# How much Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4) for 300 litre heavy planted tank?



## Zak Rafik

Hi everyone,

I'm currently preparing 1 teaspoon of KH2PO4 ( 7.66 grams) mixed in 500ml water and dosing 50 ml, 3 times a week.

*Is this enough Phosphate for a 300 lt heavy planted tank?* If not how much more should I add?
Thanks
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/Zak_Rafik/1teaspoon_zps93427333.jpg


----------



## GlassWalker

The APF ferts state to dose 10ml per 50L, so as you're using the same concentration, that would be 60ml per dose.


----------



## Zak Rafik

GlassWalker said:


> The APF ferts state to dose 10ml per 50L, so as you're using the same concentration, that would be 60ml per dose.



Yes that's right.I dose around there.

The reason I posted this question is due to a post in this forum where the member is dosing the below : 

_Macro mix
42g KNO3
*15g KH2PO4*
92g MGSO4
Mixed to 600ml water, dosing 50ml on alternate day for 200 Lt tank._

Since I dosing only 7.66 grams for a 300 lt tank, I'm thinking maybe I not dosing enough for my heavily planted tank.
Furthermore I have GSA on the rocks and plants. Isn't this due to shortage?


----------



## GlassWalker

Given you have symptoms which could indicate phosphate shortage, certainly try increasing the dose and see if it helps.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Yes I know I have this shortage. But by how much? That's why I'm asking if the members here who have knowledge of EI method, on the amount  of Potassium Phosphate I should dose for a 300lt tank. What is the ideal amount so that I don't have to add extra.


----------



## GlassWalker

The point of EI is to have an excess, so you don't need to work out how much you need exactly, which may change anyway. Others with more experience here may be able to give indications but it does depend on the tank.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Here's the pix of my tank taken last evening.
Hope members with EI knowledge can shed some light on this matter.
Thanx & have a great weekend.
Cheers.

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/Zak_Rafik/2015-Jan-11--Tank_zps1df5a3a5.jpg


----------



## ceg4048

Please review the EI Tutorial http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/ei-dosing-using-dry-salts.1211/
which clearly suggests to add 1/16th teaspoon per 20 Gallons

300L can be rounded to 80G so simply multiply the suggested value by a factor of 4 = 1/4 teaspoon 3X per week.
This is the nominal dosing value but you can dose whatever you want, less or more depending on what you observe in the tank. This is the basic procedure. It does not need to be any more sophisticated than that.

Furthermore, as stated earlier, it is considered a waste of time and energy to fabricate mixtures for a tank of this size. 

Just dump 1/4, 1/2 or a full teaspoon of this powder in the tank and get on with it. Do not make life more complicated than it already is.

Cheers,


----------



## Zak Rafik

ceg4048 said:


> Please review the EI Tutorial http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/ei-dosing-using-dry-salts.1211/
> which clearly suggests to add 1/16th teaspoon per 20 Gallons
> 
> 300L can be rounded to 80G so simply multiply the suggested value by a factor of 4 = 1/4 teaspoon 3X per week.
> This is the nominal dosing value but you can dose whatever you want, less or more depending on what you observe in the tank. This is the basic procedure. It does not need to be any more sophisticated than that.
> 
> Furthermore, as stated earlier, it is considered a waste of time and energy to fabricate mixtures for a tank of this size.
> 
> Just dump 1/4, 1/2 or a full teaspoon of this powder in the tank and get on with it. Do not make life more complicated than it already is.
> 
> Cheers,



Hi Clive
Thanks for your reply. I'll study the link and your info. 

I did try direct to tank method once. To my horror my Congo Tetras & Rummynose  started / attempted to eat it.


----------



## viktorlantos

I would measure po4 before increasing the dosage.


----------



## viktorlantos

I can't edit my previous post, but the reason why i would check PO4 as this will change in your tank lifetime. More plants, less plants, more light less light, clay soils etc.

From the photo you posted seems like you use clay soil in your tank. Many of these soils can suck up PO4 in the first few months or so.
In this time if you measure PO4 the level is very low or close to zero even with EI. So you start dosing KH2PO4 more and more as you need more PO4 to reach like 0.5ppm or 1ppm.
But things can change and the tank will fed up with PO4 and you keep dosing the same ammount this easily can lead to problems. Shrimp deaths, but even plant problems. We've seen a couple of times that Stautogyne Repens drop off all it's leaf because of this. Too high is 2-3ppm and above, which you easily can reach with powders.

So i would pick up a PO4 drop test. And would measure weekly later monthly the PO4. Just to have a better understanding how much really need for your plants.


