# Unlimited nutrients using E.I.



## Reuben

Here is a question I'm not totally sure about.  

If using Co2 and dosing EI is there any reason to bother working out PPM or other concentration levels in the tank.  

I've recently started dosing 2x the standard sort of recipe and if anything the effect seems positive, I'm wondering if the tank water is eutrophic and if it is not yet, would it matter if it was?  

Is it okay to aim to dose at unlimiting levels and if so why is anyone bothering to figure out ppm? 

Just for comment here is my current recipe which I use in a 125 L tank:

6 tsp of MsSo4 + 3 tsp of Kh2POH + 6 tsp of Kno3   - this mixed into 500ml of water then I dose 100ml at a time. 

2 tsp of trace into 300ml of water then I dose 50ml at a time.

I dose every day alternating NPK and Trace and do one weekly 80% water change and usually at least one or two %20 water changes during the week.	

Thanks


----------



## plantbrain

Dosing @2x the EI range will not increase plant growth in any species I'm aware of.

I would rather dose the normal amount and add more fish etc if this were the case.
The NH4 from fish waste slowly "dosed" would be of some benefit perhaps.


----------



## Reuben

Okay, I'm not really trying to 'increase' growth, just make sure I have more nutrients than the plants need.  But perhaps what you are saying is that standard dosing EI will already provide more than plants can use?  Which would render adding yet more nutrients fairly pointless?

I'm still a little unsure as to why people bother to work out the exact level in ppm though?  Why not just dose over the plants level of demand and forget about it?  Does it matter is there are 20% unused 'extra' quantity of nutrients in the water?


----------



## Reuben

Anyone?

I know this subject has been covered before to some degree, but having read those threads I still haven't gleaned what 'harm' there is in having a high nutrient load, as long as that load was not caused by a peak in the nitrogen cycle ie High Ammonia > Nitrite > High Nitrate, but was added via salts?


----------



## Alastair

There is no harm in dosing twice or 3 times the recommended levels of ei, ive done it before now but the aim of ei anyway is to ensure there is a slight excess of nutrients in the water column. I kept at 2 times the recommended ei dosing on my old 100 gallon but didn't see anything in the way of vastly improved growth compared to using just the norm. Plus your just wasting ferts if your going to add unlimited amounts. Its not all going to get taken up by the plants and will be taken out when doing water change.  

Im not sure if using far more than recommended would have any impact on shrimp though. 



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Yo-han

Reverse the question: Why do you want to add more than unlimited. EI is the max plants can use. By adding EI, you are sure you add enough, why do you want to add more? Does it harm to add more? Yes and no! A little more no problem for fish or plants, 10x EI, no problem for PO4, K, but 10 NO3 will not be benificial to your livestock (depending on the species). No problems for plants I guess. Wild discus do not fare well even with normal EI, might be the high NO3 or more likely high TDS but it shows it really depends on the species. In reality, most people already add 2x unlimited for their tank with normal EI. But EI is not written in stone, it is a starting point, you can go your own way as soon as you acquired some feeling (or test kits)


----------



## Reuben

Yes, well the main reason I'm dosing heavy is that I'm using an inert substrate (pea gravel) which I wish I wasn't but there we go!  I have seen example of people (Paulo) doing well with pea gravel anyway, so I'm not to worried, I have added root tabs (seachem flourite) not sure how much they achieve though.  

Just wanting to get a grasp on why people try and work out there levels in ppm, as fertz are cheap enough to not worry too much anyway?


----------



## Yo-han

I think it is mostly a mindset. I don't want my aquarium to become a fertilizer pool. If I was just keeping plants, no livestock, no problem, I would go double EI just to make sure everything is sufficient. But I want my fish to feel good as well. Most fish come from low TDS waters and although they adapt to higher salt contents in the water, I prefer to keep it as low as possible for my fish. At the same time I understand plants need these nutrients/salts so I do measure NO3, PO4 and TDS. Just to now sure they never run zero, but never get too high as well. I did use full EI some time ago and it worked great plants wise, and all fish survived. But no breeding from my dwarf cichlids and little from my shrimps.
In my ADA based tank (little nutrients in the water, al lot in the substrate, low TDS) I noticed all animals did better and plants almost equally.
Since I lowered NO3 and PO4 and kept all other things the same, I've way more shrimps. And most important for me, suddenly my Nannacara and Apisto eggs hatched. I never tried higher EI except for 40 ppm PO4 so can't comment on that but as Tom says:



plantbrain said:


> Dosing @2x the EI range will not increase plant growth in any species I'm aware of.


