# getting worse..



## dougbraz (23 Jun 2021)

Here we go:
1. Size of tank in litres. 125 litres. pH 6.5, temp 25ºC. Low tech, no CO2, just liquid carbon (Seachem Excel)
2. Age of the set - up. 8 months. Jungle style (or just a beginner's mess..   ) 
3. Filtration. Eheim Ecco 2232 plus an added circulation pump. Purigen in the filter.
4. Lighting and duration. 35W LED at 60% for 8 hours including the 1st hr being 0-60% and last hour being 60-0%
5. Substrate. ADA Amazon
6. Co2 dosing or Non-dosing. Seachem Excel 6-7ml daily
7. Fertilizers used + Ratios. Seachem Flourish 3-5ml about twice a week (not very regular with this yet)
8. Water change regime and type. 30 litres changed weekly. 5 litres top up weekly
9. Plant list + When planted. Cabombas, eleocharis, miscrosorum pteropus - and windelov, hygrophila difformis, h. polysperma, java moss, java fern, cryptocoryne.  Valisneria just melted completely after adding Excel. Planted at least 6 months ago, some since day one. Cabomba trimmed practically every 2nd water change and h. polysperma and java moss trimmed every month. Eleocharis trimmed once but looks like it needs another haircut pretty soon..
10. Inhabitants. 6 rodostomus, 2 kissing gourami, one dwarf gourami, 2 celebes rainbowfish, 1 Ramirezi
11. Full tank shot.






I have increased Excel as the plants grow more, reduced surface agitation to "keep in" the excel. No change in lighting since day one, but am getting more green hair algae every day - as well as what I think is small (start of) bba. Plants are growing well (as is the algae) although there are some holes appearing in some leaves making me want to add iron or Nitrogen (?). I read mixed solutions on the web, so am getting confused. Oh yes, I also have cyanobacteria at the front of the tank and on the substrate where not much is growing. I just would like a simple solution to reduce the increased spread of the algae. Comments appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## jamila169 (24 Jun 2021)

Lighting -it doesn't need to be on for 8 hours and probably doesn't need to be at 60% , the fish don't care, but the algae does


----------



## Driftless (24 Jun 2021)

I would add, gradually, CO2, stop Excel, and increase surface agitation.


----------



## ceg4048 (24 Jun 2021)

Hello,
        As mentioned by jamila169, the problem fundamentally found here:


dougbraz said:


> 4. Lighting and duration. 35W LED at 60% for 8 hours


When fighting algae the first thing to do is to reduce the light, because light causes algae. I suggest you reduce the intensity to no more than about 20% for now.



dougbraz said:


> reduced surface agitation to "keep in" the excel


Excel is neither helped nor harmed by agitation. That affects gasses only.



dougbraz said:


> there are some holes appearing in some leaves making me want to add iron or Nitrogen (?)


Holes in leaves have nothing to do with either iron or nitrogen. Holes in leaves is caused by poor CO2, undoubtedly caused by excessive lighting.



dougbraz said:


> I also have cyanobacteria at the front of the tank and on the substrate where not much is growing. I just would like a simple solution to reduce the increased spread of the algae.


It's all related to the same fault - excessive lighting. Simply fix your lighting.

Cheers,


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

Thanks for the quick feedback! Will reduce lighting (power and time) as well as return the surface agitation. Hope that helps! 
Thanks again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

Driftless said:


> I would add, gradually, CO2, stop Excel, and increase surface agitation.



Actually STOP Excel? Won’t my plants suffer then if I am already going to lower light intensity and duration?
I have no plans for CO2 as such - staying low tech for the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nick potts (24 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> Actually STOP Excel? Won’t my plants suffer then if I am already going to lower light intensity and duration?
> I have no plans for CO2 as such - staying low tech for the moment.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There is no harm (in most cases) in using Excel. I use it in all my tanks, high and low tech as an algacide.


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

Nick potts said:


> There is no harm (in most cases) in using Excel. I use it in all my tanks, high and low tech as an algacide.



That’s what I thought! Although some plants DO melt when using it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hello,
> As mentioned by jamila169, the problem fundamentally found here:
> 
> When fighting algae the first thing to do is to reduce the light, because light causes algae. I suggest you reduce the intensity to no more than about 20% for now.
> ...



OK, but then - out of curiosity - i have a small tank (15 litres) with a hob filter and 15w of lighting that gets a totally irregular amount of light, but at least 9hours a day. Snails I got off a plant, but algae? Nothing. 
Partial water changes every week (40% ish), Excel occasionaly (normally just on water changes). Less plants, sure, and pebbles as base.
Water is crystal clean.
How come such a difference?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arcturus (24 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> OK, but then - out of curiosity - i have a small tank (15 litres) with a hob filter and 15w of lighting that gets a totally irregular amount of light, but at least 9hours a day. Snails I got off a plant, but algae? Nothing.
> Partial water changes every week (40% ish), Excel occasionaly (normally just on water changes). Less plants, sure, and pebbles as base.
> Water is crystal clean.
> How come such a difference?


The larger aquarium should be producing a larger (relative) amount of organic waste than what you have in the smaller aquarium due to the plant mass and livestock. The issues you are experiencing with the plants (holes, etc.) also release organic materials. So, there are more nutrients available not only for the plants but also for the algae. Add to that some excessive light and an insufficient liquid carbon source in the form of glutaraldehyde and the algae will have good conditions to grow.


dougbraz said:


> That’s what I thought! Although some plants DO melt when using it.


