# Amazon water types vs. "natural fertilizer" levels



## MichaelJ (30 Dec 2021)

Hello, I thought this was interesting: Chemistry of different Amazonian water types. Now, the paper is not specifically about aquatic plants in the Amazonas, but I thought it was interesting how low the water column levels of essentially every mineral are in the rivers they sampled from.

I personally have no doubt that my EI level dosing is working for my low-tech tanks... as I have zero algae to speak of and excellent plant health across the board - slow, but steady and healthy growth.  It is however a very stark contrast to what seems to be the case in nature. Why do we keep our fertilizer levels so high in our tanks - in many cases orders of magnitude higher - when the rivers where a lot of our plants come from contains pretty much nothing of anything we consider important?

Soil levels perhaps are providing all the nutrients the plants needs?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## hypnogogia (31 Dec 2021)

Are those streams as heavily planted as a typical heavily planted tank?


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Dec 2021)

hypnogogia said:


> Are those streams as heavily planted as a typical heavily planted tank?


Good question. Some areas are without a doubt very densely "planted", but I suppose it is very hard to compare.


----------



## Happi (31 Dec 2021)

You might find this thread interesting here:
Dose less, not more

I think I have some more data somewhere which I might be able to share if I find it.


----------



## Nick potts (31 Dec 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Good question. Some areas are without a doubt very densely "planted", but I suppose it is very hard to compare.



I would think lush/dense underwater plant growth is an exception in most cases? Especially compared to what we have in our tanks.

A lot of habitats are rather sparse in plant life, and blackwater habitats are mostly empty which the amazon region has a lot of.


MichaelJ said:


> Soil levels perhaps are providing all the nutrients the plants needs?


Soil would provide a lot of nutrients for sure. Most of the plants we keep are not true aquatics either, they're bog/marginal plants


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> You might find this thread interesting here:
> Dose less, not more
> 
> I think I have some more data somewhere which I might be able to share if I find it.


HI @Happi  Very interesting.  Yes, those numbers are very much in line with the water chemistry study above.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Dec 2021)

Nick potts said:


> I would think lush/dense underwater plant growth is an exception in most cases? Especially compared to what we have in our tanks.


That is true - very hard to find footage / pictures of natural habitats with lots of vegetation (except for underwater footage of flooded terrestrial plants during the rain season).

What I especially find intriguing here are the ratios... say for instance 0.04 ppm of NO3 for Tapajós... with EI we routinely keep our NO3 levels at 20-30 ppm. that's 500-750 times as much  ...that might be an extreme. Some of the locales mentioned in the thread that @Happi posted above also list some of plants growing on those locales, such as several species of _cryptocoryne, blyxa aubertii, hydrilla verticillata, barclaya motleyi, potamogeton wrightii in Tasek Bera, Malaysian Peninsula_, where NO3 levels allegedly is in the 0.1 ppm range.



Nick potts said:


> And blackwater habitats are mostly empty which the amazon region has a lot of.


Very true.


Nick potts said:


> Soil would provide a lot of nutrients for sure. Most of the plants we keep are not true aquatics either, they're bog/marginal plants


It would be interesting to see a soil analysis from some of these areas.

Anyway, very fascinating.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (31 Dec 2021)

@MichaelJ

We have to consider the NH4 as well in those water, The low amount of NO3 doesn't matter because plants are mainly using the NH4 constantly in those waters.

Some will argue that it's the soil that is providing most the nutrients but then you should ask them why dose 30 ppm NO3 in the water then?


----------



## Wookii (31 Dec 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> as I have zero algae to speak of and excellent plant health across the board



This is the key point. You will very rarely see “zero algae” and “excellent plant health” in a natural environment.

You will generally see extensive algae, and a mixture of healthy and completely ragged/deficient/damaged plant growth. That’s a natural environment, but not what we necessarily want to see in our glass boxes, so we employ a number of techniques, including dosing sufficient nutrients, to prevent that happening.


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> @MichaelJ
> 
> We have to consider the NH4 as well in those water, The low amount of NO3 doesn't matter because plants are mainly using the NH4 constantly in those waters.


Yes, I thought about that, and that makes total sense, but then again, it's the same story for all the other major nutrients we are dosing in abundance - such as P, K and Mg.



Happi said:


> Some will argue that it's the soil that is providing most the nutrients but then you should ask them why dose 30 ppm NO3 in the water then?


I would love to see a reference to a soil analysis.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Nick potts (31 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> Some will argue that it's the soil that is providing most the nutrients but then you should ask them why dose 30 ppm NO3 in the water then?


The soil in our tanks is very different to soil in nature.

There are finite amounts of nutrient stores in aquarium soil, when used up water column dosing is needed. In nature the nutrients in the soil are constantly replaced.