 
EI is based on inert gravel, so no need to go higher IMO. Just make sure everything else is right (no overfeeding, no rotting objects, enough CO2)


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Yo-han said:


> But I want my fish to feel good as well. Most fish come from low TDS waters and although they adapt to higher salt contents in the water, I prefer to keep it as low as possible for my fish. At the same time I understand plants need these nutrients/salts so I do measure NO3, PO4 and TDS.


I use a similar approach to Yohan, with the exception that I don't attempt to measure PO4--- or NO3-, I just use plant health (via the Duckweed Index) and conductivity measurement as an indicator of nutrient status. <Duckweed(amazon frogbit) dead. Nutritient deficiency? Which one? | UK Aquatic Plant Society>.

For me that means if the plants are green and growing (how ever slowly) and the conductivity is around 100microS. water conditions should be about right for _Apistogramma_, Pencils etc.

All I need is to then is ignore the fish, maintain a complex weedy environment,  feed lots of live food and spawns will follow.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048

On the other hand I use multiple EI all the time and my tank raised discus have been fine, while other low TDS fish bred like rabbits. So that indicates the problem has not much to do with NO3 or PO4. TDS is always an issue but high nutrient loading causes a TDS rise not only directly but also causes high organic waste expulsion. If you add more nutrients then you need to do higher water changes.

To answer the OP's question, the issue is very similar to CO2 availability. If flow and distribution are poor, and if the tank has a large volume, and if the lighting is absurdly high, it can easily be that uptake rates are not as expected. Increasing the dosage increases the partial pressure of the nutrients in the water column and can make up for the poor flow and distribution shortfalls.

As Tom points out, there are no plants that show increased growth performance at dosages higher than EI, but this assumes the plant is actually seeing that value via excellent flow and distribution, which very few people have.

Cheers,


----------



## Reuben

Okay, thanks for all the responses.  I think I'm getting a grasp on it!

When folks say that the fish prefer low TDS what harm does the high TDS actually do?  Is 'it' poisonous to them in a way that can be measured?  Sorry if this is a daft question!  Though at one point I though (had read in books) correct PH was essential to fish health and spent a while fretting about keeping it stable at 6.8,  only to since learn that it seems not to matter at all to fish health -or do I have this wrong too   Co2 causes PH movement anyway so not sure how Discus keepers with plants (as an example) get around that.

Anyway I think what I have learnt is that people try and determine their level of EI added nutrients, because excess is believed to be in some way toxic to fish health?


----------



## Yo-han

pH is important as a rough guideline, but fresh water fish can adapt quite well. Lowering your pH with CO2 is not the kind of pH mentioned in the books, so that is why you often see pH is not important. Fish don't carry a pH meter. But as you know, pH mainly depends on KH. Fish don't notice pH but do notice TDS and in nature this mainly consists of KH and GH (no high PO4, NO3 etc). Their bodies are build to maintain salts and flush water out of their system. (Salt water fish do the opposite) When TDS rises, this system changes, so they notice this. This is often considered good during illness, the fish saves energy by the smaller difference in osmotic pressure. But breeding usually happens in the rainy season when TDS is lowest. Before TDS gets poisonous I don't know, I think it mainly depends on what makes the TDS.



Reuben said:


> Anyway I think what I have learnt is that people try and determine their level of EI added nutrients, because excess is believed to be in some way toxic to fish health?


 
Yes, that is what I think at least. The Dutch Aquarium Contest does not judge pictures, but visits your tank in real life and takes measurements of your water etc. High NO3 and PO4 are negative point on your report because they still consider it a pollution. Most people run EI or a similar method and do large water changes before the judges come and dose NO3 and PO4 when the judge leaves, but you can get where these kind of rumours come from. At the same time, I don't want mine to be too high as well, just based on my observations which might as well be because of something else but maybe not? Don't have the scientific articles to back it up unfortunately.


----------



## Reuben

I see.  Though i'm not totally sure I understand why the fish -



Yo-han said:


> don't notice pH


 
Though I do understand that you are saying the pH I read about, may have been more referring to the TDS part of the water chemistry.




Yo-han said:


> breeding usually happens in the rainy season when TDS is lowest.


 
I might of guessed the rain would increase TDS (through terrestrial runoff) but fair enough.  I wonder if the fish breeding/high rainfall/low TDS just happen to coincide.  Could it be that the increased river levels from the rain are more a trigger to spawn than the 'incidental' low TDS that occurs at that point in the season?  Perhaps the low TDS are just a coincidental factor rather than the main driver?

 If the fish are able to adapt to a range of TDS/pH levels encountered throughout the yearly seasonal changes, might it be that in captivity the tanks with low TDS also happen to be those with less organic pollution in them?  Because the fish keepers change more water in their effort to maintain low TDS, but in doing that they also create a tank with low pollution levels? 

