# stump remover



## dirtyted

is stump remover a safe source for KNO3?


----------



## wet

Green Light stump remover is. (This was my first KNO3 source -- you can get this at OSH hardware and garden supply.) Keep in mind though that it's something like $6/lb. Cheaper to go online. (If you need a KNO3 source you should probably be thinking of a P and micronutrient source, too.)

Also -- and this is only for your info and will not be necessary until you get more comfortable with fertilizing -- stump remover is in pretty big pellets while the KNO3 from online folks is usually granier. This can matter when using teaspoons to measure but, really, not enough to matter unless you're looking to get a more accurate idea of NO3 input. Same applies to the purity of KNO3 in these different forms.


----------



## goldier

Tree stump remover which has KNO3 as the ingredient gives you potassium and nitrate ions when diluted in water. The nitrate is the undesirable component in most aquariums, and adding more in addition to fish wastes is not what many people want. Safer sources of potassium would be sulfate of potash (K2SO4) or muriate of potash (KCl) bought at home garden centers.


----------



## dirtyted

thank you wet. I will start buying online my plants are already eating all the nitrate in my tank and I want start using the mci dosing method.


----------



## boink

goldier said:


> Tree stump remover which has KNO3 as the ingredient gives you potassium and nitrate ions when diluted in water. The nitrate is the undesirable component in most aquariums, and adding more in addition to fish wastes is not what many people want. Safer sources of potassium would be sulfate of potash (K2SO4) or muriate of potash (KCl) bought at home garden centers.


Nitrate may be undesirable in high high high ppms, in an *unbalanced* aquarium may be true (with regards to algae). KNO3 is fine to use for N and K sources.


----------



## Diana K

Read the label on the stump remover. Not all have the same ingredients. 

goldier, some tanks need more nitrogen added because the plants regularly remove all the nitrogen from the fish food, and would get deficient in nitrogen. However, the amount of KNO3 usually added as a source of N is not a sufficient source of K, so many people who are adding these fertilizers will also add:
KH2PO4 for phosphate, but in small amounts, not enough to really count as a source of K
K2SO4 for potassium. 

If the water is very soft then Seachem Equilibrium can be used. This will raise the GH, and also add a fair amount of K.


----------



## goldier

Diana commented in one of my posts in another thread about keeping some nitrate level to maintain plant growth, so if the fish wastes and regular fert are not enough, and the nitrate level is too low, I would add some. It would be simpler to use a balanced NPK fert unless there are excess of other macros such as P, K and the need to balance with nitrogen. Nitrate at approx 10 ppm is conducive for algae growth, and many sources I read recommend a level at 10 ppm or less, and it should be raised slowly over time for the safety of fish, i.e. not bringing up the level to 10 ppm in one dosing.

And heed the cautions about the ingredient listed on the bottle. Green Light Stump Remover, as Wet said, is the better known brand to have only KNO3.

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_nitrate.htm


----------



## Philosophos

NPK with KH2PO4 is a very nicely balanced combination for NPK; dosing around 20ppm:4ppm:14ppm is perfect for growing aquatic plants in a compressed CO2 system with some decent light. This would be around standard EI levels (perhaps a bit light on the KH2PO4) I toss in extra K2SO4 at times because the K+ tends to be more easily depleted from the column.

In my own tanks I've seen 15-20ppm of NO3 disappear in a week under the right conditions. Fish food is not going to provide for this.

Inorganic NO3 is not as toxic as organic sources, and measuring NO3 as a water change method is a reference point for other compounds related to waste that we can't measure. This is confirmed if you take a stroll through the EPA ecotox database and look over warm water fish. If it were as toxic, I'd like someone to explain how two pairs of apistos are sitting in a 28 gal tank in my living room spawning constantly when I'm dumping 20-30ppm of NO3 in a week plus feedings. I'm sure there are many planted discus tank keepers equally as baffled.

I mainly blame people who run around with toxicity reports about trout or salmon and inorganic NO3 for making us panic. Some of this was because of a very poorly researched (though convincingly written) article that I believe was hosted on this site, but seems to have been deleted. The fact is, you can't compare a cold water fish in fast running rivers to warm water fish in slower moving ones. They are not exposed to meaningful levels of nitrates in their natural habitat, so they have little tolerance to it. This is not true of old, slow flowing tropical streams where nitrogen is common. For a real world example, put any sunfish/panfish from a local pond in a tank with a rainbow trout and raise the NO3. The trout will be dead before the sunfish clamps its fins. Ask your fish and game department about the subject for that matter and save yourself a lot of effort. You'll see similar opinions about inorganic NO3 from the EPA as well.