----------



## Zak Rafik

viktorlantos said:


> I can't edit my previous post, but the reason why i would check PO4 as this will change in your tank lifetime. More plants, less plants, more light less light, clay soils etc.
> 
> From the photo you posted seems like you use clay soil in your tank. Many of these soils can suck up PO4 in the first few months or so.
> In this time if you measure PO4 the level is very low or close to zero even with EI. So you start dosing KH2PO4 more and more as you need more PO4 to reach like 0.5ppm or 1ppm.
> But things can change and the tank will fed up with PO4 and you keep dosing the same ammount this easily can lead to problems. Shrimp deaths, but even plant problems. We've seen a couple of times that Stautogyne Repens drop off all it's leaf because of this. Too high is 2-3ppm and above, which you easily can reach with powders.
> 
> So i would pick up a PO4 drop test. And would measure weekly later monthly the PO4. Just to have a better understanding how much really need for your plants.



Hi
Isn't  "test kits" a taboo word in this forum.  (Just kidding)

BTW my substrate is ADA Aqua soil only. Do you think the process which you described above will also occur with ADA Aqua soil? Please reply.

Just for info: I have GSA on the glass and plants and rocks. So I'm currently dosing 3/4 teaspoon of potassium phosphate along with the normal dose 3x a week.

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048

GSA is related to any combination of poor PO4 + poor CO2. It's very easy to add more PO4 in order to see which is the culprit. However, if there are signs of poor CO2 elsewhere in the tank then that should be investigated. More than likely, if dosing EI levels of any nutrient, any signs of nutrient deficiency immediately indicates poor flow/distribution.

PO4 test kits cannot measure PO4. No one knows quite what they measure...
One can add any amount of PO4 without fear of consequence.



viktorlantos said:


> We've seen a couple of times that Stautogyne Repens drop off all it's leaf because of this. Too high is 2-3ppm and above, which you easily can reach with powders.


Leaves dropping of could only have been due to poor CO2. This was a typical misdiagnosis. Whenever you add more nutrients and observe a fault, it's telling you that you were underdosing something else. In the reported case, adding more PO4 exposed the fact that the CO2 was low. Adding more of any nutrient drives an upstream demand of other nutrients.
Here is S. repens where the weekly dosing was 10ppm. That was what was dosed, NOT what was measured by a silly test kit:



 

Get over PO4 people. Embrace it.

Cheers,


----------



## viktorlantos

Zak Rafik said:


> BTW my substrate is ADA Aqua soil only. Do you think the process which you described above will also occur with ADA Aqua soil? Please reply.



Yes, this affect most of the active soils we're using these days. Since we have more experience with Japanese soils (many of them) i only can tell these. 



Zak Rafik said:


> Just for info: I have GSA on the glass and plants and rocks. So I'm currently dosing 3/4 teaspoon of potassium phosphate along with the normal dose 3x a week.



Sometimes you can handle this with PO4, but there are times when you just can't. So need to check the light volume and timeframe you're using also the tank placement to any natural light in your room, plant positions (slow grower anubias can't be on top of the tank things like this).

You need cleaning crew too like Otocinclus or Neritina snails these handle nicely the algae.

Spoon is like bubble in a counter for me  I agree test kits can lead you sometime to bad conclusions, but without knowing how much PO4 your tank has how do you know how much additional needed? 
Most of the tanks are different. Even if i use the same light like you i may use a different brand which has more power. Other parameters could be different too. So to give a ballpark number of spoon is a great starter as it based on experiences, but sometimes worth to measure.

We also use KH2PO4 as an additional fertilizer to our daily routine with EI or ADA ferts sometime. Since we've seen many positive signs of using a little higher PO4 many guys started to use it too in our country.
So we've seen quite a few examples how KH2PO4 overdose can cause problems. Sometimes it will just not solve your algae issue, but will cause others.

If you're under 1ppm PO4 that's fine. With quick cure to go a little higher for a few days it's fine. But continous overdose above 3ppm will hurt.


----------



## viktorlantos

ceg4048 said:


> Leaves dropping of could only have been due to poor CO2. This was a typical misdiagnosis.



I think sometimes there are other stuff on the plate. So meanwhile i accept your point of view, believe me we're on top of CO2.
This issue happened typically with external CO2 reactor injection where CO2 distribution never an issue. I only seen with staurogyne rep.(matured one not fresh planted one)
But then based on your 10ppm feedback above i may will do some additional tests to confirm it.



ceg4048 said:


> NOT what was measured by a silly test kit:



PO4 test kit silliness is new to me  i know many tests fail or inaccurate or works differently in soft or hard water, but it was new to me 
So no measure since there aren't anything we can use to measure just throw in and watch?


----------



## Jose

I think viktorlantos philosophy and ceg's are quite distant from each other. We are debating different techniques here. Both work. For one IMO test kits are not always useless (although many times they are) but on the other hand I dont ever use them so I can understand both point of views. I tend to agree more with ceg because in my experience test kits arent that useful.

Anyway to contribute the the first quistion here is a link to a good nutrient calc.
http://rota.la/
He's dosing 1.39 ppm of phosphates each time which is around 4ppm phosphates a week. This should be allright.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Viktor, 



viktorlantos said:


> But then based on your 10ppm feedback above i may will do some additional tests to confirm it.


