# What causes leaves to melt, and what to do now?



## jalexst

Having planted a 14l nano, the following day all leaves on the Ambulia Conferta and Micranthemum Micranthemoides had melted. There is a little melting on the Saurogyne but the other plants are fine (HC and Eleoacharis)

I am doing 50% water changes daily in the Initial stages and dose easycarbo 0.25mil and tpn+ 0.17mil daily. The tank is now 6 days old.

So how come everything melted so quick and what do I do now? I have left the plants as they are for now.

Thanks for your expertise!   

Jack


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
         Melting is caused by insufficient CO2 for the given lighting level. Add more Excel or reduce the light intensity, or add more flow, or any combination of these.

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

Thanks Ceg,

I am sure the flow is fine, So I will up the easycarbo and see what happens...

In the meantime, what about the melted plants? do I just need to give them time to recover or will they not recover?

the Micranthemoides has melted right down to substrate level...

Cheers,

J.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
    I really cannot say. Melting is dying, so it depends on how much has melted. If the roots have not melted, and if there is a little bit of stem left then the plant might have a chance to recover - assuming that the CO2 has improved sufficiently. Sometimes, the leaves melt but the plant is able to adjust to the CO2 level so it puts out new growth and is fine afterwards, without any change in the CO2. It all depends on the plant as well as how much light, flow and CO2 are available and whether these values cause enough damage to kill the plant, or whether the plant is able to make the adjustments quickly enough to save itself. I've seen large scale meltdown followed by complete recovery as well as permanent meltdowns...

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

Ok, I guess I will have a little patience and see what happens. Thanks Ceg,

Also does the length of the photoperiod make a difference? Having had great success in my other tank on 5 hours of light, I have started this one off the same...

Cheers mate, great help.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi mate,
              The photoperiod has an effect, but it is always within the context of the effects of intensity. So for example suppose the plant is not receiving enough light to produce food. No amount of photoperiod can compensate for that. On the other side of the coin, if the intensity is too much then the damage to the plant is being done by this intensity and a longer photoperiod means that the damage is being done for a longer time. Shortening the photoperiod reduces the total amount of damage, but the damage is still being incurred.

When the intensity is higher than the minimum required, but lower than destructive levels, then the photoperiod will regulate the total amount of food production.

Hope this makes sense...

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

OK, took a couple of reads but I got it...

I understand what you mean regarding the photoperiod and intesity of light, but have just a couple of questions...

Firstly what do you mean by "food Production?" is this relating to the production of Oxygen, and therefore growth?

also, slightly further off topic, when using the manufacturers recomended dosage on things like easycarbo and fertilisers, should the length of the photoperiod be taken into consideration? since surely the longer it is, the more nutrients are used up by the plants, right?

Thanks for all your help Ceg, I am always fascinated by your posts,

J.


----------



## ceg4048

Good stuff mate,
Food production is an expression that not many people associate with aquatic plants, yet if I said we were talking about a potato plant or an apple tree it would be a little easier to grasp right? The whole point of plants using light is to produce food. That food is the end product of photosynthesis. The Carbon that is in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is combined with Nitrogen, Phosphorous and other nutrients to make a carbohydrate - sugar.

Sugar is the end product of photosynthesis. The plant then eats the sugar and that is what fuels growth. So when you think about what a plant does during the photoperiod you should always think about sugar production first, because this is the key. If a plant suffers a "nutrient deficiency" the result is a reduction in sugar production, which equates to loss of food and results in malnutrition.


Again, few people think about the fact that plants eat sugar and breathe oxygen to burn that sugar in order to produce the energy required for growth. This is exactly the same as for us or for animals. Have you ever forgotten that you had a potato in a cupboard somewhere, and discovered it months later? What does it look like? Most likely it has turned into a plant, and what was the potato has shriveled in nothing more than skin. The plant ate the potato and used the carbohydrate energy to grow leaves and roots in order to start the cycle all over again. And grew in complete darkness, but once the potato is consumed, there needs to be more food and the job of  chlorophyll is to use light energy to produce food, so in the dark the plant begins to shrivel because it cannot produce carbohydrates without the light energy.


A more technical explanation.


Fruit trees and nut trees are particularly talented in making sugar, so much so that there is a surplus of sugar, and this is what we pick from the tree to eat. When we eat the carbohydrates in the fruit, our cells burn the sugar using Oxygen and the carbon from that very same sugar is recycled as waste and is expelled from our lungs as CO2. So Carbon and Oxygen are caught in an infinite loop where they are taken from air, by plants, algae and some bacteria, hydrated with water turned into sugar, burned for energy and expelled as CO2. It's a miracle.

Light is used to power the reactions of sugar production. When you plug in you light bulb and shine it at the plant the light that reaches the plant leaves is, in a way, "plugging in" the plant, because light and electricity are actually two sides of the same coin. Light produces electricity and electricity produces light. But what happens if you add too much electricity to a bulb for example? The filaments in the bulb can only handle so much electron flow. Adding too much burns out the bulb, and so it is with plants that they can only handle so much electron flow. So if you add too much light, then the areas of the plant that handle the electricity created by the light also burn out and this stops sugar production. If sugar production stops it's only a matter of time before the plant uses up it's reserves of sugar and after that it starves to death.

When you think of light therefore, you must think in terms of electricity which "plugs in" the plant and allows it to power the chemical reactions used to make sugar:


Therefore, we have to regulate how much electricity is used to energize the plant, by regulating the amount of light being pumped into the leaves. If we don't pump enough light then the plant cannot generate enough electricity and it starves. If we pump too much light then the plant "circuits" burn out and it starves. The good news though is that if we can provide enough nutrients and CO2 then it makes these food production "circuits" more robust so that the plant can use the high light levels. Add more flow/CO2 and nutrients give the plant a much higher capacity to absorb and use the energy of the light.

So any time you see leaves falling off, or melting, or translucent, or stems rotting, or holes in leaves - any structural fault in the plant, then this tells you immediately that there is too much light/electricity for the plant to handle and that it is starving. That is fundamentally the root cause. How you fix the problem is up to you:
1. You can reduce the electricity.
2. You can increase the CO2 to bolster the electricity handling circuits.
3. You can make the plant more efficient at breathing the amount of CO2 that is there by improving flow and distribution.

As far as photoperiod relationship to dosage, it's not really something that you can easily adjust for. Primarily because plants can uptake nutrients even when there is no light. Nutrient uptake mechanism is a completely different beast than the way in which those very same nutrients are used.

Also, photosynthesis/food production itself has a time limit and is self regulated by the plant. This can only happen for about 8-10 hours a day maximum. Furthermore, when you dose a liquid carbon product, you are interested in increasing the concentration and therefore the availability of CO2, so there is no point in lowering the dosage just because you will only have the lights on for 5 hours because if you do that then you will have less CO2 for those 5 hours than you would have if you had dosed the proper amount. In fact, the situation is usually just the opposite. You often need to add more than what they suggest, because they assume that everything else in your tank is perfect, which is almost never the case.

As a result, you would be better off NOT trying to make dosage adjustments based on photoperiod because that would be like opening a can of snakes. 

Cheers,


----------



## spyder

Clive.

Have you thought about a basic guide to light/co2/nutrient demands and their relation to each other? I know you cover it almost daily at times. The information is already out there but scattered about in chunks. To have it all in one post would certainly help newcomers.

One more thing, thanks for the education   . Without your post's I'm sure my tank would not be flourishing as well as it is right now.

Cheers.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi spyder-man,
                    Thrilled to know that you find the info useful mate. Yeah, I wanted to either rework one of the existing tutorials or submit a new one, but I always get stuck trying to determine how deep to go. Should it just be a primer level for the uninitiated, or should it be more comprehensive? To get a grip one has to touch on so many different areas but we'll give it a try since it has to be basic enough to not scare away the novice but yet have enough substance to not be fluff. Somehow it's easier when answering a question because I can usually tell from the question itself what concepts the user needs help in grasping, so that helps me to focus a response. I suppose I could collect some posts and stitch them together. I might try that and add a bit here and there, see what it looks like.

