# PPS pro



## Martin in Holland

Does anyone here use or did use PPS pro fertilizing? Did it satisfy you? Is it indeed as easy as it claims to be?


----------



## Jose

I used it and I cant say nothing good about it. I believe its designed for a certain ammount of light and CO2.You can have lower light but not higher or youll get algae. You can have good results with it if you get lucky or are sure about the ammount of light that you have.


----------



## GTL_UK

I used it with good results


----------



## Jose

Plants either have enough ferts (more than needed) or not enough. Whether you are on one side or the other of hte coin is pretty much down to luck (or lack of it)


----------



## GreenNeedle

I wouldn't call the PPS Pro method easy to be honest.  If I remember correctly it start s reasonably simple but then there's testing and altering the recipe over time?  I think Peter Kirwan (Zig) has used it.


----------



## parotet

Hi all

I am using PPS-Pro, TBH something between EI and PPS-Pro, which is at the end a kind of unlimited fert dosing but not that massive as EI. BUT I keep on with my 50% 2x WC per week and moderate light (I'd never suggest get rid of WCs as originally PPs suggested).
PPs-Pro used like that is nothing new but another way of delivering unlimited nutrient to your tank. Why have I changed from EI to PPS-Pro then? Because I want to keep my PO4 dosing much lower to have steady but slower growth than with EI. Keeping my CO2 as it was with EI, PPS-Pro is working much better. My guess is that less PO4 gives me slow growth and better/easier control on CO2 (maybe due to slow growth rate, other nutrients demand?).
Most people will say that EI has no standard doses and that you can reduce it to fit your needs... Well, I guess I can be that.

Jordi


----------



## Martin in Holland

PPS as far as I know should give just enough ferts for a steady growth, but how much is enough?.....my tank may have more plants than another one's tank....
I am actually asking about PPS pro, because I want to get a more slow, steady growth with less light and a little bit less CO2, also to keep my TDS lower as this often went over 500 and the floating plants were getting salt on their leaves and after trying a lower dose (in my smaller tank) with a fert from the shelves, they do better. My aim is to change my 300 liter tank and use plants that are better in lower lights (ferns, anubius, crypts, moss......) but I don't want to go totally low tech.


----------



## parotet

Martin, as mentioned before the only different to me between EI and PPS-Pro (at least the way I am using PPS-Pro, that is keeping on with WC, no tests, etc.) is that the weekly dose of PO4 has gone from 3-5 ppm to 1.5 ppm. My light is around 50 micromol at the substrate, thus moderate light. The tank is crowded of stem plants. What I found is that my 2 bps through inline atomizer and spraybar all along the tank back is fitting much better with the nutrient/light. I cannot be sure why... My initial idea was that once PO4 is not limited and that high (EI) CO2 is again the limiting factor, thus pushing PO4 would be a way of pushing more and more the CO2 demand. But this assumption is probably wrong as there may be a limit in which plants cannot uptake more PO4 or CO2. The other option is as simple as assuming that PO4 limits growth very significantly thus makes easy CO2 management (easier to keep good flow, proper CO2 levels when plant biomass grow, less PO4 available for algae)
But again, it may not be true.
Probably my PPS-Pro approach is not the standard one, that is why I was saying it is something between PPS-Pro and EI, a reduced EI, etc. anyway, call it what you want but it works better for me.

Disadvantages when changing from EI to PPs-Pro? Light melting of some Cryptocoryne that are immediately growing back and some BGA on the front bottom glass due to less NO3 (also seems to disappear). However I adapted the fert dose along two weeks.

Jordi


----------



## Martin in Holland

Thanks Jordi, 
I am aware that some plants will melt or get a bit of a shock when going from EI to a mild form of EI (PPS pro), I guess they need to get use to lower light but most of all lower CO2.


----------



## parotet

Martin in China said:


> I guess they need to get use to lower light but most of all lower CO2.


I don't think you have necessarily to reduce light (unless you have super photon bombing light which of course will boost plants' uptake and probably will create some other side-effects problems. But that's not a problem of EI, PPS-Pro, PPS, PMDD... it's just a matter of common sense when managing planted tanks). I don't think you have to adjust/reduce CO2 either.
IMO, no matter what's the name of the system used, you want:

- unlimited ferts. In that case the only thing really being discussed here is the "amount of unlimited ferts": massively unlimited (classic/recommended EI recipe) or slightly unlimited (PPS-Pro). As I don't want to play with fire (and my tank has now loads of plants), I use something a bit higher than PPS-Pro to make sure I won't starve plants. If I prune I would stick to PPS-Pro levels

- as good levels of CO2 you can achieve. I cannot find it anymore but there was a very good paper on Tropica website about optimum growing conditions. The conclusion was: work with the better CO2 you can achieve and moderate light.

- enough light for good growing (that obviously will be the main driver for the above mentioned items)

- WCs and tank husbandry (that's the other difference for me with PPS-Pro which claimed to be a system in which you could avoid WC... I think avoiding WCs is really a mistake)

If you already have god Co2 and moderate lighting, there is no need to change them. Do two 50% WCs in a week, begin to dose with your new stock solution but use 2x or 3x PPS-Pro doses and then reduce to the levels in which your plants do well.
The main advantage for me has been a lower impact of BBA and staghorn on old, bottom and shaded leaves (new growth has never been a problem in my case).

Think about Tropica/Seachem/Vimi or whatever commercial fert dosing schemes (more information here http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_compareFert. You will notice that PPS-Pro is just a kind of DIY version of these... as flexible as these are (add more when plants ask for it).

Jordi


----------



## Jose

limiting phosphates with medium to high light will generate all kinds of problems, mainly algae and ssuffering plants. If you guys want slower growth or lower dosing then the best aproach is to lower the light which is what drives everything else. Then as you have less light you can dose proportionally less and you can also do less water changes.

I once tried pps pro and I never stopped having algae. If you use it you wont know why you are having so many problems. With pps pro plants will suffer releasing ammonia, which they wont be able to take back in because they dont have other nutrients. If you have very low light then pps pro will work of course.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> limiting phosphates with medium to high light will generate all kinds of problems, mainly algae and ssuffering plants





Jose said:


> If you guys want slower growth or lower dosing then the best aproach is to lower the light which is what drives everything else



Yep, this is something in which we all agree... but I guess this is not what is being discussed here (or at least what I meant in my post)



The point is that unlimited amount of PO4 can be 10, 5, 3 or 1 ppm... it depends on your setup. With EI we are making sure that it is really/highly unlimited (standard/recommended EI dosing, see the Barr Report Forum or UKAPS tutorials, delivers between 2 to 5 ppm of PO4 weekly) BUT it doesn't mean that lower amounts can be also unlimited. There is strong empiric evidence that managing successfully a planted tank adding less PO4 than in EI is possible (see Tropica website and read high light tank specs... actually see thousands of successful moderate/high lighted planted tanks in the world which are managed with much less nutrients than EI recommends).

What does this really mean? First of all, that other fertilization approaches work (which is by the way something obvious). Also, that we do not really know what is an "unlimited amount of PO4 or whatever other nutrient" in a planted tank, as it is different in every tank, there are different plants and the average uptake can even change while the tank grows (this is another good reason to always dose unlimited). And finally, it is easy to imagine that EI is not the only fertilization scheme that ensures unlimited nutrients.

EI defenders will argue: don't fear excess of nutrients, drecrease nutrient levels until you notice bad effects if you are worried, EI was not meant to be rigid but a flexible scheme, the advantage is that there is not need to test, etc.
"Other methods" defenders will say: what's the need of dosing so much if it is not needed, other methods are also flexible as EI claims to be thus can be increased or decreased, in most of them there is not really a need to test, etc.

In other words, we are all saying exactly the same:

1. make sure you understand that you DO need to add ferts (including NO3, PO4 or whatever) in a moderate/high light planted tank,
2. make sure you do know what you are adding in each dose....
3. ... and finally do what you want with the amounts of nutrients added, but avoid being under the red line (starving plants) if you want a healthy tank

Jordi


----------



## Jose

I dont get your point Jordi. Ill have a better read when I have more time, But I believe what is being discussed is pps pro. It was designed to limit plant growth with phosphates. Its most probably going to be the limitting factor since you are only adding 0.1 ppm of PO4 a day. So why are you saying Im missing the point. I dont think its too complicated. You are either dosing enough ferts or too little ferts. With pps pro you are most probably going to be underdosing, thats all Im saying and whether you are succesfull or not will depend on the ammount of light that you are shooting at your plants.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> So why are you saying Im missing the point


Sorry Jose, didn't want to offend you... probably my English was not good enough and I was saying something in the way I shouldn't



Jose said:


> You are either dosing enough ferts or too little ferts


What I have tried to explain is that PPS-Pro can deliver enough nutrients to avoid plant starvation, depending on each one's setup. Also that PPS-Pro can be as fexible as other method regarding dosing, WCs, etc.
I am not trying to defend one or another method... I just try to explain that all of them are more or less the same and based on the same principles (enough nutrients + well adapted to light levels).

Jordi


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> limiting phosphates with medium to high light will generate all kinds of problems, mainly algae and ssuffering plants.


I have to disagree. I have a densely planted tank with high light (100 µmol PAR at the substrate, and 400 µmol PAR at the water surface), and 20-30 ppm CO2 with low ferts dosing (especially phosphates), and have no algae problems. All my plants are doing great. No BGA, GSA, nor GDA. So having a great planted tank with high light and low ferts without algae is perfectly possible. I see no point in using EI when my plants are not able to utilize such amount of nutrients.

