# Worsening algae after starting EI dosing



## Animallover (1 Aug 2021)

Hi guys,

I have been using EI dosing for 11 days now. I have followed all the instructions and made my macro and micro bottles and have been dosing according to the instructions.

I seem to be having a progressively worsening of this blue-green (my guess could be wrong) algae which is worst on my mosses but is also present on my aquarium glass. I've not had this type of algae before and it's starting to look unsightly as it's getting worse.

I have attached some pictures most of them are a week apart. The worst one if today and the others a week or 2 before.

The only other parameter I have changed apart from moving to EI dosing is that I increased my lighting duration from 6 hours to 6h 30 mins a day and that was 3 or 4 weeks ago now. When I did increase the lighting duration then I did notice some green film type algae on my crypts and red plants but these are going away now and have cleared off about 60% what they were before. The tank had such lush growth a few weeks ago it looks so different so fast. 

I was just wondering what tweaking I should do next? I'm guessing there's more than enough nutrients if i'm using EI dosing and my CO2 checker is lime green throughout the photoperiod. Also not overfeeding the fishes. Just wondering if that only leaves tweaking with the light but i'm not sure.


----------



## Animallover (1 Aug 2021)

Here are the pictures:


----------



## Zeus. (1 Aug 2021)

Animalover said:


> The only other parameter I have changed apart from moving to EI dosing is that I increased my lighting duration from 6 hours to 6h 30 mins a day



Which will be the cause, an abundance of ferts *does not* cause algae, but too much light does.

Before going to EI ferts what was you dosing?


----------



## Animallover (1 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Which will be the cause, an abundance of ferts *does not* cause algae, but too much light does.
> 
> Before going to EI ferts what was you dosing?


Hi, thanks for the reply. I was using Tropica SN 7 pumps a day. I did think it could be the light but the light change was much earlier (weeks) than starting the EI dosing hence why I was confused as i didn't have too bad algae when the light was increased it was only minimal.


----------



## Zeus. (1 Aug 2021)

When was the last time you cleaned your filter? Plus when did you last do a WC (water change) and how much.

I would remove as much of the algae as possible and cut off the worse affected leaves, then turkey blast the substrate followed by a double WC of about 70-80% then clean filter and all hoses.

I did the first post without seeing the pics  reduce lighting to less than pervious level as you had algae before anyway so 6hrs, weekly WCs of 50% or even midweek WC as well would do no harm for couple of weeks.

But cause is the same too much light  Does any natural light land on tank ? all it takes is a few hours of direct sunlight to get the results you have, if direct sunlight does land on tank seasonally it needs blocking with at least carboard.


----------



## Animallover (1 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> When was the last time you cleaned your filter? Plus when did you last do a WC (water change) and how much.
> 
> I would remove as much of the algae as possible and cut off the worse affected leaves, then turkey blast the substrate followed by a double WC of about 70-80% then clean filter and all hoses.
> 
> ...


I last cleaned my filters around 6 weeks ago. My water change is due tomorrow hence why the tank glass is looking quite messy. So my last water change was 6 days ago and I do 50-75% it just depends on when I turn around to see the tank. 

Okay that sounds like a good idea. What do you mean by a double water change? Change the water 80% and then fill up and immediately do another 80% water change? 

Ok i'll reduce the light back down to 6 hours and do a mid week WC. I guess in the summer months there has been a bit go light hitting the tank in the evening so will block it off so it doesn't temporarily. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## Happi (2 Aug 2021)

IMO it would be wrong to say that fertilizer don't cause algae and that high lights are the main issue. Because you can have high light or low light in both cases and have algae in both cases. After studying the light and fertilizer link for some years now, it is quite safe to say that fertilizer have a very strong link with the algae growth compared to the lights. Once the tank is established and the plant mass is increases, algae is less likely to become an issue.


----------



## Animallover (2 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> IMO it would be wrong to say that fertilizer don't cause algae and that high lights are the main issue. Because you can have high light or low light in both cases and have algae in both cases. After studying the light and fertilizer link for some years now, it is quite safe to say that fertilizer have a very strong link with the algae growth compared to the lights. Once the tank is established and the plant mass is increases, algae is less likely to become an issue.


But surely EI dosing has been tested enough times to say it is not too much fertiliser to cause algae? And you can have low light and deficient nutrients that may cause algae or high light and deficient/ adequate nutrients causing algae. I agree in a tank that’s not established high nutrients can cause algae but this tanks been running for about 5 months now. I’m still very new to this but everything was going okay until I increased the light and then starting the EI dosing - but as Zeus said before I can see similar algae from my pics from before I increased the light so maybe the clean up crew were just about able to keep the algae minimal and then when I increased the lights the algae growth just increased steadily from there


----------



## MichaelJ (2 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Which will be the cause, an abundance of ferts *does not* cause algae, but too much light does.


Right on!  There is no way fertilization causes algae (quite the contrary in my experience). Lack of NPK ferts will, and so will excess light vs. CO2, and so will organic waste. Dial down your lights intensity, increase your WC and possibly better your flow/circulation and have patience!
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Zeus. (2 Aug 2021)

Animalover said:


> What do you mean by a double water change? Change the water 80% and then fill up and immediately do another 80% water change?


Yes.


Animalover said:


> I last cleaned my filters around 6 weeks ago


I do mine weekly, after a big clean of tank a clean of the filter is always a good idea.


Happi said:


> IMO it would be wrong to say that fertilizer don't cause algae and that high lights are the main issue.


Well algae can thrive in a bucket of water with no ferts but plants cant, algae needs ferts in the ppb (parts per billion) but plants need ferts in ppm (parts per million), so in our tanks there is always ferts in abundance for Algae, so from my reading and my peers the ferts cause algae has been ditch.

I think the OP tank was no the edge of an algae outbreak and the extra light tipped the balance.

Other things that *need* checking are
1, CO2/flow/turnover
2, Detritus in substrate

Have you done a pH profile? what time does your CO2 come on before light on and how did you determine this time? what colour does your DC change.

Flow/tank turnover is King in the high tech tank, You have a Fluval FX? (I have an FX6) they are great filters IMO but better suited for fish only tanks, the duck billed outputs don't generate enough flow for the output of the filter and you would be better off with a bespoke spraybar which would generate more/better flow in tank, however the 25mm piping is a PITA to get piping for- but still doable.

Tank is 5 months old, when was the last blasting of the substrate to remove the detritus, I got away doing this for about 6-9months then had to do it regularly to keep my carpet looking good, for a short time I did it weekly. If not blasted yet time to start.


