idea: 

I dont think there is anything wrong with any type of setup. I have alot of different setups myself most dont get any N or P. I am really a fishkeeper...(shhh dont tell anyone) when I first started with plants I was very hesitant to add macros.


----------



## Glouglou

*To much is to much?*

Exactly what I think. A High CEC and nutritive soil for substrate to keep the water column lean. Small amount of everything present. Just add nutrients that diseappear from test to test.
Ex: If NO3 stay around 3 ppm without any fertilization it's because the plants take what they need and fill their reserve overtime. If for some reason NO3 Drop just addd to go back to your 3ppm (repeat until saturation, and stop)

That how I will drive the new tank I'm putting together and will report back to you.

The goal is to dose on consumption basis....


----------



## Brilliant

Yeah, I think everyone really needs to understand these dosing plans are not written in stone. Each nutrient can be increased or decreased. 

In my case the ratio in Wö£fëñxXx dosing regime works fine on my high light tank. I just alter how much of that solution I am dosing per day till I find that sweet spot.

If I am using EI to make my solutions but dosing it daily does that mean I am not dosing EI.?! I dont really understand all of this, you dont have to strictly follow the plan. I thought it is just meant to be a starting point.

If yes, I guess I could rip EI off Barr...instruct you to dose it daily instead and call it something new right!? Oh wait that is already done! doh


----------



## Supercoley1

I like this thread as it is talking about each method as starting point rather than other threads that I have read that slam a method when in fact it could be a difference in tap water parameters or bioload etc that can be causing the failures.

I have just switched from EI to PPS Pro, not due to any failures with EI but more I want to do much less waterchanges on my tank.

I only have 1.8WPG T5 HO on my tank (33USG)

One problem I have always had with my tank, when on low light and no ferts, when upgraded the lights and on EI, and now on PPS Pro is that I get BBA on the wood all the time and quite often on the slower plants like Anubias and Ferns.

The answer I always hear is 'Your CO2 is too low' over and over again, which I cannot believe (to the point where I just lost it on another forum and got banned which I shall not do here, I promise) as the drop checker is always light green (or limeade as I call it) and I even managed to kill the fish once when pushing it too far.

So what is the solution? I am cheating with Flourish Excel at the moment to kill it off so I can start with a fresh palette trying to find the 'rogue' defficiency. 

The slant on this is that now I am set thinking 'maybe its not defficiency, maybe its excess!!! especially if the poster above with 3WPG and no added ferts is succeeding!!

I use the standard reccomended PPS Pro doses but with double P to remove the green spot. Traces supplied by TropicaPlantNutrition (formerly TropicaMasterGrow)

Hopefully I will find the cause eventually and until then I shall have to continue with using the Excel to turn the beards grey and red. lol

Andy


----------



## hoppycalif

Along with CO2 must go good water circulation. It does no good to have lots of CO2 in water which never reaches the middle of thick stands of plants. Also, the ability of plants to absorb the CO2 and other nutrients depends on having sufficient flow across the leaves so that a boundary layer of nutrient depleted water does not build up around the leaves. Water circulation is not given the attention it deserves.


----------



## BryceM

I'll agree with Hoppy on that one. Water circulation in an empty tank is easy to accomplish. Fill the tank with dense stands of plants and it's pretty hard to get flow in and around the tangled mess. I can honestly say that I've never seen a densely planted tank with too much flow.


----------



## taekwondodo

I've got really good circulation throughout the tank - I'm using a Quiet One 3000 hooked up to a SWCD and have really nice alternating flow through the tank.

I've always had the CO2 in the "gasping" range and never saw an improvement until now... (same flow).

- Jeff


----------



## ed seeley

Supercoley1 said:


> One problem I have always had with my tank, when on low light and no ferts, when upgraded the lights and on EI, and now on PPS Pro is that I get BBA on the wood all the time and quite often on the slower plants like Anubias and Ferns.
> 
> The answer I always hear is 'Your CO2 is too low' over and over again, which I cannot believe (to the point where I just lost it on another forum and got banned which I shall not do here, I promise) as the drop checker is always light green (or limeade as I call it) and I even managed to kill the fish once when pushing it too far.
> 
> So what is the solution? I am cheating with Flourish Excel at the moment to kill it off so I can start with a fresh palette trying to find the 'rogue' defficiency.
> 
> The slant on this is that now I am set thinking 'maybe its not defficiency, maybe its excess!!! especially if the poster above with 3WPG and no added ferts is succeeding!!
> 
> I use the standard reccomended PPS Pro doses but with double P to remove the green spot. Traces supplied by TropicaPlantNutrition (formerly TropicaMasterGrow)
> 
> Hopefully I will find the cause eventually and until then I shall have to continue with using the Excel to turn the beards grey and red. lol
> 
> Andy


Hi Andy, 
I have the same problem, BBA in all my tanks on hardscape and slow growing leaves. Does Excel work that well? As you say CO2 levels don't seem to work for me, neither does following EI, or even a modified version!
Do you dose at the recommended Excel levels, or higher and do you squirt it at the algae or just dose generally?
Cheers.


