# Phosphate is the king of the planted tank



## JoshP12

Hi all,

I continually made this claim* that was followed by, "based on my readings, I think ..." or something along those lines.

After < learning a bit about photosynthesis >, I realized that my thought that *phosphate directly controls CO2 demand is actually true. When the < light-dependent reaction > of photosynthesis occurs, it converts ADP to ATP:



 


That's your phosphate.


The light-dependent reactions happen before the Calvin Cycle:




which use the ATP and uses the CO2.

Phosphate is used BEFORE CO2 ... hence phosphate drive CO2 need.

What drive phosphate consumption? Light.

What happens if we provide enough phosphate - but still limit it (and provide enough of the other nutrients) ... OR blast the tank with light
... ***the plants color changes:
... via:
... the plants finds a way to mitigate the amount of light they get
... they get light from the chlorophyll pigment
... find a way to break down < Pheophytin > which is the first element in the Electron Transport Chain from PS 1
... **break down < chlorophyll a leaving chlorophyll b > ... we deal with < mostly Chlorophyll A and B >:

There are four types of chlorophyll: chlorophyll a, found in all higher plants, algae and cyanobacteria; chlorophyll b, found in higher plants and green algae; chlorophyll c, found in diatoms, dinoflagellates and brown algae; and chlorophyll d, found only in red algae. 

... all plants have carotenoids (red/orange/yellow pigment); we just can't see them, then*** when we **.

For the same reason, carotenoid colors often predominate in ripe fruit after being unmasked by the disappearance of chlorophyll**.

and ...

1) ****I am thinking nitrate limitation is actually phosphate limitation (with no nitrogen deficiency) ... and I conjecture that with high light, we could provide ample nitrates and limit phosphates and get colorations. This never happens - because aquarists doing this are meticulous cleaners, water changers, controllers, etc.
2) This is why people notice their nitrogen (and other nutrients) plummet if phosphates sky rocket
3) This is why < " phosphates cause algae " >
4) This is PMDD
5) This is why some people say stop dosing for a few days and see what happens, then they blame EI for their issues


*** I daily dose EI - nitrate is not 0, it isn't 5, it isn't 10.

Why:




Half the plants are ok, the other half aren't:




This is why we replant tops - and not the middle segment <-- I replanted those and guess what, they are struggling - they will be fine in a few weeks though.

I am bombarding the tank with light my AI primes are at 100%.

And I am giving ample phosphates to fuel ATP creation. They are scared - and they are turning color to slow down photosynthesis because they can't keep up. I bombard them with phosphates forcing them to grow via chemistry + physics (this is a cop out as it is probabilities/concentrations/and flow that determine the latter).

They do not have the RuBisCo concentration to absorb CO2 from my water column TO MATCH my forced phosphates, to perform carbon fixation, to make sugars, to build tissue ... hence why they are thin. They aren't stunted, they aren't any other deficiency. It is CO2. But because of phosphates. It also has other things - not just RuBisCo ... the thylakoid aren't stacked properly etc. 

At this point, I am convinced that I can either:

1) reduce light (which is what I did this morning) ... because it is the click of a button.
2) Leave light and reduce phosphates (what I should do) - I did not do this because my doser has the macro solution already mixed.
3) Increase CO2 even more - and gas my fish -- which I have done in the past.

Notice that my Pogo is still healthy:



It has adapted to these conditions.

And one could argue that my rotala were already in my tank so they have adapted. But if we recall, they were 3x as tall. Amano suggested cutting 1/3 ONLY of a stem (read this from one of @alto's posts) ... and it is for this reason: it will reduce the likelihood that the plant itself does not have the proper configuration for the conditions it is in.

This is why < we should use low light on start up >.

So as per what @Ray said < here >, I think we can extend this notion to each internode of each stem as @Ray asserted < here >.

Hmm ... I guess that's all .

Please, please, please, if I am wrong on any of this, please correct me.

I am merely in a pursuit of understanding.

Josh


----------



## jaypeecee

Yikes, @JoshP12 

That's a lot to absorb. I wish I could usefully contribute to this thread but, when we start talking about RuBisCo, I'm out of my depth!

JPC


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> when we start talking about RuBisCo



My comments on RuBisCo were not meant to deter the focus of the thread. That comment was to explain why my plants had struggled with CO2 - and more importantly because of the phosphates that I bombard them with.

The point was that Phosphate is used before CO2. And phosphate is used after light. So Phosphate is the king. 

Now, we have to make one assumption - that we are starting with a healthy leaf - FOR, if we did not have carbon to make that healthy leaf, then phosphate is not the king.

However and more truthfully - they are all the kings. I should perhaps re-name the thread as: phosphate is the king of photosynthesis ... but that's light GAH. 

Phosphate is useful .

Josh


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 


JoshP12 said:


> I should perhaps re-name the thread as: phosphate is the king of photosynthesis ... but that's light GAH.



Ah, right. I'm with you now - except for one little acronym - GAH. Sorry, I scratched my head and also did a search for it. What is GAH?

JPC


----------



## Dr Mike Oxgreen

jaypeecee said:


> Ah, right. I'm with you now - except for one little acronym - GAH. Sorry, I scratched my head and also did a search for it. What is GAH?


I think he means “_Gaaaah!!!_”


----------



## jaypeecee

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:


> I think he means “_Gaaaah!!!_”



I guess I'm showing my age!

JPC


----------



## Ray

Thanks for invoking me Josh .  It's 30 years since I sat in a classroom and looked at the ADP - ATP  cycle (for A level biology) so I hadn't twigged that that was what the plants needed phosphate for - so thanks for that realisation!  As far as I can tell you are correct.
The Amano advice to cut only 1/3 of a stem is very interesting.  It's not what some of the guys on YouTube are doing but I think you're right to say if part of a stem grew at a different level in the tank to where it now it, it's at some kind of a disadvantage.  If your conditions are borderline or the stem very demanding that may be a problem...  I also found the Clive post you triggered in one of your links very interesting - that transitioning from emersed to submersed in nature it's likely the water will be turbid initially is something I had not thought of that sounds very reasonable.


----------



## JoshP12

Ray said:


> It's not what some of the guys on YouTube are doing but I think you're right to say if part of a stem grew at a different level in the tank to where it now it, it's at some kind of a disadvantage.



Especially since my tank is 2 feet tall.



jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> 
> Ah, right. I'm with you now - except for one little acronym - GAH. Sorry, I scratched my head and also did a search for it. What is GAH?
> 
> JPC





Dr Mike Oxgreen said:


> I think he means “_Gaaaah!!!_”



 ... Yes like a "ahh! It's a cycle that never ends!"


----------



## JoshP12

What comes next is that CO2 does NOT need to be stable (the same CO2 concentration from lights on to lights off which is often decided by stable pH) from lights on.

I do not mean that the injection can fluctuate - that is bad news.

I mean that the CO2 concentration in the tank needs to match the rate of the light-dependent reaction. Specifically, the rate at which ATP and NADPH are being created - which is dictated by 2 things:
1) Light
2) Phosphate

The plant can deal with excess light by degenerated its chlorophyll.

Look:



He says to me, "how many chlorophyll are you going to make me destroy before you realize that you are pushing me to hard at my current state." Notice the entire new growth is gorgeous and colorful, but the old growth needs to be hit as well until the plant recovers.

This is what I experienced <here > attributing the coloration to a particular form of nitrate limitation - in fact, it was the plant transitioning, shielding itself temporarily, adjusting, then continuing its new growth. I did not continue that thread, but the plants would go back to green later. Intense red for a few days, then transition back.

So, actually, what I asked about < RuBisCo concentration depending on light or CO2 and the example I proposed > is correct.

In other words, the amount of CO2 required for healthy growth is a function of light (which is buffered by the plant) and phosphate concentration.

So, your concentration of CO2 simply needs to match you phosphate and light - it need not be stable. However, the stability solves problems because if the CO2 is in excess, we have no issues during the photoperiod. And it is much easier to just make it stable rather than < feel the tank >.

EI gives us the "maximum phosphate", so we are left with light driving photosynthesis.

The reason GSA goes away from increasing phosphates is from Mulders chart, nutrient accumulation, increasing probability that the plant can utilize phosphate, necessarily drive the calvin cycle and UTILIZE the CO2 in the system.

This picture is terrible and to my sadness I do not have a month ago. But I have not touched this buce leaf, moved him, cleaned him, whatever. The only thing I did was strip my system of < excess potassium> .  The GSA and the fuzz algae on the edges has receded.




I suspect that those green thread algaes can be beat with the same concept.

Bottom line: CO2 concentration needs to match light + Phosphate throughout photoperiod. In theory, you could turn on CO2 with a HIGH injection rate, HIGH surface agitation, at lights on, WITH a gradual ramp up until your CO2 concentration reaches the appropriate value for your max light + phosphates.

Josh


----------



## Zeus.

If Phosphate is King of the planted tank 

Then  *Flow* is GOD of the planted tank

without flow esp in an enriched CO2 tank with high light Flow is always the ultimate ruler 

*The Effect of Soil Water Movement vs. Phosphate Diffusion On Growth and Phosphorus Content of Corn and Soybeans*

your tank water may have plenty of PO4, but without flow the local [PO4] may be nothing if flow is low and high light next comes pin holes then melt


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> Then  *Flow* is GOD of the planted tank



For this discussion, we can assume flow is sufficient .







EDIT: It is very true though. If my flow was optimized MORE, then I may have never stumbled across the growth in some of the photos above.


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> your tank water may have plenty of PO4, but without flow the local [PO4] may be nothing if flow is low and high light next comes pin holes then melt



In many ways, I think this idea shows why limiting phosphate is quite feasible in reducing CO2 demand on the tank. The idea would be not pump it full of excess phosphate, but to pump it with just enough.

I have not been to the ADA gallery, and I can't say that every single tank has SAE - but this shows that in the 10-15-20 zone (or 15-20-25 zone, I cannot find my reference) that is often quoted as the BBA growth zone, Amano can hold a tank at 20 and be algae free. Like I said, I don't know if he has SAE in every tank - and Amano shrimp could keep it at bay enough. BUT it does explain why I never see BBA in any lake. - rarely do these lakes have 30+ ppm of CO2. We know the water column of ADA has low phosphate and EI tanks have much higher levels.

Now, that ignores the ability for the PO4 to be pulled from the nutrient-packed substrate - however, moving that phosphate through the root system requires energy. It may be possible that the energy needed offsets the excess energy fueling the Calvin Cycle.

Not sure and cannot say much, but it has definitely got me thinking.

Josh


----------



## Witcher

Zeus. said:


> Then *Flow* is GOD of the planted tank


Hey @Zeus. The Light is the God of the planted tank, you heretic  The flow is a messenger of God.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 


JoshP12 said:


> So, your concentration of CO2 simply needs to match you phosphate and light - it need not be stable. However, the stability solves problems because if the CO2 is in excess, we have no issues during the photoperiod.



In order to put your interesting hypothesis to the test, we need some data. We need [CO2] in mg/l, [PO4] in mg/l and light (PPF*) in micromoles/sec. I think the light spectrum should also be measured over the accepted PAR** bandwidth (400nm -700nm). This is not an easy experiment to set up - but it's not impossible.

Or, you could run your thoughts past Dr Bruce Bugbee at _Apogee Instruments_? But, that may come at a price!

* PPF = photosynthetic photon flux

** PAR = photosynthetically active radiation

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

JoshP12 said:


> For this discussion, we can assume flow is sufficient



But Flow is still ruler of all, many experienced members have been stating in many threads* Flow is King* in a high tech tank in an attempt for others esp folk new to planted tanks don't underestimate the importance of good flow, the general principles of EI dosing is dose in excess so [PO4] is irrelevant, regular WC so DOC are irrelevant to some extent with good tank maintenance, good flow is critical for CO2 distribution in high light CO2 injected tanks.

But 'PO4 is king of the planted tank' is a nono    IMO, however 'PO4 is king of the Calvin cycle' on the other hand is fine and debatable IMO. The  simplified Calvin cycle you have quoted is enough for most folks to switch off and still remember Flow is king 



JoshP12 said:


> BUT it does explain why I never see BBA in any lake.



