# The niko says high tech can't go a week with no maintenance thread



## wet

Ohai niko!

First off, I don't know why you'd ever want to go months or weeks without playing with your aquarium, but whatever. 

Stats:
40 gallon breeder
Old Aquasoil + newer RedSea Florabase
Lots of ferts, lots of CO2
The cute wave maker power head + AquaClear HOB
150w Metal Halide. Bulb is maybe 8 months use. (It was unused for about two years between my last tank and this one.)
1 female Blue Paradise fish. No algae eaters: not even snails or shrimp.
Tank is a little over 2 months old.

October 28th. Water change, cleaned glass, big dose.









No more maintenance. Left the CO2 and lights on their regular timers.

This morning, November 5th, after returning from AGA 2012.









Love you.


----------



## Aquat

What's up with the community and this Niko fella'? From all my times here, browsing and what not. I've always manage to sometime find 'upsetting' posts targeting other members. 

I thought this is suppose to be a friendly interactive forum where people can help and share knowledge with each other.


----------



## wet

niko is seriously one of the most informative gardeners on the Internet and has driven some amazing conversations. He is one of many gardeners that post on APC because APC is special. Shooting the, um, ferts with fellow gardeners is fun. 

That's not to say things don't get weird on the Internet. But click around some more. The guys here drive this hobby for the US. niko is one of the many reasons it is my favorite plant nerd community. 

(But a shout out to the barrreport.com )


----------



## houseofcards

Wet your so politically correct, LOL.


----------



## neilshieh

niko is a great guy full of knowledge. :3 i'm interested in seeing how this goes... maybe i'll get back into submersed culture again haha


----------



## wet

I'm wet and I approve this message.


----------



## fraviz

wet said:


> I'm wet and I approve this message.


:cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::cheer2: Election day


----------



## wet

badonka bump. While I prefer high maintenance/high tech, I'm trying to acknowledge there's more than one way to do it, and there are few absolutes in gardening.

That tank over time and with a greater variety of plants (couple more months on the regular schedule) became this (sorry for the ramble, had the flu):


----------



## Zapins

wet said:


> i'm wet and i approve this message.


+1


----------



## niko

Sorry for not posting.

I finally figured out that coming to APC makes me a little psycho. Fighting geniuses and their amazing popular ideas often seems like a completely pointless task. So I stayed away for a while. Internet aquarist is not the same as real life aquarist, that's for sure. Second kind is better, trust me.

Wet,

The following is written with great appreciation of your humorous approach to what I say. I myself always mix a good dose of self-sarcasm in what I say so I really appreciate a challenge issued in the same style! Here's my response:

Ok, so you win. Your high light and overdosed tank stays crystal clean forever even if you leave the state for a long, long time. I honesly do not know why that tank didn't follow my views and develop algae from under the gravel to above the rim. I have no answer. I suggest you hold a laptop in front of the tank with anythng that I've written. Give the tank a chance to hear me and go bad.

But even without trying to save my image as a person that, no doubt, knows everything I can find quite a few things to say that also have no answer or, more importantly - most enthusiasts do not think about them:

- Your tank is established. Well established. This is very different from a new or shaky balanced tank. How many people know that there is a huge difference?

- Your tank has rich substrate. EI and PPS stress on chemicals floating in the water. Most enthusiasts see "ferts in the water" as the main thing that runs a planted tank. How often does Tom Barr or Edward say anything about the tank being a system? Over the years both EI and PPS "methods" have come closer to what ADA does (rich substrate, low level of ferts in the water but they are there) - EI added rich substrate to the copious fertilizing of the water and PPS reduced the amount of ferts that where suggested in the original version of PPS. But for most people ferts in the water are the stars of the show. How many people know how EI and PPS have evolved? How many people know where ADA's super-duper methods came from? How many people have a notion what exactly is a Dutch tank? A German tank? How many people see the substrate as insurance against anything that can go wrong in the plant nutrition? Compare that to the number of folk, new and old, that keep asking what kind of deficiency is this here and what more to add to fix it.

- I assume that your Halide light is on at least 8 hours a day. Could be 11. A 150W Halide over a 40 gallon tank and that close to the water surface is a lot of light. But how is strong light bad if your substrate can handle any nutrient defficiencies that might occur? Your plants gobbled up all the N in 2 days - the substrate has tons... No more obscure trace element XYZ in the water - the substrate has tons... And so on. So my question is: How many people look at the light and at the substrate as connected with a thick, straight, and glowing red line?

- Where are the fish in that tank? Most folk like fish you know. More than a lonely Paradise fish. "Many and cheap!" from what I can tell from the import business that doesn't exist any more. But why do I even mention the fish? You yourself added a few shovels of ferts before you left the building for a week right? A few more fish would not matter. But they may introduce biochemicals that bind or release nutrients in a seemingly random fashion. The point here is, once again - the tank is a system with a bunch of variables. Look at ADA - they have chosen to eliminate one of the big variables - the fish. Their tanks are always lightly stocked. Hm? Are you and your lonely Paradise fish trying to trick me here?

- And the best point of them all: How many people you know actually know what is a stable planted tank? I've said that many times before: A tank that you can neglect so bad that it evaporates almost 50% and nothing goes bad in it? Hight light, low light, high CO2, overfeed or starve the fish - none of that matters. The loud splashing sound of the water wakes you up at night and the white salt deposits on the dry glass - these are the only 2 bad things about it. Ah yes - there is a way to kill the plants - if you shut off the CO2 the half empty tank goes to hell in about 2 days. Other than that the tank is bomb proof. How many people even know that such thing exists? Compare that number to the vast number of people that dump ferts in their water, do water changes, and defend that hectic activities with fervent passion. I will take a wild guess and say that the tank you showed us is exactly one of these super stable tanks. Now I'd like to ask someone how to make tanks like that every single time. Do you or anyone you know knows the exact steps? Apparently even Amano doesn't because his tanks require not only daily fertilizing and weekly water changes but also at some point he insist you buy some of his bottom injected ferts + the fancy injector. Commercial interest will make a person not know certain things  But yes, a non-commercial entity can make a tank stable like yours. Or a hands free, Wi-FI, pilotless drone tank like this high tech one:









Excuse me now, I'm on to YouTube to spam all of Wet's videos with praises, nothing less, in Bulgarian.


----------



## wet

I'm just going to kind of cut to the point I'm most excited about: daveguitarfish is awesome. ( Though, come on, guitarfish.org has been Kris Weinhold forever, and this guy's use of the unique username is lame unless this guy is actually Kris.) I fanboy you on the Internet and saw your updates to his videos; get this guy to post to APC.

In these years in this hobby, I've grown into my own kind of grumpy old gardener, too, man. I set my tanks up the way I like them because I know how I like them. But you're right: how do we propagate that information and ultimately help newcomers? We're talking about years of trying different stuff and leaning what we like and getting our method down into numbered steps. How do you do that?

What I think you dismiss is that EI, PPS-Pro, Seachem, ADA, and the rest have *tried* to quantify that. Some folks made money. Some folks consulted or maintained tanks or whatever for money. And some grumpy old gardeners just did it they way they liked it. I think your points show this process is broken.

But then this davidguitarfish guy does it. I remember a GGhori video of some shrimp tank a few years ago where I saw some things that made me rethink how I did things. I totally fanboy awesome gardeners and watch how certain people grow certain things. Is the next step in Internet gardening showing a 10 minute video of your tank and ranting for a while? Is the next step that guys like us rant on an internet forum for a while?

(I hope so! It's just gardening and should not be so hard!)

So I'm just going to talk about this tank and a couple of other old tanks for a while. I hope you don't mind. I'm totally excited because outside this internet no one I know really cares that much about these tanks 



> - Your tank is established. Well established. This is very different from a new or shaky balanced tank.


You got me thinking about what 'established' means.

If this is age and maturity, no, this is not a mature tank and was started from small mass in early September. This is a relatively young tank. If this is in terms of bacterial colony, yeah, it's mature.

Some history: this tank -- as in the five planes of glass -- has been around for a few years ( http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/paludariums/59324-my-thingy-40g-breeder.html ) and always had substrate and fish in it, but due to life things became mostly unplanted with jumped/given away/reducing fish population for most of past >year until I moved to my new place, then it sat for a few more months with just the substrate and a few floating plants (no filter, no light) until I got a chance to restart it. All I did was vacuum out most of the substrate then topped it with new substrate when restarting the tank.

This was the tank restarted, week 3 or so (9/29/2012). 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/252180403983630336









Week later (10/4/2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/254069650357379072









You have the late October/early November pics in the OP of course. No new plants added to the aquarium in this time frame here. Just trimming and propagation.

If established means established plants: yes! And you know, I never thought of it this way before. I have told gardeners that I am just not interested in starting tanks with tons of plants any more. I think that's a beginner thing. I like growing and building a tank from very little plant mass to lots of plant mass. I think this turns into more natural bushes and lines and scapes. This is just my opinion.

But now I think I am giving my plants an opportunity to establish strong root systems to take advantage of the substrate, which is exactly what happens with those dense plants after the nth trimming. Which leads nicely to...



> - I assume that your Halide light is on at least 8 hours a day. Could be 11. A 150W Halide over a 40 gallon tank and that close to the water surface is a lot of light. But how is strong light bad if your substrate can handle any nutrient defficiencies that might occur? Your plants gobbled up all the N in 2 days - the substrate has tons... No more obscure trace element XYZ in the water - the substrate has tons... And so on. So my question is: How many people look at the light and at the substrate as connected with a thick, straight, and glowing red line?


You're right: 10 hours a day on a timer. I'm a little paranoid/superstitious about light and regularly do things like leave it off for during the normal cycle if I know I'll be hosting a party or something and want 6 hours of light in the evening.

I think strong light is awesome because of it's effect on plants. I like when stuff creeps or bends or show interesting characteristics. I'm an R. mexicana 'Goias' fan, for example. I don't think light is very important when it comes to simply growing plants, and my backup is many healthy tanks over the years at many light levels. There's a little something extra with high light.

To your substrate connected to light point, yes yes yes. I forget who originally said it, but someone (water column doser, high CEC and mature substrate user) said they think of their substrate as a sink. When they overdosed, some stuff got into the substrate. If they ever underdosed, their substrate would cover the mistake. That gardener is doing it right and I've stolen this wisdom many times since.



> - Where are the fish in that tank? Most folk like fish you know. More than a lonely Paradise fish. "Many and cheap!" from what I can tell from the import business that doesn't exist any more. But why do I even mention the fish? You yourself added a few shovels of ferts before you left the building for a week right? A few more fish would not matter. But they may introduce biochemicals that bind or release nutrients in a seemingly random fashion. The point here is, once again - the tank is a system with a bunch of variables. Look at ADA - they have chosen to eliminate one of the big variables - the fish. Their tanks are always lightly stocked. Hm? Are you and your lonely Paradise fish trying to trick me here?


Yeah I know  This is something I've tried explaining to people but no one gets it, but maybe you will. She was actually spawn born and hid out as fry and matured in this tank: it's the only tank she's ever known! In that thread above you'll find this was a thriving community tank with breeding Paradise fish, Otos, SAE, White Cheeked Gobies, and so on over the years. This holds a warm spot for me, but frankly I want to go in a different direction and maybe do a mostly-species-only tank for, I don't know, maybe Pencilfish or Psuedomugil sp. or Sparkling Gourami or Shrimp or something. The tank's Paradise Lady is kind of ornery and I'm slowly introducing her to new friends. That said there's now Otos and a Bristlenose Pleco in there! The lady really does seem to want some friends.

Even if this was a started-from-bare tank, though, it'd be right around now that I'd be ramping up my fish stock. I don't like stocking a tank until I get the CO2 and dosing and light and scape down. I know I've gotten all that stuff down when my plants are growing and the tank looks good. That all takes me a few weeks.

But yeah, that all comes from growing lots of tanks and gardening for a while...



> How many people know that there is a huge difference?





> - And the best point of them all: How many people you know actually know what is a stable planted tank? I've said that many times before





> How many people know where ADA's super-duper methods came from? How many people have a notion what exactly is a Dutch tank? A German tank? How many people see the substrate as insurance against anything that can go wrong in the plant nutrition?


Well, that's the thing about Walstad, EI, PPS-Pro, the APD, Tropica as a system, ADA as a system, SeaChem as a system, various manufacturer systems, this daveguitarfish guy, and all the wonderful forum posts over the years: folks should grow a stable planted tank first, then mess with the details. And there's lots of ways to grow a stable tank!

I'll tell you the gardener who has most blown my mind recently: DonaldmBoyer. Look at this hotness:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...are-200-gallon-part-thrice-10.html#post646208

That guy is doing things with plants I have never done. I read how he does it and fanboy that guy. Is what he's doing really that different than what the rest of us are doing? Do I think DonaldmBoyer is going to ever post some single step solution ("hey guys, just dose magicsauce to get all-time great reds!") to do what he does?

Can we agree there's a difference between growing plants (respectfully, I think this is where your examples are, although in definitely nice scapes) and *growing* reference quality plants? How about if we agree to disagree about those rewards vs the cost of caring about fertilizers/etc?



> Most enthusiasts see "ferts in the water" as the main thing that runs a planted tank. How often does Tom Barr or Edward say anything about the tank being a system? Over the years both EI and PPS "methods" have come closer to what ADA does (rich substrate, low level of ferts in the water but they are there) - EI added rich substrate to the copious fertilizing of the water and PPS reduced the amount of ferts that where suggested in the original version of PPS. But for most people ferts in the water are the stars of the show.


So this is the one I have been building up for, because, you know, with my calculators and everything I am totally as guilty of this as anyone. But here's the thing you're missing: DIY fertilizers are cheap. This means the newcomer can experiment with different levels -- $20/year for an avid experimenter is really not very different than $20/3 years for the frugal doser. They can play to their heart's content. And the calculators are built such that you can use many methods, and it compares to Walstad's values from Ecology of the Planted Aquarium AND it's the most translated calculators on the internet! These are good!

But you're right, ferts are a small part. Just remember that:

1) Substrate is expensive, whether that's AquaSoil/etc or the time/mess to acquire bits and DIY it.
2) Lights are expensive
3) Rimless tanks are expensive. Framed tanks are less expensive but still time consuming to move/get stands for/etc.
4) Filters? CO2? Come on.

I think folks attach to fertilizers naturally. You are right that too many first-time gardeners misunderstand these tools and think of them as magic solutions or that a certain water number will solve all their problems or so on. It's a system, true. You're missing that one of the parts of the system is easier to play with than the rest.

BUT:

1) New folks can totally grow their first tanks with inert gravel and water column dosing. We have many examples of this. This was my first successful tank.
2) New folks can totally grow their first tanks with Walstad's methods and little maintenance. I have done this and was bored.
3) New folks can totally grow their first tanks with the SeaChem line. Many folks have done this.
4) New folks can totally grow their first tanks with the ADA line. Many folks have done this.

So when we think about how to bring newcomers in, why should we diss all these methods that have clearly worked for newcomers? In a way, aren't all these things doing the same thing?

Another way of saying it: why does niko's method have to stomp on or diss other methods? Why does daveguitarfish's? Why does it have to be the best method or the new standard? Why can't it be another way to grow a tank?

Ultimate point:

How's the rest of APC setting up their tanks? What do you like and dislike?


----------



## niko

I can't believe you can actually argue in a normal fashion without trying to find who's right who's wrong. I know one other person like that. I hear French are that way too but I don't have first hand experience. I tried hard to find the point where you call me stupid but it wasn't there. Instead there was a broad outlook on issues that will move this hobby forward. Thank you.

I will have to read your post again and reply later. But I think that this thread will not really turn into a 15K views like the one about making a dirt cheap gizmo yourself. Maybe we can also talk about how to approach this common situation - when the important things are ignored in favor of the popular and specific.


----------



## wet

Heh, I actually think the opposite. One of my favorite things about this hobby, or really anything I like, is that you can either do it or you can't. Some folks can *grow* plants. When I filter my learning to those folks, then see how so many of them have so much in common, but there's lots of ways to do it, and only really argue for the sake of shooting it around... 

I like this hobby.


----------



## wet

Hey niko: check out how DogFish is doing it. 




http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/86498-dogfishs-40-a.html

Nice.


----------



## Michael

I'm so glad you boys are playing nicely! I've actually been avoiding this thread for fear that I would have to be Dad, and separate you. That is my least favorite thing to do as a moderator.

*"How's the rest of APC setting up their tanks? What do you like and dislike?"*

An excellent question! I started with the Walstad method, it worked very well the first time and I accomplished everything I wanted to do with that tank. So I stayed with it, gradually modifying it to suit myself.

The changes to the method that I have experimented with are:

1. Increased circulation and more biofiltration. I like this because it makes the tank even more resilient and I can keep more fish. Besides, the plants look cool swaying in the current.

2. Higher light. I am inching into this because of the way it makes the plants look.

3. Very high CEC substrate. Walstad tanks always have high CEC substrate because of the soil, but I don't settle for an inert cap. I want Turface or Safe-T-Sorb, or some other clay product.

4. More frequent water changes. By that I mean ROUGHLY 25% twice a month. This is motivated primarily by fish-keeper's guilt, not because anything bad seems to happen when I don't do it.

Maybe some day I will play with CO2 supplementation. But for now, I have come nowhere near the limits of what I can accomplish with the four modifications above.


----------



## niko

Wet,

I don't think the Guitarfish guy with the RO tank is Kris. The RO Guitarfish guy name is Dave from what I can tel. 

I met the original Guitarfish guy (Kris) some years ago at a very cool gathering at a lake house. There were people from Houston and from up North. Now that seems like "good old days".

I sent a message to the RO Guitarfish guy few days ago and he seems to be a very humble fellow. I'm almost sure he doesn't even know about the original Guitarfish guy. In the "good old days" such a humble guy would not get too much attention if he said he was sick of popular but questionable ways to run a planted tank. I think that the times are different now and more and more people are starting to see that a tank can be kept pristinely clean and super healthy by dosing the water very carefully and using rich substrate. So the RO Guitarfish guy is part of the spirit of the times.

So here's how I setup a planted tank:

First of all - I have not setup a tank from scratch for years now. It's all tanks that have been running for a while, had fish only, or neglected plants and fish. And old substrate does make a big difference because there are processes and organisms that establish themselves only after a long time has passed. Old substrate contributes a great deal to the stability of a tank for sure. Consequently - starting brand new is not the best.

Normally I start a tank with inert substrate. Not following what I've been screaming about the last 2 years or so on the internet. I run the CO2 and the lights from Day 1. No manipulation of light period, CO2 off at night etc. Normally I get algae in this first stage and that is why I'm very interested in how to start a tank without algae. The first 3 months (Luis Navarro will tell you 6-8 months) are very shaky for any tank.

So the recurring experience of not knowing how to address the issues in the first few months has lead me to look for ways to have more control. There is nothing new invented in the last several decades. Just a few small improvements, the most notable one being the widespread use of CO2. Looking back I got to say it is not rocket science as I thought it was. That's why it really irritates me to see how much ignorance is floating around. Misleading concepts, unreal expectations, never questioning anyhthing, never having a good answer how to handle issues, and so on.

My emotions aside the best and most succesful tanks, care free and healthy, that I have setup or have had setup in my house have been with something in the substrate to feed the plants and very clean water without any or with very little fertilizers. One of these tanks is going strong for 5-th year now and since day 1 has had zero algae. Crypts, anubias, very low light and DIY CO2 every so often. I trim this tank every single week or else. The fish provide fertilizing and it is very little. I never add anything. 10" crypt leaves are not uncommon.

The next good tank I've had was started with inert substrate, tons of light, tons of CO2 and no fertilizing whatsoever. Because of the strong light and CO2 the plants somehow grew to some point. Some better than others. The tank was so clean that looked artificial. The algae was apparently non-existent because putting one single pellet of dry food on the surface of the tank made the 10 or so Amanos in the tank go completely crazy smelling the food. Fertilizing at some point (very light!) lead to ultra heavy perling and super fast growth. The Java Fern was fresh green even on the back, by the bottom, where there was no light at all. First time I took cuttings to the LFS the guy offered me $40 credit right away - figure out how much I had brought. Tank was a 55...

Tank that Luis Navarro setup in my house for a club meeting eons ago. Technically not a tank I setup but I had the honor to neglect it fully for 3 months or so. Luis put a bunch of crap on the bottom, stuff he said it was plant food back in the day when AquaSoil was seen only on pictures in the USA. Capped it with EcoComplete. I only topped off the tank with tap water, not even water changes. In 3 months the 10 dwarf shrimp had turned into 200-300 and the tank was full of super healthy Glosso, moss, anubias, and Java Fern. I could not figure out how. Well, Luis knew what he was putting under that EcoComplete. What I could not figure out was how come plants grow without dumping stuff in the water every other day as Tom Barr, a celebrity in its prime, was teaching everybody. 

Because adding fertilizert to the water seemed so cool and advanced about that time I started to experiment with adding this or that fertilizer so I can see if the plants react in a predictable way. Serendipitously, by accident, I developed a way to start a planted tank and keep it clean all while knowing EXACTLY how it will react to this or that intervention. I described this in a thread here on APC 2 or so years ago. It has "SubZero" in the title I think. Basically you feed the plants only as much as they will take to grow. You start by adding the K,Ca and Mg, then the N and P, then the Fe and Trace. What happens is pretty interesting - you end up adding fertilizers in minor amounts and the plants gobble them up withing 1 hour or less. The water is completely void of ferts but the plants look amazing. With the increasing of plant mass you add more ferts than the initial stages. At some point you have such a good feel what is going on that you can accelerate or stop dead the plant growth at your will. The thing that I never paid attention to was the substrate. I used inert substrate and fertilized the water because Tom said so, right. My version of that unnatural idea worked very well.

About 4 years ago I found a monumental work in Russian that explained the ins and outs of all popular planted tank approaches. It singled out ADA's method as the only correct way. Because of the way it was all written you could not argue with what was said. That reading gave me a perspective. And it lead me to spin off center on APC because I clearly saw how wrong are the popular views. Simply put - the the planted tank is a system of many parts and there are rules of running it that were discovered long before Amano. Ironically enough today we are discovering them again, and it looks like it is happening on an individual basis.


So the next tank I wil setup from scratch will have:
- Rich substrate (AquaSoil for sure for many reasons)
- VERY strong light (LEDs being part of it for sure)
- CO2
- Very light fertilizing in the water. Daily.


----------



## Newt

Try that with a fish load - like 25 to 30 fish - and let us know what happens.


----------



## niko

Newt said:


> Try that with a fish load - like 25 to 30 fish - and let us know what happens.


So are we after plants here or after plants + tons of fish, or after talking about what makes sense in a broader scale?


----------



## Michael

Newt said:


> Try that with a fish load - like 25 to 30 fish - and let us know what happens.


I keep that many in my 40 gallon Walstad tank with no problem.


----------



## Newt

Isn't a Walstad tank Low tech?

Niko, most people keep more than one fish in their tank and I think it would be a better test to see what happens in other conditions with Hi-Tech set-ups.


----------



## niko

Sorry Newt, I misunderstood what you said.

I think I have an answer what will happen with more fish. As I said in the long post above - when I ran a tank with lots of light + CO2 and very little water column ferts any time I added a bit more ferts in the water the plant went crazy pearling and growing. So I think that with a lot of fish such a tank will be, by design, a fast plant growing machine.