----------



## Supercoley1

I put in the initial recommended high first dose and then have been double dosing since for the past 5 days.

I just empty the cap into the water I dont target dose.

Already the BBA has turned whispy grey in patches and red in others so I gues its working. Time will tell and theres no new growth of algae anywhere.

Once the algae is gone I might dose the recommended from there on and see if it keeps it in check but I would like to find a way of avoiding the growth without cheating really.

andy


----------



## BryceM

Supercoley1 said:


> I would like to find a way of avoiding the growth without cheating


All is fair in love and war. Defeating algae counts as war in my book.


----------



## Brilliant

There is no reason to slam EI. Use it and move on...instead of bashing the method that gives 'A Eureka Moment' just move on and credit it instead...it got you where you are now. I am not suggesting the author of this but that seems to be the thing to do lately and pretty much what kekon does.

Hoppy is right...circulation is just as important as co2. If you notice a boost from Excel then your co2 and/or flow is not good and needs to be improved. When you don't even notice the Excel doses then your co2 is straight. Id like to pass that on because it really helped me realize and resolve my co2/flow issues...which I thought like many people were good enough.


----------



## taekwondodo

Brilliant said:


> There is no reason to slam EI. Use it and move on...instead of bashing the method that gives 'A Eureka Moment' just move on and credit it instead...it got you where you are now. I am not suggesting the author of this but that seems to be the thing to do lately and pretty much what kekon does.


I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I'm not slamming EI - I'm pointing out that it was giving me a build-up of NO3, which I think is directly related to some of the issues I was encountering (stunting, twisting of A. Renekii). And that I believe high NO3 was causing me problems with my A. Reneckii (others will adamantly disagree, and they can).

I've tried everything - flow, religious spooning, CO2 - and the common thread was an OK/so-so tank with high (>40ppm) NO3 at the end of every week. And yes, my spoons are the same size as everyone else's. When I backed off and started measuring and verifying that NO3 stays in a measurable range, I started getting better results.

I know EI works for some, for me it never did. I attribute this to the build-up I was getting. While Kekon came to different conclusions (he believes it is related to a Ca/NO3 ratio) - it was his (and others) lower dosing of N that led me to my current path. As I said, I'm getting the best growth on my A. Reneckii now than I think I've ever had and the only variable that changed was my levels of N.

- Jeff


----------



## hoppycalif

This question interested Tom Barr sufficiently that he plans to test the effect of high NO3 on A. reineckii. His results should be very interesting, since with all of the measuring equipment he has, he can be sure of keeping everything else the same in all of his test tanks. Of course, he knows what result he will get, but many of us have known what result we would get with a test and found ourselves wrong. With his track record I wouldn't bet he is wrong.


----------



## taekwondodo

hoppycalif said:


> This question interested Tom Barr sufficiently that he plans to test the effect of high NO3 on A. reineckii. Of course, he knows what result he will get,


Hoppy <land-mine>, boy-o-boy that's a set-up for a double-blind and unbiased test... . We may as well set aside millions of dollars in a global warming fund enabling scientists to prove global warming exists and see what results they come up with <another land-mine> :boxing: .

Seriously though - Instead of spending the effort to say "I told you excess NO3 build-up using _my_ dosing method doesn't cause stunted growth", a more valuable and productive effort would be to search and test for what causes twisted and stunting growth - and provide a solution for all of us.

Because I have "literally" been beaten over the head every time I've had a question on the issues I've had, and being repeatedly told over and over and over and over and over - "CO2" and "Circulation" and "EI" should solve every problem ever encountered in a planted aquariums...

Instead, I've had continually high nitrates followed by BGA attacks (with HIGH nitrates, never low nitrates) - growth swinging from fair, to crud, to fair, to crud, etc... all while spooning away mindlessly, carrying 25-30 gallons of water across the room weekly (twice: drain/fill), and gassing the heck (with incredible flow) out of the tank with every CO2 dispersion method known to man.

And did I mention continually waiting for weeks at a time for GDA to "cycle" itself (never happened).

I've pretty much stopped following the "following" crowd :hail:, started thinking for myself (again - I _used_ to have GREAT planted tanks) and trying things myself when others suggestions continued repeatedly to prove non-productive.

So I'm sharing my experience for those that might have similar issues. But to _disagree_ with the EI approach? NEVER!!! 

Oh - and my tank is finally starting to look GREAT again.

- Jeff

p.s. please read my sarcasm as humor, and not an attempt to flame you (or anyone else).


----------



## BryceM

Hmmm. I have my own thoughts on this issue and I'm sure a lot of others do too. People put a lot of effort into developing a successful fertilization scheme, not realizing that their solution won't be universally applicable to other people's setups. Hurt feelings arise when their hard work and aparent solutions are questioned. As long as a person finds something that works for them, where is the harm in sharing the experience? Others may benefit..... or they might not.