You're right mate, I wish I had just 10p for every time I had to address this subject. Somewhere in The Matrix there must be either a subroutine, or bot that programs Klingon worship within the humans of this sector of the Galaxy....

Cheers,


----------



## spyder

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi spyder-man,
> Thrilled to know that you find the info useful mate. Yeah, I wanted to either rework one of the existing tutorials or submit a new one, but I always get stuck trying to determine how deep to go. Should it just be a primer level for the uninitiated, or should it be more comprehensive? To get a grip one has to touch on so many different areas but we'll give it a try since it has to be basic enough to not scare away the novice but yet have enough substance to not be fluff. Somehow it's easier when answering a question because I can usually tell from the question itself what concepts the user needs help in grasping, so that helps me to focus a response.



May I suggest a 2 parter. Part I to cover the basics and importance of balance and the consequences of not getting it right. 

Part II can go deeper. I remember so many little bits of posts but forget the whole picture from time to time. One thing that springs to mind was rubisco? Never heard of the word before but I can;t tell you what it is or what it does now without going to look it up again. Something to do with energy transport?   

Anyway, yes I find it very useful having a better idea what's going on inside our aquariums.


----------



## skeletonw00t

Why can't you just add sugar to the tank to feed the plants directly?


----------



## spyder

skeletonw00t said:
			
		

> Why can't you just add sugar to the tank to feed the plants directly?



Joker?

That would be too easy!


----------



## ceg4048

That's actually a pretty darn good question mate. That's kind of like asking why the sun shines, which seems like a child's question at first glance, until you realize that children have been asking that question for centuries and neither their parents nor anyone else knew the answer to it until the early 20th Century. It took Albert Einstein to figure it out, and even when he explained it, the explanation was so bizarre and far fetched that it blew everyone away. Strangely enough, when he explained the concepts to children they accepted and understood them. The adults with PhDs were left dumbfounded...    

And so, the answer to why you can't just add sugar is complicated, and it has to do with the way in which sugar is produced, the type of sugar that is produced, and the location in the plant where sugar is burned and where energy is extracted from that burning.

Every individual cell in the plant has to get it's share of sugar which is produced internally by the special chloroplast cells and then distributed to all the other cells by a network of "blood vessels" called the "Phloem" (pronounced flow-em). The sugar enters the cell via a specific pathway from the chloroplast and flows throughout the plant being grabbed as needed by individual cells. The sugar then enters the cell to an area called the "Cytoplasm" where preliminary breakdown of the sugar occurs, and which produces a product called "Pyruvate". 

Here is a really cool website. On this page there is a little animation of sugar transport in terrestrial plants, which won't be exactly the same as in aquatics, but gives a general idea:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/9 ... ading.html

Inside each cell there is a miniature living battery called the "Mitochondrion". It is the function of all Mitochondria to combine Pyruvate with Oxygen to produce energy for the cell. This is how each Mitochondrion pays his rent, so to speak. 

As far as I'm aware, sugar dissolved in water does not have an uptake mechanism in the plant. The plant normally leeches sugar from inside to out, which feeds the bacteria in the sediment. In fact, that's one of the symbiotic relationships plants have with bacteria. Adding sugar would therefore feed the bacteria in the same way as peat or detritus does, but there is no way I know of to get the external sugar into this network and of getting it distributed to the cells. Too much dissolved carbohydrates in the water column are really a source of pollution and actually block uptake of nutrients and CO2, so this is not really a good idea generally.

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

Nice one ceg   , had to have a bit of a sit down to get my head around all this!

So a couple of things...

Photosynthesis/food production happens when the lights are on right? so, since we all know that CO2 is released by the plant at lights out, does this mean that the sugar consumption and growth is happening in the dark?

also, if nutrient uptake is happening around the clock, does this mean we can dose nutrients at lights on or lights off, and it have the same outcome so long as it is the same time each day? Sometimes I worry that I need to dose nutrients before the lights come on as if I miss it by an hour or so, that hour of the photoperiod seems wasted almost... since there wasn't any nutrients in the water at the time. if that makes sense...

Also regarding the liquid carbon doseage. If I have the lights on for a 5 hour period, I understand that I need the same concentration of CO2 in the water than if the photoperiod was longer. However, something in my mind is telling me that surely the plants "use up" the CO2 (liquid product) as the photoperiod goes on, therefore reducing the concentration, so how come the dose remains the same?    For example, when gas is used the Concentration remains the same throughout the photoperiod (exept for at the end) However, If the photoperiod was lengthened obviously the length of time the gas is released is longer, meaning... more gas. Though the concentration is still the same throughout. So, in that respect, how does it work when adding a liquid product all in one go, for an unspecified photoperiod? if that makes sense too... don't get me wrong and please don't open the can of snakes, just can't get my head around the difference.

One last thing   

When adding things to the water such as liquid carbon, and fertilisers, I (try my best to) add according to manufacturers guidlines and what I can see in the tank too. For example the melting that I have experienced. But. Without ever knowing how much is in the water and how much the plants are using, something else in my mind says "what about the excess?" because if I am doseing daily, and and there is a little excess daily, then does it build up and up until... _something bad happens?

Cheers ceg, hope you don't mind all my questions, I really find all of this fascinating stuff   

J._


----------



## ceg4048

Hi jalexst,
No, I don't mind the questions at all. This is why we are here. 8)



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> Photosynthesis/food production happens when the lights are on right? so, since we all know that CO2 is released by the plant at lights out, does this mean that the sugar consumption and growth is happening in the dark?


Well, consumption happens all the time. Every cell in your body as well as in the plants body has a job to do, and they need energy to do it, so there is a consant requirement for food. Our bodies build up food reserves in the form of fat and that fat is stored in many different locations for ease of transportation. So when we are not eating, the fat is converted back to sugar and feeds the cells. This is almost exactly the same in plants, except instead of storing food as fat, plants convert the sugar to starch, because starch has a much longer and stable shelf life than sugar.

Back to the potato, here is a view from an electron microsope inside a potato tuber, showing the stored grains of starch. Aquatic plants will do something very similar:




Photo Courtesy of Dennis Kunkel Microscopy.

So the plants build up a starch reserve and can feed from this reserve. During the photoperiod the sugar that is produced replenishes the stored reserves. When the plant is under duress, such as with high lighting, the starch reserves get used up and the food being produced gets consumed immediately. If that is insufficient the plant might start to canabalize itself to feed the remaining portions and will jettison the parts that cost more energy to retrieve than it produces. CO2 is produced 100% of the time by all cells, but this CO2 is not retrieved. Oxygen is being consumed 100% of the time, yet Oxygen is also being produced by the plant. The thing to remember is that only certain cells in the plant produce Oxygen and only certain cells produce food. The vast majority of cells in the plant are strictly consumers of energy, consumers of Oxygen and producers of CO2. It's just that during the photoperiod the balance of Oxygen is a positive output, and the balance of CO2 is a positive input, sort of like profit and gain. The cells that produce Oxygen are producing more Oxygen than the amount of Oxygen being consumed by the other cells combined. The amount of CO2 being absorbed by the CO2 specialist cells is higher than the amount of CO2 being released by respiration of all the other cells combined. So it's not that plants only breath Oxygen and release CO2 at night, it's that the net consumption and production of these gases is different during day because the food machine operates during daytime and changes the balance.



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> ...also, if nutrient uptake is happening around the clock, does this mean we can dose nutrients at lights on or lights off, and it have the same outcome so long as it is the same time each day? Sometimes I worry that I need to dose nutrients before the lights come on as if I miss it by an hour or so, that hour of the photoperiod seems wasted almost... since there wasn't any nutrients in the water at the time. if that makes sense...