This is likely not the cause but a symptom. Your plants are  receiving too much light for the amount of available nutrients, including CO2 in the Excel/glutaraldehyde form you are dosing. The excessive light and lack of nutrients will damage the plants. The Excel in the water column will then make the problem worse, and sensitive plants that were already damaged might melt. But the Excel is not the cause. Note that a concentrated or direct application of glutaraldehyde to a plant (or to algae) may certainly cause damage but this is not the scenario we are discussing.


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

arcturus said:


> an insufficient liquid carbon source in the form of glutaraldehyde


So....I should increase the dosage of Seachem Excel then - say double it to 15ml daily for a bit - as well as decrease lighting time and strength?
Appreciate the feedback.
tks


----------



## arcturus (24 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> So....I should increase the dosage of Seachem Excel then - say double it to 15ml daily for a bit - as well as decrease lighting time and strength?
> Appreciate the feedback.


The recommended dosage from Seachem is 5ml per 40L after a WC + 5ml per 200L daily. You should increase the dose slowly and observe the effects. However, I would not change the dosage at this time and would wait until the plants are healthy again.

As recommended, start by reducing the power of the lights and duration of photoperiod.



dougbraz said:


> Actually STOP Excel? Won’t my plants suffer then if I am already going to lower light intensity and duration?
> I have no plans for CO2 as such - staying low tech for the moment.


The decreased energy means that the plants will need less nutrients. 



dougbraz said:


> Fertilizers used + Ratios. Seachem Flourish 3-5ml about twice a week (not very regular with this yet)



You need to start a proper fertilization regime. Seachem Flourish is a micro/trace element fertilizer. You need a macro fertilizer as well. You might consider using a "complete" macro fertilizer complemented with the micro fert you are already using. Just make sure that the macro fertilizer is really a complete fertilizer - some have a label saying "complete" but they are not  And you do need to fertilize on a regular basis if you want to avoid algae and issues with the plants. Over-fertilization will not cause algae, but irregular under-fertilization will weaken the plants, which can then trigger algae. After the plants are healthy again and you are providing sufficient nutrition, you can start experimenting with an increased Excel dosage and with the photoperiod.


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Jun 2021)

@dougbraz  Its hard to convey light intensity from a picture, but here is one (not so great) picture from a couple of days ago after pruning one of my low-tech messy-overgrown-jungle "scape" tanks 40 US Gallon (150 Liter) - a year old. I run my tanks at low intensity and to @jamila169 ,  @ceg4048 and @arcturus point above,  I can't stress enough how much of a difference dialing down the light intensity has made for this tank in particular. The growth (obviously slow, but steady) and overall plant health is very good.  Hours of light makes a lot less of a difference than intensity in my experience - I have light on from noon to 11:30pm - almost a 12 hours including the "sunrise/sunset" ramping. I wan't to have the lights on as much as possible, so I can watch and enjoy the tanks when I feel like it   I can't really quantify how much I had to dial back the intensity to get the tank in the shape I was aiming at, but it was a lot! - I often get asked, by visitors unfamiliar with the hobby, why my tanks are so dark  I have absolutely no algae to speak of - which is my way of saying that I can't see any algae except for a tiny tiny bit of what _could_ be GSA on some Anubias leaves that still gets blasted a bit. With lower light intensity your current dosing might just be fine. You may want to add some NPK I addition to the Comprehensive. Also, I would up the WC to 40% weekly - instead of the current 25%.  I never had good experience with Excel as a "growth enhancer" or as an "algaecide" - there seems to be various opinions of it's efficiency in that respect, and I rather address the root cause (light) than adding chemicals. Also, my Valis and mosses started to die off when using it - I might have been using it inappropriately though. I do not doubt that many apply Excel successfully, especially in combination with injection.




  (note: what looks like yellowing leaves is actually blown / discolored highlights due to the lacking low-light capability of my cell phone camera).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

arcturus said:


> You need a macro fertilizer as well. You might consider using a "complete" macro fertilizer complemented with the micro fert you are already using. Just make sure that the macro fertilizer is really a complete fertilizer - some have a label saying "complete" but they are not


Many thanks for the lengthy detailed reply. There is a locally made npk liquid fert available here, which offers this breakdown:
N 0,57%
P 1,14%
K 3,42%
S 0,25%
Mg 0,17%
Fe 0,01%
Zn 0,0048%
Cu 0,0048%
B 0,0029%
Mn 0,0038%
Mo 0,0001%
Thus, NPK at "roughly" a 6-12-3 proportion. From growing orchids, I know this would be more to encourage flowering rather than rooting or green-ness. Do you think it would be suitable? Another brand offers a 12-1-10 proportion (seems to make more sense), although nothing else but these three. I can obviously buy Seachem N,P and K separately, but am trying to keepthe bottle count (and price) down. 
I would welcome your thoughts.


----------



## dougbraz (24 Jun 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I can't stress enough how much of a difference dialing down the light intensity has made for this tank in particular


Good to hear. I have dialled down to 40% and 6 hours, which includes ramping up and down for an hour each. Let's see what that does. Still looks bright enough in this wintry evening in the tropics.