----------



## Happi (2 Aug 2021)

not here to argue but you cannot say that fertilizer doesn't cause  algae if algae only require the fertilizer in ppb to grow, imagine how much algae you can grow if the fertilizer is present in ppm amount.  so, IMO the statement like "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" would be false.  but we can certainly agree that algae will be minimum when plant growth is good and plant mass is very high even under high fertilizations. 

some people add NH4/Urea and get algae and I use to tell them that they shouldn't be getting algae because fertilizer don't cause algae remember. they said but NH4/urea does, I use to tell them so you don't think NH4/Urea is a fertilizer? I also told them that I use both in my tank with minimum to very little algae, but the main reason I don't see much issue in my tank is because my plant grow very fast and I have a huge plant mass to begin with even while using very high lights. I told them if I cut the plant mass more than in half, I start to see algae appear. it would be true to say "plant can out compete algae" but it would be false to say "that fertilizer doesn't cause algae" 

far as the OP question goes, you might want to cut the dosing in half and start from there, with that plant mass you might not need to dose the full EI doses.


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> IMO it would be wrong to say that fertilizer don't cause algae and that high lights are the main issue.


Hi @Happi 

I have a slight problem with the word 'cause'. Otherwise, I agree with the point you are making. There appears to be several factors that contribute to the growth/lack of algae and cyanobacteria. Lighting, nutrients, allelopathy, water flow velocity, pH and so on.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Aug 2021)

Animalover said:


> I seem to be having a progressively worsening of this blue-green (my guess could be wrong) algae which is worst on my mosses but is also present on my aquarium glass. I've not had this type of algae before and it's starting to look unsightly as it's getting worse.


Hi @Animalover 

Blue-green 'algae' is not actually an algae. It is a form of bacteria known as Cyanobacteria. And it does look as though that's what your photos are showing. It's not easy to eliminate but you may find something of use here:






						Cyanobacteria Identification - At Last!
					

Hi Folks,  Like many other aquarists, I have had cyanobacteria (aka 'BGA') grow in my tanks. And I started reading about this stuff. Of course, I initially thought BGA was algae. Why else would it be known as BGA (Blue-Green Algae)? But I later discovered that it's not an algae at all. It's a...



					www.ukaps.org
				




JPC


----------



## Animallover (3 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Yes.
> 
> I do mine weekly, after a big clean of tank a clean of the filter is always a good idea.
> 
> ...


My CO2 comes about 4/5 hours before the photoperiod and the reason is any later and the DC is not a like green colour at the start of the photoperiod.
I have 1x Fluval fx6 (less disguised) which is great but I also have an Oase thermo bio master 850 (well disguised) on the same tank so that comes with a spray bar and I agree the spray bar gives a better flow from what I can see than the FX6.
I would like to think my flow, turnover and CO2 are okay.
I blasted the subtrate last week (first time) but will have to do again as looking messy again- and probably more regularly if anything.


----------



## Animallover (3 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Animalover
> 
> Blue-green 'algae' is not actually an algae. It is a form of bacteria known as Cyanobacteria. And it does look as though that's what your photos are showing. It's not easy to eliminate but you may find something of use here:
> 
> ...


Thanks for this I had a read! I’m just not sure how easy it would be able to find a UV-C for my tank as it’s quite lengthy. Also the blue exit seems great but would it work if I don’t have the UV-C?


----------



## Animallover (3 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> not here to argue but you cannot say that fertilizer doesn't cause  algae if algae only require the fertilizer in ppb to grow, imagine how much algae you can grow if the fertilizer is present in ppm amount.  so, IMO the statement like "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" would be false.  but we can certainly agree that algae will be minimum when plant growth is good and plant mass is very high even under high fertilizations.
> 
> some people add NH4/Urea and get algae and I use to tell them that they shouldn't be getting algae because fertilizer don't cause algae remember. they said but NH4/urea does, I use to tell them so you don't think NH4/Urea is a fertilizer? I also told them that I use both in my tank with minimum to very little algae, but the main reason I don't see much issue in my tank is because my plant grow very fast and I have a huge plant mass to begin with even while using very high lights. I told them if I cut the plant mass more than in half, I start to see algae appear. it would be true to say "plant can out compete algae" but it would be false to say "that fertilizer doesn't cause algae"
> 
> far as the OP question goes, you might want to cut the dosing in half and start from there, with that plant mass you might not need to dose the full EI doses.


Thanks! If the light duration that I have dropped does not lead to any change in the algae then I will think about reducing the EI dosing.


----------



## Tim Harrison (3 Aug 2021)

If the tank was stable before and algae free, try a total reset and take it from there.  Dial back all the changes - the lighting duration and fertz regime. You might also consider reducing light intensity as well. Since you altered more than one parameter at once absolute cause and effect can not be determined with any degree of certainty. However, EI in a balanced system shouldn't cause algae issues.

Before you increase either again work on optimizing your CO2 flow and distribution. It's probably the weak link if it needs to come on 4/5 hours before lights on. If it's not on a timer, it needs to be.

Keep on top of water changes and filter maintenance. It will help to do several substantial water changes a week and to clean the filter once a week until the algae is under control. If it persists consider a blackout.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Aug 2021)

Hi all,

This is the beauty of utilizing water column fertilization at EI levels.

Those EI targets provide a buffet in your water column. So yes, everything that needs that food grows - and it grows fast, provided the rest of the building blocks are there.

Dosing EI to reset the tank is a great way to use the tool - personally, I crank the lights and ramp the temp to min. 25celcius in conjunction with it: I am impatient and want the tank out of “unhappy” as soon as possible! And what I mean by this is get ready to work. Speed up that system, pedal to the metal, and take off your shirt: daily water change clean, clean, clean - all you care about is new growth … you will trim all that other stuff away … the plants will win but o don’t be fooled: WE are part of the system and if we drive the system with Ferts, we MUST drive ourselves.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Aug 2021)

Hi all,

To be honest, my advice above is flawed: @Animallover , what are your goals?

1) how the tank looks?
2) on maintenance/frequency?

these goals will determine what advice 
(Ferts etc etc) should be for you. 

Josh


----------



## Zeus. (3 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> 25celcius



I personally aim for 22 degree Celsius after my visit to Green Aqua, obviously if you have livestock that needs it higher or in middle of a heatwave then that's another story.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> I personally aim for 22 degree Celsius after my visit to Green Aqua, obviously if you have livestock that needs it higher or in middle of a heatwave then that's another story.



It ultimately depends on the goal.
22 is fine. 25 is fine. 30 is fine. 20 is fine.