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Dec 2021)

Wookii said:


> You will generally see extensive algae, and a mixture of healthy and completely ragged/deficient/damaged plant growth. That’s a natural environment, but not what we necessarily want to see in our glass boxes, so we employ a number of techniques, including dosing sufficient nutrients, to prevent that happening.


Hi @Wookii  Good point and true judging from pictures and footage from these habitats.  I live on a comparatively healthy lake here in Minnesota and the vegetation does look somewhat scrawny with algae growth etc. plants appear healthy enough to get by but nothing that compares to what we have in our tanks when they are well-fed and well maintained.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (31 Dec 2021)

Hi all,


hypnogogia said:


> Are those streams as heavily planted as a typical heavily planted tank?





MichaelJ said:


> except for underwater footage of flooded terrestrial plants during the rain season


They are all "planted", just many of the aquatic plants are trees.

<"White water rivers"> that flow from the Andes have a sediment load (and some bases), and they don't have any submerged vegetation (but may <"have _Pistia_ etc floating">), they are flanked by <"Varzea meadows and forests"> that flood as the water level rises.  Clear water rivers from the Guiana shield have <"submerged aquatic plants"> and black water streams in the Rio Negro catchment have the "flooded forest". They, the trees and herbs of the flooded forest, aren't really terrestrial, you could argue that are just as much aquatic plants as _Cryptocoryne_ spp. etc.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi (31 Dec 2021)




----------



## Maf 2500 (31 Dec 2021)

Happi said:


> View attachment 179162


Interesting. Probably slightly off-topic, but is there any explanation for the high carbon dioxide levels in Biotope no. 1-3? Could it possibly be from respiration of the submerged rootzones of trees etc whose CO2 consuming parts are emerged?


----------



## Wookii (1 Jan 2022)

Maf 2500 said:


> Interesting. Probably slightly off-topic, but is there any explanation for the high carbon dioxide levels in Biotope no. 1-3? Could it possibly be from respiration of the submerged rootzones of trees etc whose CO2 consuming parts are emerged?



Could also be the result of biological processes breaking down huge amounts of organic matter from run off during the rainy season and general leaf fall into the rivers assuming most of the quoted rivers are in heavily forested areas.

I believe it’s common for natural bodies of water to have much higher CO2 levels than we would typically see in a low tech aquarium for example.


----------



## Happi (1 Jan 2022)

I think we should be mainly focused on the water parameter of those rivers rather than jumping into the soil at this point. because there is no data posted about the soil so we would be just guessing at this point, but we have a data about the water parameters which should be our main discussion. 

if you were to dose say 0.32 ppm NH4 daily and match the other nutrients such as PO4 at 0.12 and dose daily, you are actually not far away from how ADA, Tropica dose their tanks. I also dose in a similar manner where Ca, Mg, S, Cl, Fe are also very low. for example just look at my Marchner ratio experiments. 

these data's can be replicated and be used in our aquarium if one want to really try it.


----------



## Nick potts (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> because there is no data posted about the soil so we would be just guessing at this point





Happi said:


> these data's can be replicated and be used in our aquarium if one want to really try it.



Indeed they can, and many people do lean dose with great results, but as you point out the soil at this point is an unknown variable, but very likely an important one in terms of nutrition.

I would like to start reducing my nutrients to try and tease more colour out of my plants, I will be doing this slowly but likely will be still dumping in much more ferts than needed.

EI works, it is easier for people as it means they don't have to worry about making sure they have 0.32ppm of this and 0.1ppm of that and can concentrate energy on harder aspects. I do think once you have a handle on everything else there is no harm in messy around with ferts though.


----------



## dw1305 (1 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> It would be interesting to see a soil analysis from some of these areas.


In the "black-water" forests the soil is a very thin organic layer over silica sand, I'd guess that most nutrients would be in trace amounts. There would be a lot more nutrients in the varzea sediments, but I don't know the exact amount. 

The <"turned up to eleven"> thread about <"Overwintering _Ludwigia sedioides_"> suggests that nutrient levels are reasonably high in the varzea zone. This is what RBG Kew says about growing the <"Giant Amazon Waterlily (_Victoria amazonica_)">.


> _........ Around January or February, the brown to black, pea-sized seeds of the giant waterlily are placed under grow lamps in water kept at 28–30°c in our Tropical Nursery. New seedlings develop over the course of a few weeks with leaves roughly the size of a CD. Around mid-March, they are planted in loamy soil in a large pot and placed in the middle of the pond in our Waterlily House which is kept at 28°c.
> 
> The seedlings are fertilised weekly with a mixture of loam and organic fertilisers that are inserted into the soil........._



cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> I think we should be mainly focused on the water parameter of those rivers rather than jumping into the soil at this point. because there is no data posted about the soil so we would be just guessing at this point, but we have a data about the water parameters which should be our main discussion.
> 
> if you were to dose say 0.32 ppm NH4 daily and match the other nutrients such as PO4 at 0.12 and dose daily, you are actually not far away from how ADA, Tropica dose their tanks. I also dose in a similar manner where Ca, Mg, S, Cl, Fe are also very low. for example just look at my Marchner ratio experiments.
> 
> these data's can be replicated and be used in our aquarium if one want to really try it.