But what are the levels of Dissolved Organic Compounds ( DOC) in a Lake



JoshP12 said:


> CO2 concentration needs to match light + Phosphate throughout photoperiod



*Liebig's law,*  even D Wong quotes Liebig with a portrait and has dropped the ratios of nutrients, everything in excess except toxins and the plants will outgrow the aglae, I have all types of algae in my tanks in small localised areas


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

*Lesson: The Assh*le is usually the one in charge*

All the organs of the body were having a meeting, trying to decide who was the one in charge.

"I should be in charge," said the brain, "because I run all the body's systems, so without me nothing would happen."

"I should be in charge," said the blood, "because I circulate oxygen all over so without me you'd waste away."

"I should be in charge," said the stomach, “because I process food and give all of you energy."

"I should be in charge," said the legs, "because I carry the body wherever it needs to go."

"I should be in charge," said the eyes, "because I allow the body to see where it goes."

"I should be in charge," said the rectum, "because I am responsible for waste removal."


All the other body parts laughed at the rectum and insulted him, so in a huff, he shut down tight.


Within a few days, the brain had a terrible headache, the stomach was bloated, the legs got wobbly, the eyes got watery, and the blood was toxic.


They all decided that the rectum should be the boss.



For the purposes of this exercise your *scape design* would be the assh*le in charge. It dictates all aspects of distribution and is unchanging unlike all the other things you can attempt to control for.


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

Apologies to everyone for the thread name - it does not reflect what I am trying to say properly.




Zeus. said:


> But Flow is still ruler of all, many experienced members have been stating in many threads* Flow is King* in a high tech tank in an attempt for others esp folk new to planted tanks don't underestimate the importance of good flow,



I don't think anyone is denying that flow is important. But Flow without nutrients sucks.




Zeus. said:


> the general principles of EI dosing is dose in excess so [PO4] is irrelevant, regular WC so DOC are irrelevant to some extent with good tank maintenance, good flow is critical for CO2 distribution in high light CO2 injected tanks.



We can't willy nilly dose everything as we please. The word excess is misleading. Too much of something will increase the chances that the plant will pick that up (possibly instead of something else? - Mulders). I love what Barr did to develop EI - it's great - and if it wasn't for EI, I would not know what healthy plants look like, nor would I have considered CO2 so deeply. But if you dump whatever the toxicity of something is in your tank (as it will be unique to each tank) minus 1 into your tank and sustain that level for months on end, there will be issues. My Rotala that changed almost immediately after MONTHS of excess potassium is a prime example. My Pogo too.



Zeus. said:


> But 'PO4 is king of the planted tank' is a nono    IMO, however 'PO4 is king of the Calvin cycle' on the other hand is fine and debatable IMO. The  simplified Calvin cycle you have quoted is enough for most folks to switch off and still remember Flow is king



RuBisCo (and NADPH) will have a conniption if you say that ; Flow is king only when it carries nutrients - and of those nutrients, phosphate comes directly after light, and we put phosphates in - so if we can limit phosphates without starving the plant, then we should be able to reduce the demand on everything else in the tank. Sure dump in ferts (I do this), let stuff grow, WC, reset, voila - but we are missing something beautiful.



Zeus. said:


> But what are the levels of Dissolved Organic Compounds ( DOC) in a Lake



Not sure, but when people have BBA, the most common response I read is to increase CO2/fix flow distribution. And then the quote that 15-25ish CO2 when everything else is in check spawns BBA. The answer is never to clean better.

CO2 and flow are important for a tank - no one is going to deny this.



Zeus. said:


> *Liebig's law,*  even D Wong quotes Liebig with a portrait and has dropped the ratios of nutrients, everything in excess except toxins and the plants will outgrow the aglae, I have all types of algae in my tanks in small localised areas



I did not refute Leigbig's ... I used it. We just need a bit more CO2 than is demanded in plant growth - and what dictates that plant growth is phosphates and light (which can be reflected by degenerating chlorophyll). This means, some combination of those two will dictate CO2 demand and it need not be the same "maximum" concentration from the beginning. Look at < this tank >. 

Dennis Wong's website is wonderful and his tanks are gorgeous; however, he isn't going to dump 1 nutrient out of balance willy nilly - sure he can drop the notion of ratios (because really it is a probability game and in soft water there is so much less going on than hard) as those ratios have to be ratio-ranges. Further, D. Wong taught me a lot in his videos etc..




Geoffrey Rea said:


> *Lesson: The Assh*le is usually the one in charge*
> 
> For the purposes of this exercise your *scape design* would be the assh*le in charge. It dictates all aspects of distribution and is unchanging unlike all the other things you can attempt to control for.



. Of course, but the scape design is meaningless without nutrients in the water.

This is why I put this thread under ferts.

The Assh*le of ferts is phosphate. Above all is light. But plants can reduce the light they absorb - phosphate is not so easy I don't think, especially when it flows by a leaf.

I do want to reiterate that I am simply learning about nutrients and plants.

I need to ensure that readers of this thread do know the importance of Flow and CO2 and scape design (which inherently dictates all else).

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

Perhaps we should call the thread, phosphates dictate nutrient consumption? 

Or maybe they don’t? 

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> In order to put your interesting hypothesis to the test, we need some data. We need [CO2] in mg/l, [PO4] in mg/l and light (PPF*) in micromoles/sec. I think the light spectrum should also be measured over the accepted PAR** bandwidth (400nm -700nm). This is not an easy experiment to set up - but it's not impossible.
> 
> Or, you could run your thoughts past Dr Bruce Bugbee at _Apogee Instruments_? But, that may come at a price!
> 
> * PPF = photosynthetic photon flux
> 
> ** PAR = photosynthetically active radiation
> 
> JPC



Do we have examples on the forum of people who run successful tanks with less than 30 ppm (maybe 20?) co2 and a lean dosing regime and who ignore stability (stable from lights on to off, even if a ramp is in place)?

The complexity of substrate will come into play, however.

Josh


----------



## Witcher

Zeus. said:


> I have all types of algae in my tanks in small localised areas


I would be really really worried if I couldn't see any tiny bits of algae in my tank - that will mean that 50% of plant life (I mean lower plants by this) is probably dead. And I'd consider it as a very bad sign for my tank - and completely unnatural.


----------



## Zeus.

JoshP12 said:


> But Flow without nutrients sucks.



Yes if all you was using was RO water and no active substrate or root tabs

But low nutrients with good flow spreads the limited supply round, good levels of nutrients in tank as a whole and poor delivery to plants leads to issues eg dense stems in areas of poor flow lose leaves an lower part of stem, however good flow maintains the leaves




JoshP12 said:


> RuBisCo (and NADPH) will have a conniption if you say that ; Flow is king only when it carries nutrients



RuBisCo (and NADPH) happen withing the cells off the plants, however flow is external to the plants , Flow isnt need in air for CO2 as its diffusion rate is 10,000 times faster in air than water. But flow is King in water



JoshP12 said:


> limit phosphates





JoshP12 said:


> but we are missing something beautiful



Limiting some nutrients can have fantastic effects, bit like the death and breakdown of leaves on trees in the fall, and some deficiencies can be prolong and still tank looks great




JoshP12 said:


> We can't willy nilly dose everything as we please. The word excess is misleading. Too much of something will increase the chances that the plant will pick that up (possibly instead of something else? - Mulders). I love what Barr did to develop EI - it's great - and if it wasn't for EI, I would not know what healthy plants look like, nor would I have considered CO2 so deeply. But if you dump whatever the toxicity of something is in your tank (as it will be unique to each tank) minus 1 into your tank and sustain that level for months on end, there will be issues. My Rotala that change immediately after MONTHS of excess potassium is a prime example. My Pogo too.



But what is the toxic level for each nutrient and it will be plant specific as well

@ceg4048 dose his tank 3 to 4 times in excess of full EI, he reported the plants never looked better

@Tim Harrison use to dose his with a luxury dose - x2 EI levels - plants looked great. Tim is using more lean doses ATM ( correct me if I'm wrong Tim)



Limiting certain nutrients in a planted tank definitely has its place, not something I have gone into myself yet


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> @ceg4048 dose his tank 3 to 4 times in excess of full EI, he reported the plants never looked better
> 
> @Tim Harrison use to dose his with a luxury dose - x2 EI levels - plants looked great. Tim is using more lean doses ATM ( correct me if I'm wrong Tim)



To dose in full EI obeys ratios - since our dosing salts themselves preserve ratios. I don't want to speak for anyone's tank, so I will let them weigh in.

Each tank is a nutrient soup and hard water will add a layer of complexities. If we pick one nutrient and pour it in for months (I don't mean you drop a bottle for one photoperiod and you do a water change when you come home - a healthy established system can handle that), there will be issues, so we cannot dismiss the notion of ratio-ranges in non-toxic extreme circumstance (of course each nutrient will have different effects and some will be minimal in comparison). 

Josh


----------



## Zeus.

JoshP12 said:


> To dose in full EI obeys ratios



Nope-  *Liebig law of the minimum* , ratios are just coincidental IMO, your looking for trees and the forest is in the way, if you look for ratios you will always find them it doesn't mean the ratios have any meaning



JoshP12 said:


> If we pick one nutrient and pour it in for months



and it doesn't reach a toxic level or changes the equilibrium of the state (ionic/precipitate) of another nutrient/compound or interact with other element/compounds when certain [nutrient] are reach which result is a harmful compound, then all is fine 



JoshP12 said:


> we cannot dismiss the notion of ratio-ranges in non-toxic extreme circumstance



No we can't, however with the lack of any convincing evidence/proof we can be skeptical about ratios, just like  *Agnosticism* is about god.

However they can only be one King, there can be quite a few princes, stewards, judges etc The King may have little to do with the running of things at times, however he has the ultimate say. If the King has no kingdom or people in his Kingdom his rules are pretty meaningless


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> Nope-  *Liebig law of the minimum* , ratios are just coincidental IMO, your looking for trees and the forest is in the way, if you look for ratios you will always find them it doesn't mean the ratios have any meaning



First, I need to clarify that I am not suggesting that ratios dictate good plant growth. Liebig's law applies in the plant. It is not about what we give it in the water column. So to fully examine, we need to look at how the plant absorbs nutrients. I.e. the structure of the leaf: passive/active transport.

If someone truly thinks that dumping hundreds and hundreds of ppm of potassium in their tank (not the chunk that will explode) but say potassium sulfate or potassium bicarbonate (not potassium with macronutrient) will not cause ANY issues, then go ahead and do it. Do not manipulate anything else. Find toxic ranges for all your plants and dose directly under the minimum, then you have to test potassium due to uptake and dose more and more until you maintain below that toxicity. High GH will allow you to have that much more potassium. Conversely, if you have high GH, cease dosing all potassium except those from EI macronutrients and pull all of it out - further, remove all magnesium except 2ppm and maintain all other doses regularly. The complexity is unique to each specific tank so even my ridiculous example will not suffice.


It is a probabilities game as the concentration in the water that flows by a plant leaf changes. If the soil has concentrations and the water is not as mobile, concentrations will affect the uptake of those nutrients.



Zeus. said:


> your looking for trees and the forest is in the way



I am not looking for anything. I am not looking for a magic bullet. I have not defined what I am looking for.

The reality is this:

This thread offers very minimal practical advice for us.

*The practical advice is:

1) use your tap water 
2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert) 
4) clean/trim well 
5) optimize flow 
6) plant hard 
7) use good light with a dimmer 
8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
9) address deficiencies if they show up*

But this thread does demystify to much of the mystery that I felt as a newcomer to the hobby.

Some of those concepts are:

1) nutrient concentration in water column vs. substrate ... is there a difference? I think yes and the specifics are in phosphate mobility. Further, it unlocks the ADA system. 




