# phosphate with EI - higher than 3 ppm?



## Andy Pierce (4 Dec 2021)

EI dosing 'full' has 3 ppm phosphate.  Is there any point in going higher with phosphate with respect to inhibiting GSA?  Calculated out, my weekly added phosphate is currently 2.8 ppm but I've stopped daily dosing EasyCarbo (because I think it's hurting the vallis) and I sense some renewed vigor with the GSA in reponse.

Anyone here doing EI dosing with > 3 ppm phosphate?


----------



## MichaelJ (4 Dec 2021)

Andy Pierce said:


> EI dosing 'full' has 3 ppm phosphate.  Is there any point in going higher with phosphate with respect to inhibiting GSA?  Calculated out, my weekly added phosphate is currently 2.8 ppm but I've stopped daily dosing EasyCarbo (because I think it's hurting the vallis) and I sense some renewed vigor with the GSA in reponse.
> 
> Anyone here doing EI dosing with > 3 ppm phosphate?


Hi @Andy Pierce  sometimes last year I had a big outbreak of GSA in both my tanks (the two low-tech tanks a very similar with regards to plant mass livestock etc. - heavily planted).  I did a number of things to get rid of the problem: Lowered the light intensity a bit further  (it was already pretty low).  Upped my WC amount to about 50% (up from 20-30%) weekly. In addition, I started to increase my PO4 dosing to a full 10ppm weekly (occasionally more). After a couple of weeks things really started to change. The GSA receded quickly and a week or two later it was completely gone.  My dosing regime at that time was Tropica Specialized and Tropica Premium - so I upped the measly ~1ppm of PO4 to 10ppm by adding Seachem Phosphate in addition to the tropica (later on I switch to 100% DIY dosing using dry salts for everything). I kept the 10ppm dosing of PO4 since then and haven't seen a speck of GSA or any other algae to speak of since then or any adverse effects on my plants or livestock(fish/shrimps/snails).   Of course, my experience is anecdotal, but it appears to correspond well with the  experts assessment of the cause of GSA outbreaks.

btw. I never had any luck using liquid carbon in the water column to combat algae issues - it would melt my Valis and mosses as well. I know others have had luck with liquid carbon against BBA and other algae, so perhaps it was due to my application.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q (5 Dec 2021)

Purely anecdotal @Andy Pierce  but I recently did a non scientific test and here's my findings.

Following on from discussions in this thread Lean dosing pros and cons ..I cut my ei dosing by 50% to see what effect, if any, it would have.

Proir to reducing ferts I added 4ppm of Po4 pw, extra Po4 had been added to combat Gsa. The new dosing program adds 2ppm.

I'm about 2 weeks into this experiment and starting to see gsa appearing on the leaves of some plants and also seeing bits appearing on the glass. No other changes have been made regards C02 or light throughout this period.

In fairness I suspected this would happen, but needed to witness the effect for myself. I can't confirm increasing the dosing levels will cure this issue (only reinstated original dosing levels on Friday) but if history is anything to go by I expect it will.

Obviously it needs to be stressed that all the ferts were reduced in this test, not just P04.

I'd suggest you just increase the levels of phosphate and report back any findings.


----------



## si walker (5 Dec 2021)

I also would like to test dosing PO4.
Currently using Tropica Specialised.
Yet to find out what amount of PO4 is already present in my tap water. 
I am in Epsom Surrey if anyone happens to know??
I know that Nitrates are pretty high out of the tap. If so should the PO4 be increased to even things out? I don't know.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree!

Thanks


----------



## John q (5 Dec 2021)

Small update... 2 weeks reduced ei, 2ppm po4, clearly other issues going on but will post pics(good or bad) in another 2 weeks so we can see the difference. Picture is quite a good representation as to what I'm seeing 👀





10 pts available if anyone can identify the other 
defiency.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Dec 2021)

Hi all,


si walker said:


> I know that Nitrates are pretty high out of the tap. If so should the PO4 be increased to even things out? I don't know.


It depends upon the source of the orthophosphate (PO4---) ions. If they are present in the water supply because they've come from surface water, or shallow aquifers, with raised levels from optical brighteners in <"washing powder, treated sewage and agricultural pollution"> then both values are likely to be high.

Because the SE of England is so heavily populated, and <"water is in short supply">, many water companies have been forced <"to put in phosphate strippers"> at <"waste waste plants">, but they don't need to report the level of PO4--- in the tap water they supply, because there isn't a statutory limit. Water supply issues can only get worse in S. England, so I would expect the water companies to have to come up with ever <"more innovative ways"> of keeping us supplied with drinking water.

The only reason this won't happen is if, in the UK (<"post-Brexit">), we have such a big bonfire of environmental legislation that companies can get away with <"American levels of water treatment">.

Even if your tap water is <"naturally hard"> the water company is likely to add phosphate to it, this is to give "belt and braces" in the <"control of heavy metals in tap water"> and means that all tap water in the UK will have  <"~0.5 ppm PO4---">, even if there isn't any anthropogenic input.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Andy Pierce (5 Dec 2021)

I've decided to go with 7 ppm phosphate and see how that works out.  Other macros are 25 ppm K, 15 ppm N, 5 ppm Mg.


----------



## NotoriousENG (6 Dec 2021)

dw1305 said:


> <"American levels of water treatment">.


I've seen the quality of American water treatment mentioned a few times and it really makes me wonder if I should stop drinking it. Particularly since I live close to DC...


----------



## MichaelJ (6 Dec 2021)

NotoriousENG said:


> I've seen the quality of American water treatment mentioned a few times and it really makes me wonder if I should stop drinking it. Particularly since I live close to DC...



Really depends... I am not familiar with the water in DC.  The quality seems to vary quite a bit across the country.... You obviously can't really asses the quality from the taste alone, but bad tasting water is of course a red flag whether it's healthy of not. Our water is pretty good tasting especially after switching over to KCL resin in our water softener and the city water is generally considered very good around here.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (6 Dec 2021)

Hi all,


NotoriousENG said:


> I've seen the quality of American water treatment mentioned a few times and it really makes me wonder if I should stop drinking it





MichaelJ said:


> The quality seems to vary quite a bit across the country.... You obviously can't really asses the quality from the taste alone, but bad tasting water is of course a red flag whether it's healthy of not.


It is variability really. In the USA you can have many more grades of water than we have in N. Europe, including cleaner, purer water as well as the stuff from the <"Potomac river">. It all depends on the water source, and the USA still has intact aquifers and watersheds, mainly because N. America is a sparsely populated continent.

The US model is extract the water and give it the minimum amount  of treatment that the water company can get away with. If you have a water source that is full of <"coliform bacteria">? You put 5 ppm of chlorine in it, to make it micro-biologically "safe", so you aren't sued by your customers. What they don't do is improve their infrastructure, because that costs money and impinges on your bottom line.

The situation is different in N. Europe, we've had 5000 years to trash our continent and we are the birth place of <"the industrial revolution">. The legacy of this is that we are a densely populated continent and certain regions (S. England, Netherlands, Ruhr region etc) have very high population densities.

This is the population density map of the UK:




In the UK every scrap of land is owned and farmed and we don't have any primary wilderness, even our National Parks are just areas which are slightly less agriculturally degraded (and slightly less development friendly) than the rest of the country.

We need <"enforceable environmental legislation"> to maintain any sort of water, or <"air, quality">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## NotoriousENG (8 Dec 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Really depends... I am not familiar with the water in DC.  The quality seems to vary quite a bit across the country.... You obviously can't really asses the quality from the taste alone, but bad tasting water is of course a red flag whether it's healthy of not. Our water is pretty good tasting especially after switching over to KCL resin in our water softener and the city water is generally considered very good around here.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


The water out here is definitely the worst tasting that I've experienced. It's not so bad now that it's winter, but during the summer the taste can only be described as pond water mixed with swimming pool water.



dw1305 said:


> as well as the stuff from the <"Potomac river">.


Pretty sure that's what I'm drinking. The county gets its water through a wholesaler so it could be from any number of other surface water sources though. Maybe I should get new filters for my RO system and get it hooked up...

Also @Andy Pierce, I apologize for the thread hijack.


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Dec 2021)

NotoriousENG said:


> The water out here is definitely the worst tasting that I've experienced. It's not so bad now that it's winter, but during the summer the taste can only be described as pond water mixed with swimming pool water.


Hi @NotoriousENG   Yeah, its one of those things that really grinds my gears.  Why do we put up with water that is not up to par?...I mean, when did water become a profit center in the first place? Whomever is in charge of providing drinking water should go out of their way to make sure its as good as practically possible - no one should profit from clean drinking water - no one! And I am all for free enterprise and all that - my livelyhood is relying on it... but water? no one should ever consider profit above the best possible water or the environment for that matter...


NotoriousENG said:


> Also @Andy Pierce, I apologize for the thread hijack.