----------



## ceg4048 (25 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> Thus, NPK at "roughly" a 6-12-3 proportion. From growing orchids, I know this would be more to encourage flowering rather than rooting or green-ness. Do you think it would be suitable? Another brand offers a 12-1-10 proportion (seems to make more sense), although nothing else but these three. I can obviously buy Seachem N,P and K separately, but am trying to keepthe bottle count (and price) down.
> I would welcome your thoughts.


NPK ratios and proportions are meaningless for aquatic plants. They do not live in an environment where they have the luxury of flowering or fruit production and so forth until the dry season when they are living on land. Their response to being flooded is all about survival. I think folks routinely forget this point and that's why we have so much trouble. Plants do not "love" to live in water. The time they spend submerged is one in which they are continually under duress.  This is a far cry from the life led by orchids, roses or apple trees. Therefore they will accrue as much of every nutrient as possible in whatever proportion is available and will simply carry on. This is probably the only consolation we have as aquatic horticulturists is that we never have to worry about NPK ratios.

In order to serve the imperative of low cost and lesser complexity you would do well to simply buy the dry powders KNO3, K2PO4 and trace mix from any garden center such as *Gardens Direct* and follow the dosing instructions in the EI dosing article *EI Dosing Article* 

There is no need to make up a solution by adding them to water, but you can and if you prefer to buy an all in one mix which is made from these powders you can buy the bottle from our sponsor *Aquarium Gardens TNC Plant Food*
Again buying any fertilizer in a bottle is mostly buying water so I always suggest buying the powders and just adding them directly to the tank.

Cheers,


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Again buying any fertilizer in a bottle is mostly buying water so I always suggest buying the powders and just adding them directly to the tank.


Great idea - I don't live in the UK, but will certainly have a look at the local garden centre here. Meantime, I think I will start with the Seachem Plant Pack Enhancer 2 (NPK) and see how that goes - although surely I will run out of one before the other as the dosages they (Seachem) recommend are different for each one.
Cheers


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> In order to serve the imperative of low cost and lesser complexity you would do well to simply buy the dry powders KNO3, K2PO4 and trace mix from any garden center such as *Gardens Direct* and follow the dosing instructions in the EI dosing article *EI Dosing Article*


KNO3 I can find no problem here in granules. is MKP the same as the K2PO4? MKP is also easy to buy. Can't seem to find K2PO4


----------



## Gorillastomp (25 Jun 2021)

MKP is the same as KH2PO4. Just different term.


----------



## MichaelJ (25 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> In order to serve the imperative of low cost and lesser complexity you would do well to simply buy the dry powders KNO3, K2PO4 and trace mix from any garden center such as *Gardens Direct* and follow the dosing instructions in the EI dosing article *EI Dosing Article*


Excellent article. Not sure how/why I missed that one. I will have to figure out how to do the dry salt thing for Nitrogen and Phosphate and just mix it in with the WC water. My K “dosing”, which is very high, is more or less "_set in stone"_ due to my Potassium Cl. softened Tap water / RO mix. My Nitrogen and Phosphate dosing I kind of guesstimate on the high side. Last time I checked the tanks for nitrates it was supposedly in the 40-80 ppm range and the phosphate test totally maxed out on the color scale, but loosely estimated I think its probably in the 40ppm range as well - I don’t see an inkling of a problem with that however, but I would like to save the money on ferts and simplify the dosing. As for ratios, my plants don’t seem to care about that either as long as sufficient amounts of NPK are available to them - makes life a lot simpler for me as well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

Gorillastomp said:


> MKP is the same as KH2PO4. Just different term.


great - so no probs then! thanks


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

In the *EI Dosing Article*,  there is  "Always separate the CSM+B from the NPK". My dumb question is: what is the CSM+B?
Thanks for the patience..


----------



## MichaelJ (25 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> In the *EI Dosing Article*,  there is  "Always separate the CSM+B from the NPK". My dumb question is: what is the CSM+B?
> Thanks for the patience..


I believe it actually refers to a generic mix of certain traces, but could also specifically be the Nilocg Plantex CSM. The +B refers to Boron AFAIK.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Gorillastomp (25 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> what is the CSM+B?


This the equivalent of your seachem flourish but in powder. Since your tank is not that big, i guess you can use flourish.


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

Gorillastomp said:


> This the equivalent of your seachem flourish but in powder. Since your tank is not that big, i guess you can use flourish.


Great - thanks!


----------



## Gorillastomp (25 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> I think I will start with the Seachem Plant Pack Enhancer 2 (NPK) and see how that goes - although surely I will run out of one before the other as the dosages they (Seachem) recommend are different for each one.


You can use this  *Online Calculator* to get the amount you have to add for you tank size to reach EI dose target.


----------



## dougbraz (25 Jun 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> specifically be the Nilocg Plantex CSM.


haha - the Nilocg NPK 500ml bottle costs 100bucks here , so imagine the CSM+B would be the same or more even! So....powdered supply it is - at 6bucks a kilo, who is complaining?


----------



## jaypeecee (27 Jun 2021)

Hi @dougbraz 

One of the UKAPS members - @Zeus. - has done a lot of experimenting with fertilizer/nutrient formulation. I mention him here as I'm sure his input would be valuable.

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> In the *EI Dosing Article*,  there is  "Always separate the CSM+B from the NPK". My dumb question is: what is the CSM+B?
> Thanks for the patience..