Almost everyone thinks that they have CO2 beaten. I never assume this. I always assume that there is a CO2 issue just around the corner,

Adding nutrients drives a DEMAND for additional CO2 uptake, and adding CO2 drives a DEMAND for additional nutrient uptake.
So, while the CO2 may have been OK before you added the extra PO4, once you increase the consumption of PO4 the plant then needs more of everything, including Nitrogen. Increased Nitrogen uptake is a much easier problem to solve and you may not have even noticed the Nitrogen uptake increase because your sediment may have already been unlimited, however this would have then increased the CO2 uptake demand. If CO2 was not unlimited you would have crashed the barrier.

I routinely dose massive amounts of PO4 to the water column without any issue. Here is a very old thread showing the results of super massive PO4 dosing=> http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/blyxa-japonica-flowers-underwater.1967/




viktorlantos said:


> So no measure since there aren't anything we can use to measure just throw in and watch?


Well I suppose you could try to calibrate the kit, but honestly, PO4 test kits can only ever detect the presence of PO4, they can't tell you what the measured value is. It's exactly the same with NO3 test kits. They are easily fooled by other ions in the water column.

The thing is that apart from knowing what the tap water content is, which we can't really tell, if you are dosing a certain amount of the powder then it's very simple to calculate what you have added. So although you cannot account for the content added by the municipal supplier, or the amount added by food, you can easily calculate, with great accuracy, how much you have added if you are adding a salt like KH2PO4.

People get into trouble all the time assuming that the PO4 test kit is telling the truth, and in almost every case, the test kit over estimates the PO4 content, and they are so afraid of PO4 boogie man that they avoid adding PO4 which then causes more problems.

Cheers,


----------



## viktorlantos

Yeah on the other hand 10ppm PO4 seems like crazy lot to me. Remind me Tom Barr's earlier comment years back about super high nitrate levels vs shrimps. 
I could not quote exactly, but he mentioned like 2 or 3 times more NO3 than avg EI without any problems with his shrimps. He had zillions of CRS at that time.

My problem is that if a beginner reads that there are no negative effect of any of these things and test is a bad thing just use spoons no matter how your plants grows will lead to more problems.

I am not about test everything and make conclusions based on that, but sometimes tests can help. We're using JBL PO4 test kit or Sensitive Photometers depend on how much time we have 



ceg4048 said:


> Here is S. repens where the weekly dosing was 10ppm.



Maybe i am wrong and the photo isn't that good, but looks like to me this is not a super high light tank. Why is that much fert needed? 
From the photo it looks like to me a little slower tank with a little less light. Maybe i am wrong


----------



## ceg4048

Here is more PO4 madness Viktor, This time I added weekly 12ppm, but then it became too expensive in a 700L tank.
I have no trouble whatsoever using super massive PO4 dosing.


 



 

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048

Yes, the first photo was low light, but the ones I just added were high light.

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048

viktorlantos said:


> My problem is that if a beginner reads that there are no negative effect of any of these things and test is a bad thing just use spoons no matter how your plants grows will lead to more problems.


Viktor, the answer to this is to understand cause and effect. We know from Barr's testing that EI levels of nutrient salts have no effect on the health of fauna, although we know that the salts quickly drive up the TDS. So if we know that it's OK, and if we know that nutrients don't cause algae, then why program you customers to get hooked on test kits that tell lies?

Cheers


----------



## viktorlantos

Adding another tweak to the PO4 madness. Meanwhile we're talking about adding in more and more PO4.

Other ferts like ADA has 0 PO4. Nitrate is at 5ppm or under.
It is not about brand now, but a different side of the story.

We all can agree that they are using high energy tanks mainly. Lots of CO2 high light. Yes we can argue that Solars power are not that strong (seen this many times on the board  ), but hey Grand Solars are also in used anyway. Most of us use less light for less hours then they do.

The reason why i am pulling this up not because of the brand, but another way which also works quite well.

So this is why i am telling to my clients if they do not see any difference on their plants on a short therm with additional PO4 then leave it.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





viktorlantos said:


> PO4 test kit silliness is new to me  i know many tests fail or inaccurate or works differently in soft or hard water, but it was new to me


Most anions are quite problematic to measure. Orthophosphate measurement is more repeatable than nitrate (NO3-), but you need the right reagents to get reasonably repeatable values.

In water you need a measure of the PO4--- ion in solution, but particularly in hard water you get a certain amount of suspended insoluble calcium phosphate as well. This may become plant available in the substrate (via REDOX reactions), but won't be available in the water column. 

Assuming we are just interested in PO4--- ions, you would use a colorimetric method, where a reagent reacts with orthophosphate and the resulting blue colour is directly proportional to the amount of orthophosphate in the water. For accurate measurement you would need a standard curve from known PO4--- samples and a spectrophotometer set to 740nm, but you could get an approximation from a colour chart.