No apologize needed, your raising a very valid point.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (8 Dec 2021)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> Why do we put up with water that is not up to par?...I mean, when did water become a profit center in the first place? Whomever is in charge of providing drinking water should go out of their way to make sure its as good as practically possible - no one should profit from clean drinking water - no one!


If I was a <"totally amoral"> hedge fund investor I would be looking very closely at buying a water company. Rather than short term gain, asset stripping and dismembering the company I would play the long game and actually invest in infrastructure etc. 

The rationale would be that every-one needs water, and potentially they will pay much more for it than they do at the moment. As water supplies become more tenuous I would be in a position to supply a premium product at a premium price. I would speculate that buyers would be utilities and businesses that had no where else to go. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Andy Pierce (8 Dec 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> If I was a <"totally amoral"> hedge fund investor I would be looking very closely at buying a water company. Rather than short term gain, asset stripping and dismembering the company I would play the long game and actually invest in infrastructure etc.
> 
> ...


Or, you could provide a crap product at a premium price because the customers have no where else to go...


----------



## erwin123 (8 Dec 2021)

there is definitely economic value in improving water supplies. 30% of my country's water is recycled (microfiltration/RO/UV), 10% is from desalination.





						The Four National Taps of Singapore: A Holistic Approach to Water Resources Management from Drainage to Drinking Water
					

Water resources in Singapore are managed following the principles of a closed loop hydrologic cycle by one agency, the Public Utility Board (PUB), which promot…




					www.chijournal.org


----------



## John q (18 Dec 2021)

Just thought I'd update on how the Hydrocotyle is reacting to the increase in phosphate dosing from 2 ppm to 4 ppm. 

Growth overall has increased remarkably and there is no notable gsa visible on this new growth, there is still some minor spotting on the older leaves but this is definitely reducing.

To add some balance it should be noted that all the fert levels were increased, not just the PO4, so it could well be that whole is greater than sum of the parts. 

The pictures I've added aren't that clear but should be clear enough to see the gsa is in retreat.


----------



## Oldguy (18 Dec 2021)

I must be lucky with my tap water: nice taste and moderately soft/hard. (About 100pm total hardness) and plenty of it. Old property and low water rates.

In the UK you can always sink your our well, no permission required. No one owns water under English Law but access to it may be owned ie the land its on/under or abuts to. Less than 4000 Imperial gals per day no abstraction permit required, you could do a few water changes with that especially if you stopped washing.

Seriously I dug down 6ft and hit running water, a small aquifer  between layers of soft sandstone, but for most of the year there is a small stream at the side of the garden. I have a neighbour who is metred for drinking water but pulls water for his garden out of the brook that runs through his land.

Sorry about being off topic with phosphate but water supply is always interesting.


----------



## MichaelJ (18 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Just thought I'd update on how the Hydrocotyle is reacting to the increase in phosphate dosing from 2 ppm to 4 ppm.
> 
> Growth overall has increased remarkably and there is no notable gsa visible on this new growth, there is still some minor spotting on the older leaves but this is definitely reducing.
> 
> ...


Very nice John! How long did it take to see the effect?    I've been doing 10ppm of PO4 weekly for a very long time now. Zero GSA. Down from when I had a lot on my Anubias especially and hardly dosed PO4 (~1 ppm/week).  Now, 10ppm is hardly necessary and I could almost certainly shave off 5ppm and reduce my overall TDS.  I do remember that it took a couple of weeks to really see the impact - I had already lowered the light intensity a bit beforehand, so its likely a combination of the lower light and the PO4 dosing. I do not know what it is that the PO4 dosing is doing exactly vs. GSA  - is it giving the plants the ability to fend them off or is it the GSA that do not thrive with high levels of PO4? Not clear to me. I would assume at 10ppm there are more PO4 available than the plants will possibly need in a low energy tank.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q (18 Dec 2021)

Two weeks @MichaelJ   no other changes have been made to the tank. The only reason I lowerd the dosing regime was to prove a point to myself. 
Honestly don't know if it's the extra P04 that's reversed the gsa onslaught but suspect its helped.


----------



## MichaelJ (18 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Two weeks @MichaelJ   no other changes have been made to the tank. The only reason I lowerd the dosing regime was to prove a point to myself.
> Honestly don't know if it's the extra P04 that's reversed the gsa onslaught but suspect its helped.


I must add that when I started the "treatment" in both my tanks I did it slightly asynchronously - about 1-2 weeks apart. I saw the same effect in both tanks eventually. It's not entirely possible to rule out other factors being equally important, but I'm pretty confident upping the PO4 dosing helped. In hindsight I wish I would have been a bit more meticulous about taking notes about the other things that I did.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (20 Dec 2021)

Dear members,

There are plenty of PO4 and GSA threads all over the forums, especially on the TPT where people have GSA along with high PO4 and they still couldn’t figure out why it was happening. As I have explained earlier that GSA has nothing to do with the PO4, but PO4 does alter the water chemistry and it will certainly increase the plant growth if all other nutrients are present at a decent quantity. PO4 have a direct influence on several nutrients in the water, have you ever considered that high PO4 might be interfering with some of the other nutrients that are needed to form GSA, for example Iron, Zinc, Calcium etc.? have you considered that maybe higher Iron could be linked to GSA/GDA and adding more PO4 reduce or eliminate it by precipitating them?

#1, If user is seeing a decrease in GSA after adding more PO4, this suggest that he is reducing or eliminating something in his water that is needed to form GSA. This doesn’t mean that plant are using the higher doses of PO4

#2, if user is also increasing plant mass with additional PO4 which will also reduce the formation of GSA due to faster plant growth. But #1 seems to be playing the major factor.

If someone is convinced that higher PO4 is answer to the GSA and not considering other factors, then am not with those guys. If they are considering the #1 and #2 factor, then I am fully with them. Now am not saying that user is wrong about what he/she is seeing in his tank after adding more PO4, but I hope he/she is also considering other factors as well behind the cause of GSA and its cure.

Plant shouldn’t need more than 3 ppm PO4 weekly but adding say 6-10 ppm will start to do what I have described above. Same could be said for Mg, plant don’t use much but adding more Mg will always reduce several different kinds of algae, particularly GSA/GDA. Water chemistry is the main reason why it works rather than plant needing higher PO4 or Mg. when the water chemistry is correct, neither PO4 or Mg is needed at higher amount to counter these kinds of algae's.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Dec 2021)

Hi @Happi,

I for one appreciate your thoughts on this:



Happi said:


> but PO4 does alter the water chemistry and it will certainly increase the plant growth if all other nutrients are present at a decent quantity. PO4 have a direct influence on several nutrients in the water, have you ever considered that high PO4 might be interfering with some of the other nutrients that are needed to form GSA, for example Iron, Zinc, Calcium etc.? have you considered that maybe higher Iron could be linked to GSA/GDA and adding more PO4 reduce or eliminate it by precipitating them?


Yes, that thought had occurred to me, but since I do not see any deficiency issues or ill-side effects (and still no GSA...) by dosing 10ppm weekly in both my tanks I figure why not keep it up...  And I am saying that while acknowledging that I had planted tanks without or very little GSA where I hardly dosed PO4... 



Happi said:


> #1, If user is seeing a decrease in GSA after adding more PO4, this suggest that he is reducing or eliminating something in his water that is needed to form GSA. This doesn’t mean that plant are using the higher doses of PO4





MichaelJ said:


> I had already lowered the light intensity a bit beforehand, so its likely a combination of the lower light and the PO4 dosing. I do not know what it is that the PO4 dosing is doing exactly vs. GSA  - is it giving the plants the ability to fend them off or is it the GSA that do not thrive with high levels of PO4? Not clear to me. I would assume at 10ppm there are more PO4 available than the plants will possibly need in a low energy tank.


As far as I am concerned I am on the same page as you.


Happi said:


> Plant shouldn’t need more than 3 ppm PO4 weekly but adding say 6-10 ppm will start to do what I have described above. Same could be said for Mg, plant don’t use much but adding more Mg will always reduce several different kinds of algae, particularly GSA/GDA. Water chemistry is the main reason why it works rather than plant needing higher PO4 or Mg.


I agree. The PO4 is doing_ something _- altering the water chemistry or whatever the heck_... _if someone could explain what that _something_ is, then we can make progress. Not before.



Happi said:


> when the water chemistry is correct, neither PO4 or Mg is needed at higher amount to counter these kinds of algae's.