Maybe this has all been figured out already?   I'm just looking to learn a bit more, not be awkward with these questions 

I like the idea that freshwater fish are more adaptable, as I used to keep marine inverts at one time and I always felt it was near impossible to match the water chemistry/stability of the Indian ocean in a 250L glass box in the UK!  Because the ocean is so large and stable many marine organisms are not very able to adapt to fluctuations in water chemistry, or at least don't thrive.  

The idea that the freshwater critters we keep are more adaptable to variable water parameters - which makes sense when you thing about how dynamic rivers are- makes them more appealing to me, as I think they are a better match to the sort of conditions that most people can provide in an aquarium.

Hence my interest in understanding the situation with EI levels.


----------



## ceg4048

There is only one pH, so any pH you read about is the same as any other. The problem is not that there are different kinds of pH, but instead that people really don't understand what pH is and under what conditions pH is relevant. The same can be said of the water's mineral content.

The best way to think about pH is as a ratio of positive electrical charges due to ionized Hydrogen (H+) versus the negative electrical charges due to an ion called Hydroxyl (OH-). When the two charged particles combine, we have HOH...otherwise written as H2O. If there are exactly the same amount of (H+) and (OH-) then all the positive charges are balanced by all the negative charges.

Here are some schematics:
Normally, when we describe a Hydrogen atom it exists as a single positively (+) charged proton in the middle. This (+) charge has the power to hold a single negatively charged electron (-) within a certain space surrounding the proton. As an assembly, this combination has a net neutral charge. The (+) and the (-) cancel each other but the electric fields made by each are still present.





The electron is trapped in this "orbit" because of the positive electric field of the proton and there are only two ways to escape this area. One way is to acquire more kinetic energy to enable it to fly away, and the second way is to have a stronger (+) field nearby to pull it away. All of chemistry and all of life is about the movement and energy state of that little orange ball depicted in the image above. When the electron is in the orbit the material that is Hydrogen is a completely different material than when the electron leaves that orbit. When it leaves, the Hydrogen atom becomes a simple proton with a (+) charge.
Here is a scematic of a Hydrogen atom becoming a Hydrogen ion:


 

This (H+) charged particle is now capable of attracting other electrons and pulling them from their current orbit back into an orbit around itself. In so doing the material of the Hydrogen changes it's properties AND the material that the electron came from also changes it's properties.

The material that the new electron came from is said to have been "Oxidized". The (H+) is said to have been "Reduced". This is what acids do. They Oxidize other materials by ripping off the electrons that those materials have.

The more (H+) that are in the water the more damage they can do because the total strength of their combined (+) charges is powerful enough to break down other substances.

On the opposite side of the fence, there is the Hydroxide ion. This is a little more complicated because it's composed of two atoms; an Oxygen atom that holds a Hydrogen atom firmly in it's grasp. There is an extra electron in this assembly. Count the number of (-) red = 10 and compare with the total number of P (+) = 9 so the net charge of this assembly is -1. The Hydroxide ion repels electrons and is attracted to positively charged ions.




If there are more of these ions in the water than (H+) ions, then the solution is said to be alkaline.

In the water, because of these balance of charges there is a continual merger of the (H+) and the (OH-) and immediately they separate. If the pH of the water is neutral (7) then there is an equal number of these ions, and they merge and disassociate at an equal rate.

Now when we start adding things to the water the balance is upset. The pH calculation is a mathematical computation of the number of (H+) in relation to the number of (OH-). Here is a simplified schematic:





The difference in acids is that weak acids such as citrus, vinegar and carbonic when we add CO2 is that they only add a small amount of (H+) to the water, so when you calculate the pH, the number can be driven very low, but the amount of extra (H+) relative to the current amount of (OH-) is really not that much. Weak acids dissolved in water can dramatically change the pH, but the electrolytic effect against other substances is not that great because there are still plenty of (OH-) in the water to pull the (H+) away.

Strong acids however are highly toxic because they add huge amounts of (H+) to the water and overwhelm the number of (OH-). Now, there is real danger to fish, plants, bacteria and everything else because the (H+) protons will rip through their materials, will pull electrons away due to the strong positive charge, and in so doing, will change the nature and properties of the living material.

So when you approach the analysis of your tanks pH, you need to understand WHY the pH is high or low, because the number is just a calculation. If the number is low due to strong acid release, this is a major problem, but if the number is low due to a weak acid addition then it's meaningless.