The ever quoted that ADA soil has so much more nutrients than EI dosing is true. However, it is HOW the plant utilize these nutrients that gives the answer. Roots are different than leaves. The plant must (I think) trigger the roots to move nutrients through its stem as needed. The HIGH CEC of the substrate locks some nutrients (via providing a lower concentration gradient potential) so they don't leech forever into the water column - they will leech until the system has balanced  (of course), but then testable amounts are low. So if the nitrates in the substrate are so high, why do we get gorgeous nitrate-limiting plant growth. It is because it limits phosphates via the lack of mobility. Water column dosing forces different uptake of plants than roots. Crypts melt - and I bet it has to do with the insane root system that sequesters CO2 from the rhizosphere - so you have a dramatic shift in conditions - why stems don't melt as bad? Less roots - less of an emphasis on CO2 from soil - more on water column dosing, which when lean on phosphates can limit the demand on CO2.

2) how PMDD works

3) why the masters just turn on their CO2 and watch the tank and ignore the notion of "stable from lights on to lights off" ... the reality is that high injection rates gives rise to stability faster - so it is moot - but the concept has to do with CO2 demand based on phosphate and light availability.

4) why we need low light on start up - because the plant cannot get the nutrients - primarily CO2 as Clive said - it needs to grow ... until the plant changes it won't adapt. This has to do with obtaining nutrients NOT what we give it. So Liebig's holds but it's not about us - it's about in the plant. In my post, I proposed why low light on startup if you provide everything. The reality was that it is not about me provide everything - it was the ability of the plant to grab nutrients (primarily CO2). So, my suggested notion that we can't willy nilly dose one thing in excess is not to prove some self-fulfilling prophecy; it is in an attempt to give the plant the best chance to utilize and capture the nutrients we give so they can grow. We don't chase a relative concentration - but we do need to be cognizant of the effects that high concentration of stuff has on other things in our nutrient soup.

And the argument to minimize phosphates or dose none and use high light on startup will work - the unfortunate part is that you will NOT know the uptake of those phosphates in your tank from day 1, nor will the plants necessarily have roots to pull the phosphate from the substrates - UNLESS, they use the stored nutrients they had before you bought them ... so we will get deficiencies which is not worth it; hence why we use healthy plants from day 1 - give them everything they need in the substrate + WC + give CO2 good flow + light - and they might survive, if they can reconfigure quick enough.

5) it is the understanding (not all the science but the "concept") that allows someone to run a gorgeous tank on a lean water column dosing regime with minimal CO2 <-- by letting CO2 be just above the minimum for Leidbig.

Why do we care about this? Not everyone can run a wet-dry trickle; not everyone can afford a skimmer; not everyone can have high surface agitation; not everyone has/wants a shallow tank; not everyone can supply the oxygen required to run a tank at high, high CO2 ... these are the right rules to follow. But if we know why they are there, we can break them, after all - every body of water is not a fast flowing stream.

But, why bother - just have high oxygen and life is better all around.

Zeus, you have helped me greatly and in no way do I want this conversation to hinder that; I hope that it is merely that - a conversation.

EDIT: I mentioned in another post that the notion of ratio should be worded as relative concentrations.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,


JoshP12 said:


> This thread offers very minimal practical advice for us.
> 
> The practical advice is:
> 
> 1) use your tap water
> 2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
> 3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert)
> 4) clean/trim well
> 5) optimize flow
> 6) plant hard
> 7) use good light with a dimmer
> 8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
> 9) address deficiencies if they show up



@JoshP12 , you have listed nine items of practical advice. But, doesn't each of the above nine items need some detail in order to be truly _practical_? For example, what is optimized flow? What is a 'good light'? These points have been touched upon in this thread but we need to quantify flow, good light, etc. Throughout UKAPS, there has been much discussion on each of these topics. Are we getting nearer to the answers that we all/a majority can agree upon (possibly a rhetorical question)? I realize that your thread focussed on phosphate but, because you summarized with practical advice, I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth into the melting pot.

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

JoshP12 said:


> Find toxic ranges for all your plants and dose directly under the minimum



think you meant under the toxic level 



JoshP12 said:


> *The practical advice is:
> 
> 1) use your tap water
> 2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
> 3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert)
> 4) clean/trim well
> 5) optimize flow
> 6) plant hard
> 7) use good light with a dimmer
> 8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
> 9) address deficiencies if they show up*







JoshP12 said:


> nutrient concentration in water column vs. substrate



But the substrate may have a High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) like ADA AS - so when active it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached and releases Cation/toxins after WC until equilibrium is reached, when you dose in WC it  mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached, when plants mop up nutrients or release toxins the ADA AS it releases nutrients and mops up toxins.

However with Hard water the excessive mineral content may block the active sites esp with the higher pH, lower pH (soft water) does seem to extend the life of substrates with a high CEC




JoshP12 said:


> how PMDD works



same as EI dosing nutrients in excess- the fert dose may be low but, whats coming from the substrate or root tabs fish waste, plus lower light normally as well




JoshP12 said:


> why the masters just turn on their CO2 and watch the tank and ignore the notion of "stable from lights on to lights off"



They have done similar setups before and have mastered the water they use - most use RO water



JoshP12 said:


> it is the understanding (not all the science but the "concept") that allows someone to run a gorgeous tank on a lean water column dosing regime with minimal CO2 <-- by letting CO2 be just above the minimum for Leidbig.






JoshP12 said:


> Why do we care about this? Not everyone can run a wet-dry trickle; not everyone can afford a skimmer; not everyone can have high surface agitation; not everyone has/wants a shallow tank; not everyone can supply the oxygen required to run a tank at high, high CO2 ... these are the right rules to follow.



Not rules but 'guidelines/theories/principles'  and these vary form tank to tank
Facts are hard to find/get



JoshP12 said:


> Zeus, you have helped me greatly and in no way do I want this conversation to hinder that; I hope that it is merely that - a conversation.



, folk meeting in at pub/club chatting over the topic


----------



## jaypeecee

Zeus. said:


> Facts are hard to find/get



Never was a truer word spoken! Give that man today's star prize!

JPC


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> think you meant under the toxic level



Yes - whoops.




Zeus. said:


> But the substrate may have a High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) like ADA AS - so when active it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached and releases Cation/toxins after WC until equilibrium is reached, when you dose in WC it  mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached, when plants mop up nutrients or release toxins the ADA AS it releases nutrients and mops up toxins.
> 
> However with Hard water the excessive mineral content may block the active sites esp with the higher pH, lower pH (soft water) does seem to extend the life of substrates with a high CEC



Right, via ion-exchange, we switch out H+ for a positive mineral (Ca, Mg etc) ... those then lock up negatively charged nutrients from the WC (i.e. phosphates). Soft water has much less +.





Zeus. said:


> same as EI dosing nutrients in excess- the fert dose may be low but, whats coming from the substrate or root tabs fish waste, plus lower light normally as well



I am not so sure that it is the same as EI. The reduced phosphate in both ADA style and PMDD do something.

I just found this: http://aquarium-fertilizer.eu/pmdd-original-text-control-of-algae-in-planted-aquaria-article-34

Excellent read.

From < Tom's original post on EI >, he said,
*Note:*
PO4 and Fe are two nutrients that are difficult to assess without first assessing the other nutrients. If the NO3, K, and CO2 are in good shape, you can add a fair amount of these within a wide range. I have added to almost 3ppm of PO4 consistently week after week. Plant's response is incredible.
Green spot algae has never been an issue when high PO4 levels are maintained even under high light with Anubias. Adding traces has been a focus for me lately. Many have stuck with the old standby of a residual of 0.1ppm of iron(namelt from the work done developing PMDD). Well what does this residual tell us? Does it tell us what is available to the plants? Is this enough? Do higher doses cause algae?

The combination of the two reads tell us that there is something that Barr does that PMDD doesn't. The level of CO2 in the tank. PMDD gives the plant just enough PO4 and Barr gives it the maximum. As a result, CO2 demand is reduced (directly because of ADP to ATP and light driving calvin cycle) OR the CO2 demand is increased, respectively.

As aquarists, we can increase CO2 - lakes can't - and so we can mop up excess nutrients very easily.

I am not trying to convert anyone  - I dose EI (though I will be leaning phosphate soon to see what happens). I think it is important for me as an aquarist to *understand why each of these systems work**. I never took applied sciences - for a reason - I can't stand lab work (all of my chem courses were theoretical and organic and I opted out of lab work when I could) - I would rather pay someone to conduct my experiments - I can't stand it. However, if we accept that the photosynthetic mechanisms are sequential and the established theory on those mechanisms is correct, we need not test anything. The final crux is the mobility of phosphorus from the WC or the substrate - and here we look at roots vs. leaves. From there, we understand concentration gradients (and from that paper I linked somewheres on radish growth size) we know that substrate phosphate concentration will impact growth rates/size less than water column. There is something about that water column and the way that plants uptake nutrients in their leaves vs. their roots. That will be the final piece (that I almost willing to accept without any further investigation) that will say phosphate in the WC is easier to uptake in leaves than the roots.




Zeus. said:


> They have done similar setups before and have mastered the water they use - most use RO water



For sure, and I don't think many aquarists are doing insane ramp up and down. And they have high surface agitation and high injection rate so they reach the stability within the 30 minute ramp anyways.



Zeus. said:


> , folk meeting in at pub/club chatting over the topic



.


The big bamboozler for me was those that dose phosphate in the WC lightly, and for the reasons above, they can run CO2 in the quoted BBA spawning zone and not spawn BBA - like Amano.

And I guess it depends on what you want to grow and how you want  your growth to look. Like all else, dosing regimes are tools that we use. 

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

I greatly appreciate all contributions to this thread by the way .


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 

I've extracted this snippet from the link you provided in post #28:

"Experiments with planted aquaria appear to indicate that growth of green algae, red algae, and cyanobacteria is suppressed in planted tanks in which the availability of phosphate is the factor limiting plant growth".

My interpretation of this is...low phosphate means minimal/no algae or cyanobacteria. Is that how you read it?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 

If you agree with my interpretation, then you may want to take a look at this:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/a-fresh-look-at-preventing-algae.61671/page-4#post-608435

JPC


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> I've extracted this snippet from the link you provided in post #28:
> 
> "Experiments with planted aquaria appear to indicate that growth of green algae, red algae, and cyanobacteria is suppressed in planted tanks in which the availability of phosphate is the factor limiting plant growth".
> 
> My interpretation of this is...low phosphate means minimal/no algae or cyanobacteria. Is that how you read it?
> 
> JPC



Let's bring on the crazy. These are my ideas .

*The cause of algae is *irregular photorespiration. *

When irregular photorespiration occurs, a signal (likely electrical? as a result of the differing mechanism than Calvin Cycle) is sent triggering algae to germinate. They germinate and grow and sweep up the nutrients in the water column.

Photorespiration occurs at a threshold of LOCALIZED CO2 concentration.

Note:
1) PMDD claimed to beat algae with reduced phosphates.
2) Barr said they had too low CO2 and the true problem was CO2 mastery. He induced lots of algae with low CO2, while providing excess phosphates.

For our purposes, define low CO2 as concentration of CO2 < 30?, 28?,  25? 20? ... lets pick 20 for this exercise (go ahead and pick 30 since it is the proposed magical target - it makes no difference).

The photosynthetic rate of a plant is determined by both light intensity and available phosphate:


 <--- from < here >.

And,





*Photosynthetic rate of the leaf = f(availability of phosphate) + g(light intensity) where f and g are some functions.

*the light-dependent reaction

Now, the plant leaf can degenerate chlorophyll to shield itself from light when phosphate is driving photosynthesis (I am convinced my plants are doing this) as we speak.

The light-dependent reaction directly influences the required CO2. My conjecture is that at our threshold (20 ppm for this exercise) CO2 is in excess and regardless of the conditions (i.e. phosphate and light) these conditions will ALWAYS force the plant to favor photosynthesis OVER photorespiration.

The old leaves of my Rotala are literally disintegrating (either the movement of mobile nutrients, but more likely a photo-oxidative response) yet no algae. By our common understanding, unhealthy plants = algae, I should be swarmed. My plants are clearly unhealthy, yet no algae.