To be quite blunt, it's pretty obvious that none of us fully comprehend the real physiology behind all of this. If we did, there would be one answer and we wouldn't need this sort of discussion. The number of variables at play is far too large to yield a simple solution. Even seemingly simple experiments can fall victim to bias or confounding variables that obscure the truth. I think we're gradually moving in a correct direction, especially if you look at what is being done world-wide. We in the western world tend to be pretty heavy-handed with light, CO2, and nutrients. Rapid, aggressive growth with high nutrient demands is one strategy that works well, but slow, stable, healthy systems can also look very nice (and sometimes more natural). No one fertilization plan will work well for both types.

My own bias (presented without proof) is that high nitrogen levels tend to cause more problems in soft-water environments. The problem is probably inhibition or interference with uptake of another nutrient (Ca?). For most tanks, I'd recommend more K, more micros, less NO3, and less PO4 than traditional EI dosing would provide.

The real genius of the EI method (championed, but not invented by Tom Barr) is the idea that large weekly WC's can "reset" the system, preventing an over-accumulation of nutrients. This is based on simple mathematics and it's actually quite elegant. Tweak this idea a bit to make use of frequent small doses of nutrients with frequent small WC's. This method produces a lean, but amazingly stable nutrient concentration. The math proves it. This method still uses "EI" principles and prevents deficiencies, but at nutrient concentrations that are much lower.

When in doubt, try to emulate nature. If that doesn't work, emulate those with beautiful 'scapes. Pay attention to their dosing strategies (when they'll share them) and I think you'll see quite lean macro dosing compared to what many of us here at APC are doing.


----------



## taekwondodo

guaiac_boy said:


> Hmmm. I have my own thoughts on this issue and I'm sure a lot of others do too.


and such is the purpose of this (and other) "public" forums. Very well put guaiac_boy 

When I even suggested (in another forum) it could be something else - I was run over by a bull-dozer  _Even when I predicted what the state of the other persons problem was_...

If we all wanted ONE opinion, and one opinion only - we could provide that by starting our own forum and heck, we could even charge people!!! :-$


----------



## Riba

Very interesting thread, I'm reading it with interest 


guaiac_boy said:


> The real genius of the EI method (championed, but not invented by Tom Barr) is the idea that large weekly WC's can "reset" the system, preventing an over-accumulation of nutrients. This is based on simple mathematics and it's actually quite elegant. Tweak this idea a bit to make use of frequent small doses of nutrients with frequent small WC's. This method produces a lean, but amazingly stable nutrient concentration. The math proves it. This method still uses "EI" principles and prevents deficiencies, but at nutrient concentrations that are much lower.


I completely am in favour for tweaking approaches for personal situations. I myself use EI, but with lower dosing. Still, I am using the 50% waterchanges (every other week), to provide the upperbound on the nutritientlevel (twice the amount added in each interval). guaiac_boy, may I ask you what your strategie is (e.g. amount of water changed, intervaltime, and amounts of nutrients added)?

Kind regards,
Riba


----------



## BryceM

Riba, I take different approaches with my tanks, but the details of my 180g show tank can be found on my journal here. My approach has changed over time, but is gradually becoming leaner, and IMO, more successful.


----------



## Riba

guaiac_boy said:


> Riba, I take different approaches with my tanks, but the details of my 180g show tank can be found on my journal here. My approach has changed over time, but is gradually becoming leaner, and IMO, more successful.


Great thread, thanks for the pointer! :thumbsup:


----------



## Squawkbert

Very nice thread.

I'm "leaning toward leaner" too. I started out w/ EI (actually, I tended to target the middle ranges seen in the Fertilator, assuming I'd add those over the course of a week), but I thought I've <1/4LB of plants in my 46g, so I went lighter. Now that my tank is more heavily planted and I've rid it of greenwater (twice - I think a undiscovered fish corpse may have triggered one or both outbreaks), I do add a bit more ferts and i still do ~50% PWC on alternate weeks.

My biggest persistent problem is hair (Clado?) algae that tends to thrive in the upper reaches of the tank. Adding a stiff shot of Excel after each PWC and once or twice per week had put a huge dent in that problem.

I think I'll ease up on the ferts even more over the next few weeks and try to just keep on the clado w/ Excel as needed - and see what happens. I'm hoping for faster moss growth & a cure for Java moss brown spotting on leaves.


----------



## taekwondodo

g-b: Nice tank - I'm going to be pinging you quite a bit as I set up my 125


----------



## Bert H

> Seriously though - Instead of spending the effort to say "I told you excess NO3 build-up using my dosing method doesn't cause stunted growth", a more valuable and productive effort would be to search and test for what causes twisted and stunting growth - and provide a solution for all of us.


YES! And, imo, as guaic boy said, the causes are NOT going to be a simple 'it lacks such and such'. I have A. reinickii and it is an ongoing battle with stunting, and deformed growth. For ME, it is NOT high or low nitrates. Adding Mg helps, but doesn't make it go away.  Maybe I need to add Mg, cut the nitrates (jump on one foot??). I have near liquid rock and short of investing in an RO unit, which I am not willing to do, I just keep making little changes to see if it helps.