Yes, it makes sense. I understand what you mean, but this is something that you should never really worry about. The idea of dosing nutrients in the water column and in the sediment is to build up a concentration of nutrition that the plant has access to all the time. AS long as the concentration available to them is higher than the rate at which they pull the nutrients from the water/sediment then this becomes a non-issue. If you see signs of nutrient deficiency then this telss you that you are not dosing enough nutrients, not that you are dosing at the wrong time. Always do you dosing whenever it is most convenient for YOU.



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> ..Also regarding the liquid carbon doseage. If I have the lights on for a 5 hour period, I understand that I need the same concentration of CO2 in the water than if the photoperiod was longer. However, something in my mind is telling me that surely the plants "use up" the CO2 (liquid product) as the photoperiod goes on, therefore reducing the concentration, so how come the dose remains the same?


Liquid Carbon products are nowhere as effective as gas injection. First of all they have to be converted to CO2 within the plant, and any conversion or chemical reaction in the plant normally costs energy. Secondly, the liquid has what is described as a "half life" wherein after a certain amount of time, the concentration is half of what it was when initially dosed. Liquid carbon products are therefore best used as a supplement to gas injection instead of as a primary Carbon source, but it is still much better than not having any CO2 enrichment at all. One could dose twice during the photoperiod to keep the concentration levels up. Again, it depends on how much you want to amplify the growth rates. The good news is that carbon enrichment is much more important at the beginning of the photoperiod than it is nearer the tail end. People who suffer CO2 related problems can often solves these problems by ensuring a very high CO2 at the moment that lights go on and it will not matter that much if the CO2 is poor near the end. In fact my CO2 is shut down 5 hours into a 8-9 hour photoperiod. What's most important is that plants have a very poor eficiency at food production when the day starts, so I keep the lighting very low and the CO2 very high in the early stages to help them get started. Once the engine is "up to speed" so to speak, then they become very efficient and the concentration levels can sag without penalty, so again, this is not something to really worry about as they can make good use of the residual levels, even if the concentration is lower.



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> ..When adding things to the water such as liquid carbon, and fertilisers, I (try my best to) add according to manufacturers guidlines and what I can see in the tank too. For example the melting that I have experienced. But. Without ever knowing how much is in the water and how much the plants are using, something else in my mind says "what about the excess?" because if I am doseing daily, and and there is a little excess daily, then does it build up and up until... _something bad happens?_


_Umm...I NEVER pay attention to manufacturers dosing recommendation. That's because manufacturers don't have my tank, with my lighting, with my flow, with my environmental stresses. So they have no clue about what's happening in my tank. In fact, I don't bother with manufacturer's dosing products at all if I can help it, because their nutrient products are about 100 times weaker than they should be._

_Bad things can only happen when you don't have enough nutrition. As I explained in all my analogies, you must consider these products to be food. So the only thing that happens when you have excess food is that the plants gain excess weight, which is a lot better scenario than the one you have now, right? So in fact if you have double, trebled or even quadrupled the dosing that the manufactures recommended, we might not even be having this conversation now, because your plants may have been in better health. Having said that though, one has to be careful about liquid carbon products because they are toxic in much higher concentrations. _

_For a more effective dosing concepts review the thread viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1211_

_Cheers,_


----------



## Viv

I've enjoyed reading your posts ceg, you expalin things very well. But can I clarify something? You seem to be implying that photosynthes is a process that only occurs in light. But during the lighting period the plant only produces energy (stored as ATP). Its during the unlit/dark hours that it uses ATP to form sugars. Also, in the stepped cycle that produces sugars other carbon compounds are produced and subsequently used. I thought liquid carbon contained these carbon compounds and that the plant 'slots' these into relevant part of the cycle during the dark reactions? 

Sorry if I've misunderstood what you've been saying, or haven't realised if you were just simplyfying things, but I wanted to check 

Viv


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Viv,
         While there are some plants, like cactus or pineapple, that carry on with some segments of photosynthesis at night, the vast majority do not have have these capabilities. These special plants use a system called Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) where they collect CO2 at night and store the CO2 as a special acid called Malate. The stored Malate can then be broken down and converted back to CO2 to be used during the day when ATP and Ferrodoxin (NADP) can be produced by the light. Why use CAM? Well, the plants that use CAM mostly live in areas where water is scarce, so if they open up their pores to let in CO2 then water escapes, so the strategy is to keep their pores closed during the most arid conditions and to open the pores at night, when it's cooler.

Are there aquatic plants using CAM? Yes, absolutely, and the reason is similar, in some waters CO2 might be at it's highest concentration at a time of the day when the sun is not shining, possibly due to lower temperatures for example, so they collect CO2 and store it as Malate, then they wait until the sun shines to perform the entire sequence. Different plants will have different CAM abilities. Some may be better able to capture and recycle the CO2 released by respiration.

Generally, it is not really true that "only" ATP is produced during the day and is stored for night use. I'm pretty sure that this is a misinterpretation of the two main photosynthetic systems. 

Photosystem 2, Also Known As PSII, is referred to as the light dependent System. This system is a series of protein complexes each of which performs a vital function. PSII is the system that uses the majority of the light energy to produce ATP. 

On the other hand Photosystem 1 is referred to as the light independent or, dark reaction, and so many people think that this only happens in the dark, but this is not true. In fact it was discovered that PS1 needs light to produce enough energy to reduce Ferrodoxin. PS1 is where sugar is produced by a process known as The Calvin Cycle, and it uses the ATP that was just produced by PS2. So, the chloroplast does not store ATP because these molecules are immediately sent to the PS1 Dark Reaction center. PS1 and PS2 must work in concert, and they must do so in the light. The word "dark" was completely misused in describing this function. Even the expression "Light Independent"  is a misnomer, because as I mentioned, PS1 has a protein complex known as P700, 700 referring to the maximum wavelength used by pigment cells in this protein to complete the Redox reactions necessary to complete the Calvin Cycle. 

The other carbon compounds that you mention would all strictly be intermediates of, or subsequent conversion of the primary sugar 3GP (Glyceraldehyde 3-Phosphate). So for example an intermediate carbohydrate would be 1,3Biphosphoglycerate (3-PGA) and a subsequent conversion would be fructose or glucose (but these are post C-Cycle products). The 3-PGA is kind of a "pay the rent" carbohydrate for the cells doing this work.
Of course, since this is a cycle, there is regeneration, so some of the 3GP returns to the top of the cycle as RuBP, facilitated by the addition of a little more ATP.

I really have very little idea how Gluteraldehyde is handled metabolically, but Barr equates it to CO2, so whether this is actually CO2 that enters the Calvin Cycle or whether he is referring to it as CO2 schematically is unclear.

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

Wow   

Thanks ceg this stuff is great... So I have now removed the melted plants, they had entirely melted even below the substrate. Since then I upped the liquid carbon dose and fertilisers and have been watching the remaining plants carefully. All is well today (couple of weeks later) so I have planted some new ones.

Just a quick one... You said that liquid carbon overdosed is toxic (same as CO2 I assume) Is that for fish and other inhabitants only or does an overdose have a negative affect on the plants. I only have plants in the tank at the mo while I am tweaking the doseage.

Also regarding the new article that was mentioned earlier... can you recomend any good reading on all this stuff? It's nice to be able to benefit from advice from somebody like yourself, but everything that I read (fish books and plant books) all seem to have the same stuff inside. And they all seem a bit dated (just read in a thread about a week ago that the mid photoperiod siesta to prevent algae growth was a myth!?)

Thanks again Ceg, I look forward to the article!   

Jack


----------



## ceg4048

jalexst said:
			
		

> ... You said that liquid carbon overdosed is toxic (same as CO2 I assume) Is that for fish and other inhabitants only or does an overdose have a negative affect on the plants...