Well, thats the big question. What is the right water chemistry then...  From reading your post I can't really tell if your for or against adding PO4 or Mg to alleviate these issues, or what your alternative prescription might be?  Or if you just want to make people aware that it is not well understood what the excess PO4 or Mg is doing?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (21 Dec 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Well, thats the big question. What is the right water chemistry then...  From reading your post I can't really tell if your for or against adding PO4 or Mg to alleviate these issues, or what your alternative prescription might be?  Or if you just want to make people aware that it is not well understood what the excess PO4 or Mg is doing?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



it is quite simple actually, you have to look at it from the chemistry point of view when it comes to Fertilizer in the water. think of a stock solution made with different PH levels and chemicals being used, mixing PO4 and Iron at higher PH usually result in precipitation, EDTA or DTPA chelation usually will prevent this reaction but at some point you will see the precipitation start to occur because both chelate can only do so much for period of time depending on the PH of the solution, while DTPA will hold much longer and prevent the precipitation for longer period compared to EDTA. so PH is playing a quite important role which is directly linked with the KH/CO3 in our aquarium. adding PO4 and Calcium in the solution always formed some kind of precipitation, no matter the PH and no matter what source of chemical I use. PO4 and calcium reaction was only reduced when they were added at very low ppm or if calcium was chelated.

remember the myth about you cannot add PO4 and Iron together in the solution? and this myth still exist even today, its possible to add both together when done correctly. lets say maybe its not a myth, but when it first started, people didn't understand why they were getting precipitation when they added PO4 and Fe together, maybe at that time they didn't understand the role of PH in the solution or water and they were adding them to the higher PH and saw the precipitation and came to conclusion that you cannot have both together at the same time. EI for example follow this approach, where you were told to add PO4 and Fe on separate days. this same logic was applied to this approach and it is true depending on your water parameters, it is certainly true for those who have high KH and PH vs those who have very little KH and low PH, because there is a less precipitation in those waters that have a low PH and KH.

you can perform a simple test to prove this point:
#1 get 500 ml DI water and add 2 gram of KHCO3 and mix until fully dissolve and now add 2 gram of CaNo3 and mix. you will see precipitation immediately forming CaCO3, at this point your solution mainly contain potassium and very little to no calcium.

#2 get 500 ml DI water and add 2 gram of KNO3 and mix until fully dissolve and now add 2 gram of CaNo3 and mix, you will not see any precipitation and K, NO3 and Ca will all be present in the solution.

the point is if someone with a higher PH, KH, high amount of CO3 in their water, they will experience #1 in their aquarium and adding more PO4 might help because some of it will be used by plants while most of it will be precipitated. the user is under the impression that their plant need more PO4 while ignoring the other factor. the same logic apply to all the other nutrients, while some are highly soluble and some are not and user should consider the possibility of precipitation of nutrients rather than relying on one factor. the same apply to Fe and PO4 and now you be the judge that adding 1 ppm of Fe and 10 ppm of PO4 is what the plant are using or they are probably only getting some of each while most of it is precipitated.

 those chemicals used as an example in #1 and #2 are just for example, there are many chemicals that will do the same reaction, lets say if you were to add KHCO3 and Cacl, the outcome will be same as #1

*people with high KH, PH, CO3 will always have more plant and nutrients related problems compared to those with low PH, KH, CO3. so next time you add 1 ppm Fe or 10 ppm PO4, you are not doing it because plant needs this much, you are doing it because you are under the impression that they need it. your tank water is a bigger version of those stock solution in #1 and #2 and the more CO3, the more Fe, PO4, Ca, Mg etc. you add the more precipitation will occurs. rather than having 1 ppm Fe, 10 ppm PO4, 30 ppm Ca, you probably only have 0.1 ppm Fe, 2 ppm PO4, 20 ppm Ca etc. in the water and these numbers will vary on the scenario. lets assume plant responded well with this approach, but now you are under the impression that your plant need 1 ppm Fe, 10 ppm PO4.

far as the GSA goes and if it gets better after adding more PO4, it is rather responding to these scenarios rather than higher PO4 curing it. *


----------



## dw1305 (21 Dec 2021)

Hi all,


Happi said:


> ....... PO4 have a direct influence on several nutrients in the water, have you ever considered that high PO4 might be interfering with some of the other nutrients that are needed to form GSA, for example Iron, Zinc, Calcium etc.? have you considered that maybe higher Iron could be linked to GSA/GDA and adding more PO4 reduce or eliminate it by precipitating them?.........


My guess, as well, is that it is an iron (Fe) effect.

This is how <"phosphate strippers"> in waste water treatment (and products like "Rowaphos") work.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (21 Dec 2021)

Fascinating discussion as always guys. 



Happi said:


> have you considered that maybe higher Iron could be linked to GSA





dw1305 said:


> My guess, as well, is that it is an iron (Fe) effect.



So finally we have some meat on the bones to chew at. 

For the time being lets leave all past arguments aside that iron doesn't cause algae. 

I should in theory be able to reverse the effects that I've seen in my tank by simply adding in more Fe. 
If I were to leave the dosing regime as is = P04 4.35 ppm, Edta fe 0.45 ppm,  Dtpa fe 0.14 ppm, and add in an extra 0.3 ppm of Dtpa fe, do you think this would offset the iron that's being lost due to precipitation? 

My tank never fully off gases, ph at it's highest sits around 7.1 and drops to 6.5 at its lowest. Also should mention my tap water is very soft. 

Would appreciate whether you think this would help prove or disprove anything, or are there to many variables for this to be of any practical use.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> it is quite simple actually, you have to look at it from the chemistry point of view when it comes to Fertilizer in the water.


Hi @Happi, Interesting as always and definitely good to know more about the chemical interaction here. So, If the extra PO4 is inducing preciptation such that some other elements (Fe, Ca, and other perhaps) is now available in smaller quantities and the effect of this is that the GSA recedes, wouldn't that suggest then that excess of one or more of said elements is the "cause" or _enabler_ of the GSA opposed to the low PO4 levels initially? Furthermore, If this is a reaction more prone to happen in a higher KH/PH environment, i.e. causing higher percipitation, wouldn't that also suggest that you would experience Fe and possibly other deficiencies?  And on the contrary, in a low KH/PH environment you wouldn't see the mitigating effect in GSA of adding the PO4 as you won't have as much precipitation happening?  For reference my tanks are currently 1-2 KH and pH around 6.7 - back when I was struggling with the GSA I was probably in the 5-7 KH range and my pH ~7-7.4 (I don't remember for sure).     

Besides furthering my own understanding, I am trying to figure out how we can communicate this more succinctly when discussing these matters and offering practical solutions to fellow hobbyists that are struggling with GSA.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (21 Dec 2021)

Hi all,
If you have soft water you much less  likely to have iron (Fe) deficiency problems and FeEDTA should be suitable as a chelator.


John q said:


> I should in theory be able to reverse the effects that I've seen in my tank by simply adding in more Fe.


Normally that would be true for most elements, but the problem/advantage of iron is that most <"iron compounds are insoluble">, so it is difficult to keep ferric iron ions (Fe+++) in solution, particularly in alkaline, oxidising conditions. This is also why you can <"remove iron ions by oxidation"> etc.  

You could continually add a soluble iron compound, like ferric chloride (FeCl3), to hard water, but all those Fe+++ ions will be almost instantly oxidised to insoluble oxides and hydroxides, which is why you need to use a chelator, and a chelator that is suitable for your pH.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (21 Dec 2021)

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> wouldn't that suggest then that one or more of said elements is the real cause of the GSA opposed to the low PO4 levels initially?


It is back to <"all photosynthetic organisms being "plants">, the major difference is just that higher plants can shuffle (most) nutrients around their cells, while algae are reliant on nutrients (as ions) diffusing through their cell walls.

This difference means that it takes a while in higher plants for <"non-mobile nutrient (like iron (Fe)) deficiencies"> to show, but that isn't true of algae, they can respond to the absence, or availability, of nutrients instantly.

Because phosphate (PO4---) is highly mobile within the plant, a higher plant can continually recycle those atoms to the newest photosynthetic tissue. If PO4--- ions aren't diffusing through the cells of the algae it stops growing, because it can't recycle those phosphorus atoms from another cell.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (21 Dec 2021)

Thanks @dw1305  will have to get my old chemistry books out and try to dicifer that answer 😀, I guess my experiments will have to be put on ice for now.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Dec 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> It is back to <"all photosynthetic organisms being "plants">, the major difference is just that higher plants can shuffle (most) nutrients around their cells, while algae are reliant on nutrients (as ions) diffusing through their cell walls.
> 
> ...


Thanks Darrel,
Well, I am still angling for a good way to communicate this to the occasional visitor who do not have the patience or interest in the chemistry bit, but just wants those pesky GSA to go away as fast as possible and move along. In addition to the usual suspects (excessive light intensity, poor CO2 application/availability, poor maintenance)  I think, for now, I will stick to the advice of increasing PO4 dosing when applicable, but point to this thread for further/deeper information and possibly other cause and effect considerations.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q (21 Dec 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Well, I am still angling for a good way to communicate this to the occasional visitor



I think we're on a similar page mate. I can only confidently give advice if I've witnessed something with my own eyes, and adding extra P04 with standard doses of ei level fe seems to eliminate GSA. Reducing P04 and fe, in my case, induced gsa.