Since light can be buffered, phosphate is the driving force. So, what PMDD did (and ADA < says >: Potassium supplementation also helps prevent algae growth by promoting the plants’ intake of *nitrogen and phosphate which trigger algae. ...  However, phosphate can trigger algal blooms once it is supplied even slightly more than the amount needed by plants.) *was limit that driving force without hurting plant growth.

As a result of overdosing phosphate, you are driving the light dependent reaction to the point where CO2 becomes insufficient - and as a result photorespiration occurs *(a thought I had and later found < this paper >:  The rate of glycolate metabolism (i.e. photorespiration) is highly influenced by, an d is proportional to, oxygen concentration, light intensity, and temperature. Glycolate metabolism is also enhanced when low environmental carbon dioxide limits photosynthesis and (probably in a related mechanism) when pH is high.) *

Tom Barr < can spawn BBA in the zone of >, "5-15 ppm [which] seems to be the range when many get BBA outbreaks and I've seen this hundreds of times." He doses EI. This means that phosphate is not a limiting reagent and CO2 becomes the limit; as a result, irregular photorespiration occurs (*and I say irregular because we have to assume it happens rather consistently and randomly sometimes due to evolution) - signal is sent - algae blooms. It is evolutionary, it is so that the nutrients are used and LIFE continues.

Conversely, if your CO2 is below the threshold where photosynthesis is preferred, then it cannot keep up with an increased phosphate dose.

Why do we see BBA in our tanks but not in nature? It's because it's black. Black absorbs all wavelengths of visible light - naturally PAR. If it absorbs all that PAR, it will disintegrate since it is a tiny thing. Heck, the sun burns us. It's too much energy. Conversely, green thread are found under conditions of high light (and in loads of lakes) - it can handle it. If it wasn't for our phosphate fertilizers run-off increasing the light-dependent reaction rate, then there would be less algae. BBA is a marine algae, the ocean is deep - refraction - that's why it needs to absorb all the light to live.

The claims that high light cause algae are valid when dosing EI - because your phosphate with light increase the localized CO2 demand which will vary based on Flow (the king of the tank ).

The claim that excess nutrients cause algae is valid too when using phosphate below my threshold (I have no clue what the threshold is by the way - but probably 20).

< Tropica >:  A high demand in CO2 is approx. 15-25 mg/L. Tropica already knows this. Notice they quote JUST above the point Tom Barr spawns BBA and also the same level that ADA runs.

In truth, with low phosphates (in the water column) and appropriate CO2, pack on the light baby! Our plants will either photoxidize and disintegrate OR they will turn beautiful colors for us to enjoy at their expense. Oh and they should < pearl  like crazy >.

Similarly, get over that threshold of 20 ONLY when your light and phosphate levels dictate the maximum; i.e. if you have a long ramp go ahead and use 5 ppm of CO2 for the first 10 minutes - it won't matter. I read somewhere that < Filipe Oliveira > turns on CO2 at lights on and not before (I have no quote and very well wrong) - but here is why it works - and he's phenomenal.

I think that's all .

Off to water change.

Cheers,
Josh

EDIT: too bad for my tank I am still here. The notion that excess ferts do not cause algae in the tanks of the people who say it as their CO2 is above my suggested threshold. Of course, if photorespiration is not irregular, then algae will not bloom.

I think that's all now.

Oh, and, a lake the function of light and phosphate have their own ceilings.

In particular, the lake may have enough CO2 to facilitate the fixed intensity of the sun (at its particular ceiling) and the minimal phosphates: 




Hence why people claim ferts cause algae in lakes: light + CO2 are constant and unmanipulated. 
We claim lights and CO2 cause algae and leave ferts constant  ... because we choose to manipulate CO2 and light whereas nature can't.

Ok, now I am done .


----------



## rebel

Zeus. said:


> Limiting certain nutrients in a planted tank definitely has its place,


Especially in the ADA gallery and with Philipe Oliveira. 

Many different techniques.


----------



## rebel

JoshP12 said:


> The cause of algae is *irregular photorespiration.


Nah man. Algae is caused when the algae wins that ecological niche. The cause of the win is still a mystery. Otherwise we would be able to remove all algae from systems easily.

All the common factors play a role.


----------



## JoshP12

rebel said:


> Nah man. Algae is caused when the algae wins that ecological niche. The cause of the win is still a mystery.



Or is the cause irregular photorespiration 🤔?



rebel said:


> Otherwise we would be able to remove all algae from systems easily.



Lots of people have "no" algae in their system without the use of an algecide.



rebel said:


> All the common factors play a role.



Because they reduce the likelihood of a varying CO2/phosphate concentration in a localized area of the tank. They key is localization - each leaf will vary based on the flow and nutrients carried within that flow past it. So non-zero amounts of algae are normal, unless your scape, flow design, and CO2 diffusion are impeccable. And I think the things that UKAPS promote about good fishkeeping in general are the latter.


Plants evolved from algae - they should know how to beat them. Just like we beat every other animal on the plant.

Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time to see the first lakes where plants evolved in and see if they ended up outcompeting the algaes. We only see our fertilizer polluted lakes that were not what these plants evolved under.

Under my assumptions, most arguments that people make towards the cause of algae are valid and can be justified - unless I am missing something  which is very possible, so please help .


Josh


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> @JoshP12 , you have listed nine items of practical advice. But, doesn't each of the above nine items need some detail in order to be truly _practical_? For example, what is optimized flow? What is a 'good light'? These points have been touched upon in this thread but we need to quantify flow, good light, etc. Throughout UKAPS, there has been much discussion on each of these topics. Are we getting nearer to the answers that we all/a majority can agree upon (possibly a rhetorical question)? I realize that your thread focussed on phosphate but, because you summarized with practical advice, I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth into the melting pot.
> 
> JPC



I missed this and I am sorry. I think that Clive has answered all of these in detail scattered throughout the forum.

A comprehensive guide of this would be wonderful and useful.


----------



## rebel

JoshP12 said:


> Plants evolved from algae - they should know how to beat them. Just like we beat every other animal on the plant.


I don't agree that we have beaten every other animal on earth. The dominant life form on earth is still plants.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Curious about what percentage of plants is algae? I don't know how to search for such articles but maybe someone here can search for us. :cheers:


----------



## rebel

JoshP12 said:


> So non-zero amounts of algae are normal, unless your scape, flow design, and CO2 diffusion are impeccable.


I think non zero algae is normal regardless. Sometimes algae can't get a upper hand but sometimes it does. Sometimes it's somewhat predictable but most of the time no idea why. If we knew exactly why, we should be able to grow each type of algae at any time by giving it's requirements whether be light, photorespiration etc etc.


----------



## Zeus.

Algae is at the bottom of the food chain, so there must be more algae than any other form of life on earth, without algae there wouldn't be enough O2 for us all the breath, without algae we wouldn't even exist as we evolved from the primeval soup,  so our tanks have all types of algae once established, Algae mastered colonisation of many environments well before more complex life form even existed, aglae has mastered its trade, but when the balance is right we don't see much algae or little off it, but its still there doing its job, being eaten by lots of life forms, if the balance is out we get an algae bloom. Its not rocket science


----------



## zozo

Witcher said:


> The Light is the God of the planted tank



I thought I was...  Since I'm holding the power plug...  Or does that make me the


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> Plants evolved from algae... Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time to see the first lakes where plants evolved in and see if they ended up outcompeting the algae


It takes a bit of time to get your head around it, but evolution <"isn't quite like that">.  Richard Dawkins <"The Ancestor's Tale"> is a useful read, if you are interested in this area.

Where organisms are related they have a common ancestor (at the nodes, the branching points in the figure). All photosynthetic organisms have a <"common ancestor">, which was a cyanobacteria.  That common ancestor is equally related to all the extant photosynthetic organisms. 




The ancestor of both the Green Algae and the Plants was an "algae", but it is equally related to all of <"that clade"> that are still extant.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

Zeus. said:


> if the balance is out we get an algae bloom.



The balance of what? We often refer to this enigmatic balance yet no one defines it. 🤔


----------



## JoshP12

Wonderful conversation so far folks.

Here is a question I have: Why do I not have visible algae on my rotala, then. Under my proposed cause, we can simply say that my CO2 concentration is high enough that photorespiration is suppressed and an algal bloom is not triggered - and I am quite satisfied.

However, assume that it is not right, then why do I not have algae smothered on my rotala? It is disintegrating (the new growth "looks nice" on some - although some are thin like tissue paper, but they are getting better daily due to my changes). I ripped up the entire substrate, flooded the tank with ammonia. I have left the tank with 100% lights on, EI level ferts, high CO2, good flow for at least a week and no algae.

I literally uprooted the entire tank prior to this and threw everything out of whack.

Surely, a week of high lights + CO2 + ferts + plants changing themselves AFTER a massive rescape is enough under sub-optimal conditions to bloom algae. Is it not?

Josh

EDIT: surely there is microscopic algae - but I would expect a bloom based on everything that I have done.


----------



## JoshP12

Further, part of the reason high light is that much harder is not only because it pushes phosphate consumption (especially under EI conditions, the limitor becomes CO2)- it increases the rate of photolysis; as a result, we oxygenate the water. That O2:CO2 is going to flip the plant from photosynthesis to photorespiration. As a result, our CO2 concentration needs to be higher for two reasons:
1) keep up with the produced ATP and NADPH
2) keep the plant from photorespiration ... as a result, keeping algae at bay (under my assumptions).


This is where the notion that if you turn up light and not CO2, then you will get algae comes from. Unless of course you are riding such high concentrations of CO2 beforehand - in such high light won't do anything (like in my tank ... I never upped my CO2 for 3x a light increase - no adverse effects).


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





JoshP12 said:


> The balance of what? We often refer to this enigmatic balance yet no one defines it.


Well we don't really know, we are in <"Donald Rumsfeld territory">.

In terms of <"phosphate availability driving photosynthesis">, I think it does, but only in the same way all that light and all the other nutrients do, you are nearly always going to have a limiting nutrient via Liebig's law (in @Zeus. post).  Plant growth is <"like an assembly line">, you need all the components or you don't get a finished "car".

Personally I practice nutrient depletion in the water column, unfortunately what happens in the substrate is a total unknown (for me and <"everyone else">).  My only suggestion for the substrate is to leave it relatively undisturbed.

I don't actually know what level I have of any of the plant nutrients in the water column, or which is/are limiting plant growth, but I know I don't have many of any of them because the measure of all ions, the electrical conductivity is low. If I have a conductivity value of 100 microS (~64ppm TDS) I don't have many ions of any description.

Do I have enough nutrients to <"support plant growth?"> *I do*. How do I know this? *<"**The plants are growing">*.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> In terms of <"phosphate availability driving photosynthesis">, I think it does, but only in the same way all that light and all the other nutrients do, you are nearly always going to have a limiting nutrient via Liebig's law (in @Zeus. post).  Plant growth is <"like an assembly line">, you need all the components or you don't get a finished "car".



I must be missing something then; if plant growth is an assembly line (i.e. sequential) and photosynthesis (light dependent, then independent) comes first, then it goes:

Light --> Phosphate --> CO2/O2 --> sugar --> the rest. 

< Justus von Liebig's *Law of the Minimum* states that yield is proportional to the amount of the most limiting nutrient, whichever nutrient it may be. >

Every piece up to the limiting nutrient will happen - just like an assembly line. If we consider up to sugar part 1, and the rest part 2, then part 1 dictates part 2. 

This would mean that phosphate has a larger impact than Manganese. 

We can simply consider the limiting nutrient to be the least in excess. So, yes, there is always a limiting nutrient; however, the driver of those limiting nutrients is photosynthetic rate (whos driver is the light dependent reaction) which plateaus and is directly proportional to available light and phosphate. 

What am I missing? 

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

From < here > @dw1305, we can fathom that what I said is correct and by limiting phosphate we are jamming algae's ability to proceed in the first step - without limiting plants due to their roots.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> if plant growth is an assembly line (i.e. sequential) and photosynthesis (light dependent, then independent) comes first, then it goes:
> 
> Light --> Phosphate --> CO2/O2 --> sugar --> the rest.