Also I don't agree with a statement that "Plants either have enough ferts (more than needed) or not enough". Sorry to say that, but that's a nonsense. Plants don't need to have an non-limiting amount of nutrients to grow well. And if they have non-limiting amount of nutrients, it doesn't mean that they are starving. If plants have a non-limiting amount of nutrients they just grow more slowly. If some plants have light saturation point at 600 µmol PAR, and you give them only 100 µmol PAR, then they'll grow maybe on 70%. As long as they have more light then is their "light compensation point", they'll grow just fine. The same applies for nutrients (incl. CO2). If some plants have CO2 saturation point at 35 ppm, and you give them only 10 ppm, they'll grow maybe on 70% of their maximum possible photosynthetic rate. And if some plants have NO3 saturation point at 10 ppm, and you give them only 5 ppm, they won't grow on 100%, but still they'll grow and do just fine. The deficiencies will occur only if some nutrients drop under the minimum level needed for positive growth (i.e. compensation point). So if the light and nutrients level is higher then their compensation points, then you don't need to worry about your plants. And believe me that these compensation points are quite low. For most aquatic plants 5-10 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4, and 15 ppm CO2 is more then enough for good and healthy growth (under strong light of 100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate).


----------



## GreenNeedle

ardjuna said:


> Also I don't agree with a statement that "Plants either have enough ferts (more than needed) or not enough". Sorry to say that, but that's a nonsense. Plants don't need to have an non-limiting amount of nutrients to grow well. And if they have non-limiting amount of nutrients, it doesn't mean that they are starving. If plants have a non-limiting amount of nutrients they just grow more slowly. If some plants have light saturation point at 600 µmol PAR, and you give them only 100 µmol PAR, then they'll grow maybe on 70%. As long as they have more light then is their "light compensation point", they'll grow just fine. The same applies for nutrients (incl. CO2). If some plants have CO2 saturation point at 35 ppm, and you give them only 10 ppm, they'll grow maybe on 70% of their maximum possible photosynthetic rate. And if some plants have NO3 saturation point at 10 ppm, and you give them only 5 ppm, they won't grow on 100%, but still they'll grow and do just fine. The deficiencies will occur only if some nutrients drop under the minimum level needed for positive growth (i.e. compensation point). So if the light and nutrients level is higher then their compensation points, then you don't need to worry about your plants. And believe me that these compensation points are quite low. For most aquatic plants 5-10 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4, and 15 ppm CO2 is more then enough for good and healthy growth (under strong light of 100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate).



Not sure I agree with that.  That statement seems (forgive me if I'm not understanding properly) that plants have individual and independent 'compensation points' for each nutrient/light.

I pretty much agree with the statement earlier.  All this talk of slowing plants down by limiting nutrient just causes me mass confusion.  In my opinion as well as understanding light is the key to speed of growth coupled with CO2.  If either of these 2 are high without sufficient nutrients it won't slow growth it will cause massive problems.  Reducing light and CO2 reduces need for nutrient so all of these compensation points are relative and not independent.

i.e. if you have very high light and good CO2 enrichment then there will be a higher 'minimum' of each nutrient required than if you have a lower light non CO2 enriched setup.

I think all the talk of phosphate misses the mark really.  Not so much phosphate is needed as many of the other elements and in reality I think most EI users could get rid of phosphate from their mix completely and rely on what is in the tap water + fish wastes etc.  Some wouldn't but phosphate is not really one of the problems in my eyes.

The reason for EI is pretty much ease of use.  PPS Pro is not flexible as suggested above.  It is a rigid regime (or at least was when I first read about it on APC) where you start off with set amounts and then test for residual at intervals and adjust you next solution to take residual into account and on it goes.  It also had a 15ppm CO2 enrichment.  Therefore if that isn't what you are doing then it isn't PPS Pro.  It is your own hybrid version of it.

EI is flexible.  All the recipe is is a starting point, a suggestion and it 'estimates' that you are adding more than you need.  If you adjust it you are still estimating.  30ppm is the suggestion and most go with it.  50% water change is the suggestion and most go with it.

Personally I use a mix similar to TPN+ which has a little more Phosphate and a little more Iron in it and add 5ml a day to my main tank which is about 2.5x the dosage Tropica used to advise on their label.  That is the key though.  Experience and trial and error tells us what is right.

So if you are using PPS Pro, EI, ADA, Tropica the only thing that matters is does it work for you, question the reasons why it works for you, question if you could go lower or not and thats about it.  For me personally I don't use PPS Pro because I like to keep my CO2 higher and there is no way in the world I am going to test my tank periodically.  I haven't tested tank water for anything in years.


----------



## Jose

No worries parotet no offense taken, Im just interested in debating and getting to the bottom of things.




ardjuna said:


> I have to disagree. I have a densely planted tank with high light (100 µmol PAR at the substrate, and 400 µmol PAR at the water surface), and 20-30 ppm CO2 with low ferts dosing (especially phosphates), and have no algae problems. All my plants are doing great. No BGA, GSA, nor GDA. So having a great planted tank with high light and low ferts without algae is perfectly possible. I see no point in using EI when my plants are not able to utilize such amount of nutrients.
> Also I don't agree with a statement that "Plants either have enough ferts (more than needed) or not enough". Sorry to say that, but that's a nonsense. Plants don't need to have an non-limiting amount of nutrients to grow well. And if they have non-limiting amount of nutrients, it doesn't mean that they are starving. If plants have a non-limiting amount of nutrients they just grow more slowly. If some plants have light saturation point at 600 µmol PAR, and you give them only 100 µmol PAR, then they'll grow maybe on 70%. As long as they have more light then is their "light compensation point", they'll grow just fine. The same applies for nutrients (incl. CO2). If some plants have CO2 saturation point at 35 ppm, and you give them only 10 ppm, they'll grow maybe on 70% of their maximum possible photosynthetic rate. And if some plants have NO3 saturation point at 10 ppm, and you give them only 5 ppm, they won't grow on 100%, but still they'll grow and do just fine. The deficiencies will occur only if some nutrients drop under the minimum level needed for positive growth (i.e. compensation point). So if the light and nutrients level is higher then their compensation points, then you don't need to worry about your plants. And believe me that these compensation points are quite low. For most aquatic plants 5-10 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4, and 15 ppm CO2 is more then enough for good and healthy growth (under strong light of 100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate).



Hi ardjuna,

First of all I would like to know if you have a fertile substrate in your densely planted tank?

Nutrients in a planted tank cannot be compared to light or CO2 in the way that you did in the last post because of a simple reason: you have a constant external supply of light and CO2 whilst not the same for nutrients. It doesnt matter how much nutrients you have in your water as long as they dont bottom out. You can have 0.1 ppm of phosphates in your water without a problem as long as plants dont run out of it. To achieve this you might need to dose a few times a day or you ought to have a fertile substrate or a lot of organic matter decomposing and releasing phosphates. So in order to not have to do so much work people just dose once every two days or so a bigger ammount.

Light is what drives photosynthesis so if you limit growth with one of the nutrients say phosphates then you normally end up with GSA or other problems. This has been proven hundreds of times and I really doubt that you are the first who can keep a very high tech tank (100 PARand good CO2) without dosing enough nutrients. I can bet my ass that you are either dosing more than you think or you have a fertile substrate which is by the way the reason why ADA tanks work so well with its line of fertilizers being so diluted.


----------



## Jose

SuperColey1 said:


> I think all the talk of phosphate misses the mark really. Not so much phosphate is needed as many of the other elements and in reality I think most EI users could get rid of phosphate from their mix completely and rely on what is in the tap water + fish wastes etc. Some wouldn't but phosphate is not really one of the problems in my eyes.


Hi Supercoley, I agree with most things you said but not with the above statement. Phosphate is taken as an example because it has the least effects on the plant if you limit it. Most times its chosen to limit growth because its sideffects are the mildest (GSA) and that is why its one of the most talked about..

The bottom line is If a method works its because its supplying enough nutrients for a given ammount of light although the way it achieves this might be different (substrate/water column). I really hate the fact that people pay more for some methods just for faith and because theyve seen more great tanks done with this method, its all down to the simple fact stated before.

By the way if anyone is interested they can read opinions on pps pro and see that most users have to modify the recipe and end up dosing more phosphates so as not to get so much green spot algae


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> And believe me that these compensation points are quite low. For most aquatic plants 5-10 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4, and 15 ppm CO2 is more then enough for good and healthy growth (under strong light of 100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate).



This is in fact nonesense. The nutrients ppm level is not really that important (although it does effect growth), whats important is that your water does not bottom out of nutrients at any time. Its all about the relationship; uptake of nutrients from the plant and the addition of nutrients by the aquascaper, the substrate or whichever the source of nutrients is. They have to be the same in the long run. Its very hard to make those two factors exactly the same and thats why we dose in excess.


----------



## Jose

By the way ardjuna, if you dont have a fertile substrate then Id like to know you photoperiod please? Thank you.


----------



## parotet

SuperColey1 said:


> So if you are using PPS Pro, EI, ADA, Tropica the only thing that matters is does it work for you, question the reasons why it works for you, question if you could go lower or not and thats about it.





Jose said:


> I really hate the fact that people pay more for some methods just for faith and because theyve seen more great tanks done with this method


Absolutely... fertilizing a planted tank is something far from being rigid. I don't care what the "book of rules" of EI or PPS says, what is said in the directions of a comercial fert bottle or what miraculous ingredient comes in a cool and extremely expensive fert bottle... I just try to understand what I'm doing and adapt the method to my tank needs. Not easy at the beginning but your eyes can tell you a lot more than anything you can read.



SuperColey1 said:


> PPS Pro is not flexible as suggested above.  It is a rigid regime (or at least was when I first read about it on APC) where you start off with set amounts and then test for residual at intervals and adjust you next solution to take residual into account and on it goes.  It also had a 15ppm CO2 enrichment.  Therefore if that isn't what you are doing then it isn't PPS Pro.  It is your own hybrid version of it.