I also know that fish gasping levels of CO2 will NOT ensure that you do not get bba. And letting gda be untouched on the glass for weeks on end, will only get me a tank I can't see through. YMMV.


----------



## ed seeley

RO won't solve it either Bert! I use RO for all my tanks and was suffering with stunting of my Myaca. I too was told, "Dose EI", but I was and it didn't work for me! Eventually it was suggested that Equilibrium I was using to remineralise might be part of the cause as someone else had found stunting until he stopped using it. Perhaps the high sulphates is part of the cause? A lot of the dry ferts use sulphates too. Since stopping the Equilibrium, doing a few 50% water changes and cutting back the ferts the plants are thriving and the algae (BBA) seems to be struggling more. I'll stick to leaner dosing, or preferably dosing via substrate nutrients, I just need to find a good system of doing it!!!


----------



## Freemann

Well let me say my 2 cents on this one. Leaner dosing specially on NO3 surely makes a huge positive difference in relation to high dosing (no more than 10 ppm added to the tank weekly broken in daily doses). I keep traces a bit on the high side (nothing extreme but I add both traces and dtpa iron seperate) same goes for Mg just a bit of it to be in the tank no 4/1 Ca to Mg ratio or anything just adding it like the traces, just a bit of PO4 0.2 ppm daily and *positively* additional K from that added from KNO3 throu K2SO4, 1 ppm daily (that is a serious detail for me it makes big difference here). Also (Edward got me into this possibility) I add Calcium glouconate (he told me of CaSO4) but I can't find it here but Ca glouconate is readily available, now you will ask what do you need to add Ca for if you already have it from the CaCO3 on your 12 Gh water?
Well I strongly suspect for some time now that Ca from CaCO3 is not readily absorbed by the plants, anyway plants seem to love the Ca glouconate addition and all stunting (nasaea, alternatheras) has subsided (it is to early to make positive conclusion) but I strongly feel for some time now that there is something wrong with Ca assimilation in my tanks. By the way I keep CO2 0,8 less than my degaused water Ph. Tank is completely algae free for months now (but from some GSA on full lit anubias).


PS All ferts are added daily from dosing pumps I thing stability helps a lot towards a healthy tank.
*Rich Substrate* is one of the best ways of fertilizing and one of the most underestimated factors in our tanks, plants have roots to uptake nutrients. (by the way I don't consider flourite a rich substrate).


----------



## taekwondodo

Freemann said:


> [1] I keep traces a bit on the high side (nothing extreme but I add both traces and dtpa iron separate)
> 
> 
> [2]K2SO4, 1 ppm daily (that is a serious detail for me it makes big difference here)
> 
> 
> [3]I add Calcium glouconate (he told me of CaSO4) but I can't find it here
> 
> 
> [4]*Rich Substrate* is one of the best ways of fertilizing and one of the most underestimated factors in our tanks, plants have roots to uptake nutrients.


Thanks for the good response.



[1] traces - I do too, as my R. Macrandra won't do well without it - if I let the traces drop, it stops growing and stems start to rot - how much are you adding daily (traces, Fe)? 


[2]I'm almost through my first "PPS Solution" - I'll up the K to be more 1:1 with the N and see what that does.


[3]I use CaSO4 I get at the Home Depot - I bought a box of Plaster of Paris (100% CaSO4 - I'll have to look at the brand though - I bought it in a 1 gallon box 4-5 years ago and its lasting forever). I'm assuming your attributing the positive effect to the Ca, and not the glouconate?


[4]Are you dosing the substrate (if so, with what)? I have flourite and really, really, really don't like it (color).


----------



## Freemann

taekwondodo sorry for the delay on answering you.


> [1] traces - I do too, as my R. Macrandra won't do well without it - if I let the traces drop, it stops growing and stems start to rot - how much are you adding daily (traces, Fe)?


I add 0.3 gr daily microplex traces (Mg - 5.4%, Bo - 0.5%, Co - 0.05%, Cu - 1.5%, Fe - 4.0%, Mn - 4.0%, Mo - 0.1%, Zn - 1.5%) plus 0,2 gr 7% DTPA Iron in a 108 gal tank.



> [2]I'm almost through my first "PPS Solution" - I'll up the K to be more 1:1 with the N and see what that does.


I add as I said 1 ppm K additionally from KNO3.



> [3]I use CaSO4 I get at the Home Depot - I bought a box of Plaster of Paris (100% CaSO4 - I'll have to look at the brand though - I bought it in a 1 gallon box 4-5 years ago and its lasting forever). I'm assuming your attributing the positive effect to the Ca, and not the glouconate?


CaSO4 will be fine, gluconate may help cause it prolly will make Ca more available that is all.



> [4]Rich Substrate is one of the best ways of fertilizing and one of the most underestimated factors in our tanks, plants have roots to uptake nutrients.