Why this happens seems to have been discussed for the last seventeen years (probably longer) and nobody appears to have come up with a definitive answer that can be proved or disproved.

I'm under no illusions that my plants consume 4 ppm of P04 weekly, if pressed I'd guess the consumption is 0.5 ~ 1 ppm.

Something is afoot, could it be synergy, interference, higher levels of Po4 in the water column increasing uptake? I don't know and suspect I never will.


----------



## si walker (21 Dec 2021)

Today I begun to add extra PO4 on top of my normal Tropica Specialised dose. 
I have been trying to keep my tank really clean but losing the battle with the old GSA over the last few weeks. It is really pretty annoying. 
Will keep an eye on it for a week or so and slowly increase the dose.
Must admit that I am struggling to decipher some of the info above, so taking what I can and keeping a diary.

Keep you posted. Fins crossed.

Simon.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> I think we're on a similar page mate. I can only confidently give advice if I've witnessed something with my own eyes, and adding extra P04 with standard doses of ei level fe seems to eliminate GSA. Reducing P04 and fe, in my case, induced gsa.


Hi John, I agree. In my case I don't have the experience with the Fe bit, only the PO4 dosing, except that I can say that whatever the high PO4 is doing, it is not causing any signs of Fe deficiency among my plants either due to the well-known Fe precipitation. So for me at least, giving the advice of tweaking the Fe - or dosing of other elements - to combat GSA that I have zero practical experience with is just not something I can do.  If someone can come up with an alternative prescription that works that people can try out, that's a different matter, and I am all for that obviously - that's the whole point of the trouble-shooting part of this forum. A technical conversations about cause and effect of a specific problem is always enjoyful, but in this context of fixing a problem it leads nowhere without an agreeable practical solution to try out. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (22 Dec 2021)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> In addition to the usual suspects (excessive light intensity, poor CO2 application/availability, poor maintenance) I think, for now, I will stick to the advice of increasing PO4 dosing when applicable, but point to this thread for further/deeper information and possibly other cause and effect considerations.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Yes, it does make sense. I don't tend to get <"green encrusting algae"> (or much green algae at all) in the tanks. I don't know why, my guess would be it is some combination of snail grazing, soft water, low nutrients or low light.

The reason I think phosphate addition must work by precipitating out one, or more, of the multivalent cations is just that I can't think how else it could work. 

There are some <"specialised higher plants"> that are incredibly efficient at sequestering PO4--- ions and kill themselves by luxury uptake if phosphate is freely available, but again I'd guess that is a much less likely option for GSA.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (22 Dec 2021)

Andy Pierce said:


> EI dosing 'full' has 3 ppm phosphate.  Is there any point in going higher with phosphate with respect to inhibiting GSA?  Calculated out, my weekly added phosphate is currently 2.8 ppm but I've stopped daily dosing EasyCarbo (because I think it's hurting the vallis) and I sense some renewed vigor with the GSA in reponse.
> 
> Anyone here doing EI dosing with > 3 ppm phosphate?


GSA is caused by any combination of poor PO4 and poor CO2.
If you are adding the EI target amounts of KH2PO4 then it is unlikely that low PO4 is a factor. One then has to evaluate CO2/flow/distribution.
EasyCarbo=CO2, therefore poor CO2 has to be under immediate suspicion.
If you are only assuming the PO4 content of the water column based on water report or on some factor other than _actually adding_ the prescribed amounts of KH2PO4 then the assumption of the concentration may be flawed.
As usual, flow/distribution are always a candidates.

Cheers,


----------



## John q (22 Dec 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> If you are adding the EI target amounts of KH2PO4 then it is unlikely that low PO4 is a factor.


Hope you don't mind me drawing you in on this Clive but do you buy the excess iron causes gsa hypothesis. Could it be that the P04 is stripping the water of iron?
Not trying to be smart, genuinely trying to learn things here.


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Hope you don't mind me drawing you in on this Clive but do you buy the excess iron causes gsa hypothesis. Could it be that the P04 is stripping the water of iron?
> Not trying to be smart, genuinely trying to learn things here.


Hi John,
             No worries mate. I understand that we all are trying to get a grip on cause and effect.
OK, I can see why some may suspect Fe (either in excess or deficiency) since there is a possible issue of Iron Phosphate precipitation. I'm paraphrasing from Barr's conclusion here:
If there is precipitation then the re should be an Fe shortage  as well as an PO4 shortage. Micronutrient shortages are not generally correlated with algal blooms. If there is an Fe shortage then the symptoms should show as paleness or yellowing of immature leaves. If there is a precipitation then it should be visible either a clouding of the water or the physical evidence of the precipitate. If these signs are not present then it is unlikely to be an Fe shortage.

Neither is it likely to be an Fe overdose. I have accessed a journal some years ago investigating the Fe concentration level toxic to aquatic plants. I don't have it handy, but I recall the researchers adding up to 13ppm at which point growth of the specimens started to decline. None of the popular algae were present - not GSA, nor hair. Yes, that's 13ppm, not 1.3ppm.
I've used a weekly dosing of up to 2.5ppm with no issues, so I'm confident excess Fe does not cause any type of algae.

In EI dosing, typically, in order to avoid precipitation, PO4 and Fe are dosed on alternate days, so again, if the OP is following this path there should not be any precipitation. I've specifically tested this in very hard water, both using bog standard chelates as well as with more exotic chelates.

Even assuming that there is a precipitation issue, the precipitate falls to the sediment and will be broken down, where the components can be accessed by the plant roots.

As I mentioned many times, micronutrients have that name exactly because the plants only need microscopic amounts, so although there may affect growth performance to some extent if deficient, they will not result in structural decay in the way that macronutrients do. It is the cell death and associated faults associated with necrosis that allow algal spores to bloom. Deterioration of the thin cuticle, for example, exposes the epidermal layer to attack. Micronutrient deficiencies don't cause that level of damage.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,


----------



## Andy Pierce (23 Dec 2021)

I'm reading through Walstad's book (early Christmas present) and she says '_Iron's limited availability in oxygenated water sets iron apart from all other plant nutrients.  This is because *free iron (Fe2+ and Fe3+), which is the only form that algae can use* [28], doesn't ordinarily accumulate in the water._" (my emphasis) She goes on to say that free iron is generated from iron bound by dissolved organic carbon molecules through photoreduction of iron (e.g. Photoassisted Reduction of Metal Complexes).  In contrast, there is evidence (https://www.nature.com/articles/189312a0.pdf) that plant roots can directly take up and use the iron in iron chelates such as EDTA-Fe.  So we could construct a theory...

When iron chelates are provided to a planted aquarium, plant roots can directly take up and utilise the chelated iron as an iron source, whilst instead algae must rely on the photoreduction of the chelate to release free iron.  When excess phosphate is added, the free iron is precipitated out as insoluble iron phosphate, depriving algae of their iron source, but not affecting rooted plants.​
Is it a real thing?  To be supported, there would need to be a meaningful difference in the capacity of 1 ppm phosphate to precipate free iron vs. (in my case) 7 ppm phosphate (or higher).  I don't know if that's going to be true.  As per usual EI schemes, I dose the chelated iron on days that alternate with the phosphate dosing, which might be about the right timing to remove the free iron resulting from photoreduction of the EDTA-Fe exposed to light on the macro dosing days.  I started my increased phosphate experiment on Dec. 7 (Fighting algae with more phosphate - Fireplace aquarium) and didn't change any parameters other than that and as of today there is no evidence of GSA in the tank, but it's too soon to tell.  I'll be pretty confident if the tank stays GSA free for an additional two weeks, so I'll report back early in 2022. 

[28] Anderson MA and Morel FMM. 1982. The influence of aqueous iron chemistry on the uptake of iron by the coastal diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii. Limno. Oceanogr. 27:789-813


----------



## John q (24 Dec 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hope this helps.


Yes it does, thanks for the comprehensive reply.


----------



## Ria95 (25 Dec 2021)

I recently had some light growth of GSA on rocks and some plants' leaves. Increased the PO4 by 1ppm and the algae went away. I did not change my iron dosing at all, and when testing at the end of the week it still hits 0.5ppm Fe. Just like before.  Not only was there no change in Fe levels, but i doubt that any would consider 0.5ppm Fe limiting for algae. 
As others have pointed out, if indeed at the levels we dose PO4 would precipitate the chelated iron compounds, simply reducing the iron dose would make the algae go away. This has not been my experience. Increasing PO4 worked over the years in all types of water. I don't think increasing PO4 is the only possible remediation for GSA in every aquarium, algae are tricky like that. It seems to be working in a majority of conditions so it's worth a try.