You're probably right about my own hybrid version. But I am not sure why EI can be so flexible and other methods not... this same problem is quite frequent in forums with people using bottled stuff and sticking strictly to the directions. Once again, fert methods are just a rule of thumb, at least this is my approach to all of them, whatever their name is.
Just a beatiful example in this forum from someone using PPS-Pro fine-tuned to his needs: http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/from-tranquility-island-to-a-dutch-touch-200l.30256/ using the standard dose (see first pages where it is mentioned, no extra PO4 added), not testing (see also comments about this in these first pages), weekly WC, with high light and no GSA problems.



Jose said:


> By the way if anyone is interested they can read opinions on pps pro and see that most users have to modify the recipe and end up dosing more phosphates so as not to get so much green spot algae


Don't want to be unpolite Jose (I don't want to be misunderstood again please...), but this sentence has been repeated thousands of times in forums: "Method X don't work and you will end up with algae"... It is a very generalistic statement that really hides a huge complexity and you mentioned yourself that


Jose said:


> I really hate the fact that people pay more for some methods just for faith and because theyve seen more great tanks done with this method


Me to, and honestly we are not sponsoring or defending any of the methods. ADA, EI, PPS-PRO, Tropica fert methods can be succesful or fail (see in this forum plenty of examples for all of them) and we all are aware that other aspects of tank management are much more important than your fert method as long as you satisfy plants demands.
I am not defending EI or PPS-Pro (or any other method), I just try to understand them. For whatever reason a variation of PPS-Pro is working much better than EI in my tank (as it happen with the tank linked or with other thousands of tanks) but I would never dare to say that EI will cause you algae problems.



Jose said:


> The bottom line is If a method works its because its supplying enough nutrients for a given ammount of light


IMO this is the conclusion of this interesting discussion... this is really the point. Poor Martin opened this thread asking a simple question about PPS-Pro and my answer was saying something like "in my case PPS-Pro (or whatever variation of it) delivers enough nutrients (including PO4) for the light I have".

Cheers,
Jordi


----------



## Martin in Holland

parotet said:


> Poor Martin opened this thread asking a simple question


Don't worry...it's starting to get more and more interesting. I just have a goal in mind for my new setup which requires less strong current as I want my Lelies to reach the surface...


----------



## Jose

Hi Parotet and everyone,
The tank you posted has probably got a fertile substrate. This is where loads of nutrients come from, probably more than than a full ei regime. This sort of tanks is where the myths start because people dont see the whole picture. People think you can keep this type of tank with gravel and pps pro (well you cant). But a lovely looking tank anyway.
Yes pps pro works if you have a fertile substrate because this is where nutrients come from. Also pps pro works without a fertile substrate if you have lower light. You see thats the good thing about EI, it rules out everything else.
Basically if youve got a fertile substrate you can dose very lean if you want but the concentration of nutrients in the water column will probably be quite high. But for example I could keep the same tank with gravel or sand and not have to do so many water changes in the beginning.


----------



## Jose

For a newbie you can recommend pps pro if they have a fertile substrate but nobody asks if this is the case before recommending it do they? They just say, it works for me. So the newbie goes and tries it with inert sand and he runs into problems. This is why if someone asks if pps pro works I am very straightforward and say it doesnt. It might work for them but I just like things that work all the time which dont make this hobby look like a religion where you have to say a prayer to your tank to see plants grow nicely. Of course it can work, but it doesnt work well most of the times so.....

For me (bare this in mind): PPS Pro = Fail (unless bla bla bla)

Now, Im willing to change my mind: If someone can show me a few tanks that use pps pro without a fertile substrate and that use high light and high CO2.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> The tank you posted has probably got a fertile substrate


It is JBL Manado... see post #60, not really a rich nutrient substrate. But anyway, as you said it is quite dangerous to get obssessed with one tank you like and try to follow blindly its approach as a religion. It may sound weird but different ferts methods work as long as they work for you 

Jordi


----------



## Jose

If you look carefully he seems to have added a layer of another substarte Parotet for the HC carpet. Wonder why? You can see the different colours, This guy has probably done a bit of trial and error. Plus his light doesnt look that strong (although Im guessing here). It all adds up.


----------



## parotet

Ok, I surrender... EI came to save our tanks
(I'm joking mate, don't misunderstand me please)

Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Ok, I surrender... EI came to save our tanks
> (I'm joking mate, don't misunderstand me please)
> Jordi



Hahaha! Hey dont worry Im not an ogre (not always anyway)

Listen I just used a calculator to find out how much he is dosing and it turns out he is dosing 1.4 ppm of phosphates a week. Thats quite near EI which is around 2 ppm, and double what pps pro recommends which is 0.1 ppm a day. Please dont surrender it was getting fun now.

p.s; I dont use EI method per se in my tanks. For example if I have low light I dose 1/5 EI and change water maybe once a month. But I do monitor ammonia only. And also I use only black inert sand.


----------



## parotet

Jose... back again... 



Jose said:


> and double what pps pro recommends


Yep, this is actually this "something between EI and PPS-Pro" I was mentioning at the beginning of this thread. In fact I began with 4xPPS-Pro (which was very similiar to my EI previous dosing), then reduced progressively to 3 and 2xPPS-Pro (similar to 1/3EI?) and now I am around 1,5xPPS-Pro... mollecules are mollecules, we can give them the names we want. Flexibility and good understanding for adaptation to our tank, that's all we need. But it is really difficult to communicate this to beginners. Just imagine if a newbie reads all this  he/she would probably forget about planted tanks for ever and ever!

Cheers,
Jordi


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> But it is really difficult to communicate this to beginners. Just imagine if a newbie reads all this  he/she would probably forget about planted tanks for ever and ever!



Lol, yes this is true. And its why I dont recommend pps pro, because beginners do use methods rigidly.


----------



## Marcel G

> If either of these 2 (light or CO2) are high without sufficient nutrients it won't slow growth it will cause massive problems.



That may be true for some extreme values and conditions, but you need to take into account that in an average planted tank we use quite low light of 200-400 µmol PAR at water surface (in comparison to full sunlight which gives around 2000 µmol PAR at the water surface). So our light intensity is ALWAYS limiting for our plants, so at these "low" light values the nutrient uptake is quite low. Besides this, the growth rate difference under 200 µmol vs. 400 µmol PAR is not so big (maybe 10-20%). So would you realize any difference on your plants, if they grow 10 inches vs. 12 inches per week? THIS exactly is the difference between 200 vs. 400 µmol PAR. The same applies for nutrients. The EI recommended "non-limiting" values are (according to my opinion) just way off the reality. Even the most invasive aquatic plants under full sunlight don't consume such a high amounts of nutrients (nor CO2). For example, for Ceratophyllum demersum (= really invasive aquatic plant species) the CO2 saturating point is 22 ppm (500 µM). If you would lower CO2 concentration to 18 ppm, the Ceratophyllum will grow at 98%. At 13 ppm CO2 the plant will grow at 95% of it's maximum; at 9 ppm CO2 => 81%. So do you really see any big difference between 10 ppm CO2 and 20 ppm CO2? The difference in biomass yield is only 20% between 9 ppm vs. 22 ppm CO2, and only 5% between 13 ppm vs. 22 ppm. Do you think you would even notice such a low difference in plant biomass in your tank? And now take into account that we speak of Ceratophyllum demersum, which could be hardly compared to any other average aquatic plant we grow! So this difference in biomass gain will be even lower with other plant species. With the nutrients uptake (NO3 & PO4) the differences might be bigger between plant species, but again the difference between 3 ppm NO3 and 0.15 ppm PO4 vs. 20 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 might be no more then 50%. And for most aquatic plants the concentration of 5-10 ppm NO3 and 0.2-0.5 ppm PO4 should be more then enough for a good growth. If you really need for your plants to grow at 100% growth rates, then you can add 30-50 ppm NO3 (or even more) and 1-5 ppm PO4. But if you can make do with 70-90% then it should be sufficient to add 5-10 ppm NO3 and 0.2-0.5 ppm PO4 for most aquatic plants. I don't see any substantial difference between 100% and 80%, but I see a big difference between 50 ppm NO3 vs. 10 ppm NO3.

BTW, I have two tanks right now. One with ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia, and the other with nothing (no substrate, no filter media => just plants in a little plastic caps with small amount of quartz). In both tanks I use 100-120 µmol PAR at the substrate. In none of the tanks I have any algae problems. Although in the substrate-less tank there are some algae visible, but nothing serious. In both tank there are good levels of oxygen (more then 100% saturation during photoperiod), and good levels of CO2 (20-35 ppm). When I add high amounts of nutrients into my substrate-less tank, the shoots (growing tips) of Althernanthera mini, Pogostemon erectus, and Limnophila sessiliflora get deformed. When I keep nutrients level low, all plants grow just fine and look very healthy. So you can doubt it, but in reality I can have a healthy planted tank with high light and low nutrients without any problems. I don't even have any algae-eaters (or other critters) in this substrate-less tank. Right now I wait for Rotala wallichii to bush out, and then I do some laboratory test => I would like to measure the nutrient concentration on the 1st day, and then on the 7th day ... to find out how much nutrients my plants really used up in this tank. I did some tests already with plants biomass, so I would like to verify if the results were correct.


----------



## GreenNeedle

exactly.  The reason I say EI can be flexible because even Tom will say that it is a starting point whereas with PPS and PPS Pro Edward used to dictate it was a regime etc and this is what you do and should continue to do.  EI by its very name (Estimative) means you are estimating.