Well decomposed rich soil ( by letting it stay in a bucket to leech the agressive stuff prior for some time) initially on the bottom or some other stuff like the aquasoil maybe would do.


----------



## Edward

Hi
When you change dosing strategy, lighting, temperature or what ever in the system, plants will leak N. This can go as high as 120 ppm of NO3 when I stop dosing any fertilizers, any CO2 and leave lights on as before. For 4 months plants leak N due to lack of other nutrients. 

Twisted leaves are IMO due to inconsistency. However, when everything is stable and there are still curled leaves then Ca supplement in form other then CaCO3 solves the problem. CaSO4 or CaCl2 in low levels grow excellent quality plants. Higher NO3 levels make this even more evident, probably because it is driving higher demand on Ca uptake. I've been posting this for years. When we supply Ca in this preferred form plants take more NO3 lowering the overall water column concentration. 

On the PO4 issue. On many aquariums daily dosed with 0.2 ppm PO4 starts accumulating, plants don't take more in the long run. At 0.12 ppm addition per day PO4 starts leveling up, becoming saturated and stable. At 0.1 ppm a day it doesn't accumulate, plants have enough and look great. 

Plants don't need high nutrient levels, they need nutrients to be present at least once a day. The rest is taken care of by luxury uptake, especially for mobile elements N, P, K, and Mg. 

Also what is important is water surface movement to degas the water column otherwise CO2 injection efficiency is limited.

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Jessie

I love this thread. While I don't spend too much time on this forum (and I SHOULD, but some of this is so greek to me), I'm finding this discussion to be very enlightening. Because I am someone who is just beginning to get comfortable with the concept of dosing and have begun a regimen of EI that is starting to reinforce my initial skepticism on it. Granted, I have a ton to learn and a lot of experimentation to do, as I am far from understanding even some of the basics here.

All I want in my tank is red plants. Red red red. I can grow plants just as well as the next person. But I am absolutely lost on what is going on with my A. reineckii, Limnophila aromatica, sunset hygro, etc. Not only are those plants not rearing their famous beautiful colors, but they're hardly even growing. I take that back, my sunset hygro is GROWING, but the color is not there. So I said to myself "ok...must be a nutrient deficiency." Before my tank was moved, my A. reineckii was growing nicely, my Didiplis had beautiful rusty tips and there was no stunting, if anything there was TOO much growth. This was before EI, only root-tabs and the occasional dosing of Flourish and Flourish Iron. 

So after reading about the wonders and ease of EI, I bought the starter kit of KNO3, KH2PO4 and Plantex.

Then after reading the "rough guide" for dosing a tank over 100 gallons (One's 125 before displacement), I dove right in and started dumping. Call me impatient, but.... no...I've only seen a explosion of GDA on my glass and some unrelenting algae on my Anubias. So I've cut the KNO3. Seeing how I have a moderate to high fish load, high CO2 and high light, rich and established substrate, good circulation, I am almost pulling my hair out trying to figure out what the deal is. 

I know the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But after my tank's move and before EI, it was broke. So I guess my response here is basically pointless and doesn't really offer much, but hopefully can attest to the notion that there is no "instant" fix or end all be-all. I'm not going to give up on EI just yet, but my patience is definitely wearing thin.


----------



## BryceM

Formula for red plants:

Lots of CO2, LOTS of light, very lean NO3, lots of iron and traces. Soft water helps. Red crypts are pretty easy. Alternanthera is a finicky beast. It's a weed sometimes and won't grow worth beans other times.

I've ALWAYS had GDA issues with the typical NO3 dosing of EI. Call me strange, but I'm convinced much less NO3 is needed for the majority of setups. The initial few month's of a tank's existence is different. Mature tanks need much, much less.

After moving a tank give it a couple of months to settle in. A huge uprooting, re-scape, and slightly different water supplies can take a while for the plants to adjust to. They'll come around.


----------



## apistaeasy

Edward said:


> Hi
> Also what is important is water surface movement to degas the water column otherwise CO2 injection efficiency is limited.
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


Please explain this as this is opposite my understanding.


----------



## defdac

taekwondodo said:


> My A. Renekii has never looked this good.


snip


> dosages in half and measured to ensure I wasn't ever spiking my NO3 above 15-20 ppm (targeting a steady 5-10ppm).


I did the exact same thing(!) And now my A. reineckii grows fine without curling up! I have relatively low KH and GH (round 2-3).

My 2x24 watts T5 Aquarelle 60-litres tank eats about 8 ppm NO3 per week, if I dose more than that they curl up. I have a dry premix of KNO2, KH2PO4, K2SO4, MgSO4 and NutriSi-micromix and a normal dose gives me 9 ppm NO3, 1 ppm PO4 and 0,1 ppm Fe.

Since so many aquarists see this I would love to know the physiology behind it. Is this because Ca is difficult to transport since it must be done apoplastically?