Well, liquid carbon toxicity has nothing to do with CO2 toxicity. This needs to be very clear in our minds. The liquid is absorbed by the plant and is then converted by chemical reactions internal to the plant. The chemical agent of all liquid carbon products is a chemical called GLUTARALDEHYDE which is an extremely bio-toxic substance. Do a search on this forum for glutaraldehyde and you read some very alarming facts. These are some of the industrial uses of glutaraldehyde:
Most often used to disinfect equipment that cannot be heat sterilized such as dialysis and surgical instruments.
A tanning agent.
A biocide in metalworking fluids and in oil and gas pipelines.
An antimicrobial in water-treatment systems.
A slimicide (kills organisms in wood pulp that produce slimy excretions) in paper manufacturing.
A preservative in cosmetics.
A tissue fixative in pathology labs.
A hardening agent in the development of X-rays.
Used in embalming solutions.

Not all plants respond well at all to glutaraldehyde. In fact, more "primitive" plants such as liverworts and bladderworts are at it's mercy and will completely melt if the concentration is too high. Each plant seems to have it's own level of toxicity concentration. The mechanism is a cytotoxic attack to the tissues, meaning that the individual cell walls are disrupted and breached, spilling the fluid contents of the cell. That's how it kills bacteria and therefore sterilizes. So it does the same thing to some plant cells and some algae cells, and can do the same to shrimp in high enough concentrations. You should definitely keep it away from kids, avoid inhaling it and avoid getting it on your skin, just to be on the safe side.

It may also be that too high of a concentration level of gluteraldehyde disables one or more stages of the Light dependent reactions or of the Calvin Cycle reactions causing the same effect as if there was a CO2 shortage.

Of course the percentage of glutaraldehyde in liquid carbon is very low so the health risks are mnimized, but you should still be careful. The toxicity of CO2 is a completely different mechanism, and that occurs only in fauna, not in flora. Have a look at the information contained in http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14774



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> can you recomend any good reading on all this stuff?


It's always worth checking out Diana Walstad's  Ecology of the Planted Aquarium



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> ...(just read in a thread about a week ago that the mid photoperiod siesta to prevent algae growth was a myth!?)...


Yes, an unfortunate myth started by a famous aquatic supplier's marketing department. People who use siestas get just as much algae as anyone else, if not more. There are lots of myths, and they're not all debunked in the same place, so one just has to keep reading in the right places. You should also read the Newsletters on  The Barr Report - but you have to pay to access the Newsletters.

Cheers,


----------



## jalexst

Thanks Ceg,

I had no idea about Glutaraldehyde   

Thanks for the recommendations too, I remember reading over and over about the siesta period (!) not that i was doing it   

So if a specific plants Glutaraldehyde limit is exceeded and the plant dies, is the result the same as a melt due to lack of CO2? What i mean is that when a plant melts, it could be due to lack of CO2 or an overdose of Gluteraldehyde? (for that specific plant)

Just a quick skim read of a Tom  Barr thread is proving very interesting... 

Cheers.

J.


----------



## ceg4048

jalexst said:
			
		

> I remember reading over and over about the siesta period (!) not that i


I'm gonna show you the origin of the myth. Remnants of it still remain here=> http://www.dennerle.eu/global/index.php ... 99&lang=en

So you can see that everything on that particular page, written and/or espoused by an otherwise reputable company is complete rubbish. The theories and conclusions are the worst kind of popular tripe, and is only fit for print in the centerfold of The Daily Star. No testing, no verification, no data, just some zany conclusion drawn up by someone in the marketing department who has a dreamy personal vision of how reality ought to be. So, unsuspecting victims read that stuff and have no reason to question it. It must be true right?



			
				jalexst said:
			
		

> So if a specific plants Glutaraldehyde limit is exceeded and the plant dies, is the result the same as a melt due to lack of CO2? What i mean is that when a plant melts, it could be due to lack of CO2 or an overdose of Gluteraldehyde? (for that specific plant)


Yes, it's very difficult to tell the difference because we cannot see what's happening at the atomic level, we only see the result, which is melt. The only way we know the difference is by having the empirical knowledge of what plants are involved and how much Excel has been added. As I mentioned, liverworts and bladderworts have a very low tolerance. Species like Pelia, Utricularia, Riccia have a known low tolerance. Elodia and possibly Egeria respond poorly. Vallis has a higher tolerance than these but not much higher (smaller dosages have been reported successfully). On the other hand, all carpet plants, mosses, crypts, Blyxa, hygrophila, ferns, Ludwigia, Althernanthera, Micranthemum, Staurogyne, Limnophilia and many other have a high tolerance and respond brilliantly. Ambulia (Limnophilia indica I believe) should have a high tolerance, but I've not used Excel on this particular plant. So if the plant in question was one of these latter types then it's safe to conclude that melting was due to insufficient Excel dosing, not due to too much dosing. The only way to verify is to increase the Excel dosing and to see which of the originally affected specimens respond well and which respond more poorly.

Cheers,


----------



## darren636

it would seem that someone made up a load of waffle and stuck it on that website! But at least they say you do not need to replace their light tubes every year... Which is a refreshing surprise.


----------



## cogo

Hi, I am quite new in aquarium hobby (2 months). I've learn a lot from this forum, Tom Barr forum and from posts from Spider in Polish Language forums. I know that usually problems are caused by too much light and insufficient ferts - mainly CO2. However, I realized that there is another problem which is not articulated enought in EI method: not enought ferts due to active substrate like my Aquatic Nature Pro Soil. 

Even if I have relatively small biomas and I dose EI recomended amounts of ferts, I had large problems with algae and plants grow rate due to not enought PO4. It is because my substrate consumes almost all of it. For every day in this week I dose 2ppm of PO4  but after some hours it is like 0.5ppm. So it is important to emphesise that in NEW TANKS WITH ACTIVE SUBSTRATE it is good to monitor level of ferts because there can be not enought phosphorus EVEN IF YOU DOSE 100% EI. Somethimes it is good to do some water tests...


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
         The expression "active substrate" is another marketing term and is completely meaningless. All substrates are active in the sense that there are bacteria living in the sediment and yes, bacteria need PO4 also, however, more than likely your problems were due to insufficient flow/distribution, NOT due to anything that the substrate was doing. If your plants were displaying deficiency symptoms then why on Earth would you need to test. The plants are telling you what you need to add. No test kit can tell you that with any greater accuracy.

As it so happens, if your flow and distribution methods are sloppy then there will be insufficient nutrient uptake efficiency and therefore you will need to add more nutrients/CO2 in order to make up for that inefficiency.

Cheers,


----------



## Deano3

Wow amazing info there I also agree you should do a tutorial very very helpful to me as I am new, so melting or any defect in plant is caused by lack of flow or not enough nutrients compared to lighting

Thanks again ceg
Dean


----------



## cogo

I do not agree that in my setup the problem was a flow or CO2 . I have 30l shrimp cube with external Tetra EX 400 and it is really enough flow in my 30cm/30cm aqua. I have also external CO2 reactor made from aquafilter and for many days without shrimps I added way to much CO2 then it is advised. One week ago I realized that my NO3 is 35ppm, and PO4 is 0,2pmm. N03 was blocked by not enough of P04. And now is the best part of this story: in last week I add 55ml of Easylife Fosfo (that is 9,9ppm for a week) and it is still not enough. I can dose 2ppm of P04 and after 3 hours I see only 0,5ppm in the water. 

Other people from Polish forums indicate the same problem with Aquatic Nature Pro Soil: it eats PO4. And somethimes it is important to know that.


----------



## OllieNZ

Hi Clive,
I was wondering about cryp melt. I've just moved some crypts from my low tec 4ft into my 30l nano. The main difference between the 2 tanks is my 4ft is straight tap at 14Gdh and my nano is RO remineralised to around 3Gdh. Is this a Co2 related issue or down to the change in hardness? Only the crypts have melted the h. compacta from the same tank is showing no issues.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Ollie,
             Yes this is a CO2 issue. Often the crypt will melt and then regrow leaves that are better adapted to the level of CO2 present in the tank.



			
				cogo said:
			
		

> I do not agree that in my setup the problem was a flow or CO2 . I have 30l shrimp cube with external Tetra EX 400 and it is really enough flow in my 30cm/30cm aqua. I have also external CO2 reactor made from aquafilter and for many days without shrimps I added way to much CO2 then it is advised. One week ago I realized that my NO3 is 35ppm, and PO4 is 0,2pmm. N03 was blocked by not enough of P04. And now is the best part of this story: in last week I add 55ml of Easylife Fosfo (that is 9,9ppm for a week) and it is still not enough. I can dose 2ppm of P04 and after 3 hours I see only 0,5ppm in the water.
> 
> Other people from Polish forums indicate the same problem with Aquatic Nature Pro Soil: it eats PO4. And somethimes it is important to know that.