That is the point, the rest are equally important. In terms of C3 photosynthesis, and the <"Calvin cycle">, yes, you need phosphate for carbon fixation and energy transfer, but you still need everything else. 





JoshP12 said:


> This would mean that phosphate has a larger impact than Manganese.


It does, but you still need some manganese (Mn), if you don't have *any Mn *you don't get a "car". 

The most likely nutrients to be deficient are the macronutrients N : P : K, because the plant needs most them. Nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) compounds are nearly all soluble (NO3-, NO2-, NH4+, K+), but things are different for phosphorus (P), many of its compounds are insoluble, so we are interested in both "plant available" phosphorus, and the insoluble reserve, which may become available in certain conditions.





JoshP12 said:


> I said is correct and by limiting phosphate we are jamming algae's ability to proceed in the first step - without limiting plants due to their roots.


If you removed all PO4--- ions from the water column, it would stop the growth of phytoplankton & epiphytic and epilithic algae but also of floating plants, mosses, ferns and epiphytic aroids.  

Some people might be willing to trade growth of these for a lack of "algae", but I'm not. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, That is the point, the rest are equally important. In terms of C3 photosynthesis, and the <"Calvin cycle">, yes, you need phosphate for carbon fixation and energy transfer, but you still need everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> It does, but you still need some manganese (Mn), if you don't have *any Mn *you don't get a "car".



Thank you Darrel . I can appreciate the entire car; however, and I think I am splitting hairs here, if we add a magnitude to the impact each nutrient has on plant growth, then the magnitude of the impact of each nutrient is different. As I think you illustrate when you say:



dw1305 said:


> The most likely nutrients to be deficient are the macronutrients N : P : K, because the plant needs most them. Nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) compounds are nearly all soluble (NO3-, NO2-, NH4+, K+), but things are different for phosphorus (P), many of its compounds are insoluble, so we are interested in both "plant available" phosphorus, and the insoluble reserve, which may become available in certain conditions.If you removed all PO4--- ions from the water column, it would stop the growth of phytoplankton & epiphytic and epilithic algae but also of floating plants, mosses, ferns and epiphytic aroids.



And of the NPK, there has to be an ordering - where I proposed P had the larger impact due to sequence. The variance between them has to exist (or maybe it doesn't and that is where I need to reframe my thinking) and is likely variable on several other factors (i.e. demand) - but does an ordering exist?



dw1305 said:


> Some people might be willing to trade growth of these for a lack of "algae", but I'm not.



Beautiful.

As always, thanks Darrel - much appreciated.

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> And of the NPK, there has to be an ordering - where I proposed P had the larger impact due to sequence. The variance between them has to exist and is likely variable on several other factors (i.e. demand) - but does an ordering exist?


In terms of sequence it does, in terms of the end result not really. 

The first part of the sequence would be the <"light reaction"> where chlorophyll (and accessory pigments) intercept the photons of light.





You can see that iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), sulphur (S) are all required for electron transport. You also have the <"chlorophyll molecules">, with their central magnesium atoms etc.

Chlorophyll a



By charlesy (talk · contribs) - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15164971

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, In terms of sequence it does, in terms of the end result not really.
> 
> The first part of the sequence would be the <"light reaction"> where chlorophyll (and accessory pigments) intercept the photons of light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), sulphur (S) are all required for electron transport. You also have the <"chlorophyll molecules">, with their central magnesium atoms etc.
> 
> Chlorophyll a
> 
> 
> 
> By charlesy (talk · contribs) - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15164971
> 
> cheers Darrel





JoshP12 said:


> Now, we have to make one assumption - that we are starting with a healthy leaf - FOR, if we did not have carbon to make that healthy leaf, then phosphate is not the king.



I mentioned this though (albeit I did not mention the rest of the nutrients). And so it becomes chicken egg. To develop the tissues required to initiate the first step of the sequence - i.e. build chlorophyll receptor, we require all nutrients.

After establishing the starting point of a healthy chlorophyll, we may be able to attach magnitudes.

To establish this order is ridiculous, however, and impractical.

And it is much better to say that all are equally important.

Hurrah!



Thanks so much Darrel!


----------



## JoshP12

Still not entirely sure why my disintegrating rotala does not have algae growing off of it 🤔.

Any ideas?

Josh


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @dw1305 & Everyone,


dw1305 said:


> The ancestor of both the Green Algae and the Plants was an "algae", but it is equally related to all of <"that clade"> that are still extant.



It seems very appropriate to mention this excellent video, which is an eye-opener for me:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/cyanobacteria-aka-bga-evolution-and-oxygen.61654/

JPC


----------



## rebel

Witcher said:


> The Light is the God of the planted tank


Dudes, Only Light can create Life.


----------



## Wookii

rebel said:


> Dudes, Only Light can create Life.



 . . . and only I can turn the light on!


----------



## Siege

Wookii said:


> . . . and only I can turn the light on!



Not during a power cut......! 😂


----------



## Wookii

Siege said:


> Not during a power cut......! 😂



lol . .  or indeed during the Zombie Apocolypse, or if I drop down dead - so I guess the final answer is only God is God (if you believe in that sort of thing!)


----------



## Zeus.

Siege said:


> Not during a power cut......! 😂



But you can still open the curtains, but only works during daylight or harvest moon


----------



## tiger15

I am amazed by the depth of discussion resembling Phd dissertation.  Most stuff is beyond my grasp as I have never had microbiology and biochemistry beyond elements I learned in general chemistry, biology and environmental engineering.  There are more algae species than higher plants, and more factors than algae that can cause outbreak.  So attempt to identify one factor, such as phosphate, as a cause of algae is futile.   Environmental scientists have long established that excessive nutrients caused algal bloom in natural waters and phosphate is attributed to be  the limiting factor.  This is why phosphate is now removed from household detergents and lawn fertilizers in US.  Tom Barr and EI practitioners have found the opposite though in that insufficient, rather than excessive nutrients,  cause algae in aquariums.  In his ecologist day job, Tom has come across some eutrophic lakes that have no algae issue, and advised aquarists to focus on growing plants rather than on limiting algae growth.   The glass box environment is apparently very different from natural waters,  and the algae aquarists have to deal with is also different.  So you can discuss as much  theories as to what cause algae, there is no simply answer,  and ultimately only experimental validation counts.


----------



## Zeus.

tiger15 said:


> Tom has come across some eutrophic lakes that have no algae issue, and advised aquarists to focus on growing plants



, focus on healthy plants and the algae isn't an issue


----------



## sparkyweasel

tiger15 said:


> The glass box environment is apparently very different from natural waters,


+1


----------



## Wookii

Zeus. said:


> , focus on healthy plants and the algae isn't an issue



I agree totally with that sentiment, if you have a large mass of healthy growing plants, algae seems to be naturally minimised. However I’d love to know the true technical reason why that is the case. I’ve searched extensively and I can’t find a water tight reason why.

I often read the phrase that the ‘plants outcompete the algae’, but that sounds like nonsense in an environment where we purposely ensure excesses of all nutrients and freely available CO2, unless plants are releasing some sort of hormone or enzyme as they grow which inhibits algae.

My own personal thought is that large quantities of healthily growing plant mass ensure consistent DO saturation in the water column, and I assume in general terms DO saturated water is a an unfavourable environment for most types of algae.

That would suggest though that we could artificially inject O2 to achieve the same thing. I know Tom Barr tried this at one point, and didn’t find it conclusive, which suggests there may be other things at play.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





tiger15 said:


> There are more algae species than higher plants, and more factors than algae that can cause outbreak. So attempt to identify one factor, such as phosphate, as a cause of algae is futile.


My guess is that you are right, I think "futile" would be stronger than I'm willing to go, but certainly "difficult to quantify".





Wookii said:


> and I assume in general terms DO saturated water is a an unfavourable environment for most types of algae.


Depends on the algae, there are algae that are adapted  to <"clean, highly oxygenated">water.

In eutrophic conditions you can end up with very high oxygen levels, I've seen <"pearling algae in sewage works">, at <"Canford Park"> etc. 





dw1305 said:


> I had an interesting one today. I won't tell you the location, or context, but it was a pond and the water sample had a dissolved oxygen level of 180% (~20oC, 18mg/L DO) and a pH value of pH 10.5.





Wookii said:


> .....that the ‘plants outcompete the algae’, but that sounds like nonsense in an environment where we purposely ensure excesses of all nutrients and freely available CO2, unless plants are releasing some sort of hormone or enzyme as they grow which inhibits algae.....


We don't know  why a large plant mass works to reduce algae, Diana Walstad thought it <"might be allelopathy">, but I'm not sure anybody really knows.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Wookii 


Wookii said:


> I often read the phrase that the ‘plants outcompete the algae’, but that sounds like nonsense in an environment where we purposely ensure excesses of all nutrients and freely available CO2, unless plants are releasing some sort of hormone or enzyme as they grow which inhibits algae.



In Diana Walstad's book*, there is a table of allelopathic compounds (found in aquatic plants) and the organisms on which they act. Apparently something called a-asarone and linoleic acid both act on algae and cyanobacteria. She also references the scientific papers from which this information has been taken. I am beginning to realize that the information that's often missing in our hobby really is out there!

* You know the one - _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_

JPC


----------



## tiger15

dw1305 said:


> In eutrophic conditions you can end up with very high oxygen levels, I've seen <"pearling algae in sewage works">, at <"Canford Park"> etc. We don't know  why a large plant mass works to reduce algae, Diana Walstad thought it <"might be allelopathy">, but I'm not sure anybody really knows.
> 
> cheers Darrel



In eutrophic lake, not only O2 is streaming but CO2 is stripped to near zero at high noon leading to large pH swing as mentioned in Walstad book.  But natural waters are not algae free and rarely have as high plant mass as in planted tanks.  Only urban creeks and storm water ponds have choking high plant mass that is considered weed and need to be cleared with herbicide or dredging to restore flow.


----------



## Wookii

dw1305 said:


> *We don't know  why a large plant mass works to reduce algae*, Diana Walstad thought it <"might be allelopathy">, but I'm not sure anybody really knows.
> 
> cheers Darrel



A man of your extensive knowledge must have a hypothesis Darrel?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Wookii said:


> ........... must have a hypothesis


Not really. Allelopathy might be <"one of the reasons">, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the only one.

How the microbial assemblage in the substrate changes would be really interesting, both in terms of the actual microbes and their relationship with the plants, and I think a lot of scientific research is looking at this.

The number of nitrifying organisms  has <"increased exponentially"> since we  could look <"for genes"> that coded for ammonia oxidation etc. and my guess would be that is only the beginning and that all sorts of interesting microbial relationships will be found once people have the tools to look for them.





tiger15 said:


> But natural waters are not algae free and rarely have as high plant mass as in planted tanks. Only urban creeks and storm water ponds have choking high plant mass that is considered weed and need to be cleared with herbicide or dredging to restore flow.


You would find a some-what different view in some of mainland Europe where they have attempted to <"treat the cause">, rather than just <"the symptom">.

In the UK and USA I think we often looked for a quick fix for short term economic reasons, rather than a <"more expensive long term solution">.

You can get a combination of clean water and  heavy macrophyte growth, we still have a number of chalk streams in England that are <"relatively undamaged">.






cheers Darrel


----------



## Witcher

I'm just wondering why this topic turned to complaining about one of the* most important* "eyelets" in an aquatic "chain" of food? Be it a food for plants by decomposition of algae (great source of primarily N, P and and partially Fe+P) and be it a food for the fish, shrimps etc when their diet is extremely dependent on existence of algae at all. I think tendency to completely removing algae from our tanks can lead to serious problems in the tank stability, especially when we keep fish, shrimps, bugs etc in it.

Algae is a MUST in environmentally stable tank and I can't imagine wellbeing of my shrimps, snails, fish and tonnes of various bugs without them.


----------



## JoshP12

Witcher said:


> I think tendency to completely removing algae from our tanks can lead to serious problems in the tank stability, especially when we keep fish, shrimps, bugs etc in it.
> 
> Algae is a MUST in environmentally stable tank and I can't imagine wellbeing of my shrimps, snails, fish and tonnes of various bugs without them.