----------



## defdac

hoppycalif said:


> This question interested Tom Barr sufficiently that he plans to test the effect of high NO3 on A. reineckii. His results should be very interesting, since with all of the measuring equipment he has, he can be sure of keeping everything else the same in all of his test tanks. Of course, he knows what result he will get, but many of us have known what result we would get with a test and found ourselves wrong. With his track record I wouldn't bet he is wrong.


That is odd. I raised this question a couple of days ago in this thread:
http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/3506-alternathera-reinekii-problem-2.html
It didn't seem to attract his interest other than explaining that I was wrong..


----------



## detlef

Edward said:


> However, when everything is stable and there are still curled leaves then Ca supplement in form other then CaCO3 solves the problem. CaSO4 or CaCl2 in low levels grow excellent quality plants.
> 
> On the PO4 issue. On many aquariums daily dosed with 0.2 ppm PO4 starts accumulating, plants don't take more in the long run. At 0.12 ppm addition per day PO4 starts leveling up, becoming saturated and stable. At 0.1 ppm a day it doesn't accumulate, plants have enough and look great.


Edward,

I agree with you here: PO4 consumption is always hovering around 0,13ppm. This is true for a well planted 2-3w/g tank with mainly fast growers covering the whole substrate, dosed daily, average fish/shrimp loading.

Have you considered or even tried adding CaSO4 (or CaCl2 which should not be the preferred salt I suppose) on a daily basis? Would you think this might have advantages vs. weekly additions?

Bests regards,
Detlef


----------



## hoppycalif

defdac said:


> That is odd. I raised this question a couple of days ago in this thread:
> http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/3506-alternathera-reinekii-problem-2.html
> It didn't seem to attract his interest other than explaining that I was wrong..


A day or two after he replied to you he got interested, realizing that he had never specifically tested for this. Read the rest of the thread where you raised the question. Of course he is still certain he is right, as he usually is, but he wants to be sure by doing the testing. I think, from reading other threads there, that he has already begun the testing.


----------



## Edward

detlef said:


> Have you considered or even tried adding CaSO4 (or CaCl2 which should not be the preferred salt I suppose) on a daily basis? Would you think this might have advantages vs. weekly additions?


Hi
CaCl2 is a great chemical for dosing in a liquid form even by dosing pumps, very accurate, very easy do dissolve, but the results are not always good. For example, when dosed carefully by maintaining 20 - 30 ppm of Ca which may take 2 - 3 months to deplete, plants look healthy. But the problem begins when people use higher levels, plants start deteriorating and fish are stressed. Also I found the daily rate needed to be dosed to maintain constant Ca level and used dosing pumps to dose CaCl2 solution accordingly, which resulted in complete plant deterioration. Why? Maybe Cl? Not sure, it doesn't matter. 

Then we have CaSO4. CaSO4 is right now the preferred Ca source we use. Because it comes with SO4, there is no need to worry about toxic levels such as with CaCl2. S is an essential macronutrient plants take in large quantities. The only disadvantage here is the low solubility. It has to be dosed dry. Although it is still easy, you can use just a simple cheap GH test kit to determine the need to add a spoon once a month or so if you don't do water changes. If you change water periodically then you know what amount to add to keep plants happy, simple. So to answer your question about daily CaSO4 dose is no, can't dose it daily due to the nature of the chemical composition. 

Hope this makes sense and these are just my observations and experience I have with Calcium issues. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Edward

apistaeasy said:


> Please explain this as this is opposite my understanding.


 Hi
There are two issues in regards to gasses in a planted aquarium. One is the fact that there is a limit how much gas can be dissolved in the water column. During the photoperiod peak, water is saturated by O2 produced by plants, as we know. Also, there is always present large amount of N2 from KNO3 dosing and fish waste by denitrification stimulated mostly by anaerobic conditions, bacteria. These gasses are setting up the limit on how much CO2 can be dissolved. This is why it takes much more CO2 to get 30 ppm then 15 ppm of CO2. So this a good reason to aerate your aquarium water. 

Second issue is that plants grown in high CO2 levels lose a mechanism to efficiently use lower CO2 levels when applied, either by an accident or by a light switch. This is due to high O2 levels during the day. What this does is that the plants leak NH4 ammonia to be responsible for an algae boom. You can read about it here as I already posted this some time ago. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## BryceM

Edward, my understanding is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is almost independent of other dissolved gasses. In other words, near-saturation with O2 or N2 won't have that much effect on the solubility of CO2.

I might be wrong on this. I'd certainly like to read up on it if you are aware of any references that support this claim.


----------



## Edward

Henry's Law and the Solubility of Gases


----------



## JamesC

Couldn't remember Henry's Law from my school days so had to look it up - At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.

Isn't this law about the equilibrium of a gas dissolved in a liquid to the gas in the air through the water's surface? My understanding is the same as guaiac_boy where the solubilities of different gases are largely independent of each other except where the water is saturated with one gas it will then affect the solubilities of other gasses to a slightly greater degree.

James


----------



## BryceM

Edward, I don't see anything in your cited reference that pertains to the concentration of one dissolved gas affecting the solubility of a second gas.