I don’t think you can exclude the soil, or indeed anything else - those natural environments couldn’t be farther removed from our tanks trying to translate one to the other is impossible. Plant density, light intensity, water clarity and chemical composition will be wildly different.

Also bear in mind, those nutrient figures are long run accumulation numbers, not a daily addition. Assuming you do a 50% water change each week, you may need to dose a fair bit less than that daily depending on plant uptake.


----------



## MichaelJ (1 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> aren't really terrestrial, you could argue that are just as much aquatic plants as _Cryptocoryne_ spp. etc.


Yes. I suppose it's very hard to draw the distinction between terrestrial and aquatic in a tropical rainforest environment with constant high humidity,  lots of rain, flooding etc.



dw1305 said:


> In the "black-water" forests the soil is a very thin organic layer over silica sand, I'd guess that most nutrients would be in trace amounts. There would be a lot more nutrients in the varzea sediments, but I don't know the exact amount.


The soil discussion is interesting - The paradox of rainforest soils   I wonder if the lack of nutrients also apply to the river soil.  Why would the river soil be (much) different from the forrest soil...  Of course, in the rain forrest you have that rapid turn over from decomposing and decaying plant mass, excretion from animals etc. so they are getting constantly fed. I suppose the rivers tap into that as well. But wouldn't that show up in the water column as well?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (1 Jan 2022)

According to some article there is very little nutrients in the soil in some of those water.

 I doubt those lower numbers in the water are accumulated numbers. What if that is what present in the water and plant uptake those numbers and those numbers are being replaced with those small ppm constantly? 

Either way those water don't have 30 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4, 1 ppm Fe or 30 ppm K and such. I know some people who measured the uptake of nutrients and accumulated level of nutrients and they also measured the dry mass of plant. The uptake of nutrients were no where close to what we dose. 

We really need to hear from someone who use Tropica  fertilizer on their inert substrate if you feel like soil is doing most of the work. I know some who do and their plant look great. 

Again if you were to go inert substrate and dose KNO3 only as your N, you will struggle. NH4 will grow the plant well even if they were not touching the soil. 

Quote from seachem:

"The beginner dose raises nitrogen by the same degree that 1 mg/L nitrate would. This dose is sufficient to provide approximately 4 g of growth (dry) or about 20 g (hydrated) over a 1 month period (assuming all other necessary nutrients are provided). For increased growth use proportionately more.

To target a specific nitrogen increase, dose according to the following formula: 0.25vn=m, where v= volume of tank in gallons, n=desired nitrogen increase (if using a “nitrate equivalent” value for “n” then use a factor of 0.05 instead of 0.25 in the formula) and m=volume of product to use in mL. For example to raise 20 gallons by 0.20 mg/L nitrogen you would use: 0.25*20*0.20=1 mL.

Because one-half of the nitrogen in Flourish Nitrogen™ is from nitrate you can get a reasonable estimate of nitrogen levels by doubling a nitrate reading."

This will give you some estimate on the N uptake. Going back to the main topic, if those numbers in those waters are correct and let's assume that soil is doing most of the work then why not create the same scenario in our tank? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water? Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such at appropriate levels? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water and add root tabs at the same time like some people been doing. 

The other way to tell the water is not very rich in nutrients is based on the TDS, tds is very low in all those water.


----------



## sparkyweasel (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such


Lots of people do each approach, both can work well. EI is one approach, no reason you can't use another. ADA, for example, uses rich substrate and low water column dosing.


----------



## Wolf6 (1 Jan 2022)

Wookii said:


> This is the key point. You will very rarely see “zero algae” and “excellent plant health” in a natural environment.
> 
> You will generally see extensive algae, and a mixture of healthy and completely ragged/deficient/damaged plant growth. That’s a natural environment, but not what we necessarily want to see in our glass boxes, so we employ a number of techniques, including dosing sufficient nutrients, to prevent that happening.