The real problem is the reagent (which contains sulphuric acid, potassium antimony tartrate, ammonium molybdate, and ascorbic acid). Potassium antimony tatrate is a cardiac poison and powerful emetic.

cheers Darrel


----------



## viktorlantos

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, Most anions are quite problematic to measure. Orthophosphate measurement is more repeatable than nitrate (NO3-), but you need the right reagents to get reasonably repeatable values.
> 
> In water you need a measure of the PO4--- ion in solution, but particularly in hard water you get a certain amount of suspended insoluble calcium phosphate as well. This may become plant available in the substrate (via REDOX reactions), but won't be available in the water column.
> 
> Assuming we are just interested in PO4--- ions, you would use a colorimetric method, where a reagent reacts with orthophosphate and the resulting blue colour is directly proportional to the amount of orthophosphate in the water. For accurate measurement you would need a standard curve from known PO4--- samples and a spectrophotometer set to 740nm, but you could get an approximation from a colour chart.
> 
> The real problem is the reagent (which contains sulphuric acid, potassium antimony tartrate, ammonium molybdate, and ascorbic acid). Potassium antimony tatrate is a cardiac poison and powerful emetic.
> 
> cheers Darrel



So good reagent and soft water?
BTW we only use soft water in our tanks around 100ppm TDS.


----------



## Edvet

I realy would like a sticky with all these arguments (why certain tests won't work) so we could point people to them, or also a sticky wich has links to the most often used statements here ( like the PAR graphic, the light colour stories, the pH profile etc etc).
Would a post with a lot of reserved answers work so the statements can be copied/pasted in it?


----------



## viktorlantos

ceg4048 said:


> Viktor, the answer to this is to understand cause and effect. We know from Barr's testing that EI levels of nutrient salts have no effect on the health of fauna, although we know that the salts quickly drive up the TDS. So if we know that it's OK, and if we know that nutrients don't cause algae, then why program you customers to get hooked on test kits that tell lies?
> 
> Cheers



My point was that there could be different kind of issues too than algae. We frequently talks about how to avoid algae and everything is aligned to that. 

I mentioned shrimp death and plant leaf loose on a specific specie, but based on your example my situation maybe was special.


----------



## Marcel G

Zak, 7.66 grams of KH2PO4 mixed in 500ml water and dosed 150 ml per week (3x50) means you are adding 5.35 ppm PO4 each week into your 300L tank.
I agree with what Victor said. If you have some clay substrate it can absorb really high amounts of phosphates. Once I added nearly 30 ppm PO4 into my tank in one dose, and the second day I measured only 5 ppm, and the third day there was just zero PO4 in water. Most aquatic plants grow exceedingly well at a concentration as low as 0.3 to 0.5 ppm PO4. But there are some plants which are able to store phosphates more effectively then others, so they can absorb most PO4 from water and store it in their tissue "for a rainy day". This you need to account for.

For sure you can add much more PO4 into your tank (even after your substrate saturates with it). It sounds great and interestingly when someone says that you can dose 10 ppm PO4 or whatever amount you desire, but the point is: What do you gain by it? Do you really want your plants to grow like mad, so that you have to trim them each week? Do you really want to adjust your layout each week? I give you one month ... then you give up. If you don't sale plants for living, then you can have a nice planted tank with 0.5 ppm PO4 with quite a reasonably decent growth. There is no need to pump 3 ppm (or even more) PO4 ... especially if you use ADA Aqua Soil which is nutrient rich. The EI method is really good if you want to sell plants, otherwise it's annoying. You spare some time on testing water parameters, but you spend much more time with plant trimming and replanting.


----------



## viktorlantos

Edvet said:


> I realy would like a sticky with all these arguments (why certain tests won't work) so we could point people to them, or also a sticky wich has links to the most often used statements here ( like the PAR graphic, the light colour stories, the pH profile etc etc).
> Would a post with a lot of reserved answers work so the statements can be copied/pasted in it?



Would be really useful.
Especially as we use soft and hard waters. When to use this or that. When tests will not work.
Here science could help for us to see the light


----------



## viktorlantos

ardjuna said:


> The EI method is really good if you want to sell plants, otherwise it's annoying



I see why you say it honestly 
But the loveliness of healthy plants are priceless 
Many times helps to not think about deficiencies.


----------



## ceg4048

ardjuna said:


> For sure you can add much more PO4 into your tank (even after your substrate saturates with it). It sounds great and interestingly when someone says that you can dose 10 ppm PO4 or whatever amount you desire, but the point is: What do you gain by it?


What you gain is healthy plants free of algae caused by poor flow or PO4 deficiency.
My point is NOT to encourage people to add 10ppm of PO4. I think you have misinterpreted this. My point is that you CAN do it without reservation and that adding PO4 does not harm fish or cause algae. There is a generation of hobbyists out there that think PO4 is bad. My goal is to show that the mentality is wrong. So if I can add 10ppm of PO4 to a tank and have my only problem be massive pruning requirements, why is that a bad thing? If I need to increase growth rates for ANY purpose, not just selling, why is it bad?