But there is something more interesting in your last question. "Isn't a Walstad tank low tech?". What is "low" and "high" tech nowadays?

Michael's famous and gorgeous Walstad tank:





That thing of beauty is supposedly "low tech". Meaning no ferts in the water, rich substrate, no CO2. But it gets sunlight. I'm not sure we want to know how many watts that is. Is this a low tech tank? You should see the vats of aquatic plants in Michael's garden - the light there is freaking vertical sunlight. Sun hitting the water surface every which way. And there are fish (some of them larger than some of my dogs) and we certainly do not want to know how much "liquid fertilizer" they make all day and all night.

High tech used to be lots of light + ferts in the water + lots of CO2 + substrate either way (inert or not).

But then - is an ADA tank high tech if it doesn't have a lot of ferts floating in the water 24/7?

Looks like nowadays the difference between "low" and "high" tech is only one: CO2. Assuming we ignore the CO2 being produced by the substrate and fish in non-CO2 supplied tank.

So how should I see that?

And more importantly - how looking at the low and high tech tanks as having more common points than we thought before helps us see a planted tank in a better, clearer way?


----------



## BruceF

What does ada make all this stuff for?

For efficient fertilization of nutrient elements which your plants require at each stage of their growth. For healthy growth of aquatic plants, a balanced supply of trace elements such as Iron, Boron or Molybdenum is necessary in the water. Furthermore, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium which are often called the three major (or macro) nutrients for plants, are also often found lacking in the aquarium. ADA adopted the STEP fertilization system which corresponds to each stage of growth, or growth Step of your aquatic plants. The Green Brighty STEP Series, enables efficient supplement of nutrient elements to meet the requirements of all your aquatic plants which change in time. A full line of specially formulated supplements were developed also to target specific issues such as color loss, stress after trimming, and algae resistance.

http://www.adgshop.com/Liquid_Fertilizers_s/2.htm


----------



## niko

Bruce,

I'm not sure what you are saying but if you are asking why ADA makes all the products to add to the tank then it is easy to answer.

First of all keep in mind that ADA is here not only to make our lives full of beauty and joy. This is about money. Their business approach is very subtle. Without going into details at the end of the whole circus we are all left with the conviction that ADA is the best. They are the best in convincing you that it is easy to run a planted tank their way. With their method and products. And that the best looking tanks are done in their "Nature" style. Never forget that this is all about money.

What we are talking about in this thread is the general notion that adding fertilizers to the water is the main way to keep the plants healthy AND keep the tank stable. Most people add way too much fertilizers. This leads to either ongoing issues or issues that pop up very fast all of a sudden. My personal take on that is that that's a wrong way to run a planted tank. Most people call it "another way to run a tank".

It is much more reasonable to feed the plants from the substrate + add just enough fertilizers to the water (but not have testable concentrations at all times). This is what makes the most sense for people that have run enough tanks to realize what is indeed working best.

And that is exactly what ADA is doing and selling - rich substrate + light fertilizing. I told you that their business approach is very subtle. They have not invented the idea of rich substrate + just enough ferts in the water. But we see their example and products as something out of this world. ADA has put on the market a very logical approach - staging the kind and amounts of fertilizers to match the different stages of the tank. But that last bit is a detail of the main approach - being careful with the ferts in the water. This main idea is what many people don't really see. As a whole we overfertilize and discuss fertilizers in the water too much because we've made them into something they are not - the main thing that makes the plants grow and keeps the tank stable. That is why this thread was started.


----------



## Michael

I think it would be good for the hobby if "high tech vs. low tech" would go the way of "watts per gallon". Neither are helpful to our understanding.

When I describe my tanks, I say that I don't do any CO2 supplementation. What I mean is that I don't use pressurized CO2 or an external fermentation device. But really, I do supplement CO2 by the way I set the tanks up and manage them.

I start off with a lot of organic material in the substrate, which decomposes and produces desirable CO2. (If you over-do it, it also produces undesireable things like H2S.) As that CO2 source declines, I add others: lots of fish, snails, fish food, and big biofilters full of respiring bacteria. My filtration does not disturb the water surface so CO2 loss is minimized. I suspect (but have not measured) CO2 levels in my aquaria are higher than they would be in a "clean" inert substrate tank. Certainly not as high as they would be with pressurized CO2 or fermentation, and not as consistent, but probably enough to make a difference.


----------



## wet

Maybe of interest to anyone looking to DIY this stuff as they experiment.


Code:


| Method/Product               | NO3  | PO4  | K     | Fe   | Frequency            |
| Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2  | 0.2  | 0.1   |      | daily                |
| Green Brighty Special SHADE  | 0.2  | 0.1  | 0.16  |      | daily                |
| Green Brighty Step 1         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.01 | daily first 3 months |
| Green Brighty Step 2         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.02 | daily after 3 months |
| Green Brighty Step 3         |      |      | 0.05  | 0.02 | daily after step2 ?  |
| Walstad's Model Aquarium     | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.5   | 2.0  | monthly              |

Notes:
I am getting ADA dosing by using Plantbrain's spectrometer results plus the dosing (1mL/5gal) from ADG. ADA has part of their N from NH3/4 though, so I standardized back to N and then got NO3 as an equivalent. (the calc does this.)
Walstad's values are from table V-7 "Nutrient Supply from Water Additions to the Model Aquarium"/page 87 of the second edition of Ecology of the Planted Aquarium.

Both methods assume nutritious substrate, of course.

Probably adding the ability to select the above as targets to the calculators after the new year.

Anyway, Newt, niko and Michael raise very interesting points about high tech vs low tech... what do you think about fast growth vs slow growth? I've been one of the folks using "high uptake" and "low uptake" for some time but that no one else uses it makes me thing it doesn't make sense to others.

niko,

Agree about substrate goodies in established tanks. My first months are rough too: this is why I had the UV in the first 3 weeks. My cloudiness from initital substrate pours tends to turn into green water, even with the established stuff because I have no saftey net (plants) to absorb the nutrients yet. I'm pretty sure it's the plants that are my insurance here because I can mess with substrate on an established tank with growing plants and get no green water. I do think the UV is cheating but frankly I am too impatient for other solutions and am really rough with rescaping (because I am bad at scaping) when starting a tank. 

I tend to agree about following the turtles all the way down to CO2, even considering Michael's points about his more naturally-occuring CO2, that's a sweet tank with no injection. CO2 makes everything easier. Maybe that's more "insurance."

Worth noting that water changes are my most valuable form of insurance. I can understand how this is impractical for other people.

Thinking about joining the bandwagon and doing a low water change tank. I just don't want to. Old grumpy gardeners and all...

Sorry for the ramble and fly by. More thoughts later.


----------



## niko

Wet,

Since I talk a lot and pretend I know things I don't in order to stir things and get them moving in a certain direction can I ask you to post in details how the ADA dosage is done so anyone can understand it. I personally do not know details other than that it is daily, tiny amounts of nutrients, some things are added only in the beginning, one product is for Ferns and such, and there is some Ammonia/um in one of the bottles.

What I'd like to also know is if ADA suggests adding more of the same fertilizer with the tank filling up with plants as they grow. 

Also - what is the ADG dosing? I guess Frank has posted something on TPT about that. It seems a bit strange to me that ADG has any kind of dosing. As an aquarium maintenance company they have no choice but not to dose when they are not there. Relying on the customers to feed the plants will never be a good plan - some will do it some won't.

Let's make this thread more informative.


----------



## niko

Just found this video. It's a high light tank with rich substrate and light fertilization:






And this is the setup:





Plus a very nice "first days" video:





Honestly, I really want to know what will happen to that tank if the guy stops fertilizing but continues to change the water as normal. With the discus there and quite a bit of cardinals I wonder if the nutrients will get out of proportion and algae will develop.

If that tank was 3 or so years old and had always been stable I do believe that he can do away with the added fertilizers. Still - these big fish add a huge unknown.


----------



## wet

Hey niko.

Yeah, sorry. re ADA calcs:

Plantbrain did a spectrometer analysis of the above ADA products, which is available to BarrReport.com subscribers. With his permission and contributions, this data became part of http://calc.petalphile.com / http://rotala.la along with many other products with many other manufacturer and molar weights.

You'll find those translated values here https://github.com/flores/yet-another-nutrient-calculator/blob/master/constants/ under commercial products (also many dry stuff in compounds).

After obtaining the amount in solution, I used commercial sites (ADG) to get "extended information" on the manufacturer's recommended dose. I then collected that data as ppm and posted the table above.

Yes, ADA does increase water column with system age/plant growth. This is clear.

An important note to realize is that DIY does not mean EI. A gardener can DIY and dose any level they wish. Lots of people halve their known long term dosing when starting a tank.

An important note to realize is that EI means you dose at least as much as the plants consume, then do water changes to limit any excess. Someone can dose their tank at 100% or 1% above plant uptake and still be using EI. Lots of folks forget this. The water change is just a safety net, just like niko and Michael are suggesting (I think) substrate is.

With a Python vs time for buckets, it can be a relatively cheap safety net.

(still flyby/phone and not seen video yet. interesting points)


----------



## BruceF

So lets have a little review. Here is a list of the things you put in an ADA substrate. This is taken from Frank’s thread on tpt.
ADA substrates. 
Penac P & Penac W
Tourmaline BC
Power Sand
Bacter 100
Clear Super
Aqua Soil


----------



## niko

BruceF said:


> So lets have a little review. Here is a list of the things you put in an ADA substrate. This is taken from Frank's thread on tpt.
> ADA substrates.
> Penac P & Penac W
> Tourmaline BC
> Power Sand
> Bacter 100
> Clear Super
> Aqua Soil


A note about the pretty long list above: I have a glass container with AquaSoil right behind me. It is a terrestrial plant pot for 3 kinds of plants. I've had it for more than a year now and I have to say the AquaSoil by itself provides everything for the growth of these terrestrial plants. Only thing you need to make sure is that the AquaSoil stays wet most of the time. It does not hold moisture very well.

AquaSoil could be the only substrate in a planted tank. That's exactly what many people do - use only AquaSoil and nothing else. Why are the other ingredients part of the ADA substrate I am not entirely clear. I do know what each one of them does. But 2 tanks - one with a susbtrate fully stuffed with everything ADA and another one with just AquaSoil will probably not be different to the eye. Yes, this is about selling products and making more money but there is probably more. I'd like to know how exactly they affect everything, especially in the long run.


----------



## niko

wet said:


> Hey niko.
> 
> Yeah, sorry. re ADA calcs:
> 
> Plantbrain did a spectrometer analysis of the above ADA products, which is available to BarrReport.com subscribers. With his permission and contributions, this data became part of http://calc.petalphile.com / http://rotala.la along with many other products with many other manufacturer and molar weights.
> 
> You'll find those translated values here https://github.com/flores/yet-another-nutrient-calculator/blob/master/constants/ under commercial products (also many dry stuff in compounds).
> 
> After obtaining the amount in solution, I used commercial sites (ADG) to get "extended information" on the manufacturer's recommended dose. I then collected that data as ppm and posted the table above.
> 
> Yes, ADA does increase water column with system age/plant growth. This is clear.


That was very interesting information. Especially the translation of the values from Japanese to DIY 

Interesting to kow that ADA increases the dosage with the plant growth. It'd be surprising to hear the opposite actually. Fertilize the same amount on day 30 and day 300? Hm... no.


----------



## niko

wet said:


> An important note to realize is that DIY does not mean EI. A gardener can DIY and dose any level they wish. Lots of people halve their known long term dosing when starting a tank.
> 
> An important note to realize is that EI means you dose at least as much as the plants consume, then do water changes to limit any excess. Someone can dose their tank at 100% or 1% above plant uptake and still be using EI. Lots of folks forget this. The water change is just a safety net, just like niko and Michael are suggesting (I think) substrate is.
> 
> With a Python vs time for buckets, it can be a relatively cheap safety net.
> 
> (still flyby/phone and not seen video yet. interesting points)


Here's why i find the above information interesting:

I think am just like most enthusiast on this hobby - I think I understand things because they are not very complicated really.

Here's how EI works in my mind:

1. I keep a constant excess of nutrients in the water. Day or night I can test my water to double check for the presence of the excess.

2. The excess fertilizers will allow the plants to grow very well because all food is available to them. I provide good light, CO2, etc of course.

3. I change water to avoid too much nutrient build up and to remove waste.

4. If algae appears there are 2 reasons - a nutrient defficiency is not allowing the plants to grow at their best or something polluted the water. I need to focus on making the plants grow well - I need to change water and get the nutrients back to good levels.

Ok, so that is how I understand EI. Maintain constant level of nutrients in the water provides "at least as much as they consume + some extra if it's needed". No defficiencies should occur.
The suggested concentrations are found everywhere:
N=5-15
P=0.5-1
K= 30
Ca+Mg to give you kH=3-4, (Mg:Ca = 1:4)
Fe=0.1
Traces
CO2=30

Is EI actually about adding "just enough" ferts on a regular basis? 
What is "just enough" for most people?

For ADA the "just enough" is an amount that is removed from the water within hours. If we look at the above numbers it doesn't seem that EI shares the same view. But is that how most people see it?


----------



## niko

Wet,

Today I'm starting to fertilize my LED lit tank. I added a tiny amount of N and P. Within 1 minute the plants responded with much faster pearling. It slowed down a bit in 10 min. but it is still faster than before adding the N and P. This is all fine and dandy but I need some guidelines of how much to keep on fertilizing. So here I go:

Can you clarify a few things? 

This table has numbers in ppm (mg/L), correct?
___________________________________________________________________________
| Method/Product | NO3 | PO4 | K | Fe | Frequency 
___________________________________________________________________________
| Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | | daily 
| Green Brighty Special SHADE | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.16 | | daily 
| Green Brighty Step 1 | | | 0.004 | 0.01 | daily first 3 months 
| Green Brighty Step 2 | | | 0.004 | 0.02 | daily after 3 months 
| Green Brighty Step 3 | | | 0.05 | 0.02 | daily after step2 ?
___________________________________________________________________________


- The Green Brightly Special Lights or Shade are used daily but when do you start using them?
- The Green Brighty Step 1 and 2 are used only after month 3 but how does ADA guarantee that I don't need Fe earlier?
- What is the "?" for Green Brighty Step 3 ("daily after step2 ?")?


----------



## BruceF

Niko 
I have no idea what all these ada products are. I appreciate the fact that Amano’s tanks are much more geared to specifics from what I have read but I don’t know what the products actually are. It is one reason I prefer to use the ei chemicals. I know what they are. If I were to fault the EI/CO2 method it would be on the basis of it being too general. I would prefer to know that for instance Vallisneria need hard water and what chemicals one would add to grow it well or that it is a plant that uses bicarbonates as a carbon source. I am re-reading Diana Walstad’s book right now and really appreciating her level of detail. I’ve never seen any of Christel Kasselmann’s books but I would appreciate a plant guide that noted this level of detail.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Whew! What an interesting discussion of actual information! (Although that sounds sarcastic, i'm really being serious here.) A couple of things stick out to me in this discussion that should be mentioned as the information needed to process all of this is all over the internet in forums, subscriptions, etc.

First of all, this post has to be the most interesting thing i've read online in a while:



wet said:


> Maybe of interest to anyone looking to DIY this stuff as they experiment.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> | Method/Product               | NO3  | PO4  | K     | Fe   | Frequency            |
> | Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2  | 0.2  | 0.1   |      | daily                |
> | Green Brighty Special SHADE  | 0.2  | 0.1  | 0.16  |      | daily                |
> | Green Brighty Step 1         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.01 | daily first 3 months |
> | Green Brighty Step 2         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.02 | daily after 3 months |
> | Green Brighty Step 3         |      |      | 0.05  | 0.02 | daily after step2 ?  |
> | Walstad's Model Aquarium     | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.5   | 2.0  | monthly              |
> 
> Notes:
> I am getting ADA dosing by using Plantbrain's spectrometer results plus the dosing (1mL/5gal) from ADG. ADA has part of their N from NH3/4 though, so I standardized back to N and then got NO3 as an equivalent. (the calc does this.)
> Walstad's values are from table V-7 "Nutrient Supply from Water Additions to the Model Aquarium"/page 87 of the second edition of Ecology of the Planted Aquarium.


Why do i find this interesting? Because it explains the dosage amounts of the ADA system, which allows us to compare them to the dosage amounts of the other common fertilizing systems, PPS Pro and EI. A long time ago, for a PAPAS presentation on fertilizing, I calculated the average daily dosage amounts of the EI system. If we construct a chart comparing EI, PPS Pro and the ADA systems, normalized to a daily dosage, you get the following chart (made to look like Wet's Chart for simplicity's sake here):



Code:


| Method/Product                   | NO3  | PO4  | K     | Fe   |
| ADA Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2  | 0.2  | 0.1   |      |
| ADA Green Brighty Special SHADE  | 0.2  | 0.1  | 0.16  |      |
| ADA Green Brighty Step 1         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.01 |
| ADA Green Brighty Step 2         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.02 |
| ADA Green Brighty Step 3         |      |      | 0.05  | 0.02 |
| Walstad's Model Aquarium         | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.5   | 2.0  |
| EI                               | 3-4  | 1-2  | 2-3   | 0.1  |
| PPS Pro                          | 1.0  | 0.1  | 1.3   | 0.1  |

So... looking at the daily added values, we can see that EI & PPS Pro both add a lot more fertilizer to the aquarium system. So why is there such a difference between the two systems? How does one deceifer the ADA dosing system? I would wager that the primary determining factors between the two systems are light, substrate and a secondary determining factor is philosophy.

But before we talk about that, I think something that's never spoken about but very important to talk about is the concept of nutrient demand (or kinetics). As a chemist, the fact that we never talk about this is maddening! Everyone talks about adding X amount of nutrients to the aquarium water column and hitting a target amount of Y ppm and measuring Z amount of nutrients in the water column... But nobody ever talks about nutrient demand - the amount of nutrients that the aquarium will take up in a given time frame (let's normalize the time frame to 1 day for this discussion)! Nutrient demand can be measured by taking a reading of a nutrient before the lights come on and taking a reading of the nutrient the next day (also before the lights come on). The difference in the two values is the nutrient demand. The whole concept of fertilizing is to add enough nutrients to the aquarium in order to keep the plants growing or to keep up w/ the rate of nutrient demand. That's it. (The whole idea of target ppm is to establish what a non-limiting value of the nutrient in the water column would be - This will be discussed in more detail later, during the philosophy section.)

Light is often times described as the factor that drives the overall growth rate of the aquarium. In the ADA (and Walstad system to a certain extent), the lighting is kept in the medium to low range. The par values for several aquariums in ADA systems in Japan as well as the US stores like Aqua Forest Aquariums were measured to confirm this. If one considers that T5HO lighting is way more powerful than anyone thought (as evidenced by Hoppy's PAR measurements, posted on TPT: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184368), then the overall nutrient demand will go up, resulting in the need for fertilizing greater amounts.

IMHO, Lighting alone doesn't explain the entire difference between the dosage amounts of the various systems. I also think that philosophy has a lot to do with it. I wish I could find the link, whether on the Barr Report or TPT, but Tom Barr had a nice graph of Growth Rate vs Nutrient Values that states that for any given nutrient in the water column, going from 0 ppm to infinite ppm, there is a limiting value range, then an optimal growth range and then an inhibitory / toxicity range. In a nutshell, the ADA (and Walstad System) are philosophically aligned to mimic nature and keep nutrients on the "cleaner" end or just past the limiting value range while EI aims to keep the nutrients within or above the optimal growth range so that they are never an issue of being the limiting factor (even with an inert substrate).

In the ADA (and Walstad System to a certain degree), you add only enough nutrients to the water column that the plants need for a certain day and no more. In other words, you add just enough nutrients to keep the plants out of the nutrient limiting value range and no more. Also, because you are using a nutrient rich substrate in both methods (Aqua Soil or Soil), you have a nice nutrient sink to help sequester any excess nutrients or supplement the plants with any nutrients deficient in the water column.

In the EI (and PPS Pro system to a certain degree), you add enough nutrients so that your aquarium is never in the limiting value range, assuming a worst case scenario of a nutrient inert substrate like gravel. The addition of 50% water changes is added so that you never accumulate nutrients high enough to veer into the toxicity range. The values for EI were, most likely, determined for a very high light tank with very high nutrient demand (and inert substrate). By establishing the amount of nutrients to add based off of the nutrient demands of these planted tanks, one could assume that the amounts added would also be sufficient (or more than sufficient) for tanks with a lower nutrient demand. I think the main criticism people have with EI is that for a given tank, you are adding *too* much nutrients. This is true if the nutrient demand for the tank is much lower than amount of nutrient dosing. The problem, in my opinion, is that people don't understand that for any given tank, you can simply lower the amount of nutrients dosed to match the nutrient demand of their tank (even if Tom Barr states this... repeatedly). Why don't people simply lower the amount of nutrients dosed according to the needs of their particular tank? Because determining a custom dosing schedule is often times not something people want (or are able) to do...

So now that i've stated why I think the ADA system doses much less than the EI or PPS Pro systems, why do you have so many different formulations? Again, i believe it goes back to the philosophy of a "cleaner" water system and adding only enough nutrients to match the nutrient demand. More importantly, it also is based off of the law of limiting nutrients. (Frank Wazeter over on TPT has a nice post about this concept (see post #334): http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=168992&page=23). In other words, you add only the nutrients that are needed or missing. Initially, K and Fe are the least abundant nutrients so those are dosed first (ADA Green Brighty Step 1 & 2). If you have an aquarium with a lot of fast growing stem plants, you will need more N & P so you also dose Green Brighty Special Lights in addition to Green Brighty Step 1 or 2. If you have an aquarium with a lot of shade growing plants like microsorum sp, these plants tend to absorb K in greater amounts than other plants so you need to dose Green Brighty Special Shade in addition to Green Brighty Step 1 or 2. (A lot of this was also explained in the online English edition of Aqua Journal - one of the best values for the buck, IMHO).


----------



## jeff5614

I notice Brighty K isn't listed in the tables of ADA supplements. I think it's recommended for daily use and if I remember correctly from Tom's analysis it provides a pretty substantial amount of potassium daily, on par with EI. If I read the analysis correctly, and it's very possible I didn't, the recommended daily dose of Brighty K adds 3.4 ppm of potassium.


----------



## niko

Post #35 is probably the best post ever I've read on these forums. Maybe because I'm obsessed with what makes sense in fertilizing to the point of finding the "right" and "wrong" where such notions do not really exist.

To me what really plays a role is how people understand each approach. To me somehow EI is not understood as it was described in Jeff's post. I believe that for most people EI means maintain certain concentrations, period. The very name of the approach ("Estimative Index") suggest the basic idea. But I do not believe people see it as they should. I do not understand why this very important point is not a big huge sticky on top of every fertilizing sub-forum that describes EI.

It would be interesting to run a poll on how people understand EI. I do not want to see a single newbie post asking what concentrations need to be maintained in their tank. Jeff, could you do that on TPT? As a crusty and touchy opponent of EI I will have to ask someone else to start such a poll here on APC.

A few details about post #35:

1. In the "code" section it says that EI adds the equivalent of 3-4 ppm N and 1-2 ppm P every day? Do I understand that right - ppms every day?