Incidentally those of us dosing 20ppm NO3 with compressed CO2 and plenty of other excessive nutrients aren't having algae problems either. To be honest, you can dose enough nutrients to kill all the fish in a low light, non-CO2 tank and still not get problems with algae if light is the limiting nutrient. There are varying theories as to why, but for whatever reason after it's been done over and over, the results are the same. You'll find agreement on this point from the founder of Tropica, the creator of El Natural and perhaps most loudly from the inventor of Estimative Index.


----------



## goldier

Philosophos said:


> ... you can dose enough nutrients to kill all the fish in a low light, non-CO2 tank and still not get problems with algae if light is the limiting nutrient. There are varying theories as to why, but for whatever reason after it's been done over and over, the results are the same. You'll find agreement on this point from the founder of Tropica, the creator of El Natural and perhaps most loudly from the inventor of Estimative Index.


That just seems opposite from my own observation. Not sure if there were other things going, but I had a 30 g Eclipse tall tank that came with incandescent light installed under the hood. The light was not adequate, so I could only have some hornwort and anacharis in the tank. There was no CO2 injection, no fert dosing, but a filter and an air stone to raise O2 for the fish. Algae was all over the glass when I returned home after 2 weeks of vacation, and the fish were showing sign of nitrogen poisoning. I was sure nitrate and phosphate levels were off the roof.

I wonder if anyone else has had similar observation. I thought about posting my thoughts over the algae experiment thread, but has opted out so far. Based on what I observed, and read at this site, algae likely adapts to grow well under various conditions.


----------



## Philosophos

More likely they were showing signs of nitr*I*te poisoning rather than nitr*a*te. Even so, that's high nitrates from organic waste, which is probably about 5-10x more toxic.

I'm betting that if you had a pile of nitrogen, you had a pile of ammonia pumping into your tank. Organic nitrogen tends to go along with some ammonia, and that will definitely cause algae when there are no plants to uptake it. Leaving the tank for two weeks would also mean you had to either feed your fish, or a few would've been eaten and their bodies may have been decomposing while they were picked at. You also weren't dosing, meaning potassium would've been lacking and perhaps some micros.


----------



## goldier

Dan, so I infer from what you’ve said earlier is true for a plant-only aquarium (no fauna) when dosing nitrate directly there shouldn’t be algae problem even in low light. However, for a fish aquarium, because fish will release ammonia which can cause algae growth even in low light, when or if the low light plants and the filter can’t uptake or convert ammonia fast enough. But many sources I read claim that nitrate also feed algae growth, so there is conflicting of information, and I don’t mean to negate your own observation. Perhaps the difference is how long the nitrate level should be in the water to foster algae growth?

Nitrate in water exists as NO3- anion, regardless of the sources it comes from, so why would nitrate from organic wastes be more toxic than nitrate from a non-organic source? Is there any theory behind this?

About feeding fish, I asked a friend to feed them daily, not sure if he was faithful, but I didn’t find anyone MIA after 2 weeks


----------



## Philosophos

Even with fauna, it should be just fine. Plants jump on NH4 before NO3; it takes more ammonia to make a dent and induce algae when you have plants. Plenty of us even stock and feed heavy without trouble, especially considering that we're already doing weekly 50% WC's. Tropica's TPN+ (it says urea, but when on contact with water it's going to be NH4; it's probably already converted in the bottle) and ADA aquasoil both have NH4 in them. TPN+ doesn't seem to get algae complaints because it's a reasonable quantity and it's usually only dosed on high light, fast metabolism tanks. ADA AS, on the other hand, is so loaded that you'll want to start a new tank off with a water change every couple of days for the first week or so, then twice a week after that for 3-4 weeks. Algae outbreaks in new ADA tanks are incredibly common when people don't.

All nutrients feed algae growth, and at far lower concentrations than plants can take advantage of. They don't need nearly as much carbon either, so that really gives them an advantage. For some reason though, when nutrients are non-limiting (especially CO2) and it's only light that limits growth, algae stops growing. You can actually kill BBA just by turning up your CO2; I've done this many times.

