# A tale of over fertilization and algae suppression



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

I have been trying for the life of me to figure out what the hell is wrong with my planted tank for the past month or so. I had tested everything I could... PO4 was high, but seemed good. Same goes with NO3, FE, and GH. They were all "a little" higher than I thought they were. One big problem though, with my test kits(seachem/hagen) when you start getting towards the upper limit of their testing range, it's hard to tell what the reading is for sure. 

My tank had been taken over with green spot algae, black spot algae, and green dust algae. Cyano and BBA were starting to get a foot hold. A lot of my more sensitive plants(P. stellata, L. 'Cuba,' Ammania gracialis) had stunted and the old growth was getting covered in GSA. I was starting to see yellow spots inbetween the veins of my plants. Everything I read pointed to some sort of deficency. So I added things to correct them... bad idea. I knew something had to change when a species of Bacopa that I collected locally 100% melted from the bottom up within a day and a half. 

So out of curiosity, I tested my KH/pH to see where my CO2 readings where. My KH was at 9.5º. Way too high. I usually keep it at 3 when my tank is doing well. So I made the assumption that I've been adding too MUCH ferts when doing my water changes. 

So last Friday, I did about an 85% water change. This time around I only added some Seachem Eq(very soft water here), KH2PO4, and some Excel to knock out some algae. Since then, EVERYTHING has bounced back. My P. stellata, L. Cuba, and A. gracialis instantly started growing... and blood red I might add. 

When I was first "getting the hang" of my tank being high light(4.5wpg) with pressurized CO2 I noticed that all my fert levels ended up being way too low within a few days of dosing, so I had started going a little bit over to compensate. That little bit over ended up accumlating to way too much fertilizer. 

I'd imagine this disaster could have been avoided if there had been more info on nutrient excess and fert overdosing in a planted aquarium, but I couldn't find any info. So that's why I told you my little story. Hopefuly this will help someone out. 

If you think you've been adding a lot of ferts and are wondering why the algae is going crazy and your plants are stunting/dying even though levels seem to be where they should... Chances are that you are overdosing ferts.

-Gumby


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Gumby said:


> ...
> So out of curiosity, I tested my KH/pH to see where my CO2 readings where. My KH was at 9.5º. Way too high. I usually keep it at 3 when my tank is doing well. So I made the assumption that I've been adding too MUCH ferts when doing my water changes.
> ...


Could you explain how the high KH led you to the assumption that you were over dosing the ferts? I don't see the correlation...

Ah! Maybe what you're saying is that the KH was higher than you assumed, therefore you were underdosing CO2 (this only holds true if you're using a controller) and therefore the plants were no longer using the amount of ferts you had gotten used to adding?

If I got that right, it re-inforces the fact that if you are using a pH controller, you MUST regularly check your KH levels. I also used to forget to do this and my tap KH changes during the year so I'd suddenly run into different levels of CO2 even though my controller was keeping the pH spot on. This is the reason I've stopped using the pH controller to control the CO2 injection in my tanks...

Or have I completely missed the point? :-k

In any case, I've also not seen anything saying that overdosing ferts harms plants.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, I usually buffer my KH when I am adding macros, after water changes. I've been doing EI method. Apparently my water changes weren't removing nearly as much excess fert build up(or KH buffer) as I thought they were. 

I'm actually not using a controler, just "winging it" without a solenoid. I wish I had a controler, but can't afford one right now.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

Man, the difference is so much that I wish I would have gotten before and after pics.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Gumby I noticed the same thing. I was testing nitrates with an inexpensive kit and estimating it at about 20 ppm. I kept pouring in KNO3 per EI recommendations. I thought I was doing a 50% WC once per week. In actuality, I was probably only doing 40% WC's now that I look back. About 3 weeks into my EI experiment I started getting TONS of green dust to the point it was killing everything off. I had other varieties of algae too, and the fish didn't look good at all. I then got a Lamotte NO3 kit and found that my NO3 was over 80 ppm. I know that Tom will say this doesn't cause algae, but in my tank correcting this with a few quick WC's made an enormous difference. Most of my plants have now grown beyond the stunted areas and the tank look great.

In retrospect I probably underestimated my WC %, misinterpreted my test kits, and overestimated the uptake of NO3 due to DIY lighting that is less intense than I'd previously believed. All this together got my levels too high.

Currently I dose about 15-20 ppm NO3 per week and still do a 50% WC. I also dose about 3-4 ppm of PO4 a week. Per Lamotte, my PO4 hovers around 2 ppm and the NO3 around 20 ppm (minimum 10 ppm once). The plants are growing incredibly well and are the coloration is excellent. P. stellata and didiplis are doing just as well as everything else and some new HC is starting to fill in.

I can only assume that I'm adding in quite a bit of NO3 and PO4 from fish food. The plants are certainly using up their fair share of nutrients as I throw away a ton of clippings every week.

Just my experience. I am a big believer in seeing bad things from overdoing the ferts.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

I've also noticed that too much fertilizer in the water is not a good thing. I followed the EI for over a year and have had nothing but algae (green dust, BBA, thread, fuzz). I'm not saying the EI is a bad method, don't misunderstand, but what I found for my particular tank was that there was far too much build-up of nutrients. After resetting the tank and ripping/scrubbing out as much algae as possible, I began dosing very lightly. I've slowly upped the dosing until I noticed the algae coming back again. I think I've finally got it now, as the last of the algae is fading away, and the plants are looking great! Just to get an idea of how much I've cut back on ferts--traces are the same, 50% less of NO3, 75% less of PO4, and began adding K2SO4 to target about 6-8ppm per dose.


----------



## John S (Jan 18, 2005)

with the EI you need to keep the co2 30 ppm with high light well thats what i found out and it really didnt matter if all my ferts where way high lol but dont let that co2 go down or you will have algae big time


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Each one of the examples here that you think the excess ferts caused algae==> they are all CO2 related.

The original poster also showed that with a high KH build up.
That was what caused the problems in the tank. I know those plants well, it was CO2 and high KH.

I cannot repat these same situations folks claim, now why is that? Magic dust? Rubbish.

I've gone hog wild with ferts for a long time and with a lot of different plants. 
I say this 10,000 times, but someone will still think it's excess ferts, it's the CO2.

You add lots of light toa tank, you need to add lots of CO2 first..........then you add lots of ferts.

If you add lots of ferts, light, but not enough CO2, you'll get algae.

CO2 might be okay during the evening, but might be poor earlier.
The ppm range will vary.

You need to keep a close eye on it.
Perhaps one of you can propose how algae might be limited at 20ppm of NO3, but not at 75-80ppm from KNO3 dosing?

Any takers?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## chiahead (Dec 18, 2004)

I believe its more about getting the tank balanced out. Meaning try to match the light with good amounts of Co2 and then match up the ferts. If a tank is high light with 20ppm of Co2 and a ton of ferts you will get algae. I know, I am fighting this now. This balancing act is easier for some, harder for others. You have to play with the setup until it hits the sweet spot, so to say. Drives me crazy trying to get there. My friend always seems to get his tanks right on quickly and I struggle for a while. Good luck, and if what you are doing is working then keep doing it.


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

I dunno I seem to add ferts at night most the time when co2 is not needed. By the next morning I see algae.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

It is all about balance. Each and every tank is different, and each and every time I've succeeded, I've had to find that balance for myself. The more I believe in others, the less I believe in myself.

