# Double checking my fert dosing



## Mortis (28 Jul 2010)

So I have been using EI ferts on my tank for a while now and I just thought I would check here if I was using the right amounts.

Tank volume is 60L
Both Micros and Macros are prepared in a 250ml stock solution of which I dose 15ml on alternate days with Sat off and WC on Sunday. 

For micros Im using the AE Trace mix plus. Macros I am dosing KNO3, KH2PO4, K2SO4 and MgSO4. What would be the right amounts in TSP to go into a 250ml stock solution with 15ml doses ?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Jul 2010)

Some may say it's best not to mix the macros and micros together AFAIK the po4 can react with the traces. There is some good info on amounts to add both in here in ferts board and on james planted tank site.
If you are dosing EI there is no right amount to add because it's tank dependant depending on the amount of plants and lighting and to some extent the fish.
The basic rule if you check the stuff I mentioned is to provide a slight excess of what a high 3WPG lit tank could use. Using this method you can feel safe that the plants nutrition wise will never want for anything. If you start at the top value then gradually decrease the amounts at 4 week intervals you will tell when you hit the right amount ferts as the plants will grow slow or show deficiencies (check james planted again) if you see this then step back up to the next highest dose you did.  
OR the tank not being big if you can afford it just stay at the highest value to be on the safe side, this will require big 50% water changes to prevent a build up of any unused ferts.

I am just learning also but I think that's about the jest of it.


----------



## Mortis (28 Jul 2010)

I havent mixed the macros and micros. They are in two separate bottles.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Jul 2010)

ok


----------



## CeeJay (28 Jul 2010)

Hi all


			
				AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> this will require big 50% water changes to prevent a build up of any unused ferts.


Don't let Clive hear you say that   
The main reason for the 50%+ water change is to prevent the build up of ammonia etc. in a planted tank from all the waste generated by fish and plants.
It just so happens to be a consequence of the water change, that the fert level is 'reset'.
I may be wrong, but that's my understanding of it


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (29 Jul 2010)

> Don't let Clive hear you say that



 Clive and myself and probably every body else on this board have discussed this topic at length it is a contentious issue. Has he and others have vastly more knowledge of the chemistry and interactions with fish and plants I am with the understanding that extreme levels of any nutrient SHOULD NOT be detrimental to either fish or plants and yes the water change is to remove the other nasties.
BUT I am from the school of thought that if it isn't necessary then I would rather not have it, as much as I highly respect the opinions there is also a lot of debate regarding long term fish health, stunted growth and effects on the immune system especially with young fish. My particular set up is long term I keep and breed green cobra guppies which I give to my LFS and I have breeding Rams in there as well as inverts. All of which have a lot of discussion surrounding the safe levels of no3 but not by planted tank keepers more by the people who keep them not that that's important as they all are equally knowledgeable regarding water chemistry. The fish keepers have the easy ride of not having to worry about ferts in non planted tanks.
Now if I have a short term scape with minimum fish to enhance it and lots of light and big filtration I would add them to my hearts content money willing but as my tank is quite well stocked I have to take the fish into consideration.

There probably is no risk associated with high levels of nutrients and fish or algae as well to the matter, that was also probably said about Easy Carbo and asbestos   Don't jump down my throat on that one it was a joke I know the vast difference between the three   

So to reiterate to mortis the "re-set" is to remove other nasties even though every E.I method I have came across involves a large water change, me personally because of my set up and lack of being able to do regular large water changes don't run these high levels but that's just me. I don't think there is anything wrong with what I am doing and I do understand that running my tank this way runs the risk of not having enough of certain nutrients available at certain times but my tank is a fish tank with some plants as oppose a planted tank with some fish.


----------



## CeeJay (30 Jul 2010)

Hi AverageWhiteBloke

I only mentioned this because some of the stuff you read on the web associates the water change with purely 'resetting' nutrient levels once a week, and fail to mention the important bit.


			
				AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> I don't think there is anything wrong with what I am doing


Of course there isn't. 
Total respect that you have clear long term goals and are running your tank accordingly   
I have read all of your exchanges with Clive with interest, and have learnt a bundle from them


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (31 Jul 2010)

> I have read all of your exchanges with Clive with interest, and have learnt a bundle from them


Not as much as me m8   

How are you getting on mortis did you check the pages on dosing? FYI my tank is just over twice the size of yours at 165 ltrs Using the dry spoon method I do WC saturday quarter teaspoon kno3 and half a teaspoon of potassium sulphate and half teaspoon of magnesium sulphate. Then Sunday dose micros, Mon quart tspn kno3, tue micros, wed quart tspn kno3, thurs micros, fri quart tspn kno3, Nothing on fridays. This is about half the recommendation on James PC but seems to work for me in a moderately planted tank with approx 2wpg over it. I don't add phosphate because my tap water is full of it but if yours is ok add a tip of a teaspoon on the same days as the kno3.