Most of the micro fertilizers have chelated iron, often even a mix of EDTA and DTPA. The most common exception from this  being Flourish Iron with iron gluconate. In practice the chelated iron forms are stable for a good amount of time at their suitable pH, pH which in most high-tech tanks tends to be on the acidic side. I don't see Fe being so low to not support GSA or plants  being an issue when dosing the aquarium according to EI. Unchelated Fe, from FeSO4 for example, will go out of solution rather fast in aquariums. I recall from her posts that Walstad has been dosing FeSO4 as her main source of iron... that explains her notes on Fe and PO4 quickly precipitating in a typical aquarium. The ~20 years since her book has been published  have seen many aquariums fertilized with chelated iron that she implies grows algae  ( X 2.c). It's normal for knowledge in the hobby to progress as we try new things and resources become more available to the hobby (CO2, fertilizers, soils, TC culture etc).


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Dec 2021)

I gotta get in here too!

But of course ... < Everyone is right >.


John q said:


> Following on from discussions in this thread Lean dosing pros and cons ..I cut my ei dosing by 50% to see what effect, if any, it would have.


Woohoo!! Trying crazy things! I love it.

Did you also cut GH (Ca/Mg) and KH in half? It is quite possible that for your water, there is a higher requirement on water column dosing targets to provide balance in the nutrient acquisition model. This does not rely on Leidbig's Law where the substrate could actually top up any "driven" growth (the other half of your EI dose) through the roots. It relies on Coulomb's Law which is the backbone of ANY water chemistry argument. It could also be related to inertia ... the plants have been operating a certain way for months? They need time to adapt. Maybe keep the 1/2 EI dose for another month and see if the tank crashes. If it recovers, then we acknowledge these things are living and need time to adapt.

There is another piece ... did you replace the K from KNO3 that you have lost from 1/2 EI? GH and K are all positively charged ... and a massive change (1/2 the K ... which depends on your "booster" if you use any) could have skewed this as well.


It seems that we are in search of the ideal nutrient acquisition target parameters.

We have them:

1) GH and KH should be tied closely in source water (tap or well) --> If Ca and Mg are extremely unbalanced like 100Ca/1Mg then you need to turn to a local who has used the water and has had success OR you need to be the local who has success. But as long as its not too bad, you can probably get away with a little Mg or let your substrate take care of it .. but if you don't fix it, your substrate will get gassed soon ESPECIALLY if you drive growth with water column dosing.

Call low <3 for both ish, moderate 3 - 7?, high 8+?

2) High GH/KH higher dosing (Full EI). Moderate GH/KH moderate dosing (1/2-1/3 EI). Low GH/KH lean dosing (Less) <-- 

3) The rest is CO2 and light

4) You can alleviate CO2 demand from free CO2 by using Urea, glut ... different plant choices

5) You can dose EI in soft water ... but then you need GH booster --> there is no choice. Try it.

To utilize any precipitate into the soil, you need microbial assemblage in place - time - that's another piece of nutrient acquisition model. So on Day 1, you can't expect precipitated iron to be "available" until the critters at the rhizosphere assemble.

*We can be cheeky too*: 
High GH/KH higher dosing (lots of fertilizer). 
Moderate GH/KH moderate dosing (a moderate amount of fertilizer). 
Low GH/KH lean dosing (a little bit of fertilizer) <-- assume the bottles dosage is a little bit ... double it for moderate ... triple it for lots. 

*This is the advice that we need to give:* Copycat a fertilizer, dose as per the bottle and the latter recommendations for 1 month, get CO2 so fish aren't dying, focus on flow (buy into a standard system or DIY), maintenance and enjoying your tank.


Josh


----------



## John q (26 Dec 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Woohoo!! Trying crazy things! I love it.



Haha, not exactly living life on the edge. I figure we have to try things out and see what happens, good or bad,  its how kids learn, its how we progress.

I'll admit some points above went over my head, but appreciate your input. I'll give you the parameters from my water report regards gh ~ kh and include what I add. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Average water report amounts:

Calcium 6.61 mg/l
Magnesium 1.18 mg/l
Alkalinity 13.8 mg/l
Hardness Clarke 1.47

What I add weekly:

Magnesium 0.64 dgh (from ei dosing)
Calcium via calcium chloride 0.29 dgh

Substrate is inert gravel 25kg with a small amount of cheapo clay balls 5l mixed in. I added 4 osmocote root tabs to this Substrate 3 or 4 months ago. Tanks been running 15 months.

Ph drop is 1, dc lime green. Flow around the tank isn't ideal, so counteract this will low level lightning.

Cheers.


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Dec 2021)

Very soft water @John q !

I mean there is so much to consider and pin point - without sitting in front and watching for nuance on species, it’s hard to think. I remember lots of Barr’s threads in the states where he says, let me just come over and I’ll fix your tank. And for his local group, that’s exactly what he did.

There is a lot of intuitive responses that people make in a system which is based on experience.

Anyways … I’ll attempt some potentials:
1) if root tabs have nutrients: root tabs re-establishing equiblrium with new water column dosing - all ratios will be off for short term, will fix with consistency in a month
2) if root tabs are gassed: you also have stored nutrients to consider from the EI - maybe without the root tabs you literally need that nutrients.
3) did drop checker lighten up when you eased off nutrients?
4) stores nutrients can only top off imbalance for so long … was GSA instant or a week later?

All I got for now!

EDIT:
Ok an edit lol!

There is a thought here: suppose that PO4 is interacting … those root tabs are releasing nutrients - those free nutrients are leveraging leisbig on the plant … it is possible that demand from these nutrients are skewing the balance and (instead of PO4 driving nutrients via leidbig, the plants machinery is being bottlednecked by a “suppression-effect” from the phosphate so phosphate in excess is locking down another nutrient set - an element of that set is the bottleneck for leidbig)

Now, since your co2 flow is not good - this alleviation on root tab leech is allowing something perhaps to drive leidbig … and co2 demand … eh voilla GSA, a “co2-related” algae.

I am more confident in the latter part of this message than the first stuff in the post.

A way to illustrate the above is by dosing heavy heavy heavy in the water column, observing growth rates, then stop dosing entirely and notice growth rate. I did this a few times and noticed an increase in growth rate from a clean column …. Counterintuitive that ADA system grows just as a fast EI … thinking of how much free N in system.

We have 2 things happening: stuff interacts, stuff drives growth. If you alleviate an interaction, you influence a driver. That driver will always influence co2 demand - always. And that’s why we point to flow and co2 all the time regardless of dosing method or ideology.


1 more edit:

I reckon that with active substrate (nutrient rich soil) same tank same situation etc — there wouldn’t be GSA. The inertness with only root tabs is leading to this “extra attention” with water column dosing. No no that’s wrong since it’s likely the co2 being the downfall … UNLESSSS the root system under Acidic conditions could get co2 from the substrate .


----------



## erwin123 (26 Dec 2021)

I'm not dosing full EI either. Interestingly I'm finding that L. Pantanal (one of those plants that supposedly loves EI) grows ok even if you are not dosing EI.

While it certainly grows well in EI as Tom Barr has shown,  I am suspecting that it turns red because of high light, not high water column nutrients...


----------



## Happi (26 Dec 2021)

Dear members,

These precipitation doesn’t always show up as a cloudy water and the physical evidence is there, but you cannot see it because it gets lost in the substrate, Filter media etc. have you ever seen the brown/yellow color which looks like its sticking to the filter/media and same can be observed around the edges of the aquarium around the soil. In some cases the precipitation and oxidization can be found on the plant leaves as well. Mn and Fe are usually found in the higher amount in the substrate because both are highly precipitated and oxidized in the water. They will become more available to the plants in highly acidic soil and most likely remain in oxidized state in alkaline based substrate. This is also true for most of the other heavy metals which are oxidized/precipitated, But Fe and Mn are some of the major one when it comes to micronutrients. Under acidic environment or In such case, you are less likely to experience an Iron deficiency because Iron can be directly uptaken by roots from the substrate even if it were to be less present in the water. It will also release into the water but the process is rather very slow.

Plus the need for iron by the plants are not to the level that we are dosing in our aquariums, I never had to cross 0.1 ppm Fe from DTPA weekly. If you had an Iron deficiency during this time then its rather due to low Mn or Mg, and other micronutrients. For those who test for iron especially after adding DTPA Fe, they will find that their test kit is still reading high amount of Iron, this is because DTPA is quite stable and need for iron by the plants is not that high, the only time they will see a huge drop in Iron is because its either precipitated or oxidized, but never fully used by plants. In most cases plant have to put additional energy to extract iron from EDTA/DTPA unlike Fe gluconate and this is less available to algae at this time, but once these chelation are broken, the iron is more available to both plant and algae. Next time you add 0.5 ppm of DTPA vs EDTA vs Fe gluconate, you will find that EDTA and Fe gluconate are rather quickly gone. I have had more algae problems while using Fe gluconate or EDTA compared to DTPA, likely due to few reasons:


Its not oxidized or precipitated as easily under my water condition
Its less available to plants and algae
Algae struggle to use it while plant will use their energy to use it
Or the amount I use is what plant truly needed and excess Fe wasn’t occurring

High light have a tendency to break down the Iron and chelation at much faster rate and this results in more Iron being available to plant and algae, it also become more prone to Precipitation and oxidization during this time especially If the water is rich in CO3 and O2. Iron gluconate for example will results in cloudy water more often compared to EDTA/DTPA under such scenario. Under high lights especially those with UV around 100-400 nm will quickly break down these chelation’s.