EI does not care WHY you want healthy plants. That's your business. EI merely states that you can improve the health of you plants without fear of algae or negative effects on fauna. If you want to reduce the growth rates then EI allows for that as well. I don't see why this is an issue.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 
Others will disagree, but I'd be surprised if any-one who adds PO4 regularly has plants which are phosphorus deficient. Even though phosphorus is one of the macro-nutrients, plants need only about 1/10 as much P as they do nitrogen (N) or potassium (K).

If you have hard water you won't ever have much PO4--- in solution, however much you add, because it will precipitate out as insoluble calcium phosphate complexes.





viktorlantos said:


> So good reagent and soft water. BTW we only use soft water in our tanks around 100ppm TDS.


You probably will get a fairly accurate measurement, mainly because there are many other ions to interfere with the process. The only proviso would be if you had high iron (Fe+++) ion levels, which again would lead to insoluble compounds being produced.

There is some discussion of test kits (including phosphorus) here: <"Accuracy of test kits..">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jose

Yes plant growth can be controlled via low PO4 as well as low lights. But if you keep phosphates too low then chance of problems is higher.
I suppose if you want a slow growing high lit tank then you have to have low phosphates but this is not a very common type of tank.
Also when people talk about ADA tanks they should consider the soil as well.


----------



## viktorlantos

ADA Amazonia soil does not supply po4. Other ADA soils does not supply anything like malaya and africana. But mainly amazonia used.

Yup high light slower growth less maintenance (on decors too). But more closer look on overall health and immediate action on issues vs the ei way of turbocharged plants no defficiency more trimming more maintenance more po4 because of the green glass and decors 

I use both method each has advantages and disadvantages


----------



## Jose

viktorlantos said:


> ADA Amazonia soil does not supply po4.


I believe it does. Its origin is some form of organic soil. Someone can clarify otherwise.

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/the-science-behind-ada-additives.16579/


----------



## Marcel G

dw1305 said:


> I'd be surprised if any-one who adds PO4 regularly has plants which are phosphorus deficient. Even though phosphorus is one of the macro-nutrients, plants need only about 1/10 as much P as they do nitrogen (N) or potassium (K).


Recently I do some tests with nutrient uptake in my two tanks.
In one of my tanks I use 100-400 µmol PAR (high light), ~35 ppm CO2, and I have no substrate, not fish, nor any filter media in this tank to eliminate its influence on nutrient production and nutrient uptake by plants. Although I was adding about 1 ppm PO4 into this tank, my Ludwigia palustris was suffering a severe P deficiency (it took me some time to figure it out, but finally I found it is P deficiency). But still I don't think my plants are able to consume this amount of PO4 in this tank, as I have a similar tank with nearly the same conditions, and according to my tests the plants there consume only about 0.4 ppm PO4 per week. The problem in my first tank can be the PO4 precipitation (as Darrel pointed out). If I had a substrate there, the PO4 precipitates could be mineralized and used up by plants finally. But this way they have no chance to use it. So I think that even in high light, densely planted tank with many fast growing plants (like the one I have) we don't need more then 0.5 ppm PO4 per week (in case we have no fish, no fish food, and no substrate). In case we have some fish, and especially when we have some nutrient-rich substrate, we may need even less (or none at all).

I did ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia lab analysis (8/2014), and I showed up that the substrate contain <2 ppm P/kg (i.e. <6 ppm PO4/kg). P in this case mean accesible/available P (the one plants can directly use). This level is very low according to the lab.


----------



## Marcel G

BTW Clive, I have a plant biomass yield of 1.6 g/dm2 (fresh weight) in my tank → 100-400 µmol PAR, ~35 ppm CO2 (maybe even more), and 40-50 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4, 0.5 ppm Fe. So even if the P content in dry matter was 0.5% (which is about 2-times more then the average values in most aquatic plants), the real PO4 consumption in this tank would be 0.6 ppm PO4 per week (despite the fact that I'm adding 3 ppm PO4 into it each week).

Please, can you tell me what is your biomass yield in your tank where you add 10 ppm PO4 per week? I would like to calculate how much P your plants can really utilize from this huge amount.


----------



## parotet

ceg4048 said:


> In the reported case, adding more PO4 exposed the fact that the CO2 was low. Adding more of any nutrient drives an upstream demand of other nutrients.