This is why I posted asking why I had none on my rotala. It was alarming. As I expected an algae bloom after all my re-scape and aggressive trim. But there was none. 

However, I was pleasantly surprised when I woke up to see that little spot of GSA. Still nothing on the rotala. 





On a side note:

What is going on here (see below); the rotala pushed out some leaves (while it transitioned?) and decided later to fill them out? 



 



These thin tissue-paper like leaves are - I am assuming healthy - photosynthesizing 🤔 ... so healthy, thin tissue that it will pack on the rest later?




Josh


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all, 

As this thread keeps moving forward, I think I will update on a few things that I noticed regarding O2/CO2/Light/Plant growth.

As you know, on Saturday, I reduced my light which I think was a rash move - we live we learn - I am becoming slowly becoming more patient ... be patient with me . I genuinely thought that it was a safe move - and in many ways I wonder if the reduction in light is what allowed my plants to fill in, in my post above - maybe once we know what they are doing, then we will know?

Of course, my CO2 was dialed in for more than 25% more light. I noticed late (by one day I think), but one of my fishies began to gasp (which I have not seen for a while) - in fact, with the increase in light, everyone looked more lively. So, instead of freaking out as I have done in the past, I simply turned off the gas and turned my lights off 1 hour later. 

This particular fish (a lampeye that snuck into my bag at the fish store the other day ... thinking I'll increase the school for him) gasped for at least 45 minutes (even after the CO2 was off), then resumed life. As a result, I increased my light (warm white and cold white by 10% this morning ... I was tempted to go for the big 100, but I withheld). Today, he was ok but gasped for only 5 minutes after gas off. 

Clearly, the increased PAR gave rise to higher CO2 assimilation and increased oxygen production, influencing my O2:CO2 ratio, in turn making it healthier for my fishies. Tomorrow, I will increase again and see what happens. 

The GSA in the post above, may be related to the change in the drastic change in my light, throwing the system off the enigmatic balance, or it was simply a coincidence ... which is very likely .

**of course, I could have turned down the CO2 ... instead of pursuing that avenue, I decided to pursue light. 

Another very neat observation I had (and these are just solidifying things I have read): 



 



2 substrate shots above from the hacked (and mature) side of my s.repens carpet (left) and the freshly planted, immature, side (right). 

The gas in the substrate was remarkable to see - is it CO2 that is produced by bacteria in the rhizosphere? 

If it is, then the plant should be able to move these gases (as I mentioned earlier towards my assertion that this would be why crypts melt?) to help with growth?

Josh


----------



## Witcher

JoshP12 said:


> This is why I posted asking why I had none on my rotala. It was alarming. As I expected an algae bloom after all my re-scape and aggressive trim. But there was none.


I've posted this photo in another thread related to some deficiency:
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/holes-in-leaves.61746/#post-608378

View attachment 152429


[/QUOTE]

Would you believe that there is no even a single sign of algae in that tank? (I can upload more imgs tomorrow if needed). Ok, there are some algae but visible only when I use quite big magnifying glass (and I use it quite often), but algae are absolutely unnoticeable generally - and it lasts like that for 3 months or so for now.

And I think that when we keep our plants in the "starving" zone algae have not even a single chance to appear because they are outcompeted by more hungry competitors.

And because of that I have another tank full of GTA and I  move some part of them to my main tank occasionally


----------



## rebel

dw1305 said:


> We don't know why a large plant mass works to reduce algae, Diana Walstad thought it <"might be allelopathy">, but I'm not sure anybody really knows.


To make matters worse, it may not work EVERYTIME either.


----------



## rebel

Witcher said:


> Would you believe that there is no even a single sign of algae in that tank?


I believe it. It would be fascinating to see some microscopic pictures of the leaves also. Have you achieved the holy grail of TOTALLY algae free system?


----------



## rebel

Tell you what boys, focusing on plant health is fine but it doesn't work EVERYTIME. Sometimes algae can win regardless. Shows how little we know.


----------



## Witcher

rebel said:


> It would be fascinating to see some microscopic pictures of the leaves also.


Hey @rebel This is actually great idea. I have this cheap CN "microscope"







and this is what it shows:










The surface of damaged and undamaged leafs of Bacopa caroliniana looks identical, but I don't know if it's an algae or actual leaf tissue. Maybe @dw1305 could have look? Darrel, what do you think?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Witcher said:


> Darrel, what do you think?


Leaf tissue, try it without the water. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Witcher

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, Leaf tissue, try it without the water.
> 
> cheers Darrel




It looks completely different when left in the sun for few mins - and seems to be even more shiny.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Witcher said:


> It looks completely different when left in the sun for few mins - and seems to be even more shiny.


 Try a new leaf, and possibly the lower surface? 

You might have to focus up and down a bit to work out exactly what you have in focus. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Wookii
> 
> 
> In Diana Walstad's book*, there is a table of allelopathic compounds (found in aquatic plants) and the organisms on which they act. Apparently something called a-asarone and linoleic acid both act on algae and cyanobacteria. She also references the scientific papers from which this information has been taken. I am beginning to realize that the information that's often missing in our hobby really is out there!
> 
> * You know the one - _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_
> 
> JPC


Walstad is a believer of alleloppathy  and has devoted a whole chapter on the subject in her  book.  Tom Barr is a nonbeliever and has argued  and conducted experiments to prove its absence.  Dennis Wong is silent on the subject, either he is skeptical, a nonbeliever, or simply doesn't know.  All agree that healthy plants have no algae, but have no consensus on why.

Walstad deduced the presence of alleloppathy by her personal failure to grow certain plants together but fine if grown alone.   Barr argued that he has no problem growing many plants together given the right CO2 and conditions.  

Walstad cited ecological studies extensively in her book, sounds scientific, but natural environment is different from glass box environment.  In fact,  I don't think  "ecology" is relevant to an artificial system. 

 I am in the opinion that alleloppathy may exist in certain plants, but not widely.  I read that Hornwort can secret chemicals that suppress algae, and that Nymphaea  roots can stunt neighboring plants. I have no experience with Hornwort and my Nymphaea is grown in hydroponic pot, so I don't know how true it is.  If indeed plants secret alleloppathic chemicals to suppress algae in the surrounding, the quantity produced must be so huge to overcome dilution from water current.  

Even healthy plants have some algae, just not the visible ones.  The goal is to grow healthy plants without excessive,  obnoxious and ugly algae.  Small amount of GSA, GPA, green or brown algae is fine, and will be taken care of by algae eaters and provide food for fish.    BBA is ugly and even tiny amount is objectionable.  BGA is obnoxious, and any presence  above the substrate must be eliminated.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @tiger15 


tiger15 said:


> The goal is to grow healthy plants without excessive, obnoxious and ugly algae. Small amount of GSA, GPA, green or brown algae is fine, and will be taken care of by algae eaters and provide food for fish. BBA is ugly and even tiny amount is objectionable. BGA is obnoxious, and any presence above the substrate must be eliminated.



Yes, I couldn't agree with you more - we're on the same wavelength. But, I'm not sure if cyano/BGA in the substrate is acceptable either. Having said this, I recognize that other people have different thoughts on this topic.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @tiger15 


tiger15 said:


> If indeed plants secret alleloppathic chemicals to suppress algae in the surrounding, the quantity produced must be so huge to overcome dilution from water current.



...unless this phenomenon has been observed in natural waters where there is minimal/no flow? Just a thought.

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

jaypeecee said:


> But, I'm not sure if cyano/BGA in the substrate is acceptable



I have it in my substrate, or did, it comes and goes in a few spots but has never been an issue. Even stopped checking it in last 12 months.


----------



## sparkyweasel

tiger15 said:


> Walstad deduced the presence of alleloppathy by her personal failure to grow certain plants together but fine if grown alone. Barr argued that he has no problem growing many plants together given the right CO2 and conditions.


The difference may be related to Walstad's preference for minimal (at one time zero) water changes.


----------



## rebel

sparkyweasel said:


> The difference may be related to Walstad's preference for minimal (at one time zero) water changes.


Or any of the other variables either measured or non-measured.


----------



## tiger15

Zeus. said:


> I have it in my substrate, or did, it comes and goes in a few spots but has never been an issue. Even stopped checking it in last 12 months.


BGA is nitrogen fixing.  Isn’t it beneficial to have some in the substrate, sort like growing legumes to enrich garden soil.  BGA is the first phosynthetic organism and ancestor of chlorophyll in higher plants.


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @tiger15
> 
> 
> Yes, I couldn't agree with you more - we're on the same wavelength. But, I'm not sure if cyano/BGA in the substrate is acceptable either. Having said this, I recognize that other people have different thoughts on this topic.
> 
> JPC





tiger15 said:


> BGA is nitrogen fixing.  Isn’t it beneficial to have some in the substrate, sort like growing legumes to enrich garden soil.





Zeus. said:


> I have it in my substrate, or did, it comes and goes in a few spots but has never been an issue.



I don’t have much to contribute to the recent conversation, but I’ve been loving it! 

Perhaps there is a difference between a large mat that takes overs and a non-zero amount in the substrate?

Cyano is nitrogen fixing - like nitrosomonas?

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





tiger15 said:


> In fact, I don't think "ecology" is relevant to an artificial system.


I'm not going there, you definitely can have an approach to aquarium keeping that ignores ecology, but I think only heart-ache and tragedy lies down that  particular route. Even with micro-management of water parameters soon or later you will have problems. An <"ecological approach"> builds in complexity and resilience and does away with a lot of <"single points of failure">. 





tiger15 said:


> BGA is nitrogen fixing.


Some are, some aren't _Oscillatoria _is <"non-diazotropic">.





JoshP12 said:


> Cyano is nitrogen fixing - like nitrosomonas?


No that nitrogen is already "fixed". Some bacteria can <"anaerobically split the triple bond"> between nitrogen atoms (in gaseous nitrogen (N2)) and then incorporate the nitrogen atoms into other compounds. The <"mycorrhizal  symbionts"> of legumes (_Rhizobium_) are the most famous,  but there are others.


tiger15 said:


> isn’t it beneficial to have some in the substrate, sort like growing legumes to enrich garden soil.


May well be, there is definitely transfer of fixed nitrogen from the symbiotic <"_Anabaena_ in _Azolla_ "> to Rice in paddy fields.





jaypeecee said:


> unless this phenomenon has been observed in natural waters where there is minimal/no flow?


Hornwort (_Ceratophyllum demersum_) would occur in still water. I was just looking at an interesting paper <"Influence of _Daphnia magna_ and _Ceratophyllum demersum_ on the control of algae under different phosphorus concentrations">





> .....the influence of _Daphnia magna_ and _Ceratophyllum demersum_ on the control of algae under different phosphorus concentrations, _Cyclotella_ sp., _Microcystis aeruginosa_, and _Chlorella vulgaris_ were selected............. phosphorus concentration ranged from 0.05 to 2 mg L−1, _C. demersum_ imparted a significant inhibition of the three species of algae, particularly _M. aeruginosa_. The total growth rates of the three species of algae were reduced with higher phosphorus concentrations; however, the effect was lower than that of _D. magna_, with _C. vulgaris_ as the dominant species. When the phosphorus concentration ranged from 0.05 to 2 mg L−1, _D. magna_ combined with _C. demersum_ inhibited the growth of the three species of algae to a considerable degree, which was an improvement over that of other experimental groups using only _D. magna_ or _C. demersum_ by themselves. The total growth rates of algae were reduced with higher phosphorus concentrations. When the phosphorus concentration ranged from 0.05 to 0.1 mg L−1, the removal rates of phosphorus exceeded 90%, and the phosphorus concentration became the limiting factor in the culture system.


Even if strict allelopathy (I'm also agnostic as to how important it might be) doesn't exist in terms of plants producing antimicrobial chemicals, it certainly <"exists in the rhizosphere"> where plants are actively altering the microbial assemblage to gain nutrients and using these  microbial cohorts as soldiers in proxy wars with other plants.