But if the temp is set due to a fear of growing algae, then this is the root issue.

Temp = metabolism and it simply allows the plants to use the fertilizer and grow and allows a comfortable temperature for your fish. If you want a stable system, temp allows a higher rate of nutrient consumption and if it’s all in check - boom super stable and no ammonia.

Green Aqua needs to reduce maintenance so it makes sense.

Amano ran it at 77 Fahrenheit for almost every tank.


----------



## Zeus. (3 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Amano ran it at 77 Fahrenheit for almost every tank.


Wasn't aware of that 

Having been to both Takashi Amano Forests Underwatter at Oceanarium Lisbon and Green Aqua which was stunning the sear size of it, however 'Green Aquas' tanks on my visit was in a different league for healthy plants than any where else I have been.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> I have been using EI dosing for 11 days now. I have followed all the instructions and made my macro and micro bottles and have been dosing according to the instructions.
> 
> I seem to be having a progressively worsening of this blue-green (my guess could be wrong) algae which is worst on my mosses but is also present on my aquarium glass. I've not had this type of algae before and it's starting to look unsightly as it's getting worse.
> 
> ...


Hello,
          A rule of thumb is that if you are dosing EI level of nutrients and the tank experiences nutrient related algae then one must immediately suspect that flow/distribution is faulty.

It was difficult to see exactly how your distribution is configured, but it appears you have a small spraybar mounted at the upper left on the back wall and it also seems you have another filter outlet mounted on the left wall.

If the spraybars flow is pointed towards the front and if the side wall mounted outlet is pointed towards the right pane then this is a classic case of interfering flows. Both flow outputs essentially interfere and result in incoherence. This reduces the effectiveness of both flows and results in poor nutrient and CO2 distribution.

The most effective configuration is to place all filter outlet on the same wall, and of course the most effective wall will be the rear wall so that the distance the flow has to move is along the shortest distance. Sendin flow to the long distance of the tank is less effective, especially if it is being interfered with by flow from the perpendicular direction.

The best plan is to perform massive water changes frequently. Remove all affective leaves as they only spawn more algal spores.
Next, experiment with various combinations of the filter outlet mounting, ensuring that all outlets are mounted on the same wall pointing in the same direction. Water is heavy, weighing 8 lbs. per gallon. It s therefore very difficult to manipulate and so it requires as much energy you can muster to move it along. Use the energy of your pumps so that they work together, not at opposing angles.

Everybody thinks their flow/distribution and flow are OK, but everybody is wrong...


Happi said:


> far as the OP question goes, you might want to cut the dosing in half and start from there, with that plant mass you might not need to dose the full EI doses.


Algae really do not care  about the level of EI nutrients in the tank. PO4, NO3 and K are not the cause of algae.
Ammonia/Ammonium however is a completely different story. They can trigger algal blooms if used incompetently. The rate of NH3/NH4 concentration rise is one of the triggers. This, combined with possible oxygen depletion due to bacterial action can result in algal blooms - however, just because someone uses NH4/Urea and gets algae, this does not automatically mean that the algae is responding to the NH4/Urea. You have to determine what algal species is blooming. if the bloom being experienced is a CO2 related algae then that will have little to do with their NH4/Urea dosing. There are many ways to make mistakes and the OPs case is an example of that. 

There is no need to reduce the nutrient loading. EI has NEVER advocated the use of NH4/Urea specifically because NH4/NH3 is a known algal trigger. When WE say nutrients don't cause algae NH3/NH4/Urea are excluded from our list of nutrients. 
Having said that, NH4/Urea is a very effective means of Nitrogen uptake, and if used responsibly one can have success. Amano's ADA Aquasoil is very effective precisely because it soaks the clay particles with Ammonium Nitrate, however many experience algae at the sediment, so this is a risk. When new, Aquasoil leeches NH4 into the water column due to it's high concentration, so frequent water changes are advisable when using these types of enriched sediments in order to control the NH4 loading rate.

Cheers,


----------



## Happi (4 Aug 2021)

@ceg4048 

"When WE say nutrients don't cause algae NH3/NH4/Urea are excluded from our list of nutrients"

Weather you include it in your list or not it doesn't  change the fact that Urea and NH4 both are nutrients in term of nutrients and fertilizer. This sound like another excuse to defend the EI system. I wonder what else we are going to exclude as the hobby advance in the future?

Now we should see something like this all across the forums:
"Nutrients doesn't cause Algae, but Urea and NH4 excluded"

Plus IMO EI is outdated and quite old. Most experts and professionals use fertilizer like Tropica, ADA etc which contains both Urea and NH4 which are known to cause algae according to the new EI with urea/Nh4 excludeded version. But yet tank dosed with ADA or Tropica are award winners while where EI is most popular which is in the USA, the forum like TPT have the most active members in the Algae thread.


----------



## erwin123 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi, in your other thread you mentioned that you were using Tropica Ferts, presumably following the manufacturer's recommended dose.

When you switched to EI, how did you do it? Did you gradually increase the dose,  or did you go straight from Tropica to full EI dosing?

I'm currently dosing APT's version of EI (20ppm N instead of 30ppm) but I did a 1 week "transition" from APT Complete (7ppm N from 3m/daily) to APT EI (20ppm N from 3ml/daily). I have no idea if it helped, but it seemed a good idea  to make gradual rather than sudden changes to water parameters?


----------



## Animallover (4 Aug 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> If the tank was stable before and algae free, try a total reset and take it from there.  Dial back all the changes - the lighting duration and fertz regime. You might also consider reducing light intensity as well. Since you altered more than one parameter at once absolute cause and effect can not be determined with any degree of certainty. However, EI in a balanced system shouldn't cause algae issues.
> 
> Before you increase either again work on optimizing your CO2 flow and distribution. It's probably the weak link if it needs to come on 4/5 hours before lights on. If it's not on a timer, it needs to be.
> 
> Keep on top of water changes and filter maintenance. It will help to do several substantial water changes a week and to clean the filter once a week until the algae is under control. If it persists consider a blackout.


Thanks!

I wouldn’t say my tank was ever 100% algae free there’s always something that I observe but the majority of the times it’s so little that it doesn’t bother me. Only since these last 2 changes of increased duration of light and starting EI has it gone out of hand and looking unsightly now. Yes that’s what I’ll do just revert back to how it was initially but I’m doing it one by one just to see if there is any causal relationship.

yes the CO2 is on a timer as well as the lights.

how do I improve my flow/ distribution?


----------



## Animallover (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> To be honest, my advice above is flawed: @Animallover , what are your goals?
> 
> ...



haha your initial post sounded like you were manic 😂😂.