When you follow the path of test kits you will forever be chasing your own tail. What is Aquatic Nature Pro Soil made out of? What do the makers say about it? If other people from Polish forums are as addicted to test kits as you are then it's no wonder they also have problems. Easylife Phospho has virtually no Phosphorous in it so you should try dosing potassium phosphate which is about 100X cheaper and therefore 100X more effective.

Cheers,


----------



## Deano3

you are very helpful ceg can i ask you a qustion do you think this kit is good to get into dosing ferts etc ad starting the learning process

http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/fert ... r-kit.html

think you should make a doing ferts/lighting tutorial
thanks Dean


----------



## cogo

Hi Ceg4048,

Thank you for your time.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Easylife Phospho has virtually no Phosphorous in it so you should try dosing potassium phosphate which is about 100X cheaper.


Yes, I know that know. I bought an Easylife Line when I was setting up my first aquarium 2 months ago  And after that I've read a lot about EI from You and Tom Barr and I've learnt a lot  

But I really do not understand why my PO4 level was so low. And it is true that I needed to dose much more EasyLife Fosfo then it is recommended by EI Calculators. Now I use KH2PO4 for two days . I'm going to dose 6-7ml 3 times a week 2g/250ml solution).

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Dean,
           Thanks a lot mate. Glad you find the information useful. Yes that is an excellent package and I would recommend it highly. John does a good job of packaging all the things you need to get going. I actually do have a couple of tutorials. There is a forum section called Tutorials in which I discuss EI using these very same dry powders. Other members have posted articles about light and CO2 as well so it would be a good idea to check that section and read the threads. Lots of good information in that section.

Cogo, you really need to stop testing. Did you realized that PO4 test kits don't actually tell you anything about PO4 levels? No one is really quite sure what they measure, but it's very random and sometimes you actually get a correct reading. 

If you have PO4 deficiency then you might see GSA or possibly stunted growth. If you have a lot of plant mass then they will also gobble up a lot of PO4 if your lighting is very strong. If you have hard water and you are not careful about how you add trace element (if you add micros at the same time as macro) then you might also be precipitating PO4 and iron from the water. There are many combinations, but GSA or weak, stunted growth are the most reliable indicators. It's difficult to troubleshoot from far away and to not have all the facts. Is this what you were seeing. I'm interested in what your plants are telling you. I never bother thinking about what a test kit tells you because test kits lie, but algae and plants always tell the truth.

Cheers,


----------



## cogo

Ceg,


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Cogo, you really need to stop testing... I never bother thinking about what a test kit tells you because test kits lie, but algae and plants always tell the truth.
> Cheers,


If you can INTERPRET their signs... You have to realize that I, as many of newcomers in this hobby, can not judge a condition of plants properly. I don't know how they should look like, what is a "good growth rate", what color should they have, etc. I'it much more easy to read test parameters. I know that I will learn that from my experience, but this needs time...

Here is my aquarium setup:
Age: 2 months
30x30x35 Nano Aquarium - 30l
Lamp: 26W (Solar Duo Boy http://www.aquatic-nature.be/eng_duoboy.html ) I tern it on for 8 hours.
Filtration: Tetra EX 400 with Ball Pipe
Temperature: 24C
CO2: Pressured  into DIY TermoReactor made from Inline Aquafilter with Heater. I add 1,5 bouble per second od C02  1,5 hours before the light turns on. (C02 test is olive green)
Soil: Aquatic Nature Pro Soil
Roks: 8kg 

Flora: 
Riccia Fluitans
Rotala indica
hemianthus micranthemoides
hemianthus callitrichoides cuba
Cladophora aegagropila
Fauna:
10x Shrimp White Pearl

Fertilizers:
Dry Salts
EasyLife ProFito, Carbo, and Ferro
Dosing Method: Full classic EI 3x a week. 2ml Easy-Life Nitro, 7ml Easy-Life Fosfo (changed by dry Kh2PO4), 1ml Carbo, 1ml K form some potasium ferts, 1ml Easy-Life ProFito, 1ml Easy-Life Ferro

Problems:
1. Diatoms on rocks and glass. Now, (after adding more P04 for one week? ) diatoms are going more brown. 
2. Some GSA on rocks.
2. Hemiantus Cuba do not grow well enough (many lives are very small and brown). 3 weeks ago I made 4 day blackout because I had strange brown hair algae and diatoms. And after that I lost almost half of my hemiantus cuba...)
3. Old leaves on hemiantus m. and rotala are dark green / browny, new are fresh green.
4. Some new leaves on rotala indica are without chlorofil (there are transparent "holes")

Cheers,


----------



## Deano3

Thanks ceg, I will order one of those kits, I have read ur ei dosing tutorial it's very good, so are the chemicals in that kit the same as the ones u described in ur tutorial ? Also I was planning on using a fire extinguisher co2 system would you advise using co2 and using the ferts in the kit ? 

Going to order that kit and should last a while on my aquarium when arrives, only 38l 

Thanks again ceg
Dean


----------



## ceg4048

> Thanks ceg, I will order one of those kits, I have read ur ei dosing tutorial it's very good, so are the chemicals in that kit the same as the ones u described in ur tutorial ? Also I was planning on using a fire extinguisher co2 system would you advise using co2 and using the ferts in the kit ?


Yes they are exactly the same although depending on your water, you might need to add some Epsom salt, but leave that for now, just get started and we can make an assessment later. The EI article and these packs absolutely assume that the tank is being enriched with CO2, so yes a FE setup is the way to go. There is a Tutorial in that same forum section written by Sam (Themoluous). If you decide against using CO2 then you don't need nearly that amount of dosing.


Cogo, yes, I understand your dilemma, however, the "easiest" thing to do is not always the correct thing to do, and the problems with this ease is that the kit is like a bear trap for your mind. You will forever think that they know more than you do.

26 watts over a 8 gallon tank is a lot of light, so you are immediately stressing the plants the moment that you flood the tank. You might have been better off starting with the 13 watt version. So this high energy sets up a series of environment requirements that demands massive CO2 levels. When that amount of light turns on in the morning, you need to have the the dropchecker in the yellow, NOT olive green. This poor CO2 is the fundamental cause of all the symptoms, and I mean all of them, items 1 through 5 that you have described. The cause is exactly as I discussed in the beginning of this thread. It really has nothing to do with PO4.

When we describe the requirement for the dropchecker to be green, we are assuming that the level of lighting in the tank is below a certain threshold. If you had a PAR meter you would be able to measure the amount of energy being blasted into the tank and this radiation energy destroys plant tissue. The only way to stop the destruction is to provide massive amounts of CO2 so that the plants can make enough food to repair their damaged tissues. Your plants are simply starving to death and no amount of PO4 can fix that, only Carbon can fix it. The solution is simple; 
1. Reduce the amount of light intensity either by changing the bulb to a lower wattage, or by putting something in between the lamp and the tank to block some of the light, or....
2. Increase the bubble rate so that when the lights go on the dropchecker is in the yellow.

Since you have the diatoms already blocking the light is the best way to eliminate them, and to keep the plants from disintegrating adding more CO2 is necessary, so I would suggest that you do both assuming you don't have fish or that you can put the fish somewhere else.