Algae doesn't all just grow at the same time either, it has a sort of pecking order. High light tends to induce different algae than low light. In some cases, increasing a specific nutrient even slows the growth of or kills off certain types of algae; increasing PO4 to 5ppm+ is a common way to cope with GSA. Low oxygen and low flow will yield a mat of BGA quite frequently, but after both are increased it disappears. Because of these interactions, there's some conjecture about stable tanks creating an environment that decreases algae spore germination signaling. Keep in mind this is conjecture; it's not even a solid hypothesis, which is still not yet a theory. It's just something to keep an eye out for right now.

NO3 can exist organically in a nice big chain with any number of alcohols among other things. Our test kits may measure free nitrogen, but when speaking of nitrogen toxicity there are tons of other forms nitrogen can take. I honestly haven't heard of specific NO3- toxicity happening in tanks very often; there are other things in waste that I would imagine become toxic first, and it takes a whole lot of fertilizer OD to hurt the fauna. Other toxic compounds go right along with the same fish waste or decomposing food that yields this NO3 as well. This is why I say organic NO3 is more toxic, not that free NO3- is magically more dangerous than inorganic. Perhaps I should've phrased it that free NO3- from organic sources is an indicator that more toxic compounds are present.

With fertilizers, you're using salts that disassociate into free NO3- pretty much on the spot. If you're liquid dosing, it should be that way before the ferts even hit the column. What you see is what you get, no strings attached.


----------



## goldier

Great comments on algae properties! I see where you’re coming from. Evidently, after taking into account of various variables, frequency/ the amount of WC is a crucial component for maintaining high dose fert without elevating many unwanted side effects. 

And I see what you meant regarding more NO3 toxicity from organic wastes. It’s more about the depot and sustained effect of organic sources, as compared to WYSIWYG from instant dissociation of salt ions.


----------



## Philosophos

It's either lots of water changes or lots of testing if you've got high light. Outside of doing runs of intense light for a few weeks to grow a tank in (it's easier if you can do this without fauna so you can crank the CO2) I think you'd have to be crazy to maintain a tank under high light. I started that way and even when the algae was taken care of the plant growth hit 1/2-1 inch per day in some species, so trims were twice a week. I run mid to low light on my show tanks now, and try to keep a 50% weekly WC going. Trims are every 1-2 weeks, and it's not a big deal if I wait an extra week on the water change now and then or skip dosing.

Anyhow, I'm glad the algae info was helpful. If you ever want to know about dosing for compressed CO2 systems you can always message me.


----------



## goldier

Philosophos said:


> Anyhow, I'm glad the algae info was helpful. If you ever want to know about dosing for compressed CO2 systems you can always message me.


OK thanks.



> there's some conjecture about stable tanks creating an environment that decreases algae spore germination signaling


Or likely, newly germinating spores and algae are killed by the allelochemicals released by aquatic plants into the water. Many studies have shown this herbicidal property of plants on algae, as recent as one published study of phytotoxic effects on green algae by D'Abrosca et al. in the Journal of Chemical Ecology in Jan 2006. A stable env. would yield strong healthy plants and not so frequent WC for the allelochemicals to work.


----------



## Philosophos

I must be in a rambling mood today...

Allelopathy as a column-wide thing applying to planted aquariums got a lot more attention that in deserved IMO. Even Diana didn't back it as being well tested and confirmed in her book. Since it came out as an idea, there's been an informal refutation from Ole Pedersen about the topic: http://www.tropica.com/article.asp?type=aquaristic&id=531

I consider it to be unlikely as well, in so far as a column-wide thing that effects the average tank. Given Diana's methods of using very few water changes (every 6 months, sometimes less) it may have a chance to work in tanks following her methods. Unfortunately, El Natural (like any method) does not fulfill every goal of every planted tank keeper, which is why different methods exist to accomplish different things.

Another point would be that many of us do regular water changes that, as far as I know, would never allow for allelopathic concentrations. Despite this, many using relatively heavy water change routines do not have algae issues. Spore removal during these changes probably contributes to holding algae off, but does not explain why algae actually recedes when the CO2 levels are increased or the light decreased.

I think there's some possibility that allelopathy could play into the reduced cuticles that some macrophytes retain when in submersed form. This is just another piece of conjecture though, I haven't tested it at all because I don't have the capacity to.