I just want my tank to look how it did a month ago and maintain that really.

I prefer once a week maintenance. I do enjoy maintenance but if it’s too often not as enjoyable.


----------



## Animallover (4 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> I personally aim for 22 degree Celsius after my visit to Green Aqua, obviously if you have livestock that needs it higher or in middle of a heatwave then that's another story.


Mines at 23 but British summer has raised that currently.


----------



## Animallover (4 Aug 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hello,
> A rule of thumb is that if you are dosing EI level of nutrients and the tank experiences nutrient related algae then one must immediately suspect that flow/distribution is faulty.
> 
> It was difficult to see exactly how your distribution is configured, but it appears you have a small spraybar mounted at the upper left on the back wall and it also seems you have another filter outlet mounted on the left wall.
> ...


Hi, 

thanks for the reply. Below is an illustration of the flow in the tank (birds eye view). It’s literally demonstrating the surface agitation that I can see with my eyes. Sorry I’m at work so couldn’t take a picture of the tank. From what you’re saying with having the flow be in the shortest direction my issues with be nozzle 2 and the spray bar location 3 as that 
The FX6 has 2 nozzles perpendicular to each other so it’s very hard to make them both point the same direction.

should I change the direction of the spray bar location labelled 3 so the holes are facing the same direction as the spray bar portion labelled 4? But surely the spray bar pointing the soil is still a short distance so there’ll be good flow? 
how would I know if the flow issue is solved? If I change orientation of the outputs parts should I wait for a couple of weeks to see the change?
I do have ADA soil and done the very frequent water changes when the tank was starting up.


----------



## Animallover (4 Aug 2021)

erwin123 said:


> Hi, in your other thread you mentioned that you were using Tropica Ferts, presumably following the manufacturer's recommended dose.
> 
> When you switched to EI, how did you do it? Did you gradually increase the dose,  or did you go straight from Tropica to full EI dosing?
> 
> I'm currently dosing APT's version of EI (20ppm N instead of 30ppm) but I did a 1 week "transition" from APT Complete (7ppm N from 3m/daily) to APT EI (20ppm N from 3ml/daily). I have no idea if it helped, but it seemed a good idea  to make gradual rather than sudden changes to water parameters?


Hi,
It completely slipped my mind when o switched from Tropica to EI regarding the baby gradual steps but I went from Tropica following the bottle instructions to full EI dosing in the space of 1 day do maybe that’s the problem


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> haha your initial post sounded like you were manic 😂😂.


Bahahah! 


Animallover said:


> I just want my tank to look how it did a month ago and maintain that really.


If you want to run EI, optimize flow/co2 and maintenance.

Otherwise, you can reduce your ferts to ease the demand on co2, necessarily flow on your tank. This strategy should be paired with root tabs and rich substrate.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> Hi,
> It completely slipped my mind when o switched from Tropica to EI regarding the baby gradual steps but I went from Tropica following the bottle instructions to full EI dosing in the space of 1 day do maybe that’s the problem


Instant increase in nutrient demand, if the demand is not met: boom.

If you continue not to meet the demand, the tank will “struggle” … if you adapt and make it meet the demand, it will “flourish in line with our goals” in time (provided you stay consistent).


----------



## Happi (4 Aug 2021)

while we are talking about this topic especially about the EI excluding the Urea/NH2/NH4 as they were listed as not part of EI due to not qualified as Nutrients. I wonder if we are going to remove EDTA/DTPA Chelated based fertilizer from our EI list because EDTA/DTPA both contain Nitrogen that is not in the Form of *NO3*.

its probably best for the OP to explore the changes and then make the changes as needed and let him draw his own conclusion, none of us are going to win a gold medals based on whos advice is the best. I think all the advice should be considered from all the members otherwise it sounds or becomes like sugarcoating.


----------



## Tim Harrison (4 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> Yes that’s what I’ll do just revert back to how it was initially but I’m doing it one by one just to see if there is any causal relationship.


Perhaps not the best methodology, it'll probably prolong the agony.  If you follow anyone's advice on this best to follow Clive's @ceg4048


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> @ceg4048
> 
> "When WE say nutrients don't cause algae NH3/NH4/Urea are excluded from our list of nutrients"
> 
> Weather you include it in your list or not it doesn't  change the fact that Urea and NH4 both are nutrients in term of nutrients and fertilizer. This sound like another excuse to defend the EI system. I wonder what else we are going to exclude as the hobby advance in the future?


Hi @Happi, I think this is a bit unfair ... there are no rules without exceptions... Just because NH3/NH4 _may_ precipitate algae growth and some  fertilizers (such as Tropica Specialized) include those compounds in tiny amounts, I see no reason why that should undercut the general notion and expert advice that fertilizer (NPK + trace) do not cause algae.  This advice has really helped a lot of people, including myself... and I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise (and anecdotally, I used to (over)-dose Tropica Specialized and still didn't have algae).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the reply. Below is an illustration of the flow in the tank (birds eye view). It’s literally demonstrating the surface agitation that I can see with my eyes. Sorry I’m at work so couldn’t take a picture of the tank. From what you’re saying with having the flow be in the shortest direction my issues with be nozzle 2 and the spray bar location 3 as that
> The FX6 has 2 nozzles perpendicular to each other so it’s very hard to make them both point the same direction.
> ...


Hi,
   OK, that configuration is even less effective than I thought. If I read that diagram correctly you have the spraybar holes pointing down? That only then sends the flow to the back part of the sediment. Then there is the corner  unit which is sending it's flow to the longest possible distance in the tank, which is the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the two tank sides and the diagonal. The energy peters out and goes nowhere. This was OK when the plants were smaller and had less mass, but as they grow and demand more of everything this distribution method fails. This has nothing to do with your fertilization method and everything to do with flow/distribution. The fact that your algal blooms began 11 days after switching to EI is merely coincidence. In fact, it's possible that the plants grew more rapidly after you began dosing EI and that increased mass then blocked the flow. When switching to EI you never have to worry about gradual implementation. Just get on with it.

The problem you mention with the FX6 angled outlets is the most vexing and may require it to be modified. It it were up to me I would cut off the outlets and run the hose into a fabricated spraybar. This can be any rigid plastic tubing of the right size (25mm?) with holes drilled. It may be possible to block off one of the spuds and to point the open spud so that it's pointing towards the front glass, but I don't know if that increases the flow from that single open spud. It's worth a try though and you can then move it away from the corner  and place it half way between the end of the spraybar and the left wall. In fact the spraybar assembly needs to be shifted more towards the center and away from the right wall. Both the section labeled "3" as well as the section labeled "4" should point forward towards the front glass. With the spraybar assembly moved over away from the wall and the single "duckbill" in operation (or a DIY spraybar fabricated) you'll be moving a lot more water in a coherent fashion. The water will move towards the front glass and then will naturally be deflected down towards the sediment. When it contacts the sediment it will then be deflected towards the rear when it will make contact with the plants . CO2 will remain in solution longer and the plants will have more contact time with the nutrients.