As MichaelJ mentioned this is the equivalent of any trace mix you can find in any garden center or from any of our sponsors. In the old days we used fertilizer products that were cheap and easy to find. Plantex CSM was used quite a bit by the hydroponics folks. Later they added Boron to the mix and the product was re-labeled CSM+B. Again, trace element mixes can be found anywhere and they need not follow any particular ratios, formula, or brand name as long as the basic elements are included. Of these metals, Iron is the most prevalent. If you can find a report from your municipal water supply company you will find that most of these metals are generally already found in your tap water. Keep it simple and do not fall into the trap of micromanaging your nutrients.

Cheers,


----------



## dougbraz (28 Jun 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @dougbraz
> 
> One of the UKAPS members - @Zeus. - has done a lot of experimenting with fertilizer/nutrient formulation. I mention him here as I'm sure his input would be valuable.
> 
> JPC


Thanks - will check on him!


----------



## dougbraz (28 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> If you can find a report from your municipal water supply company


Off on a quest! thanks


----------



## dougbraz (28 Jun 2021)

Gorillastomp said:


> You can use this  *Online Calculator* to get the amount you have to add for you tank size to reach EI dose target.


It looks great! Should the dosages be weaker if the tank is lo-tech non-CO2 injected, or just anyway follow the calculator to reach mid-range EI values?


----------



## dougbraz (28 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> In order to serve the imperative of low cost and lesser complexity you would do well to simply buy the dry powders KNO3, K2PO4 and trace mix from any garden center such as *Gardens Direct* and follow the dosing instructions in the EI dosing article *EI Dosing Article*


Powders ordered and on their way this week. Brilliant article of yours by the way, really full of information - thank you. Just one laaaast question (promise): is the dosage indication you gave for a 20gal tank with injected CO2 or a low-tech one? If different, how much should the dosage reduction be for a low-tech tank? Again, thank you so much for your feedback!


----------



## Gorillastomp (28 Jun 2021)

I don't know if its sill the case but it was recommended for low tech - non-co2 tank to use 1/2 EI dosing because the plant just use less and it more a thing about saving money (dosing less ferts) than anything else. Even if you dose full EI and do your weekly 50% W.C you will not reach harmful value for your livestock.

Once you get your water report, then dose accordingly I.E Your tap water contain 30 ppm of Nitrates, then you don't need to dose KNO3 and use K2SO4 instead for the potassium content etc. Anyways if you show your report here, pretty sure some will be able to help you for this. Take you report with a grain of salt, it is average values of when they did the test, It might not be the exact values it shows.

Same for livestock, if you have a lot of fish you may not need to dose nitrate and phosphate.

Just keep it simple, a little bit more is always better than not enough.

Edit : If you are still using Seachem Excel, this does augment nutrients uptake so you may need more than 1/2 EI dose anyways.


----------



## dougbraz (28 Jun 2021)

Gorillastomp said:


> If you are still using Seachem Excel, this does augment nutrients uptake so you may need more than 1/2 EI dose anyways.


For the moment, yes I am, so will keep to say, 2/3 of EI dosage and see what gives.
Tap water report will take a (bureaucratic) while...ho-hum, life in the tropix..


----------



## Karmicnull (28 Jun 2021)

I do 20% EI for one low tech tank and 30% for the other that gets a daily double glute dose.  Both have largely happy growing plants. They are growing noticeably faster in the one with glute.
Cheers,
Simon


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> Brilliant article of yours by the way, really full of information - thank you. Just one laaaast question (promise): is the dosage indication you gave for a 20gal tank with injected CO2 or a low-tech one? If different, how much should the dosage reduction be for a low-tech tank? Again, thank you so much for your feedback!


Thanks for the kind words mate. We're thrilled that you find the information useful.
EI was developed fundamentally for high tech fuel injected tanks. The reason is that with CO2 the metabolism of the plants is increased by up to an order of magnitude (10X) compared to a low tech tank.

Barr's non-Co2 method is as follows:
Assuming 80-90% of the nutrients will come from the fish load, add once a week about 1/8 and 1/32 teaspoon of KNO3 and KH2PO4 respectively per 20 gallons.
While trace mixes can be added, one can use SeaChem Equlibrium instead if desired.
It has Fe and Mn as well as Ca/K/Mg/SO4.
Add about 1/4 teaspoon per 20 gal tank once every week or two.

As you can see, the difference is significant, but as noted, many folks use different amounts based on their own experience.

It's important to understand that low tech is not the same as adding daily amounts of Excel or equivalent. When you add liquid carbon this then counts as high tech and the dosage needs to be increased accordingly.



Gorillastomp said:


> Once you get your water report, then dose accordingly I.E Your tap water contain 30 ppm of Nitrates, then you don't need to dose KNO3 and use K2SO4 instead for the potassium content etc. Anyways if you show your report here, pretty sure some will be able to help you for this. Take you report with a grain of salt, it is average values of when they did the test, It might not be the exact values it shows.


This is not a good policy. It's OK to do this for trace element mix, simply because plants only require very small amounts, but you cannot assume what's in the water report is what's in YOUR house. The water report provides an average across the service area and you cannot tell what makes it to your pipes. Assume zero for N, P and K and adjust the dosage based on your observations and experimentation.

Cheers,


----------



## Gorillastomp (29 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> This is not a good policy. It's OK to do this for trace element mix, simply because plants only require very small amounts, but you cannot assume what's in the water report is what's in YOUR house. The water report provides an average across the service area and you cannot tell what makes it to your pipes. Assume zero for N, P and K and adjust the dosage based on your observations and experimentation.