----------



## goldier

Ja, this biochemical warfare between plants is as controversial as GW (or Climate Change as of late). It is good to have a healthy skepticism and continue to look at new evidences in latest studies. Pedersen’s list of credentials/publication does not indicate that he has been a part of any research studies on allelopathy himself, except for the rebuttal article. On the other hand, it’s hard to say allelopathy works in an average aquarium where algae problems are as numerous as the threads on Algae Forum  But there may be some conclusion drawn from the thread “High tech vs. Low tech (El Natural)”.


----------



## Left C

Are you guys going to discuss Fleet Enema for a phosphate source too? :-#


----------



## Philosophos

Researching specifically on allelopathy in submerged aquatic macrophytes is pretty obscure as far as science goes; there aren't many people who have focused on it. Right now (as far as I've seen) the research about it regarding aquariums is pretty much restricted to extracting the compounds found in these plants and putting it in the column without much regard to whether the plant actually releases the compound in those quantities. I think allelopathy remains unproven because of this; there is a lack of supporting evidence, and what does exist can be refuted. My guess is making any meaningful conclusions is once again restricted by the chronic lack of funding. When it comes to aquatic plants, most of the money spent on their research is directed at killing them off.

Left C, I'm all for discussing sodium biphosphate if Goldier is; I haven't gotten into the whole debate or looked over sodium toxicity levels all that closely.

Dirtyted, do you want us to maybe run along to another thread? I'm sure this isn't the direction you had in mind when you started things.


----------



## goldier

Sorry Dirtyted, who woulda thunk your innocent question about stump remover has turned into these rambles, and spawns a need for saline laxative 

Although I will have more time toward the weekend to fully participate, I’m all game for the next discussion, Dan and everyone. Hope more people, especially the El Natural folks will jump in to share their thoughts as well. I always enjoy active learning in these exchanges.

Don’t be shy, LeftC. Go ahead and kick that ball!


----------



## Left C

goldier said:


> Sorry Dirtyted, who woulda thunk your innocent question about stump remover has turned into these rambles, and spawns a need for saline laxative
> 
> Although I will have more time toward the weekend to fully participate, I'm all game for the next discussion, Dan and everyone. Hope more people, especially the El Natural folks will jump in to share their thoughts as well. I always enjoy active learning in these exchanges.
> 
> Don't be shy, Left C. Go ahead and kick that ball!


I was hoping that you guys would be discussing fleet enema for use in an aquarium for phosphate dosing after your current discussion.

Over the years, many people have used Green Light stump remover for nitrate and potassium dosing and Fleet Enema for phosphate dosing. These are easy to obtain and you don't have to mail order KNO3 and KH2PO4 for your aquarium.

I don't not know very much about using these. They could be handy if I ran out of my dry fert(s). Green Light would be a breeze to use along with the other products with basically pure potassium nitrate.

I know the fertilator can calculate Green Light Stump Remover's potassium and nitrate because it is pure potassium nitrate, but the fertilator only calculates the amount of phosphate in Fleet Enema. It doesn't calculate the amount of calcium. It probably doesn't matter because it would be a small amount anyway.


----------



## Philosophos

I'm not seeing anything about calcium in the mix. Fleet enema looks like it's two kinds of sodium phosphate combined. According to their site, a 118ml bottle contains:

Monobasic Sodium Phosphate Monohydrate, 19 g
Dibasic Sodium Phosphate Heptahydrate, 7 g

By my math that's a solution containing 131.83g/L of PO4. 

One container has 15.55g of PO4, it looks like a 6 pack runs about $9. Doing a little work it looks like the cost for PO4 through this solution runs about $43/lb. By comparison, even if you're over-paying $10/lb with shipping for KH2PO4, the cost for 1lb of PO4 is $14.95.

Good in an emergency, but not as good as ordering.


----------



## Left C

Oops. I meant to say sodium instead of calcium. I'm sorry about that.

Thanks Dan. That sure is expensive. I'll stick to my KH2PO4.

Thanks you for doing the research.


----------



## goldier

And if you look at the sodium component of Fleet Enema, 118 mL bottle has 4.4 g sodium, which is approximately equivalent to the amount of sodium in 2 teaspoons of table salt (NaCl).

The Fertilator does not have sodium result for Fleet Enema, but the phosphate part. It would be more helpful if it includes added sodium (in ppm) as well so users know how much they are increasing the salinity of their water as they dose for phosphate.