Like I said that's half of what full EI would be so your tank being half of mine that would be your top dose to work down from if I've got the figures right .


----------



## Mortis (6 Aug 2010)

Micros : 1 tsp in 250ml and then 15ml on alternate days. I dose 20ml on the day after WC

Macros : 3 tsp KNO3 , 1 tsp KH2PO4, 1 tsp K2SO4, 3 tsp MgSO4 in 250ml. I dose 15ml on alternate days and 20ml on WC day

WC is 25% , and Im at about 2wpg.

I have a feeling Im under dosing. Please correct me if Im wrong. I like to prepare stock solutions of 250 or 500 ml and dose 15-20ml so take that into consideration


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Aug 2010)

Mortis said:
			
		

> ...I have a feeling Im under dosing...


Well we really need to explore these feelings. EI is not really about feelings. It's about performance. If there is an under-performance in the tank then under-dosing is a possible explanation. If there are no under-performance symptoms then under-dosing is not and issue. There are no rules to arbitrarily increase (or decrease) the dosing just for the sake of changing. A revision to the dosing should have an objective or should be in response to a performance related symptom.

Are you seeing discoloration of leaves, stunted growth, or nutrient deficiency related algae? If the answer to this question is NO then under-dosing cannot be an issue.

It is also possible that under-performance is due to poor CO2, depending on the specific symptoms, so one has to have clarity of vision when deciding on a path of corrective action. Are you seeing holes, deformation, browning, mushiness, black spots, unexplained decay, translucency, poor growth rates or CO2 related algae? If the answer to this question is YES then you'll need to address CO2 application only, not the dosing.

Please therefore advise what symptoms you observe in the tank that triggers the feelings of under-dosing.

Cheers,


----------



## Mortis (9 Aug 2010)

Nope, I dont see any deficiencies, the only problem in my tank which I posted about earlier in another thread is cladophora which still hasnt lessened despite following the suggestions in the previous thread


----------



## ceg4048 (9 Aug 2010)

Hi,
   Well Clado counts as a deficiency as it's due to a combination of low CO2 and low nutrient levels. As JamesC's Algae Guide mentions, Clado is difficult to eradicate. As long as good dosing is maintained and as long as CO2 levels remain high (and presumably flow is adequate) then it will eventually subside. You do have to expend some elbow grease to remove every bit that you see. Have you tried overdosing Excel/Easycarbo? If no other deficiencies are noted then you can consider this a good dosing scheme. You can also try double dosing for a few weeks to see what happens. If you find the performance increase better then stay with the increased values, however, since you are only doing the 25% water changes then you need to be cautious.

Cheers,


----------



## Mortis (11 Aug 2010)

I have tried overdosing Excel but unless I squirt it on directly and leave the filter off for an hour, it does nothing. The problem is most of the clado is in the fissidens and java moss I have used to cover a huge bit of driftwood that takes up about 1/3rd of the tank. I need to be careful while removing the clado manually as I end up removing the moss underneath as well which cannot be easily retied with out removing the entire piece of driftwood. I would say flow is sufficient with a Tetratec EX 750 and a 400lph internal power filter in a 60L tank. There are no dead spots I can see judging by the bubbles from my inline diffusor. Also, CO2 levels are good, set a bit lower than what makes the fish uncomfortable and pearling takes place every day about 4 hrs in. 

Someone mentioned that to get rid of cladophora I should STOP CO2 and use excel as the only CO2 source for a few weeks. Is this a good idea ?


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Aug 2010)

Well that would be the thing to do if you were doing a blackout, otherwise that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean, think about it for a second; what are the plants supposed to do without CO2?

Another possibility is that although your flow, nutrients and CO2 are high, there is poor distribution because of blockage due to the wood. Since the moss isn't turning brown or disintegrating then it's more likely a nutrient issue. What's your lighting like? You're not one of those megawatt Klingon Space Cadets, are you?

Cheers,


----------



## Mortis (11 Aug 2010)

Well my tank is 18" long and Ive got 2 x 2foot 14W T5s over it = 28 watts over 60 litres. Probably a bit lower since about an inch of the tubes stick out at either end. Still, it is around 1.9 wpg.