Totally right this is why i said to take this with a grain a salt, was probably poor said on my part.


----------



## Andy Pierce (29 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> It's important to understand that low tech is not the same as adding daily amounts of Excel or equivalent. When you add liquid carbon this then counts as high tech and the dosage needs to be increased accordingly.


Following up on this bit... in terms of plant metabolism, if a low-tech tank without liquid carbon is 1x and a high-tech tank with injected CO2 gas is 10x, where on that scale does liquid carbon without CO2 injection fall?


----------



## dougbraz (29 Jun 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> It's important to understand that low tech is not the same as adding daily amounts of Excel or equivalent. When you add liquid carbon this then counts as high tech and the dosage needs to be increased accordingly.





Karmicnull said:


> I do 20% EI for one low tech tank and 30% for the other that gets a daily double glute dose.  Both have largely happy growing plants. They are growing noticeably faster in the one with glute.
> Cheers,
> Simon


Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but just to check: if you add Excel (for example) as I do on a daily basis (thought it was good for the plants), then you have to add a HIGHER load of ferts to the tank as well (not a problem, just want to be sure)? I have no CO2 injection.

Cheers


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Jun 2021)

Yes, Excel contains molecules replete with Carbon and thus plants can support or grow tissue with this carbon and as a consequence require a little more of everything else to ensure there is no interruption in this mechanic.


----------



## Karmicnull (29 Jun 2021)

What @X3NiTH said. We use EI to make sure ferts are not the limiting factor.  We get a decent amount of surface turbulence to make sure there is enough O2.  Then we spend our time getting the balance right for light intensity and carbon availability as the two remaining factors.  In a high energy tank the carbon is provided through CO2, and there's more of it, so you can have more intense lighting and consequently need more ferts.  In a tank where Glute is being added you've got more bioavailable carbon than a straight low-energy tank, but a lot less than if you added CO2, so light intensity and ferts are correspondingly somewhere between the two as well. 
Cheers,
Simon


----------



## dougbraz (29 Jun 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Yes, Excel contains molecules replete with Carbon and thus plants can support or grow tissue with this carbon and as a consequence require a little more of everything else to ensure there is no interruption in this mechanic.





Karmicnull said:


> In a tank where Glute is being added you've got more bioavailable carbon than a straight low-energy tank, but a lot less than if you added CO2, so light intensity and ferts are correspondingly somewhere between the two


Thanks for clearing up my doubts guys - much appreciated!
Cheers
Doug


----------



## arcturus (29 Jun 2021)

dougbraz said:


> Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but just to check: if you add Excel (for example) as I do on a daily basis (thought it was good for the plants), then you have to add a HIGHER load of ferts to the tank as well (not a problem, just want to be sure)? I have no CO2 injection.
> 
> Cheers


Excel is a carbon source. It provides a fraction of the carbon that you would have with CO2 injection, but it is an extra form of CO2 nonetheless. This means your tank is somewhere between a low-energy and a high-energy setup. The extra carbon will trigger plant growth and  the plants will also require additional nutrients provided by fertilizers than what they would need without carbon. You cannot let the extra carbon source create a nutrient imbalance. This means that the main energy sources of the plants (carbon, micro/macro nutrients provided fertilizers and light) must be aligned.


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Jun 2021)

Andy Pierce said:


> Following up on this bit... in terms of plant metabolism, if a low-tech tank without liquid carbon is 1x and a high-tech tank with injected CO2 gas is 10x, where on that scale does liquid carbon without CO2 injection fall?


Hi Andy,
           Practically speaking, it can fall anywhere, depending on how much injected CO2 it is being compared to. Generally it is compared to the mythical "30ppm" of CO2 gas saturation and if that's the case then it may only be 2X to 3X the metabolism of plants in a low tech tank, but we know that that gas concentration levels of 30ppm rarely ever reaches the plant beds. Also, some folks using CO2 injection choose to limit their injection due to toxicity concerns. Also, those dosing liquid carbon can choose to dose the suggested bottle levels or they can dose up to as much as 3X the bottle suggestion depending on their concerns for toxicity. Since we can never be sure exactly how much is being dosed or how efficient someone's gas injection is comparatively, it's easier when dosing nutrients in a liquid carbon tank to start with the standard EI values and reduce from there if desired.

Cheers,


----------



## dougbraz (30 Jun 2021)

arcturus said:


> The extra carbon will trigger plant growth and the plants will also require additional nutrients provided by fertilizers than what they would need without carbon.





ceg4048 said:


> it's easier when dosing nutrients in a liquid carbon tank to start with the standard EI values and reduce from there if desired.



Gentlemen - thanks for the clarifications. Will let u know how we progress.
Cheers
Doug


----------



## Flukeworld (30 Jun 2021)

Reading the topic I am confirming my observations about light intensity importance, not so much about the hours of lightning period towards algae appearance. What I have still doubts about is fertilization. 
I have around 30 litters of Dennerle scaper soil with Denerle 9+1 beneath on my semi community/planted tank. I am still struggling to identify the needed ferts dosage. I have been dosing heavily, I have been dosing low, still here and there I have some algae, slow growing plants are black on the corners. Lately, I observed the following effect - on the day I was dosing macros just an hour or so later the side glass covered with green algae. I was thinking - well, may be my fish load, plus the excess organics, the soil, and so on is already fertilizing my aqua, so pouring more macro causes suitable algae environment. Then I am reading in here that it is hard to get "over fertilization" as a reason for algae, its more likely the light and inconsistent CO2. 
So, my question is - should I be worrying that my organic load is adding enough macro elements, so when I add more (following the EI guidelines) it causes excess, or most probably I have another issue and should not focus on dosage?