----------



## Philosophos

Na in the solution is 28% that of sodium. The EPA's max is 20ppm in drinking water. The highest recommended doses I've seen for PO4 would be around 10-15ppm. Dosing this level through fleet enema this would make for no more than 3.6ppm sodium. By comparison, the NOEL/NOAEL levels you'll see for macrophytes in the EPA ECOTOX database is measured in hundreds or thousands of mg/L over periods lasting between a week and three months. (rice aside, I completely tuned out rice as mattering. It's probably tougher anyhow.)


----------



## dirtyted

Thank you everyone that has replied I did not know this would turn into such a big thread. I already went the safe route and ordered the ferts online. I am just a cash and carry guy when I want something I want to go buy it or make it. I think it is messed up that the average guy cannot just buy chemicals that they want at the corner store but I guess there are many reasons why we cannot.


----------



## Philosophos

Not a problem, thanks for letting us threadjack a bit.

It's definitely messed up. I get off-hand comments about being a drug dealer/manufacturer or a terrorist when ever I start looking around for specialty equipment related to hydroponics and fertilizers. Without getting political, I will say that I'm fairly discouraged with what we've become.


----------



## goldier

Philosophos said:


> Na in the solution is 28% that of sodium. The EPA's max is 20ppm in drinking water. The highest recommended doses I've seen for PO4 would be around 10-15ppm. Dosing this level through fleet enema this would make for no more than 3.6ppm sodium. By comparison, the NOEL/NOAEL levels you'll see for macrophytes in the EPA ECOTOX database is measured in hundreds or thousands of mg/L over periods lasting between a week and three months. (rice aside, I completely tuned out rice as mattering. It's probably tougher anyhow.)


I went to ECOTOX query engine and tried a search for water quality data of Hygrophila difformis, nothing came up. Next, a search for Ludwigia repens gave a list references, but still no salinity range reported. There seemed a lot of missing data from the site. ECOTOX likely refers to the salinity of NaCl, not of Na by itself when it estimates the NOEL/NOAEL levels for macrophytes. Let's say some freshwater macrophytes can tolerate up to 1000 mg/L (1000 ppm) of NaCl in the water, we can look at few hypothetical examples to see how Fleet Enema dosing for PO4 can affect water salinity over time in a tank.

The ratio of PO4 to Na in Fleet Enema solution is 3.5:1. Assume that PO4 weekly dosing is 15 ppm, the corresponding Na would be 4.3 ppm, which would be approx. equivalent to the salinity of 11 ppm NaCl. Flora and fauna consume small amount of Na, but let assume that they feed on other Na source (from baking soda for KH fixing), so that the Na from Fleet Enema would be left alone.

So now, a salinity equivalence of 11 ppm NaCl is added to the aquarium weekly per PO4 dosing of 15 ppm from Fleet Enema. With a 20% weekly water change, a simple calculation shows the salinity would continue to rise over several weeks to exceed the 1000 ppm limit mentioned earlier and adversely or fatally affect plants and fish. But with a 50% or more weekly water change, the salinity level will never exceed twice the salinity level at the end of the week just before a water change (≤ 22 ppm NaCl), which would be insignificant to cause any harm in the tank. (I don't know the specifics in some species of fish being more sensitive to certain salinity level than others)

And I think this is the principle behind the 50% WC requirement weekly in the EI method to safely reset the water parameter levels after daily/weekly dosing of macros/micros nutrients, otherwise the system will head for a crash. But for the aquarists who don't follow EI method and are not aware of the "magic" 50% WC to safeguard the water, many aquaria would inadvertently accumulate unused elements that can reach to toxic levels and beyond if WC is often done at 10%, 20%, 30%, or less than 50%. At this point, a TDS meter comes in handy, or I would say a TDS meter would have come in handy in the beginning to establish a baseline for comparison after several fertilizer additions weeks/months later, when a TDS value is too far off from the baseline to necessitate a WC.


----------



## Philosophos

Dispelling toxicity concerns is something that requires a thorough explanation to a lot of people. I'm going to give a nice full refutation here along with a reply to the last post for future reference regarding fleet enema and Na toxicity issues. Also, junk about the ecotox database and how scientists see our beloved plants. In fewer words, I feel like typing right now.