Happi said:


> Weather you include it in your list or not it doesn't change the fact that Urea and NH4 both are nutrients in term of nutrients and fertilizer. This sound like another excuse to defend the EI system. I wonder what else we are going to exclude as the hobby advance in the future?


We will exclude anything that proves to be less fruitful. I don't get your argument: On the one hand you acknowledge that EI was developed long ago. The guy who developed it understood exactly that NH3/NH4 is problematic and can cause problems. This was never a hidden fact. This is exactly why he chose an innocuous Nitrogen compound KNO3 and specifically avoided Ammonium Nitrate and Urea, which has been in use in all commercial fertilizers for a hundred years. In fact, that's why we have environmental problems with fertilizer runoff from the land. Ammonium compounds get dumped into waterways at an uncontrolled rate and causes algal blooms. Barr chose wisely, knowing that you could not get into trouble dosing NO3, even knowing that NH3/NH4 deliver quadruple the amount of Nitrogen. HE CHOSE TO AVOID NH3/NH4. 

This choice is not a result of being outdated or old fashion. It's actually just the reverse. 
Your argument demonstrates your lack of general and historical knowledge. The fact that the fancy commercial products use NH3/NH4/Urea is not the result of some modern technology. It is a result of those brands maximizing their profits using an old and outdated chemical that has proven to be an environmental nightmare years ago. Ammonium salts are CHEAP and are therefore more effective than NO3 salts, but cause more problems when used by knuckleheads. You are a typical victim of propaganda and you do not study all the facts in order to gain perspective. You look at a pretty bottle with shiny liquids and immediately assume that it must be modern, when the product is actually 100 years old. 


Happi said:


> I wonder if we are going to remove EDTA/DTPA Chelated based fertilizer from our EI list because EDTA/DTPA both contain Nitrogen that is not in the Form of *NO3*.


Who cares? This is more argumentative nonsense. We know what we are referring to and why, as I have already explained. I don't even care about these chelators. I don't use them because they are more money sent down the drain. Use them to your hearts content if it makes you feel more "modern".


Happi said:


> its probably best for the OP to explore the changes and then make the changes as needed and let him draw his own conclusion, none of us are going to win a gold medals based on whos advice is the best. I think all the advice should be considered from all the members otherwise it sounds or becomes like sugarcoating.


It might be better for the OP to follow the advice of folks that have been successfully giving advice that works for years - even though the advice is old and outdated the advice is still more pertinent than following the "modern" trends of putting lipstick on a pig.

Cheers,


----------



## Happi (5 Aug 2021)

*@ceg4048 
"Who cares? This is more argumentative nonsense. We know what we are referring to and why, as I have already explained. I don't even care about these chelators. I don't use them because they are more money sent down the drain. Use them to your hearts content if it makes you feel more "modern"."*

Clive, I didn't understand this quote, so you are saying that you don't use any fertilizer such as CSM+B ? Which is made with EDTA chelate? I thought you have a sticky thread about this on the front page in the fertilizer dosing section. Again the argument is not even about or related to weather spending the money on chelate or not or weather spending the money on these are throwing the money in the drain. Am just curious now what you use now that is not made with chelation? Please answer so others can benefit from it.

The argument is not about what Barr thinks or you thinks. The argument was you guys believed and preached about "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" "nutrients doesn't cause Algae" for decade now and exclude anything that causes algae. Some people will laugh at this statement, only the naive will fall for this.

We can go back and forth with this argument with all kinds of excuses but the fact are not going to change that "fertilizer does cause algae" fact that urea/Nh4/NO3/Fe/Mn etc. are all nutrients and fertilizer.

I find  several flaws when I see a advice like this, another good example is "increase the PO4 to combat GSA" this advice is quite common for Many EI users. The question is where does the GSA goes when tropica fertilizer is used? Which have a very low PO4 and much lower P to N ratio compared to EI. We can apply the same logic to "Increase nitrate to combat Cyano bacteria" then where is the cyano for those who has been running aquarium for decade with almost 0 nitrate.

Furthermore, "add bushy nose to combat GDA" these are not solutions to the problems, you don't see Tropica hiring a crew of bushy nose to combat these kind of problems. 

Back to the argument regarding fertilizer, nutrients and algae. I can induce, reduce, increase or get rid of any kind of algae in a controlled setting with the right dose, amount and the chemical fertilizer. If I made a statement like "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" "nutrients doesn't cause algae" then I would be lying to my self and others. But my advice would be focus on increasing the plant mass and dose the tank as neededed, I don't see the logic behind dosing EI trying to grow some Java moss. 

Honestly, if people start to apply logic. They will get answers to most of their questions without the need for any advice.


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> The argument is not about what Barr thinks or you thinks. The argument was you guys believed and preached about "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" "nutrients doesn't cause Algae" for decade now and exclude anything that causes algae. Some people will laugh at this statement, only the naive will fall for this.
> 
> Honestly, if people start to apply logic. They will get answers to most of their questions without the need for any advice.


@Happi That would be a very tall order for most I guess. In order to apply meaningful logic in any given domain you need a sufficient amount of knowledge and experience in that particular domain. Most people (myself included) just don't have the time, resources or aptitude to experiment to gain that level of experience or study up on even a fraction of every convincible topic entailing this hobby. I don't believe anyone is right all the time, that's impossible, but provided sufficient and accurate information, there is a fairly high probability that the expert advice you get on this forum will work out. I don't see much evidence to the contrary. To put it mildly, to tell people that they can get answers to most of their questions just by applying logic without the need for any advice, is not a very beneficial thing to say on a discussion forum that purposely states that hobbyists are _actively encouraged and will receive expert advice from more experienced plant growers and aquascapers._ Fortunately, people are mostly here to educate themselves and exchange advice rather than wasting time on futile arguments - time that should have been spend helping fellow hobbyists solving real-world issues IMHO.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Animallover (6 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Bahahah!
> 
> If you want to run EI, optimize flow/co2 and maintenance.
> 
> ...