And Tom, when are you going to realize that it's simply not as easy as you'd like to mislead people? In your world, everything may operate around certain equations, but you fail to realize that not everyone understands the variables to be as you've controlled/written them. You are so very right about many things you've proven them to be, but you are so very wrong when it comes to consider the reality variable. Not everyone is as masterful as you. You run the gamut about CO2 being the key to the pearly gates, but here we other folks are slaughtering fish left and right as a result of increasing CO2.

I've been misled before about excess nutrients not causing problems, but each and every time I eliminate them, I get the plant growth and health I desire. I suppose that if every living thing can be indexed, categorized, and easily referenced, then there would eventually be no point in having them live at all. I, for one, enjoy that mystique of the unknown in planted aquaria, and in my world, that's what keeps driving me each and every day. I'll find it for myself, and I hope that others will consider the same.


----------



## Laconic (Feb 11, 2005)

I believe that balance is precisely the point Tom is trying to make. One man's excess nutrients is another man's lack of CO2. If u supply sufficient CO2 and light, the problem of excess ferts will largely be eradicated.


----------



## John S (Jan 18, 2005)

Gumby you said your KH was 9.5 what is your PH ??? pump up that co2 things will turn around for you. listen to plantbrain he knows his stuff ive read what he post all the time soon as i started doing the high co2 what do you know no more algea


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Laconic said:


> I believe that balance is precisely the point Tom is trying to make. One man's excess nutrients is another man's lack of CO2. If u supply sufficient CO2 and light, the problem of excess ferts will largely be eradicated.


Well said.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Do we agree that if you healthy growth we have less algae? If this is true, then stunting in plants will allow the algae nitch to have advantage. What causes stunting? Lack of balance? A limitting nutrient? Well if we take this as truth (which it may be true or it may not) then throwing ferts in a tank and simply reseting the tank ever week holds very little sustainability. 

I have done the math with a couple graphing applications. This reseting of the tank is over rated to some degree. Given a 50% WC you will only build up 2x your dosing. This is true, but this happens in 3-4 weeks under almost every condition, unless you are not dosing as much as your plants use, but this goes against the rules of EI. 

So back on track. If we can assume that stunting is because of a lack of balance that causes one of our parameters to be a limiting factor, then we are stuck with co2 as tom says. When we have 5ppm of Po4 and 50ppm of NO3 (which can easily happen if you follow the "just chuck x amount of tsp in your tank method") we create a stunt because co2 is the limiting factor. How do we balance this? We cant.....people are roofing their co2 to keep up with the elevated nutrients. But you can only go so far without fish body bags. This is where tom would talk about micro bubbles.....which is a whole other discussion.

We need to realize that while excess may not cause the dreaded algae, there is still something to be said for understanding the amounts you are adding to your tank. This balance may lead to the health that we all stive for. Mindless EI is not going to get you there. While it is not as simple as tom makes it, his findings are sound. But there is a line where the co2 levels cannot balance the amount of nutrient build up. The simple EI that Tom talks about is awesome for getting started and understanding awesome growth. But for sustainability, you need to take the wheel and understand you tank and the need of your plants.

jB


----------



## Roy Deki (Apr 7, 2004)

That's why I started this thread:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=13105&highlight=water

I have had alot of success without regular dosing and NO water changes only top offs.


----------



## mlfishman (Apr 4, 2005)

*dosing*

Roy, you must have something in your tank providing nutrients to your plants. Whether it be nutrients in your substrate or from fish food/waste or when you do dose you add the right amount to keep your plants sustained until the next dosing. Either that or your water supply has a decent supply of macro/micro nutrients in it (or a combo of all of this).

Also how much light do you have over the tank? The plants have to be getting it from somewhere, because I have tried this same thing with the low dosing and although a certain balance is attained at some point, I was never really fully happy with the quality of the plants, but that is not the point I was making.

The point is although there may be some variables we dont totally understand, science is science. There isnt some magic taking place here. Plants need this, this, and this to survive or else they die. You couldnt magically survive for 1 month without any food or nutrition, if you did, you would be getting it from somewhere one way or another. It is what it is. EI allows for any excess of nutrients in your tank and an exact picture of your plant biomass in your tank and your actualy uptake isnt taken into account.

Also uptake would vary in terms of actualy light that gets to the plants (some fixtures have better reflecters, diff bulbs, etc etc). One person's idea of high plant biomass amy be diff then another's, and if your light fixture was considerably less efficient then another of equal power, those 2 factors right there are most likely very common occurances, and are enough to reduce the amount of nutrients necessary for your tank to sustain. It is possible that a person with an equal amount of light but way less efficient setup (reflector, etc) and a considerable amount less of plant biomass (slower growers etc) would require 25-45% less nutrients then a similar tank with better light and a tank packed with fast growers. This is why some swear by one amount of dosing and others by another for the same size tank, supposedly same plant biomass. But in actuality they are very diff with very diff requirements.

The whole point I gather from EI, is that overshooting these values causes no adverse effects. However providing ample amounts of everything may actually cause a problem by increasing plant growth and exploiting even the smallest deficiency. At that point, its you not the amount you dosed! Your missing something. So by reducing the amount you dose at that point, you reduce the exploitation of that deficiency because your slowing down plant growth. It appears you made an improvement by cutting down your dosing, but actually your plants aren't at max growth rate. You would have achieved the same outcome by lowering the light in the tank, in terms of plant growth and stunting. This is just a thought, I may be wrong but it seems to make sense to me.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Avalon said:


> And Tom, when are you going to realize that it's simply not as easy as you'd like to mislead people?


What is easy? Adding 3-4 things to a tank? The ferts _are_ easy.
I've made that as easy as it's likely going to get.

The CO2, maintenance, pruning, plant/bioloading etc, is not always the case. 
Folks are very good at making mistakes and overlooking things. 
It's also much easier today than it was prior.



> In your world, everything may operate around certain equations, but you fail to realize that not everyone understands the variables to be as you've controlled/written them.


I don't understand how a car works, but I still drive.
What this crap about "in my world"?

I am very practical in my approach here, I suggest not using test kits, not relying on them heavily, doing basic common sense approaches that work, and that are simple, that's never changed.

That is simpler.
Folks can dump PO4 in their tanks and not get algae, so that is a very straight forward thing. Hardly abstract thought.

I was highly successful long before I uttered an equation, knew what K2SO4 was, you seldom ever see me post an equation/math either. I'm capable, but chem is bad enough for many folks, many just wanna solve thier issue/s and have a nice looking tank.



> You are so very right about many things you've proven them to be, but you are so very wrong when it comes to consider the reality variable. Not everyone is as masterful as you.


Don't patronize me. You have a personal issue here, not one about plants/algae etc.

You need to *focus on attacking the idea, not the person*, otherwise your BS reflects only back upon you.

The reality is that new folks have to learn, not everyone is going to be able to grow house plants well either, or is good at farming, driving etc. A few do get lucky right away, most don't. We make mistakes, that's how we learn. Find where those mistakes occur is a key thing. Addressing human habits is a key thing for me.



> You run the gamut about CO2 being the key to the pearly gates, but here we other folks are slaughtering fish left and right as a result of increasing CO2.


Seems to work well for Amano, myself and most folks, LFS's, roughly 90% of the algae issues folks on boards, in person etc have since I've been helping others. He cranks the CO2, so do most top scapes. Whether or not you personally can or cannot use CO2 effectively does not imply it does not work.