2. The toxicity of fertilizers: I've witnessed this first hand when severely overdosing with P. I had P in excess of 40 ppm. In a tank with 60 species of plants nothing grew and nothing died. The tank was frozen in time. No algae. Only the Java Moss managed to grow very, very slowly. Strange thing the fish were ok - some Florida Flag Fish even laid eggs in that tank.

3. From what I know about the ADA method their whole fertilization approach is based on one limiting factor - Phosphorus. The substrate has all the N the plants could want. The P in the water is watched closely.
One interesting observation is found on the website of a guy that has been a long time ADA contest participant. Has enough tanks to make your head spin. And I think in the details of all of them you can find the same thing - he uses "Ammonia, Nitrate, and Phosphate removers". This is a pretty strange thing to do if you also notice that he doses the water with fertilizers. I do believe that his approach is an example of the ADA approach (limit the P, and the N comes from the substrate), just taken even further - dosing very lightly and also removing the food as soon as you can (I have a hard time assuming he doesn't add any P to the tank). The plants somehow manage to eat some of the food that is headed out. See if the details make you think like I do:
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Gallery2010/Gallery2010_1_Infinite.htm
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Gallery2010/Gallery2010_4_Simba.htm
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Gallery2010/Gallery2010_3_Poseidon.htm
etc...
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Aquascape Front PageF1.htm

4. My problem: The main thing that I do not understand about EI is how is it possible to believe that supplying everything in excess will result in things being just fine. I have done it, had astonishing growth (6-8 inches of stargrass a day), and I knew very well that my sparkling clean tank is a blink away from turning into a disaster if I skip the maintentance. Wet hasn't answered yet to my question if EI is about constantly maintaining ungodly concentrations or adding just enough ferts. But I think that after post #35 I understand where the problem is - the idea is sound, but people do not apply it correctly. How surprising is that? A story old as the world... And I paid attention to how people see EI and how this leads to frustration rather than figure out what is going on.

5. A good idea: I think that it makes sense to try to instill the understanding that a planted tank's fertilizer concentratins are not static values. A snapshot is VERY misleading. This seems simple but look what every newbie is asking right off the bat. And especially what advice they get.

Misleading snapshots:

Example 1: ADA tanks show nothing in the water.

Example 2: I still have a piece of paper hanging on the door of the stand of my big tank. It's 4 years old and it shows dates and amount of ferts I've added. The progression shows doubling the dose of N and P over the course of 10 days. Take a snapshot of the last day and nothing will make sense. It says "1 teaspoon KNO3" and "1/2 teaspoon of PO4". All I did was to increase the dosage gradually watching the plants. The "huge" amount of ferts was exactly what was needed to let the growing plant mass to do well another day (if left without care the growth stopped on day 3, I remember that because the dosage is penciled down every 3 days). The way I see it now this is what EI is all about too. But how many people see it that way?

In all this the details that often come with a tank shown at a contest play against the hobby. Most people look at the snapshot info and apparently do not conclude that this is not how the tank was brough to that final point. The typical newbie gets a rimless tank, a CO2 system, strong light, AND a full set of Macros and Micros ready to be added on day 1.

Wow! I think this is leading somewhere now. It seems that clarity is a rare and very valuable thing. I also do not doubt that it is elusive as a few other wonderful things are.

NICE!


----------



## wet

<3 for this thread and these recent posts. Brain dump in passing:

First, I'm going to be that guy because apparently no one is that guy: these Moss, UG, monoculture, etc aquascaped tanks are not definitive for me. I am a crappy aquascaper but given enough rocks and time, I could lay down plants that look just as established with almost 0 effort when it comes to growing plants in the tank I'm taking a picture of. Here's an example of a glosso patch I pulled from that earlier tank:









Grow established stuff and you can totally transport and shape it in a young tank and take a picture. Grow out most of these tanks as a dry start and fill it and take a great pic and you can place in aquascaping competitions. Many of these tanks just don't look legit to me.

Let me just say it: I think lots of iwagumi people cheat, and I think lots of folks keep secrets. That some of these aquascaped tanks don't have nutrient or dosing or substrate or any details does not mean they are long term fertilized tanks.

I prefer to use the AGA Contest as a standard because they at least have fields to input these things, but I think many of their tanks are suspect, too. Notice many of these folks do use fertilizers. http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/



niko said:


> I described this in a thread here on APC 2 or so years ago. It has "SubZero" in the title I think. Basically you feed the plants only as much as they will take to grow. You start by adding the K,Ca and Mg, then the N and P, then the Fe and Trace. What happens is pretty interesting - you end up adding fertilizers in minor amounts and the plants gobble them up withing 1 hour or less.


This is working up, though, to expand on JeffyFunk's points in that amazing post. EI works down.



> 1. I keep a constant excess of nutrients in the water. Day or night I can test my water to double check for the presence of the excess.
> 
> 2. The excess fertilizers will allow the plants to grow very well because all food is available to them. I provide good light, CO2, etc of course.
> 
> 3. I change water to avoid too much nutrient build up and to remove waste.
> 
> 4. If algae appears there are 2 reasons - a nutrient defficiency is not allowing the plants to grow at their best or something polluted the water. I need to focus on making the plants grow well - I need to change water and get the nutrients back to good levels.


This is pretty close to EI except for 4). It should instead be something like:

4) If algae appears, the problem is probably not fertilizers, because if I am dosing EI *correctly* I know I have an abundance of fertilizers. Since I eliminate fertilizers and am pretty sure I have enough light, I think about what else is left. The next likely culprit is CO2. The next next likely (related) culprit is circulation (so CO2 and fertilizers get around the tank).

EI eliminates a step. It's not an entire system except that the water changes are very impactful to the whole system regardless what we're dosing...



> 1. In the "code" section it says that EI adds the equivalent of 3-4 ppm N and 1-2 ppm P every day? Do I understand that right - ppms every day?


Yes (and the original data is ppm or mg/L btw). Here is the chart expanded again with JeffyFunk's focus and jeff5614's great point about my originally skipping Brighty K (I get the same numbers as jeff5614 using the calc). Also, I forgot to round to one decimal place with all values under <1ppm (almost trace levels) so let me do that now...`



Code:


| Method/Product               | NO3  | PO4  | K     | Fe   | Frequency            |
| Bright K                     |      |      | 3.6   |      | daily                |
| Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2  | 0.2  | 0.1   |      | daily                |
| Green Brighty Special SHADE  | 0.2  | 0.1  | 0.2   |      | daily                |
| Green Brighty Step 1         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.01 | daily first 3 months |
| Green Brighty Step 2         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.02 | daily after 3 months |
| Green Brighty Step 3         |      |      | 0.05  | 0.02 | daily after step2 ?  |
| Walstad's Model Aquarium     | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.5   | 2.0  | monthly              |
| EI daily                     | 3.2  | 1.0  | 3.2   | 0.2  | daily                |
| PPS-Pro                      | 1.0  | 0.1  | 1.3   | 0.1  | daily                |
| PMDD                         | 1.4  |      | 3.0   | 0.1  | daily                |

notes:
All these use the calc standards because, frankly, it's the most comprehensive right now. Of course there are threads at many places including APC, but the BarrReport thread is probably the best one.

EI daily dosing here uses Plantbrain's most recent dosing data scaled. Notice this is different than old values. (Plantbrain also doesn't dose everything every day, but the numbers above scale for daily dosing.)
PPS-Pro uses Edward's classic post.
PMDD uses the old APD data.

But the ultimate difference between what you suggest/ADA suggests/Frank's post and EI: the former means you have to experiment and address deficiency while the latter says you eliminate a variable (fertilizers) so you focus your troubleshooting on other things. One works nutrients up from baseline, and one works down from baseline.

JeffyFunk,

Yes, yes, yes. If we expand the window past one day, though, we can totally use stems and fast growing nutrient indicators (Mayaca sp., ET, etc) instead of the kit. A big plus of EI is that it says the gardener should just grow plants for a while, and I think that's a factor lots of folks miss, too.

I'd also add that I think EI's general levels are looking to address, say, 90% of the tanks out there, not a specific gardener's tank. EI says that gardener can adjust and continue to use their weekly water changes to ensure they do not drift too far from baseline. Once their plants show deficiency with a specific nutrient, the gardener can always bump levels back up. I agree most gardeners are probably not thinking in these terms and instead just try to hit EI as a magic number. I do not think this is wrong because, well, we see it working on so many tanks...

Just thoughts from a gardener that maybe you'll consider. Your post is amazing.

RE ADA:

I have no idea in what steps you're supposed to combine these fertilizers, except for what I read on English sites. For example, you're supposed to add ECA (looks like a Fe source) if plants are showing a loss of color.

Not mentioned but something I am considering: maybe these minute ADA levels are meant to supplement what has been depleted from AquaSoil. Maybe these tanks are not meant to be up for over a year without soil replacement or top-off. How much do you want to bet that most ADA tanks and systems are torn down or rescaped within a year? (I'd gander that number is true of most all planted aquariums regardless of method.)

I can say ADA appears to work levels up, like niko. As JeffyFunk said, you should feel free to work EI down once you're growing plants. *Both are doing the same thing* (feeding plants.)


----------



## wet

Hey BruceF,


> If I were to fault the EI/CO2 method it would be on the basis of it being too general. I would prefer to know that for instance Vallisneria need hard water and what chemicals one would add to grow it well or that it is a plant that uses bicarbonates as a carbon source. I am re-reading Diana Walstad's book right now and really appreciating her level of detail. I've never seen any of Christel Kasselmann's books but I would appreciate a plant guide that noted this level of detail.


I like you, you sound like a grumpy gardener who has grown at least a few gardens  
My beef sometimes is still a little different, but I am not sure how to address it.

This:


> Penac P & Penac W
> Tourmaline BC
> Power Sand
> Bacter 100
> Clear Super
> Aqua Soil


Really is not less WTF to most people than this:


> KNO3
> KH2PO4
> Ca2SO4
> MgSO4
> CSM+B
> DTPA Fe


You know?

Now, one set of those is expensive and one set is cheap, and either way branding it to normal people names costs somebody money. I'm just saying... 

I think the real trick with these methods is where they overlap, though. Because we have almost closed systems in our tanks, *you* can have complete control of what's in the tank.

More rambling: This is from memory, but part of Claus's presentations at AGA2010 involved Tropica tanks that were fertilized to excess vs limited in fertilization. Both had moderate light and CO2. Both had nutritious substrate. He grew something like Staurogyne sp and maybe a smaller leaved Rotala and Bolbitus or something -- one of those varied species gardens that show understanding of plants across the board but, man, sweet scapes with planning and care and plus plant growth. One tank grew fast and dense. One tank grew slow and dense. Claus said he likes to grow tanks slow and dense.


----------



## wet

> 4. My problem: The main thing that I do not understand about EI is how is it possible to believe that supplying everything in excess will result in things being just fine. I have done it, had astonishing growth (6-8 inches of stargrass a day), and I knew very well that my sparkling clean tank is a blink away from turning into a disaster if I skip the maintentance. Wet hasn't answered yet to my question if EI is about constantly maintaining ungodly concentrations or adding just enough ferts. But I think that after post #35 I understand where the problem is - the idea is sound, but people do not apply it correctly. How surprising is that? A story old as the world... And I paid attention to how people see EI and how this leads to frustration rather than figure out what is going on.
> 
> 5. A good idea: I think that it makes sense to try to instill the understanding that a planted tank's fertilizer concentratins are not static values. A snapshot is VERY misleading. This seems simple but look what every newbie is asking right off the bat. And especially what advice they get.


Hey again niko.

This is very interesting knowledge. Been thinking about it.

4) Yes <3. But really, even if you have to keep a bleeding-edge high tech tank full of attention for 25/30 days of the month, why's that so bad? I give my tank probably 10 hours per week. That doesn't fully count time chilling out after work staring at it and thinking about what I want to do then getting up and trimming plants for a while. It's counting minimum time to make me happy, and as shown here I can take a week or whatever off and be fine. It's awesome. This is my favorite hobby.

5) http://rota.la/ei and http://ei.petalphile.com gets interesting when objectively quantifying this stuff.

Extending that: I assert two things. I am excluding Walstad-ish tanks and probably most non-CO2 injected tanks.

a) Large water changes will lead to a more stable tank. In such a tank your daily dosing will always get closer to your target regardless of plant uptake. (Your target is 0 but you mean it as unmeasurable. There could still be nutrients that are unmeasurable by your kit. Regardless, a water change (with clean water) will always make whatever is in the tank approach 0, and you do not need a test kit to know this is true.
b) Large water changes will make your fish happy and spawn and stuff. Almost all of us agree with this with almost all fish we've spawned.

With regular water changes and fertilizer input and plant growth, a snapshot suddenly becomes much more than a snapshot. The tank is stable.


----------



## BruceF

Wet
Plants have different needs.


----------



## OTPT

wet said:


> Grow established stuff and you can totally transport and shape it in a young tank and take a picture. Grow out most of these tanks as a dry start and fill it and take a great pic and you can place in aquascaping competitions. Many of these tanks just don't look legit to me.
> 
> Let me just say it: I think lots of iwagumi people cheat, and I think lots of folks keep secrets. That some of these aquascaped tanks don't have nutrient or dosing or substrate or any details does not mean they are long term fertilized tanks.


I saw an aquascaper admitted he had added one or two Blyxas to complement the composition just 
before taking photos. But most of the tank area was genuine. Many entries are done by well-known 
people in aquascaping circle. And they do a bit of monitoring each other's works. I would say many 
are not cheating (overly :tape2. They have been doing their tank journals for years in forums. 
If you follow their activities long enough, you will find their habits. Few of them add ferts heavily, 
most add very lightly, and some not at all. Some of them even do aquascaping and maintenance 
service as a sideline. So they are probably not a bunch of con-artists.


----------



## JeffyFunk

It's always a nice thing when I see people respond in a constructive manner. Sometimes when feeling flare, that doesn't always happen... In any case, here are some responses and some more things (!) to consider in no particular order...



niko said:


> It would be interesting to run a poll on how people understand EI. I do not want to see a single newbie post asking what concentrations need to be maintained in their tank. Jeff, could you do that on TPT? As a crusty and touchy opponent of EI I will have to ask someone else to start such a poll here on APC.


I hate to say this, but the fact that i use the same name on TPT means that my reputation preceeds me (for good and bad). Last time I posted anything substantial over there, a flame war erupted over what i wrote since i am known as "that guy on APC who hates EI" so i can't possibly have an unbiased opinion about anything... lol. Apparently, it had the moderators over there editing a lot... (in retrospect, i probably could have worded some things a little differently and point out that Frank is obviously biased toward the ADA system, but the fact that i did get a pleasant response from Tom Barr was a nice thing.)



niko said:


> 1. In the "code" section it says that EI adds the equivalent of 3-4 ppm N and 1-2 ppm P every day? Do I understand that right - ppms every day?


Yes. If you look up the EI dosing chart (found here: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/15225-estimative-index-dosing-guide.html), you can easily plug in the quantities of fertilizer you add to the aquarium into the fertilator and divide by 2 (for simplicity's sake) to get the "daily" dosage. Also, since the EI method uses quantities that are set up for a 'range' of aquarium sizes (vs. a specific aquarium size as stated in the PPS Pro method), you should really calculate the 'daily' dosage for the range. In my case, i calculated the values for the 40g and 60g aquariums to come up with the amount of fertilizers added.

In this regard, this is the 'simplicity' of the EI system - you do not need to be very specific with regard to the amount of fertilizer you add since your aquarium will be fine if you add 3.0 ppm nitrate or 4.0 ppm nitrate - In essence, you are already adding more nitrate (in this case) than your plants can uptake so the plants will never be limited by nitrate.

As i stated before, I think the 'problem' with EI is that the values to dose are based off of an aquarium with the highest nutrient demand (the upper 90% as Wet put it). I think the best way to show this is to look again at "the chart" that has proven so informational in this particular discussion... 


Code:


| Method/Product               | NO3  | PO4  | K     | Fe   |
| Brighty K                    |      |      | 3.6   |      | 
| Green Brighty Special LIGHTS | 0.2  | 0.2  | 0.1   |      | 
| Green Brighty Special SHADE  | 0.2  | 0.1  | 0.2   |      |
| Green Brighty Step 1         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.01 | 
| Green Brighty Step 2         |      |      | 0.004 | 0.02 | 
| Green Brighty Step 3         |      |      | 0.05  | 0.02 | 
| Walstad's Model Aquarium     | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.5   | 2.0  | 
| EI daily                     | 3-4  | 1-2  | 2-3   | 0.2  | 
| PPS-Pro                      | 1.0  | 0.1  | 1.3   | 0.1  | 
| PMDD                         | 1.4  |      | 3.0   | 0.1  |

The key to understanding this chart, IMHO, is the daily dosage amounts for the PPS-Pro system. This system was designed to exactly match the nutrient demand of the average planted aquarium. In other words, everyday the plants in your aquarium would uptake exactly those amounts of nutrients (1.0 ppm nitrate for example). If we look at the EI dosage values, again using nitrate as an example, we can see that the daily dosage of nitrate (3-4 ppm) is much higher than the PPS-Pro values. IMHO, this difference is due to the way in which the two dosage schemes were designed. In the case of EI, they were designed to be adequate for 90% of the nitrate nutrient demand; In the case of PPS-Pro, they were designed to be adequate for the average nitrate nutrient demand. And what determines overall nutrient demand? Light intensity. I would wager that until Hoppy's chart on TPT about PAR values http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184368, most people thought that a 4 bulb T5HO fixture was only medium-high light instead of too much light as we now know it. In the case of people running this insane amount of light, the nutrient demand really was high enough to justify the amount of fertilizer added in the EI method.

The problem is, and the heart of this whole conversation and why Niko hates the EI method, what about the people that don't use that much light and so have a much lower nutrient demand? The answer, of course, is to scale down the EI method, but as i stated earlier, most people do not know how to do this (or, god forbid, try to calculate (scary word!) what their actual nutrient demand is). Furthermore, most people try to avoid testing their water. IME, some water testing is necessary to get an idea of what your aquarium nutrient levels are and to see if you're *over* fertilizing your plants. IME, it's equally necessary to just observe your aquarium and see how the plants are growing. This, of course, comes with time and experience, but there really is nothing quite like *knowing* what your plants should look like when they're growing well and healthy.



wet said:


> 5) http://rota.la/ei and http://ei.petalphile.com gets interesting when objectively quantifying this stuff.


These charts are fun to play with, but one thing i've never understood is why you set up those charts of uptake over time like the way you did using % uptake. The issue I have with them is that there is a big difference between adding, say 1 ppm nitrate (to again use this nutrient as an example) and 3 ppm nitrate to your planted aquarium. The most informative line, in my opinion is the 0% uptake graph line. This shows that (eventually) you will end up at a plateau, assuming you do a large enough water change (with RO water) every week to keep the nutrient levels in check.

The problem, IMHO, is that plants don't uptake a % of a nutrient, they uptake a set amount of nutrient. Furthermore, the amount of nutrient they uptake is not necessarily determined by how much nutrient is available, but rather which nutrient is the most limited. Amano has stated many times that the amount of overall nutrient demand is determined by the "law of the minimum". In an aquarium with a lot of fish, nitrate and phosphate tend to be in excess (from fish poop) relative to the nutrients of potassium and iron. As such, Amano states that the first nutrient fertilizers should be primarily K & Fe (Brighty K series) in order to promote the uptake of the excess nitrate & phosphate. If you have an aquarium with a lot of fast growing stem plants, or one without a lot of fish, then the available nitrate & phosphate will not be enough so you need to add more (Green Brighty Special series). This is really how the ADA system works, not by limiting P.

The thing to remember, however, is that this is how all planted aquarium systems work, even the Walstad, low tech methods. (Frank posted about this on TPT in his giant thread as well: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=168992&page=23 An especially worthy read is the last post on that page...(Also, my post that caused a mini flame war was on page 22, btw...)) They all work by, essentially, limiting the growth rate of the plants using the "law of the minimum". In the case of the non-CO2 injected methods, the limiting factor is usually light. By maintaining a lower light intensity, you limit the amount of CO2 needed in the aquarium, assuming you have all of the other nutrients available in the substrate (i.e. dirt). In CO2 injected aquariums, you can get away with higher light intensities because CO2 and the other nutrients should not be limited. The question here is how do you make sure that the other nutrients are not limited.

As an interesting side note, in the previously mentioned link, Frank makes are a great point in describing "The method". He states: 


Code:


The Principles of The Method:

1. All organisms are Malthusian in nature. They will grow and invade to the very limits 
their environment will permit them.

2. Organisms can only grow and duplicate to the extent that the least common 
denominator is available. E.G. The resource that there is the least of, is the extent to 
which a plant, bacterium, etc will grow.

3. Everything is cyclical. Everything is utilized in concert to grow and ultimately be 
recycled. Molecules, minerals and nutrients are taken in and used by organisms, 
organisms feed other organisms, and the waste product of those organisms feed yet 
other organisms. 

4. The purity of the environment is directly proportionate to how it will grow. The more
 "x-factors," and toxins you have, the less successful you will be.

5. It is the balance of all these factors that leads to ultimate success. The smallest 
of details matters.

The Techniques of The Method:

1. Purity of water. Because our aquariums have a finite amount of water immediately 
available, we must 'refresh,' the water source as frequently as is possible. 

2. Supply in relative abundance all of the factors that lead to proper growth of 
bacteria, plants and fish. Supply only the proper levels relative to the aquarium's rate
 of growth. 

3. Trim vigorously - trimming enables new growth to take the place of the old. 

4. Daily attention - if you have the time to make a post, you have the time to give 
a quick check for anything running amok in your tank too.

The Mindset of The Method:

1. Cultivation and care for the planted aquarium (even the smallest microorganisms) is
 an enjoyable task, something that's look forward too. There is something irreplaceable
 in the appearance of a balanced aquarium.

2. Vicious, quick and precise attack on anything that threatens the balance of the 
aquarium.

3. Constantly seeking new ways to learn and improve. Visualizes success with the 
aquarium.

I think the sticking point of this conversation is how you interpret "Purity of water". I think we can all agree that a gross excess of fertilizers in the planted aquarium is not "pure water". The question is, how much or at what level of nutrients in the water define "pure water"? Niko's conviction is that for his planted aquariums, the nutrients added in EI quantities is too much. And the truth may be that for his particular setups, it is. I know that the planted aquariums i have in my house that even the nutrient levels of PPS Pro are too high so i dose less frequently (I also know that my CO2 fertilization is crappy compared to Tom Barr's so that is probably my limiting factor). But for other people that run high light tanks with better CO2 fertilization, maybe their nutrient demand is high enough that EI levels of dosing are required. ADA runs his tanks on the lean side as well but maybe that's just because he approaches the problem of nutrients from the bottom up, versus the top down. The devil is always in the details, but as Wet says, we should all grow great plants.


----------



## wet

BruceF,

Plants have different needs from... ??? Humans because humans like maintenance repeatable and easy? Other plants?

OTPT,

Thanks much for this synopsis and info. I was not fully aware that there is history with so many of these tanks and gardeners.

And, you know, I threw a little too much manure around for the sake of discussion. I should not have implied these guys are con artists or pulling a fast one or anything. 