Thanks I’m going to try and optimise flow based around what Ceg has said and see if it’s any better


----------



## Animallover (6 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> while we are talking about this topic especially about the EI excluding the Urea/NH2/NH4 as they were listed as not part of EI due to not qualified as Nutrients. I wonder if we are going to remove EDTA/DTPA Chelated based fertilizer from our EI list because EDTA/DTPA both contain Nitrogen that is not in the Form of *NO3*.
> 
> its probably best for the OP to explore the changes and then make the changes as needed and let him draw his own conclusion, none of us are going to win a gold medals based on whos advice is the best. I think all the advice should be considered from all the members otherwise it sounds or becomes like sugarcoating.


Yeah exactly I’m using all of these information to help guide my next steps and still I’m sure some things will work and others won’t so I’m using this as a whole learning experience


----------



## Animallover (6 Aug 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> Perhaps not the best methodology, it'll probably prolong the agony.  If you follow anyone's advice on this best to follow Clive's @ceg4048


Haha I see where you’re coming from but I’m pretty patient- I waited for over a year for the tank to be delivered due to covid and was completely okay with that lol. A couple of weeks here and there is nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Animallover (6 Aug 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hi,
> OK, that configuration is even less effective than I thought. If I read that diagram correctly you have the spraybar holes pointing down? That only then sends the flow to the back part of the sediment. Then there is the corner  unit which is sending it's flow to the longest possible distance in the tank, which is the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the two tank sides and the diagonal. The energy peters out and goes nowhere. This was OK when the plants were smaller and had less mass, but as they grow and demand more of everything this distribution method fails. This has nothing to do with your fertilization method and everything to do with flow/distribution. The fact that your algal blooms began 11 days after switching to EI is merely coincidence. In fact, it's possible that the plants grew more rapidly after you began dosing EI and that increased mass then blocked the flow. When switching to EI you never have to worry about gradual implementation. Just get on with it.
> 
> The problem you mention with the FX6 angled outlets is the most vexing and may require it to be modified. It it were up to me I would cut off the outlets and run the hose into a fabricated spraybar. This can be any rigid plastic tubing of the right size (25mm?) with holes drilled. It may be possible to block off one of the spuds and to point the open spud so that it's pointing towards the front glass, but I don't know if that increases the flow from that single open spud. It's worth a try though and you can then move it away from the corner  and place it half way between the end of the spraybar and the left wall. In fact the spraybar assembly needs to be shifted more towards the center and away from the right wall. Both the section labeled "3" as well as the section labeled "4" should point forward towards the front glass. With the spraybar assembly moved over away from the wall and the single "duckbill" in operation (or a DIY spraybar fabricated) you'll be moving a lot more water in a coherent fashion. The water will move towards the front glass and then will naturally be deflected down towards the sediment. When it contacts the sediment it will then be deflected towards the rear when it will make contact with the plants . CO2 will remain in solution longer and the plants will have more contact time with the nutrients.
> ...


Yes there are holes pointing downwards haha- I thought it was a great configuration when setting it up as the flow is going everywhere but after reading your post that makes a lot of sense that it’s just going straight down to the sediment. So yes I can easily twist the holes back so they are facing the front of the tank.
The fx6 has got annoying outflow nozzles and for now sounds like a lot of hassle to try and fix. I think I will just try facing both nozzles as forward as they go in the direction of the front glass and see what the response is. I personally don’t know how I’d block off one of the spuds so think this option will have to do for now.
I also have a lid with pre cut holes in them so I can so easily put move the outlets from each corner to the centre. The only way is like you’re saying via making a DIY extension on each side. I actually just remembered why one of the FX6 nozzles is facing towards the long side as it is directly spraying pressure on too of the CO2 diffuser so I thought it might help with getting the gas CO2 to stay in water as the gas bubbles stay longer under water as opposed to just going to the top? Is my logic correct or did I just make that all up lol.


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Aug 2021)

Happi said:


> Clive, I didn't understand this quote, so you are saying that you don't use any fertilizer such as CSM+B ? Which is made with EDTA chelate? I thought you have a sticky thread about this on the front page in the fertilizer dosing section. Again the argument is not even about or related to weather spending the money on chelate or not or weather spending the money on these are throwing the money in the drain. Am just curious now what you use now that is not made with chelation? Please answer so others can benefit from it.


What I'm saying is that I do not care what chelator is in my nutrient products. Hobbyists do not need to fret as much as they do about which chelator to use. As soon as you put the nutrient products in the water the plants start to absorb them. There are both passive and active methods used by the plant leaves to absorb nutrients. Within an hour the plants have taken up as much Iron and other micronutrients that they need. It doesn't really matter if much of it precipitate out of solution because they have taken their fill and even so, the micronutrient precipitates settle into the sediment where the plant roots have other chemical mechanisms to absorb these micronutrients if needed.
What I'm saying therefore is that EI is first and foremost a method of defeating the commercial brands that charge an arm and a leg for basic nutrients that farmers have been using to grow produce for a hundred years. We can buy the very cheapest raw powders and the micronutrient powders can use the most basic and cheapest chelators and this will be completely transparent to the plants. You do not need to spend extra money for exotic chelators because the plants really do not care. I buy my nutrient products from the cheapest and most reliable e-bay sellers. That failing that I can go to the nearest nursery and buy the stuff in bulk.


Happi said:


> I find several flaws when I see a advice like this, another good example is "increase the PO4 to combat GSA" this advice is quite common for Many EI users. The question is where does the GSA goes when tropica fertilizer is used? Which have a very low PO4 and much lower P to N ratio compared to EI. We can apply the same logic to "Increase nitrate to combat Cyano bacteria" then where is the cyano for those who has been running aquarium for decade with almost 0 nitrate.


Well, again, the reason you see it as a flaw is due to lack of understanding of the nutrient mechanism. Yes, if GSA is due to a PO4 deficiency (it can also be due to CO2 deficiency and any combination thereof) then you need to add more PO4. There is no calculation of exactly how much PO4 is needed for the plant to recover. It would be a tall task to determine the mass required in every circumstance. In any case, Tropica fertilizer and ANY commercial brand of NPK fertilizer are mostly water, but _may _contain sufficient levels of PO4 to allow the plant to recover. It may simply take a longer time than the hobbyists has patience for. I don't understand your confusion about this. If you add EI levels of PO4, which deliver at least an order of magnitude more PO4 than any commercial brand, then the plants will recover much more quickly. Because the commercial brands are so weak, they do not deliver sufficient NH4 to cause a loading rate that triggers algae. In this way the fact that the product is weak is a safety net for the user, but the penalty is that you are paying for a product that is mostly water. I specifically point this out in the EI Tutorial.