The idea with cuting off CO2 and using excel as the primary CO2 source is that cladophora which can utilise CO2 cannot deal with Excel as the only source of CO2. Does this make any sense ?

Also, please explain what you meant about the moss not turning brown being a nutrient issue ?


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Aug 2010)

Mortis said:
			
		

> Well my tank is 18" long and Ive got 2 x 2foot 14W T5s over it = 28 watts over 60 litres. Probably a bit lower since about an inch of the tubes stick out at either end. Still, it is around 1.9 wpg.


Yeah but you see watts don't grow plants and algae, PAR does. So the linear distribution of PAR along those 18 inches is the same as if the tank were 2 foot long. Also, the distance from the bulb to the plant determines the energy level being absorbed. If you want to speed your recovery then turn one of the bulbs off for now. Light is the source of all algae problems so you must always include this factor in any troubleshooting.



			
				Mortis said:
			
		

> The idea with cuting off CO2 and using excel as the primary CO2 source is that cladophora which can utilise CO2 cannot deal with Excel as the only source of CO2. Does this make any sense ?


Well not really. One of the possible triggers for Clado is low CO2, so it can hardly make sense to lower the total CO2 from what you have now. Algae are 1000X more efficient at feeding CO2 and nutrients, that's why they thrive when these values are too low for the plants. It never makes sense to lower them even more because you will then cause more problems than you solve. You cannot starve algae this way without first annihilating the plants. They will simply use the CO2 that is dissolved from atmosphere, while the plants will suffer terribly from a sharp drop in total CO2 levels. Excel does not produce nearly as much CO2 as the gas injection does, so instead of cutting the CO2 injection, simply add more excel and use the algecidal properties of the product to do the dirty work. More Excel also will add to the total CO2 uptake of the plants making them grow faster and thereby enabling them to resist the algae. Again, trying to eradicate algae outside of the context of plant health is a flawed policy. Like vultures and hyenas, algae understand the language of tank health. When the tank is unhealthy they attack and thrive. When the tank is healthy they retreat. You want to think about maximizing plant health first, not about killing algae. You want to think about adding maximum CO2/Excel tolerable by the fauna, and maximum nutrient levels with maximum flow and maximum water changes. All this while using minimum lighting. Afterward, these values can be reduced to within reason. This is a simple blueprint, but people freak out because they lack the fortitude to go all the way. Half measures caused by doubt tend to prolong the agony.



			
				Mortis said:
			
		

> Also, please explain what you meant about the moss not turning brown being a nutrient issue ?


Well normally, one of the classic CO2 failure modes is the decay and cell death due to poor Carbon uptake. Clado, like most other algal forms have multiple trigger mechanism such as both (or either) Poor CO2/Poor nutrients. So it can be a combination of both causes or just one of those.  This forces us to guess whether it's both or either, making troubleshooting more difficult. That's why it helps to understand the other modes of CO2 failure. That way we can use process of elimination. We know that poor CO2 causes cell death and it also triggers hair algae (which is the most straightforward of all since it is strictly CO2 related) or staghorn algae (which isn't quite as straightforward but still a pretty good indicator of poor CO2). So we look around the tank to see if there are other symptoms of poor CO2. It's unlikely that poor CO2 would "only" cause Clado - there generally should be other symptoms, such as browning of leaves, translucency, mushiness, lower leaves falling, surface scum, holes in leaves, black spots, deformation of leaves and other structural failures. If we do not see any of these other symptoms, or if there is only minor occurrence of other symptoms, then it's a pretty good bet that acutely poor CO2 is unlikely and that it's more of a nutrient issue, perhaps only _exacerbated_ by mildly low CO2 or by poor flow in that local area.

This is probably about as clear as mud....

Cheers,


----------



## Mortis (12 Aug 2010)

It makes some sense but leaves me wondering what my best course of action should be


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Aug 2010)

That's easy. What I tried to explain is to use less light and add more of everything else.

Cheers,


----------



## Anonymous (13 Aug 2010)

http://www.aquatic-eden.com/2009/04/cla ... algae.html

I have clado in a tank for about 6-8 months, it tends to stay compact in the low flow areas near some anubias roots under high light (and it loves having a sunbath) My advice is also to use less light, don't trim it, just pull it carefully when it grows very large, and add more co2 and ferts to keep your moss in good shape. Also check your flow distribution. If you want to pull it from moss use a pinsette and a magnifying glass.

When you don't really care about this algae it'll go away. Just don't rush things.
EC or Excel doesn't work with this algae so don't bother overdosing.


----------