For most, it does and they do not "slaughter" their fish by gassing them with CO2. Simply having some surface movement solves that most of that issue.
A decent delivery system that's stable and responsive helps also.

Other folks can and do manage to do awesome scapes this way, somehow we struggle by

Main thing is to make the playing field even, that's where I suggest the methods I do.

I also suggest non CO2, lake/pond and marine methods.



> I've been misled before about excess nutrients not causing problems, but each and every time I eliminate them, I get the plant growth and health I desire.


Misled? Hardly, you are doing a fine job all on your own.



> I suppose that if every living thing can be indexed, categorized, and easily referenced, then there would eventually be no point in having them live at all. I, for one, enjoy that mystique of the unknown in planted aquaria, and in my world, that's what keeps driving me each and every day. I'll find it for myself, and I hope that others will consider the same.


Well if you seek to educate yourself, get on it. You only can learn so much by observation alone. If you really had awareness on that issue, you'd realize that for every answered question, 5 more pop up in it's place, that is a key element of science.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Jason Baliban said:


> We need to realize that while excess may not cause the dreaded algae, there is still something to be said for understanding the amounts you are adding to your tank. This balance may lead to the health that we all stive for. Mindless EI is not going to get you there. While it is not as simple as tom makes it, his findings are sound. But there is a line where the co2 levels cannot balance the amount of nutrient build up. The simple EI that Tom talks about is awesome for getting started and understanding awesome growth. But for sustainability, you need to take the wheel and understand you tank and the need of your plants.
> 
> jB


Mindless EI? haha
Folks do that also truthfully though.
I hope folks take the wheel, prove things to themselves.
Then focus on the main players, CO2, mainteance, having enough biomass and tweaking the tank.

I've suggested and placed in the EI article a way to minimize the amounts of ferts for individual tanks or do further specific tweaking.

You can slowly reduce the over a nutrient of interest till you get a negative plant response then bump it back up slightly, same deal in reverse with CO2/algae and fish. After doing most of the main nutrient players isolated, you have a fairly decent idea of what issues look like in the plants, and what roles they may play.

You do not even need a test kit, just dose a known amount each time and vary that amount. You do this with enough plant species and tap waters, you get a pretty good feel for things.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

I still don't understand why if I add a bit of No3 at night I see a dramatic increase of algae the next morning.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

JaySilverman said:


> I still don't understand why if I add a bit of No3 at night I see a dramatic increase of algae the next morning.


Is it GSA algae? Perhaps you have more NO3 in your tap then you think? Or your biomass is creating more then you account for? Maybe you dont change your filter enough? Reef folks call wet dry nitrate factories. Old filter media is not terrible in planted tanks because we know plants like no3, however it still needs to be accounted for when dosing. Have you checked these things?

jB


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

The tank is 25 gallons with AHSupply 1x55w
Pressed co2 at 37ppm. Or so my test says today I'm gonna start upping the buble rate.

I recently changed my filter at christmas. And since then I've been bataling a tinge of green water. Not too bad.
I have calibrated my test kits and out of the tap my readings are as follows.

No3 - 0
Po4 - 0.5

I can add a good amount of micro nutrients but as soon as I add even a rice size bit of no3 green dust algae blooms and starts to cover plants. Just to make sure I didn't do a water change for a couple weeks and fed the fish minimal amounts and all my plants started to show signs of defeciancy. The tank is somewhat well planted with lots of stem plants and moss.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

You are using some form of EI? What is your schedule like?

jB


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm not dosing anything but CSM+b at the moment with 50% waterchanges twice a week. If I dose anything else I get significantly greener water and dust algae.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Jay/Tom, I am staying out of the discussion but in regards to Jay's last question...



> I still don't understand why if I add a bit of No3 at night I see a dramatic increase of algae the next morning.


If you have an active and thriving population of algae present and you add something they can use as a food source, they will use that as a trigger to multiply. This does not mean that nutrients casue algae, it means that algae uses nutrients; as do the plants.

Sure, if you already have algae adding nutrients, wheter the amounts added are considered limiting or excess in regards to the plants needs, feeds the algae. If you stick with it though, or are not already in the midst of an algae bloom, the plants will eventually start to out-compete the algae and the algae goes into dormancy.

Think about it this way compared to humans and colds...

A person is exposed to many cold/flu viruses everyday. The germs live every where, doorknobs, railings, in the air, other peoples hands, etc. Now if you are healthy and metabolozing well your immune system will keep you from getting sick. But, if you stop eating well, or resting, or getting enough vitamines, water, etc; if something is limiting, your immune system regresses and you can get sick.

I know this is not a perfect example as algae don't live in plants nor have an immune system persay but the concept is the same.

Plants don't necessary keep algae at bay, plants remove the triggers that algae use as an idicator of promising, suitable emviromental conditions.

Just my view on it anyway.


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

But it doesn't make sense. If algae can live off no3 and po4 and its always present in a tank then why doesn't algae grow? Why does it only grow when there is a defficiency?
Anyway I'm not worried about that. All I care about is why I get alage issues every time I decide to add a bit of no3 to the tank. My plants are starving for the stuff but algae just seems to get a hold of it faster then the plants can.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

First of all, I wish to make it clear that I'm not personally attacking anyone, and I apologize if I came across that way. I try my best to keep an open mind considering stuff like this. As for the EI, it does work, but I think there are more things to consider, and CO2 is not always to blame.

In my recent fiasco, I reduced nothing but the nutrients. Light & CO2 were held exactly the same, along with the exact same method of dissolution and distribution for the CO2. I completely reset the tank, not just a 50% water change, and removed the algae. As a result, plants are growing like weeds.

After the reset, I did not use N or P for about 2 weeks, while using water changes every 3 days, traces, and K. I watched the plants turn colors from green to orange/pink/purple, and began slowly adding N & P back. Instantly, the plants became green again, and in the meantime, I'm riding the line between just enough and too much. I certainly don't want to starve the plants, but I can't justify having too much. Simply put, enough is enough.

A few things I have discovered:
1. A 50% water change does not reset the tank.
2. When algae is readily present, plants just don't grow very well. You could view this as it being because the plants not growing well enough, but I see it as how can they grow when they are covered in algae?
3. Adequate CO2 is all you need--there's no magic behind it. Again, enough is enough.
4. Ferts in excess don't help. A depleted supply = bad. Riding a thin line is fine to, if you can manage it.
5. Only when plants are growing like gangbusters, you can add all the ferts you want and they will still grow like mad with no adverse effects. Nuturing the plants until they reach that point is where I believe most problems lie.

To be honest, I've had great planted tanks, and I've had those days where I thought "there's no one having worse algae problems than me." I just told myself I have to get back to barebones and start again, and each time I've overcome them. At the end of the day, I really don't want to argue over methodology. I just hope that someone may be able to pick something up from what I've said and turn their tanks around, just as I have from others.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Jay,

Perhaps there is an adjustment issue. The ecosystem has adapted to thriving it the conditions you have set. You change something and the alge is the first to react to it. If you are adding NO3 WITH the proper amount of PO4 then you might have to wait a few weeks for things to balance out wiht your new dosing. Adding NO3 without PO4, especially in a high light tank, is not a good idea.

jB


----------



## John N. (Dec 11, 2005)

*Continuing the discussion*

Bringing this topic back up for discussion.