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Jul 2021)

Flukeworld said:


> So, my question is - should I be worrying that my organic load is adding enough macro elements, so when I add more (following the EI guidelines) it causes excess, or most probably I have another issue and should not focus on dosage?


Hi Flukeworld,
                      There are a couple of important reasons to worry about organic load and none of them have anything to do with nutrients. First and foremost is that another name for organic load is "water pollution". There are some complicated science associated with pollution, but simply put, organics in the water trigger the rise of bacteria, whose main function is actually to clean the pollution and to remove those organic compounds from the water. This is how your filter works, which is no surprise, however, the penalty you pay for the services of these bacteria is that they are aerobic and therefor they breathe oxygen. In so doing they compete with both the fish and the plants for this limited oxygen supply. The result is that both the fish and the plants fall victim to hypoxia. The fish become ill due to a decrease in their immune system and the plants become ill and their defense system is weakened sufficiently that they fall victim to algal attacks. We should therefore not depend only on our filters to solve this problem and instead we should make best efforts to remove the organics from the tank with frequent and LARGE water changes.

The second significant consequence of organics in the water is that they complex system turns these compounds into a bio-film which coats the plant leaves and the film becomes an impediment to the movement of nutrients and especially CO2 across the epidermal layer of the leaf.

Many people who do not understand EI love to talk about how the large and frequent water changes associated with EI is necessary in order to reduce the nutrient level, but this is COMPLETELY false and focuses on irrelevant factors. As we have discussed above, plants which are provided with a high nutrient load and CO2 greatly raise their metabolism, and in so doing they then produce significantly higher levels of organic waste. It is removal of this organic pollution that we are ridding the tank of when we perform the water changes and has nothing to do with "reset of nutrients" because if we wanted to reduce the nutrient level all we would need to do would be to stop dosing for a while in order for the nutrient concentration to naturally decline as the plants consume them. The EI dosing scheme would then look very different that what is described in the referenced article.

The fundamental cause of your algae therefore has to be investigated more thoroughly in order to find the real culprit. The appearance of the algae subsequent to your dosing is incidental. It is more likely that the tank was falling over the cliff due to other factor(s), which I would guess without even having all the data about your tank, that you have a CO2 shortfall or even a nutrient shortfall due to poor flow/distribution, possibly exacerbated by excessive lighting. Again, I do not know all the details. If you have a thread already in the algae section then kindly point us to it and we will investigate. The species of algae that appear in a planted tank is strongly correlated to the root cause of nutrient deficiency and is NOT related to excess of nutrients. I proved this to mysel long ago. The tank and plants you see in the referenced article was dosed with between 3X and 5X the EI dosing number. Think about that for a moment. That excess nutrients do not cause algae in a planted tank is a fact that MUST be your fundamental belief system first and foremost if you are to find root cause of problems and if you are to find the correct path to rectification.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (1 Jul 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Many people who do not understand EI love to talk about how the large and frequent water changes associated with EI is necessary in order to reduce the nutrient level, but this is COMPLETELY false and focuses on irrelevant factors.


That makes a lot of sense to me. There are actually a lot of EI lore that I've been reading that suggest that you do the weekly WC's for the purpose of somehow “resetting” the tanks nutrition (i.e. fertilizer) levels. Throughout the years I've always thought of WC’s as something you do to get rid of organic waste from plants, livestock, uneaten food, algae spores, unwanted bacteria etc.  and you dose fertilizer to give back what was taken away due to the collateral damage caused by the WC plus whatever the plants consumed in-between the WC.   Also, I’ve never experienced algae due to high nutrition levels (NPK), quite the contrary actually. Combined with proper light intensity filtration and flow, high NPK levels seems to make it much harder for especially GSA, BGA and Hair algae to get a foothold in my experience, but when push comes to shove it’s probably much more about the light intensity, WC and filtration/flow than NPK levels - as long as the plants are not malnourished due to lack of NPK or traces for that matter.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Jul 2021)

Hi Michael,
                  Yes, it's easy to latch on to a sentence or paragraph and to  then use it out of context. To be fair, we need to understand the situation at time at which Tom Barr first presented the EI concept. Hobbyists generally were wary because nutrients were always being blamed for problems in the tank. The most reluctant adversaries were the discus crowd who constantly preached water changes to remove NO3, considered to be a pariah. They could not understand the difference between NO3 resulting from the organic and dangerous sequence of events occurring in Nitrogen Cycle from the innocuous addition of adding inorganic NO3 salts. Barr was forced to argue that doing the water changes effectively would reduce any toxins including NO3, whether derived from organic sources or added as a salt. I've been out of the discus community for some time so I don't know if they have come to the realization that the NO3 at the end of the Nitrogen Cycle is actually the smoking gun of the damage that has already occurred from NH3 to NO2 to NO3 and that it is not the NO3 that is problematic.

Cheers,


----------



## Flukeworld (1 Jul 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> That excess nutrients do not cause algae in a planted tank is a fact that MUST be your fundamental belief system first and foremost if you are to find root cause of problems and if you are to find the correct path to rectification.