This. What we find attractive to look at are the prize chickens and award winning pumpkins of the plant world, fattened up and pampered grown into almost obesity if such a thing is possible. In nature most of the time only the tops of plants are free of algea, everything is else is covered. Comparing our tanks to nature is like comparing the rhs flower shows to nature. Much as we like to think we are trying to recreate it, we are only recreating our romanticized idea of it, free of algea (or weeds) and deformities and deficiencies. We fertilise and water our gardens and crops, our tanks are no different in that regard. Although I do love a real natural biotope tank with algea too


----------



## Nick potts (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> if those numbers in those waters are correct and let's assume that soil is doing most of the work then why not create the same scenario in our tank? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water? Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such at appropriate levels? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water and add root tabs at the same time like some people been doing.



The same reason we settle on most things, ease of use.

Adding root tabs to the soil is fine, but it will not turn this into a full rich soil, and also with root tabs we have no control of what's being released and when.

We dose the water because it is easy and precise, we dose in excess because it is easy and covers all bases and means no worrying if anything is missing

So yeah it all boils down to the fact that it works with little to no negatives and is super easy.


----------



## Happi (1 Jan 2022)

@MichaelJ

Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?

Dear members, as explained earlier on several occasions, the need for nutrients in our tanks are not that high with or without soil. It's all about dosing constant but in small quantities. I have yet to see any plant deficiency under this approach.

If anything, the above data proves these facts. Also it proves that the co2 doesn't need to be that high either, because most of those plants that we try to grow at max co2 seems to grow in very little co2 just like shown in that data.

No one is excluding the soil but at this point it's not even relevant to the topic. Which is based on water parameters.

Algae is also expected because it's natural and a food source in the nature and no one is there to trim the algae infested plants.

At this point some people will look for any excuse or reason to debunk the above data. Just like we saw on the link that I posted.


----------



## Happi (1 Jan 2022)

Nick potts said:


> The same reason we settle on most things, ease of use.
> 
> Adding root tabs to the soil is fine, but it will not turn this into a full rich soil, and also with root tabs we have no control of what's being released and when.
> 
> ...


Apparently I still see tons of plant deficiency threads on this forum despite have nutrients rich substrate and excess water column dosing.


----------



## jaypeecee (1 Jan 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> What I especially find intriguing here are the ratios... say for instance 0.04 ppm of NO3 for Tapajós... with EI we routinely keep our NO3 levels at 20-30 ppm. that's 500-750 times as much...


Hi @MichaelJ 

Just a thought - is it possible that some aquatic plants in their natural habitat are using, for example, NH3/NH4+ or Urea (NH2CONH2) as their source of nitrogen, not nitrate?

JPC


----------



## Wookii (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> Apparently I still see tons of plant deficiency threads on this forum despite have nutrients rich substrate and excess water column dosing.



You must be looking somewhere I’m not seeing - I see mainly issues where nutrients (within which I include CO2), are deficient, either by incorrect or insufficient application, or the application of too much light which leads to those deficiencies.



Happi said:


> @MichaelJ
> 
> Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?
> 
> ...



I’m unclear what you agenda is. No one appears to be arguing that a lean dosing regime can be successful. Are you arguing that an overdosing/EI strategy can unsuccessful? If so, based on what?


----------



## jaypeecee (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> The other way to tell the water is not very rich in nutrients is based on the TDS, tds is very low in all those water.


Hi @Happi 

I have a question. What if (some of) the nutrients are in organic form (e.g. Urea), i.e. not ionic such that a TDS meter may not detect these nutrients? I repeat - just a question in the hope that I can improve my understanding.

JPC


----------



## Nick potts (1 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> It's all about dosing constant but in small quantities. I have yet to see any plant deficiency under this approach.





Happi said:


> If anything, the above data proves these facts. Also it proves that the co2 doesn't need to be that high either, because most of those plants that we try to grow at max co2 seems to grow in very little co2 just like shown in that data.



Unfortunately, the data proves nothing much, it's a small sample and again it is being hailed as proof with little evidence.

Carbon is extremely important to plants, to say otherwise is silly, as are the other macronutrients. The data in the first post doesn't prove anything, as I said it is a limited sample, no mention if the places tested had aquatic growth etc, most plants in those area's would only be submerged for a period of time, so would have access to 400ppm for CO2.

Everyone knows you don't need injected CO2 and EI levels of nutrients if you balance light etc with it, but also high levels of CO2 and nutrients are clearly a benefit as evidenced by increased plant growth.


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

Wookii said:


> You must be looking somewhere I’m not seeing - I see mainly issues where nutrients (within which I include CO2), are deficient, either by incorrect or insufficient application, or the application of too much light which leads to those deficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m unclear what you agenda is. No one appears to be arguing that a lean dosing regime can be successful. Are you arguing that an overdosing/EI strategy can unsuccessful? If so, based on what?


My question is why you feel like that it's always a co2 issue? When in those data plant are growing at such minimum co2 levels. So whats your agenda here? In this thread we are comparing the water parameters mainly, whether I compare 10 ppm NO3 or 30 or 50, the point is still the same, plant don't need this much and never use this much. If you want to hear me say which one is more successful then am on the leaner side. 