I have used both.  PPS Pro worked OK for a short time until the plants grew in and then I had to up everything substantially.  CO2 @ 15ppm has never worked for me.  I have used EI with great success years ago but these days I just want to be lazy.  I can't be arsed with heavy water changes, indeed sometimes I can't be bothered with any.  Sometimes can be 3 weeks (sometimes longer) before I can be bothered to do a 20% change.

So these days I tend to use an all in one dosed daily and *try *to stick to 10% water change a week.  Works for me.


----------



## Jose

Hi ardjuna,
You are right on your reflections about plants not growing much faster at higher nutrient levels. This is because the growth pattern is not linear after a certain nutrient ppm. Once again its not about the ammount of ferts in the tank its about the supply of ferts. Ammount supplied has to be = or above the ammount consumed by plants. In your substrateless tank you say you dose little but you should specify how much. Also having some algae shouldnt be seen as something normal. I dont get any algae ever although I use low light. 

Also you dont say in you substrateless tank how old it is. Also you might have some ferts in your tap water that are supplying your plants with enough nutrients.


----------



## Jose

SuperColey1 said:


> So these days I tend to use an all in one dosed daily and try to stick to 10% water change a week. Works for me.


If you are lazy about water changes like me then the best thing is to lower your light. This way plants metabolism slows down and they produce very little waste products, so water stays clean.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, I'd have to say first of all that I agree with most of Arjuna's post, but you have to be a little bit careful with





ardjuna said:


> For example, for Ceratophyllum demersum (= really invasive aquatic plant species) the CO2 saturating point is 22 ppm (500 µM). If you would lower CO2 concentration to 18 ppm, the Ceratophyllum will grow at 98%. At 13 ppm CO2 the plant will grow at 95% of it's maximum; at 9 ppm CO2 => 81%. So do you really see any big difference between 10 ppm CO2 and 20 ppm CO2?


 Purely because _Ceratophyllum demersum_ is an obligate aquatic plant and usually grows entirely submerged. 

If you looked at the majority of the plants sold as aquarium plants they aren't obligate aquatic plants, quite the opposite, they are terrestrial plants that will survive submerged. I think this will make a real difference, because atmospheric CO2 levels are about 400ppm.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreenNeedle

Ardjuna.  I get what you are saying but thst is a little simplistic in my eyes.  It assumes that what we add stays available and is consumed.  From what we add in terms of nutrient and CO2 for all we know the plants might only be able to access 5% of it for any number of reason and the other 95% laid to waste.  This is certainly the case for CO2 and is the reason we try to add high ppm to the water because we know the vast majority will disappear into our lounge air.  Its like trying to grab hold of leaves in the air on a very windy day (or being in the Crystal maze trying to grab the gold tickets.)


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> I would like to measure the nutrient concentration on the 1st day, and then on the 7th day ... to find out how much nutrients my plants really used up in this tank. I did some tests already with plants biomass, so I would like to verify if the results were correct.


When you do this test this isnt the maximum ammount of nutrients consumed by the plants because you might be limitting a nutrient, so plants will grow at the limitted speed.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> In your substrateless tank you say you dose little but you should specify how much. Also having some algae shouldnt be seen as something normal. I dont get any algae ever although I use low light. Also you dont say in you substrateless tank how old it is. Also you might have some ferts in your tap water that are supplying your plants with enough nutrients.


I dose around 10 ppm NO3 (as KNO3), 0.4-0.7 ppm PO4, and 1-3 mL of Easy-Life ProFito per 60L tank. I use RO water remineralized with Ca, Mg and NaHCO3 to reach 8 GH, and 5 KH. The tank is 1,5 month old. All the plants are in a submersed form. The algae are visible only on some leaves of Alternanthera, and I account it for the excess nutrients which deformed it's leaves. I hope in a couple of weeks it could develop new healthy leaves. Also I don't have any algae-eaters in this tank. Try to remove all algae-eaters from your tank, and then tell me if you still don't see any algae.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> Also I don't have any algae-eaters in this tank. Try to remove all algae-eaters from your tank, and then tell me if you still don't see any algae



Ive only got two very small shrimp which might be starving due to 0 algae. How often do you dose these ammounts ardjuna? By the way ardjuna many people dose loads of nutrients and dont get algae.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> When you do this test this isnt the maximum ammount of nutrients consumed by the plants because you might be limitting a nutrient, so plants will grow at the limitted speed.


When the time comes for me to do this test, I plan to add a huge amounts of nutrients (at least full EI) to see if the plants are able to use it up. So don't be afraid of any nutrient limitation.


----------



## Marcel G

SuperColey1 said:


> for all we know the plants might only be able to access 5% of it ... for any number of reason and the other 95% laid to waste.  This is certainly the case for CO2 and is the reason we try to add high ppm to the water because we know the vast majority will disappear into our lounge air.  Its like trying to grab hold of leaves in the air on a very windy day (or being in the Crystal maze trying to grab the gold tickets.)


Can you give me any link to an article or any source of credible information where it is stated that aquatic plants are able to access only 5% of nutrients dissolved in the water? If my CO2 is dissolved in the water, and I pump more gas from the bottle, then I have 35 ppm CO2 dissolved in the water permanently. The potential loss is compensated by the new addition.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> When the time comes for me to do this test, I plan to add a huge amounts of nutrients (at least full EI) to see if the plants are able to use it up. So don't be afraid of any nutrient limitation.


 But plants need time to adapt. You have to do the test with perfectly healthy plants that have been this way for a few weeks.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> How often do you dose these ammounts ardjuna? By the way ardjuna many people dose loads of nutrients and dont get algae.


The values stated are weekly dose, but I divide it into smaller daily dosages.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> But plants need time to adapt. You have to do the test with perfectly healthy plants that have been this way for a few weeks.


Tell this to the scientists.

BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> Tell this to the scientists.



Why? Are you not interested in finding out the truth? Why would you do the test then?


----------



## Marcel G

dw1305 said:


> you have to be a little bit careful with Purely because _Ceratophyllum demersum_ is an obligate aquatic plant and usually grows entirely submerged. If you looked at the majority of the plants sold as aquarium plants they aren't obligate aquatic plants, quite the opposite, they are terrestrial plants that will survive submerged. I think this will make a real difference, because atmospheric CO2 levels are about 400ppm.


I agree with this comment at 100%. As to the CO2 level this can be a reason to use higher amounts for some of our plants. But at the same time I would say that if we grow terrestrial plants underwater with such a low CO2 levels, then these plants won't grow very well or very fast in aquatic conditions, and thus they can have much lower nutrients demands then true aquatic plants. True aquatic plants are a real fast growers, whereas terrestrial plants underwater don't grow too fast (because of very limiting light levels and much lower CO2 levels).


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Why? Are you not interested in finding out the truth? Why would you do the test then?


Sorry, that was an allusion to how scientists do their tests. They usually take a new shoots from grown plants, then store them in a cold environment for a couple of days, and then use them in their test. I suppose they know what they're doing. I plan to do my test not until the end of January, so there's plenty of time to acclimate my plants to higher concentrations. The only problem I see are algae, as at higher concentrations of nutrients there is much bigger probability of getting algae which can distort the results (although EI users won't agree ... maybe they could do this test in their tanks if they have no algae problems under high nutrients levels + high light + tank without any filter media and algae-eaters).


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> The only problem I see are algae, as at higher concentrations of nutrients there is much bigger probability of getting algae which can distort the results (although EI users won't agree ... maybe they could do this test in their tanks if they have no algae problems under high nutrients levels + high light + tank without any filter media and algae-eaters).



Tom Barr has supposedly done these tests and the result is that the maximum consumption for a planted tank is EI ammounts more or less. For this you need laboratory equipment tomeasure ions in water.

Scientists are not always right. For example until recently phosphates were thought to be the cause of algae and it turns out it isnt.

About your tank the only thing I can say since its not in front of me is that you are just limitting you plant growth/metabolism by limitting phosphates. A plant that doesnt get enough phosphates might not look too bad and could live with this low levels. In the long run you will most probably have GSA or other problems, unless you adapt your dosing and give an extra dose every now or then (but I wont be there to see you).


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?



He has written about this. I havent asked him but I dont need to. Ive seen evidence in my tanks that he is right and so have many others. This doesnt mean that all tanks have an EI consumption which I think is where you are getting confused. Most tanks are under 2/3 of EI, so yes you can dose much less probably without problems, but then again you might have loads of light and not know it and this is when you stop believing in high ammount of nutrients, because you get algae but it might be the CO2 or low ferts.


----------



## parotet

ardjuna said:


> BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?


I agree with Marcel on this. My most sincere respects and acknowledgment to someone who spend his time and money on this and wants to share his results (no matter if it is something that complex, an eqipment review, a tutorial, etc.). Mates, have a look at his website (explore the Czec version, it is worth it), it is not the first time he thinks about this. Of course, anyone can be wrong but why are we in general so reluctant to accept new approaches when most of us have never questioned our previously accepted knowledge/techniques? Each time this experiemnt is discussed (not only here) there are dozens of comments trying to deny everything (very few people really ask things) while these same people have never questioned what they are doing and demanding the same level of accuracy to the one who "invented" this theory.

Honestly, I'm really looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. Hopefully everything defended in a forum could be demonstrated this way, with a fully-open access. Cooperative research is the future!



Jose said:


> Scientists are not always right. For example until recently phosphates were thought to be the cause of algae and it turns out it isnt.


Scientists are very often right... actually most of the aquatic ecologists I know and work with on wetland management have indeed very good arguments to link phosphates and algae (which does not mean that you can add phosphates to a planted tank and not having algae)

Jordi


----------



## Jose

phosphates dont cause algae. Youd have to say; phosphates feed algae if conditions for this are right. So its a totally different argument. Ammonia causes algae.