Do you believe overdosing fertilizers cause algae?

-John N.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Overdosing fertilizers causes algae indirectly. 
Excessively high nutrient levels create conditions where plants slow down and stall. Such plants stop producing allelochemicals. A presence of allelochemicals is the main reason why algae disappear from our aquariums. 


Thank you
Edward


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Edward said:


> Excessively high nutrient levels create conditions where plants slow down and stall. Such plants stop producing allelochemicals. A presence of allelochemicals is the main reason why algae disappear from our aquariums.


I think this is a more sound hypothesis as opposed to saying "the plants out-compete the algae." If you're dosing excessive nutrients so that the water column always has more than enough of everything, how could the plants "out compete" _anything_?


----------



## rrguymon (Jul 22, 2005)

As others have stated balance is important. If you dose EI levels you need to balance it out with high CO2 and just as important a high plant bio mass. 

I have used EI successfully for over a year I call that sustainable. The Keys to EI IMHO are high co2 at 30PPM and alot of plant bio mass. If you are short on either the EI levels are probably too much and will lead to algae.

I see several people trashing the EI method unfairly IMO. Adding a set amout of ferts is part of the method not all of it. I think EI has the potentail to expand the planted tank hobby alot. The hardest part about EI is getting the CO2 right. The methods we use to inject co2 and measure it are inadequate really. If or when a company can develop an easy to use method to inject and measure CO2 the hobby could take off. 

Rick


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

Well this is no answer just some spontaneous thoughts. Before one can answer this question he must eliminate all the factors that could come into play. The case of overdosing one specific nutrient from them all could be considered as well as a possible cause of "plant stunting - algae growing" in high fert tanks.

Most of the time we tend to ignore the interactivity of the nutrients and the way one blocks the other. (In my case stoping the dosing of 5 ppm magnesium and 10 ppm K (additional to the one from KNO3) after the 2X50% weekly water changes stoped an exteme yellowing in various plants and complete stunt to meltdown of some plants like hygrophillas that was bugging me for 2 years. Things like overdosed chelators through micros may bind various metals within the sap and outside and create problems.

Also I am not sure that CO2 is the panacea for all the high light, ferts problems. Algae can leave in a high CO2, high light, fert tank aswell for that I am sure. In the past few months there have been lots of complaints of green dust algae and high fert regimes does that say something?.

Rich substrates could be used as a supplement and even as the primary source of nutrition of plants (now with buffer from the roots) and thus eliminate the need for so high nutrients in the column (and yes a soil substrate can last for 3 years).

I have a strong feeling that different algaes are thriving in different conditions and that this algaes are indicators of the tank condition, same applies to combinations of algaes i.e surface film, bga appear together for me and why not there are both bacteria. Can there be algaes that thive in a high fert tank?

Organics we need to take them into consideration as well when we talk of high fert tanks, are this eliminated? if organics are around then maybe it is them more than the ferts that cause the problem.

Water changes can affect immensely a high fert tank try 2 wc instead of one weekly then add all the ferts you want, makes huge difference even if you don't add ferts in the first day plants grow like crazy. So does that have to do with the addition of some weird component we miss? Or it has to do with the dilution of something that slowly accumulates? It surely isn't addition of extra CO2 from the fresh water, in my case plants after wc plants bubble like crazy, yes I know this subject has been talked around for ages but I have never received a satisfactory answer to this phenomenon (degaussing does not buy it for me).

You can starve algae initially if you lower you column ferts but after plants start loosing their momentum on sucking everything available algae will come back stronger so this is not an option specialy with lots of high stem feeders.

There are different kind of tanks. A fernish tank as I call them (most of amano tanks are like that) has nothing to do with a stem tank with difficult, easy to stunt plants.

Currently the only way I find to keep a high all tank going healthy is to bathe the plants with ferts in high amount then do WC, dilute and add ferts again. With this approach 1x50% weekly does not cut it, it needs 2x50% I like it or not. The more physically cleaner the tank less algae is there.

Just some thoughts


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Algae enjoy CO2 as much as plants do, so a tank with good ferts, good CO2 and good lighting will still have algae blooms if an ammonia spike occurs, such as by disturbing the substrate without a water change, or allowing a dead fish to rot in the water. The method for avoiding algae is basically to have healthy plants, adequate fertilizing for the plants and adequate CO2, along with enough light. And, the more light, the more ferts and CO2 the plants consume.

A problem with using examples about how "Joe" had good fertilizing and 30 ppm of CO2 but still had bad algae, is that none of us really know the ppm of CO2 we have. We don't have an accurate way to measure it. I am almost certain that if we have BBA sprouting up, we don't have enough CO2, no matter what the pH/KH tables say. And, if we get a sudden eruption of green water, we almost certainly had an ammonia spike. That is probably what triggers green dust algae too, but getting rid of GDA is so simple I see no reason to worry about it in any case. So, EI, with adequate CO2 and good lighting is a very viable way to grow healthy, algae free plants. Some don't like to do the weekly water changes, or like to know more about what is in their water, using test kits, and for those folks EI may not be a good method. But, for the vast majority of us it works and works very well. The minor algae problems it leaves us with can be handled.

EDIT: Another factor is the uniformity of CO2 ppm all over the aquarium. If we don't have a good water circulation in the tank, there will be areas that are very low on CO2, and that will allow algae to start up. Those areas may also be very low in nitrates, which can cause blue green algae to begin growing. So, an added requirement for an EI algae free tank is good water circulation throughout the tank.


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

But there is a simple accurate way to measure CO2 just make sure the difference of the degaused from CO2 tank water to the enriched tank water taken when the lights come on differ about 0.8 to 1 degree ph downwards.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Can someone explain why an aquarium with perfect dosing routine, good CO2, proper water changes and *no plants* will become infested with algae in no time? 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Glouglou (Feb 21, 2006)

*Very interesting post...*

This is the kind of post that question the untouchable lines of thinking in the fertilization process. Every time a rule is not challenge or review a potential stagnation in the evolution path bring static theorems. They can reveal them self false or incomplete in the long run and sometimes they can be great revelation that become the basic blocks of great ideas until some smart dude challenge it again and again...

Personally, I start to think that overstuffing our fish tank with fertilizer and the CO2 panacea, look more and more like a good way to fatten turkeys that will not live long enough to tell how miserable their life are.

Until now, nobody shout the Eureka word, and it still place for innovative thinkers. The hobby came a long way in 20 years and I encourage everybody to lay back and maybe review the ABC...

Forum like this one are a great place to do this introspection work.

Thanks everybody to share you experience!


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Edward said:


> Can someone explain why an aquarium with perfect dosing routine, good CO2, proper water changes and *no plants* will become infested with algae in no time?


I am sure I will be touted for jumping on the bandwagon here, but the one thing that jumps out at me regarding this is where are the NH4 consuming elements? Certainly the bacteria can handle the spikes to a level safe for fish, but the issue I feel is that algae use minute levels of NH4 as triggers for bloom and growth. The plants can consume the spikes fast enough that the algae don't view it as a trigger.