At this point it's a water vs water parameters based on what we dose and based on that above data. So talking about why EI or other methods are successful or not is not even part of my agenda. But if I talk about higher nutrients vs what's that data is talking about then am sorry if EI or other higher dosing method fall under this umbrella. I used the term higher nutrients such as 30 ppm in my responses, just to make you feel better, let's just change it to 15 ppm, which is still very high compared to that data.


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

Nick potts said:


> Unfortunately, the data proves nothing much, it's a small sample and again it is being hailed as proof with little evidence.
> 
> Carbon is extremely important to plants, to say otherwise is silly, as are the other macronutrients. The data in the first post doesn't prove anything, as I said it is a limited sample, no mention if the places tested had aquatic growth etc, most plants in those area's would only be submerged for a period of time, so would have access to 400ppm for CO2.
> 
> Everyone knows you don't need injected CO2 and EI levels of nutrients if you balance light etc with it, but also high levels of CO2 and nutrients are clearly a benefit as evidenced by increased plant growth.


Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?

Also is your statement evidence based or is it just opinion? because if it is evidence based then we might need to look at that evidence. So far majority of those plant that you keep in your aquarium do come from these rivers. May I suggest looking at the link that I posted that links to the TPT thread? 

Again are we talking about growing the plant quickly or are we discussing about plant thriving in their nature environment with such low nutrients and co2? Ofcource if you added more N along with other nutrients will speed up the growth, just like mentioned in one of my post about seachem and nitrogen.


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Happi
> 
> I have a question. What if (some of) the nutrients are in organic form (e.g. Urea), i.e. not ionic such that a TDS meter may not detect these nutrients? I repeat - just a question in the hope that I can improve my understanding.
> 
> JPC


Eventually the urea will start to convert into NH3/NH4 weather it's in the soil or in the water. Tds will start to rise soon as you start adding urea into the water.


----------



## Nick potts (2 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?



Which plants though is the point? You can't just take some numbers and then state that we don't need x or y.

99% of the plants we keep in our tanks are not true aquatics and would have access in nature to an unlimited amount of CO2 for example.


----------



## Wolf6 (2 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?


Noone here questions that they can also grow under low co2/nutrients. Most people with a high tech tank also have a low tech one. But just like with gardening and crops and, I hate to say it, but even with cattle, if you provide more food/nutrients at a higher rate you get faster and more growth and often better growth as nothing is lacking. In nature, as said before, most of the plants are not pristine algea free etc. Add to that a multitude of factors we cannot replicate in our tanks.


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

Nick potts said:


> Which plants though is the point? You can't just take some numbers and then state that we don't need x or y.
> 
> 99% of the plants we keep in our tanks are not true aquatics and would have access in nature to an unlimited amount of CO2 for example.


You do realize that data we are looking at above is based on when plants are subemersed?

I suggest you reread this thread and look at which plant grows where:








						Dose less, not more
					

So I posted this data at the tail end of sewingalot's controversial 'types of fertilization methods'. However, I think most members were so sick of the ongoing bickering in that thread that they stopped bothering to read it after the first few pages.   My point is that if we examine the water...




					www.plantedtank.net


----------



## Yugang (2 Jan 2022)

Wookii said:


> I’m unclear what you agenda is. No one appears to be arguing that a lean dosing regime can be successful. Are you arguing that an overdosing/EI strategy can unsuccessful? If so, based on what?


I agree, have a feeling that I know where this is going to. Not again please 

While I am extremely grateful to UKAPS community for the shared learning and respectful dialogue, I do notice that a couple of topics sometimes lead to less productive and certainly less friendly interactions. Reviewing several years of discussion on lean dosing versus EI and other methods, on this and other forums, I get worried each time I see it pop up again.

These are my key take aways, merely stating the obvious:

-1- Nature presents a huge variety of biotopes. Even if a planted tank method could perfectly mimic one particular real-life biotope, it may work perfectly for some plants, while less than perfect for others. It seems unlikely that we will ever find one superior method, that disqualifies all others.
-2- Various aquarium methods have produced great results (EI, ADA, Walstadt, ...). Probably none is the best in all categories, and most build on the success of others. The ultimate measure of success is the owners’ satisfaction and a picture of happy plants and fish.
-3- Peer reviewed, controlled experiments, 1 to 1 relevant to the aquarium hobby, are rare. As most of our wisdom is from rather anecdotal evidence, our opinions gain credibility with well documented experiments. UKAPS journals, with videos, photos and measurements are a great example to get a little closer to scientific clarity and credibility.
-4- From all communications that I have seen on Estimated Index, including from TB, the method is a pragmatic approach to avoid deficiencies without the hassle of continuous testing. Starting from high dosing, gently test dialling down to the point where leaner turns into a deficiency for the most demanding plants. It has produced well documented top class tanks, ultimately depends on the skills of the operator dialling in lower dosing. EI, being “Estimated”, does not claim much, nor does its founder, but it works for many. Alternative methods produce equally impressive results - unsurprisingly as nature brings such huge diversity of biotopes as well. If we have beautiful tanks and happy owners what is the point of attacking one method versus the other?