This has been my battle over the last year and what IMO is not enough explained to newbies. EI is supposed to be an "easy method" (no need testing, no need accuracy when dosing, etc.) and I agree with this, BUT most of us end up adding weekly PO4 levels of  2-3 ppm (the "standard recipe" that can be read everywhere. Yes, I know, it is a flexible regime, but we all use this recipe as a reference). As mentioned by Clive, adding more PO4 (I would say, adding these levels of PO4) expose the fact that CO2 is low. And we all know that having high, good and consistent CO2 levels is one of the most difficult things in planted tanks, especially for newbies. Therefore it seems to me that this "EI easy approach" can really push lots of people to have CO2 problems... Yes, PO4 levels of 2-3 ppm may not be the direct cause of having BBA (there are thousand of tanks to show this), but it drives easily to poor CO2 scenarios and finally to BBA (there are also thousand of tanks to show this).

In my tank (medium light) and probably due to my low CO2 skills (and very hard tap water), I have been much more succesful following a lean EI approach, which at the end is a PPS-Pro dosing regime, what Tropica and Seachem recommends with their comercial ferts regime, and probably what is achieved in an ADA tank when combining ADA ferts and AquaSoil. With medium light I can be flexible with PO4 (have it higher or lower), with high light and high PO4 I got BBA on lower and old leaves....

Another argument which is continiously repeated in this fórum and I don't agree with is that ADA setups are low light... Come on, of course there are some (especially display tanks to ease maintenance), but have a look to the PAR measurements done with the AquaSky series (not to mention for example AquaSky 602). This is really photon bombing! And these tanks do work with leaner dosings and much less accurate distribution (let me make a little joke  Can you see a spraybar in a planted tank? This is for sure an EI doser...) (although I have to admit that most of this successful superlight ADA tanks work with huge filters that even exceed the 10x rule of thumb)

Jordi


----------



## Jose

I agree with parotet. I dont think EI is an easy method mainly because most people have high light and probably dont know it. But in the end this is the users fault. People are told to put CO2 higher but maybe they should just lower the light.


----------



## Marcel G

That's a very good point, Jordi => ADA Aquasky 601 (= 150 µmol PAR at the substrate level) combined with ADA lean ferts + ADA substrate (rich in N+Fe only → 4 g/kg N and 30 g/kg Fe, other nutrients are there in a very low amounts). How is this working without 3 ppm PO4? Maybe our plants really don't need as much P as EI people think. So even though we CAN add 10 ppm PO4 into our tanks, maybe our plants are ABLE to consume just 0.1 to 0.5 ppm per week. That would explain why the plants can grow well even with leaner dosing regimes. And maybe our plants don't need as perfect CO2 as many thinks. Most ADA tanks use simple diffusers (which are [together with lily pipes] often blamed for bad CO2 dissolving and bad CO2 distribution), and still have excellent plants, and no visible algae. I myself know a few stunning planted tanks with 150 µmol PAR at the substrate, no PO4 in water column (except what fish produce), and with only 15 ppm CO2 (lily pipe + diffuser). Why people don't want to know how much PO4 (or other nutrients) their plants really need, and instead they just pump tons of PO4 into their tanks? This seems like ignorance to me. We play on being good horticulturalists, but we don't even know our real plants' needs. We grow plants but don't even know how much CO2 or other nutrients are needed. Tell me what is the compensation point, half-saturation point or saturation point of photosythesis for NO3, PO4, K or Fe (i.e. how much of these nutrients is needed for plants to begin to grow, to grow at 50% of their maximum, and to grow at their maximum growth rate)! Even after 35 years (or so) of using CO2 cylinders no one knows!!! And no one seems to bother.

First of all, we should know what our plants need! Then (and only then) we can be sure we supply them enough or not enough "food". To add 10 ppm PO4 into any tank is just foolish IMO, because it just manifests the person doesn't know anything about his plants' real demands. For example, if I know that my plants are able to consume 0.5 ppm PO4 at the most (under given setup), and that they need minimally 0.1 ppm to grow well and don't suffer any deficiencies, then it's more then obvious what are unlimiting values and what would lead to deficiencies (no need to exaggerate and use 10 ppm only to look interesting).


----------



## Jose

So Ardjuna if you can put a link to your experiments then we can have more light on the matter. There are a few factors we still dont know. If plants only use up 0.5 ppm of PO4 then we shall investigate, but for this there has to be some proof. Even so one thing is the comsumption and another different one is the levels at which plants start doing better.

Ada tanks have easy explanations. They have just the light needed to pearl. They have a substrate which is leaching nutrients continiously. Co2 as bubbles in a tank have been shown to be very effective.


----------



## Edvet

ardjuna said:


> And no one seems to bother.


I would like scientific evidence, sadly ony few people can/wil do that in the environment of an aquarium. And even then some data are skewed to put a product./firm in a positive light.
Basic scientific double blind studies in aquaria are far and few between. Most data we have are derived from whole other studies like aquaculture/ non-aquatic plant studies, or simple comparative studies (a few plants under the same environment with one seemingly different parameter)


----------



## Marcel G

Jose said:


> If plants only use up 0.5 ppm of PO4 then we shall investigate, but for this there has to be some proof. Even so one thing is the comsumption and another different one is the levels at which plants start doing better.