These folks have executed scapes and gardens and in many cases plant health and planning that I could only dream of and aspire to reach. I rebrowsed today and this is totally clear to me: I should not have called most of them bs. I stand by my biases and general hate towards certain things though 

<3

JeffyFunk,

re the long term calc and using % instead of absolute ppm: yeah, I can see that and agree in a lot of ways! The calc was actually originally built (for me) to figure out what would happen with an absolute ppm uptake, which you'll find after clicking the "optional" tab on those sites. You can then enter a known weekly ppm uptake and it will render in the calculators as a custom uptake rate standardized to %.

Let me try to explain the idea for % because I think you can help me adjust this thing into a better tool, if you're up for it. I figured we should take predictable blocks of plant growth (kind of to your point about kinetics) and think of it, like, easily:

My heavy substrate or slow growth tank will probably take within 0-25% of EI levels. 
My reasonable growth tank will probably take between 25-50% of EI levels. This is the ~1-1.5 ppm NO3 examples you cite with PPS-Pro.
My higher light tank will probably take between 50-75% of EI levels.

Now I can play with some charts and figure out how things trend. If I want stable, I want closer to a flat line. 

Let's now say I am a nerd and want to make the adjustments we both agree most folks aren't willing to make: I want to adjust EI down or adjust my method (say PPS-Pro under fast growth) up. I see if I dose to about 90% of my uptake, I get a nice steady line.

I adjust my standard EI dosing and try to maneuver my dosing such that I am just on the bleeding edge. I deselect or mentally block the default uptake rates the calculator provides.

(Less like EI with the 90% goal -- the calcs were built for gardeners like you and me who may want to play with this stuff easily and visually but leave the calculator inside the drawer. Because such different folks asked for and contributed features, I agree the tools are hodgepodge and probably still WTF to the beginner.)

Again, interested in your ideas. I suspect as this thread grows and the ideas bake, we'll naturally come across more tools we can easily build. 

I'll own putting the table you posted into some site (probably on rota.la ) btw. I owe other folks some other things too on these tools <3


----------



## BruceF

I might add about here that the Walstad method involves fish food as fert dosing on a daily basis. 

As for plants having different needs what I mean is that some will need more of x and some will need more of y and that they don’t all fit into calculators. This is information that is readily available in any perennial reference book but very difficult to find in the discussion of aquarium plants.


----------



## niko

BruceF said:


> ...As for plants having different needs what I mean is that some will need more of x and some will need more of y and that they don't all fit into calculators. This is information that is readily available in any perennial reference book but very difficult to find in the discussion of aquarium plants.


You are touching on a funny side of the hobby that we all ignore very well - we keep plants and animals from completely different parts of the world. And expect them to act like we want them to on top of that. Here's a funny example of such a Babylonian setup - living things from South America, Asia, and Africa in one cool encolsure:



















The closer to home experience is not with a monster tank but with some plants growing well and some having issues despite "great parameters!".

My point is that in all these discussions we need to always have at least a little touch with reality. Exactly as you said - not everything fits into calculators. But we certainly can force it


----------



## Bert H

> You are touching on a funny side of the hobby that we all ignore very well - we keep plants and animals from completely different parts of the world. And expect them to act like we want them to on top of that.


So very true!!!

This is a great discussion, folks!

IMO, too often, people try to fit square pegs into round holes. This comment is meant to go to Niko's quote, as well as to all the different variables we have in our tanks. In my own case, how many times did I try to grow R. macrandra in my liquid rock water. Eventually I realized it wasn't going to happen.


----------



## niko

Haha.

I am a square peg. And my life has been a round hole.

Not sure how seeing the pointless effort helps if you spent the first half of your life pushing and pushing that which does not fit in a round hole. Takes a lot to see things as they realy are, you know. Or should I say "To admit to yourself what you always knew."

And yes - I do find a lot of parallels of that thought with our hobby.

On a more aquarium-specific level: What I learned the last few days (and started to do it already as a result of reading the table that Wet and Jeff here provided) is that I can lead my inert gravel tank with high light & CO2 to full development AND knowing what is happening. Knowing where what I do is in the little universe of planted tank maintenance approaches. The approach I'm taking is to add fertilizers to the water building up to the optimal amount for the current plant mass. You can keep doing that, thoroughly enjoy it, and quit thinking about it. But a better system is the one with rich substrate. This thread made that clear.

I had some algae growing on the glass of that tank because about a 10 days ago I dumped 30 neons in the tank. I cleaned the algae the other day and did a water change. No new algae growth at all - there isn't anything to eat in the water. The plants have very much stalled because I let them suck everything they could out of the water. Swords and lotus still grow very slowly and even pearl at a very low rate. Strong light and good CO2 work I guess. So with a tank that has cleaned itself to a point of starvation I have a great starting point.

So last night I started to build up to the daily 0.2ppm N and 0.2ppm P and I added some K. Plants increased the minimal pearling within 3 minutes and kept pearling well till the lights went off. I won't make the mistake of dumping a good amount of ferts right away although the plants definitely need them. I wanted to see explosive pearling ASAP but that is not the way I know things will work for the best. I mean to replace the substrate of this tank as soon as I see that everything indeed works as we all here say it will.

But I still do not get the part about maintaining excess nutrients in the water. If you start with excess and work your way down (or if you just maintain excess) how is it that you are not risking a huge and fast algae problem should algae finds a way in? The logic seems flawed. What did I miss? Can someone discuss that? I hope to hear more than words like "Allelopathy".


----------



## JeffyFunk

niko said:


> So last night I started to build up to the daily 0.2 N and 0.2 P plus some K. Plants increased the minimal pearling within 3 minutes and kept pearling well till the lights went off. I won't make the mistake of dumping a good amount of ferts right away although the plants definitely need them. I wanted to see explosive pearling ASAP but that is not the way I know things will work for the best. I mean to replace the substrate of this tank as soon as I see that everything indeed works as we all here say it will.
> 
> But I still do not get the part about maintaining excess nutrients in the water. If you start with excess and work your way down (or if you just maintain excess) how is it that you are not risking a huge and fast algae problem should algae finds a way in? The logic seems flawed. What did I miss? Can someone discuss that? I hope to hear more than words like "Allelopathy".


lol - allelopathy...

Niko - here's an interesting link that i found yesterday while looking at those links you sent about Bubble's aquarium...

http://www.tropica.com/media/49634/116_forhandler_guide_uk_web.pdf

What i find so interesting about this link is the nice chart on the last page of the pdf. Basically, it states that if you have a planted tank w/ a lot of fish, use the "Plant Nutrition" fertilizer containing w/ only K & Fe/Trace. On the other hand, if you have a planted tank w/out a lot of fish or w/ a lot of plants, use the "Plant Nutrition+" fertilizer containing not only K & Fe/Trace, but also N & P.

In case this doesn't sound familiar by now, this would be the equivalent of the Green Brighty Step 1-3 vs Green Brighty Special Series.

Now, how does this relate to the way you're fertilizing your tank, Niko? Basically, you're now fertilizing in quantities more akin to the ADA product line (or Tropica)! Something that hasn't been mentioned so far in this particular thread, but I know that i've mentioned before is that K and Fe are usually the first two elements to be depleted in a planted aquarium (after CO2, of course). N & P are often times abundant in the water column from fish poop. But w/out the rest of the other nutrients (C, K, Fe, etc), the excess N & P cannot be utilized by the plants. This is why K & Fe/Trace are often times the first elements to be dosed. (K is often times just lacking in general; Fe is an odd nutrient because it is the most unstable element in the water column - it will precipitate out of the water column faster than any other element. (Amano stated this is an Aqua Journal article - I just can't remember which one, unfortunately...) Fe is, however, very abundant in soil - which may be one reason why soil tanks can grow plants so well).

I think the more interesting (theoretical? philosophical?) question is how did the concept of 'nutrients in the water' gain ground... I will the first to admit that i'm too much of a newbie to know for sure, but i would guess that the answer is in substrate (CEC specifically). As Tom Barr has stated many times (ad nauseam at times), if we concentrate of the nutritional needs of the plants first, algae will not be able to grow. I would guess that in the beginning days of planted aquariums, long before the advent of Aqua Soil or using soil (like the Walstad Method), people used gravel to grow plants. Gravel, being inert, has no CEC capability. As such, plants had no nutrients to extract through their roots in the substrate because the gravel had no nutrients in it (or had no way of sequestering it from the water column). In this case, adding fertilizers to the water column was the only way to get nutrients to the aquatic plants. This resulted in the aquatic plants growing better. As such, we now have evidence that nutrients in the water column will grow plants.

However, if you have a substrate that has a high CEC, like Aqua Soil or Soil, then it is possible for the substrate to help extract nutrients from the water column. This allows the roots of the aquatic plants to then sequester the nutrients and grow. Now we have evidence that nutrients not in the water column will grow plants (because they were sequestered from the water column). (Please note - i'm not sure if there is an actual study of this using radioactively labelled elements, but i'm sure it has been done... seems simple enough in theory to do.)

I think something to consider is not that you have excess nutrients in the water column, but rather what specific nutrients you have an excess of... If you then consider that you have an excess of N & P, but a deficiency of K & Fe, then you realize how... unbalanced your planted aquarium is (relative to aquatic plant needs) and how you need to correct it. Perhaps if we all took a step back and consider each nutrient separately, we will be able to finally see the forest from the trees (insert recycled internet image originally cited by Niko... lol)


----------



## BruceF

Innes warns against soil in the substrate and against the dangers of fertilizers. He of course repeatedly reminds us that “Fish Fertilize Plants.” Yet he also notes that growers of plants routinely use soil and that others are using bone meal, Plant tabs and various manures in limited amounts. 

People like Sewingalot who post experiments with various chemical inducements and omissions that beget algae blooms are essentially not permitted to express their opinions on certain boards. Choruses of people will insist these things are antiquated mythology, sacrilege and anathema!
Algaecides of all types and persuasion are in vogue!

Love the diorama!


----------



## wet

> But I still do not get the part about maintaining excess nutrients in the water. If you start with excess and work your way down (or if you just maintain excess) how is it that you are not risking a huge and fast algae problem should algae finds a way in? The logic seems flawed. What did I miss? Can someone discuss that?


You still keep up the maintenance. If algae starts, it's time to asses why. For most folks doing high maintenance, it usually means they need to do more maintenance  (Plants need a trim/the filters are clogged, CO2 ran out, haven't water changed, so on...)

The concept that over fertilized water = algae is just not true in my tanks.

I bet I could raise my lights a little or let the bulb keep going down and slow growth and limit the water column and still have a healthy tank though. It's just less fun and interesting to me.


----------



## niko

wet said:


> You still keep up the maintenance. If algae starts, it's time to asses why. ...
> The concept that over fertilized water = algae is just not true in my tanks. ...


Well, here we hit the same old point that has made me post controversial things for a long time now: Dealing with algae hinders the progress of aquascaping in the US. I think I'm over that now - I don't think enough people make the connection between being able to start and run a clean tank and the progress of aquascaping. No matter how obvious that may sound.

So here's what I looked at the last 2 days: GLA's intro to EI and APC's intro to EI:
http://www.aquascapingworld.com/mag...ne/Estimative-Index-Fertilization-Method.html
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/15225-estimative-index-dosing-guide.html

I do not know if there are better references out there. References that explain that HOW you do things are more important than "Add X ppm of fertilizer Y in your tank.".

So what one gets from the above two introductions is one simple idea - if you feed the plants with everything they need in excess they will grow well and outcompete algae. Ok, this is good but this is where virtually everybody gets stuck in a problem sooner or later - algae shows up and "assessing why" as Wet suggests turns into a frustrating affair. Noone has a definite answer to most problems. Often things seem to be adjusted perfectly but algae still keeps growing.

I've been saying the above for a long time now. This is why this thread was started too - because I have said many times that a tank with excess fertilizers in the water goes bad as soon as you stop keeping an eye on it. Well - it doesn't always go bad. And I knew that and have talked about it a few times before. Because HOW the tank is run makes all the difference.

It does sound like I'm beating a dead horse here. I wrote all of the above because after this thread we do have a perspective on what is what in the world of planted tanks. There is a comparison between the dosing in the various methods in a nice small table that anyone can understand (posts 35 and 43). But what is more important - in this thread you can see that it is important to know HOW you go on about using your method of choice. EI seems to suggest amounts that if maintained will produce a clean tank. PPS gets into more details how to maintain its recommended concentrations. It appears that things are simple and clear but they are a little different - not about being stuck at certain concentrations. Not at all about numbers "wrtitten in stone" but the introductions are not 100% clear.

So look at post 43. There is something very valuable there. In post 43 you can see what Frank (From ADG) suggest to do to run a planted tank - a list of off-the-wall points divided into 3 sections (Principles, Techniques, and Mindset). Without them everything is being more or less looked at as "I need to keep certain numbers up". Frank's list sounds like a speech that maybe given to insiders at an ADA secret indoctrination meeting, haha. I can easily change a word here and there and turn it into a political propaganda list serving one or the other side, or even a religous cult! But such list is EXACTLY what this hobby needs. An adjustment of the mindset. "HOW" you do things. Not finding who's right who's wrong.

In that sense - with the right mindset there are really no gurus, no masters. You can turn this hobby into a private experience that noone can criticize. Quite a few knowledgeable people have withdrawn from the forums over the years and I wonder if that is what they actually did - isolation for the sake of a better private experience. On the other hand with an understanding what is what, comparison of methods, good mindset, and knowing where you are in all this a social interaction is much fuller and more enjoyable.

Will all these posts change something is another question. As it has been said - "He who has ears, let him hear". It's hard to dismiss that statement.


----------



## wet

I don't know, man. I've never done this before, but I'm going to try to say all the steps needed to set up a tank. I can't help but bias on how I like it personally (ie: I'd rather do a water change with a Python regularly than care a whole lot about filtration). I'm pretending I'm typing to someone really looking to get into the hobby within some budget (time and $).

# Get your stuff!

## Your tank 

Smaller volume sounds better if it's your first tank, but smaller volume is actually harder (but cheaper!) -- the more water volume you have, the easier it is to cover up mistakes and keep a stable tank. For many gardeners, a 40 gallon tank is easier to keep stable and maintain than a 5 gallon tank.

Remember though that you can always do lots of water changes on a smaller tank to maintain stability. 

## Your light

Buy your light and plan how you'll mount it in such a way you can adjust the amount of light and you'll have lots of flexibility. Maybe this is a fixture where you can turn off or disconnect half the bulbs. Maybe this is a fixture you can raise or lower. You're looking to keep your options open: medium+ light if you ever want it, low light if you ever want it, high light when you want a challenge. 

## Figure out your filtration and how if and how often you want to do water changes. 

If you want to do lots of water changes: A Python and placement close enough to a sink is your friend, and big water changes are extremely effective in removing toxins, so you may have more wiggle room in filtration.

If you want to do little water changes, you have to spend time thinking about your biological filters, maintaining flow, and the proper equipment for the job.

## Substrate

This is your saftey net and insurance if you ever drift in the water column.

For many gardeners, this is Aquasoil or DIY. I personally can speak for RedSea Florabase as pretty good acidic stuff. I would also recommend looking at Tropica's stuff.

You can cheap out (less time to DIY or find a good deal, less money with inert/plain old gravel substrate) but you will only invite more challenge/pain and dependence on the water column. 

## CO2

Simply get CO2 unless you are specifically going for a Walstad-ish non-CO2 tank. Seriously.

If DIY: very easy on a smaller tank; read up and understand that once you get your routine down, emptying a bottle and adding sugar/yeast really isn't that hard. With small tanks I found this easy to add to chores.

If a big tank: pressurized CO2 is an investment, but has very little maintenance cost (you bring the tank to a refiller once or twice a year). It is an investment in $ for a savings in time vs DIY.

# Set up, plant, and scape it!

Walstad setups and slow growth tanks skip the below and jump to stabilization time! 

High maintenance and growth tanks are just getting started...

# Start the CO2!

Get a drop checker and read up on them. Play freely with CO2 before you add fish. Just take a couple weeks (less time than cycling!) and play with your DIY CO2 setup and rotation schedule or needle valve and figure out how you an move on CO2 if you have to.

# Dose it!

Pick a method -- research, see what other gardeners are doing, research, and think about your water changes and this thread and your goals -- and then stick with it! Stability is more important than a specific number -- stay consistent with your dosing and be ready to experiment, and you'll probably do fine. 

Remember you have that nice insurance policy in your substrate if dosing gets too hard.

Remember you have that nice adjustment level in moving the lights or turning off bulbs should you get algae.

# Stabilize it and grow plants!

Your focus here is to keep growing plants. 

This may mean adjusting nutrients. This may mean figuring out your scape and what plants particularly like light. 

It may mean failing with plants! If so, start a thread on some forum or go to a plant meetup and talk to gardeners for a while. Get your plants growing first.

Do a few water changes. You're looking to lower the cloudiness from that awesome soil and figure out your routine.

# Add fish!

This is a whole bigger discussion about compatibility and aesthetics, but remember: if you're growing plants and know how to move for adjustments (water changes/CO2/etc depending on the tank and problem), take your time adding fish, and spend time watching your fish and moving on any problems, you will do great.

(I think we're all saying the same things.)


----------



## houseofcards

Wow, scary thread. This will surely turn off more people who considered taking up the hobby of aquascaping in the U.S. as well a newbies to the forum. 

Most of the more well know scapers out there are more artists than scientists and probably never analyzed the water column to such a degree. It’s simply not necessary to run a pristine tank and focus on the scape and not the algae.

In addition the whole basis of comparison is faulty. You are comparing ADA to EI. One is a professional organization that image, presentation is everything and the other is pretty much a hobbyist dosing system. How are those even comparable?

The former has a professional staff taking care of any dosing/maintenance needs and the latter is at the mercy of day-to-day life issues, etc. I always see this comparison done with a tank in the gallery vs one in someone’s home. Once the ADA system is taken away from the gallery it doesn’t work for a lot of people not because it’s faulty, but because ‘life’ gets in the way of doing the things that should be done. 

There was a thread not too long ago on TPT when a LFS contracted ADG to setup a planted tank and the forum was in a tissy when it was discovered that the setup was all plastic plants. The store simply didn’t have the time nor the expertise to keep a planted tank looking ‘sellable’. Why couldn’t they use all ADA products shouldn’t they be able to not worry about algae and just scape? 

The Book of ADA has a whole section on algae removal. Why? Isn’t this against their mission? In fact the wording in the opening paragraph states “controlling algae is the most troublesome aspect of growing aquatic plants…” they then go on to list the various products both physical tools like the ‘Pro-Picker’ and other chemical methods that they sell to rid the tank of algae. No shame in that. 

I also think some of the lighting conclusions presented here are incorrect about ADA tanks. For a non-limiting tank of stems ADA recommends a 150watt MH 30cm over a 60cm tank. I would bet that’s not lowlight. A LFS like aqua forest would naturally have less light over some of their tanks to reduce maintenance. On larger ADA setups in their gallery aren’t they using Solar Series lights that have both CF and MH bulbs. So even if the MH bulbs are set for a midday burst is that lowlight or highlight? 

In reality it’s more about which system works best for you. If the ADA system is leaner it’s also more frequent so this might not work for many, the EI has more flexibility in its excess. Obviously there’s enough evidence that each can work and work quite well if one does what their suppose to do. After all we don’t live in galleries. We live in homes, apartments and college dorms.


----------



## niko

I agree - threads like this are not for everybody. I say that because of quite a few things outside of this thread too.

Most people want fast and easy and even if that sounds a bit negative we can't deny it. I can even joke that people would run away from aquascaping after reading this thread only IF they were interested in aquascaping in the first place. Most enthusiasts smack me as wanting to grow plants and the aquascaping is on the back burner. Me included. The aquascaping part is an ideal that ADA has sold us about a decade ago. Some people do it some don't. The number of the ones that don't is much higher.

Mixing ADA and EI: I can go about the funny situation of planted tank folk worshipping Amano but following Tom Barr. That has to do with what I said above too, right? More growing, less scaping. And it's not right or wrong.

But here's an interesting look at an example of "having ADA in your living room". Note the part about maintenance. Once a month water change. And a beautiful real aquascape:
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=3350

The two LFS that I've seen that called on an ADA distributor to make them a planted tank have quickly (within 1 month) left the aquascape go bad. They simply don't do the maintenance. Beats me why. Neglect your display tanks? That leads me to the following:

What I've noticed about ADA over the years is that they seem to predict very well what is going to be happening with the tank and the hobbyist' mind. It was not that hard to predict that people would face algae and here they go - offer products to clean algae. But we all know - there are ways to never even see algae.

Just like there are ways to lose fat and gain muscle.


----------



## Michael

"Wow, scary thread. This will surely turn off more people who considered taking up the hobby of aquascaping in the U.S. as well a newbies to the forum." 

To shine a ray of hope here, I would like to push the Walstad method some more. Anyone who is tired of me can tune out.

The Walstad method gives a simple technique for consistent success with planted tanks. As an example, I set up a 90 gallon planted demo tank for my LFS. For about 8 months the tank was a complete success despite rank neglect from the owner. No water changes, inconsistent lighting, never cleaned the filter, almost never cleaned the glass. The tank looked great and got many positive comments from customers, and helped sell plants for the store.

The tank looked so good that the owner decided to put discus in it. He turned up the temp to 86 F, then over-medicated the tank with who-knows-what because all discus have parasites, right? About 50% of the plant species and plant biomass died, and more algae appeared. But if he would clean the glass, the tank would still be presentable. And the surviving plants that can tolerate the high temperatures are doing their best to restore balance to the tank.

BTW, the discus aren't doing well either. Last time I was there I saw a bare skeleton on the bottom.

Instead of being a disappointment, this gives strong evidence that a properly set-up Walstad tank will be successful and attractive despite indifferent care, and can survive even when minimal planted tank maintenance and normal parameters are ignored.


----------



## houseofcards

Roy Deki is talented scaper. I think he lost inspiration at one point so he's not active anymore. He was also far more committed than a typical planted tanker. I have no doubt that ADA concept works, but for every sparkling tank you show me I could show you an EI dosed tank that works as well.

Here's another Deki tank that is also 'ADA in the living room' and he talks about how difficult the tank was to maintain. Remember we are talking about non-limiting setups. Go down to the heading 'Not as easy as it looks'

http://www.aquascapingworld.com/magazine/Magazine/Iwagumi-Style.html


----------



## houseofcards

Michael, I can see the appeal of the Walstad method for many, but it's a very limited and confining system. It simply won't work for many setups. Not that you can't scape a tank while applying that method, but it's just too limiting. To me it's the opposite of ADA. Where ADA hides the science "Style of ADA" The Walstad method puts it front and center "The Ecology of the Planted Tank"


----------



## BruceF

I think you are on to something there Michael, but you know too much sunshine is just problematic!
Personally I view all this as methodology and that is what interests me. Or more specifically, how do I get these plants to grow and what do I do about this or that algae. While I am a big fan of Amano , I am not a big fan of Japanese gardening in general. The whole idea of fitting a garden into a style just isn’t something I tend toward. It’s great that people can mail order rocks from Japan and debate their proper placement but I’d rather figure out why my anubias won’t flower.

I spent months recently trying to cure an algae problem and right now I have the upper hand. How I did that isn’t totally clear to me. I just know it didn’t involve co2 and that it did involve repeated attempts to get the fertilization correct, large almost weekly water changes and at least one or two applications of h2o2.