I back anyone who wants to do an experiment. But this is anything but new Parotet. There are already a few threads on the internet saying the same things as this one. There are always people asking why you should listen blindly to what Tom Barr says. Well I dont think you should and I used to think that EI was wrong until I saw the evidence in my own tanks. You dont need expensive things to see that Tom is right. I am not a Tom Barr boy, but if something hasnt been proven wrong in the last few years then there is a chance that he is right. Ive tried both methods. Limitting nutrients and excess nutrients. I can see that non limitting nutrients works a charm and didnt have the same experience by limitting nutrients. This is enough evidence for me. I understand the mistrust there is towards EI because I also felt it. But if you are flexible enough and keep your eyes open then youll get to a good conclusion.


----------



## pepedopolous

I'm just really happy that someone is doing rigorous experiments about planted aquariums. We can only learn something from discussions like these and Marcel's experiments.

I use EI and it works for me but EI cannot be the end of our understanding. EI is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is a methodology, open to adaptation and originally published on a forum like this one.

P


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Scientists are very often right... actually most of the aquatic ecologists I know and work with on wetland management have indeed very good arguments to link phosphates and algae (which does not mean that you can add phosphates to a planted tank and not having algae)


This is false. In fact there is no correlation between nutrient levels and algae levels in natural waters. In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants. I dont know much about this I have to say but what Ive read seems to suggest that more nutrients means more aquatic weeds. Im open to evidence though.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants


Sorry, but too generalictic to be truth... the reality is much more complex. Just an example of the hundreds possible: Mediterranean shallow lakes are in most cases euthrophic (due to high amounts of PO4 from agriculture). More nutrients in that case do not lead to more plants, but to no plants at all. The phytoplankton (mostly algae) creates a barrier for light and macrophytes are not able to grow (other side-effects occur). If you go to the other end, aquatic habitats rich in plants are very often poor in nutrients compared to our tanks. I'm sure other experts can add more examples.

Once again, the point is that PO4 do not lead necessarily to algae on planted tanks, but it does not mean that PO4 cannot be related to algae. Despite our tanks being called "Nature Aquarium", there is nothing that can be further from reality. Aquatic habitats rich in plants do no look like our tanks. Aquatic hábitats rich in plants are often monocultures, no one chose the position of plants, no one mix plants with different demands, plants do not look super healthy, etc. We need eutrophic tanks to achieve such a look (densely planted and diverse... well this high-tech look we all imagine), and it is true that these euthrophic conditions do not lead necessarily to algae (because we supply Co2, because we change water, etc.)

Jordi


----------



## Jose

I have to admit that I dont know a thing on this. Was just speakin out of memories. I remember Tom Barr saying there are more plants in places where there are more nutrients available. Of course I dont think this accounts for artificially contaminated places etc. Dont think it adds much to the thread but its interesting to know anyway.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I'd have to say straight away that I've never added CO2, and I've always had aquariums with lean nutrients, where at least one element is limiting. If you like it is a "faith position", rather than being based upon scientific experiment. 

To quantify what makes one aquarium "successful", and another not, is almost impossible, the range of variables is immense. If you had data from a lot of smaller studies you could perform meta analysis and develop a "generalized linear model (GLM)", but I'm still not sure it would give you a definitive answer, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.

My suspicion would be that there are a number of zones in the PAR - CO2 - Nutrients triangle where you reach some stability. I think the main difference is that if you have high PAR - CO2 - Nutrients you have a situation where that stability is transitory without continual attention, and things can "go wrong" relatively quickly. 

Before I joined this forum I was very dubious that "Estimative Index" could work, but it obviously does for many people, as long as they follow the rules about CO2 distribution, water changes etc.

From my point of view, I have a method that works for my situation. I like plants, but they are principally in the tank to maintain high water quality for the live-stock. 

I don't really care what light I have and I plant lots of low tech plants including some floaters and I aim to keep them in growth, it really is as simple as that.

If I don't have much PAR I have a relatively low biomass, and if I have a large PAR I have a large biomass. Once the tanks are grown in I leave them in their "steady state". 

Again I'm a regular small volume water changer, others don't change much water. Because I use rain-water for water changes I'm not adding any CO2, which may make a difference.

Do I have algae in my tanks? Yes I do, but in most of the tanks I would welcome a bit more of it. 

It may not be very exciting, but it is a stable position and allows me to leave the tanks for 3 - 4 week periods without any maintenance, or fish feeding, without having to worry about it. 

I know that things will be pretty similar when I come back to how they were when I left.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Edvet

parotet said:


> aquatic habitats rich in plants are very often poor in nutrients compared to our tanks


These are often (probably even always) in situations where there are currents "replacing" the lost nutrients infinitly.


----------



## GreenNeedle

ardjuna said:


> Can you give me any link to an article or any source of credible information where it is stated that aquatic plants are able to access only 5% of nutrients dissolved in the water? If my CO2 is dissolved in the water, and I pump more gas from the bottle, then I have 35 ppm CO2 dissolved in the water permanently. The potential loss is compensated by the new addition.



Maybe a misundertanding but the 5% was an example made up by me to suggest that plants will not use up all that is added or in the tank.  Just because we add 10ppm of something does not mean that if the next test reading is zero that the plants have taken it up.  As for the CO2 it is not dissolved in the water permanently.  It will be dissolved in the water for a very very short time.  You can see this pretty easily in terms of ppm changing within a couple of hours after the CO2 is turned off.  This will also be happening whilst you are injecting.  You inject it and it is continually gassing off.  I would suggest that for CO2 that 5% being used and 95% being lost to the atmospher is very very realistic and probably not far from the truth at all.  For other nutrients it will be an exaggeration but we can't assume that adding 10ppm today, reading 0ppm tomorrow means that 10ppm was used.  There are all manner of things that can happen other than plant uptake to reduce the ppm.

So yes you can take the 5% generalisation I used with a very large pinch of salt (scuse the pun) for the nutrients but with CO2 it is a reality.  100% dissolved OR as micro bubbles it is continually gassing off.  With 100% dissolved you just can't see it.  With the micro bubbles you can clearly see it.  I think even Tom Barr would suggest this is pretty much true.

As for the scientists part as suggested above I would say far from scientists 'used to believe' that phosphates cause algae, they probably never did BUT it suits an agenda.  I am pretty sure that scientists know that phosphates do not cause algae yet they perpetuate the myth because that myth gives credence to government objectives.  Namely the reduction of fertilisers to appease campaigners and at the same time covers their own backs for clearing all the 'unsightly weeds' from riverbanks to make them prettier which is more likely the cause of the algae.  Namely they are doing the opposite to us.  If we heavily plant and don't disturb the substrates then the plants beat the algae.  The authorities don't want heavily planted, they dredge the rivers/ditches regularly and take away all the weeds that were combating the problem.

I am not arguing for adding more phosphate at all.  I am just arguing against the suggestion that limiting phosphate at the same time as having high light and non limiting CO2/other nutrients will do nothing other than cause algae.  If you do not have GSA then it is more than likely that you are meeting the phosphate demands of your tank.  Of course that is only my opinion.


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants.


Please, read the articles by Roger W. Bachman. Here are the links to them: barrreport.com. He's the expert on limnology and aquatic ecology at Florida. I'm not a man who believes misleading statements of one person who says that phosphates do not correlate to algae bloom, while most of the scientists agree that high level of nitrates and phosphates do correlate with algae. It could be very deceptive to argue by own experience as often we overlook many factors which can play significant role in it. For example, Tom Barr says that when we add high amount of nutrients into our planted tanks and we have no algae outbreak, then we have "falsified" this theory. But this is just wrong assumpsion as he don't take into account so many factors which work against algae in our tanks (like algae-eaters, filtration, water changes, regular maintenance, relatively low light compared with full sunlight etc.). I tried to argue with EI users about this, but it seems that they don't want to see/admit this.


----------



## Marcel G

SuperColey1 said:


> Just because we add 10ppm of something does not mean that if the next test reading is zero that the plants have taken it up ... I am pretty sure that scientists know that phosphates do not cause algae yet they perpetuate the myth because that myth gives credence to government objectives.


I agree with the first statement. It's quite clear that our plants consume only part of the total amount of nutrients available. Part of the nutrients can precipitate or being used by bacteria etc.
But I don't agree with the second part about phosphates and alleged scientists' "believe". There is quite simple possibility for you to find out what "causes" algae to grow. How are scientists growing algae in laboratories? Do you think they put algae sample into petri dish and then pray to God? No! They put algae sample into petri dish, put lot of nutrients inside, and add strong light. The result: algae. It's that simple! You can look at the nutrients solution they use to grow different kinds of algae (usually Bold's Basal Medium). You can look here also (use Google Translate). So I just don't understand you belief in Tom Barr, ignoring all the scientific findings (not only in laboratories, but in field also) about excess nitrates and phosphates correlating with algae infestations. Tom Barr says for example that most algae are in a spore stage in our tanks, while most algologists say that most algae are present in a vegetative state. The exact mechanism for algae spores to germinate is not known yet (see this article). But if algae are in vegetative stage, then only nutrients and light is needed for them to grow.


----------



## Martin in Holland

Here is a statement which I always found curious about EI (not saying EI is bad or anything of that nature)...."by adding nutrients in the water in amounts that plants always have an abundance at their disposal, plants can out compete algae"....
If there is *more* than enough nutrients for plants, surely there is enough for algae.