Thank you Clive, seems I always geт an actual answer of my questions whenever you get to post. Which in the end saves me a lot of try'n'error situations.
Your posts are always great to read. I was gathering more with the plans to update my "Issues topic" as I have some updates like getting spray bar and observations for a month, I will do so soon, just need some spare time 
Cheers, 
I love this forum,
Fluke


----------



## Flukeworld (1 Jul 2021)

Clive, I need some more elaboration on this:


ceg4048 said:


> First and foremost is that another name for organic load is "water pollution". There are some complicated science associated with pollution, but simply put, organics in the water trigger the rise of bacteria, whose main function is actually to clean the pollution and to remove those organic compounds from the water. This is how your filter works, which is no surprise, however, the penalty you pay for the services of these bacteria is that they are aerobic and therefor they breathe oxygen. In so doing they compete with both the fish and the plants for this limited oxygen supply. The result is that both the fish and the plants fall victim to hypoxia. The fish become ill due to a decrease in their immune system and the plants become ill and their defense system is weakened sufficiently that they fall victim to algal attacks. We should therefore not depend only on our filters to solve this problem and instead we should make best efforts to remove the organics from the tank with frequent and LARGE water changes.


I want to know more on how this de-oxygenation happens, hypoxia if needed to be more scientific and specific. How aggressive and fast it is happening. Imagine for example a full agitated from surface movement tank with some additional oxygen pumped in including good length light period and CO2 injection. Do you observe this ass missive live stock decline or its "here and there" process. I actually had some deaths for a while until the stock got into normal numbers, thing I still feel as the most panful part of learning process. The truth is that I just keep trying to identify the "main" reason behind this.

Yes, I had loses but along with tetras I have livebearers and I am a carrying type of a guy for live-beings saving babies, raising them with good food and then seeing mostly their parents or bigger brothers dyeing. I never got complete mess with numbers, but lets say for 170 litter tank i had 230 centimeters of fish. Seems I have being providing a lot of stress. Now I can estimate like having a bit under the volume "fish" centimeters,  but I am still learning, I keep changing a lot in regards to "lower the stress" following  information I research on the web. I know my losses are not in vain, I keep improving my self 

I know this is 1 millions dollar question, but does hypoxia could be easily prevented in a tank receiving agitation from surface, pump, good photosynthesis process for a good amount of hours and in the same time receiving around 45% of volume water changes weekly?

In this case, can I remove the hypoxia from the equation for my live stock losses? I had loses for sure from too much CO2 injection, or too aggressive water changes. Still sometimes I am trying to blame my fertilizations overdosing. Well, if its hard to answer I would love to see at least on a high level where hypoxia or overfertilization resides on a semi-smart driven tank.
Can I remove hypoxia from the equation for my algae problems? Or at least lower its priority.
Should I start cleaning my tank twice a week? I believe cleaning would help for sure, but may be not because I stopped hypoxia from happening in my ecosystem. Prove me wrong, hopefully, so I can afford less maintenance


----------



## MichaelJ (2 Jul 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> To be fair, we need to understand the situation at time at which Tom Barr first presented the EI concept. Hobbyists generally were wary because nutrients were always being blamed for problems in the tank. The most reluctant adversaries were the discus crowd who constantly preached water changes to remove NO3, considered to be a pariah.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks @ceg4048 ,  always good to get the historical perspective!



Flukeworld said:


> Thank you Clive, seems I always geт an actual answer of my questions whenever you get to post. Which in the end saves me a lot of try'n'error situations.


Agreed, I am still waiting for the book!

Regards,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (2 Jul 2021)

-


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Jul 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Agreed, I am still waiting for the book!


haha first I need to find a publisher who is convinced that nutrients don't cause algae...



Flukeworld said:


> I want to know more on how this de-oxygenation happens, hypoxia if needed to be more scientific and specific. How aggressive and fast it is happening. Imagine for example a full agitated from surface movement tank with some additional oxygen pumped in including good length light period and CO2 injection. Do you observe this ass missive live stock decline or its "here and there" process. I actually had some deaths for a while until the stock got into normal numbers, thing I still feel as the most panful part of learning process. The truth is that I just keep trying to identify the "main" reason behind this.


Hi Fluke,
               Well this get very deep so I'll describe in general terms. Nature always has techniques to clean up. On the open plains/savannah for example there are  vultures who eat carrion. They are immune to most diseases and they help prevent the spread of those diseases by eating rotted flesh that few other animals will touch. Hyenas hunt the weak or disabled and so prevent them from passing on weak genes.

When water is polluted with organic material the microorganisms in the water feed on this material because usually, the material, if it is organic, will always, by definition be constructed of carbon as well as of NPK to a greater or lesser extent. Urine, for example is a source of Nitrogen. When organic materials decay, one of the first products is ammonia. You may be aware of the bacteria Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter which are famous for eating ammonia and converting it to nitrite. But just look at the difference between ammonia and nitrite => NH3 and NO2. Can you see that nitrite is mostly (60% by weight) oxygen? Hobbyists usually don't consider that there is only one place this oxygen can come from and that is directly from the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Look at the next reaction; nitrite to nitrate => NO2 to NO3   Again, nitrite has two oxygen atoms and nitrate has three. Where does the third oxygen atom come from? Yes, from the same water column that the fish need to breathe from.