Cheers,


----------



## cogo

Ceg, many thanks for your advise and time 


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Cogo, yes, I understand your dilemma, however, the "easiest" thing to do is not always the correct thing to do, and the problems with this ease is that the kit is like a bear trap for your mind. You will forever think that they know more than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the risk and that many folks are trapped by "test addiction", i.e. dosing ferts based on daily / weekly testing. I know that many aquarist companies and sellers just messing in our heads in order to sell their products.
> However, sometimes it is good to confirm your judgments which are based on aquarium health by doing some tests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When that amount of light turns on in the morning, you need to have the the dropchecker in the yellow, NOT olive green. This poor CO2 is the fundamental cause of all the symptoms, and I mean all of them, items 1 through 5 that you have described.The cause is exactly as I discussed in the beginning of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thanks for that. Now I realized looking in my aqua diary that most of my measurments of PH by JBL PH Test was made after lights down (8.00PM). After turning the light off it is about 30ppm C02 (KH7, PH6,8). I've looked also on drop checker, but it is unrealible because it needs several hours to change color. However, now I see that I made 2 tests at about 4 P.M. (4 hours after lights up) and C02 was like 20-26ppm. So maybe I've got CO2 problem in the middle of the day when I am at work. I will check it out once more and increase CO2 level a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really has nothing to do with PO4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. Even it is CO2 problem, I had also deficiency in P04 as my test consistently shows in last week. This lack can have something to do with 2 time blackouts, my Pro Soil or my worries about overdosing Po4 (in first month of my aquarium).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is simple;
> 1. Reduce the amount of light intensity either by changing the bulb to a lower wattage, or by putting something in between the lamp and the tank to block some of the light, or....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want to do that. A month ago I bought 13W bulb and use it for 2 weeks, but nothing changes except HC wasn't pearling. My main aim for now is to grow Hemianthus Cuba and get rid of Rotala and Riccia, which I use only to increase biomas. So I will have a look once more to CO2 level and increase dosing PO4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you do both assuming you don't have fish or that you can put the fish somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got shrimps so I have to be careful with CO2.
> 
> All in all, thank you for your great advises in this forums. I will let you now if my situation is better.
> Best wishes,
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


----------



## Deano3

Thanks a lot ceg very very helpful and informative , I will be making a co2 fire extinguisher set up along with purchasing them ferts, I am currently looking for adjustable regulator and all the parts for my co2 , also looking for a beetle counter and diffuser but don't want to pay fortune, I am starting to learn now about the plants and high light means u need high co2 an ferts to feed the plant so doesn't starve and so it has its energy to grow so slowly learning hope all goes well, if I had any questions I will let you know

Thanks again 
Dean


----------



## TopKat75

Hope you guys dont mind me jumping in on these posts but i have to say Ceg that this thread has been absolutely fantastic to read as a newbie and just what i have been looking for, very educational without getting too complicated and whilst i'm still trying to understand some points you've made on a whole i feel like i know what to look for and why its happening when things go wrong   I was a bit concerned when you said about liquid ferts   


> ceg4048 wrote:
> Umm...I NEVER pay attention to manufacturers dosing recommendation. That's because manufacturers don't have my tank, with my lighting, with my flow, with my environmental stresses. So they have no clue about what's happening in my tank. In fact, I don't bother with manufacturer's dosing products at all if I can help it, because their nutrient products are about 100 times weaker than they should be.


 Whilst i understand what you are saying i've recenting purchased the Easy Life fert package,
1 x ProFito 500ml
1 x Ferro 500ml
1 x Fosfo 500ml
1 x Nitro 500ml
Dont know your thoughts on this range but say for my 190l tank they recommend 20ml a week of Profito am i actually better off using 3x that amount and similarly with the other ferts? Also seeing as the Profito is meant to be an all in 1 fert do i need to be adding the others whilst i'm using it, is there such a thing as overdosing on ferts thus creating algae problems. I know you cant be exact with any answer as each tank is different but i'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the matter, 
Thanks Brooke


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Brooke,
               Happy to hear that you find the data useful. 

My thoughts on profito are summed up in the thread http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3123. It's exactly why I made the statements that you were concerned about. You would be miles ahead of the game if you ordered the EI starter pack from our sponsor aquariumplantfooUK EI Starter kit  then, sit down with a large mug of tea and have a thorough read of the thread EI DOSING USING DRY SALTS in the Tutorial section of the forum.

Cheers,


----------



## OllieNZ

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi Brooke,
> Happy to hear that you find the data useful.
> 
> My thoughts on profito are summed up in the thread http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3123. It's exactly I made the statements that you were concerned about. You would be miles ahead of the game if you ordered the EI starter pack from our sponsor aquariumplantfooUK EI Starter kit  then, sit down with a large mug of tea and have a thorough read of the thread EI DOSING USING DRY SALTS in the Tutorial section of the forum.
> 
> Cheers,



 :text-+1: 

I agree with clive. I use Profito but only as a trace mix alongside potassium nitrate and potassium phosphate dry powders for macronutrients


----------



## TopKat75

Thanks for the links Clive i appreciate it, yeah been reading about these ferts a lot since joining the forum and they've got very good reviews its a  shame i bought the prolife bits before i joined as lots of folk talked highly of these as well. I've put an order in for some, is the starter pack sufficient for my needs?
Hi Ollie, you say you use the prolife as a trace mix? What does this entail? Can i still use the prolife in some capacity just seems a shame to of bought it and not being able to put it to good use!!


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Brooke,
               Yes that will get you where you need to be. As Ollie mentioned, Profito is just a trace element mix with a little bit of Potassium (K) mixed in. All the stuff in the Easylif bottles you mentioned have almost exactly the same nutrients compound as found in the dry powders, just 100X less that's all. The shame is not because you cannot put it to good use. The shame is in how much you paid for the same stuff that costs 100X less on a per gram basis.   

So, you can just add these in the same manner as you would the powders but just multiply the dosages by a factor of 5. Add the 5X profito + ferro together 2X per week. Profito has microscopic amounts of Cobalt, Lithium, Molybdenum, Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Copper, Boron, Magnesium, while ferro has only Iron. (these two are a facsimile of the CSM+B mentioned in the tutorial.) Then, for the primary macro dosing, multiply the bottle suggested weekly dosage by 3. That value is how much you need to dose the fosfo + nitro together 3X per week.

So a sample dosing scheme might look like:
Sunday - 50% or more Water Change then add 3X bottle recommended dosage of fosfo+ nitro.
Monday - add the 5X dosage of profito + ferro.
Tuesday - add 3X bottle recommended dosage of fosfo+ nitro.
Wednesday - add the 5X dosage of profito + ferro.
Thursday - add 3X bottle recommended dosage of fosfo+ nitro.
Friday and Saturday - rest.

Cheers,


----------



## Brian Murphy

By dosing profito x 5, will it not harm the fish ?


----------



## TopKat75

Bless you Clive, that really has taken away the worry of guesstimating how much i need when adding these ferts   and something Prolife really should of stated somewhere within this range. I can see now why if i continued using the prolife at the realistic measurements you've given you would spend a small fortune on this   stuff Thanks again Clive for your help its very much appreciated  
Brooke


----------



## jack-rythm

This FAO ceg...

Can I just ask what your background is? I'm just dying to know what do in life fella? Who the hell are u! When I read your posts I need to reed them a fair few times but damn once I have grasped it it's a better lesson than anywhere ever. I have truly never met such a knowledgeable, informative, truthful aquaria hobbyist in all my journey of Aquascaping. You went to be done sort of biologist? I don't know. Could you just give me a lowdown and just give a little about yourself? 
for the time that you have put into your comments and your patience you have with others my friend, I truly thank you  

Jack

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ceg4048

Murf said:
			
		

> By dosing profito x 5, will it not harm the fish ?


Have you been reading what I've been saying for the past two pages? What I'm saying is that there are only microscopic amounts of the required elements in these bottles. When you multiply a microscopic number by 5 or by 10, or by 100, the result of that calculation is still a microscopic number, so toxicity is not an issue. 