----------



## Glouglou

Reflexion on Henry's Law...

The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas. The most common solvent is water.

Well if I introduced a gas in a solvent (water) I'm changing the nature of that solvent and it will probably have an effect to the introduction of another gas.

Good simple explication of Henry's Law
http://www.800mainstreet.com/9/0009-006-henry.html

:bathbaby:

Where do you find CaSO4??


----------



## BryceM

Glouglou said:


> it will _*probably*_ have an effect to the introduction of another gas.


Yes, disolution of one gas will affect the ability of a solvent (water) to dissolve a second substance. The pertinent question is "to what extent?" I seem to recall from college and med school days that the effect is not large. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm looking for actual evidence of the magnitude of one solute's effect on another - not *"probably"*. Henry's law has nothing to do with it.

If O2 saturated water is able to dissolve 90% as much CO2 as O2-free water, the benefit of running an airstone to improve CO2 solubility is almost zero. CO2 is inherently VERY soluble in pure water - about 1700 ppm at room temperature. We're not really pushing the limits at our typical "30ppm" aquarium concentrations.

If anyone out there knows of a reliable source for cross-solubility effects I'd love to see it.


----------



## hoppycalif

guaiac_boy said:


> Yes, disolution of one gas will affect the ability of a solvent (water) to dissolve a second substance. The pertinent question is "to what extent?" I seem to recall from college and med school days that the effect is not large. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm looking for actual evidence of the magnitude of one solute's effect on another - not *"probably"*. Henry's law has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If O2 saturated water is able to dissolve 90% as much CO2 as O2-free water, the benefit of running an airstone to improve CO2 solubility is almost zero. CO2 is inherently VERY soluble in pure water - about 1700 ppm at room temperature. We're not really pushing the limits at our typical "30ppm" aquarium concentrations.
> 
> If anyone out there knows of a reliable source for cross-solubility effects I'd love to see it.


I am waiting to see the same thing. I understood that at the concentrations we use, our tank water's ability to hold dissolved oxygen is not affected by the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water, and vice versa.


----------



## SuRje1976

What a great thread! How did it die off???

It was always my understanding that the solubility of CO2 is not measurably affected by O2 concentration. What IS affected by O2 concentration however, is a plant's ability to utilize CO2. As O2 concentration increases, Rubisco's ability to process CO2 is reduced due to competitive inhibition by O2, as Rubisco is not a very specific enzyme. Now I'm certainly not saying that I believe that having O2 in your water is bad. As a matter of fact, my tank is contantly aerated by one slightly raised Lily Pipe outflow. I do think that it provides benefit, though I can really only speculate why. I'm truly not one for speculation, as I think that years of speculation may be setting our hobby back in time, albeit with the best of intentions. 

So, another question can be asked. Does raising CO2 to a certain point actually max out a plant's ability to grow by driving photosynthesis to the point where the very O2 produced as a byproduct is now inhibiting photosynthesis? Is there a "sweet spot" for CO2? Hmmm....


----------



## BryceM

SuRje1976 said:


> I'm truly not one for speculation, as I think that years of speculation may be setting our hobby back in time, albeit with the best of intentions.


Precisely! There is a big difference between anecdotal evidence and carefully controlled genuine research. When you really look at it closely, even answering a simple question can require an enormous quantity of time and effort. Eliminating bias and accounting for confounding variables is difficult. I see it with clinical studies in medicine, but the problems are similar in any field of science.

The two ways to make progress are to 1) have a thousand people empirically pound away at a thousand different ideas until by sheer dumb luck some of them finally work (similar to what was done with auto design for the first 80 years - that part broke! huh, better make the weld thicker), or 2) actually discover the true scientific properties behind the of the system and then apply that knowledge efficiently (how cars & planes are designed today).

Complex hobbies don't easily lend themselves to the scientific method. It's too hard and too complex for most of us to design and carry out good experiements.


----------



## defdac

I'd rather test away and work at a problem than just sit there talking about science and how hard or difficult it is to prove something and stating the obvious. The hobby is taken forward by doers, not nay-sayers.


----------



## BryceM

defdac,

We're getting off-track from the OP's thread, but I disagree that I'm "stating the obvious". I'd venture that the vast majority of hobbyists don't have a clue how to perform a valid experiment or even how to distinguish good data from anecdotal reports. The hobby needs doers - yes, but their information is only valuable if it's accurate and broadly applicable. The end result of collective ignorance is that you see thousands of posts like "I did X thing and got Y result so you should try it too".

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers but I do know the correct method for discovering them. Develop a hypothesis (lots of people have these), construct an experiment to verify or disprove the hypothesis (almost nobody does this), and report the data for review. There are many people doing fabulous research in the area of aquatic plant physiology, but most of them are in institutions or establishments that don't have a reason to consider the hobby side of it.

I'm guilty of hypocrisy here myself. I've been openly critical of some of Tom Barr's work without providing any evidence to support my position. I have a hypothesis, but I don't really have the equipment, time, or energy to work through it. Like him or not, Tom is one of the few people that I'm aware of that actually goes to the effort to test his ideas and share his results.