So the more pollution in the water the more microorganisms. There are more than just Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter and Nitrospira, but species other than bacteria, such as archaea (which is said to actually do the bulk of the conversion). So there are millions of millions of these germs all stealing oxygen from the water to de-toxify the water, but in so doing they rob fish of this critical resource. Oxygen is NOT very soluble in water so fish really suffer because it only very slowly replaced by oxygen in the atmosphere. Even if they are not suffocated to death immediately, the hypoxia damages their immune systems and leaves them open to attack by other microorganisms so they die of other reasons.

One of the reasons that planted tanks are better for fish is specifically because during daylight hours the plants release oxygen into the water as well as into the sediment.

It must also be noted that plants have a symbiotic relationship with many other types of microorganisms. The CO2 you feed to plants is metabolized and is later released into the water and sediment as carbohydrates, such as sugar, upon which these microorganisms feed. This is the same organic material that will rot and wreak havoc in the tank if the water is not removed.

For year I've had to endure people bitching and winging about how EI forces you to do water changes, but we need frequent and massive water changes anyway specifically because of the problem of water pollution - even if there were no plants and no EI. I was programmed for water changes when I was 10 years old with guppies in a 5 gallon tank. I saw a direct correlation between water changes and survival rate.


Flukeworld said:


> I know this is 1 millions dollar question, but does hypoxia could be easily prevented in a tank receiving agitation from surface, pump, good photosynthesis process for a good amount of hours and in the same time receiving around 45% of volume water changes weekly?


I would be very careful about surface agitation during the day when plants are producing oxygen. Surface agitation works both ways. It can bring gases into the tank if there is more of that gas outside than inside AND it can send gases out of the tank. If your plants are producing oxygen then you could easily be sending the oxygen out of the tank.

The surface agitation is much more useful at night, when the plants are consuming oxygen and are not producing oxygen. Plants compete with fish and compete with bacteria  for oxygen at night. During the day you should manage the agitation so that it is enough to off-gas excess CO2 but not so much that you off-gas the very commodity you are attempting to keep. Airstones at nigh really help with this and turn off the airstone during the day. Of course, this should also be in concert with frequent and massive water changes. I change 90% of my water at the end of the week. If the fish are having difficulty due to overcrowding or over feeding then do 90% change twice a week. Do not fear water changes. There are a lot of websites preaching minimalist water changes because you should "keep you water parameters constant" and of course hobbyists minimize their water changes, the fish perish and they then blame pH or other absurd reasons. When fish die change you water because something is in the water killing them. Change your water even when they don't die because it will minimize the effect of any toxin in the water.


Flukeworld said:


> In this case, can I remove the hypoxia from the equation for my live stock losses? I had loses for sure from too much CO2 injection, or too aggressive water changes. Still sometimes I am trying to blame my fertilizations overdosing. Well, if its hard to answer I would love to see at least on a high level where hypoxia or overfertilization resides on a semi-smart driven tank.
> Can I remove hypoxia from the equation for my algae problems? Or at least lower its priority.
> Should I start cleaning my tank twice a week? I believe cleaning would help for sure, but may be not because I stopped hypoxia from happening in my ecosystem. Prove me wrong, hopefully, so I can afford less maintenance


Well CO2 is toxic as hell. This has to remain in the equation because it's the biggest killer in CO2 injected tanks. But if that is happening that means you are mismanaging your CO2. You can use LESS CO2 if your flow and distribution are excellent. Again, I do not know the facts about you tank but it's very easy to see the effects of CO2 poisoning. The fish behave strangely. They gasp at the surface. Sometimes they hide in an area that perhaps has a lower CO2 concentration. Co2 poisoning is called Hypercapnia and it is deadly. If you see these symptoms do a massive water change immediately to lower the CO2 concentration and reduce the injection rate.

Hypoxia actually can contribute to some algal blooms, but as always, we would need a full description of the tank configuration, filter data, photos of the distribution methods and so forth. It's very easy in a CO2 injected tank to have poor CO2 causing algal blooms at the same time that you have hypercapnia which damages the fish. I see this every day and it is usually due to poor management of the gas, poor water change schedule and poor filter flow/distribution.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (3 Jul 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> haha first I need to find a publisher who is convinced that nutrients don't cause algae...


That's hilarious 😂  Happy 4th!
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dougbraz (5 Jul 2021)

dougbraz said:


> Gentlemen - thanks for the clarifications. Will let u know how we progress.
> Cheers
> Doug


well, 2X40% water changes later (Saturdays chores), reduction of lighting to 6 hours and 40%, daily dosing of 2 capfuls of Seachem Excel, and an EI cocktail (50ml) every 2nd day being (three times only so far):
2.8 tsp KNO3
1 tsp KH2PO4
7.5 tsp MgSO4 
dissolved in 500ml of filtered water
and it may be my rose tinted glasses,  it may be too early to tell, but it at least SEEMS that the algae is receding and the plants overall seem healthier, less droopy. If this is me on the right track, I am well content and grateful for all the info supplied here.
Cheers
Doug
(messy jungle image attached)


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Jul 2021)

Cheers,


----------



## Flukeworld (10 Jul 2021)

Same here, some good progress. Did lately 90% water change as Clive advised and I can see my dormant for weeks nerite snails finally moving around. Seems the whole tank looks clearer and brighter, the stock also seems happy. I also lowered the light intensity and with much larger changes seems the algae on slow growers is declining in the moment. Fingers crossed


----------