Goldier, I'm definitely not writing this out of any personal reason to refute what you're saying. I haven't seen you around anywhere else and you're asking some basic questions at some points that make me think you're new, but you're also catching on very quickly. Besides, any time I've spent this much time to talk to someone that I didn't like, it's been with far more sarcasm 

When referencing the Ecotox database, you must understand that these are aquatic plants... limnologists in North America understand them as, "That weed I'm paid to kill." As such, most of your studies from the EPA are going to be from weed like species that you can use as a loose comparison. Ludwigia spp even qualifies; I recently read a journal doing threat assessment. Like it or not, it's the best you'll get for the least amount of time. Every now and then you'll get lucky if you go googling for individual papers, and someone will have done a study on a bryophyte that isn't related to complaints to the fish and game department because it gets stuck in boat props.

If it's an ornamental macrophyte and there's valuable studies on it, then the research tends to be done by companies growing the stuff that are looking for a market edge. These people will not just give you information about optimal growth conditions specific to the species.

If you've found anything that doesn't fit in with the above, and has any peer review or even forum discussion about it, you're very lucky.

Now as for searching the database, you'll definitely get fuller results if you search the CAS# of the compound with the aquatic query restricted to plants. I searched for NaCl results myself. I also converted my numbers to Na before saying hundreds or thousands, and the absolute lowest applicable NOEL converted was still over 100ppm Na. The only thing that showed up lower would be algae that you'd want dead anyhow.

If you've been hanging around planted aquaria for more than a few days, you tend to be aware of EI. If you're keeping a planted tank and dosing 15ppm of PO4 a week, then you're definitely using classic EI; nothing else comes remotely close. Tom specifically cranked up the PO4 with his original methods way beyond any plant requirements to show people that PO4 doesn't induce algae as was previously cemented into the mind of the hobby. Even then, the exact levels of classic EI aren't advertised these days. I only know it happens in EI classic because I converted the teaspoons to approximate weight in grams and then ppm dosed from the "EI light" article. I use EI myself and dose 2-4ppm of PO4 at most; it's considered an acceptable non-limiting level.

If you're not pulling EI, but find yourself dosing macros, you're probably using a phosphate limiting method. Even if you're not, I don't know of a method that calls for over 5ppm PO4/wk.

Now, even at 5ppm of PO4 you're only dosing 1.4ppm of Na. Even 30% once a month would make for a max of 24ppm Na from fleet enema. I'd say at 5ppm PO4 you're dosing for mid to high light and non-limiting nutrient methods that will push your growth out pretty fast. Most of us WC when we trim as a matter of keeping dead plant matter down, and a 30% WC per month is what you're doing before keeping sensitive fish. By the time you know how to pull off all of this at the same time without impending disaster, you'll need to be very aware of how aquariums function to the point where something simple like Na in sodium phosphate is rather obvious.

Outside of that, everyone I've seen who tries to figure out dosing without at least having a very good understanding of existing methods runs into problems quite quickly. It's rare that I've seen a newbie OD their nutrients; most have gotten old advice. If it's not old advice, they tend to think of it the same as eutrophication that has algae as the front liner as a problem rather than macrophytes. 

There are only two reasons for newcomers to overdose their nutrients that I have seen. The first has involved people who have caught on to an existing method but have followed it wrong, in which case they're already reading forums. The other source is often those who have cheaped out on micros and grabbed something high Cu from a terrestrial source.

In summary, by the time you're ODing the Na from fleet, you'll have bigger problems on your hands no matter which way you look.

I hope this helps with the entire issue. If anyone wants this post and cost brushed up with better mat/sources supporting things, just let me know. "You can use enema kits to dose your tank!" is the sort of thing that's not going to die as a topic, it looks older (i'm seeing it back to 2004 APD list on fins.actwin), and I haven't seen serious writing about it yet.


----------



## goldier

Dan, no worry  As stated earlier, I like to extract useful info and learn from these discussions. And you're one of the resourceful people who can objectively evaluate conflicting information from various sources and dispel their myths. So I don't feel offended at the disagreement or refutation that are evidence-based, and with good sciences behind them, sarcasm or not haha, but maybe better if we keep it out or minimal so we can objectively see the points being presented without getting too worked up emotionally 

That said, I have some more comments on what you wrote.