It isn't surprising that <"antibiotics were isolated from soil bacteria">, cyanobacteria, actinomycetes, "fungi" etc have been waging biological war on each other for billions of years. That is partially why I'm agnostic about strict allelopathy.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

JoshP12 said:


> As this thread keeps moving forward, I think I will update on a few things that I noticed regarding O2/CO2/Light/Plant growth.
> 
> ...
> 
> Clearly, the increased PAR gave rise to higher CO2 assimilation and increased oxygen production, influencing my O2:CO2 ratio, in turn making it healthier for my fishies. Tomorrow, I will increase again and see what happens.
> 
> **of course, I could have turned down the CO2 ... instead of pursuing that avenue, I decided to pursue light.
> 
> Josh




For anyone following the CO2 journey! After my 10% increase, no sign of distress on fish ... it only looks healthier (went for a 5'er today). 

Now, for the cool thing! In the graph below, you can see the pH being monitored (every minute a reading is taken and graphed). You can clearly see when CO2 turns on and when it turns off. What is interesting is the most recent drop that you see (the "third" one or yesterdays) is more "stable" and if you were to draw a smooth curve through it, you would see the lowest point is higher:
10% increase light, 
fish look healthier, 
more CO2 is being absorbed, 
less pH drop 







Although it would have been nice to see what today brings on a 5% increase, I had to get the Dissolved Oxygen probe running again - it would be cool to see if the supersaturation actually occurs. 

They shouldn't bother each other, but it threw my pH reading off (down to 1.1 ). 

Josh


----------



## Wookii

JoshP12 said:


> For anyone following the CO2 journey! After my 10% increase, no sign of distress on fish ... it only looks healthier (went for a 5'er today).
> 
> Now, for the cool thing! In the graph below, you can see the pH being monitored (every minute a reading is taken and graphed). You can clearly see when CO2 turns on and when it turns off. What is interesting is the most recent drop that you see (the "third" one or yesterdays) is more "stable" and if you were to draw a smooth curve through it, you would see the lowest point is higher:
> 10% increase light,
> fish look healthier,
> more CO2 is being absorbed,
> less pH drop
> 
> 
> View attachment 152620
> 
> Although it would have been nice to see what today brings on a 5% increase, I had to get the Dissolved Oxygen probe running again - it would be cool to see if the supersaturation actually occurs.
> 
> They shouldn't bother each other, but it threw my pH reading off (down to 1.1 ).
> 
> Josh



What DO meter do you have? It would be interesting to see a similar graph for DO during the photo period and with the changes in CO2 - I've been wanting to get a DO meter myself for some time, but they are a little cost prohibitive.


----------



## JoshP12

Wookii said:


> What DO meter do you have? It would be interesting to see a similar graph for DO during the photo period and with the changes in CO2 - I've been wanting to get a DO meter myself for some time, but they are a little cost prohibitive.



Well I tried to run both the DO probe and the pH probe at the same time, but they interfere ... they shouldn't though  - it dropped my pH reading to 1.1 ...it may be detecting some voltage from the other probe.

The test system is a Vernier.

I have the DO probe running right now - running a similar thing.

I am actually curious myself on < the effect of CO2 on the photolysis rate >.

My lights turned on 35 minutes ago.
My plants on the left began to pearl 15 minutes ago, the ones on the right about a minute after.
The graph below shows that from lights on, my DO has gone up by ".2" (the 21 minutes is because I got the "graph test" going later than lights on .. but it was in the water).





Ignore the 4.9 ... it can't be right. I run my tank at 72 fahrenheit. I skipped the in depth calibration because we just had a massive thunderstorm and I don't know the pressure outside ... I'll just calibrate some point later when the weather seems calmer.

What is important is the system is warmed up and the reading was consistent for about 10 minutes. I hope the 4.9 is more like 8 .

EDIT: I am not sure if it is a coincidence but when the pearling started, it lines up with the minor blip into stability  ... @dw1305 -Darrel ... coincidence or is it a valid observation?
Could it in fact suggest that that particular location (although O2 varies in the tank and it is not a good indicator of the ENTIRE tank) could be good "enough" that the water is saturated while, at the same time, the area around the leaves are saturated? 

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Wookii said:


> I've been wanting to get a DO meter myself for some time, but they are a little cost prohibitive.


If they were cheaper they would definitely be on my list of <"easy to use equipment">, along with <"conductivity meter and glass thermometer">. 





JoshP12 said:


> Ignore the 4.9 ... it can't be right.


No it won't be,  are you at altitude?

Where the oxygen level stabilises depends on a <"number of factors">, but assuming you have reasonable flow it should be at, or just above, 100% saturation all over the tank. You'll need to get the %DO from the <"conversion chart"> if you've recorded in mg/L.

@Geoffrey Rea 's experiment with a dissolved oxygen meter and filter flow is also interesting. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, If they were cheaper they would definitely be on my list of <"easy to use equipment">, along with <"conductivity meter and glass thermometer">.
> 
> cheers Darrel



For what it is worth, I did not buy these.

I am borrowing them so that we can utilize them in my school with students. If I can find a practical use and draw some real conclusions, I can hopefully start a club and engage learning.

This semester pre-covid, we were going to go to a nearby lake.

Josh


----------



## Wookii

JoshP12 said:


> Well I tried to run both the DO probe and the pH probe at the same time, but they interfere ... they shouldn't though  - it dropped my pH reading to 1.1 ...it may be detecting some voltage from the other probe.
> 
> The test system is a Vernier.
> 
> I have the DO probe running right now - running a similar thing.
> 
> I am actually curious myself on < the effect of CO2 on the photolysis rate >.
> 
> My lights turned on 35 minutes ago.
> My plants on the left began to pearl 15 minutes ago, the ones on the right about a minute after.
> The graph below shows that from lights on, my DO has gone up by ".2" (the 21 minutes is because I got the "graph test" going later than lights on .. but it was in the water).
> 
> View attachment 152621
> 
> Ignore the 4.9 ... it can't be right. I run my tank at 72 fahrenheit. I skipped the in depth calibration because we just had a massive thunderstorm and I don't know the pressure outside ... I'll just calibrate some point later when the weather seems calmer.
> 
> What is important is the system is warmed up and the reading was consistent for about 10 minutes. I hope the 4.9 is more like 8 .
> 
> EDIT: I am not sure if it is a coincidence but when the pearling started, it lines up with the minor blip into stability  ... @dw1305 -Darrel ... coincidence or is it a valid observation?
> Could it in fact suggest that that particular location (although O2 varies in the tank and it is not a good indicator of the ENTIRE tank) could be good "enough" that the water is saturated while, at the same time, the area around the leaves are saturated?
> 
> Josh



Thats interesting.

4.9mg/l could be fairly realistic - is your basic/non-in-depth calibration likely to be 60%+ inaccurate? I'd doubt if the plants would manage to saturate the entire water column within half an hour - @dw1305 might have an idea of how long this might take (though it would depend on plant mass and numerous other factors, so may be a 'how long is a piece of string?' type question). You'll be able to tell later anyway if the reading gets above 8ppm.


----------



## JoshP12

Wookii said:


> You'll be able to tell later anyway if the reading gets above 8ppm.



It's at 5.1 .

I have it on a 3 hour interval, so I will try to snip the data from today and post later .

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> No it won't be,  are you at altitude?



Not at all .


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> Not at all





Wookii said:


> is your basic/non-in-depth calibration likely to be 60%+ inaccurate?


Can you re calibrate the meter in 100% water vapour saturated air? 

All the DO meters I've used have been pretty good, unless the membrane is damaged. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, Can you re calibrate the meter in 100% water vapour saturated air?
> 
> All the DO meters I've used have been pretty good, unless the membrane is damaged.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Not sure about the air (unless you have a trick); what I have is a gasket seal (with water in the bottom) and I have to input the number based on my pressure outside. I also have a 0 oxygen solution that I can use. 

Side note - here is the data:


  1st part of photoperiod  


  Second part of photoperiod


 Third part of photoperiod to lights off.

It is at "4.1" now ... I think it is off by 4. I am running a long cycle now and will recalibrate either at the end or stop it in between to do so! 

A supersaturation actually occurs 👍.

Second side note: Does anyone have that link where Tom Barr suggests that CO2 mist increases photosynthetic rate by 25% and he tested it with DO probe and saw an increase in DO levels? I just recall either skimming it and finding it or reading it from someone else. His work may answer my question about photolysis being influenced by something other than light. 


Cheers,
Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





JoshP12 said:


> what I have is a gasket seal (with water in the bottom)


When you calibrate the probe it should be in the air above the water, not actually in the water. If you don't know what the atmospheric pressure is you can use  1000 mbar and it won't be far wrong. Wikipedia gives you the <"conversion factors">.





JoshP12 said:


> Side note - here is the data:


That is definitely not quite right.

If it is an old meter there may be a tear in the semi-permeable membrane? If it is a new meter there might still be a seal or cover somewhere that needs removing?

I actually use the fish tanks to make sure the <"membranes are OK">. When the lights are on I pop the probe in the tank, if it doesn't equilibrate to ~100% saturation pretty quickly then I know the membrane is damaged.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

tiger15 said:


> I don't think "ecology" is relevant to an artificial system.



If you look at Tapwater under a microscope you will find bacteria and algae spores... If you put tap water in a transparent bottle and neglect it for a while, you will find a biofilm developed to its inner wall. Put it in a light spot the algae will reproduce and grow.

All this simply is Ecology in a bottle... 

The definition of Ecology is


> a branch of biology concerning interactions among organisms and their biophysical environment, which includes both biotic and abiotic components.



I guess David Wong is silent about some issues because he probably is the smartest of them. He likely realizes that the debate about the relevancy in ecology is too subjective. I think you are correct that he simply doesn't know...

The Eco part of the definition is a mother nature invention, we can't get around, only she decides it's relevancy. The Logic behind it is a human invention and in this, it's only what you see is what you get is relevant...  It doesn't actually proof that much... For example not finding any only proofs you didn't find it...


----------



## Wookii

dw1305 said:


> @Geoffrey Rea 's experiment with a dissolved oxygen meter and filter flow is also interesting.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Do you have a link to that thread Darrel? I vaguely remember reading it, but I've searched and can't see to find it now.


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,When you calibrate the probe it should be in the air above the water, not actually in the water. If you don't know what the atmospheric pressure is you can use  1000 mbar and it won't be far wrong. Wikipedia gives you the <"conversion factors">.That is definitely not quite right.



Ok - thanks Darrel! 

I should note that when it stopped dropping (the DO) it was when the ramp started and then into the end of the photoperiod (it is isn't 3 perfectly consecutive chunks, I had hours where I was distracted and forgot). 

Does that make it "closer to right" with those details or there is still something off? 



dw1305 said:


> If it is an old meter there may be a tear in the semi-permeable membrane? If it is a new meter there might still be a seal or cover somewhere that needs removing?
> 
> I actually use the fish tanks to make sure the <"membranes are OK">. When the lights are on I pop the probe in the tank, if it doesn't equilibrate to ~100% saturation pretty quickly then I know the membrane is damaged.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Certainly old. With the info above, if it still doesn't suggest it is right (just off in the calibration as I used the stored calibration), then I will calibrate, and we can see. 

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





JoshP12 said:


> Does that make it "closer to right" with those details or there is still something off?


No, it should look like the CO2  (pH) curves. The spikes indicate that it isn't working.





Wookii said:


> but I've searched and can't see to find it now.


I couldn't find it either, it is back to having a lot of small common search terms. Where is the <"one legged Irishman"> when you need him? I think the thread included @Nick72  as well?

@Geoffrey Rea describes the tanks and flow in <"Maximising Dissolved......">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

tiger15 said:


> Barr argued that he has no problem growing many plants together given the right CO2 and conditions.



With all due respect... That guy can grow plants no doubt about it. And he actually seems to be a nice guy too. And he likes to argue about a lot of things... But he's a person not only driven by science, but also driven by a large ego...

I can give an example, that can be traced back... 

98% of the people in our hobby struggle and fail to grow Utricularia graminifolia. But not Tom Barr, he once made a statement about it a thread about it and he wrote succinctly:

"Anybody claiming Utricularia graminifolia is a difficult plant is smoking too much medical weed. And I can grow the snot out of it."