Reducing lights and increasing the CO2 is doing few things:


CO2 reducing the PH of the water, less oxidization
Chelate Iron is less prone to Precipitation with lower lights
The hypothesis about GSA stop growing simply by increasing CO2 and PO4 is assumption based rather than being scientific. This hypothesis is same as when someone says “Nutrients doesn’t cause algae” while scientist grow algae using these same nutrients in the lab. As mentioned earlier, if you are relying on Co2 and high PO4 fixing your GSA and ignoring other factors then you are not thinking outside of the box.

algae needs the same nutrients as plants do in order for them to grow, weather its Macro or Micro Nutrients, they are all needed, if plant can thrive and grow in 0.1 ppm Fe, so can the algae. If I were to add the Macro at 30 ppm NO3 and not adding any Micro called Mo, the plant will struggle. If I were to add 0.01 ppm of this Micro called Mo, the plant will grow, the more Mo you add, the more Nitrogen becomes available to algae and plants, while some of the Mo will be oxidized.

If user was to add 0.5 ppm Fe and add 0.05 ppm Mn, they will experience what we call Fe deficiency quite often, not because they lack Fe, but rather they are lacking Mn, if user were to add 0.5 Fe and 0.25 Mn, they will not experience such scenario but could experience good plant growth along with Algae and in most cases the Fe and Mn is oxidized or precipitated quickly. if user were to add 0.1 ppm Fe and 0.05 Mn, they will quickly learn that their plant are not iron Deficient even when few days pass by, sometime even a week depending on all these above scenarios as well as their water parameters.

In my case, GDA/BBA for example grew the best when i do heavy trimming, increasing the CO2 at this point wont make a dent in it and never did, until plant mass increased again and GDA/BBA slowly decline. in this case, the trimming just released several nutrients back into the water that encouraged or favor the GDA/BBA. Assumption #1 : Naw, it can’t be the nutrients, gotta be a CO2 issues. Assumption #2: gotta be the Nutrients, because nothing else was changed and only plant were trimmed and its known fact that plant release nutrients into the water when you trim them. If I were given a choice, #2 made more sense to me and this scenario can be repeated again over again and the results were constantly.

Let’s take my aquarium for example, I can induce different kinds of algae simply by changing the dosing while making no changes to the CO2 or lights, no GDA when DTPA Fe used at 0.1 ppm weekly, some GDA when EDTA-DTPA were combined, more GDA when EDTA alone was used. More GDA and fuzz algae appeared when Fe gluconate was used. So what does this has to do with Co2? Nothing. Does it have to do with the nutrients then? Yes

Do I get GSA in my tank? Never, even at 0.1 ppm P weekly there is no sign of GSA. Maybe its because my water parameters have all these nutrients in adequate quantities, proper balance, which are less prone to all these above scenarios? Yes, very likely

Then how do we stop algae or prevent it? Its not about GSA only, we are talking about all kinds of other algae’s as well. If you already fixed your CO2 or Light issues, then you need to understand how Nutrients works and interact with each other’s and how it could influence the plant growth and algae growth. If you are not willing to get out of the CO2 and lights bubble then you are not going to progress in the hobby. if You already spent maybe 10 years struggling with algae then you will continue to do so for another 10.

Nutrients Interaction, this is not a hypothesis and its true at least according to the scientist:


			https://www.nutriag.com/wp-content/uploads/mulders-chart.jpg
		


in case if anyone is interested in making Spirulina Algae: 








						Algae Media
					

Algae Research Supplier produces nutrient solutions and medias that grow various algae including: Spirulina, Nannochloropsis, Chlorella Vulgaris, and more




					algaeresearchsupply.com


----------



## Happi (26 Dec 2021)

@John q

if these are your water parameters then you are lucky to have such soft water without using RO. 
so your tap water have the following:

Ca    6.6 ppm
Mg   1.18 ppm

correct me if am wrong, but you are adding 2.8 ppm Mg weekly from MgSo4, adding 2 ppm Calcium from Cacl weekly at water changes? 

Total:
Ca   8.6 
Mg  3.98

what are you using for N,P,K and Fe/traces and at what ppm? looking forward to work with you on this one.


----------



## erwin123 (27 Dec 2021)

Happi, what do you think about freezing ice cubes of Fe (DTPA or EDDHA) and inserting into the substrate (where they may slowly release into the water column), rather than dosing Fe directly? 

I tried ice cubes with EDDHA-Fe and I didn't get water staining that is usual with direct dosing of EDDHA into water column, so it seemed to work for me.


----------



## Happi (27 Dec 2021)

erwin123 said:


> Happi, what do you think about freezing ice cubes of Fe (DTPA or EDDHA) and inserting into the substrate (where they may slowly release into the water column), rather than dosing Fe directly?
> 
> I tried ice cubes with EDDHA-Fe and I didn't get water staining that is usual with direct dosing of EDDHA into water column, so it seemed to work for me.


I don't see why it wouldn't work, with such method it would be almost similar to using osmocote except that it could be released back into the water rather much quickly. it would be hard to predict how much will be released back into the water though. but we do know that it will go through several different scenarios from precipitations/oxidization and how it will become available to the plant roots depending on your Soil/Substrate PH. bacteria will also play an important role to break it down and bacteria would love to use that additional iron in the soil. actually most people use such product made by ADA that adds some source of Iron in the substrate which helps to boost the bacteria which does most of the nutrients work in the soil and how it becomes available to the plants. I strongly believe it is based on Iron Oxide but am not 100% certain on this one. Iron gluconate is another good option for you if you want to explore by adding it to the roots or under the substrate.


----------



## erwin123 (27 Dec 2021)

Thanks for your views Happi.  EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink (even touching the ice cubes stains my hands red). According to the internet even 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink.

So my thinking is that if I use ice cubes and the water doesn't turn pink, it means that at least some of the Fe is being retained in the substrate.


----------



## Happi (27 Dec 2021)

erwin123 said:


> Thanks for your views Happi.  EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink (even touching the ice cubes stains my hands red). According to the internet even 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will turn water pink.
> 
> So my thinking is that if I use ice cubes and the water doesn't turn pink, it means that at least some of the Fe is being retained in the substrate.


I use to dose 0.02 fe weekly from EDDHA without tinting my water. In some cases I combined it with DTPA, something like 0.08 DTPA, 0.02 EDDHA weekly if you want to experiment. 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will certainly tint the water


----------



## erwin123 (27 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> I use to dose 0.02 fe weekly from EDDHA without tinting my water. In some cases I combined it with DTPA, something like 0.08 DTPA, 0.02 EDDHA weekly if you want to experiment. 0.1 ppm EDDHA-Fe will certainly tint the water


Yes, I froze 0.1ppm worth of EDDHA-Fe in ice cubes and inserted deep into the substrate - didn't tint the water which is why I believe that most of it didn't leak into the water column.


----------



## John q (27 Dec 2021)

Thanks Josh, very informative post, also made a good observation that I'd completely overlooked.


JoshP12 said:


> 3) did drop checker lighten up when you eased off nutrients?


Yes it did, about 10 days after reducing the ferts I came home to a yellow drop checker. My assumption was the filter needed cleaning and had reduced surface agitation, hence co2 wasn't gassing off the same. I cleaned the filter, which to be fair wasn't that bad and angled outlet up a tad.
Interestingly I had to up the bubble rate slightly last week due to dc colour being more green than lime green.

I think my assumption as to cause and effect in this instance was flawed.



JoshP12 said:


> 4) stores nutrients can only top off imbalance for so long … was GSA instant or a week later?



I'd say it was a week in when I first noticed the spots appearing.



JoshP12 said:


> A way to illustrate the above is by dosing heavy heavy heavy in the water column, observing growth rates, then stop dosing entirely and notice growth rate.



Sounds like an experiment I'll have to try at some point.



JoshP12 said:


> reckon that with active substrate (nutrient rich soil) same tank same situation etc — there wouldn’t be GSA. The inertness with only root tabs is leading to this “extra attention” with water column dosing.



I've no doubts the plants would grow better in soil only substrate. I really struggled getting Blyxa to take hold in gravel alone, it was only when I enriched the area where its planted with clay that it started to flourish and multiply.



Happi said:


> correct me if am wrong, but you are adding 2.8 ppm Mg weekly from MgSo4, adding 2 ppm Calcium from Cacl weekly at water changes?
> 
> Total:
> Ca 8.6
> Mg 3.98



Thanks Happi, always appreciate the input.

Yes you're correct the 2ppm of calcium (Cacl) goes in with the water change and the 2.8ppm magnesium (mgso4) is added weekly with the Macro solution.