> When referencing the Ecotox database, you must understand that these are aquatic plants... limnologists in North America understand them as, "That weed I'm paid to kill." As such, most of your studies from the EPA are going to be from weed like species that you can use as a loose comparison. Ludwigia spp even qualifies; I recently read a journal doing threat assessment. Like it or not, it's the best you'll get for the least amount of time. Every now and then you'll get lucky if you go googling for individual papers, and someone will have done a study on a bryophyte that isn't related to complaints to the fish and game department because it gets stuck in boat props.


I thought you liked ECOTOX as you first brought it up. Surely, no one can research everything, so we rely on the expertise of others when we need to confirm and make a decision on important matter. Peer reviews and studies that are published in respected journals are always preferred over many google and wikipedia searches, although the google searches sometimes point you to the journals. Meta analysis of many studies in one writeup is an excellent time-saving approach. In my main hobby (not viewed as "work" yet ) I do group journals/studies review every week to make decision on cases, and that takes most of my time from participating in many other aquatic forums, but I gravitate toward APC because of its diverse views from simple setup of El Natural to elaborate CO2 compression and dosing techniques, and other methods somewhere in between. It's more interesting to see different approaches to achieve (mostly) the same goal.



> If it's an ornamental macrophyte and there's valuable studies on it, then the research tends to be done by companies growing the stuff that are looking for a market edge. These people will not just give you information about optimal growth conditions specific to the species.


I see the same way, more of funding sources and competitive advantages that a public agency like the EPA can't match. Not a good place for finding such in-depth information. You seem to intimately know a lot about their shortcomings. BTW, limit of 1000 ppm NaCl on aquatic plants are what many sources reference, and it would be over 100 ppm Na as you estimated. Either way.



> Now, even at 5ppm of PO4 you're only dosing 1.4ppm of Na. Even 30% once a month would make for a max of 24ppm Na from fleet enema. I'd say at 5ppm PO4 you're dosing for mid to high light and non-limiting nutrient methods that will push your growth out pretty fast. Most of us WC when we trim as a matter of keeping dead plant matter down, and a 30% WC per month is what you're doing before keeping sensitive fish. By the time you know how to pull off all of this at the same time without impending disaster, you'll need to be very aware of how aquariums function to the point where something simple like Na in sodium phosphate is rather obvious.


The example I used earlier was based on your max dosing of 15 ppm - I made the assumption it was for weekly dosing at such high dose, so I could look into Na concentration. PO4 accumulation with proper dosing does not pose a problem because plants use it a lot, and as plants grow bigger, they use more PO4. The Na is not consumed and can accumulate (how long depends on how much and how often it enters the aquarium) to unsafe level with any WC that is less than 50%. A series of sequential calculations or a short computer program would show this effect. Of course, the whole functioning of a tank should be assessed, but the contributing factors imparted from each variable constitute an entire picture. If the other variables cause more impending disaster that must be rectified asap, the accumulation of Na may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean it won't continue to accumulate at the current setting.

The analogy of Na accumulation when using Fleet with less than 50% WC can be extended to other elements that are overly added and not consumed. It's fine it you disagree but I've not yet been convinced otherwise after I reviewed my calculations, and so will leave it at that. Being an experimental kind of guy, I'll put this salinity study on my list to carry out later in a planted tank.



> Outside of that, everyone I've seen who tries to figure out dosing without at least having a very good understanding of existing methods runs into problems quite quickly. It's rare that I've seen a newbie OD their nutrients; most have gotten old advice. If it's not old advice, they tend to think of it the same as eutrophication that has algae as the front liner as a problem rather than macrophytes.


From my observation when gardening on land, noob gardeners often over fertilize their plants (been there, done that), many noob aquarists tend to do on either extreme, IMO, that they are afraid of algae to fert, or they OD it. Although for the earlier reason, they can read your extensive info on algae few posts above and set aside such fear. In general, if people don't know or do not understand the reasons why they do what they do, they can still follow closely proven methods like EI, or El Natural and maintain a healthy and beautiful aquarium, but many aquarists have very inquisitive minds, so they often end up to become quite knowledgeable.

Ya, I am now the one who rambles, lol. Oh well, have a good weekend everyone.


----------



## DVS

goldier said:


> So now, a salinity equivalence of 11 ppm NaCl is added to the aquarium weekly per PO4 dosing of 15 ppm from Fleet Enema. With a 20% weekly water change, a simple calculation shows the salinity would continue to rise over several weeks to exceed the 1000 ppm limit...


You might want to check your math. The 11 ppm added weekly with 20% water changes comes out to a max of 55 ppm.


