# Nitrates and EI dosing



## Thrills24 (30 Jan 2015)

I have been testing my nitrates daily. I already knew they were high from previous tests but wanted to see the rate of absorption by my plants and long story short I'm considering mixing up an macro fert solution that doesn't have Nitrates in the mix.

Has this been done before? Would you recommend it?

I know how important nitrates are in a planted aquarium and in the composition of EI / plants but my London tap water is Nitrate rich and 40ppm is perhaps too high especially since I intend on keeping shrimp.


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Jan 2015)

Thrills24 said:


> Has this been done before?


Yes, The Matrix is full of people who delude themselves into thinking they can measure NO3 with cheesy NO3 test kits.



Thrills24 said:


> Would you recommend it?


No, it's recommended to simply get over NO3 because shrimp don't really care, contrary to popular beliefs.
If you insist on being NO3 OCD then simply delete the dosing and carry on. If the water is as rich in NO3 as stated then there will be no issues. If it's not then the tank will let you know after a few weeks in no uncertain terms. That is a much more sensible approach than wasting time, money and energy playing NO3 measurement games.

Cheers,


----------



## Thrills24 (31 Jan 2015)

I have actually come to dread your posts @ceg4048 

You have an unusually harsh and quite condescending way of responding to people on this forum who dare ask a question. The matrix is a film. I'm not deluded, simply unsure of an approach which is why I asked a question. I'm not playing "measurement games" and my time, money, and energy is also mine to waste however I see fit. If for some reason me posting about this hobby on a forum, specifically founded for that purpose inspires a response like the one above... Then I'd like to invite you to simply ignore, block my user profile, or refrain from responding to me at all.

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Jan 2015)

Sorry, but I'm harsh for a reason. It forces folks to think about what they believe because there are illusion out there which are very comfortable to believe. You really cannot reliably measure nutrient uptake rates with hobby grade test kits, and lots of people have tried it, each believing in the validity of their test kits which are lying to them. Then they draw conclusions falsely and perpetuate the falsehoods based on these faulty results.

Test kits are not something you should be playing with right now. You should be learning how to observe your plants and animals so that you don't need to put your faith in these kits. I can always tell when I have a CO2 or PO4 or NO3 problem and none of that requires a test kit. It's easy to determine the onset of a problem an to take the right action by learning to observe and seeing the results. That is a much more useful strategic goal than getting caught up in number and will make you a better plant grower.

But many don't want to hear that. They would rather the comfort of the illusions.

So I guess the response is aimed at other members who read the thread, and If someone thinks the proposal is a good idea it will not stop them from posting either. In any case, I apologize and shall accept your invitation.

Cheers,


----------



## Thrills24 (31 Jan 2015)

Understanding the biology of my tanks is something I can do by eye. Plants lack a certain nutrient they begin to display that loud and clearly. I got that stage via the help of others. Someone who wants to learn, will. Someone who wants to achieve something will put in the time to achieve that goal. Especially since anything worth having is something you have to work at annually. But your posts, at least in relation to what I've seen are something else entirely. What I read was...

Matrix, deluded, and cheesy and that was just your opening gambit.

The most ironic thing is that recently, I was searching the net for info on a plant and google led me back here, to a post you made years ago. You were unsure but nobody here responded to your post with unnecessary criticism, just help and advice. I'm just asking for the same courtesy.

Truth be told, you don't have to _try_ and shame me into learning. Not when I'm already here trying to do just that.


----------



## kirk (31 Jan 2015)

Just my bit, I actually like clives approach, some people like myself need convincing there is so much rubbish out there ( the matrix), clives replies all be them strait to the point have saved me money and kept me in the hobby longer than if I hadn't found ukaps. Also my pond looked  great in the summer thanks to ei thanks to Clive.  Nothing realy personal about clives comment either.  If you don't like clives post why not ignore him mr smith.?


----------



## RossMartin (31 Jan 2015)

I agree with Kirk!


----------



## Dan-CR4 (31 Jan 2015)

I also think Clive's approach is cool, he gets right down to it and gives some great advice albeit straight to the point. The Matrix he talks about does make me chuckle but when he replies to people I don't think he is trying to shame people in any way, well I have never taken it like that.

What is often written on a forum can so be misinterpreted in dso many different ways and does not always sound they way in which it was written. As said above if there is anyone whose advice you don't want, i am sure you can block them in some way or just skip over there posts.


----------



## kirk (31 Jan 2015)

Dan-CR4 said:


> What is often written on a forum can so be misinterpreted in dso many different ways and does not always sound they way in which it was written.


   so what are you trying to say?     I agree especially if your grammar is poor like mine.