Once again I apologize for stating perhaps the obvious and certainly do not want to derail any productive dialogue. We all owe generations of aquarium plant hobbyist, thought leaders who developed and promoted new methods, and not to forget the expertise here on UKAPS, a big thank you for all the support and enthusiasm, and keep up the high standards that we see on this forum.

Happy new year from Hong Kong!


----------



## erwin123 (2 Jan 2022)

I'm now dosing an all-in-one fert. 

 May not get the fastest growth, but there shouldn't be any deficiency. Maybe this is the middle ground? [Sponsors will be happy if they can sell more All in one ferts as well] 😅


----------



## dw1305 (2 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


Yugang said:


> From all communications that I have seen on Estimated Index, including from TB, the method is a pragmatic approach to avoid deficiencies without the hassle of continuous testing. Starting from high dosing, gently test dialling down to the point where leaner turns into a deficiency for the most demanding plants. It has produced well documented top class tanks, ultimately depends on the skills of the operator dialling in lower dosing. EI, being “Estimated”, does not claim much, nor does its founder, but it works for many. Alternative methods produce equally impressive results - unsurprisingly as nature brings such huge diversity of biotopes as well. If we have beautiful tanks and happy owners what is the point of attacking one method versus the other?


Very good point, very well made.

Personally I've got no interest in <"optimal plant growth">, <"demanding plants"> or <"aquascaping">, and I'm never going <"to use CO2">, but I still enjoy <"the threads"> of those who <"use this approach">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> Tds will start to rise soon as you start adding urea into the water.


Hi @Happi

Thanks for your reply.

Indeed, you're correct. I remembered that I had some Urea solution from a previous experiment. I had made it up with 250mg of Urea in 80ml of distilled water. Electrical conductivity is 730 microS/cm.

Quite what would happen with other organic compounds I don't know. These compounds do exist, for example:









						Phosphate Exchange and Organic Phosphorus Excretion by Freshwater Algae | Request PDF
					

Request PDF | Phosphate Exchange and Organic Phosphorus Excretion by Freshwater Algae | Rates of uptake and release of phosphorus compounds by four species of freshwater algae grown in axenic culture at phosphorus concentrations... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Jan 2022)

Yugang said:


> If we have beautiful tanks and happy owners what is the point of attacking one method versus the other?


Hi @Yugang 

My thoughts entirely.

Happy New Year from the UK!

JPC


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

Dear members,

We were looking at the water parameters of the Amazon and the plant that grow in their natural habitat, instead of discussion being about this topic, it rather turned into EI vs Lean dosing. I suggest @MichaelJ to remove the following:

*“I personally have no doubt that my EI level dosing is working for my low-tech tanks... as I have zero algae to speak of and excellent plant health across the board - slow, but steady and healthy growth. It is however a very stark contrast to what seems to be the case in nature.”*

And keep this phrase:

*“Why do we keep our fertilizer levels so high in our tanks - in many cases orders of magnitude higher - when the rivers where a lot of our plants come from contains pretty much nothing of anything we consider important?”*

to other members, If your goal is to falsify the above data or anything else based on EI, PPS or whatever system you use then you are asking for a some kind of response which you may not like. Some people will find a reason to falsify the above data but without any evidence to support their claim. We talked about the soil in this topic but again there is not enough data to support anything except that some articles suggest there is not many nutrients in the soil. speaking based on my opinion (not proven fact) most of the nutrients are most likely coming from decaying leaves, tree, fish or other animal waste. The lower conductivity of water suggests that there are very little nutrients including S, Cl, Na etc. in the water.

*Now the question is, Do we continue to talk about the main topic and try to get somewhere or should we focus on falsifying it and get nowhere?*


----------



## Simmo (2 Jan 2022)

Spot the green living plant in this footage from the Rio Negro 😂 I saw one. 



I thought I was trying to sustain artificially high densities of fast growing plants with very high concentrations of ferts? If I wanted a more natural looking blackwater set up I’d skip the ferts.

This is blackwater only, the cited paper describes clearwater and whitewater..which begs the question what is my aquarium mimicking? Is a typical planted community tank (mostly) blackwater fish like tetras, angelfish etc but transposed to an idealised clearwater habitat? I don’t know, it’s interesting though.