----------



## Marcel G

One more word about my motivation. My goal is not to discredit EI method or any other method. I just want to find out what the plants in an average (not any supernatural and super theoretic high tech) planted tank can utilize to have a good growth. I used to use EI method myself, so I know that the EI recommended amounts of nutrient may not lead to algae outbreak if you have enough "anti-algae" factors present in your tank (mainly algae-eaters, relatively low light for only 7-10 hours, good filtration, regular water changes and maintenance, big plant biomass etc.). Also it is possible that when we use EI method of fertilization in our tanks, the relatively high nutrient levels may be inhibiting some kinds of algae ... for example higher amounts of phosphates may suppress GSA/GDA, and high levels of CO2 may suppress BBA (this we know from experience, but no one did any tests with it yet). These are questions I would like to find answers to. So it's possible that our plants may need relatively small amount of nutrients (compared to recommended EI levels), but to suppress some algae it may be good to increase these amounts to some algae-toxic levels. So technically, I'm not against EI method. I'm against people who blindly advocate something or criticise scientists while they don't know much of it.


----------



## GreenNeedle

If phosphates cause algae then how is it if you put a container of RO water on a windowsill it will grow algae?  Where do the phosphates come from that cause the algae?  It is more likely due to dust particles decaying / rotting and causing ammonia.  That is what most people say causes algae.  Local ammonia spikes.

When I ran a tank for 14 months without water changes I used to only add fertilisers when I saw GSA on the anubias.  That would be every month or couple of months.  I would never add traces and just add a pinch of KH2PO4. That was however a low energy well stocked fish tank and therefore the nitrate and traces should be covered in fish wastes and foods.


----------



## Marcel G

For algae to grow they need a full range of nutrients (CO2, N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, trace elements, some vitamins etc.), optimum temperature (20-24°C), enough ligh intensity (ideally 50-200 µmol PAR) with long photoperiod of 16:8 (day:night cycle), optimum pH between 7-9, aerating and water circulation + some time to set and develop. If you give them this, then they have an optimum environment for growth ... unless you suppress their growth by some obstracles like algae-eaters, water changes, filtration, low photoperiod etc. Most algae need some time to create suitable environment for their growth (this is called "lag phase") which takes usually 1-2 weeks. But if you do a regular maintenance, clean glass, vacuum substrate, or do a water change, then you actually "reset" them their environment, so that after each maintenance they have to start from scratch. So this all (along with algae-eaters) contributes to algae suppression. So although the algae may have enough nutrients in your tank, other factors effectively prevent them from growing. So you need not only nutrients (especially nitrates and phosphates), but also other optimum conditions for algae to grow and multiply. So it's a mistake to think of only phosphates in regard to algae. But at the same time, it's a mistake to think that high level of nutrients pose no risk.
[BTW, plants and algae prefer NH4 before NO3, so it's better if they have some nitrogen in the form on NH4.]

Also, look at my simple test with 8 kinds of environment and algae growth:
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeSugars. In distilled and tap water the algae did not develop during 3 weeks.

PS: If you still believe that high nutrient levels don't pose any risk in regard to algae, then try to get rid of all algae-eaters in your tank, increase your light intensity to 100-200 µmol PAR at the substrate, and prolong your photoperiod to at least 16 hours a day (with 8 hours lights off), and add 100 ppm NO3, 10-20 ppm PO4 + other important nutrients into your tank, so that you can be quite sure you have enough available nutrients in water column for algae ... and don't do any maintenance for at least 3-4 week (nor any water changes). Also try to keep your CO2 level on an optimum levels of 10-20 ppm (as higher values may cause inhibition of some kinds of algae). If you'll have no algae after this period, then there may be something on your theory about high nutrients don't contributing to algae infestations.


----------



## parotet

Personally I do not understand why people are so reluctant to admit that phospates may be related to algae. Does it make it a sin? There is plenty of evidence in science literature (papers regarding natural aquatic habitats, practical knowledge on water treatment, media used for cultivating algae in laboratories, etc.) that IMO is much more reliable, transparent and objective than:

- scientists' conspiracy theories (do you really think scientists do care about this? Do you think that all the scientists, paper reviewers, laboratories and a very long etc. in this world are aligned to cheat on us? Come on, algae blooms are not strategic to rule this world. I can believe that a company whose incomes depend on algae cleaning can say so, but the whole international scientific community?)
- personal experiences on tank management in which parameters' control is very difficult, do not have accurate measure equipment, reliable methdologies, repeated samples, etc.
- internet forums

I am not saying it is the absolute truth and that the rest is faulse, but I am careful enough to admit that it makes a lot of sense (even being aware that everything has not been answered yet and that others' opinion makes also sense). I try to be open minded, that's all.

So once again, I would say that there is quite a lot of evidence to say that phosphate may induce algae BUT hobbyists do not have to fear phosphates in a planted tank, as they are necessary for plant growth (at least in high light conditions) and they do not lead necessarily to algae.

Why adding phosphates do not necessarily lead to algae blooms? There is probably more than one reason. I like Darrel's approach on different posible "stability areas/proper configurations" in the CO2-PAR-nutrient triangle, I like the allelopathy theory (not sure if it is right) and I like the "anti-algae" approach (algae need time to grow and don't like to be disturbed -as any other organism. Our tank maintenance (WCs, scraping glass, removal of dead tissues, etc.), equipment (filter, flow, distribution, etc.) and animals (grazers) don't give algae the time to develop. Think about it in the opposite way, what about trying to grow aquatic plants in a tank with herbivore fish, no filtering, no WC?... not imposible but certainly much more difficult, right?

Probably none of them by itself is enough to explain why high nutrients tank can be algae free (I'm probbaly missing some more), but it looks quite reasonable that in high nutrient tanks our behaviour/approach/setup/configuration/plant healthiness/equipment has a huge influence for keeping algae under control. It may sound weird for a beginner but we can cope with high nutrients levels as long as we can keep planted tanks in good conditions.

Merry Christmas to all of you (with or without PO4) 

Jordi


----------



## Jose

Ill tell you why I think Tom Barr is right.
His assumption is that excess phosphates dont cause an algae bloom in a healthy tank. This is just true since its been tried by hundreds of hobbiests around the world.
Now what you are saying is that phosphates do cause algae blooms. I believe your statement might needs to be specified. You should say that phosphates feed (feed not cause) algal blooms in a non healthy tank/water. So you cant just say that phosphates cause algae because it would have to be true always and it just isnt.

So if you use high light and high CO2 you need to do a few things so as to get that healthy tank/plants. If its not healthy overall youll get algae but whats causing the algae bloom is not the phosphates (its probably ammonia which comes from everywhere also from unhealthy plants). The phosphates are just feeding the algae and the more phosphates the faster the algae will grow.

I believe that all the misunderstanding comes from such a simple statement as phosphates dont cause algae blooms. People should swim into it and look at all the subtleties untill they can go banging at Tom Barrs doors. 

Also not all natural waters have huge PAR as stated above. They have a constant flow of renewed water with new nutrients. Also plants can get their nutrients from the soil which scientists normally dont measure etc.There are many variables. Tom Barr as Ive said before works for a laboratory which probably has more fundings than any of us will ever hear about. His got the ways to do things and test things most of us cant. So many things we have to believe if we want or not but many others we can proof to ourselves just by watching with our eyes.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> For algae to grow they need a full range of nutrients (CO2, N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, trace elements, some vitamins etc.), optimum temperature (20-24°C), enough ligh intensity (ideally 50-200 µmol PAR) with long photoperiod of 16:8 (day:night cycle), optimum pH between 7-9, aerating and water circulation + some time to set and develop. If you give them this, then they have an optimum environment for growth ... unless you suppress their growth by some obstracles like algae-eaters, water changes, filtration, low photoperiod etc.



Hi ardjuna.
Plants in a healthy tank is also an obstacle for algae. Why? Because they consume ammonia.

Algae can grow in a much wider range of conditions as stated above. That data is probably for a certain species.

Also you can look at a low tech tank without water changes and with excess nutrients which doesnt have algae. This falsifies all your theory.

Water changes in a high tech tank is not for getting rid of spores or things like that. Tha main reason for wcs is to eliminate the organics generated by plants due to their very high metabolism in a CO2 and high light tank.


----------



## Jose

I believe that all the questions arising with EI come from not understanding the dynamics of a high tech tank (please noone be offended)

In a high tech tank your plants produce loads of stuff because they are living things. These organic molecules decompose in your water generating ammonia which causes algal blooms which are fed by the phosphates in your water. This is why you have to do many water changes. You could also use activated carbon and things like that but whichever way you choose if your plants grow fast you need to eliminate the plant poo.

Ardjuna, You want to look for an example where EI doesnt work. This is a wrong approach. You dont have to go to the extremes. No method will work in the extremes you are suggesting.

And about Darrels triangle of PAR, Nutrients and CO2, I believe its more like an area above a certain limit. A triangle means that you have limits above also. I am more inclined towards a line or curve above which plants grow just fine for a certain light. You can up the nutrients and CO2 as much as you want although there might be a salinity limit and a CO2 limit they are so high that you dont really need to look at them (regarding plants not animals).


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> Algae can grow in a much wider range of conditions as stated above. That data is probably for a certain species ...


Hi Jose,
please read the paragraph carefully, as I say (manytimes) that these are _*optimum *_ranges, not the only ranges that algae can live and grow in! Algae can grow even in a bottled water for babies, although there are nearly no nutrients.

As for the low tech tanks without algae, this is no falsification of my theory at all, as in these tanks the light is very low, and for most algae species the light intensity is of crucial importance. Again, try to fill a jar with a water from such a low tech tank, put it under a low light source and wait. I bet algae won't develop even after a month. In the same way I can say, that my tank with high light and low nutrients without algae falsifies all your theory.