----------



## Michael

House, I don't feel limited or confined by Walstad. It has never prevented me from doing anything I wanted with my aquaria. What I do think is confining is the attitude of many who try the method: the preconception that it does not allow sophisticated design. We haven't found its limits yet.

Bruce, your comment about sunshine is interesting. I also find it more difficult to manage tanks that get a significant amount of natural light. Some of this is due to seasonal variation in light in temperate zones. So I tend to use artificial light primarily.

_Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ is hopelessly outdated on the subject of lighting. The only lighting strategy that is commonly associated with Walstad is the "siesta schedule", which I find somewhat helpful. But actually, Walstad tanks with low-intensity artificial light that get a few hours of high-intensity natural light through a window are closer to what we now call the "midday burst" schedule. I think this relatively brief, intense light is one of the reasons that classic Walstad tanks are successful. I would rather accomplish it with artificial light because of the greater control it gives me.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael, You might not find it confining, but I think if we look at scaping in general there is a broader spectrum that can be served with an ADA or EI type setup. It could also have something to do with the person that is attracted to try a Walstad style setup. It seems to me that you can't really take aquascaping out of ADA. The image is what it's about and achieving that look or feel is the intrinsic motivation to try it. With the Walstad method it seems it attracts people that are more into growing healthy plants then getting a 'zen' type high or a special feeling from a scape. Sort of what BruceF said right above you.



BruceF said:


> ...Or more specifically, how do I get these plants to grow and what do I do about this or that algae. While I am a big fan of Amano , I am not a big fan of Japanese gardening in general. The whole idea of fitting a garden into a style just isn't something I tend toward. It's great that people can mail order rocks from Japan and debate their proper placement but I'd rather figure out why my anubias won't flower...


----------



## Michael

I agree that "you can't really take aquascaping out of ADA." But I think that you can put aquascaping into Walstad, and that is what few people have tried.

Niko has teased me about this. Looks like I must set up that iwagumi Walstad tank after all, LOL.


----------



## BruceF

Oh gosh. I think this thread is wandering away from its intended discussion. I could have sworn we were talking about various systems of dosing a tank. 
From Deki ‘s article. 
“Eleocharis acicularis (Dwarf hairgrass), Glossostigma elatinoides, and Hemianthus callitrichoides to name a few commonly used species.” 
I have all these plants growing in my grow-out tank right now. That part is just paint by numbers. Simply aesthetics.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael said:


> I agree that "you can't really take aquascaping out of ADA." But I think that you can put aquascaping into Walstad, and that is what few people have tried.
> 
> Niko has teased me about this. Looks like I must set up that iwagumi Walstad tank after all, LOL.


Why don't you setup one and Niko setup one and I'll be the judge


----------



## Michael

Bruce, sorry, I did not intend to hijack the thread.

House, the problem with setting up an iwagumi is then I would have to look at the boring thing. Just kidding!


----------



## niko

Hm, I go for the mini contest with only 2 participants, but Iwagumi is inherently boring after 2 minutes staring at it. So I may do something funky with it.

The 30 gallon tank at the church that I have been playing with really hurts my eyes now. One can look only so much at bright blue gravel.

But be aware - I am not dosing anything in excess in it. I know I should - everybody is doing it... And I'm probably sticking a single stem of a bright red plant dead center to break the boredom.


----------



## niko

Bruce,

Look at this guy. I asked him if he has checked the N and P throughout the week in this tank. Let's see what he says.

Note that he has virtually no fish in that tank. And that he says he fertilizes once a week with basic Seachem ferts.

Whatever he says (hopefully he responds) next thing I mean to ask him is to leave the tank without maintenance for a few weeks. Undoubtedly he will agree. That will prove that everybody, everywhere is right.










Jokes aside - note the huge flow in these tanks.


----------



## houseofcards

This tank is nothing over the top or anything but had it up for two years and completely pristine no algae really to speak of.

46G
Eheim 2213 (effective turnover was 1x) no powerheads or other flow enhancers
CF 2x96
EI Dosing - High end dump
WC - 50% weekly

Never had any problem with the low flow. No problems anywhere in the tank, why?


Firecracker by naturalaquascapedesigns, on Flickr


----------



## niko

House,

To me that tank is beautiful.

How did you start the whole thing? Did you turn on the CO2 and the light and start dosing EI from day 1? 

Did you service this tank every single week of these 2 years? 

Do you think the tank was unstable in any way?

Here's another tank and answers to the above questions: I had a 10 gallon tank that had a no CO2 and no water flow. Zero. Just a heater. No ferts, no rich substrate. Few fish (5 Poecilobrycon, a very small and fragile kind of pencilfish) and fed so food never drops to the bottom. Two 25W incadescent bulbs on top. Changed 1/5 of the water a week. That was water coming from the nearby mountains and I bet it had enough Calcium and probably microelements but the hardness was not excessive. I had to trim that thing every week - about a handful of trimmings every week. Hard to believe but I went to fish stores and admired the algae because I didn't know what that was. So:

- Started with the heater and the 2 incadescent bulbs. Inert gravel. Water. Plants (Ceratopteris, C. affinnis, Java Moss, Camomba, Bacopa. Never saw a plant die in that tank. Even Fontinalis antipyretica - a moss that I brought from a a cold mountain creek from the mountains). 2 weeks of cycling and then added the fish.

- Changed 1/5 of the water once a week for the tank's life (about 9 months)

- Looking back that was a low tech tank of the worst kind - not even rich substrate. But stabilit wize I have the feeling that the tank didn't really need me.

And don't ask me if I can reproduce that tank. I do not think anybody can. 

I suspect you are going to say "See! There are different ways!". Yes, there are. I just can't figure out why for 10 years now, we haven't found a straighforward way to run a tank that works every single time. I do believe the problem is implementation rather than available knowledge and technique. And because of that I believe that the more risks you avoid from the beginning the better. To me stuffing the water with excess nutrients is both a risk and a strange idea. Maybe because I haven't heard of any natural body of water that matches the concentrations that EI suggest. Wet or Jeff explained above how the idea to add ferts to the water came about. But to take it to an extreme is still strange to me.

So as I was told in this thread EI is not about maintaining excess food in the water. Tom will say "Yes, but when you have more than enough then your only issues come from either CO2 or light.". Ok, good. Ferts, CO2 and light - seems simple but apparently it does not work every time. Honestly, without any sarcasm - I cannot figure out why (bad implementation is my best guess). Walstad's approach and the Japanese approach make more sense to me than EI. If algae is a concern then why not stay as close to the plants' nutrient needs and be able to reset things in a flash if needed? Why not hide most of the food in the substrate? And why is the original post of this thread showing a tank that has tons of ferts in the water but it is indeed staying stable.

My comment about the flow was spurred by something I read recently. ADA says that because of the active absorbtion of CO2 by the plants if the water doesn't flow very well around the plants the plants can create a zone of low CO2 around themselves. Another reason to wonder how come the tank desribed above did so well without any water movement. Also there used to be a local guy who had 3 big tanks and always used huge water flows. Some of the plants that did well in his tanks should not have done well unders his light or fertilization schedule. So I noted the big flow in that video.


----------



## BruceF

Michael …Post whatever you like. Pardon me for being rude.

Niko… Those are pretty easy plants. Why would you even need “high tech?”

House Great Tank! What is ‘High End Dump?’


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> ...How did you start the whole thing? Did you turn on the CO2 and the light and start dosing EI from day 1?
> 
> ..I do believe the problem is implementation rather than available knowledge and technique.
> 
> And because of that I believe that the more risks you avoid from the beginning the better.
> 
> My comment about the flow was spurred by something I read recently. ADA says that because of the active absorbtion of CO2 by the plants if the water doesn't flow very well around the plants the plants can create a zone of low CO2 around themselves. .


Thanks, yes I'm a big believer in the tighter you startup a tank the less problems you will encounter, as I think you noted.

Yes the tank was started with a reduced light cycle, co2 and I believe only dosing of K with the AS substrate for the first few months.

I also go all out by seeding bacteria, carbon/purigen and consistent water changes. I've pretty much never had a startup issue when I stuck to it. I really believe flow is a bigger factor at startup since you're really going with mechanical/chemical removal until the plants/bio-filter kick into high gear.

Look at my tank. In a 4ft rectangle how can ferts not get spread around. I had a spray bar 45° angle from the top left pane. I watched flourish spread all around the tank. That was good enough flow for me and there were no deficiencies anywhere that I noted.

It comes down mostly to dedication and having everything in place from the getgo. How many times do you see people here startup tanks and add pieces as they go along or they ran their lights for 8 hours from the start. That's just not going work in most cases. I really don't think it's that complicated.


----------



## houseofcards

BruceF said:


> iHouse Great Tank! What is 'High End Dump?'


Thanks. That was really code for once the tank got going I dosed at the high-range of the Estimative Index (EI)


----------



## niko

I got 3 things that I think will be interesting to the people that follow/participate in this thread. The first is fun to watch, the second is bordeline disturbing, and the third is a true aquascaper guy that interviewed today that does know how to start and run amazingly healthy looking tanks which I've seen him manipulate to his heart desire.

So here they are:

*1. A brand new video from Elos.*
I find two things interesting in it:

First, the use of heating cables. Who on earth still uses these? I thought we all decided several years ago that they do not contribute anything considerable to the plant growth. And the cable is visible in the corner. Why not an inline heater? Strange choice by a company that oozes coolness.

Second, look at the text at 01:09. Unless they have decided to copy ADA and not think about it I do not understand why they didn't suggest that ferts in the water can do it all. EI uses a rich substrate too nowadays but the words "... avoiding extreme liquid fertilization..." are sure to rub some folk the wrong way. Without taking sides one can say that Elos has not been in touch with the planted tank community and how it feels about fertilizing.





Ok, enough fun.

*2. A series of posts from 2008. A heated debate between Tom and a guy named "Naman".*
Naman is the person that had influenced me to write off the wall posts about filtration, water flow and so on the last couple of years. The guy has produced a monumental written work about planted tanks and aquascaping. Nothing you have ever seen comes even close. Every single facet that we have ever discussed is touched on. And more, much more. See his dense style posting - this is what the few hundred pages are too. It is all inspected from different angles, perspectives, quantified, and double-checked with common sense too. The work is in Russian. No translation - guy does not want any of that. And yes, it has not caused a second Red Revolution anywhere. Because, I believe, the majority of people everywhere love "simple" and "easy". How many people even have the patience to go through all the posts in the link below. Tom's chopped up writing style and Naman's broken English full of barely constrained agression are not a pleasant thing to get in your head. I warned you this is borderline disturbing. An ego overdose from both sides.

But the discussion is very detailed. I actually think it is a must-read. There are reference to things that everyone in this hobby should know (for example that P can never be limited fully or that excess N is a good thing and you want it).
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/4077-N-and-P-and-C?p=23764#post23764

And since Naman can't stop his prolific posting one can find quite a few interesting points here (providing you can stand the often argumentative style). He left that forum in 2009:
http://www.barrreport.com/search.php?searchid=1179842

What I personally think has pushed Naman into oblivion is the lack of several great looking aquascapes. Look at our homegrown best aquascapers. They have a few scapes and we consider them gurus. With the Naman guy we have a true guru but without aquascapes. That does not work if you want to speak to the people. This is a visual hobby. "To make oneself understood to the people, one must first speak to their eyes" said Napoleon (not Dynamite). Amano knows that the best of all and this is how all of us are where we are today.

*3. An interview with a typical aquascaper at heart.*
I find this typical for aquascapers that are all about the aquascape. They dislike to talk about the mundane bringing into existence and maintenance. They do know minute details and their importance. But often they tell you that this or that is done by feel. At the end you can piece a pretty good picture of the general practices. The info from that guy was very typical - they way he shared it and what he said. Here it is:

- Starting the tank with rich substrate
- CO2 and light is strong from Day 1
- Light is 7 hours a day. After one month its increased to 8 hours. 9 hours is his max. light period.
- The plants pearl under the strong light and CO2
- No N or P the first 4 - 6 weeks
- Fe and Traces only for the first 4 - 6 weeks
- Water changes 40% a week
- Adding very little N and P after week 4-6 
- No testing. Whenever tests were run they showed very low levels of N and P
- Tank cannot be left without maintenance the first 2-3 months. After that - no problem.
- Few fish

And here's a funny, two-leveled, note: If the cool looking Elos products get paired with an American aquascaper that indeed creates beautiful aquascapes there will be a shift away from using too many fertilizers in the water column. Heck, people may start using undergravel heaters again, haha! But that will not make the approach right or better. And that is not my point. What I think is that that aquascaper should not be from ADG or AquaForest or anything like them. It needs to be an "ordinary guy" - like the Dyson vacuums dude. And I have had a name for that person for some time now: "The American Amano".  Except there should not be any borrowing from the Nature Style. Now, that's hard because the real Amano is so influential. Well, I guess as far as aquascaping is concerned. Fertilzing is another thing...


----------



## BruceF

When I first moved to CO I had some exposure to George Booth and his take on under gravel heaters. Wasn't that the old Dupla method? I always figured it was a descendant of the older methods of using heat under and aquarium, seemed to work fine. I suppose Elos is looking for products with a certain aesthetic appeal. Good for them.

I was reading over the 'Method of controlled imbalances discussion' on the algae thread here, http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/62516-method-controlled-imbalances-discussion.html

Lots of, to me, good information there. I am especially attracted to the suggestions about particular plant needs and algae chemistry. Statements like this one "For example, marsilea crenata needs tons of Po4, microsorums needs k, Po4 and it's very sensitive to chloride. Glosso needs tons of No3, etc, etc." I not only find interesting but worth pursuing.


----------



## wet

Gorgeous tank and great points, houseofcards.

niko,



> I suspect you are going to say "See! There are different ways!". Yes, there are. I just can't figure out why for 10 years now, we haven't found a straighforward way to run a tank that works every single time. I do believe the problem is implementation rather than available knowledge and technique.


So I was thinking about this goal of coming up with steps that are repeatable with any tank, after being asked to come up with steps for something entirely different but to me similarly abstract, and I realized how ridiculous a goal this is.

Think about any other of your hobbies or your profession or field of study or family or life or whatever.

Lets say I like working out. Is there a short forum-able list of steps I, Alice, or Bob could read and follow that would make us all super fit and healthy and strong regardless of body type or lifestyle or any other variables between me, Alice, and Bob?

Lets say I want to train dogs. Is there a short forum-able list of steps we could follow that would let me and my friends train every dog we meet?

That all sounds ridiculous, right? And I don't mean to kill conversation: any conversation ever could be killed by "well you just don't know! There are all these special cases!!!", I'm just saying maybe we step back and look more at "See! There are different ways!", then look closer at what those ways have in common.

When I think of the hobby, professional, etc things I think I am really good at, I realize it wasn't one person's thoughts or papers, but rather a collection of things I found really resonated that I pieced together and added to how I like things and found something successful. All of them seem to get easier as I get more experience and grow older. I think of gardening the same way... I no longer think growing plants is hard, but I like it and hate certain things more now than I did before.

Grow plants first with whatever method, then mess around. It all just takes time and seeking answers to questions. Then you get good at it. If it was any different, would you really like this hobby?


----------



## OTPT

BruceF said:


> When I first moved to CO I had some exposure to George Booth and his take on under gravel heaters. Wasn't that the old Dupla method? I always figured it was a descendant of the older methods of using heat under and aquarium, seemed to work fine. I suppose Elos is looking for products with a certain aesthetic appeal. Good for them.
> 
> ...


Actually ADA has their own version of substrate heating system as well.
http://www.adana.co.jp/en/products/na_substrate/growth_plate/


----------



## wet

Bump for more experiences, opinions, thoughts, and manure from fellow gardeners via a video of a recently trimmed high light/nutrients/gas tank for niko: 




(Notice how the Crypts and Java Fern 'Trident' are pearling and dominating the scape after knocking down the stems from the tank posted earlier. The Paradise Fish is hanging out at the surface hoping she gets food, not because of CO2.)


----------



## BruceF

I guess we have kind of reached the end of this general discussion. I bought a co2 canister the other day and plan on exploring that world in the near future. In the mean time I find that dosing levels I use without co2 have various ramifications. These are things that should be obvious but they are not. For instance one day after dosing a tank I get GDA on the glass. Which chemical caused that? Or, after a long period of struggling my Java Fern started thriving. Which chemical was that? 

These are things that I feel should be readily answered even without any testing of the water.


----------



## houseofcards

wet said:


> ..When I think of the hobby, professional, etc things I think I am really good at, I realize it wasn't one person's thoughts or papers, but rather a collection of things I found really resonated that I pieced together and added to how I like things and found something successful. All of them seem to get easier as I get more experience and grow older. I think of gardening the same way... I no longer think growing plants is hard, but I like it and hate certain things more now than I did before.
> 
> Grow plants first with whatever method, then mess around. It all just takes time and seeking answers to questions. Then you get good at it. If it was any different, would you really like this hobby?


Yes, I agree, nothing like experience and going through it. I'm sure Amano did the same thing, but is there a 'magic bullet' that will eliminate most problems, assuming one has the dedication and time to to do? What does a new tank, old tank, dirty or overstocked tank have in common? Why do people always say co2 eliminates many algae issues, why does nitrate eliminate BGA, etc?


----------



## niko

Well, maybe this experience will be useful here:

As we speak I have a very slow BGA growth in a 30 gallon CO2 tank. I've been doing water changes over the last week to lower the ungodly 2.5 ppm Phosphate. Thing is I started with 2.5ppm Phosphate and 2.5ppm Nitrate. I stopped dosing both P and N. Last night the N was 1ppm and the P was 0.9 ppm. Both of these I test with very high quality test kits so if there is an error should be minimal.

Anyway what I see is this BGA trying to grow but it is doing it very slowly. No wonder - my N is too low and the P is too high. A classic exampe of a situation to get BGA:
http://buddendo.home.xs4all.nl/images/rr_table.png
http://buddendo.home.xs4all.nl/aquarium/redfield_eng.htm

I add good amounts of Fe, K, and traces to the tank (to make the plants pearl heavily). So what is preventing the BGA from doing the usual fast take over?

From some older and newer discussions I started to believe that there is never a true limitation of anything. Meaning that if something is out of balance and the plants stop growing the algae that steps in should take over pretty quickly even if the nutrients are low. But after looking at my tank I'm not sure what to think. I do have pretty low N. My plants are growing well. Maybe both of these limit the fast spread of BGA.

But what I like to believe is something that has to do with this discussion: That if I feel like it I can bring the tank to a halt VERY quickly. By increasing the water changes I can reduce the nutrients to levels that will indeed stop any plant and algae growth. What to do after that should be pretty easy to figure out - get all the parameters in line. Make sure that P is not growing again. My point is that if the tank is being run lean, like an ADA tank, I feel like I have more control over it. If this was a tank with water rich in nutrients any algae take over will be much faster AND I would have to do much more water changes to stop the system from running. Yes, one can try to muscle their way out by keeping all nutrients high and changing water. But I think there is little doubt which situation is more manageable and predictable: The lean water column tank.


----------



## Yo-han

Maybe because you do have good growth = good O2 = in-hostile environment for BGA...


----------



## houseofcards

On the other hand........

What if I'm away and can't dose and the excess keeps the plants growing and thriving until I get back. That's why I feel you can't remove lifestyle from how you take care of a tank. Personally in the past I've taken care of some big upscale tanks using EI, I don't think I could have done it with full ADA style dosing. I literally dosed everything once a week.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> On the other hand........
> 
> What if I'm away and can't dose and the excess keeps the plants growing and thriving until I get back. That's why I feel you can't remove lifestyle from how you take care of a tank. Personally in the past I've taken care of some big upscale tanks using EI, I don't think I could have done it with full ADA style dosing. I literally dosed everything once a week.


And what will happen if you get tied up and return a month later than expected. The plants would have eaten at least one of the nutrients. And as we all supposedly know if one nutrient is missing the plants pout and don't eat and don't grow. The algae on the other hand....

Both of these examples - the ADA and the EI imply the tank has rich substrate. Which will serve as a buffer if something is missing. So the tank will last longer without any care. Now, I believe that good substrate or not the excess nutrients in the water will play a dirty trick on you if you neglect the tank. But the original post in this thread states otherwise, and there is a recent video supporting that. I said already - I believe that if the tank is established then we are talking a very different situation. I'm not saying anything new here. But how can we deny that if we neglect the maintenance a tank with super clean water + rich substrate would be less susceptible to algae compared to a tank with super nutrient laden water + rich subsrate?


----------



## wet

It's these posts and times I realize how little I understand about how an aquarium or system really works. I only know how to make it work (grow plants) for me.

But I am going to try to take a crack at houseofcards's magic bullet anyway:


> is there a 'magic bullet' that will eliminate most problems, assuming one has the dedication and time to to do?


1. Adjustable lighting. Number of bulbs, height, etc: an easy way you can cut down light if you need to, or increase it if you want to.
2. Get the substrate right. Just do it: Walstad, ADA, EI, DIY, whatever: just do it. 
3. CO2. Even in the case of Michael's very beautiful Walstad tank.
4. Water changes while the tank is young and unstable.

Super magic bullets for me. FWIW, substrate is the one that took me maybe the longest to realize and accept, as a person who usually looks for cheaper (time, effort, $) stuff..

(Bonus: how is this different from EI, ADA... in the first 3 months?)

What do you think?


----------



## m00se

I use Black Diamond blasting grit. Do you feel that Aquasoil is actually better, after you mulm up the sub, and root tab it?


----------



## Michael

*"3. CO2. Even in the case of Michael's very beautiful Walstad tank."*
LOL and thank you! Wet, if I ever decide to dabble in the black arts, CO2 will be the first.

*"I use Black Diamond blasting grit. Do you feel that Aquasoil is actually better, after you mulm up the sub, and root tab it?"*
Yes, definitely. If you prefer the appearance of Black Diamond, use it to cap mineralized topsoil. Root tabs do not take the place of a nutrient-rich high CEC substrate, and it takes a long time for natural decomposition to produce enough mulm in the substrate to stabilize the tank.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> And what will happen if you get tied up and return a month later than expected. The plants would have eaten at least one of the nutrients...


Well a month is a long time and I'm not usually in a situation for a trip to go from a few days to a month. But the need to do water changes/ad ferts, etc. in all of these hi-tech systems just tells me how fragile they are, just like a _house-of-cards_.


----------



## f1ea

wet said:


> But I am going to try to take a crack at houseofcards's magic bullet anyway:
> 
> 1. Adjustable lighting. Number of bulbs, height, etc: an easy way you can cut down light if you need to, or increase it if you want to.
> 2. Get the substrate right. Just do it: Walstad, ADA, EI, DIY, whatever: just do it.
> 3. CO2. Even in the case of Michael's very beautiful Walstad tank.
> 4. Water changes while the tank is young and unstable.
> 
> Super magic bullets for me. FWIW, substrate is the one that took me maybe the longest to realize and accept, as a person who usually looks for cheaper (time, effort, $) stuff..
> 
> (Bonus: how is this different from EI, ADA... in the first 3 months?)
> 
> What do you think?


Good post. Specially items 2 and 3.

Most substrates work, as long as it's nutritious and with high CEC. I have used topsoil for the most part, but at the moment i'm on my first Aquasoil experience... and i must say it's awesome. Cheap topsoil 'works' very well too, so yea... nutritious substrate, do it.