----------



## dw1305 (2 Jan 2022)

Hi all,





Simmo said:


> Spot the green living plant in this footage from the Rio Negro......


All the trees at the start?


Simmo said:


> If I wanted a more natural looking blackwater set up I’d skip the ferts.


You need really soft, low conductivity water to keep blackwater fish long term, so they probably aren't suitable for high tech. tanks.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## Simmo (2 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,All the trees at the start?


Certainly, what I mean is illustrated by his tank at the end vs a blackwater tank.


----------



## MichaelJ (2 Jan 2022)

Happi said:


> @MichaelJ
> 
> Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?



Hi @Happi, The purpose for me was to further my understanding a bit. I just came across this paper and although I already knew that nutrient levels in the habitats our plants and livestock comes from were lower compared to what we regularly dose in our planted tanks (relative to plant density and a host of other factors that are hard to compare straight up), I did not know, or realize at least, that the difference was this stark and wanted to share that information and hear peoples thoughts on the matter - not necessarily to infuse a heated discussion about one fertilizer approach vs. another - I don't think that is helpful anyway. I am mostly here to gain insight and share that little bit of personal experience that I have gained over the years.

I consider myself an agnostic when it comes to fertilization. I don't have any skin in the debate about lean vs. abundant vs other fertilization schemes - there are a lot of evidence out there that suggest that many different fertilizer schemes are working well (including the approaches you are advocating).  I just happen to do _my version_ of EI and have stuck to it because it works in my case so far. I dose the whole week of fertilizer (NPK,Ca:Mg) in abundance after my weekly ~40% WCs and supplement with Fe/traces once or twice throughout the week. That's it - all cheap dry dosing so cost is not a factor either way... A very different approach than that of Mother Nature obviously 

Now, one number that stuck out from these water samples was the overall conductivity/TDS readings. Call me ignorant, but I didn't realize it was _that_ low.... One thing that I could imagine myself start doing is to dial down my fertilizer load for the long-term sake of my livestock to further replicate the conductivity/TDS of these environments - I am currently running my tanks in the 210-230 TDS range (pretty low, but still routinely x10 higher than natural habitats for say many small Tetras). If I could accomplish the same level of plant health at a much lower levels - say if I would cut down my NPK dosing in half or third I imagine that could potentially be beneficial for the well being of my livestock. Sure, it's speculation, but it's something I might give a shot. I happen to have two very similar tanks with respect to livestock and plant mass - and even cutting my dosing down to a third, I will still whip Mother Nature by x100-200 

On a side note, I would like to see a more nuanced discussing about different fertilizer approaches. Perhaps a separate Topic in the Specific Planted Tank discussions - say "Alternative Fertilization (non-EI approaches)" ?  Just an idea, because I think a lot of good knowledge and insights are lost in too much arguing.    



dw1305 said:


> Personally I've got no interest in <"optimal plant growth">, <"demanding plants"> or <"aquascaping">, and I'm never going <"to use CO2">, but I still enjoy <"the threads"> of those who <"use this approach">.


That sums it up for me as well... I am very much on the same page as @dw1305 - except that I don't use rainwater or use my tanks to warm up my cat! or is it the other way around... 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Nick potts (2 Jan 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Now, one number that stuck out from these water samples was the overall conductivity/TDS readings. Call me ignorant, but I didn't realize it was _that_ low


Yes i thought the same, i try to keep my TDS as low as possible but still in the 200ppm range.



MichaelJ said:


> That sums it up for me as well... I am very much on the same page as @dw1305 - except that I don't use rainwater or use my tanks to warm up my cat!


This is where i differ most, i am still very new to full planted tanks and wanting the best/fastest growth etc.


----------



## MichaelJ (2 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Just a thought - is it possible that some aquatic plants in their natural habitat are using, for example, NH3/NH4+ or Urea (NH2CONH2) as their source of nitrogen, not nitrate?
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee  Oh sure, @Happi pointed that out as well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Jan 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @jaypeecee  Oh sure, @Happi pointed that out as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Hi @MichaelJ 

Thanks. I'd either overlooked or forgotten the above.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (2 Jan 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> I don't use rainwater...


Hi @MichaelJ 

Are you a remineralized RO/DI water user? That's my default preference.