I personally think Freeman is on to something when he mentioned organics. In my experience, dirty tanks lead to algae and poor growth.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Edward said:


> Can someone explain why an aquarium with perfect dosing routine, good CO2, proper water changes and *no plants* will become infested with algae in no time?
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


"Aquarium" = tank of water with fish in it. Fish produce lots of ammonia. No plants, means the ammonia will be there until the nitrifying bacteria consume it. Ammonia means algae starts blooming.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Ammonia levels will be the same in a fully cycled tank, plants or no plants.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

hoppycalif said:


> "Aquarium" = tank of water with fish in it. Fish produce lots of ammonia. No plants, means the ammonia will be there until the nitrifying bacteria consume it. Ammonia means algae starts blooming.


No, no fish in this equation.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

dennis said:


> I am sure I will be touted for jumping on the bandwagon here, but the one thing that jumps out at me regarding this is where are the NH4 consuming elements? Certainly the bacteria can handle the spikes to a level safe for fish, but the issue I feel is that algae use minute levels of NH4 as triggers for bloom and growth. The plants can consume the spikes fast enough that the algae don't view it as a trigger.
> 
> I personally think Freeman is on to something when he mentioned organics. In my experience, dirty tanks lead to algae and poor growth.


Where does the NH4 come from? No fish, no substrate &#8230;


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

So does that means that if there was a way to add allelochemicals in a tank this would eradicate algae?
Bioactive polyphenols.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/130/4/2011
He is talking of Tellimagrandin II and Tanic Acid as inhibitors.
Amano is selling Phytoncide in his Phyton-Git this is an allelochemical you can buy this in pure form all around on the web.

Also what is the effect of organic consuming bacteria populations, a rich substrate has billions of them prolly cause of it's nature and maybe this is a reason this tanks are more stable and they are believe me. How important are this populations in the breakdown of organic load and how much emphasis has been placed on this parameter? Remember people like Navarro that has repeated success with his tanks add bacteria seperatelly initially in his tanks and always do 2 water changes per week, all I can say is look at his tanks.

This whole hobby needs some of this big companies that take our money to do some serious lab experiments and come up with some positive conclusions and thus offer something of great value to the scene instead of just grabing our money selling things that anyone can buy in a pharmacy.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

I don't buy into the allelochemical idea for one reason. Some plants do produce them, true; however, the natural production is not to supress algae in nature but to keep all other plants away. If plants produced signifigant quantities of these chemicals to inhibit tough, oportunistic algaes like BBA, I would think the more delicate plants would certainly suffer.

People like Luis keep a real clean tank, but I don't think the added bacteria is the whole reason for the cleanliness. The attention to detail that people with thanks like that have also means there is no extra mulm buildup and any algae that is seen is promptly removed and picked at until it decides conditions are not favorable at that time. I believe that adding bacteria but not doing water changes would would not have the same effect. Its all about the water changes and general cleanliness, IMO.

Edward, Something tells me that that experiment is not a good comparision. Algae does not rely souly on NH4 as an N source. Given the right conditions, they will use NO3, NO2 or even NH3 if present. I can see you point, and line of thinking but it makes me want to also ask, if I let my heavily planted tank go for 3-4 weeks, with high light, CO2 and I add enough nutrients that the plants are never lacking, why does algae start to add up? If the plants are producing allelochemicals the previously kept the algae dormant, would not sufficient enough amounts of these chemicals build up in high production tanks(as in high growth rates therefore high production of allelochemicals) to affect the algae severly and begin to affect the plants also?

I can see you point, honestly I can aand I hate to disagree without anything to back it up. I seriously wonder, what triggers the algae growth in the first place? What is the water source? How can we be sure there is no NH4 in this setup? Does algae detect and use as a trigger levels that are below the normal hobbiests' test kits? I seem to remember reading that algae "live" in the ppb enviroment while plants "live" in the ppm enviroment, meaning that algae can utliize nutrient levels 1000 times smaller.


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

> I can see you point, and line of thinking but it makes me want to also ask, if I let my heavily planted tank go for 3-4 weeks, with high light, CO2 and I add enough nutrients that the plants are never lacking, why does algae start to add up?


I think this sums up my condition and observations as well but for me it takes less than 3-4 weeks I must be constantly after it (I reckon it is the killer light of 3x150 w Mh above a 100 gal tank for 8 hours) by the way ferts in my tank are monitored with a colorimeter so I positively know what is there, and from talks I had with other people that I consider to have enough control on their regimes the same thing happens tanks slowly start getting algae and degenarate slowly if measures are not constanly taken. Maybe some of you people are lucky enough and don't have this kind of problems but believe me there are lots that do. Only option that works is the WC and cleaningness and constant bothering of the creeping algae as dennis said.



> People like Luis keep a real clean tank, but I don't think the added bacteria is the whole reason for the cleanliness. The attention to detail that people with thanks like that have also means there is no extra mulm buildup and any algae that is seen is promptly removed and picked at until it decides conditions are not favorable at that time. I believe that adding bacteria but not doing water changes would would not have the same effect. Its all about the water changes and general cleanliness, IMO.


I agree with you it is all the above but what I am trying to stress here are all the different parameters that might add to the final result.
Also consider this if the above is the case we are all in the same trap together it is just that some of us are more disciplined fighting a recuring condition.

I myself really felt this last months that I was on square one with this high light high all tanks and none could really help me (I am reading it all anyway) no matter how much they wanted.

I would really like if people stepped up and told us sincerely of their experiences and high ferts, do some have problems, do the rest need to follow a strict cleaningness e.t.c regime to avoid them? or some have np whatsoever?


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

I'm not real sure how my experience relates to this, but for about two months or more I have had some BBA growing on my heater, at the back of the tank. I elected not to remove it, primarily out of laziness. It remains there, slowly growing, but it is virtually the only BBA in the tank ( a few small tufts on the powerhead output tube edge). I do run pretty high CO2, so I have been attributing my "success" to that, but I'm not really sure. I don't see any other algae in the tank now.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

I've learned quite a bit since dealing with small and large tanks, and it's taken me years to come to these conclusions (and replicate them consistently). 

Small tanks are ideal because they are easy to light, fertilize, and dissolve CO2 into. I've driven my best tanks with tons of light, a 10g with 65w, and a 29g with 195w CF. Both tanks are/were 95+% algae free. In both tanks, I can literally dump in nutrients, just like Tom says you can do. I only have the 10g running now, but I don't measure nutrients. I just dump them in so I don't bottom anything out. Plants are growing & pearling like mad. The L. repens I used to pull out of the 29g was literally stunning in color, stem size, and strength. The keys here are: a. you can dissolve plenty of CO2 into them, b. adequate circulation to disperse evenly CO2 & nutrients, and c. plant growth and uptake rates under high lighting.

Large highly lit tanks pose several problems: the ability to dissolve and distribute CO2 adequately and the loss of light due to depths of 18" or more. Large highly lit tanks really made me realize what was wrong when I applied the same "common" planted tank principles to them and failed, and applied those same priniciples to small tanks and succeeded. They made me realize you can drive plants with insane amounts of light, when all nutrient issues are met, and that includes CO2. In large tanks, lower (medium) light tends to work better because it's not placing such a high demand on the plants for CO2. Of course, this also reduces the need for ferts. Thus, you find the base EI method an issue. The base EI rec's for a 75g or 100g are based on a linear equation: the dosing for a 20g is twice that of a 10g, etc. The EI method does not take into account the system slowing methods some may need to incorporate due to the inability to meet such "ideal" demands. I've seen in many cases PO4 excess in a 75g tank following the EI method. EI is only misleading, not the problem. The problem lies in the ability of such a system to utilize the resources it should be using. Therefore, one could essentially look at it in two lights: 1. slow it down via less light, or 2. fix the limiting problems. Personally, I've just found it difficult to dissolve enough CO2 in large tanks--strangely, the only tanks I've ever had BBA in are large tanks.