Happi said:


> Furthermore, "add bushy nose to combat GDA" these are not solutions to the problems, you don't see Tropica hiring a crew of bushy nose to combat these kind of problems.


I have never said this. In fact I always am at odds with this advice, generally, because I do not believe fish should be used to solve algae problem. Now Barr may advocate the addition of fish - but perhaps you have taken the statement out of context. He does not state to _only _add fish, but to add them in addition to performing those actions that mitigate the proliferation of that algae.

So for example BBA is a CO2 related algae, but even if you fix the CO2 BBA won't just simply go away. It has to be removed by either chemical (Excel) or mechanical means. It would be nice if there was a fish that ate BBA, because then you would be able to do the things necessary to improve the CO2 and the fish would do the dirty work of removing the tufts. So this is the scenario with GSA that Barr is probably referring to. GSA and Diatoms are still very difficult species to deal with. Diatoms, depending on the tank conditions may erupt and then go away with a few weeks of tank startup. There are no nutrients you can add to combat this. Similarly, GDA is usually cause by too much light and poor CO2 but is a cyclic algae and there is no nutrient you can add to diminish it, however, you do need to continue good husbandry, reduce the lighting, ensure good CO2 and if bushy noses will tackle the existing blooms then that's a brilliant solution because the GDA will go away only when it has completed it's life cycle.


Happi said:


> Back to the argument regarding fertilizer, nutrients and algae. I can induce, reduce, increase or get rid of any kind of algae in a controlled setting with the right dose, amount and the chemical fertilizer. If I made a statement like "fertilizer doesn't cause algae" "nutrients doesn't cause algae" then I would be lying to my self and others. But my advice would be focus on increasing the plant mass and dose the tank as neededed, I don't see the logic behind dosing EI trying to grow some Java moss.


Well talk is cheap and it's a very easy to make the statement that you can induce algae by using fertilizer - and you may have convinced yourself that this is true. But we do not know the details of your experimentation. You could easily have done something or not done something that had an effect without your realizing it. We do not know if the exercise was done scientifically. We do not know if there were any controls.
The mechanism of algae is very complicated and it's very easy to draw conclusions on mere coincidence. I do know that under certain conditions you can see algae by adding certain amounts of KNO3. How does this happen? It happens when the CO2 is marginal, i.e. the tank is already CO2 limited.
Here is the key: When you add CO2 you automatically increase the demand for NO3. When you add NO3 you automatically increase the demand for both CO2 and PO4.
So, if the tank is CO2 limited and you add a lot of NO3 you increased the demand for CO2 which is not satisfied. Due to the now poor CO2 uptake the result is a CO2 related algae, which could be any filamentous algae or red algae. If the tank were PO4 limited but there was sufficient CO2 then adding lots of NO3 will then cause a PO4 restriction and the plants suffer PO4 related algae such as GSA.
Now we arrive at the root of your semantics argument: Does adding NO3 _cause_ algae, or is it that adding NO3 _exposes _a CO2 or PO4 weakness?
As I mentioned no one has any idea what the conditions of your tanks was when you performed these miracles of nutrient "causing" algae.
I do know, however, that I can cure an algae problem by adding nutrients - and that we have instructed many people over the years to add nutrients and then when the followed the instructions their algae woes were were cured. I mean just go to the Algae section of the forum and review those threads you will see time after time that many people come to this forum believing that "nutrients cause algae" and when they reverse their thinking and start to add nutrients the problems are solved.
Here are the results an experiment where I deliberately restricted PO4. Then after a while, added PO4. Can you see the difference?
I can do this repeatedly and get the same results. As long as CO2 and other nutrients remain unlimited the tank does not fall into the trap of bi-directional interactions and suffer the consequences of Liebig's Law of The Minimum.





Furthermore, yes, I do have an EI Tutorial posted and for your information that tank in the photos were dosed with between 3X-5X EI concentration level, merely to convince myself that nutrients don't cause algae. So if you are getting algae by adding nutrients - and lets be clear, I don't count NH3/NH4 or Urea even though they contain N and even though they are almost 5 times more effective at delivering N to the plant than NO3 is, then you are doing something wrong and you need to investigate where you are going wrong. There are many ways to screw up a tank and EI does not solve every possible screw-up. The dosing program is part of an overall strategy of plant health that involves more than what powder you are using or what chemical you are calling a nutrient.

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> I actually just remembered why one of the FX6 nozzles is facing towards the long side as it is directly spraying pressure on too of the CO2 diffuser so I thought it might help with getting the gas CO2 to stay in water as the gas bubbles stay longer under water as opposed to just going to the top? Is my logic correct or did I just make that all up lol.


Well, it's theoretically correct, but there are better ways to accomplish this. I'm not sure why, but I had assumed that you were using an inline CO2 diffuser as I had trouble finding it in the photo. I suggest, if possible to port the gas into the filter by placing the diffuser in such a way as to have the bubbles be sucked into the inlet pipe. This should also be combined with the removal of about 2/3rds of the filter media in the filters if they are chock full. This is another area where hobbyists assume that their filters should be full of media. In reality that is only true for fish only tanks. In a planted tank the plants do the heavy lifting, so removing some of the media allows better flow, which is exactly what you need. This also allows the filter to swallow and to process the gas. This works sometimes and other times the filter is not able to process much of the bubbles and either cavitates or spits out bursts of bubbles. In any case it's definitely worth a try because tis is a very effective way of reducing the number of bubbles and of dissolving the gas.

Always, if you can show us pictures of the CO2 diffuser, as well as the filter outlets and spraybar placements it would help the analysis tremendously. 
Also, if you get the chance, have a read of the sticky Water flow in the planted aquarium?
Even the post Right distribution with spray bars on front??
gives an overview of the principles involved and what we're trying to accomplish with flow.
Cheers,


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (7 Aug 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Here is the key: When you add CO2 you automatically increase the demand for NO3. When you add NO3 you automatically increase the demand for both CO2 and PO4.
> So, if the tank is CO2 limited and you add a lot of NO3 you increased the demand for CO2 which is not satisfied. Due to the now poor CO2 uptake the result is a CO2 related algae, which could be any filamentous algae or red algae. If the tank were PO4 limited but there was sufficient CO2 then adding lots of NO3 will then cause a PO4 restriction and the plants suffer PO4 related algae such as GSA.



Truly succinct. No fat on this. Understanding the above is imperative in making any of the array of dosing regimes work.


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Aug 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Here is the key: When you add CO2 you automatically increase the demand for NO3. When you add NO3 you automatically increase the demand for both CO2 and PO4.