----------



## Philosophos

goldier said:


> I thought you liked ECOTOX as you first brought it up.


I love the Ecotox database in much the same way that someone dieing of starvation might love a can of spam. It's pretty much my best and only choice that's way better than what I had before, but it's still not exactly what I want.



goldier said:


> It's more interesting to see different approaches to achieve (mostly) the same goal.


I completely agree there. I think the big thing right now is still finding the best way to give the average person healthy growth without algae. So much of it is personally defined by what is aesthetically acceptable, so the number of methods keeps on growing.



goldier said:


> The example I used earlier was based on your max dosing of 15 ppm - I made the assumption it was for weekly dosing at such high dose, so I could look into Na concentration. PO4 accumulation with proper dosing does not pose a problem because plants use it a lot, and as plants grow bigger, they use more PO4.


Yes, but you're not going to have PO4 uptake that's higher than N uptake, and you'll be lucky to have anything less than a high light tank sucking up more than 20ppm of NO3. PO4 uptake at that rate doesn't tend to go up over a couple ppm per week.



goldier said:


> The Na is not consumed and can accumulate (how long depends on how much and how often it enters the aquarium) to unsafe level with any WC that is less than 50%. A series of sequential calculations or a short computer program would show this effect.


I've played with accumulation numbers often enough to figure out my own dosing. Lets say we're dosing a fully overblown 15ppm of PO4 giving 4.2ppm of Na a week. Here's what it looks like doing 20% water changes every week, starting from an already established level of 4.2ppm:

4.2 + 4.2-4.2 * 0.2 = 7.56
7.56 + 4.2 - 7.56 * 0.2 = 10.2480

Now, continuing the above pattern with a spreadsheet this is what happens:

12.3984
14.1187
15.4950
16.5960
17.4768
18.1814
18.7451
19.1961
19.5569
19.8455
20.0764
20.2611
20.4089
20.5271
20.6217
20.6974
20.7579

As you can see, the quantity it builds by is slowing. Even after 1000 iterations, the level of Na never climbs above 20.999...

The relationship is as such:

Weekly Dose * 100 / % Weekly WC as a regular # = Max Concentration

So for the above:

=4.2*100/20
=4.2*5
=21

Now, I said 20.999... but after all, .999 = 1

This is all without any consideration for uptake as well.



goldier said:


> From my observation when gardening on land, noob gardeners often over fertilize their plants (been there, done that), many noob aquarists tend to do on either extreme, IMO, that they are afraid of algae to fert, or they OD it. Although for the earlier reason, they can read your extensive info on algae few posts above and set aside such fear. In general, if people don't know or do not understand the reasons why they do what they do, they can still follow closely proven methods like EI, or El Natural and maintain a healthy and beautiful aquarium, but many aquarists have very inquisitive minds, so they often end up to become quite knowledgeable.


While I can't say I share your experience with newbies overdosing (Cu from a terrestrial-intended micronutrient being the exception), I agree that a lot of us are very inquisitive. Not only are we inquisitve, but we are disastrously inquisitive often enough. The newer we are, the less information we're working off of, and the more potentially disastrous our choices can become just trying to do the simple things. I wouldn't be surprised if someone screwed up their math and regularly dosed 150ppm of PO4 through fleet enema rather than 15. The difference between needing 3 and 30ml is an easy mistake.


----------



## goldier

Thanks DVS. I stand corrected! The other night, I made the mistake somewhere when I punched in the numbers to the stacks on my HP calculator.

It’s been a long time since I write any codes, but I just wrote a short C program to play around with the % WC and the amount added, and the following pattern emerges:

For an X amount a substance added and not consumed weekly, along with weekly WC, the maximum amount accumulated over time for

WC_____Max
70% --> 1.4X
50% --> 2X 
20% --> 5X
10% --> 10X

Now, you can look behind me to make sure 

So other than the cost that Dan mentioned, the Na in Fleet would not cause harm for the plants, even at 10% WC if 11 ppm of NaCl is added weekly in long term. I don’t know about certain species of fish that may be affected, but I would look at the relationship of %WC and maximum accumulation to limit the amount added. It's helpful for me to see such relationship, I enjoyed my discovery.


----------



## goldier

Hey Dan, we cross-posted. It's good to see the relationship presented in the simple formula in your post for easy reference.


----------