As to the ammonia and algae, do you know that T.Barr do not believe in ammonia causing algae from 2011? If you don't believe me, please, read his own words here:
_"I suggested some years ago that NH4 was a cause for GW blooms, and other algae perhaps. This seems false, but the increasing fish loading sure seems to cause algae in every test I've done or seen."_

Also if T.Barr works for some super laboratory and has access to different analyzers why the hell he doesn't publish some of his results and findings? I never saw any table, graph or analyses data except one or two graphs from his own CO2 meter. He should have tons of data supporting his theory, so why doesn't he share them with us (even through his Barr Reports)? In his reports there are no such data. I just don't understand his (and your) approach.


----------



## GreenNeedle

parotet said:


> PS: If you still believe that high nutrient levels don't pose any risk in regard to algae, then try to get rid of all algae-eaters in your tank, increase your light intensity to 100-200 µmol PAR at the substrate, and prolong your photoperiod to at least 16 hours a day (with 8 hours lights off), and add 100 ppm NO3, 10-20 ppm PO4 + other important nutrients into your tank, so that you can be quite sure you have enough available nutrients in water column for algae ... and don't do any maintenance for at least 3-4 week (nor any water changes). Also try to keep your CO2 level on an optimum levels of 10-20 ppm (as higher values may cause inhibition of some kinds of algae). If you'll have no algae after this period, then there may be something on your theory about high nutrients don't contributing to algae infestations.



That is mad.  You are trying to prove that phosphate causes algae by suggesting that we push the light as high as we can and at the same time reduce CO2.  That in itself will cause algae because we will be supplying less CO2 than is needed for the speed of growth the light is driving the plants at.  I don't get it.

Anyway.  We're way off topic now and its back to the age old phosphates cause algae statements.  So I shall bow out here.


----------



## Marcel G

I'm sorry for this off topic conversation. Just a final note. I did not speak of phosphates only, but of high nutrient levels (again you disinterpret my statements). And 100-200 µmol PAR is not so high light intensity, as it is 10-times lower then full sunlight. And at full sunlight and non-limiting nutrients most aquatic plants need only 20-40 ppm CO2 for reaching their maximum growth rates, so 20 ppm CO2 just can't be the cause of algae (as you and T.Barr constantly claim). You blame CO2 for most algae issues, although due to high CO2 levels you try to keep (50-70 ppm) it can have strong algae inhibiting effects, co if you would lower CO2 levels so that it's not toxic to algae, then immediately you get algae because of high nutrient levels. What about that? I just try to show that your arguments may not be based on correct assumptions.


----------



## Jose

Hi ardjuna,
Again I believe if you want to keep a tank simulating natural environments then you should do many other things as a natural environment as well. First thing is that in natural waters you dont have 30 ppm CO2 normally. You would have to have a constant supply of new water and probably a fertile substrate. But still I dont see the need to emulate natural waters since our tanks look much better anyway.

I believe its all down to one question: Why would you want to limit the growth of plants by limitting the nutrients. My opinion is that you use such high light that you cant keep up with the rest of parametres and this leads you to believe that the high nutrients are causing the algae.

High light is the origin of most the people who cant get around using EI.  

Also It doesnt really matter if its ammonia or intermediates of organic molecules that cause the algae to me.


----------



## GreenNeedle

You are over simplifying all the time though.  I am not saying that plants need 30ppm.  We do not add 30ppm because that is what the plants need.  If this were the case non of my planted tanks except the only one which is CO2 enriched would work yet they do.

The reason we add 30ppm is to ensure that under higher light the small fraction of the CO2 that isn't 'lost' is enough for the plants given the amount of light provided.  You could well do this with 20ppm or 15ppm.  I am not saying you can;t however at these lower injection rates it is narrowing the margin between failure and success.  Similar to all the other nutrients.  If you are sure that plants only need (example) 10ppm of nitrate and you aim for 10ppm then you are on the margin whereas if you add 20ppm you are ensuring that there is enough available.  I'm not saying that lean dosing (or trying to exact dose) is doomed to failure, just that you are narrowing your 'margin for error' and the majority trying to do this will fail.  Some will succeed.  Some because they over estimated anyway, some because they didn't account for something (like using tap water) and some because they got it right.

With CO2 if you are sure that adding 20ppm will result in the plants being able to take (example) 3ppm then you are on the margin if you only add 20ppm.  If you are adding 30ppm then there is more available to reach a desired goal.  Under both ppms I would suggest that the majority (like 95% as I suggested before) is actually lost to the atmosphere whether you can see bubbles escaping or not.  So 5% of 20ppm injection is a lower availability than 5% of 30ppm.  Small margins but under high light CO2 is critical IMO.

100-200 IS high light.  you only need 30-50ppm at the substrate to be able to grow nice carpets.  ADA know this which is why their MHs were dialled back to be lower light than the wattages would have suggested.  Keeping the ADA lovers happy whilst still letting them think they are blasting the light in.  Anything higher than 100-200 harks back to the olden days.  I don't have a PAR meter but on my non CO2 tanks I run at present circa 0.9WPG of LED.  They are simply 9W downlighters where I have changed the lenses to a 90 degree angle so they aren't exactly luminaire setups.  1 of these 9W downlighters over each half of 20USG tanks.  IMO these are still pretty much at the higher end of low light and I do get the odd problem with algae in them but not much.  That algae is more caused by my laziness in that sometimes I don't water change them for weeks and I often forget to dose them.

In my only hi tec tank I have 54W LED above a 40USG.  I would say that this tank is bordering very highlight as people seem to underestimate just how much more PAR and way more PUR Leds actually produce.  That is properly setup as a luminaire and spaced out well.  CO2 is probably about 35ppm in that tank and is newly setup so can't talk of algae problems but from experience with these parameters unless I get lazy with water changes and maintenance then I foresee no problems at all.

You cannot use examples from nature to talk about scenarios in an aquarium.  In nature most waters are free from plants and are moving water.  A continual supply of all the nutrients needed.  In lakes there are plants but I suspect the size of the surface area and natural CO2 supplied from the substrate and other organics rotting away keeps them algae free in the main.  Certainly lakes are much more susceptible to algae than rivers or streams.  In very very hot summers many lakes can be quagmires of algae even in England and stagnant water is much quicker to get to this level.  The smaller the body of water the quicker it gets gunged up.  So I suspect that far from it being excessive nutrients that is the problem of causing algae it is the 'non flushing' of the system that cause algae with organic waste build up.

i.e. that stagnant pond in the farmer's field that seems permanently gunged up with algae vs the lake that seems to get gunged up only in extreme summers vs the river or stream that is permanently flowing and does not get much algae at all.

You also have to take into account when looking at the plants we grow in nature in most cases they do not look the way we want them to.  In Rivers they are leggy searching for the surface to get CO2.  In our setups they are required to be much denser and bushy and leggy is a no no.

As for the tank water under low light in a cup?  TRy it for yourself.  Add some of your algae free tank water to a cup.  put it under 0.25WPG of light with no other light available at all.  I guarantee that you will get algae.  The same for RO water, DI water, any water.  You cannot fight algae by starving nutrients unless you want to starve plants too.  There is something else at work here where if you have loads and loads of plants in a tank and add 10x more (inorganic) nutrient than they need you get minimal algae.  If you use the same setup and add no fish, no food, no inorganic nutrients, nothing added at all and use RO water.  Have no plants in there (namely a normal fish tank but without fish) you will get algae.

It is the setup, its efficiency and the controller that normally determines if a tank has algae or not.

i.e. If I setup 2 identical tanks, same equipment, same scape, same plants, same light yet one is for someone else and one is for me.  Then if I dose daily, do water changes weekly, monitor the CO2 properly etc mine may come out with virtually zero algae whereas the one I setup for someone else where they missed a dose or 2 here and there, didn't notice the water flow was being stifled as the plants grew, didn't notice the CO2 injection rate dropping etc may have tonnes of algae.


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> Also if T.Barr works for some super laboratory and has access to different analyzers why the hell he doesn't publish some of his results and findings? I never saw any table, graph or analyses data except one or two graphs from his own CO2 meter. He should have tons of data supporting his theory, so why doesn't he share them with us (even through his Barr Reports)?



This is a good question.  dont know and yes there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing for me too. He might be waiting for the time to come and win a Nobel prize.


----------



## OllieNZ

A couple of things worth noting about natural environments. 
1) and this is the biggie, if you look at environments where plants are prevalent they either grow in shaded areas, at depth or are algae/silt laden (all of which reduce par and duration of exposure to the par)
Which leads me on to #2) your assumption that plants in nature are being bombarded with at least 12hrs at 2000um is flat out incorrect. If your interested I'll dig some numbers out of a book I've got. 
3) in waterways that suffer from algae blooms (at least the studies I've read) phosphate is not the trigger elevated levels of phosphate will feed a bloom that may not have occurred without their presence but they are not the cause the trigger is the increased par levels provided by the onset of spring/summer.


----------



## Jose

Anyways I do believe there is a good experiment that someone with the materials could do. That would be finding out the nutrient consumption for a standard lit tank. This could be a tank with 40 PAR at the bottom. So this would give us a value that many people could use. Many people could run into problems though if they estimate their light without a PAR meter but that would be their problem. Maybe tom has done this but he seems to be very reserved with his results.


----------



## GreenNeedle

I think Tom is more cautious because people simplify things so much and take things as black and white.  He could put fully tested information out there and give numbers, ratios and quantities but then someone (or lots of someones) will take those figures as gospel, run with them and then get vocal about his figures being wrong.  The reality would be that his figures are right.......for his setup........with his plants and livestock..........the way he runs it, but wouldn't be right for someone else's setup, with their plants and livestock, the way they ran it.

So rather than give an exact reading that people would take as the holy gospel he gives ranges which are perfectly fine.  Thats more the problem with the original PPS Pro in that it was trying to be so exact that it was pointless in the end unless your hobby is actually mathematics, science and testing.