Happi said:


> what are you using for N,P,K and Fe/traces and at what ppm? looking forward to work with you on this one.



KNO3, KH2PO4, MGSO4. Edta trace + dtpa 8% fe.
Ppm are.

No3 13.38, K 12, Po4 4.35
Fe 0.45 Edta 0.14 dtpa.
Zn 0.06, B 0.06, Mn 0.1, Mo 0.01.


It's a 240l tank with a healthy fish load. Only have about 30w of light over the tank which I guesstimate to give 20 ~ 25 par at substrate.


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Thanks Josh, very informative post, also made a good observation that I'd completely overlooked.


Can't take credit.

Read and think about every single one of @Geoffrey Rea 's journals <-- the time you spend there is worth it's weight.


John q said:


> Yes it did, about 10 days after reducing the ferts I came home to a yellow drop checker. My assumption was the filter needed cleaning and had reduced surface agitation, hence co2 wasn't gassing off the same. I cleaned the filter, which to be fair wasn't that bad and angled outlet up a tad.


This is your proof mate. Your GSA was extremely likely "largely influenced" or "more heavily associated with" (caused is a hard word to use) by poor flow/distribution and since it is the gas we carry in our flow, CO2.

The reason is that you have localized "high CO2 - excess" from yellow DC but the plants aren't healthy ... has to be distribution.

In the event we want to use a different argument, we can. Recall it is "largely influenced but we can't say for certain" ... Phosphate is a big body guard in the water chemistry world ... less of him, the little guys aren't suppressed (either + stuff or - stuff) ... those other stuff MAY now skew the balance of leidbig and lead to an inability to meet the demand of ANOTHER nutrient -- which is likely CO2 (because it's the most important!!!! -- why? mostly carbon).

The details of this stuff is simply that ... details. Fundamentally, Coulombs (stuff interacts with stuff ... + and - are adorned onto stuff and we use the concept of + and - to predict how that stuff interacts) and Leidbigs (plant growth is bottlenecked by the limiting nutrient -- of the bunch that we need).

In my eyes, those are the explanations to your observation. I also have to say that both of my explanations use the framework that I proposed in that everyone is right thread that I posted earlier. Your situation was tough to rationalize since my heart thought you had harder water ... then it would be obvious. In soft water, the exercise becomes tougher - but the piece of the puzzle was you admitting your flow/distribution was bad AND the DC changed color. These are the informations that people with experience get by taking a "look" at a tank in real life.

On a differnet note, you saw leidbigs in action!!!! You pulled off N and P etc and used less CO2!!!! This is why we need not turn CO2 on before lights. You see, there are no customers for CO2 with lights off, so you begin to gas your fish with a "lower" injection rate than you could possibly have by turning it on at lights on. Plummet that pH FAST, CRANK those lights -- stable system. High localized CO2 due to high injection rate, High consumption due to high light, High bufffer on screwing up CO2 application. If your injection is low and you have long ramp, then at peak "plant machinery", your injection rate won't be able to keep up.

Try this: inject CO2 1 hour before watch carefully, cut the CO2 at lights on and take pH measuremnts every 30 minutes ... and watch the plants ... correlate the pH with the plant behavior ... and you will notice how they behave when the Co2 is used up etc. To really see this stuff you need high light ... otherwise, the effect is too "slow".

And if you are really keen, crank the temperature leaving all else constant ... observe DC change color ... it is WAY to cool. The other, which you illustrated, is surface agitation, same thing ... watch it change color ... watch the plants.

Green doesn't mean you have 30 ppm co2. How much CO2 is in the system?

CO2 in system = CO2 injected in = CO2 being used by plants + free CO2 in system

You see, there is hidden CO2 ... and free CO2 is only important since some species require more to assist with acquisition of CO2 over the leaf and/or -- + to keep up with metabolic rates that are largely influenced by N/P in system .

People say oh I grew so and so with only 10 ppm in the column ... what about roots acquisition? What about biological maturity in system ... the plant can move the gas from substrate evolved by bacteria and in turn oxygenate the bacteria ... symbiosis. This is system thinking and is what I am trying to pitch with the framework I proposed. I mean - growing under lower CO2 is obvious when you see the influence of "stuff in the column!!".

Everyone is right.

Cheers!

Ok and edit! 

Sometimes you just need more co2 because the genetic machinery of some species are so heavily influenced by each N/P that is forced into the system (remember N and P aren’t “curated” by the plant and the plant cannot moderate how much of them go in and out - they are force fed by the water column) so here’s the winner: some people say “the plant looks better under higher GH” well … perhaps this is because Ca snd Mg interact with and suppress the “ability for N and P to get forced into the plant” …. And what does that do? It reduces the overall demand on CO2 … necessarily free co2 … and there you go. 

You don’t have to kill your fish to get pretty plants. 

All plants can grow under EI … ever seen a tree? It gets its EI from roots. A way to illustrate is to keep the column clean except micros daily. Lower co2 observe growth rates. Crank co2 observe growth rates!!!


----------



## John q (27 Dec 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Read and think about every single one of @Geoffrey Rea 's journals <-- the time you spend there is worth it's weight.


Definitely, I think I'll have to touch base and re read these threads.


JoshP12 said:


> The reason is that you have localized "high CO2 - excess" from yellow DC but the plants aren't healthy ... has to be distribution.


Wouldn't disagree with that assumption in general, but I would question as to why the green spot only appeard after lowering the ferts.

If I'd have kept the dosing regime unchanged then the co2 levels wouldn't have spiked, no gsa. Surely the primary cause here was fertiliser related. Or am I missing something 🤔

Thanks again for input, always appreciate the lessons, observations.


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Definitely, I think I'll have to touch base and re read these threads.
> 
> Wouldn't disagree with that assumption in general, but I would question as to why the green spot only appeard after lowering the ferts.


This is a question on the ecological stability of your tank. An appearance of algae is a “knock back” on the history — if your tank was very dirty, I reckoN BBA and if young, staghorn.

The presence of lower order algae (not green etc) has to do with how “bad” the maturity is + how “unhealthy” the plants are.



John q said:


> If I'd have kept the dosing regime unchanged then the co2 levels wouldn't have spiked, no gsa. Surely the primary cause here was fertiliser related. Or am I missing something 🤔


To say a primary cause is futile. Was it the nutrients which exacerbated the issue from co2 and flow distribution - maybe.

 If your flow was bang on, would you have the issue - probably not.

Is it nutrients? Is it co2? Chicken egg? It’s both. And that’s why forever you will have the EI camp and the anti-EI camp - unless we accept a marriage of the two: coulomb+ leodbig in conjunction.




John q said:


> Thanks again for input, always appreciate the lessons.


 happy to give a lens.


Side note: cut your lights further and you will fix the algae but you will be growing under darkness — you may struggle to hit LIght compensation point of plants but who cares about that - you will be decreasing the rate of photosynthesis and necessarily oxygen evolution to the system - cut the oxygen, cut the microbiology — is it more stable? Algae buffers the system — nutrients sequestered keeping your inhabitants safe. Are plants better? Yes. That’s why it’s a knock back in history …


Edit: the presence of those other algae etc also has to consider oxygen strain on system, etc so it’s not just mature ness - it’s a matter of decomposition rate vs what the bacteria can handle with their own leidbig being oxygen etc

Edit again! One could make an argument with the latter on oxygen FOR ei dosing. And the argument is sound - but it’s economic balance (for the heslth of livestock - no livestock crank that needle wheel) … is the influx in co2 demand worth the strain it puts on plants vs the influx in light pushing co2 —- the kicker is that the plant cannot filter N and P but it can filter light

And I think @erwin123 suggested this above where he mentioned coloration being largely influenced by light more so than N … yep for sure … @Happi also suggested this in a thread I think.

Easy fix - just turn red. But how does it turn red? Reduce chlorophyll - this is where N comes into play - this is increasingly challenging if you dose high N …. The plant doesn’t NEED to filter out light since it is force fed N —> why don’t the roots force feed - plant chooses what to transport up … via rhizosphere interactions and soil and the structure of a root.

High light and low N - blood red.


----------



## Happi (27 Dec 2021)

@John q​if you really want to explore the Chemical and fertilizer side of the world, then I highly suggest making your own fertilizer from scratch which will give you full control over what you add in your aquarium. as of right now we can only modify what you got but results would be better when you have full control over all the nutrients. I have also suggested some area for improvement for  *TNC Trace Elements  *if you could get those chemicals. this recipe should work and we can improve it as needed. far as adding more *K*, we will see how plant react to this recipe first before we make additional changes to the *K*.  if you are worry about dosing Urea then you can aim for 1 ppm N from KNO3, but the results will be different. *I would recommend Tenso Cocktail over TNC if you can find it. 