He blows the doors off but then he failed to explain or provide his followers with a how-to tutorial so anybody can grow the snot out of it.

Still till today such a tut doesn't excist 98% still fails miserably or only with short term success...

It says a lot about his ego downplaying all failers sticking feathers up his own and then walk...

And when scientists with large ego's yell proof it should raise a red flag and above all caution...  At least for me it does.


----------



## rebel

zozo said:


> but also driven by a large ego...


Scientists often have egos; they are human after all. Dude, judge him by his technical knowledge and ability not by his teaching ability.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





rebel said:


> Scientists often have egos; they are human after all.





zozo said:


> And when scientists with large ego's yell proof it should raise a red flag and above all caution.


"_DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?_ "


zozo said:


> claiming Utricularia graminifolia is a difficult plant


I think it probably <"is reasonably easy"> if you don't grow it under-water.

Having said that I don't have a plant any-more, and all the _Utricularia_ spp. I've grown, other than _U. gibba, _have_ <"__boomed and bust__">._

This was 2008 and it <"ended badly"> for both_ Utricularia _and_ <"Apistogramma">.



_

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> The spikes indicate that it isn't working.



I've always seen these spikes (even when I calibrated it properly before). This happened with every probe. It may be the machine itself - super old. 

I'll still recalibrate and see later. 

Josh


----------



## zozo

rebel said:


> Scientists often have egos; they are human after all. Dude, judge him by his technical knowledge and ability not by his teaching ability.



I can't because 80% of his technical knowledge goes beyond my comprehension. Thus i can only take his word for it... And actually it isn't a judgement, was more an observation that makes me cautious, to take his word for granted. But he still might be correct, for all i know.


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> "_DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?_ "



 Are you?



dw1305 said:


> I think it probably <"is reasonably easy"> if you don't grow it under-water.



I'm currently growing 4 different Utricularia sp. at home... Still, UG isn't among them and i tried several times. Even emerged or semi-aquatic, in my experience its a rather demanding and sensitive plant. Much more difficult than it's other family members.

That reasonably easy is likely very relative and not something universal.


----------



## rebel

zozo said:


> That reasonably easy is likely very relative and not something universal.


This is certainly true. Some people in the hobby become jaded esp when constantly attacked by phosphate police etc.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> I've always seen these spikes (even when I calibrated it properly before).


They definitely aren't right, because it is dissolved gas all changes will be relatively slow, and what you get is a "fuzzy line" along a smooth curve. I'll see if I can find a "diel oxygen curve" that isn't hidden behind a paywall.

Can you access this one? <"Lake metabolism and the diel oxygen technique: State of the science">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

rebel said:


> This is certainly true. Some people in the hobby become jaded esp when constantly attacked by phosphate police etc.



The phosphate police! It is terms like these that jade the hobby. The CO2/Flow obsessors, the nutrient junkies, the nutrient scaredy cats, you name it.

People find tropes, sit in them, and preach what they believe is effective so that others stay in the hobby and can meet with success like they did; it is all from a good place. 

The only way to move the hobby is to understand WHY each person argues in the way they do in search of understanding and see their point. 

Josh


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, They definitely aren't right, because it is dissolved gas all changes will be relatively slow, and what you get is a "fuzzy line" along a smooth curve. I'll see if I can find a "diel oxygen curve" that isn't hidden behind a paywall.
> 
> Can you access this one? <"Lake metabolism and the diel oxygen technique: State of the science">.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Thank you Darrel! I can access .


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





zozo said:


> Are you?


I've definitely got the ego to be a proper scientist, but I don't have the work ethic, I'm much too lazy, easily distracted and complacent. 





JoshP12 said:


> I can access


Have a look at fig. 2 on page 633.

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15

zozo said:


> If you look at Tapwater under a microscope you will find bacteria and algae spores... If you put tap water in a transparent bottle and neglect it for a while, you will find a biofilm developed to its inner wall. Put it in a light spot the algae will reproduce and grow.
> 
> All this simply is Ecology in a bottle...
> 
> The definition of Ecology is
> 
> I guess David Wong is silent about some issues because he probably is the smartest of them. He likely realizes that the debate about the relevancy in ecology is too subjective. I think you are correct that he simply doesn't know...
> 
> The Eco part of the definition is a mother nature invention, we can't get around, only she decides it's relevancy. The Logic behind it is a human invention and in this, it's only what you see is what you get is relevant...  It doesn't actually proof that much... For example not finding any only proofs you didn't find it...


I am not debating on the definition of  "ecology."  What I meant by irrelevance is that ecologic findings in a  natural system may not necessarily be  transferable to an artificial system.  In fact,  there is not one but many natural systems.  Findings from one natural system may not necessarily be replicable in another. 

Dennis Wong may be the smartest because he is not a scientist.   Barr has a PhD in life science and  Walstad has a master degree in microbiology.  Dennis' profession is in law and finance, and I am surprised by his depth of understanding of the art and science of aquascaping.


----------



## JoshP12

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, I've definitely got the ego to be a proper scientist, but I don't have the work ethic, I'm much too lazy, easily distracted and complacent. Have a look at fig. 2 on page 633.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Hmm, I am taking minutely reading - could that affect it - over 3 hours. 

I see many less spikes in their readings. 

Thanks. 

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





JoshP12 said:


> Hmm, I am taking minutely reading - could that affect it - over 3 hours.


More frequent readings should smooth out a lot of the noise in the recordings, so  your readings should be more similar to one another, rather than less.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

tiger15 said:


> Dennis' profession is in law and finance, and I am surprised by his depth of understanding of the art and science of aquascaping.



Bring back the polymath!


----------



## zozo

tiger15 said:


> I am not debating on the definition of "ecology." What I meant by irrelevance is that ecologic findings in a natural system may not necessarily be transferable to an artificial system. In fact, there is not one but many natural systems. Findings from one natural system may not necessarily be replicable in another.



Ok, then i misunderstood and took it too literally...  Sorry... And no I guess too, we can't really compare it too much with natural water bodies. We are missing major parts like we have no rats swimming around and no birds pooping in our tanks and many other things.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





JoshP12 said:


> Bring back the polymath!





zozo said:


> I can't because 80% of his technical knowledge goes beyond my comprehension.


Honestly it is the same for most scientists, they are on a hamster wheel.

From when they are graduate students, they have to keep publishing, applying for grants etc.

Science is <"incredibly competitive">, there isn't really any room for a breadth of knowledge.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> I've definitely got the ego to be a proper scientist, but I don't have the work ethic, I'm much too lazy, easily distracted and complacent.



You forgot to add modesty... And this you have a lot as well...


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





zozo said:


> You forgot to add modesty...


I'm just a <"failed scientist">, but failure has given me more of a veneer of knowledge, mainly because I've worked on a lot of other people projects.

I've worked with a few <"real scientists"> and one or two <"I've met"> because they have a (non-professional) interest in Moth recording or Botany.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, I'm just a <"failed scientist">, but failure has given me more of a veneer of knowledge, mainly because I've worked on a lot of other people projects.



Completely disagree with your comments 

A 'failed scientist' is someone who thinks they know all the answers and trys to convince others they know more than they do.
But a 'true scientist' is realistic about what they know and doesn't try to convince others otherwise  

Be good at what you good at and out your hands up if if its beyond you- Open, Honest and Transparent as that's good science


----------



## rebel

dw1305 said:


> there isn't really any room for a breadth of knowledge


Or social skills.


----------



## robinj

Sorry to resurrect older topic. 
But if I understand it well, it could be the missing part between EI and Lean dosing. I got the simple rational behind EI but I never got the lean dosing cause they are two contradicting systems IMHO. 
The limitation for the EI with high light is the CO2 distribution and concentration. But tanks with lean dosing works too also with high lights. Tweaking CO2 with EI is big deal, we have koralias etc just to get that flow. On the other hand, they are tanks with under rated filter flow,no pumps, lean dosing and still looking great. 
If P is limiting the CO2 demand, even with high light, I see it as argument for EI with limited KH2PO4 dosing. Am I getting it rigtht?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


robinj said:


> If P is limiting the CO2 demand, even with high light,


The simple answer is <"we just don't know">. A long with <"PAR"> and carbon (C) any one of the fourteen mineral elements can be <"Liebig's limiting nutrient">. 


> ........ It is back to the <"assembly line aspect"> of <"Liebig's law of the minimum">, adding more of a non-limiting nutrient doesn't give you any more growth........


Plants need most of the three macronutrients nitrogen (N), potassium (K) and phosphorus (P), so that makes them the most likely to be deficient, along with some special cases, like <"magnesium (Mg)"> and <"iron (Fe)">. 

Phosphate is often the limiting nutrient in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and now that W. Europe, N. America <"is awash with it"> one of the <"prime cause of eutrophication">.


robinj said:


> I got the simple rational behind EI but I never got the lean dosing cause they are two contradicting systems IMHO.


They are. <"I use lean dosing"> and it definitely is a viable option, but <"it does limit what you can grow">.  

I don't see any issue with playing around with the levels of PO4---, phosphorus is <"highly mobile within the plant"> so if it became deficient, as soon as it was available again you would get a fairly instant growth response. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus.

robinj said:


> but I never got the lean dosing cause they are two contradicting systems


But how is ADA dosing regime truly lean dosing _per se_, as ADA aquasoil (AS) is packed with nutrients and most rescape after about a year when the AS is exhausted of nutrients 🤷‍♂️, maybe it is just a successful marketing ploy to buy into the whole ADA regime/products and buying multiple ferts that are basically just water


----------



## robinj

Zeus. said:


> But how is ADA dosing regime truly lean dosing _per se_, as ADA aquasoil (AS) is packed with nutrients and most rescape after about a year when the AS is exhausted of nutrients 🤷‍♂️, maybe it is just a successful marketing ploy to buy into the whole ADA regime/products and buying multiple ferts that are basically just water


That's a good point. I didn't assume the soil. Obviously, we have missing data. Something like sand based tanks, one with EI and second with lean could show more. I dose EI myself and already grown up from buying diluted KNO3 for 1000 x of original price of the powder.


----------



## Zeus.

robinj said:


> Obviously, we have missing data.


And never likely to get it if it doesn't help their sales, what tobacco company ever released the data on their products to show the harm its does, same with sugar companies.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


robinj said:


> Something like sand based tanks, one with EI and second with lean could show more.


That would be a better experiment. 

You could play around with an <"all in one mix">, like the <"Solufeed 2 : 1 :  4 mix"> at different dosing levels. I think if you use lean, or very lean dosing, you would be best using them in conjunction with the <"Duckweed Index"> and some <"tank janitors">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Zeus. said:


> And never likely to get it if it doesn't help their sales, what tobacco company ever released the data on their products to show the harm its does, same with sugar companies.


A <"bit of honesty"> all around would help.


dw1305 said:


> @Zeus. and @Hanuman have taken all the fun out of this, by providing a spreadsheet that provides all the answers at the click of the button. They have removed all the mystery and totally deskilled potion making, it is an absolute disgrace and they should be very pleased with themselves.


The work @Zeus. and @Hanuman  have done with the <"IFC calculator"> unfortunately just lays bare the <"disingenuous disinformation"> that appear to be the _modus operandi_ of a lot of companies. It has really left them <"nowhere to hide">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

robinj said:


> Sorry to resurrect older topic.
> But if I understand it well, it could be the missing part between EI and Lean dosing. I got the simple rational behind EI but I never got the lean dosing cause they are two contradicting systems IMHO.
> The limitation for the EI with high light is the CO2 distribution and concentration. But tanks with lean dosing works too also with high lights. Tweaking CO2 with EI is big deal, we have koralias etc just to get that flow. On the other hand, they are tanks with under rated filter flow,no pumps, lean dosing and still looking great.
> If P is limiting the CO2 demand, even with high light, I see it as argument for EI with limited KH2PO4 dosing. Am I getting it rigtht?


Sorry I missed this one.

This thread illustrates my most recent thoughts:

Thread 'Everyone is right ...'
Everyone is right ...


----------