Dynamically speaking, I've found in all cases that algae is defeated by the plants themselves. Algae growth is directly related to plant growth. Problem is, that statement is extremely vague. If you can grow plants at their potential, you will defeat algae. I find that after plants "root" for a few days after being uprooted, they grow far better and faster. Keep in mind, this is in tanks with little water column ferts, and heavy water column ferts. In my 10g test tank, the tank had such horrible algae at first (65w of light). I kept growing the plants and producing more plant biomass. After several prunes and propagations, I cleaned the tank and that was it--no more algae. The only time I see a hint of algae is when I prune them, and only for those few days before they take root again, and I use no substrate fertilization. I also think back to when I had my 29g tank. It was almost decimated from algae. It had very low plant biomass left after a last ditch prune. I remember reading "keep the CO2 up and don't dose macros for a while." So I did, really being careful to keep the CO2 pumping. As the plants took off, algae appeared to come back, but it eventually failed when the plants just kept growing and growing. I slowly introduced macros and they grew even more. The rest was history!


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

dennis said:


> I can see you point, and line of thinking but it makes me want to also ask, if I let my heavily planted tank go for 3-4 weeks, with high light, CO2 and I add enough nutrients that the plants are never lacking, why does algae start to add up? If the plants are producing allelochemicals the previously kept the algae dormant, would not sufficient enough amounts of these chemicals build up in high production tanks(as in high growth rates therefore high production of allelochemicals) to affect the algae severely and begin to affect the plants also?





dennis said:


> I can see you point, honestly I can and I hate to disagree without anything to back it up. I seriously wonder, what triggers the algae growth in the first place? What is the water source? How can we be sure there is no NH4 in this setup? Does algae detect and use as a trigger levels that are below the normal hobbyists' test kits? I seem to remember reading that algae "live" in the ppb environment while plants "live" in the ppm environment, meaning that algae can utilize nutrient levels 1000 times smaller.


I think the allelochemicals are active only for a short time. If the plants are not doing well for few days then algae starts. Just like CO2 tank runs out and it takes 2 days to replace it. Every one says; algae!

If you don't change water for 4 weeks you get algae. Is there something wrong with your dosing? Why do I see the exact opposite? If I want to get rid of algae I stop changing water. And then I watch most algae melt away. 

How can water change help against algae by removing NH4 when most tap water sources have NH4 present? We can google city water analysis to see it. I think, the NH4 either boosts the plants production making more allelochemicals or the algae spores are killed by the chemicals used to condition the tap chlorine. Perhaps both?

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

All I can say is that in this high all tank of mine crap gets accumulated and the only solution is to reset it, clean it and start all over, all I see is a nutrient rich medium (tanks water) that after a number of days is becoming the playground of all sort of algae, bacterial crap, together with the bubbling like crazy plants. BGA, dust and algae on the glass are in the corner and all this with so much CO2 that the fish are ready to jump out of the tank in the morning and their operculums are open beyond repair all the time.
But I think I know my mistake I should have kept the nutrients in the proper place all along in the substrate where they mostly belong and not in the column (I just used this once this useless inert Fluorite).
Find me a place in nature where there are 30 - 40 ppm of NO3 in the column (but in areas where ferts seep from farmlands), there isn't, there are just small amounts in constant contact with the plants and also coming in through the roots. We on the other hand are trying to prove that a ton of **** in the water column is the proper course. Sorry but I can't buy it. And then it is all the tanks me and my friends have kept for 20 years with no column fertilizing no CO2 most of the time few WC lots of soil under the roots and a ton of light that had not a speckle of algae for years and grew tons of stuff apart from anubias ferns and echinodorus. And I have seen and had more than a 100 tanks like that. Also look at the Amano tank approach with almost 0 all on the column and food on the roots, they work. No green water no dust algae and various slimy things nothing.
So what if the substrate needs to be changed every few years.
If balance is our quest in our tanks then we should be able to forget the WC for a few weeks or stay without CO2 until we refill or almost never cleaning the substrate of the tank and still the tank to be able to recover without a hitch, this is what balanced means for me, high buffer capacity in the system. I don’t see that with this high all approach.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Without fully reading through all of this thread I propose something that has been bugging me for a long time. That higher than normal nutrient levels are in fact detrimental to plant health since they inhibit uptake of other nutrients. Thus allowing algae to grow. 

I can't accept Barr's idea that every problem you see is as simple as not enough CO2. I have had many tanks in which I have gunned the CO2 excessively to the point to killing livestock and beyond and still had algae problems of some kind or another. All the fert levels were in excess (but not in unhealthy excess) to what they needed to grow.

I do not propose that all algae problems are due to nutrients or CO2, but rather that plant growth depends on both correct Co2 level and ferts within a certain range. After all there has to be an upper limit to the amount of ferts that can be added to a tank before the plant starts to be poisoned (or show decreased health).

Tom may be correct that excess nutrients don't cause algae growth directly, but that isn't to say that higher nutrient levels don't play a prominent role in allowing algae to take over.

If you think about it actually, adding too much Mg to your tank (like say.... 400ppm) and having about 60 ppm of Ca in your water will produce stunting since the Mg is blocking the Ca from being taken up. Despite the fact that both nutrients are present in amounts that should be enough for the plant to survive, it actually does not do well.

So I ask: what is so farfetched about thinking the same thing is afoot here with macros?

After all, if animals have certain tolerance levels to nutrients why shouldn't plants? I mean you wouldn't keep a tank with 180ppm of No3 with fish would you? So what makes it healthy for a plant to be in such a tank?

Just because plants use these macro and micro nutrients does not mean that more is always better. The dose makes the poison.


----------



## turnstile (Oct 23, 2005)

From my experience I have to agree with Zapins. A while ago I was quite convinced that my plants weren't growing well due to lack of nutrients. I started adding a little bit more extra and it didn't seem to help at all. I upped the CO2 levels and it got worse. I added some more nutrients, believing they were quickly used by the plants and things got even worse. I ended up killing so many plants that i was about to give up. I then did a large water change, took the nutrient levels down (CO2 included) and since then my plants are doing very well, thank you. I'm not one to start theorising on everything but it works very well for me.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I propose that the answer to the question of how to end up with no algae and healthy plants is probably very, very complicated. If "the solution" could be easily explained in a sentence, or even in a short article it already would have been. 

There are literally hundreds of variables at play here. Simple observation and anecdotal experience is not going to be sufficient to answer the question, no matter how long we persist at it. My setup is not like yours. I have different tap water, fish, plants, substrate, feeding routines, bacteria populations, stocking levels, light bulbs, temperatures, WC schedules, test kits, fertilizing regimens, and a different size/shape tank. Why should I expect that your solution would work in my tank? It might, but it might not - for reasons that neither of us will understand very well.

There is no way to understand the variables except through well-designed and independently verified experiments. Very few of us do this. I don't. Tom Barr has probably done the most - even to the point that he's become very dogmatic about what works for him. Even so, I'm certain that he is only controlling for a few of the variables. I think his basic recommendations (more CO2, more nutrients, more water changes, less NH4, etc.) fit most situations quite well. In other cases I think the correct technique would be quite different.