240 liter aquarium 

Water parameter, keep this the same and no need to add more Ca or Mg
Ca 6.6 ppm
Mg 1.18 ppm

500 ml, 20 ml per 240 L

Stock Solution #1 (maintain 0.1-0.2 Fe total  weekly)

24.33 grams MgSO4.7H2O*
Mg    0.400000
S    0.527710

*7.143 grams TNC Trace Elements*
Fe    0.1
B    0.0125
Mn    0.0216 *(try to raise this to 0.07 or so)*
Mo    0.0017 *(try to raise this to 0.004 or so)*
Zn    0.0138
Cu    0.0027 *(try to raise this to 0.006 or so)

3.75 grams DTPA Fe 8%*
Fe    0.05


*Stock Solution #2 (dose 2-3X week to maintain 2-3 ppm N)

21.62 grams  KNO3 *
NO3    2.21
N    0.5
K    1.4

*6.43 grams Urea CO(NH2)2*
N    0.5

*3.525 grams KH2PO4 *
PO4    0.41
P    0.133
K    0.168


----------



## John q (27 Dec 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> if your tank was very dirty, I reckoN BBA


10 pts to josh, it's a good assumption, the evidence of poor distribution was always the give away.


JoshP12 said:


> Is it nutrients? Is it co2? Chicken egg? It’s both. And that’s why forever you will have the EI camp and the anti-EI camp - unless we accept a marriage of the two: coulomb+ leodbig in conjunction


Goes back to your thread that everybody is right.


JoshP12 said:


> cut your lights further and you will fix the algae but you will be growing under darkness — you may struggle to hit LIght compensation point of plants but who cares about that -


On this point I have experience, I ran these tanks at 50% less light for 8 months and still had healthy plants, they NEVER reached lcp, I'd suggest lcp will come into play at some point, but most folks with purpose bought aquarium lights will NEVER and I repeat NEVER reach lcp.

Also should add reducing the lights would be the easy option. Rehab is for quitters...


Happi said:


> you really want to explore the Chemical and fertilizer side of the world, then I highly suggest making your own fertilizer



@JoshP12  and @Happi  My tanks at this moment in time are "ok" but they could be better. I consider these tanks as "test" tanks. I want to understand what's going on, or at least try to understand. Hence I'm quite happy to try things... Hence I value your input,... long story short I can't increase co2 distribution, even adding a maxspect jump is proving futile (long, deep tank... pita)







For me this is one big learning curve, which..? Hopefully I'll learn from and implement in the next tank. For now I experiment, see what happens... take advice.

Will source those chemicals @Happi  and see what happens in the new world.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, does elevating levels of P04 reduce GSA.. lol..


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> Meanwhile back at the ranch, does elevating levels of P04 reduce GSA.. lol..


😂😂 … depends on the tank.

Give me all the details and I’ll tell you 😂😂😂😂.

If it was me 9 times outta 10, I’d run lean column and just turn up co2 and fix flow.

Can’t fix flow in current tank - spray bar with a massive turnover does the trick or 2x canisters.

For future, get better dimensions — ADA tank dimensions aren’t an accident. I’m stuck with a 65 gallon 2 foot tall and 18 inch deep tank. Never again. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Edit: you can see flow - you can’t see intermolecular interactions. You always want co2 in excess if you can - cleaning the column gives you a competitive edge in that game.


----------



## Happi (27 Dec 2021)

you don't need to turn your tank  into tornado. you want gentle flow with high rate of GPH.


----------



## Andy Pierce (27 Dec 2021)

John q said:


> @JoshP12 and @Happi My tanks at this moment in time are "ok" but they could be better.


From the pictures the plants and fish all look fine to me.  Is the complaint about GSA on the back glass (it's hard to tell in the photo)?  If so, I'd scrape that down and do a water change and declare victory really.


----------



## John q (27 Dec 2021)

Andy Pierce said:


> From the pictures the plants and fish all look fine to me.  Is the complaint about GSA on the back glass (it's hard to tell in the photo)?  If so, I'd scrape that down and do a water change and declare victory really.


There wasn't really a complaint as such Andy, the whole point of my recent "experience" was lowering the fertiliser dosage to see what happened. Gsa appeared on some plant leaves, which was the reason why I posted in this thread.
Having said that there's always room for improvement. 🙂


----------



## medlight (28 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> @John q​if you really want to explore the Chemical and fertilizer side of the world, then I highly suggest making your own fertilizer from scratch which will give you full control over what you add in your aquarium. as of right now we can only modify what you got but results would be better when you have full control over all the nutrients. I have also suggested some area for improvement for  *TNC Trace Elements  *if you could get those chemicals. this recipe should work and we can improve it as needed. far as adding more *K*, we will see how plant react to this recipe first before we make additional changes to the *K*.  if you are worry about dosing Urea then you can aim for 1 ppm N from KNO3, but the results will be different. *I would recommend Tenso Cocktail over TNC if you can find it.
> 
> 240 liter aquarium
> 
> ...


Is it a new formula? what do you apply?


----------



## Happi (28 Dec 2021)

@medlight 
that was just a suggested formula if John wanted to try it, I only modified few things based on what he has available. sorry I quite didn't fully understand what you meant by "New Formula"?


----------



## medlight (28 Dec 2021)

medlight said:


> ¿Es una nueva fórmula? que aplicas






This is a compound with which I work, because here in Spain the resources to get quicos are scarce, this complex is based on EDTA AND supplemented with FERRIC GLUCONATE


----------



## Happi (29 Dec 2021)

medlight said:


> View attachment 179029
> This is a compound with which I work, because here in Spain the resources to get quicos are scarce, this complex is based on EDTA AND supplemented with FERRIC GLUCONATE


Am not seeing any EDTA based chemicals in that list, all I see is SO4 based chemicals. Like I said if you are trying to copy the above numbers, I wouldn't recommend this one in your situation.


----------



## medlight (29 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> Am not seeing any EDTA based chemicals in that list, all I see is SO4 based chemicals. Like I said if you are trying to copy the above numbers, I wouldn't recommend this one in your situation.


1 * Sorry, I have not been understood, due to my bad expression, that what is in the yellow box is a complex of commercial buses (gardening) that we have in our country, as I mentioned before, due to the limitation of chemicals.
2 * since in your proposal you use the Mo at 0.004 and here it is not possible to get molybdenum, recalculate so that the compound stays at 0.004.
3 * resulting in MICROS BASE CONTRIBUTIONS to get 0.15 of Fe
0,099991
0,004
0,009333
0,008666
0,003733
0,046663
+ 0,050009 the ferric gluconate
4 * the rest of the micros to reach CONCENTRATION TO SEARCH I apply it with the chemicals that I can get based on as you have seen from SO4.
5 * The only commercial bus complex that we can get is the SEACHEN TRACE ,,,, but as we already know these complex are truly water.
6 * As Faith we have only individually
-a ferric gluconate
-b Hierro quelado Fe (Hierro quelado EDDHA 6%)


----------



## medlight (29 Dec 2021)

Este es el producto al que me refiero








						Corrector de Carencias FERTIBERIA Microplus 120 gr
					

Comercial Mida, tu tienda de productos para el cuidado de la huerta y el jardín online dónde comprar Corrector de Carencias de Fertiberia al mejor precio.




					www.comercialmida.es


----------



## John q (29 Dec 2021)

Firstly just like to apologise to @Andy Pierce  for taking this thread down a long and winding path.



Happi said:


> if you are worry about dosing Urea then you can aim for 1 ppm N from KNO3





Happi said:


> *21.62 grams KNO3 *
> NO3 2.21
> N 0.5
> K 1.4


I have some urea on order but admittedly a bit reluctant to add it to the aquarium, especially as i have a good fish load.
Reading your above quote, will this work if I add 40g of KNO3 to the mix ~ resulting in 4.29 KNO3  0.97 N.

Plan to do another thread covering this, but would appreciate any input.


----------



## John q (14 Jan 2022)

Last week I drastically changed my fertiliser regime so thought I'd better post an update in this thread regards the progress on 4ppm phosphate dosing. These pictures were taken 10 minutes ago and you can see the gsa has been eradicated on the pennywort. For me this experimental chapter is concluded.

Maybe hard to tell but these pictures represent some new and some old growth at various levels within the tank. 





















 Cheers.


----------



## Andy Pierce (24 Apr 2022)

Four month follow-up (Fighting algae with more phosphate - Fireplace aquarium) on the concept of using high phosphate to precipitate non-chelated iron as a green spot algae control measure (phosphate with EI - higher than 3 ppm?) and I'm very happy to say the green spot algae has essentially completely disappeared.  Where I used to need to scrape down the tank walls every three weeks or so, I haven't had to do that once in the last four months since boosting the phosphate in EI dosing to 7 ppm.  I don't know if the suggested mechanism is the reason why this works, but I'm not going to argue with success.  Interestingly, I do still get green algae, but in the condensation on the lid of the tank and *not in the water column* and this algae wipes off easily.


----------