Hi @ceg4048  this part confuses me. Can you elaborate a bit relative to low-tech tanks? I was under the impression that NPK amounts doesn't matter as long as there are enough of it? from personal experience I have no reason to believe otherwise though.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (8 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


ceg4048 said:


> What I'm saying therefore is that EI is first and foremost a method of defeating the commercial brands that charge an arm and a leg for basic nutrients that farmers have been using to grow produce for a hundred years. We can buy the very cheapest raw powders and the micronutrient powders can use the most basic and cheapest chelators and this will be completely transparent to the plants. You do not need to spend extra money for exotic chelators because the plants really do not care. I buy my nutrient products from the cheapest and most reliable e-bay sellers. That failing that I can go to the nearest nursery and buy the stuff in bulk.


That is it really, "_an ion is an ion is an ion_", they are all the <"same in solution">, there aren't any bespoke ADA or Seachem ones. I would draw a distinction for iron (Fe) where <"the chelator"> is definitely relevant to epiphytes and floating plants.


Happi said:


> But my advice would be focus on increasing the plant mass and dose the tank as needed, I don't see the logic behind dosing EI trying to grow some Java moss.


That is <"my approach as well">, I look at it as the difference between <"growing orchids and tomatoes">, you wouldn't use the same approach for both, so why should it be any different for <"aquatic plants?">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @ceg4048  this part confuses me. Can you elaborate a bit relative to low-tech tanks? I was under the impression that NPK amounts doesn't matter as long as there are enough of it? from personal experience I have no reason to believe otherwise though.
> Cheers,
> Michael


Hi Michael,
                 Although this interaction occurs in non-CO2, remember that the metabolism of the plants is about an order of magnitude lower than in CO2 tanks, so we are much more likely to experience this issue in CO2 tanks. Since non-CO2 tanks are CO2 limited we are very likely to be already seeing CO2 related algae. That means the tank is already on the margin or has fallen over the cliff. I've seen hobbyists misdiagnose these CO2 related algae or being told they need to add nutrients and this can exacerbate the situation. Generally, if the non-CO2 tank is healthy then there is more elasticity in their ability to absorb more nutrients without falling into CO2 debt. There are so many scenarios. The chain of interactions is complicated. The lighting, temperature, plant mass and existing limitations are all factors. so you can add unlimited levels in a non-CO2 tank and all will usually be well, but if the general health of the tank is poor then there can be problems.

This is why it's important to properly diagnose tanks when an inexperienced hobbyist asks for help. We need to determine precisely what type of algae is being seen. You cannot just throw nutrients at a CO2 related fault and expect this to automatically solve the problem (likewise, you cannot just throw more CO2 at a tank experiencing a nutrient related fault). For CO2 related faults, you must fix CO2. No amount of nutrients will fix this and things can be made worse. In this sense, I kind of agree with Happi. We develop general rules of thumb and folks who do not have a clear or comprehensive understanding turn these rules into dogmatic principles and then apply the dogma at inappropriate situations.

If you noticed, there developed two different conversations here; one to address the OPs specific problems and the other to address Happi's argument about nutrient programs. 
Noting that he has already been adding nutrients, at no point have I advised the OP to add more, or to add less. I've focused exclusively on CO2 and flow/distribution. The general rule of thumb that applies here is; "If you are adding EI levels of nutrients and experience a nutrient related condition then flow/distribution is at fault."

Anyway, to answer your question, your results with adding unlimited amounts can be attributed to the general state of health, plant mass and configuration of that/those tank(s). Happi's experience with adding nutrients and then seeing algae may have been due to some pre-existing CO2 fault and/or general configuration exposed by the addition of nutrients.. Again, we have no information so I can only speak in general terms.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Aug 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Hope this helps.


Very much yes. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Animallover (14 Aug 2021)

Hi guys,
Just an update. It’s been about a week and I have put the light back down to pre- blue green algae boom levels and a lot of the algae is gone now from the plants from before although still present.
The main problem now is that the red Reinekii plants all seem to have holes in them. I am still dosing full EI. There was a period where they were covered in algae prior to me reducing the light so could the close sitting on the leaves cause the holes? The only other reason I can think of is like potassium deficiency but with EI dosing that’s impossible unless something is stopping the effects of EI?
Just wondering if I should wait and watch for a bit longer and hopefully the holes will fix themselves or do something else? I have also attached images of the crypts which were also covered in the same algae before the light reversal and now most look v healthy with no holes… ps the red plant was very red vibrant with no holes before the algae bloom.


----------



## MichaelJ (14 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> Hi guys,
> Just an update. It’s been about a week and I have put the light back down to pre- blue green algae boom levels and a lot of the algae is gone now from the plants from before although still present.


@Animallover This is very good progress for a week in my opinion! Keep up the low light and WC's and apply the good advice you've received above re CO2 etc. - Also, you want to put an extra effort in to siphon up all that decay from the algae.


Animallover said:


> The main problem now is that the red Reinekii plants all seem to have holes in them. I am still dosing full EI. There was a period where they were covered in algae prior to me reducing the light so could the close sitting on the leaves cause the holes? The only other reason I can think of is like potassium deficiency but with EI dosing that’s impossible unless something is stopping the effects of EI?


If your doing appropriate EI dosing for your tank you do not have a fertilizer deficiency whatsoever. In my experience when you have had an algae outbreak such as this, leaves that were badly infected will not recover (including the ones with the big holes you show, and those with other obvious signs of decay and disintegration) - you will have to trim those leaves off eventually - I would do it sooner rather than later as they will remain algae magnets and drag down the rest of the plant and ultimately the tank and slow down recovery.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Aug 2021)

Animallover said:


> The main problem now is that the red Reinekii plants all seem to have holes in them.


Assuming predation is not the cause, holes in plants = poor CO2.
The holes might have been there and perhaps you did not notice them, or, whatever previous deficiency you have fixed now exposes the shortfall in CO2. As mentioned, remove affected leaves and you may want to consider adding Excel or equivalent to help alleviate the plant's CO2 stress. This assumes there are no other plants in the tank that respond poorly to Excel. 

Again, poor flow/poor distribution is a major cause of nutrient or CO2 related stress, especially when light levels are excessive.

Cheers,


----------



## Animallover (27 Aug 2021)

Hi guys 3 weeks update. No changes made just the reduced light that I made a few weeks ago. Everything else the same including full EI dosing. Everything is much improved. Still a smidge of BGA but it’s fine it’s slowly going away. And the plants are looking healthier so much more pleasant to look at the tank now. Thanks for the help!


----------