The next time you're in a pub, ask the bartender to give you 1  teaspoon of your favorite brew, and then pour that teaspoon full into a 1 liter bottle. Then fill the bottle with water. Then, have a sip. How does this taste? Like water right? Will it make you drunk if you consume the  entire bottle? The smart answer is "No", because it was only a teaspoon of beer. OK, try this experiment again, this time asking Jeeves to give you 5 teaspoons of brew. Fill the bottle again and take a swig. How does this taste? Does it still taste like crap? Can that intoxicate you if you consumed that liter?

My point is, what would you think if all pubs made it their policy to serve patrons a ratio of 1 teaspoon beer to 1 liter of water? Wouldn't you think it outrageous? If all pubs did this, wouldn't you try your best to learn about home brewing and to brew your own 100% beer? Well, this is exactly what companies that sell aquatic fertilizers do, but somehow, people seem to be OK with this policy. In order to make sure that people keep buying these watered down products, they cleverly devise a propaganda scheme in which they convince you that adding a higher concentration will cause algae, so you immediately forgive them their trespasses against you and keep buying their product. So their profit margin on a bottle of fertilizer is something like 10,000%. If you were in business wouldn't you do exactly the same? This is just business as usual on Planet Earth and I cannot hold it against them, but you and I have an alternative, which is the the same as the homebrew analogy. We can "brew" our own using the raw ingredients that they themselves use, and we can produce 100% nutrition for a fraction of the price.

People who are new to the planted tank scene don't realize the torturous history of fertilization, and how hobbyists have been painfully screwed over royally for years. I'm one of the last survivors of the Psychic Wars. A famous German company, who I will not name, pulled this maneuver in the 1990's. But  their profit margin was something like 100,000% and they would sell the fertilizer in tiny 100ml bottles. A couple of clever hobbyists (Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin) who happened to have access to a mass spectrometer at their workplace, and who were outraged at the pricing policy, took samples to the lab, and they discovered that the bottle contained nothing more than KNO3 + K2SO4 + Epsom Salt + Chelated trace elements + water, stuff that you could find in any garden center. This is the same stuff that farmers purchase by the ton. This is exactly the same nutrients used to produce the tomatoes, potatoes, and all the other fruits and vegetables that you eat every day. There is no drama or toxic radioactive ingredients to worry about. It's the same active ingredients found in cow, chicken or pig manure, and it's in the dirt under you backyard lawn right now. You don't need to fear this stuff. It's fundamental to health and growth of every living thing on the planet.



			
				jackrythm said:
			
		

> Can I just ask what your background is? I'm just dying to know what do in life fella? Who the hell are u! When I read your posts I need to reed them a fair few times but damn once I have grasped it it's a better lesson than anywhere ever.


Thanks mate. I'm an international terrorist accused of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Some authorities claim that I'm the most dangerous man alive.  8)


----------



## Nathaniel Whiteside

But Clive, I like the pretty green colour of TPN+


----------



## jack-rythm

Thanks for the feedback there ceg

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Deano3

very helpful and i am new and glad on forums like this so dont go to the likes of pets at home to buy plant ferts at the high prices

Dean


----------



## Brian Murphy

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Murf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By dosing profito x 5, will it not harm the fish ?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been reading what I've been saying for the past two pages? What I'm saying is that there are only microscopic amounts of the required elements in these bottles. When you multiply a microscopic number by 5 or by 10, or by 100, the result of that calculation is still a microscopic number, so toxicity is not an issue.
> 
> The next time you're in a pub, ask the bartender to give you 1  teaspoon of your favorite brew, and then pour that teaspoon full into a 1 liter bottle. Then fill the bottle with water. Then, have a sip. How does this taste? Like water right? Will it make you drunk if you consume the  entire bottle? The smart answer is "No", because it was only a teaspoon of beer. OK, try this experiment again, this time asking Jeeves to give you 5 teaspoons of brew. Fill the bottle again and take a swig. How does this taste? Does it still taste like crap? Can that intoxicate you if you consumed that liter?
> 
> My point is, what would you think if all pubs made it their policy to serve patrons a ratio of 1 teaspoon beer to 1 liter of water? Wouldn't you think it outrageous? If all pubs did this, wouldn't you try your best to learn about home brewing and to brew your own 100% beer? Well, this is exactly what companies that sell aquatic fertilizers do, but somehow, people seem to be OK with this policy. In order to make sure that people keep buying these watered down products, they cleverly devise a propaganda scheme in which they convince you that adding a higher concentration will cause algae, so you immediately forgive them their trespasses against you and keep buying their product. So their profit margin on a bottle of fertilizer is something like 10,000%. If you were in business wouldn't you do exactly the same? This is just business as usual on Planet Earth and I cannot hold it against them, but you and I have an alternative, which is the the same as the homebrew analogy. We can "brew" our own using the raw ingredients that they themselves use, and we can produce 100% nutrition for a fraction of the price.
> 
> People who are new to the planted tank scene don't realize the torturous history of fertilization, and how hobbyists have been painfully screwed over royally for years. I'm one of the last survivors of the Psychic Wars. A famous German company, who I will not name, pulled this maneuver in the 1990's. But  their profit margin was something like 100,000% and they would sell the fertilizer in tiny 100ml bottles. A couple of clever hobbyists (Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin) who happened to have access to a mass spectrometer at their workplace, and who were outraged at the pricing policy, took samples to the lab, and they discovered that the bottle contained nothing more than KNO3 + K2SO4 + Epsom Salt + Chelated trace elements + water, stuff that you could find in any garden center. This is the same stuff that farmers purchase by the ton. This is exactly the same nutrients used to produce the tomatoes, potatoes, and all the other fruits and vegetables that you eat every day. There is no drama or toxic radioactive ingredients to worry about. It's the same active ingredients found in cow, chicken or pig manure, and it's in the dirt under you backyard lawn right now. You don't need to fear this stuff. It's fundamental to health and growth of every living thing on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackrythm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just ask what your background is? I'm just dying to know what do in life fella? Who the hell are u! When I read your posts I need to reed them a fair few times but damn once I have grasped it it's a better lesson than anywhere ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks mate. I'm an international terrorist accused of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Some authorities claim that I'm the most dangerous man alive.  8)
Click to expand...


Excellent Ceg    .... don't think I'll be splashing out them moneys again lol


----------



## Mon_Men

ceg4048 said:


> My point is, what would you think if all pubs made it their policy to serve patrons a ratio of 1 teaspoon beer to 1 liter of water? Wouldn't you think it outrageous? If all pubs did this, wouldn't you try your best to learn about home brewing and to brew your own 100% beer? Well, this is exactly what companies that sell aquatic fertilizers do, but somehow, people seem to be OK with this policy. In order to make sure that people keep buying these watered down products, they cleverly devise a propaganda scheme in which they convince you that adding a higher concentration will cause algae, so you immediately forgive them their trespasses against you and keep buying their product. So their profit margin on a bottle of fertilizer is something like 10,000%. If you were in business wouldn't you do exactly the same? This is just business as usual on Planet Earth and I cannot hold it against them, but you and I have an alternative, which is the the same as the homebrew analogy. We can "brew" our own using the raw ingredients that they themselves use, and we can produce 100% nutrition for a fraction of the price.
> 
> 
> 
> People who are new to the planted tank scene don't realize the torturous history of fertilization, and how hobbyists have been painfully screwed over royally for years. I'm one of the last survivors of the Psychic Wars. A famous German company, who I will not name, pulled this maneuver in the 1990's. But their profit margin was something like 100,000% and they would sell the fertilizer in tiny 100ml bottles. A couple of clever hobbyists (Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin) who happened to have access to a mass spectrometer at their workplace, and who were outraged at the pricing policy, took samples to the lab, and they discovered that the bottle contained nothing more than KNO3 + K2SO4 + Epsom Salt + Chelated trace elements + water, stuff that you could find in any garden center. This is the same stuff that farmers purchase by the ton. This is exactly the same nutrients used to produce the tomatoes, potatoes, and all the other fruits and vegetables that you eat every day. There is no drama or toxic radioactive ingredients to worry about. It's the same active ingredients found in cow, chicken or pig manure, and it's in the dirt under you backyard lawn right now. You don't need to fear this stuff. It's fundamental to health and growth of every living thing on the planet.