My recent tests suggest this, but I have to do other tests to verify it. After that I publish my results and methods. Also I consult this matter with some scientists to be sure I do it correctly. Although these are not any precise scientific analyses, I believe they can shed some light on nutrient uptake in planted tanks. I wish I could do some laboratory measurements of photosynthesis rate at different levels of different nutrients with different kind of plants, but it seems like there are just a few facilities doing these kind of analyses, and the cost would be super high (like €160 per hour!). As I know even Tropica don't want to invest into it. But still there are other methods to find out some raw numbers for our tanks. And these methods are maybe of better value for us then the precise scientific numbers for compensation or saturation points.


> Ada tanks have easy explanations. They have just the light needed to pearl. They have a substrate which is leaching nutrients continiously. Co2 as bubbles in a tank have been shown to be very effective.


I don't think that your kind of explanation explains anything. Each plant begins to pearl at different conditions. The plants pearl when there is too much oxygen present in their inner atmosphere, and the inner gas concentration (O2 + N2 + CO2 + CH4) begins to be higher then the outer concentration of dissolved gas in water. True aquatic plants which can utilize HCO3 can pearl much easier then plants which are able to use only free CO2. So pearling depends to great extent on the plant species you have in your tank. Some kind of plants grow very slowly and produce little oxygen so its very hard to see them pearl at all. Besides this, ADA substrate (as I already said) has nearly no P content, so it may leach N (whether in NH4 or NO3 form) but it has too little PO4 to support any substantial plant growth by itself. Also, please, can you give me some link to materials which prove CO2 bubbles are more effective then dissolved free CO2? I doubt it a lot, but you probably have some better information if you claim this. Don't take it harsh. I just try to discuss it, and if you say it's easy explanation, then you should have no problem to give me some proofs (when you yourself want me to do the same).


----------



## parotet

Edvet said:


> And even then some data are skewed to put a product./firm in a positive light


I am not going to defend any brand but I have to admit that it is not easy at all explaining to a customer all this in a 5x3 cm label... even in a website. IME only a few hobbyists are really interested in discussing about this, searching for other information sources, asking for advice when they do not understand something...We all have seen people at our LFS asking interesting questions and obtaining trustful advice, but I've seen also people that just want to buy miracles and that are happy to pay miracles.  

Jordi


----------



## Jose

ardjuna said:


> I don't think that your kind of explanation explains anything. Each plant begins to pearl at different conditions. The plants pearl when there is too much oxygen present in their inner atmosphere, and the inner gas concentration (O2 + N2 + CO2 + CH4) begins to be higher then the outer concentration of dissolved gas in water. True aquatic plants which can utilize HCO3 can pearl much easier then plants which are able to use only free CO2. So pearling depends to great extent on the plant species you have in your tank. Some kind of plants grow very slowly and produce little oxygen so its very hard to see them pearl at all. Besides this, ADA substrate (as I already said) has nearly no P content, so it may leach N (whether in NH4 or NO3 form) but it has too little PO4 to support any substantial plant growth by itself. Also, please, can you give me some link to materials which prove CO2 bubbles are more effective then dissolved free CO2? I doubt it a lot, but you probably have some better information if you claim this. Don't take it harsh. I just try to discuss it, and if you say it's easy explanation, then you should have no problem to give me some proofs (when you yourself want me to do the same).



I dont have scientific proof for this.
I can only speak for the hundreds of tanks that are are done with diffusers and which most probably dont have a 1 ph degree change. Im speaking of ADA, Tropica, Most famous aquascapers except maybe Tom Barr and a few others.
I am also speaking for what Ive seen in my tanks which is no scientific data of course.

But in the end ADA tanks arent tanks made by the gods (you could argua Amano is one I suppose). They just use simple technology. You dont need to back up everything with an experiment, somethings are explainable just by watching.

Also I dont understand the concentrations you have given for the soil. They are given in different units and I cant really tell what they represent since Im unsure how you did the experiment etc. So we cant argue about those results, we need more info.


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> I can only speak for the hundreds of tanks that are are done with diffusers and which most probably dont have a 1 ph degree change. Im speaking of ADA, Tropica, Most famous aquascapers except maybe Tom Barr and a few others


Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence... but do you mean that tanks using diffusers including ADA, Tropica, Viktor Lantos, etc.do not reach this 1 pH fall (except Tom Barr and a few others thay can achieve)? Wow... I really doubt it.

Jordi

P.S. I guess no one thinks Amano is a god (nor Tom Barr). They just know very well what they do (as always it is as simple as assuming that there are different techniques/approaches that work)


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence... but do you mean that tanks using diffusers including ADA, Tropica, etc. ones do not reach this 1 pH fall (except Tom Barr and a few others)? Wow... I really doubt it.