A forum with a few thousand members should be able to do a little better than we've been doing. I'd really enjoy seeing a dozen reports a year about some scientific aspect of the hobby. A few people have set up side-by-side aquariums with nearly identical conditions to test an idea. I applaud their efforts. There is real potential for progression there.


----------



## defdac

I have lost count how many times "better knowing" people have said what you just have. It's obvious and doesn't need saying unless you're trying to convice youreself what you are rambling about. It's true what you say and it's obvious. This isn't rocket science. Get down from the high horses and get your hands dirty instead is my advice to those rambling about science and not providing anything but stating the obvious over and over again.

Tom doesn't have a patent on doing tests. He might be doing them little bit better than most people, almost "scientific". But if you pick those tests apart, they're just a hobbyist tests like all others with nicer equipment etc. He wouldn't be doing them if the community didn't get their hands dirty and come up with interesting questions.


----------



## BryceM

We're clearly getting nowhere but into the middle of a flame war. You, apparently, are convinced that my comments have no value. I have no issue with that. Maybe they don't. Defending your position by resorting to name-calling, taunting, and inflammitory language is childish, innapropriate, and does nothing to further the discussion.

Moving on.....................


----------



## puttyman70

defdac said:


> I have lost count how many times "better knowing" people have said what you just have. It's obvious and doesn't need saying unless you're trying to convice youreself what you are rambling about. It's true what you say and it's obvious.


This is a forum, right? I actually enjoy the rambling of guaiac boy and other experienced members like yourself. It is how I have learned a lot here and is complementary to simple instruction.


----------



## hoppycalif

defdac said:


> Tom doesn't have a patent on doing tests. He might be doing them little bit better than most people, almost "scientific". But if you pick those tests apart, they're just a hobbyist tests like all others with nicer equipment etc. He wouldn't be doing them if the community didn't get their hands dirty and come up with interesting questions.


Of course no one has a patent on doing tests. Tom does have the equipment, the space, and the knowledge to design tests so the results mean something. He also is willing to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions from his tests. In fact he repeatedly tells us that the best you can assume from his results is that something is not the cause or fix for a problem, not that something is definitely a cause or fix. It is much easier to isolate one change and demonstrate that it doesn't do something, than it is to demonstrate that one thing and one thing only is a cause of an effect.

I agree that this is way off topic, but it is hard not to respond to statements like the above.


----------



## Brilliant

Its all SuRje's fault......this post was hit way into left field by the oxygen/co2 comment. A comment which prompted several unaswered questions. I will leave it at that.



guaiac_boy said:


> I certainly don't claim to have all the answers but I do know the correct method for discovering them. Develop a hypothesis (lots of people have these), construct an experiment to verify or disprove the hypothesis (almost nobody does this), and report the data for review. There are many people doing fabulous research in the area of aquatic plant physiology, but most of them are in institutions or establishments that don't have a reason to consider the hobby side of it.


I discovered something. I developed a hypothesis that a certain dosing strategy was better. I constructed an experiment by dosing it to my tank for over a month. I have data in the form of pictures I will probably never share and larger compost pile. I am not claiming this is fabulous work..and heck that bias you mentioned...well thats just going to discredit my data anyways...so why bother. BTW...my hypothesis was wrong!



defdac said:


> This isn't rocket science. Get down from the high horses and get your hands dirty instead is my advice to those rambling about science and not providing anything but stating the obvious over and over again.


Duh silly...this is APC where art meets science...


----------



## taekwondodo

Wow - -

Back to the original premise - My tank was really starting to take off, and in the process sucking up the NO3 like there was no tomorrow (readings were less than 1-2ppm via lamotte (yes, x 4.4 for an NO3 reading), I was adding 1-1.5ppm daily).

So my old habits kicked in - I added 5ppm of NO3 - two days later, it was <1ppm again - so I added 20ppm. Big mistake: GDA explosion, almost over the next two days. Then I thought, WTH am I doing? Note - this was the only change made in a month.

Big water change later to reduce NO3, now its looking a lot better again.

- Jeff


----------



## BryceM

It's nice to be back on topic. I think maybe the issue here is that there is a difference between the amount of nitrogen that plants need vs. the amount of nitrogen that plants can take up if available (luxury uptake?). 

A dumb example: I live in sugar beet territory. Back when sugar factories paid for beets by weight, farmers quickly learned to zap the beets with tons of nitrogen. The beets got huge, but didn't have a very high sugar content. Sugar factory owners got wise to the scheme pretty quickly and started paying by sugar content. Maybe more NO3 isn't always better? With beets it turns out that zero NO3 is a bad idea, too much NO3 is a bad idea, and there literally is a "sweet spot" somewhere in the middle (a bit toward the lean side). Providing everything in excess isn't good for beets (depending on what you want). It remains to be seen if it's a good idea for planted aquariums, but I'll put my money with the "not always" crowd.


----------