Co2 is it. Even in low-ish light, the results are palpable. In all my diy topsoil tanks, the problems (either algae or poor growth from picky plants) came mostly when i slacked and didn't change the DIY CO2 in time.

The good thing about adjustable light is that you can tweak the driving force, which helps a lot when you have some limitations... such as maintenance commitment, money etc

Water changes... meh. I've never liked those.


----------



## BruceF

So is the substrate something more than a storage device? Most of the hydrophytes are getting all their nutrients from the water column. 
And. 
CO2 is there a need to increase the CO2 in proportion to the nutrient content?


----------



## niko

In this discussion we better note at least some disctinction between tanks with rooted plants and tanks with epiphyte-resembling plants only (mosses, ferns) . The later are pretty popular due to the pretty look. Here's one such tank - it has Anubias and Ferns only:










Such a tank will indeed be a special case in which the substrate should not play a role. But is that really so? What about the organisms that are part of the biofilter that are in the substrate? Does it make sense to use a rich substrate in such a tank in order to "take care of all organisms" as the ADA doctrine says? What about using AquaSoil or another substrate that absorbs nutrients from the water and will help clean the water + have certain buffering effect?

And here's my big tank that everybody mush be sick seeing by now. It had a big bolbitis + a bunch of tetras. This thing is indeed a problem to keep clean - the fish are too dirty and the plant is not really a nutrient sponge. I refer to this tank again here because I do believe that it is possible to actually have the cake and eat it (fish overload + an epiphyte plants) IF you understand the fine interactions between the system's parts. To me this discussion is exactly about that - the subtle side of maintaining a planted tank which will allow you to not only make maintenance easier but also allow you to do things that we consider hard or impossible to do.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> In this discussion we better note at least some disctinction between tanks with rooted plants and tanks with epiphyte-resembling plants only (mosses, ferns) . The later are pretty popular due to the pretty look. Here's one such tank - it has Anubias and Ferns only:
> [/url]


I was just going to make that point about the ferns amd mosses. It's important long term in the fact that I don't think I would still be in the hobby if I didn't get off 'stems'. If your just growing plants than it's probably not true, but for aquascaping long-term definitely.


----------



## f1ea

BruceF said:


> So is the substrate something more than a storage device? Most of the hydrophytes are getting all their nutrients from the water column.
> And.
> CO2 is there a need to increase the CO2 in proportion to the nutrient content?


The substrate is a nutrient storage mechanism. The key is that the nutrients do no get released to the water column where it become available to everything; the higher the CEC of the soil, the less amount of nutrients from this storage will be accessible to non-rooted plants/algae and the most nutrients from the water will be bound to the soil.

About CO2, i would say it's driven by light quantity/plant growth, not by nutrient availability.

Most plants would get their nutrients from the water column if the nutrients are available; if not they would use their roots or both. The benefit being algae has no roots. So in general, a soil tank gives the advantage to plants.


----------



## Michael

In my Walstad tanks with epiphytes, I find that the plants do not grow quickly until their roots hit the substrate. then they really take off. This is especially true of anubias, and it is surprising how long an anubias root will grow to reach that soil.


----------



## BruceF

F1ea
About CO2, i would say it's driven by light quantity/plant growth, not by nutrient availability.”

I am not sure I can get my mind around that. Is there a need to increase the nutrient content in proportion to the co2? 
Michael. 
I find that if I fertilize the water column the anubias perk up fairly quickly.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael said:


> *In my Walstad tanks with epiphytes, I find that the plants do not grow quickly until their roots hit the substrate. then they really take off. *This is especially true of anubias, and it is surprising how long an anubias root will grow to reach that soil.


That is one reason why a Walstad tank IMO is limited, especially in terms of aquascaping. Many times epiphytes are much higher in the water column so if that is true than you are more limited to placement and growth/health.


----------



## f1ea

BruceF said:


> F1ea
> About CO2, i would say it's driven by light quantity/plant growth, not by nutrient availability."
> 
> I am not sure I can get my mind around that. Is there a need to increase the nutrient content in proportion to the co2?


Only if Co2 was limited to begin with. But if you had enough CO2 already, increasing your rate will not increase nutrient intake per se. If your CO2 was limited, adding more will improve plant growth, and that will increase a bit of nutrient uptake... But if you increase light, you will directly increase consumption of everything.


----------



## Michael

houseofcards said:


> That is one reason why a Walstad tank IMO is limited, especially in terms of aquascaping. Many times epiphytes are much higher in the water column so if that is true than you are more limited to placement and growth/health.


Just to be clear, I didn't say that the epiphytes would not grow, only that they grow faster if they can send roots into the substrate. I can put them anywhere in the tank and get healthy growth, if not quite as fast.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael said:


> Just to be clear, I didn't say that the epiphytes would not grow, only that they grow faster if they can send roots into the substrate. I can put them anywhere in the tank and get healthy growth, if not quite as fast.


I understand, but nevertheless it would still be a limitation of that system, if one tried to create a setup with mostly or only epiphytes. You essentially turn slow growers into even slower growers so it would be that much harder to maintain given light and other requirements, etc. Also aerial roots don't always lend themselves to a scape, unless your want that look.


----------



## BruceF

Strikes me that there is a leaching of nutrients that occurs with the ADA substrates. So much so that many people find it a problem early on. I assume that is why in the long run the fertilization of those tanks increases. I have to assume that other rich substrates do much the same thing ie leach nutrients into the water column. 

It seems clear that anubias is a pretty heavy feeder. I have a large one that puts on leaves at a rate probably close to three or four a week. The more chemicals I toss at the faster it seems to grow. Though I still don’t know which chemicals. 

F1 thanks gotcha.


----------



## niko

Since we, the people participating/reading this thread, are the kind that can't stop digging the same hole here's more of it:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...6742-adventures-redfield-land.html#post647728

Hopefully that thread will bring new additions into the ranks of folk that enjoy the "how & why" as much as the aquascape. Plant growing I mean.


----------



## Zapins

Soil tanks are great but they definitely have limitations. The anubias I had got nitrogen deficiency and stopped growing since it couldn't reach the soil. In another tank the soil kept getting everywhere and required frequent cleaning, probably the MTSs. Soil is the way to go for picky plants like nesea and R. Mac.


----------



## f1ea

BruceF said:


> Strikes me that there is a leaching of nutrients that occurs with the ADA substrates. So much so that many people find it a problem early on. I assume that is why in the long run the fertilization of those tanks increases. I have to assume that other rich substrates do much the same thing ie leach nutrients into the water column.


The leaching of nutrients does not occur to ADA substrates. It occurs on all 'organic' based substrates when they undergo change from dry to submersed conditions. This nutrient release is basically the decomposition of organic material by bacteria. It *can* be seen as a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing... Actually... it's a good thing. And not all ADA soils are high in organics, so some of them don't leach much nutrients.

There's a procedure to reduce this by wet/dry cycles (mineralized Topsoil), if people want to avoid the decomposition from occurring in a newly installed tank. Personally, i've tried both mineralized and just adding the soil as-is, and i found no problems at all with the initial nutrient release (except once when I had too much sunshine hit the tank); i prefer letting the organics decompose in tank, that way you have increased co2 production.

My new tank with AS, i used ammonia remover because i had a brand new filter and was starting with newly bought plants (ie not in great conditions right of the bat); i also didnt want to do water changes. No problems at all with nutrient leaching, and i was pretty messy with filling and didnt make water changes.

There's the tank up there ^ cel phone pic. Tank is 3 weeks old.


----------



## BruceF

Nice Tank F1
I usually run new planted tanks without any fish for a few months. 
Doesn’t the ADA suggest one start by adding the bacteria? I’m not really very familiar with those products. 
What do yiou use for ammonia remover?


----------



## houseofcards

f1ea said:


> The leaching of nutrients does not occur to ADA substrates. It occurs on all 'organic' based substrates when they undergo change from dry to submersed conditions. This nutrient release is basically the decomposition of organic material by bacteria. It *can* be seen as a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing... Actually... it's a good thing. And not all ADA soils are high in organics, so some of them don't leach much nutrients.
> .


ADA has alot or organics in it and it leaches NH3 among other nutrients including co2.


----------



## niko

For what it's worth I got to say that here behind me I have a glass container full of AquaSoil. It has 3 terrestrial plants. I've had them in this substrate for more than 1 year. They grow very well IF I don't forget to water liberally. There is a slight pale discoloration on one of the plants every so often - I do not know if that's becase of irregular watering or a defficiency. One of the plants is a fern and absolutely loves the substrate (when wet)

I guess that means that there are a lot of organics in AquaSoil.


----------



## f1ea

houseofcards said:


> ADA has alot or organics in it and it leaches NH3 among other nutrients including co2.


I think the distinction i was trying to make is that the organics is not exclusively an ADA thing. Because not all the ADA substrates have high organics content. Aquasoil Amazonia does (have high organics)...

Also, the 'leaching' of nutrients is kind of a tricky part... it's not exactly that the nutrients are leaching. Is that the organic decomposition produces ammonia and co2. So if one sees the decomposition as simply a 'leaching of nutrients' it becomes pretty easy to ignore the other benefits from organic decomposition in your substrate...


----------



## f1ea

BruceF said:


> Nice Tank F1
> I usually run new planted tanks without any fish for a few months.
> Doesn't the ADA suggest one start by adding the bacteria? I'm not really very familiar with those products.
> What do yiou use for ammonia remover?


Thanks. Well, there's several products ADA uses to add bacteria. In my tank i only used ADA "New" Amazonia over Powersand special which is supposed to have a couple of products in one (including the one with bacteria). I'm not sure what are all the benefits from Power sand sp, but i uprooted a plant and the roots had gone straight to hug the powersand at the bottom.

Normal cheap topsoil already contains a lot of nitrifying bacteria. But normal topsoil is not baked.... so i would assume the "bacteria" product from ADA replaces all the soil bacteria killed in the process of making AS Amazonia.

I used plain old Zeolite in my filter for the first 3 weeks; and i added fish and shrimp on like the 2nd week. But it was actually the 3rd week; cause i started running the filter (new filter, new media), heater and submerged the driftwood and substrate for almost a week before planting and running lights and co2. I didnt really go by a set time frame, instead, when i saw the plants growing well and started to get some GSA on the front glass and BBA on the driftwood i added fish. So yeah, the tank is running for almost 4 weeks now, but it's been 3 week only since planting. And my plants weren't in top shape, so at the moment there's some debris from die-off leaves and plants took a few days to actually settle and start growing. Had i used plants already growing well or an established filter, i'm sure i could have populated right away and the whole ammonia thing would have gone totally unnoticed.


----------



## houseofcards

f1ea said:


> I think the distinction i was trying to make is that the organics is not exclusively an ADA thing. Because not all the ADA substrates have high organics content. Aquasoil Amazonia does (have high organics)...
> 
> Also, the 'leaching' of nutrients is kind of a tricky part... it's not exactly that the nutrients are leaching. Is that the organic decomposition produces ammonia and co2. So if one sees the decomposition as simply a 'leaching of nutrients' it becomes pretty easy to ignore the other benefits from organic decomposition in your substrate...


Yeah, you didn't write it that way you seemed to say ADA doesn't leach, but regardless, leaching is leaching to me, all organic substrates will leach nh3 as a product of organic decay and the plants like it so...


----------



## niko

ADA openly talks about the release of substances from their substrates. Here, I found some good information on the Russian Aquajournal website.
http://aquajournal.ru/nature.php?nature=3&pages=17

This pic is crappy but it shows what the 4 different ADA substrates do to tap water that is pH=7.6 and KH=2:










Basically all of them lower the pH - to 6.8, 6.4. 5.8, and 5.5. All of them lower KH to 1.

Look at how Amazonia and Amazonia II actually increase the Ammonia. But ADA specifically says that this happens IF the water is alkaline (pH-7.5 to 8.0 and KH of 2).


----------



## f1ea

houseofcards said:


> Yeah, you didn't write it that way you seemed to say ADA doesn't leach, but regardless, leaching is leaching to me, all organic substrates will leach nh3 as a product of organic decay and the plants like it so...


Yes. People may be scared from the nutrient release thing or think it's a flaw in a substrate. But it's a characteristic, not a flaw (and as Niko mentions it's not even being hidden or anything as it is addressed in detail by ADA). I had no problems at all with the nutrient release.


----------



## houseofcards

f1ea said:


> Yes. People may be scared from the nutrient release thing or think it's a flaw in a substrate. But it's a characteristic, not a flaw (and as Niko mentions it's not even being hidden or anything as it is addressed in detail by ADA). I had no problems at all with the nutrient release.


Yes agree.

I mean AS can be the easiest or the hardest substrate to deal with depending up who's using it. On one hand if you do your water changes, keep light duration short and don't disturb it, it's like the substrate for Dummies since the tank will pretty much run itself for 6-9 months, but if you don't do those things it's the substrate from hell (as depicted by many newbie tanks on the forums)


----------



## niko

You know, I think it's about time we nail it in our heads that in the world of planted tanks, as well as in the world in general, everything is a trade off. One great quality always comes with details that you need to 1. Know and 2. Know how to handle.

Today I talked to a friend of mine that knows a lot about industrial paints and coatings (epoxies, urethanes, etc). Guess what is the situation in that field? Very familiar: Every single high quality (hard coating, sticks to any substrate, UV-stable, you name it) comes with a "downside". The way you make your choice of coating depends on the use, exposure to sun, substrate properties, etc. You can NOT say that one is better than the other. Bottom line is - your choice is right ONLY IF you understand all the products very well.

In the world of planted tank we have a narrow view what is what. No matter how I personally feel about it and no matter that no professional uses EI this is what is popular in the USA. But most people do not have a clear understanding why chose EI over anything else other than "It works.", "It's easy.", "Everybody uses it.", "It's cheaper than ADA." etc. At some point Tom came up with "EI + AquaSoil". That's like saying "A Yugo with a Ferrari engine." Yes it will run. It will run fast. It will take you places. Noone can deny that but also most people can't deny they don't really know why they chose it. I know what I call that. What do you call it?









So the ADA substrates release Ammonia in the water? But not very many people care to know how that could be useful or actually desirable. And no, I don't care much about both ADA or if every plant head knows how their stuff works. But coming from a society where mediocrity was de facto a law I cannot help but be sensitive to it. Call it "stupidity", "being superficial", or "that's how it goes" - we can't deny it is not a good thing.

Once again - I write all these charged posts because I dislike the simplistic mindset. As I said recently "Do not try to paint a masterpiece on a sticky note." Everything in this life is about mindset - trying to know more and to see things in their entirety. I can go on to say that these two things are precious, not for everybody, and even carefully kept away from most people. But this post is not about that. Better focus the discussion on more details about how things work in planted tanks. Lo and behold 10 years from now everybody actually makes an educated choice how to approach their planted tank.


----------



## TarantulaGuy

I humbly submit art on post-it notes, for you Niko. 

http://www.techeblog.com/elephant/photo.phtml?post_key=161901&photo_key=46768#prevnext


----------



## houseofcards

TarantulaGuy said:


> I humbly submit art on post-it notes, for you Niko.
> 
> http://www.techeblog.com/elephant/photo.phtml?post_key=161901&photo_key=46768#prevnext


Those are great.



niko said:


> ..At some point Tom came up with "EI + AquaSoil". That's like saying "A Yugo with a Ferrari engine.."


I actually look at it the other way around. I don't care what's under the hood as long as it looks and runs good.


----------



## niko

Yes those post-it notes are true pieces of art indeed! I will try to fit everything I do in a small scale now. Just wait and you will see me on the news one day! 

And here's an even loftier goal:
http://peopleofar.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/edward-ter-ghazarian-founder-of-miniature-art

House,

My point is about people not knowing what options are out there. I recently talked to a guy that has used virtually all methods out there. But only because this or that tank would do best by using that exact method.

Among the other questions about EI one is very obviously invisible: Why if Tom's best amazing scientific EI that tells plants, algae, and people how to act folk still have plant growth and algae issues? EI covers all bases by design. It is supposed to be easy and cheap. Whatever. So with the "EI+AquaSoil" combo there should have been a revolution in this hobby. Instead what we see is the amateurs following EI/Tom and what not, and all professionals doing what ADA does.

Once again - this is not who's right who's wrong. Different strokes, different goals. Your tank is gorgeous but honestly for the plants that are in it EI is by far the most counter intuitive approach for it. Please don't get hot headed because that is not my goal here.

Actually my main intention is selfish - to learn more than I know at present. From this and some other newer threads I've learned a lot in the last few weeks. I wish Tom did not write in a barely comprehensible style, I wish ADA was not all about selling you crap, I wish there was a site where one could read in details about Dupla, Dutch tanks, PMDD, EI, the approach of adding ferts to the water that existed much before Tom decided he invented it, PPS, PPS-pro. But there isn't*. All we got is ourselves on a forum, and pieces of information all over. That's a good thing if you ask me.

* Naman, a Russian guy that used to post on APC some years ago has actually written such a document. But it does not cover all the approaches. It does get into minute details about ADA-EI-PPS in a scientific way outlining ADA as the best by far. The planted tank community in his own country pretty much ignores his work. There is no English translation.


----------



## niko

Here's some interesting information; First hand witness account on how ADA starts a new tank. Guy (probably one of the distributors) was at the gallery for some time and saw the following:

1. All new tanks are started with filters that are seeded already.
2. The tap water at the gallery has KH=2.
3. In the first few days (not clear how many) the lights are on only 3-4 hours a day.
4. In all tanks there is night time aeration. Using the Lily Pipe. He says something about dumping just enough water to get the Lily Pipe to aearate. Not very clear about that.
5. No ferts in the first weeek and a half. Only Green Bacter and Green Gain (1 drop/30-40 liters of volume)

There is also another guy that posted in this thread. He says that as a botanist he can say that plants really develop their roots if there is lack of nutrients in the water. Said that in reference to the first phases of development. But someone else reminded that a lot of the plants are Wabi-Kusa and the roots are already established. Either way - as we can see there is a lot of care for the plant's roots.

Link:
http://aquajournal.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=357


----------



## houseofcards

Niko, I would never get hot-headed for an opinion you have, I only get 'passionate' about something when I know from experience that something isn't true, but it seems to be stated as so. I am curious though why you think EI is counterintuitive for the tank. Before you respond, take a good hard look at the setup.


----------



## niko

House,

I looked at the enlarged picture. There are ferns and mosses. I can't quite make up one plant on the right. Could be stargrass and then things change. 

Here's my logic - it shows how I see a planted tank today: A tank with mosses and ferns does not suck a lot of nutrients. So keeping any excess is not needed. To ballance the tank on the safe side nutrients in the water need to be minimal. BUT! Java Fern looks spectacular with a little extra P. And mosses grow much faster under good light and with good CO2. Another "but" - with high light, CO2, and P all of these plants will have to be trimmed at least once a week if you want to keep a precise shape of everything. That is fine but trimming is a sensitive moment - one needs to remember that the living plant mass is being reduced. Which in turn reflects on the amount of nutrients being used (ferts and CO2). These are details too fine for most folk. And normaly nothing bad happens. But if the tank has excess N and P and CO2 every trimming is like tinkering with a system that can go bad very fast. But there is more chance compared to a lean one.

In defense of high N I think one can say that relatively more N has to be available when the light is low. As I understand in low light and low CO2 the plants need more N to "eat" Carbon. Once again - details too fine for most folk. But note that N needs to be more, not everything else too.

The above actually sums up why I believe that a tank with excess nutrients in the water cannot be left by itself for long - tank is unstable when compared to a lean water/rich gravel tank. Despite the original post here and the video I still think that the vast majority of people doing EI can't just leave the house and leave their tank be. We already discussed the practical side of being able to do that - not everyone cares about that.

A person that wants a tank that is manageable, keeps the planned shape for a long time, does not have an elevated risk of developing issues would say that EI for your tank is counter intuitive. Maybe here is the place to point out something that I believe most of us know but someone may find it to be a striking news - ADA tanks very much never have plants that require great amounts of ferts in the water. That's not an accident (nothing that ADA presents our eyes and ears with is an accident. Nothing. ADA is a kind of business that we cannot figure out easily like our homegrown outfits and it is constantly playing games with our minds despite what we think). So for tanks that have plants that like food in the water one has no choice but to add the food to the water. And that comes with a price - you better know what you are doing and have at least a bit of a "green thumb" or trouble is very much guaranteed at some point.

Now tell us what other plants you have in it that make EI the right choice.


----------



## Yo-han

How about the long term setup. EI can go on for ages, where the rich substrate runs out eventually. What do people having an ADA (or similar) based tank do if they want to run it on the long term? Replace (parts) of the substrate (risking an ammonia peak), insert root tabs or anything?


----------



## houseofcards

Niko thanks for that thorough analysis. I will address all, but I'm squeezed for time for now, but let me ask you one question. Let's assume I agree with everything you said about the setup. That the tank doesn't need the excess, etc, etc. Yet the tank is stable, ALL the plants grow great, the fish are colored-up, I have no algae issues. Then how can that be with all the excess in there? Why does the tank do fine, so either the plants are using the excess or the tank is fine with the excess in the WC. What is the downside?

BTW the plant in the back behind the focal point is _Cypreus helfreri_. Anyone that grows that plant know that you need 'clean water' or it becomes an algae magnet literally. What is your definition of clean water?


----------



## niko

Yo-han said:


> How about the long term setup. EI can go on for ages, where the rich substrate runs out eventually. What do people having an ADA (or similar) based tank do if they want to run it on the long term? Replace (parts) of the substrate (risking an ammonia peak), insert root tabs or anything?


Yes, you an keep a tank going using EI forever. But look how you do it - you add stuff to the tank every single day or you risk a disbalance. With rich substrate/lean water column after about a year (with AquaSoil (their richest substrate of all 4), according to ADA themselves) the bottom will need supplementation. So which is one is better? A tank where you are walking the edge constantly and can keep it that way forever or a tank that provides little for algae to grow and you have to supplement occasionaly with fert sticks in the substrate after a year.

Now here's the place to ask "Why then use EI+AquaSoil?". The answer is "So the AquaSoil sucks nutrients from the water and gives them to the roots. And the ferts in the water feed the plants through the leaves. Best of both worlds. A never ending cycle". But all that stuff in excess in the water once again exposes you to more risk should algae appear. The bottom line here is that if the plants grow well they will take care of every risk. So lean or rich substrate the algae risk is still greater compared to a lean system like ADA's.

There is also another important thing to note here: Contrary to how I may sound in all my posts an EI tank eventually stabilizes. Meaning that, yes, you can leave it without much care for some time and have no problems. But what's important to notice is that that is NOT because of EI. Every tank eventualy stabilizes IF it runs smoothly for many months. You can run it smoothly in many different ways - leave it by itself, or maintain it with your preferred approach. It will eventually reach a point which is a new level. Some years ago I asked Luis Navarro when does he think a tank is established. He said "At least 6 months, maybe even at least 8 months." Before that it's all you and your efforts to keep the ballance. Even with a rich substrate/little ferts in the water. What I'm trying to say is that we need to understand how a tank establishes itself and not attribute success to this or that approach.