Still, I think we've made some substantial progress in our understanding. I think people are seeing more success than previously. We're successfully keeping a larger number of plant species. But, there are many roads to Rome. The Dutch aquascapers were doing quite well with their low-light, mostly low-tech methods long before any of this Amano thinking became the rage. In my own anecdotal experience, I've equated high NO3 levels (>60 ppm, per calibrated Lamotte kits) with severe green dust outbreaks. Tom tells me this is not so. Regardless, I seem to have the best results with consistent, high CO2 levels, regular light gravel vacs, 50% WC's once per week, and relatively lean NO3 and PO4 dosing - about 1/3 as much as EI would suggest. I also keep a very dense mass of rapidly growing stem plants and a pretty big fish load. I also test fairly frequently. Letting macro concentrations drop to zero is a very bad thing. I'm probably leaning more and more towards PPS thinking as opposed to EI thinking.

I'm interested in the differences that people have been noticing in large vs. small tanks. Something in my mind tells me that people plant these tanks very differently. You don't see many large tanks with enormous stands of fast-growing stem plants. It's just too much work. The tank's metabolic rate would therefore be expected to be quite different. They're usually lit differently. Also, I'm guessing that on average, people with monster tanks aren't as good about doing water changes - or maybe they're better - who knows? When differences like these aren't accounted for, other observations and comparisons are invalidated.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Good points, it makes sense what you have said.

It seems that over the years much has been learned about the hobby, we have come up with a set of general guidelines so to speak. Like you said, more CO2, more nutrients, more water changes, less NH4. 

For a long time now, I have caught hints and snippets of conversations here and there that mention the dangers of adding too much of a fertilizer (or fertilizers). While this information is out there, I don't think it is widely known or emphasized. Probably because people usually don't add as much fertilizer as it takes to see poisoning problems. Never the less a more common problem relating to this is when people add just enough of a fertilizer to create an imbalance between that nutrient and another nutrient, but not enough to see poisoning. 

I think that in addition to the good advice accumulated so far (Wc/more Co2) that advice and a proper explanation about balancing nutrients and not adding excessive amounts of anything should be given. 




As far as your other point goes, I do see the problem when trying to make exact comparisons between different tanks. Making an exact comparison is difficult at best and usually near impossible most of the time. But remember that there is a range in which things do well, rather than a fixed set of numbers that your tank has to have to gain success.

Since a range exists in parameters it makes it much easier to compare our tanks, because we are comparing averages, not exact values.

Of course it isn't the most accurate way of comparing tanks, but at least it gives a good general idea of what causes problems and what does not. and allows us to make guidelines that work, like more CO2, more nutrients, more water changes, less NH4.


----------



## Glouglou (Feb 21, 2006)

*Go Freeman, Go*

Very interesting, Freeman.

I'm kind of a newbie in the new ways of planted aquaria. For a little more than a year now, I'm back in water again after 20 years and keep snooping in forums like this one.

The amount of knowledge at reach, compare to my early years are phenomenal. Lots of new ideas and new approach.

I'm a little bit worry that we trying to force nature here, more co2, more this, more that. It look like those poor new generation farmers having to dump tons of this and that to produce more than is genetically modified neighbors.

As human do sometimes, they forget the big picture. Who will be a better teacher than nature itself.

Science and knowledge are very cool and can improve what we do...
But they can make us forget where we come from.

I don't say the high nutrient way is good, I don't say the natural way is good or such and such technique is the road but we should always take model on what works for millions of years.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Glouglou, your points are well taken. Since the "El Natural" forum moved here at APC there has been a lot more traffic about what many would call the "low tech" approach. Going with a high-light, turbo-charged, nutrient rich setup is only one way to do things. It probably appeals to the American "I want it now" mentality, but the method is actually pretty good at growing nice-looking plants without too many algae issues.

There is much to be said for a more natural approach. Growth is often slower and usually less dense. It takes more patience to produce a cohesive aquascape. Certinaly maintainence is less demanding. It all depends on your style and what you're trying to accomplish.

For the most part, what most of us create in our little glass boxes doesn't reproduce nature all that well. Most aquatic habitats that I've seen are dominated by 1 or 2 plant species. In my tank I have fish and plants from almost every corner of the globe. "Cheating" by using ferts and CO2 doesn't bother me at all, since it's a means to acheiving a certain goal.

If the past is any predictor of the future, we'll all be doing it differently in 20 years anyway.......


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

I have to agree. Freeman is recognized as an expert in aquatic science. His tests and experiments are always valuable to this hobby. I can't wait what he comes up with. 

Edward


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

guaiac_boy


> I propose that the answer to the question of how to end up with no algae and healthy plants is probably very, very complicated. If "the solution" could be easily explained in a sentence, or even in a short article it already would have been.


Then how come the last years people give advice on some cases (I am not speaking of the obvious mistakes) so quickly? Is there a possibility that we have become dogmatic in our approach and blind to the possibility of this variables?
Is see more and more people this days getting the authority of the expert and starting fast to give advices that at the end may complicate more than resolve matters? It is understandable that people want to find the all cure and start enjoying the hobby instead of toiling to get a clean tank but still what if we are still not there?



> There are literally hundreds of variables at play here. Simple observation and anecdotal experience is not going to be sufficient to answer the question, no matter how long we persist at it. My setup is not like yours. I have different tap water, fish, plants, substrate, feeding routines, bacteria populations, stocking levels, light bulbs, temperatures, WC schedules, test kits, fertilizing regimens, and a different size/shape tank. Why should I expect that your solution would work in my tank? It might, but it might not - for reasons that neither of us will understand very well.


You are right and wrong on this one at the same time. The fact that we miss the ability to describe precisely our condition does not mean that some factors may be not be objectively critical for everyone but we miss the ability to recognise them. Lets say we should start differently like we take some parameters as needed, like lets say existence of bacterial populations, the use of not extreme light, the need for at least some water changes, the need of verified testing, the need for give all fertilizing but in some moderation and taking into consideration where this fertilization would have to be above or below, maybe instead of advising how to get good results with what someone has we should advice them on what we know as a fact is needed to start it working (a combination of questionnaire, faq sheet) could really help, or we don't even know enough to do this after all this years?



> There is no way to understand the variables except through well-designed and independently verified experiments. Very few of us do this. I don't. Tom Barr has probably done the most - even to the point that he's become very dogmatic about what works for him. Even so, I'm certain that he is only controlling for a few of the variables. I think his basic recommendations (more CO2, more nutrients, more water changes, less NH4, etc.) fit most situations quite well. In other cases I think the correct technique would be quite different.


So we are understandably in the blind with lots of the factors that come into play, only thing we can do is to look for repeated patterns in our different tanks (Not very scientific I confess but our only alternative). Another problem is that the people that have repeated success with their tanks thus more probably near the "trick" of making it work all the time are on the posing side of the game (look at my superb tank" most of the time) and very "lean" to the degree of cryptic on their answers concerning their methodology, I find this very frustrating, this guys should be the fore runners on advising, I find this to be rare. My problem is that we act like we know it all by now and we don't.
Dogmatism can really be frustrating to someone that asks for advice.