----------



## Marcel G

SuperColey1 said:


> So rather than give an exact reading that people would take as the holy gospel he gives ranges which are perfectly fine.


If T.Barr says in his EI article that non-limiting NO3 levels are in a range of 5-30 ppm, how can I have any assurance as to what applies to my tank? He did not presented any details of what plant species the 5 ppm is OK for, and what plant species the 30 ppm is good for. Besides this I know of number of papers which state much higher levels for NO3 and PO4 uptake rates. So for some plant species even 30 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 is far from being non-limiting. For example, Pistia can accumulate up to 2 ppm PO4 per day, and for Vallisneria americana the non-limiting concentration of NO3 is around 90 ppm! So how 5-30 ppm could be non-limiting? I don't close eyes before different findings. And although I think the plants in average planted tank consume much, much less nutrients even under stronger light, if T.Barr says that 30 ppm is non-limiting for most of aquatic plants, I would like to know how did he come to these numbers ... what are these numbers based on?


----------



## Mark Green

Ardjuna i think T.Barr answered you in the following thread  http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/17727-How-easily-CSM-B-can-become-toxic, however you did not like the answer.

How about you come up with your own data that disproves what T.Barr has to say on EI, and not some science papers you have read. Looking forward to seeing YOUR OWN data on these matters so we can discuss further.

Merry Christmas


----------



## Jose

Pistia is a floating plant which can probably consume loads of ferts, its not the standard plant in our tanks.




ardjuna said:


> Vallisneria americana the non-limiting concentration of NO3 is around 90 ppm


What do you mean by non limitting? The concentration at which they grow the fastest? Ok, we all agree with that. The more nutrients the faster plants grow but we cant really be dosing so many nutrients because they would be wasted in water changes and the higher the concentrations the higher the conductivity in water which isnt something beneficial for some animals.

So, it seems Toms numbers have been optimized from what you say.


----------



## Marcel G

It's not possible to discuss with you. When I present my own data, I'm being accused of not acting scientifically (not doing at least three repetitive tests etc.). When I present scientific data, I'm accused of not presenting my own data. When I present scientific data showing that some aquatic plant species have a critical point (above which there is the luxurious uptake) far above the upper values recommended by EI, again this is (somehow) in accordance with EI. So whether the non-limiting nutrient values are 100 ppm NO3 and 15 ppm PO4, or 10 ppm NO3 and 0.5 ppm PO4, still EI is right ... because T.Barr knows it the best. He did tons of tests, and even though he did not share them with us, we all know he's right. Everyone who wants to verify his so called "estimates" is doomed to failure.

This is not a place where one can discuss something seriously.


----------



## Jose

I think you should stick to one idea and then try proof it or falsify but I think for that you have to know exactly what you want to find out.

I get the feeli g that you just want to proof Tom is wrong but you are not sure how. In the end the idea is to be able to keep a nice plante tank. Thanks to him more people can do it know, in a cheap way. Hes taken  more time to explain things than most have.

nothing of what youve said falsifies the main idea which is; you can keep a planted tank with excess nutrients which is algae free.

Also you refuse to recognise that all you are saying is that high nutrients feed algae. I dont think anyone has a doubt about this being true.


So, what are we really discussing here?  I believe ive lost track.


----------



## pepedopolous

I agree with Ardjuna that Tom Barr is a bit sketchy with data. Exactly where in the Barr Report is it? Do I need to pay for it? 

That said, I think what Tom Barr and his EI really have done to help the hobby is spread the idea that test kits are hopeless for hobbyists. We can roughly estimate our nutrient levels simply by knowing the amounts we dose, and then 'reset' it with water changes.

For me, I'm sticking with EI, good (I hope) CO2 and LOW light (~20PAR). If or when I get algae, I'll have to reconsider things.

Reading the previously linked thread, it seems that Mr Barr et al. say that if you get algae, its because of poor CO2 and too high light- not nutrients. My own experience suggests to me that light and CO2 are the most important things, however, these are the hardest things to get right whereas dosing ferts is easy. Hardly any hobbyists have PAR meters and many lights (T5 and LED) in their default configuration produce way too much intensity if you don't have your CO2 perfect.

So whilst you are getting CO2 and lighting sorted, what harm can it do to use lower levels of nutrients if you wish?

P


----------



## Jose

No harm going lower unless you go too low.


----------



## GreenNeedle

pepedopolous said:


> I agree with Ardjuna that Tom Barr is a bit sketchy with data. Exactly where in the Barr Report is it? Do I need to pay for it?
> 
> That said, I think what Tom Barr and his EI really have done to help the hobby is spread the idea that test kits are hopeless for hobbyists. We can roughly estimate our nutrient levels simply by knowing the amounts we dose, and then 'reset' it with water changes.
> 
> For me, I'm sticking with EI, good (I hope) CO2 and LOW light (~20PAR). If or when I get algae, I'll have to reconsider things.
> 
> Reading the previously linked thread, it seems that Mr Barr et al. say that if you get algae, its because of poor CO2 and too high light- not nutrients. My own experience suggests to me that light and CO2 are the most important things, however, these are the hardest things to get right whereas dosing ferts is easy. Hardly any hobbyists have PAR meters and many lights (T5 and LED) in their default configuration produce way too much intensity if you don't have your CO2 perfect.
> 
> So whilst you are getting CO2 and lighting sorted, what harm can it do to use lower levels of nutrients if you wish?
> 
> P



You don't have to pay for it.  You have to pay for the members section on Barrreport but if you search hard enough across the web you can find the information you want to find.  I think some people are expecting it to be collated in a library like most scientific papers.  Tom is all over the net giving advice for free but I don't think people should be expecting him to index all his stuff for free.  Go search yourselves.

As for what Tom has done I pretty much agree with the test kit part.  What Tom did was stop people obsessing about dialling things in to exact levels and to stop them from taking hobby test kit readings as gospel.  People who are trying to be scientists and perfect their dosing with hobby kits more often than not are chasing red herrings from false readings.  Tom has never said _'don't test trust me'._  He says _'You are free to test but why bother?  And if you do test you should be using Laboratory quality tests such as Lamotte.' _ There is nothing stopping people using quality test kits at all.  However for the majority of people who want to do this hobby it means that following ranges rather than trusting false readings means a higher success rate in terms of getting that algae free tank.

What you will often find with Tom is that his manner is direct and he doesn't beat about the bush.  Some people can take his style as aggressive or confrontational but it is quite simply putting the facts out there and not wasting words.  I still don't understand why people think he is defending EI.  He doesn't defend EI.  He just challenges people who say adding nutrients CAUSES algae when it doesn't.  Organic wastes *do* may cause algae but inorganic ones (The ones that we add) don't.

p.s. Light is not hard to get right.  Just go by middling WPG (2WPG or so) or 1.5WPG of LED and you can grow anything.  Concentrate on CO2 issues whether that be from injection rates or circulation / flow.  In non CO2 tanks use 1.5WPG (<1WPG LED) and steer clear of harder to grow plants.  Light really is the easiest thing to control and doesn't really need as much focus as it is given in the hobby.  CO2 is the hard one.  Easy to buy the stuff.  Easy to get it into the tank.  Hard to keep it there.


----------



## Martin in Holland

At the moment I'm using floaters to let me know if my nutrients are enough or not, no fuss just common sense, if the grow and look healthy everything should be okay, if not, add (more) ferts. this method takes CO2 out of the aquasion. I am using a of the shelf fertilizer in my small tank at the moment, before I used EI but this showed salt crystal on top of the floaters (a sure sign of to much ferts to me), now I have no more problems...I didn't change anything else.
I'm not saying that EI is bad (not at all, I still think its a good method), it just didn't seem to do it for this tank.


----------



## pepedopolous

SuperColey1- You had me until the WPG!


----------



## GreenNeedle

WPG is that old very simple rule much maligned.  It isn't accurate at all which is pretty much on point with this thread.  You don't need to do any fancy PAR readings or calculations.  Quite simply go by the WPG rule and reduce it for LED lighting.  Not exact but simple 

PAR meters are cool for people who really want to dial things in or even just for interest in a similar way to people being interested in nutrient delivery and dialling that in.

If you really want to know what your light is the the Seneye meter is only £60 and whilst many think it isn't accurate I have read quite a lot of threads and posts on it and the overall message is that it is pretty close in readings to the Apogee so go for it.


----------



## pepedopolous

Hi SuperColey1,

I've got a Seneye for that reason. Is it accurate? Maybe. It turns out that it simply takes a LUX reading and divides that number by 37 to give PAR. I kinda feel cheated but I guess you get what you pay for!

P


----------



## GreenNeedle

Isn't that what the Apogee does too?  I know people use the apogee sensor with a multimeter and then do the multiplication themselves.

When there was a side by side test with Apogee and Seneye they were within 10% or so of each other.  From what I hear the Apogee has some critics regarding its inaccuracy for certain colourations too.

Anyway the gist I got what that the Seneye is easily accurate enough to use.  This pic is take from the following thread (Seneye = Yellow, Apogee = Red :  
http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/287754-seneye-reef-aquarium-monitor/page-2


----------



## pepedopolous

Apologies to the OP for going so off-topic...


I think if you search on 'tomato' growing forums, there are reliable lux to PAR conversion factors from various types of light but NOT LED. 

http://www.apogeeinstruments.co.uk/aquarium-par-meters/

In the above link, even Apogee themselves say that you need to apply error correction factors to their PAR results depending on the type of light or colour of LED.

What if your LED unit has various LED colour channels driven at different intensities? 

So, if Seneye works, I think it's just a convenient fudge. On their website they only recommend that you use the Seneye light meter for comparing with other Seneye measurements.

http://answers.seneye.com/en/Aquarium_help/what_is_PAR_?

Cheers,

P


----------