One last thing. I said above - ADA does not do anything by accident. It is a business, never forget that. It would be a reasonable thing to say that stating that AquaSoil needs nutrient stick supplementation after about a year could be a marketing trick. Why don't they do away with the sticks and the cool looking bottom injector contraption and add more of their liquid fertilizer? See, these are some of the things that make me wish Amano talked more about this and that. People would know more about the different options and not get stuck in what this or that authority tells them. Funny thing is that the Russian official ADA forum shows that issue very clearly - people have different experiences with the ADA system and the admins of the website don't really have answers other than what you can find on the internet yourself + a little of personal observations. Here in the US, over on the TPT forum, Frank from ADA gives much better advice than the Russian admins. Hm, how many people know who Frank is? So if we look at that situation in perspective - more people go with EI than with an educated choice why they do that.


----------



## 1077

Yo-han said:


> How about the long term setup. EI can go on for ages, where the rich substrate runs out eventually. What do people having an ADA (or similar) based tank do if they want to run it on the long term? Replace (parts) of the substrate (risking an ammonia peak), insert root tabs or anything?


I cannot easily find ADA product's here in U.S. and so I built my substrate using Soil, peat,Cat litter,capped with sand (black diamond blasting media).Tank has been running for two year's with NO CO2 but do employ Dry fertz to the water once a week or every two week's.
Also have relatively large fish load and fish,ivert's are well fed.
Have modeled the tank after Tom Barr's NON CO 2 method, and only difference is ,I perform water changes 50 % every two or three week's that he indicates aren't needed with small fish load.
I use maybe a third of EI as mentioned, once a week or every two week's.
Plant's aren't perhap's heavy feeder's with exception of a few very large Echinodorus trying to grow out of the 300 litre tank but I believe the cat litter help's hold nutrient's supplied by the fish and have seen no algae or adverse reaction from plant's ,fish,or invert's from adding NPK.
Oh,, I do on occasion stick a "Osmocote Pot Shot" under large sword plant's maybe every three month's.
Believe there are several method's of "skinning a cat" or growing weed's.
I just expierimented until I found what work's for the plant's in my tank ,with lighting I have, source water,plant mass,fish load,soil composistion,and rate of uptake observed.


----------



## K Randall

Interesting thread, and I would have liked to make some comments earlier, but it took me so long to catch up with the reading that I haven't bothered! I don't really call what I do with my tanks any one specific method, though Tom and I have talked, and I suspect what I do comes closest to EI of anything. I do NOT maintain high nutrient levels in the water, nor do I work diligently to keep all nutrients OUT of the water column. I like to dose enough that the plants are growing and healthy, and there is little visible algae. I change water about every two weeks, and the amount is probably about 1/3-2/5 the volume of the tank. (this is decided by the depth of the filter intake, nothing else... I HATE to have to re-prime the danged thing!<g>) The tanks are heavily planted, and the fish load in mostly is low, though I do have one with a higher fish load. All have good, moderate light levels and good levels of CO2. Substrates range from Flourite to Fluval Flora to Amazonia. My old tank, which I have posted about here had a gravel/laterite substrate and was run exactly the same way fro 20 years. I am too lazy to keep up with daily dosing, so I dose NPK and micronutrients twice a week. (and I don't alternate between macro and micros either... if it means I have to dose more micros, so be it) When I test right after I've dosed, my nitrate is between 10-20 ppm, phosphate between .5 and 1 ppm (except in the Amazonia tank, which requires more phosphate because the substrate is still keeping the N high... In that tank, I dose the phosphate more heavily, and just watch the nitrate carefully. That tank was set up on 10/25, and I am JUST starting to need to dose nitrate within the last few weeks. Dosed on this schedule, I have little visible algae.

One variable that has NOT been discussed in either this thread or the Redfield thread is the plants' "luxury uptake" of nutrients. Healthy plants can and do take up more nutrients into their tissues than are strictly needed for growth. This is the "fat" that carries them through lean periods in the wild, and it can carry them through lean periods in your tank too. So even if you run the nutrient levels in your tank WAY down from time to time, as long as it doesn't go on indefinitely, the plants can continue to grow very nicely for quite some time just on the excess nutrients in their tissues. This isn't inexhaustible, but it lasts longer than you might think.

I travel at least twice a year, usually for about 3 weeks, and several time more for a week or so. When I travel for a week, I don't do a thing. Nobody even feeds the fish. When I go away for 3 weeks, this is how I manage the tank:

I make SURE that the plants (and animals, for that matter) are well fed for at least a month prior. During the last few days before I go, I make sure that the CO2 tanks will not run out while I'm gone. I do a regular water change and cut all the stems, especially the fastest growing ones) WAY back, so they won't choke the water surface before I get back. I set up twice a week food packets for each tank, so that someone can easily feed the fish. While most of the fish would probably survive 3 weeks without food, there are often fry in the tanks, and I don't want to lose them. The fry can actually feed themselves pretty well on biofilm in a planted tank, but the larger fish hunt more diligently if they are too hungry, so you lose more to predation. This means there isn't NO import of nutrients into the tank while I'm gone, but it is minimal. Finally, I cut the light duration to 1/2 to 3/4 of normal levels except on my already low-light desk top nano.

Handled in this way, my tanks look absolutely fine when I get back. They usually need a trim again, but they haven't been over-run with stems, and there is no algae problem. This has not been a one-time experiment. I've done it MANY times on many tanks. I know Christel does the same on her tanks, when we travel. (Her tanks are soil based capped with gravel)

It might be easy to say., "See, you don't need to add all those nutrients! The plants do fine without them!" But this overlooks the fact that the plants have been running largely on luxury usage reserves during this time period. If I kept it up (and it has happened at times due to illness or exceptionally busy times in my life) I would lose some of the more sensitive plants, most of the other plants would survive, and even grow, though not as well, and worst, I would see some kinds of algae begin to creep in, especially on the slower growing plants like the Anubias.

If you have a tank where the plants are getting ONLY enough nutrients to maintain growth, and not develop luxury stores (though this might be a hard balancing act anyway) and then leave the tank for several weeks without fertilization, the plants would be in trouble. In a tank that is a high-range EI tank, remember that the plants will be using up those water column stores before they go into the stores within their tissues. So the water is likely to be pretty devoid of nutrients after a long vacation. I suspect that even with tanks run at the high end of the EI range, as long as the lighting is reduced somewhat, and CO2 kept constant, that they would withstand a 3 week "vacation from care" without any real problem. I would hope that people who are using EI would have the sense to "turn down the engine" if they have to leave the tank for a long period or reduce the amount of weekly care they give the tank.

I don't know what people who run "complete" ADA systems do about vacations. The ADA product line looks like it advises a "squirt of this or that daily". So the amount in the water column at any point in time might (or might not) be less, but for vacations, it still seems to me that you need some way getting away from daily care.


----------



## houseofcards

K Randall said:


> ..I don't know what people who run "complete" ADA systems do about vacations. The ADA product line looks like it advises a "squirt of this or that daily". So the amount in the water column at any point in time might (or might not) be less, but for vacations, it still seems to me that you need some way getting away from daily care.


That' pretty much true in regards to the ADA fert routine. That's why there isn't one system that will produce the best results for everyone. It's nice to know there is a reserve routine that plants might use, but that sounds like a thiin tightrope to work, depending on the setup. Not everyone can cater to the tank that way, certainly the workers at the ADA Gallery can. I had setup some large scapes in the NYC and maintained them for a while on a once a week EI routine with minimum issues. The point I was making with my setup is that even though it's mostly ferns and mosses, EI worked fine and I'm not sure what the downside to that is other than possibly wasting NPK. I don't think excess nutrients in terms of the inorganics we dump in make a tank high risk for algae.


----------



## BruceF

Seems to me we could use a definition of EI at this point for those of us that tend toward confusion. What is that chemical dump exactly? Is it always referring to macros and micros? Does it include the so called GH booster? CSM + B? (Do I even have that acronym right?)


----------



## K Randall

houseofcards said:


> That' pretty much true in regards to the ADA fert routine. That's why there isn't one system that will produce the best results for everyone. It's nice to know there is a reserve routine that plants might use, but that sounds like a thiin tightrope to work, depending on the setup. Not everyone can cater to the tank that way, certainly the workers at the AGA Gallery can. I had setup some large scapes in the NYC and maintained them for a while on a once a week EI routine with minimum issues. The point I was making with my setup is that even though it's mostly ferns and mosses, EI worked fine and I'm not sure what the downside to that is other than possibly wasting NPK. I don't think excess nutrients in terms of the inorganics we dump in make a tank high risk for algae.


Sorry, what are you saying is true of ADA systems? That they do have to be maintained daily? Or that you can (on occasion) let them go longer, as with my tanks? (not arguing, just looking for clarification,as I don't use ADA products other than Amazonia and a couple of tools)

Just to correct something (that I'm sure is just a typo, but to be clear to any newbies reading) I think you are talking about the ADA gallery. AGA is a hobby organization without any worker bees to maintain tanks.  We DO have a fabulous online gallery in the Aquascaping Contest web site, but that can tolerate LONG vacations without fertilization. 

I think you can carry dumping in nutrients to extremes and certainly get in trouble. However, if you are maintaining in the middle range of EI dosing or a little lower, keep the light moderate, the CO2 high and do routine (but not necessarily that large or that often) water changes, I KNOW you can maintain a very stable tank that withstands periods of up to 3 weeks neglect without any problems at all. ...and I haven't had very much trouble managing back out of algae problems caused by MONTHS of neglect in some cases. Those who have seen my lectures on managing planted aquariums have seen a couple of tanks that I really let go for one reason or another (not planned experiments but real life, "stuff happens" situations) that came back around very nicely with a few weeks of TLC and proper dosing. I know this not on a theoretical basis, but because I've done it over and over on very long-term tanks.


----------



## K Randall

BruceF said:


> Seems to me we could use a definition of EI at this point for those of us that tend toward confusion. What is that chemical dump exactly? Is it always referring to macros and micros? Does it include the so called GH booster? CSM + B? (Do I even have that acronym right?)


I think the BEST way to learn about EI is to go to the source and read about it on Tom's web site. It is really hard to equate Tom's "EI" method to ADA's commercial, packaged, "follow these steps but you don't need to know what is in here or why it works" method. And it's also hard to equate to Diana Walstad's methods, though she explains the "why" of her method better, because EI is just balancing things on a much higher level for the most part.

But it IS all a matter of balance. Plants have certain specific needs that we need to meet. There are a lot of different WAYS those needs can be met, and the whole process is driven by light. The more light on the system, the more nutrients are needed to maintain healthy growth. With lower light, you can maintain (many) plants with a lower input (and uptake) of all nutrients.

The trouble with "EI", as I see it, is that Tom tries to make it be all things to all people, and the balancing act a very hard thing to teach. When Tom and I have talked, we are in pretty close agreement in terms of what needs to be done to maintain a planted aquarium. When I go to his site and read what HE says for people to do, it makes sense. But when I come here to APC or go to TPT, the message seems to get so distorted that it's REALLY easy to see why people are going wrong.

To answer your question about "chemical dump", House can answer for himself, but I THINK he was simply talking about "dumping" chemicals into your aquarium. You don't have to be EXACT in your dosing, but you DO have to have a basic understanding of ratios, and how YOUR tank uses nutrients. As highlighted by the person who was dumping 1/4 cup servings of various terrestrial fertilizers into her 10G tank, this can certainly be carried to extremes. BUT interestingly, (and instructively) she did not immediately see algae growing, she immediately saw the plants respond negatively. When dosing is done in a willy-nilly fashion, it is easy to cause toxicity problems or to allow an overabundance of one nutrient to block the uptake of another. THEN, because we've interrupted good plant growth, it's not uncommon to see algae follow soon after.

While I use dry micro ferts sometimes, I am leery of their composition. Some worry me because they contain more copper than our aquatic plants need, and if this builds up in a high CEC substrate (and copper precipitates easily, so I see this as a strong possibility) I worry about its long-term affect on inverts in the tank. I am super-sensitive about copper in my tanks, because I battled it in my tap water for many years. It made snails die on contact with my water, and there are also some plants that dislike it. (though my Crypts always did fantastically in these copper laden tanks!) So, personally, while I use dry macros in my larger tanks, I prefer to use a commercial aquarium plant micronutrient mix even if it's more expensive.

As far as GH booster is concerned, here is where it is VITAL to know your own tap water chemistry. My tap water has a KH and GH of about 5. I don't do anything to it. I'm not certain of the calcium to magnesium ratio, but since my plants grow fine, I don't worry about it. People with dead soft water are of course going to need to increase both the KH and GH. People with liquid rock for water may be able to grow many plants well, but will struggle with others unless they can bring the mineral level down with RO or DI water.


----------



## niko

Bruce,

It'll do you a lot of good to read some material from 1997. If there were earlier documents I'd send you to read them too but I don't think they are on the internet. So start with 1997. Don't get in the numbers too much. Try to grasp the main points. For example note what the document says about P. At that time P was considered the main reason to have algae. But also note that the document does not suggest you try to get rid of all P. Note things like that. Here it is:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/pmdd-tim.html


----------



## houseofcards

K Randall said:


> Sorry, what are you saying is true of ADA systems? That they do have to be maintained daily? Or that you can (on occasion) let them go longer, as with my tanks?


Yes, more day to day if you want to follow the doctrine to the letter. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be OK, but again there's a system in place.



K Randall said:


> Just to correct something (that I'm sure is just a typo, but to be clear to any newbies reading) I think you are talking about the ADA gallery. AGA is a hobby organization without any worker bees to maintain tanks.  We DO have a fabulous online gallery in the Aquascaping Contest web site, but that can tolerate LONG vacations without fertilization.


Yep that was a typo, I meant ADA (corrected in my original post). I know all about AGA and the gallery. K Randall I like your comment about the worker bees, since that is a key difference when one views a tank in the ADA Gallery compared to someones tank in their living room, kitchen, etc. Niko don't get upset, but you do this constantly and that's usually when I get my back up. The human element would vary greatly in the home, while in the gallery, well you know those worker bees, there pretty loyal and committed.


----------



## K Randall

niko said:


> Bruce,
> 
> It'll do you a lot of good to read some material from 1997. If there were earlier documents I'd send you to read them too but I don't think they are on the internet. So start with 1997. Don't get in the numbers too much. Try to grasp the main points. For example note what the document says about P. At that time P was considered the main reason to have algae. But also note that the document does not suggest you try to get rid of all P. Note things like that. Here it is:
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/pmdd-tim.html


The trouble, Niko, is that this article as written in a world with 16 years less experience with planted aquariums. We've learned a LOT since then. Technology has changed a lot since then too. At that time, few people were even using supplemental CO2 (though most of our small core of serious plant hobbyists were urging people to use it!) It was hard to find the equipment for pressurized gas supplementation, (and NO commercial sources in the US) and the learning curve was steep. Light and/or CO2 were (as we understand it now) the limiting growth factors in most tanks if micro nutrients and N were supplemented... not P. Many municipalities had a LOT of phosphate in the tap water. In my case, 3 ppm. So my water changes alone imported enough P into my tanks. Many, if not most North American hobbyists of that time were keeping "planted fish tanks", not aquascaped tanks with a minimal fish load. Many brands of fish food are LOADED with phosphate - check the labels. So the the advice, for the time, was not far wrong.

Tim's conclusion was:

"So, just add PMDD to your water column and your plants will grow like weeds? Well . . . maybe. There are other factors to investigate. Some feel substrate fertilization is key to success with certain plant species. Others swear by CO2 injection, or VHO lighting, or substrate heating, or laterite. If you made it this far, you're probably one of those folks that just can't learn enough about this stuff.  Use your Web browser to check out the aquatic plants section of the Krib."

You can see from this that some things that we pretty much take for granted... CO2, good light, and some sort of high CEC (if not initially nutrient bearing!) substrate, he still considered at the "experimental" level. Obviously there is always more to learn, but the general level of hobby knowledge has come LIGHT YEARS since then.


----------



## niko

House,

Exactly! Do we believe that ADA will not do EVERYTHING they can to maintain the tanks in the gallery in pristine condition? Yes they will. That's a business and the visual feast is what has made the company what it is today. 

I dislike the notion that a planted tank cannot be stable as hell. Both EI and ADA promote that notion. You have to do the work or things will get away. That is not so if you run the tank with more patience and a little more knowledge about the popular approaches' greater goals:

ADA caters to their own commercial interests. They are not going to tell you how to setup a tank so you don't need to buy their products. 
EI is about "Do this and you will cover all bases, all kinds of plants will grow fast, you will get to play with the tank often and really enjoy it".

Still the bottom line is - a rich substrate/lean water column tank would be less likely to develop a big algae problem. And less likely to develop it fast. Someone told me that they spend some days at the ADA gallery and noticed that the strong halide bulbs where on 8 hours a day because there were visitors all the time. Then said " And I want to know what kind of hectic cleaning activity happens at the place when everybody leaves!". But maybe they don't have to do much. The point is - whatever the case (secret night cleaning or not) the general notion is that if you want a beautiful, clean planted tank you better work hard on it. That, once again, is not the only truth.

The question here is "Do you want a tank that doesn't require any care?". I don't think the patience of most enthusiasts needs addressing - patience is a rare thing.


Karen,

Before sending Bruce to read that link I tried to find an easier read on The Krib. In one discussion there was someone that is experimenting with adding P and sharing the experience of always having algae pop up. I may not read what he is writing correctly but his base numbers for P are like 0.02 and 0.05. I don't even know how he maintained them so low. All the fish food, even nowadays, raises P a lot. I am yet to find food that raises P so-so.

In any case - I sent Bruce to that article so he gets some persective where it all came from. If you know your start and end line you can see better where the things inbetween are. One good example are the parameters in these tanks from the mid 90's:
NO3 = 3-5
P= 0.05
CO2 = 10-15

That certainly looks like a tank that will have moderate growth and will favor green algae (but they will be limited by the light - I guess the light was low to moderate). 

Compare that to the perception of what EI calls to maintain:
NO3= 10-20
P= 1 - 2
CO2= 30

Fast, fast, fast, grow, grow, grow. More, more, more. If something is off the main explanation is: "Your CO2 is not pressing against the sky as it is supposed to!".
Once again - that is how people perceive EI I think. More or less. It is not about finding a balance although Tom may have designed it to be about finding the balance.

And ADA:
NO3=1
P=0.05
CO2=20

Many hidden tricks here. The P is not actually so low. Yes fish are minimal but P is added daily to the water (plus lots of other stuff too) and the magic substrate is absorbing it and making it available to the roots. The tank will also favor green algae but the lack of P in the water and moderate CO2 will limit their growth. The light is used in a way to help the plants more and algae less.

From all that one can conclude that in the old days lazy old people ran slow planted tanks and barely changed water once in a blue moon. Nowadays with all our amazing knowledge and gadgets we HAVE TO take care of our tanks. Maybe that is how we, people living in an overdrive style world, like it. But you can actually have both - a healthy tank that very stable and play with it. What you do is actually maintain the plant layout, not a chemical environment. Pretty much what El Natural is about, but with the freedom to grow any plant you want under high light if you wanted to.


----------



## niko

By the way I was shown pictures of a tank that throws everything the main approaches insist on out of the window. I'm still digesting the information. It's simple but I just can't admit it works and I want to ask the guy to tell me the facts once again. HC in brand new inerts substrate, lean water column... and 20 days. What I see makes no sense. It will be interesting to discuss that tank in this thread.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> ...Still the bottom line is - a rich substrate/lean water column tank would be less likely to develop a big algae problem. And less likely to develop it fast. Someone told me that they spend some days at the ADA gallery and noticed that the strong halide bulbs where on 8 hours a day because there were visitors all the time. Then said " And I want to know what kind of hectic cleaning activity happens at the place when everybody leaves!". But maybe they don't have to do much. The point is - whatever the case (secret night cleaning or not) the general notion is that if you want a beautiful, clean planted tank you better work hard on it. That, once again, is not the only truth.


The fact that both of these systems (EI and ADA) require large WC on a regular basis should tell you something. The EI WC obviously resets the tank fert wise but of course it's removing organics and the ADA WC as well. So none of these run themselves. I think we both agree that the overly obsessive habits of organic removal is the single best thing you could do for any setup as long as the plants have what they need. The idea that those inorganic salts that we dump in cause algae if they linger that's where I can't follow.

BTW the large setups in ADA I'm pretty sure run combo fixtures where the majority of the day they are running CF and they get the MH burst. The technology will change with everything going LED but the cycle will probably be similar. The short burst for me allows a wider range of plants without adversely attracting algae. One of the problems a lot of people have these days IMO is with the T5HO light setups. Many of the smaller ones on 1 to 2 foot tanks do not have two switches so they run unnecessary light all day when a burst would have been plenty and would be easier to maintain.


----------



## BruceF

Niko, I am pushing for a definition of EI not because I don’t know what it is or where it came from but because I think most people who claim to use it have a different understanding of what it is. While we all have the option of buying a system off the shelf I think most of us cobble together a system that ‘works’. 
Karen seems to be speaking specifically to that idea. Turn down the co2, add less X etc. ( But I don’t think most people consider Propel and Envy to be part of what we call EI.)
I went away for 2 months last spring and it took me about 8 hours one day and two weeks to get things back to normal, not that normal is great in the first place.


----------



## Vinman409

i have a high tech tank with 1 inch of dirt and 1 1/2 of gravel have 4 watts a gallon light eheim 2217 cascade 1000 filter 18 watt uv i use dry ferts heavy planted co2 injected heavy planted it helps alittle but you cant go more than 2 weeks without a 50 percent water change or algae will start on the glass on the gravel and on the leaves of the plants i also use met14 just for algae the tank is 100 gallon 8 months old and you cant just leave it alone any one that says differant is not telling the truth and the plants love the water changeALSO DIRT is better than anything on the market i tryed them all! dirt mixed with red clay is the best i have 10 tanks going now from ten gallons to 100 every tank has different needs some i dont fert at all and still need a water change at least every 2 weeks to combat algae im going to use ro water for the first time to see what difference it makes i think it can help to cut back on the water changes also no longer adding phosphate to the tanks see what happens


----------



## K Randall

niko said:


> Still the bottom line is - a rich substrate/lean water column tank would be less likely to develop a big algae problem. And less likely to develop it fast. Someone told me that they spend some days at the ADA gallery and noticed that the strong halide bulbs where on 8 hours a day because there were visitors all the time. Then said " And I want to know what kind of hectic cleaning activity happens at the place when everybody leaves!". But maybe they don't have to do much. The point is - whatever the case (secret night cleaning or not) the general notion is that if you want a beautiful, clean planted tank you better work hard on it. That, once again, is not the only truth.


The trouble is, it is hard to maintain a really rich substrate WITHOUT some of it (sometimes a LOT of it) leaching into the water column, especially over the first few months. I've had to really learn to manage this in Amazonia based tanks. I'm sure the same is worse with soil based tanks, though I suspect it can be harder to predict, since every person uses a different soil source. Aaron's mineralized topsoil method probably is the best compromise in this department, since it will get the volatile part of the process out of the way before the substrate is introduced to the tank, but it requires a lot of time and effort and pre-planning. Most people don't want to wait for it. (certainly not on their first tank) REALLY high CEC substrates suck nutrients out of the water column so fast, and sequester it so completely, that I suspect it takes some time and a LOT of nutrients introduced (via the water column, most likely) before the plants can access this nutrient source in a meaningful way.