 

One of the best analogies I have ever encountered.

Even if its belated, I totally agree with the ferts. Everything mentioned is spot on - especially the way the manufacturers package their products. I have a 200g tank and I am saving a lot of money by mixing my own macro and micro ferts. ceg4048 is right - with just caution in mixing, there is no danger. I have invested in an accurate weighing scale. The investment is so much lower compared to getting ferts from manufacturers who sell them for around $10 per 250ml.


----------



## Paulo Soares

HI Clive here i´m after reading all this as you suggested, 

Can someone explain me better this quote:

*



			The one ph drop method involves leaving a cup of tank water standing for 24 hours. If the pH of the tank water is one point lower than the water in the cup then it is said you have 30ppm CO2. This does presume that you have 3ppm CO2 in the cup of tank water which very rarely is the case.
		
Click to expand...

*
Let´s see if i get this right. Today after the photoperiod, i take a cup (for instance of 30 ml) of water tank and leave it outside in a cup. 
Tommorow at the same time when photoperiod ends, i measure the PH in the tank and also in this 30 ml in the cup and compare. 

Is this the method? 

But this wont´tell me WHEN do i achiev that difference i´m gonna see. When? When do i achieved this difference? In the begining or in the midle or only in the end of the photoperiod?  That´s the question.

What i need is to ensure that in those two previous hours before lights up i have allready a good Co2 in the tank as Clive always said in many posts. But i can´t! 
Cause when i regulate the Co2 valve in order to achive a 1PPM drop in those couple of hours i have a problem pretty soon .. by the midle of the photoperiod all fish are stressed in the top of the water.. 

So.. how in Gods name i´m gonna put good levels of co2? I´m really getting piss off with the co2.. 
This Saturday i´m gonna make a video. I´m going to gaz co2 to achiev 1 ppm drop and then you´ll see.. 


And also, today i´m gonna put one pump next to the outflow to increase flow. The plants will be dancing all around...


----------



## Paulo Soares

One gentleman in the Barr Report told me to this:

"Measure your c02 rate:

*1. Take a measuring cup with markings for ml.
2. Get it in the aquarium till is filled with water and turn it over submerged.
    Fill with water and submerge in the tank
3. Take the c02 hose and place it UNDER the cup so the bubbles go into the cup.
4. Time for 60 seconds and let us know how many ml were displaced by the c02 bubbles.

This will be your Co2 rate, is simply too low as well."*


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Paulo,
            Sorry mate, I don't think that quote came from me, so I'm not really sure how to address it. I would have to see the context of that paragraph.

In any case I don't think that you are on the right path if you are thinking in terms of cups and bubbles and ml markers.

What I would have stated is that within a certain KH range, a 1 pH drop is a good indicator that you are diffusing an adequate amount of gas into the water column. I never think in terms of ppm values because they are all illusions. It's a very bad idea to get trapped with numbers that no one can measure accurately. If you have a £1000 CO2 meter you can get accurate values, but we should be less concerned with numbers and more concerned with an injection rate, dissolution technique and distribution method that keeps plants healthy and which does not kill fish.

So, at KH of say, 6-10 a 1 pH unit drop by the time the lights come on from the time the gas is turned on is a good basic starting point.
Again, this is only one piece of the puzzle. You have to make sure that the gas does not continue to drive the pH too low as this will indicate toxic levels, so sometimes you have to accept a smaller pH drop to stay on the safe side. The other factors need to be optimized, and of course, the lighting needs to be within reason. Too much light will cause so much stress that only levels of the gas which are toxic to fauna will suffice to keep the plants healthy. If fish are stressed then look at distribution. Is flow good? Is the flow pattern good. These are not as easy to answer as "How many bubbles do I have?".

At higher alkalinity, above 10 then there is sufficient acid buffering in the water to absorb the carbonic acid, so that the pH indication is less dramatic and so a smaller pH drop can be expected to indicate adequate gas concentration levels. At low kH there is very little buffering, so small gas concentration levels drive the pH more dramatically, one needs to look for a larger pH drop to indicate adequate levels.

You seem to be focused primarily on injection rate and it is less clear how you are addressing the other factors. You haven't discussed flow rates or distribution methods, yet these are the keys to using LESS injection rate to ensure healthy plants.

Cheers,


----------



## Paulo Soares

ceg4048 said:


> You seem to be focused primarily on injection rate and it is less clear how you are addressing the other factors. You haven't discussed flow rates or distribution methods, yet these are the keys to using LESS injection rate to ensure healthy plants.



Hi Clive, 
You´re right and the issue is really the flow/circulation. Yesterday i did an experience meanwhile we were talking during the day. As My Eheim filter is about 750 liter hour, in the morning I put a pump in the tank of 400 liter hour. 
Didn´t change anything in the co2 injection as it was before. I only introduce that pump right next to the ouutflow filter both pointing in the difuser direction. 

When i got home the drop was almost transparent, a bright bright almost transparent yellow and the fish were all at the top. My "Helenas" hide inside the substratte, and the shrimp climbing the glass... luckily no deads. God was with me.. 
I did an imediate waterchange and all came to normal. 

*But here i rest my case.*. and as tommorow is Saturday i´m going to dedicate the day assembling the co2 to a right injection cause now i can see that with this waterpump inside i dont´need so much injection and now i also see the losses of co2 i was having before. And of course the need of a new filter to replace this.. a new one with at list 1000 liter / hour.

Of course now the plants that are on the oposite side of these outflows direction are dancing rock and roll and i didn´t want this to happen (i just don´t like it) but i think i had to live with this...isn´t that so? But the other plants below the outflow are shaking just a bit. The normal.(i just can´t figure out how those ADA guys do it in so calm waters...). 

But there´s one positive thing also.. didn´t have the need of buying a ADA diffuser but clearly a new filter.  
And as those ADA people don´t care about claims and solicitations or care about their clientes, as i did to them 3 times now a claim for help, without any answer so far, i no longer will buy any product of them. Love with love to pay. 

As for you and all frineds many thanks. 
A huge HUG


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Paulo,
              Glad you were able to discover the answer. As I mention many times, flow rate and distribution are key components to gas uptake. Now it's just a matter of finding the best compromise of injection rate and flow rate.

As far as the ADA tanks, they can get away with a lot less flow rate because primarily they use much less light. Their ADA florescent ballast produces less than half the energy as normal ballast, however, the bulbs are very high in green and yellow. The human optic nerve is very sensitive to green and yellow and is much less sensitive to red and blue. So when the bulb illuminates, we perceive it as being very bright compared to a bulb that has less green/yellow and more red/blue. So, even though the actual PAR value output by the ADA bulb/ballast combination is very low, it still appears bright to us. Without understanding this fundamental concept, hobbyists run around in a hysteria claiming that they need high light and special Kelvin to make plants grow. They purchase non-ADA lighting fixtures that pump out massive amounts of PAR and the result is disaster. Now they need massive amounts of CO2 in order to support the high light.

When we focus on gas exchange in plants, instead of on exotic lighting parameters, we discover the truth that water and CO2 are as important as light. Each environment presents a different challenge and has a different combination of the three. Think about the fact Sahara desert has plenty of light but a shortage of water, while England has much less light but has plenty of water. Which land can support more plants? In an aquatic environment, there is plenty of water but not much CO2, so CO2 will always be the limiting factor in an aquatic environment.

As far as your new filter, ensure that it's throughput rating is at least 10X the volume of your tank per hour, or if you choose to use supplemental pumps, you might be able to use several smaller pumps that can still enhance the flow but perhaps will not cause as much turbulence.

Cheers,


----------