JPC


----------



## Happi (2 Jan 2022)

@MichaelJ





*glad to hear your response and we can certainly achieve the low TDS if that is your goal and minimize the need for the water changes. *


*reduce the amount of S, Cl, Na etc. in the water through fertilizer. Avoid using K2SO4, MgSO4, MgCl, NaHco3 etc.*
*if you still want to use the #1, try to mix them, for example 0.2 Mg from MgSo4 and 0.2 ppm from Mgcl. S and Cl should be kept low *
*NaHCo3, KhCo3 etc. will add some Co3, which will be used by the plants and acidic soil will neutralize the KH. You are left with Na and K in the water, Na is not needed by plants but its ok to have some in the water, but the goal should be avoid adding NaHCo3, use KhCO3 instead. *
*if you want to use NO3 as your main source of N, try to use KNO3, MgNO3, CaNO3 combinations, you can take out CaNo3 if your water already have enough Ca, same for Mg.*
*the goal is to reduce overall numbers of nutrients that are either less used by the plants or buildups whenever we dose. For example: adding K2SO4 to reach 10 ppm K will also add 4 ppm S, lets assume plant only use 0.2 ppm S, the remaining S is just adding up to the TDS. Lets assume you used KNO3 instead, you should slowly see an drop in TDS, lets assume you added some NH4 with KNO3, this will further drop the TDS when plant uptake those nutrients. Not to forget that soil will be going after the + charges as well. *
*For example, when I add the following to 0 TDS water, it would increase the TDS, but as the days go by, the TDS start to drop. I used the following to achieve this:

NH4NO3, NH4HCO3, KH2PO4, K2CO3, NaHCO3, Ca(NO3)2*4H2O, MgSO4*7H2O, MgCl2*6H2O

However, the fish waste and fish food will continue to add some TDS. especially if the NO3 conversion is happening rapidly. *


----------



## Happi (3 Jan 2022)

*Spezial N* by *Tobi *is also another good alternative rather than just using KNO3 alone in case you want to explore that. I would try to DIY that and also use good Trace/Fe with it such as Tropica premium rather than using csm+b. I just noticed that no one talked about the small amount of NH4 coming from CaNo3, everyone was concerned about NH4 coming from Urea. *Spezial N* truly add NH4+Urea+NO3+K+Ca+Mg which is why it works so well especially if you were to dose it in small amount daily.


----------



## MichaelJ (3 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Are you a remineralized RO/DI water user? That's my default preference.
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee Yes, I am doing RO water and tap water. My tap water is a bit special because every tap inside the house runs through a KCL resin based water softener. Our tap water comes out at zero GH but with sky-high potassium levels, but not much else in terms of Nitrates etc.. For my WC I have recently been doing 20% Tap and 80% RO - sometimes more tap water... which gives me around 40 ppm of K (and enough CL) and about 1-2 KH. In addition to that, I remineralize and dose my NPK with MgSO4, CaSO4, KH2PO4 and MgNO3. For traces I do this CMS+B trace blend once or twice a week or a weekly dose of Fe Gluconate - if I remember to dose  I tried a while ago to use Mg Gluconate and Ca Gluconate to shave off the excess SO4, but that didn't work out for me.  Of course, I also tried Calcium Chloride but that gives me 50ppm of CL vs. 36ppm of sulphate with CaSO4 for the same amount of Ca (same story for Mg btw. - different amounts obviously)...

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (3 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> or use my tanks to warm up my cat! or is it the other way around...


It would be really useful if she sat up there at night (and acted as a furry blanket), but unfortunately she only does it when the light is on.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (3 Jan 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Our tap water comes out at zero GH but with sky-high potassium levels, but not much else in terms of Nitrates etc..


Hi @MichaelJ 

Isn't it fascinating what comes out of people's taps? No wonder you add Ca and Mg - zero GH. Is that because you are surrounded by lakes? According to _Wikipedia_:

"Although promoted as the "Land of 10,000 *Lakes*", *Minnesota* has 11,842 *lakes* of 10 acres (4.05 ha) or more. The 1968 state survey found 15,291 *lake* basins, of which 3,257 were dry. If all basins over 2.5 acres were counted, *Minnesota* would have 21,871 *lakes*." Just a few more than the 'Lake District' here in Old Blighty!

Returning to your tap water, why is potassium level so high?

JPC


----------



## hypnogogia (3 Jan 2022)

I suspect his potassium is so high because he’s using a water softener that uses potassium salt rather than sodium based salt.


----------



## Nick potts (3 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Returning to your tap water, why is potassium level so high?
> 
> JPC






MichaelJ said:


> every tap inside the house runs through a KCL resin based water softener


----------



## jaypeecee (3 Jan 2022)

Hi @hypnogogia & @Nick potts 

Thanks, guys. It's been a long day! 

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Isn't it fascinating what comes out of people's taps? No wonder you add Ca and Mg - zero GH. Is that because you are surrounded by lakes?


No, its because our city water run through a Potassium Chloride resin based water softener as mentioned.  We have a lot limestone here so our water is very hard (18-22 GH range... varies throughout the year depending on the water source), but otherwise its pretty good.... mostly untraceable amounts of "toxins", and if detectable they are far, far below state and federal limits. Chlorine level is super low as well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------