Yes this is what I mean. I once read a post on thebarrreport where he said Ammano normally aims for 18 ppm CO2 or so.
I dont know why you seem to think this is not possible or recommended since CO2 has to be in relation with the light. There can be as many CO2 levels as light intensities.

You can have a look at James Finley tanks. They are tanks with just a fine stream line of CO2 coming from a CO2 diffuser. Do you think you can reach 30 ppm CO2 this way. And hes got gorgeous tanks with carpets and all.


----------



## Jose

When I say you dont need scientific evidence for everything what I mean is for finding out things or proving things to yourself. For most things in life there are no scientific studies, but you can certainly see a trend or tendency with your own eyes. Of course this trends are nothing solid and you have to be openminded for whatever comes up. I think this is as useful for a hobbiest as scientific studies.


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> P.S. I guess no one thinks Amano is a god (nor Tom Barr). They just know very well what they do (as always it is as simple as assuming that there are different techniques/approaches that work)


I was really just kidding here. I dont have a statue of Amano to pray to in my room either (I promise).


----------



## parotet

Jose said:


> Do you think you can reach 30 ppm CO2 this way.


Yes, I do believe that a 1 ph drop is not a unique skill reserved to Tom Barr and that thousand of hobbyists in this world achieve it with normal diffusers.



Jose said:


> They are tanks with just a fine stream line of CO2 coming from a CO2 diffuser


 Seeing a fine stream of bubles don't mean a thing, there are many parameters that may influence CO2 dissolution and distribution in a planted tank.



Jose said:


> I once read a post on thebarrreport where he said Ammano normally aims for 18 ppm CO2 or so.


Sorry, but this doesn't sound as a very solid evidence of what Amano does.

Jordi


----------



## parotet

(Jose, I really appreciate these exchanges we are having but I fear with are hijacking the thread, don't you think )


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> Do you think you can reach 30 ppm CO2 this way.
> Yes, I do believe that a 1 ph drop is not a unique skill reserved to Tom Barr and that thousand of hobbyists in this world achieve it with normal diffusers.
> Jose said: ↑
> They are tanks with just a fine stream line of CO2 coming from a CO2 diffuser
> Seeing a fine stream of bubles don't mean a thing, there are many parameters that may influence CO2 dissolution and distribution in a planted tank.
> Jose said: ↑
> I once read a post on thebarrreport where he said Ammano normally aims for 18 ppm CO2 or so.
> Sorry, but this doesn't sound as a very solid evidence of what Amano does.
> Jordi



Ok. Its up to you to try it, or maybe you dont need to. Any way its a very simple and easy experiment. Actually Tom Barr has done it. Measuring dissolved oxygen in the water with a diffuser or atomizer. He saw great results. People think things havent been done but many have.


----------



## Jose

parotet said:


> (Jose, I really appreciate these exchanges we are having but I fear with are hijacking the thread, don't you think )


True. Ill stop now and add the link to Toms observations once I finde them.


----------



## Jose

Does anyone kno whats wrong with thebarrreport.com¿?. I cant access most of the free info there was before? Has it been closed down or something similar?¿?¿


----------



## Edvet

I can acces it normaly.


----------



## Jose

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/co2-enrichment/5936-misting-and-co2-levels

Here are some of his findings on CO2 mist but not the thread I was looking for. I think maybe some info that was there isnt anymore. Cant say for sure though. Ill keep searching.


----------



## Zak Rafik

Jose said:


> http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/co2-enrichment/5936-misting-and-co2-levels
> 
> Here are some of his findings on CO2 mist but not the thread I was looking for. I think maybe some info that was there isnt anymore. Cant say for sure though. Ill keep searching.


Great link. Thanks.


----------



## rs18alpha

I've been reading a lot of articles  and sending emails to Mass aquariums, Barrreport, Dennis Wong etc. and I still get confused. I'm dosing per week 15.25 N, 14.76 K, 4.1 PO4, 3.68 Mg, 0.62 Fe from csm+b in a 40 gal tank with med to high light.  CO2 injection thru a diy reactor.
What I wonder is if I increase the PO4 that would increase the K as well. Does that matter?
That's why I wish I knew if my numbers were at good levels?

I saw an article that says the P and K should be higher than the N to get more Red in the plants, is this correct?


----------



## rebel

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> Others will disagree, but I'd be surprised if any-one who adds PO4 regularly has plants which are phosphorus deficient. Even though phosphorus is one of the macro-nutrients, plants need only about 1/10 as much P as they do nitrogen (N) or potassium (K).
> 
> cheers Darrel


Hi Darrell, You can have this issue when rocks and sometimes the substrate seems to adsorb the PO4 in the initial stages of tank establishment. Later you only need small amounts as you state. 

Would adding CaSO4 and KH2PO4 together cause the precipitation?


----------



## rebel

rs18alpha said:


> I
> I saw an article that says the P and K should be higher than the N to get more Red in the plants, is this correct?


This is another big topic and there is a thread about red plants in this forum. Have a look at that one.


----------