As far as "working hard at it" is concerned... I'm a hobbyist. A long-time hobbyist, who, as a result of just plain time in the hobby, has had a fair bit of experience with a number of tanks. I am NOT a person who wants to fuss with a tank (or in my case) multiple tanks daily, other than throwing some fish food in. Even that I don't consistently do on a daily basis. Even if I had only one than, I don't think I'd want to do that. I like to enjoy watching my tanks. I don't necessarily feel the need to mess with them all the time. I will do the more frequent water changes and test-kit-using needed to balance a new tank, but then I want that tank to be relatively stable and easy to care for for a LONG time. It is, literally YEARS between tear-downs on my tanks. It happens that I set up 3 new tanks within the last year, but that's because of a house reno, which caused me to really scale back to only one 75 and a nano for the duration. (new floors, added rooms and a wall removal)



niko said:


> The question here is "Do you want a tank that doesn't require any care?". I don't think the patience of most enthusiasts needs addressing - patience is a rare thing.


That's more of a philosophical question. Is this a hobby or a part of the "home decor". If the latter, hire a maintenance company to instal it right and do the required maintenance on it. Even a goldfish tank with plastic plants needs a bit of work to remain healthy and attractive. While there are certainly people who get into this (and other) hobbies going full bore, only to burn out and leave again in a short time, I think serious planted tank people are actually more dedicated to their hobby than many. I think they are more akin to gardeners than "fish keepers/breeders". We need to teach the newbies patience, just as new gardeners need to learn that. But being impatient (and lacking skills of observation!) is different than not wanting to work on or care for a tank. A lot of the problems I see are a frenzy of the wrong KIND of care, not necessarily too little.



niko said:


> In any case - I sent Bruce to that article so he gets some persective where it all came from. If you know your start and end line you can see better where the things inbetween are. One good example are the parameters in these tanks from the mid 90's:
> NO3 = 3-5
> P= 0.05
> CO2 = 10-15
> 
> That certainly looks like a tank that will have moderate growth and will favor green algae (but they will be limited by the light - I guess the light was low to moderate).


As long as it is understood as a history lesson, it's fine. I have planted aquarium literature going back to the early 1900's. It's interesting, and I find it instructive to try to figure out how/why some of their methods worked pretty well. (sort of like comparing Diana's method, Tom's method, ADA, etc. today) The smart people try to learn from the experiences of those who have gone before.

I considered Merrill Cohen of "Carbo-Plus" fame, a dear friend. I originally thought that his system was "snake oil". But I knew he believed in it, and saw the (very clear) results in his personal aquariums. It took some thinking to figure out how and why it works IN SOME SITUATIONS (in others it was useless) but it was a fun exercise. I don't think anyone actually uses it anymore, though I recently saw it for sale in a pet store near me. But I figured out some things by learning how and when it worked. I love helping people with tanks that are having trouble. I learn something every time, even if it's just reinforcing what I already thought I knew. 



niko said:


> Compare that to the perception of what EI calls to maintain:
> NO3= 10-20
> P= 1 - 2
> CO2= 30
> 
> Fast, fast, fast, grow, grow, grow. More, more, more. If something is off the main explanation is: "Your CO2 is not pressing against the sky as it is supposed to!".
> Once again - that is how people perceive EI I think. More or less. It is not about finding a balance although Tom may have designed it to be about finding the balance.


I don't understand why people don't go to the source, and learn about Tom's system directly if that's the system they want to follow. He seems pretty clear on his web site that you do NOT have to run the engine full bore, and I know from in-person communication that this isn't what he believes, either. (though there are clearly SOME plants that do better in the high/light/high CO2 and high nutrient level tanks) What can you do about "perception", if people refuse to learn the FACTS when they are available. You can lead a horse to water...



niko said:


> And ADA:
> NO3=1
> P=0.05
> CO2=20
> 
> Many hidden tricks here. The P is not actually so low. Yes fish are minimal but P is added daily to the water (plus lots of other stuff too) and the magic substrate is absorbing it and making it available to the roots. The tank will also favor green algae but the lack of P in the water and moderate CO2 will limit their growth. The light is used in a way to help the plants more and algae less.


But I don't see it as a "trick" at all. It is a different, but valid approach to growing healthy plants and limiting algae. It's not the method I use, just because it's expensive and hard to get the "system" where I live. And quite honestly, if I'm going to support a company by buying their products, I prefer to support a U.S. company who is doing their darnedest to make good products available at a reasonable price.



niko said:


> From all that one can conclude that in the old days lazy old people ran slow planted tanks and barely changed water once in a blue moon.


I don't know where you got that idea. Plants grew more slowly, yes. We were, perhaps, less successful with SOME species of high light plants than we are now. Aquarists have certainly known since the 1970's that regular water changes were important. I have met a handful of people who had a tank that looked great and they never did water changes. I have no idea ow LONG this could go on, because these were tanks I saw when lecturing somewhere. I saw the tanks only once, so I don't know the long-term history of the tank. Other things build up in water besides those things we have the ability to test for. Certainly plants help to keep things better for the fish in such a system by sequestering heavy metals, etc. I still think there is probably a finite time period before a tank like this gets in trouble. And many of us CERTAINLY weren't "lazy" in the old days... I did do water changes on my childhood tanks in the 1960's using a bucket and siphon, and lugging the buckets to the bathroom as a 10 year old. (though I suspect my mom did some "towel work" on the floor when I finished)  I've been involved in the organized hobby since the early 80's and involved with the on-line aquarium world since being the planted tanks section leader on Compuserve's "Fishnet". I don't remember the dates, but it was at the VERY beginning of internet communication. This is when I met Claus Christensen. The people I knew then (some of whom are still involved in the hobby) were every bit as avid for information and worked on their tanks every bit as hard as people now. It was just a lot harder to ACCESS good information then. You guys who have come into the hobby since the beginning of the "information age" are very, very lucky!



niko said:


> Nowadays with all our amazing knowledge and gadgets we HAVE TO take care of our tanks. Maybe that is how we, people living in an overdrive style world, like it. But you can actually have both - a healthy tank that very stable and play with it. What you do is actually maintain the plant layout, not a chemical environment. Pretty much what El Natural is about, but with the freedom to grow any plant you want under high light if you wanted to.


I sort of agree with you... There is certainly no NEED to drive plants at full bore to have a healthy planted tank. But I do not personally care for soil based tanks, (no matter what name you give them) and I don't have any problem dosing the water column as needed. I personally find tanks with a relatively high CEC substrate and SOME water column dosing the easiest tanks to manage. I have set up over 40 classroom aquariums using traction sand, laterite and a handful of peat. Some tanks have had supplemental CO2 (yeast) others without. I've been able to teach ALL the teachers involved how to care for these tanks long-term. Interestingly, most of these tanks even did fine over the summer break. We had a custodian willing to feed all the tanks lightly once a week, and the teachers committed to coming in twice over the summer to do water changes and clean their filters. (some paired up and did two tanks, so they only needed to come in once)

I know taht sme people love Diana's method, and thats great. More power too them. But just like ADA isn't the only (or "best") way, neither is that. It's just "another" way.


----------



## K Randall

BruceF said:


> Niko, I am pushing for a definition of EI not because I don't know what it is or where it came from but because I think most people who claim to use it have a different understanding of what it is. While we all have the option of buying a system off the shelf I think most of us cobble together a system that 'works'.
> Karen seems to be speaking specifically to that idea. Turn down the co2, add less X etc. ( But I don't think most people consider Propel and Envy to be part of what we call EI.)
> I went away for 2 months last spring and it took me about 8 hours one day and two weeks to get things back to normal, not that normal is great in the first place.


Right. I don't think MOST tanks need a CO2 level of 30ppm, and CERTAINLY not the numbers I sometimes hear of up to 50ppm. I definitely like to keep my CO2 up there, but again, it's "moderate" by some standards... In my case, 20-25ppm typically. I DO think you need good water movement, though, to make sure the CO2 is getting to all parts of the tank.

I have to say, I don't "get" the purpose of Propel and Envy. I was given a bottle of Envy, so threw it in one of my tanks... didn't see any response whatsoever. And it says it "can" be dosed daily... I don't WANT to have to dose things daily.


----------



## K Randall

Vinman409 said:


> i have a high tech tank with 1 inch of dirt and 1 1/2 of gravel have 4 watts a gallon light eheim 2217 cascade 1000 filter 18 watt uv i use dry ferts heavy planted co2 injected heavy planted it helps alittle but you cant go more than 2 weeks without a 50 percent water change or algae will start on the glass on the gravel and on the leaves of the plants i also use met14 just for algae the tank is 100 gallon 8 months old and you cant just leave it alone any one that says differant is not telling the truth and the plants love the water changeALSO DIRT is better than anything on the market i tryed them all! dirt mixed with red clay is the best i have 10 tanks going now from ten gallons to 100 every tank has different needs some i dont fert at all and still need a water change at least every 2 weeks to combat algae im going to use ro water for the first time to see what difference it makes i think it can help to cut back on the water changes also no longer adding phosphate to the tanks see what happens


I think every two weeks is a good target for water changes, but unless you are dosing too heavily, or have too much light for the size of the tank, you shouldn't be seeing algae at two weeks. While I target water changes every two weeks, I have gone a month without a water change and not had any problem with algae.

I don't know what met14 is, but I don't use any chemicals to kill algae on a regular basis.

RO won't do anything to combat algae per se, unless your water is so hard that it is interfering with plant growth, or has too much phosphate (and/or nitrate) in it. Even with phosphate in the tap water, you should be be able to manage water changes by adjusting the amount of phosphate dosed in other ways. I am a strong believer in making water changes as easy as possible, because I believe that regular, large water changes straight from the tap are better than doing a lot of fiddling that tempts you to do water changes less often or in smaller amounts.

If you are having this kind of algae problem, there is something out of whack in your system, whether it is your substrate, your set-up or your maintenance. Also, IMO, a soil based tank is rarely fully mature at 8 months.


----------



## niko

Note the last row in the table:









Main reason for algae - Phosphate. To a lesser extent - Nitrite, Nitrate, and a dirty tank (COD). Main thing - Phosphate. Go figure. I thought it was about ratios, redfields, and tombarrs. I guess that pretty picture is about sales - showing you how simple things are with ADA's products.

I completely agree with what House said - if your water is clean indeed (low COD) you are up to a good start. What you do next is up to you - excess of nutrients in the water or not. I'm not going to ask who here has actually tried the ADA COD test. I haven't.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> ...
> I completely agree with what House said - if your water is clean indeed (low COD) you are up to a good start. What you do next is up to you - excess of nutrients in the water or not. I'm not going to ask who here has actually tried the ADA COD test. I haven't.


Well we are definitely in agreement there. I'll take it as far that clean water is more important than light and co2 in regards to controlling algae in some setups, especially if your scaping. You have alot of negative space, but your still have to drive light for certain plants, so co2 is more limited in it's benefit since the plant mass isn't there compared to a tank where your filling with plants everywhere.

What is clean water? For me it's low COD. Are phosphates that are a product of fish food, waste, dead leaves etc the same as the dry phosphates we add? Is it the phosphates that are causing algae or is it just another indicator of two much organic waste, that will eventually turn into Ammonia.

BTW Here's two setups from last year's AGA contest in the midsize category. They took 1st and 3rd place. And yes they were done with EI dosing...and there not Americans?

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2012/show240.html
http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2012/show390.html


----------



## K Randall

Was anyone arguing that regular water changes were NOT a good idea? I must have missed that.


----------



## BruceF

House.

What do you think this actually means? 

"EI with KNO3, Iron and Trace element, twice a week with every water change."


----------



## houseofcards

BruceF said:


> House.
> 
> What do you think this actually means?
> 
> "EI with KNO3, Iron and Trace element, twice a week with every water change."


That tank must be driven pretty hard (6x36 T5H0), so he's using EI adding extra KNO3 and supplementing with extra Iron and micros. It sounds like he's changing the water twice a week.


----------



## f1ea

ADA points at PO4 for algae. But this is related to the way they limit nutrients.

In the case of using EI, it may not be PO4 because the other nutrients are kept at a different level. i would say, in the case of an EI tank, if you're doing it right, the main culprit for algae is CO2.

Basically, ADA gets very close to the limits, so PO4 comes in. EI does not, so CO2 comes in. (Assuming light is adequate and organic build-up is kept in check for both cases).


----------



## OTPT

houseofcards said:


> That tank must be driven pretty hard (6x36 T5H0), so he's using EI adding extra KNO3 and supplementing with extra Iron and micros. It sounds like he's changing the water twice a week.


He is "stormy" in my-mac.net and aquaticquotient.com, and it seems he has stopped dosing 
PO4 for at least a year. So the concept he uses is probably not to "cover all bases" but 
"not adding what is not needed".

http://www.my-mac.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15968#p148609

People sometime conveniently use the word "EI" or "PMDD" for DIY ferts.


----------



## houseofcards

OTPT said:


> He is "stormy" in my-mac.net and aquaticquotient.com, and it seems he has stopped dosing
> PO4 for at least a year. So the concept he uses is probably not to "cover all bases" but
> "not adding what is not needed".
> 
> http://www.my-mac.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15968#p148609
> 
> People sometime conveniently use the word "EI" or "PMDD" for DIY ferts.


Not to argue, but I think you need to re-read his post.  The tank has a loaded substrate (AS) so especially when the tank is young, you don't need more than micros and K, the AS provides the rest and he is dosing exta FE. The tank is driven hard with lighting 6 x T5H0 and not necessarily dosed to the high-end of EI because of he substrate. Of course EI is DIY I mean NPK is NPK.


----------



## OTPT

houseofcards said:


> Not to argue, but I think you need to re-read his post.  The tank has a loaded substrate (AS) so especially when the tank is young, you don't need more than micros and K, the AS provides the rest and he is dosing exta FE. The tank is driven hard with lighting 6 x T5H0 and not necessarily dosed to the high-end of EI because of he substrate. Of course EI is DIY I mean NPK is NPK.


I just pointed out that he didn't dose PO4. 

And "I normally let the plants tell me what is needed and what is not"
doesn't sound much like EI (it may be or may not be). Especially when 
he was saying that in fertilizing context.

EI is to dose nutrients (ferts) in excess so you don't have to worry about them. 
And just concentrate on light and CO2.

Yes, you can "customize" EI by try reducing the dosing until you see deficiency 
and step back to the previous level. But this is the "gray zone" here. 
Because if the reason for doing that is economy and efficiency, you are still doing EI. 
But if the reason is to avoid algae, then it's not EI anymore. Even though the 
two executions are the same.


----------



## houseofcards

OTPT said:


> *I just pointed out that he didn't dose PO4.*
> 
> And "I normally let the plants tell me what is needed and what is not"
> doesn't sound much like EI. Especially when he was saying that in fertilizing context.
> 
> EI is to dose nutrients (ferts) in excess so you don't have to worry about them.
> And just concentrate on light and CO2.


But he does use PO4. Why don't you re-read his post. He was joking about not dosing PO4 for a year and again a newer setup with AS doesn't need much, other than K and Micros. Usually one adds more ferts initially and then 'dials' it in more once they learn their setup. EI stands for 'Estimate' and not 'Excessive'


----------



## OTPT

I have re-read the post. I will leave it to others' "interpretation".


----------



## wet

niko,

So I read the redfield thread and I gotta say: that's a lot of pain. Is the process of finding your ideal ratio and thinking about the daily input and uptake process really less pain than you've had implementing water column dosing the way houseofcards, K Randall, etc, etc are doing it? I still have a hard time understanding this.

I'm going to be stubborn and argue it's not that hard when you add soil, CO2, and adjustable light, which again I think is what you're saying. So... here's another hat in the ring. An attempt at a best practices aquarium with the first time I've set up a tank with kind of nice ADAish stuff (fake lily pipes and glass not pictured, whatever GH/KH happens with these stones + AquaSoil, etc). Right now I'm thinking Java fern 'Trident', Bolbitis, and Anubias nana petite, with maybe an ET or something to add another shade of green and be my fast grower. What do you think? Help me grow it.

(Another thread?)


















My bet is I can leave this thing alone, let the AS leech, and dose some in the water column if I use something like ET or Stargrass as an indicator. (Relatively fast grower, shows different shades of color, responsive to nutrients.)

If I skip the water column dosing and just leave it alone + water changes, I bet I'll still end up with pretty good plants. I might end up moving more towards, say, that Crypt affinis 'red' that's floating around instead of a faster growing lighter green plant for my splash of color if I wanted every plant in the tank to look really nice and let the soil do all the work.

Either way I am doing water changes and getting algae out of the tank/adding algae eaters my first few months.

Is that plan EI or ADA?


----------



## houseofcards

wet said:


> ..So I read the redfield thread and I gotta say: that's a lot of pain. Is the process of finding your ideal ratio and thinking about the daily input and uptake process really less pain than you've had implementing water column dosing the way houseofcards, K Randall, etc, etc are doing it? I still have a hard time understanding this.
> Is that plan EI or ADA?


Wet, that looks like a nice setup!

The first 6-8 months with a fertile substrate like AS is totally different long-term. Most can probably leave it alone and it will do pretty well. You just need to watch your light and do water changes religiously and add some K. ADA is like substrate for dummies. Year 1-2 things gets more difficult both from organic buildup and dosing. Many blow the setup at startup because they just don't do what their suppose to do. Being a micro-manager of ferts (no pun) is just not feasible for many.


----------



## niko

Wet,

I don't know why you are asking how to run that tank. Isn't it obvious?

There is a a well known individual who has experimented extensivelly to come up with the best and most practical method to run a planted tank. Many people have followed his advice and have had great success. There are many pictures of his own beatuiful tanks on the internet.

Follow him. That has got to be the best advice ever.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> Wet,
> 
> I don't know why you are asking how to run that tank. Isn't it obvious?
> 
> There is a a well known individual who has experimented extensivelly to come up with the best and most practical method to run a planted tank. Many people have followed his advice and have had great success. There are many pictures of his own beatuiful tanks on the internet.
> 
> Follow him. That has got to be the best advice ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vinman409

i have been into tanks longer then i can remember maybe 40 years or so i learn all the time reading the posts but mainly from the people who posted on what niko started here thanks


----------



## 1077

Yes,, blanket statement's as to what other's may or may not be doing,, or without any shred of truth are not very helpful.
Likewise,, attack's on other people who aren't available for their defense .
Have spoke to Tom Barr on a few ossasion's, and although other's have attributed the estimative index dosing to him,,He will readily admit that he did not invent the method, but rather expierimented with other already established method(s) and tweaked them,or it a bit.
Most would agree that EI was /is not carved in stone.Many of the formula's available are similar for particular tank size, but have noted plus or minus in front of recommended amount's of NPK.
Believe plant's can/will tell you or I what may or may not be needed in what proportion's, once we begin to observe them in earnest. EI to me,and variant's thereof,,,are simply a way to eliminate one variable out of many . Same with rich substrates.
Original question/title of this particular thread appear's to me,, to have been answered long ago.(rich substrate).
Other's can continue kicking this dead horse ,but to what end?:bored:


----------



## K Randall

Bringing "This Old Thread" to the top again. Well, I've been away for 3 weeks, then came home, and between "real life', jet lag and an airplane cold, haven't been able to TOUCH my tanks since I got home, other than to top them up with water. While I was gone, my son topped up the water as needed and fed the fish twice a week. No dosing of supplements. I haven't dosed since I got home, either.

The two nanos with higher light have algae on the glass and need MAJOR trimming, but otherwise are healthy. In my older 75G, (about 10 years old, I'd guess? When did Flourite come out? This was a beta test tank for Flourite) there's no algae on the glass the plants look healthy... except that SOMEONE got too hungry and munched a bunch of plants. Not sure who to blame, but I suspect the P. dennisoni, just due to the amount of damage. (everyone else in the tank is fairly small)

Below, I've posted a photo of the new 75 Rimless, set up at the end of Oct. This is a high light, pressurized CO2, ADA Amazonia system, regularly supplemented with NPK and traces until I left. As I mentioned in a previous post, I purposely made sure the plants were "fat" with "luxury use" nutrients before I left, and cut the lighting some, by not having 2 of the 4 bulbs come on for the middle 4 hours per day. (the other two tubes remained on their 10 hour per day cycle) But it has been 5 weeks(plus 3 days, but who's counting ) now, with NO maintenance other than topping up and twice a week fish feeding. (I suspect, whenever the gurgle of the spray bar bothered my son's TV watching too much )

I'll leave the judgement to you. I lost the HC foreground, (not surprising) but the small amounts of ET I had planted are doing fine. Everything else obviously needs some trimming but is very healthy looking, and the glass is clear of algae. Does this look like a tank that needs daily (or weekly) babying?

I'd be surprised if ANY type of aquarium, planted or not, would do any better.


----------



## Wildman

What I can't wrap my brain around is WHY EI doesn't result in algal blooms. My understanding is that it depends on guaranteeing that there is more than enough (i.e., anexcess) of micros, macros, light, & CO2. It would seem that while these conditions would allow maximal plant growth, it would seem that algae would be able to use the excess for growth. Do the plants put out something that suppresses algal growth when they are growing well? EI has seemed counterintuitve to me, it seems like it should creat algae issues. Is it the large water changes that are actually the key by removing some sort of chemicals that when they build up permit/ facilitate algal growth?


----------



## evanluke

When the plants are thriving and lighting is moderate, there are usually no "trigger" events that create algae.

"Trigger" events are deficiencies that stall plants, cycling tanks, or extra organics.

EI if done right eliminates trigger events through water changes and extra fertilization.


----------



## Zapins

Wildman said:


> What I can't wrap my brain around is WHY EI doesn't result in algal blooms. My understanding is that it depends on guaranteeing that there is more than enough (i.e., anexcess) of micros, macros, light, & CO2. It would seem that while these conditions would allow maximal plant growth, it would seem that algae would be able to use the excess for growth. Do the plants put out something that suppresses algal growth when they are growing well? EI has seemed counterintuitve to me, it seems like it should creat algae issues. Is it the large water changes that are actually the key by removing some sort of chemicals that when they build up permit/ facilitate algal growth?


I have wondered these exact same questions for many years. I'm not totally convinced by any of the answers I've found yet. In lab we grew algae using the same nutrients we use for our tanks and made huge colonies of algae, so there doesn't seem to be anything about the nutrients that favors plants over algae, yet when the two are together plants are favored.

There may be chemicals the plant puts out to stop algae, there may be products that build up and promote algae growth. Unfortunately I don't see how you could test for this at the hobbyist level.

As evanluke mentioned there are certainly trigger events for some species of algae like high ammonia = green water etc... however, I'm not sure that you can argue EI eliminates trigger events. EI rapidly changes the conditions from one point to another. A large water change drops the levels of chemicals in the water, then when you add fertilizers the levels spike to their highest concentrations until the next dosage. So, say you add 15 ppm KNO3 at the start of the week, then by day 3 the KNO3 level is low at 2-5 ppm, then suddenly you add KNO3 back to 15. These sorts of events are "trigger" events since they are rapid changes in a short time frame, but they don't cause algae with EI. This is the mystery of aquatic plants... I'd love to get a real answer one day but it seems unlikely.


----------



## evanluke

To me EI is quite sound in theory.

One of the foundational principles is that nutrient levels can vary quite significantly so long as none of them fall below levels that are considered limiting for plants.

This explains why the instability with levels cause by large water changes and dosing right afterwards does not cause problems.

The theory has a bit of a wild card in CO2 which is hard to measure and tricky to keep stable at non-limiting levels.


----------