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Jan 2015)

Thrills24 said:


> Truth be told, you don't have to try and shame me into learning. Not when I'm already here trying to do just that.


Thrill,  
         I'm not trying to shame you or anyone mate. I want you to see the truth, and I'm having to reveal the same truths for decades now. There are companies out there who only care about money, so they will tell you anything in order to win your cash. Test kit companies are one of them. And they don't care whether you succeed or not because there is always another fish on the hook. They will get rich.

I care that you know the truth and that you spread the truth. Isn't that what the Matrix films are all about? I think the analogy is apropos, and that's why I use it. It's not about playing mind games. It's about giving you something to hang on to.

So for example, that whole business about inverts not liking nitrates is another illusion. Check my post in this thread http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/ferts-causing-high-nitrate.16092/#post-167069

So that claim is all rubbish, but folks swallow it hook line and sinker, so it trains them to be paranoid about NO3 when they really don't have to be. That illusion then becomes their opening gambit. So what I'm trying to force you to do is to ignore those things that don't really matter and to spend your energy on the things that really matter.

So lets think about the scenario you mentioned for a moment. Adding more NO3 drives more growth and more CO2 uptake. So the plants will remove mor toxic CO2 from the tank. Good for shrimp. Adding more NO3 drives the photosynthetic apparatus faster and produces more Oxygen in the water column. Good for shrimp. More Oxygen is also sent to the roots, feeding the bacteria that convert ammonia in the sediment to NO3 and reducing the toxicity of the sediment to shrimp that are rummaging around in the sediment looking for food.

Furthermore, the plants will uptake NO3 and NH3/NH4 from the sediment as well as from the water column, so even if your test kit were consistently accurate you would not be accounting for the vast stoores of Nitrogen compounds in the substrate. So you whatever number you come up with will not be accurate.

NO3 uptake rate is also dependent on CO2 uptake. The more CO2 you add the more NO3 will be removed from both water column and sediment.

NO3 uptake rate is also a function of PAR. What PAR you have on one tank will not necessarily be the same as another tank, so you could not transfer the data.

NO3 uptake will also be a function of temperature, which drives the metabolic rate.

NO3 uptake rate will also be a function of PO4 uptake, so that if you dose more PO4 then this will drive a higher NO3 uptake rate.

NO3 uptake rate will also be a function of plant mass, more mass requires more of everything. Whatever number you measure today will not be valid a month from now, unless you can maintain the same mass both above or below the substrate.

So, because NO3 production and uptake vary wildly with all these different factors - and also each of these factor have are interrelated with each other (i.e. each has an effect on the other) it becomes a hopeless exercise to draw any kind of general conclusions and to then apply it to another tank.  

When T. Barr did his experiments to find the answer to this same question about uptake rates, he had to be very precise and had to isolate many different factors that had an effect. None of us have this level of laboratory control. So tanks, as a system, can uptake anywhere from a few ppm per week to 5pp or even 10ppm per week. Which number is applicable to any one tank? And how can you base a dosing program not knowing where any particular tank sits in this range? And how much NO3 do you have to actually dose in order to achieve any specific rate?

This is specifically why I stated that if you wish to believ that your tap water is high in NO3, then simply delete or significantly reduce the KNO3 input and add K2SO4 so that you don't fall behind on K. Many people do that - but why bother, when shrimp do not really care anyway? London Dragon had a shrimp tank where he miscalculated the dosing and was adding 10X EI. There were no issues.
Other EI dosers have no difficulty attributable to their high NO3 dosing. The empirical evidence is there.

So all of this long winded explanation is to convince you that you do not need to try this, and if you did you would be wasting energy because you cannot control the factors, and even if you did miraculously find an accurate number ,it would not be applicable to anyone else's tank or even applicable to your tank on another day.

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Feb 2015)

As above, but on a side note. Recently I decided to do a little experiment where I thought I would withdraw my dosing a little and see how far I could push. Not because I'm frightened in any way of no3 but purely to reduce my tds a little for some soft water species. Because my lighting isn't the highest I assumed I had some wiggle room. I started off with dosing 20ml being a full EI dose then dropped by 1ml per month. I only got down to 18ml and I started getting thick surface scum.
Now checking the forum the jury was out because I saw experts having this issue (probably with over feeding) which I assumed wouldn't be nutrient issue given their expertise and others says it's caused by waste given off if plants are struggling. Either way I went back to 20ml and the surface scum disappeared within 2 weeks.

If you wanted to try the same thing with your no3 them maybe try that way. Adding a little pot sulfate like reg says so you can know if anything goes wrong which it is out the two. Like Ceg says though and as in my case the tank will tell you far more than the kit.


----------