> Still, I think we've made some substantial progress in our understanding. I think people are seeing more success than previously. We're successfully keeping a larger number of plant species. But, there are many roads to Rome. The Dutch aquascapers were doing quite well with their low-light, mostly low-tech methods long before any of this Amano thinking became the rage. In my own anecdotal experience, I've equated high NO3 levels (>60 ppm, per calibrated Lamotte kits) with severe green dust outbreaks. Tom tells me this is not so. Regardless, I seem to have the best results with consistent, high CO2 levels, regular light gravel vacs, 50% WC's once per week, and relatively lean NO3 and PO4 dosing - about 1/3 as much as EI would suggest. I also keep a very dense mass of rapidly growing stem plants and a pretty big fish load. I also test fairly frequently. Letting macro concentrations drop to zero is a very bad thing. I'm probably leaning more and more towards PPS thinking as opposed to EI thinking.


Yes we have done some leaps but we are not even near the top yet. For all the rest I have similar experiences but I would add the rich substrate this could remove for some time the fear of letting the macros drop to 0. PPS seems to me more logical root as well this days.

Zaps


> For a long time now, I have caught hints and snippets of conversations here and there that mention the dangers of adding too much of a fertilizer (or fertilizers). While this information is out there, I don't think it is widely known or emphasized. Probably because people usually don't add as much fertilizer as it takes to see poisoning problems. Never the less a more common problem relating to this is when people add just enough of a fertilizer to create an imbalance between that nutrient and another nutrient, but not enough to see poisoning.


Yes I am pretty sure this days the interactivity is highly under looked. As I mention above it was bagging me for 2 years.

Since a range exists in parameters it makes it much easier to compare our tanks, because we are comparing averages, not exact values.



> Of course it isn't the most accurate way of comparing tanks, but at least it gives a good general idea of what causes problems and what does not. and allows us to make guidelines that work, like more CO2, more nutrients, more water changes, less NH4.


Glouglou
Nature rules and surely we can try to imitate it as much as possible. This is a hobby that requires from us to be in tune with nature's processes surely.

Edward
I hope you don't pull my leg , I am no expert, prolly the opposite most of the time this days I feel like a complete failure, this all high tank of mine has been the biggest pain in the ass in my aquaristic life. Only think that I can possitively say for myself is that I have been keeping planted tanks for 27 years most of them with high MH lightning and rich substrate and lean column ferts. As an example my last tank 108 lt with MH 150W, 1 ppm NO3 and the rest following (almost no PO4), 5 cm soil from greek forest under gravel just a bubble of CO2 per minute lasted for 4 years I was doing no pruning for weeks it was left with no CO2 for almost a month once while in vacation, sometimes I did not change or add any water for weeks never vacumed the substrate and under all this conditions not even once algae really appeared. There was algae only in the initial stage a thing that now thinking back could be avoided if I had left the soil in a bucket for a month or 2 which I did not. I also look at my friend nikos tanks here in Greece which are some of the most incredible tanks that I have seen and I have seen a lot (I will try to post some of his photos in a thread if I can get him around to put his photos together) what is his difference with me is the fact that in all his tanks there is rich substrate under, mind you he adds stuff to the column but less and uses lots of PC light. All that I am basically saying is that rich substrate tanks even with quite high strengths of column ferts add to the system the missing factor that helps keep the plants in a really healthy state and keep algae away.
Let me post some photo links:








My previous tank, 1,5 ppm NO3 daily rest following, 108 lt., 150 w MH 12 hours, 5 cm soil under lasted as I said 4 years it could grow 
everything never had a speckle of algae after the first 4 months. Ok I know I can't be bothered to aquascape 








My friend Nikos tank, Femanga (a very good commercial soil like substrate with really good results) plus laterite substrate, medium 
CO2, low ferts on column, lots of PC light.







.
Karamitsios tank 2nd in AGA large section 2005 Femanga again.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/library/10806-an-interview-enrico-monteiro-may-2004-a.html
And last but no least Enrico Monteiros earth casting- laterite tanks and what tanks !!!
Plus all the Amano and tons of Far East tanks.

I hope I didn't bore you with this long post
Thanks


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Freemann said:


> All that I am basically saying is that rich substrate tanks even with quite high strengths of column ferts add to the system the missing factor that helps keep the plants in a really healthy state and keep algae away.


Very, very interesting. I definitely think that you are correct here about having a missing factor.

It is interesting to me that you have high intensity lighting over a soil tank, since the 'El natural' method seems to advocate lower lighting.

Perhaps you have defined the "high tech" El natural tank.  It seems your method combines all the plant health benefits from the high tech method and all the low maintenance benefits from a low tech setup.

Can you give us more details about your method? More information about the type of soil you are using would be very helpful.

I am very eager to try out your method with my next tank.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

There have been a few biotype articles in ADA's magazine about various tropical waterways where these photosynthetic prisoners of ours originated. One thing that is interesting about most of these streams and rivers is that the water column is almost always very lean. Nitrates and phosphates are completely undetectable in some areas. Despite this, plant growth is really quite dense in these regions.

In these waterways, analysis of the soil shows low to moderate concentrations of nitrates and phosphates. This seems to be sufficient to support the growth. It should also be remembered that CO2 in these waters is not necessarily at equilibrium with the atmosphere. Decomposition of organic matter in the waterway can result in quite high CO2 levels, much to the plants liking.

Even in natural settings it's important to rember that algae is often a very real factor. I was recently canoeing on the North Fork of the Snake River in Idaho. The entire river emerges from a spring and the water is absoutely pristine. The watershed for the spring includes no significant agriculture or populated area. There is an abundance of aquatic vegetation in this crystal-clear 1-3 meter deep water. To my surprise, many of the aquatic plants were covered in very dense algae.

Since the orignial subject of this thread concerned algae suppression and over-fertilization its important to remember that algae attacks natural environments just like our little glass boxes. In this case, reproducing what I found in the river wouldn't look very pleasing in the living room.


----------



## Freemann (Mar 19, 2004)

> It is interesting to me that you have high intensity lighting over a soil tank, since the 'El natural' method seems to advocate lower lighting


I had tanks with 4w/gal and bigger ones (300 lt) with 2w/gal MH most of the time with absolutely no problem, you can grow a ton of stuff this way just with soil and not even CO2 (surely low CO2 really helps even this way). Not even once there was a problem for the total life of the tanks, it is just that this tanks have an expiration date of around 3 years for optimal growth, they can grow incredible ferns anubias, echinodorus, crypts most of the common stems (rotalas ludwigias e.t.c). All this tanks and I can think of, more than a 100 had 4-5 cm forest soil from deciduous tree forests in Greece and laterite (I add one handful powder per 2 square feet) collected from a local mine here in Greece. All this tanks go through an initial period of around 4 months when algae runs rampant it can be embarrassing and someone may easily freak out, I know of a number of methods to avoid quite a lot of this stage, emerging the soil for a month or 2 in a tub, also lots of wc in the initial stage to remove all the leaching will do it as well.
Now there is a variation of the above so that you can grow even the most demanding plants,CO2 is kept on the 1-2 bubble/min, instead of 4 cm of soil 2 cm pressed soil can be used and 1,5 ppm only of NO3 can be added daily together with 0,3 PO4 daily this can be applied with a dosing pump, special care should be used in the application of traces which cannot be mixed with the rest of ferts (I have the impression that traces are not that good at withstanding long exposure to light heat and the best way to use them on there own in a dosing pump and use volumes that will be used in small periods of time maybe 15 days). Leaching of soil can be easily avoided with careful pruning techniques. and siphoning of what comes up.


----------