That's why we can add CO2 and change the acidity by a factor of 10 without any problems, because the total number of damaging H+ charges relative to the balancing OH- charges is minor. People don't realize this very important difference and they add strong acids like "pH Down" to their tank, trying to control pH to some mythical perfect value, which is actually highly toxic because it's a strong acid.

Your tank produces tiny amounts of strong acids. Nitrate is metabolized into Nitric acid, Phosphate to Phosphoric acid as well as some other organic acids. Again, these are very small amounts so they do have an effect on the pH but their total contribution of H+ is not that much because the quantity is small.

Without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles, there is no hope of making rational decisions regarding the water's chemistry. The same is true for conductivity and nutrient levels. People have no idea what effects there are on fish, so they just guess because they "feel" that something is right or wrong. While it seems a certainty that soft water fish are happier in soft water, it is also true that they can adapt to higher conductivity and mineral levels. If that were not true then there would be no way discus would breed in hard tap water, and clearly, they have. So the fish have mechanisms to deal with all sorts of things such as CO2, conductivity, calcium and so forth. When people have a problem they immediately blame nitrates and phosphates without having any evidence. There is plenty of evidence that keeping your tank clean and free of organic pollution goes a lot further to maintaining top health than stressing over nitrates, phosphates and TDS.

Again, to approach rationally, there should not be a need to use multiple EI dosing, but doing so does no harm. If growth performance using standard EI dosages do not achieve the expected performance then this tells you that you have a flow or distribution problem and that is where the most logical corrections should be made. But if that is not possible due to other constraints then a dosing increase can be of benefit without risk.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

I think the no# or ratio of actual H2CO3[aq] to CO2[aq] is about 1:400. So only 0.25% is actually as H2CO3.
Which is not enough to have any influence of the carbonates when you inject CO2 gas into the water.

It'd be cool if you could add CO2 gas and remove the carbonate by destroying it into CO2 and H2O, soften the water, but obviously, no one does this. Because it does not work. 
If you added vinegar, it will destroy KH and release CO2 and H2O. Or strong acids etc. Pour some onto limestone, baking soda etc and you'll see this effect.


----------



## Reuben

Okay, so I am clear that, dosing over standard EI might not achieve anything 'extra' -so is a bit pointless.  Though it could be useful in some cases where distribution of flow isn't so good to allow plants access to nutrients.  It is not thought to do any 'harm' to livestock. ?

Thanks for the explanations of pH, to be honest I had no idea that is how the relationship worked.  But from what has been said I think I understand that there is no 'know way' in which differing pH levels harm fish kept outside of the pH of the river they occupy in the wild.  Changing the pH in a way that causes the electrons to re-balance (by jumping to or from hydroxide ions) is known to damage cells/harm fish.   Is that right?

I think Tom's point is that it's a shame that adding Co2 does not soften the water (and at the same time unlock more Co2) but it does not have that effect.  Correct?

It has helped me understand that the Co2 induced pH swing is different to a fundamental pH change -which I did not realize before.  What the drop checker is registering is an increase in H+ (from Co2 addition) which once the Co2 stops the extra H+ is no longer present and the water chemistry returns to the 'base' pH.  If a strong acid or alkaline were added a huge number of H+ or OH- would be added which would fundamentally alter the water pH by causing a 'migration' of electrons one way or the other.  Have i got that right?!

Hope this hasn't wandered too off topic, though I think I have the answer to my original question about EI now. It is handy to learn a bit more about pH and water hardness as I don't know much about that area and it's relevance in aquariums.
Thanks.


----------



## ceg4048

Yes I reckon you have a pretty good grasp of the fundamental principles. As we've mentioned many times, it's the sum total of all the things we do to the tank that determines results. I keep high nutrient loading and even intentionally raise the TDS using products like GH Booster just to see what happens. As long as the tank is kept free of organic waste the fish don't really have trouble adjusting to the conditions. When people add high nutrient levels and don't keep the tank clean they encounter problems - but that's because the water becomes polluted with organic waste, which lowers Oxygen (due to bacterial interaction) and also drives up TDS.

 At 3X Ei dosing here is a Ram guarding eggs hidden within the P. stelleta on the left.




And this is the male, again 3X EI dosing and 800 microseimens conductivity. And the cards are all stacked against these fish, such as high CO2, yet there was no difficulty getting them to breed in a community tank. The penalty? Lots of water changes and maintenance. This is the contribution that healthy plants offer. So as you surmised, there is no point wasting powder, but neither do you have to freak out about nutrients in the water column.




Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

I came up with EI dosing more because I had much more light, but then I knew I needed more CO2 as a result of more demand.
But it's just adding more PMDD and some PO4 basically, then doing a bit larger consistent water changes.

Fear, more than innovation/common sense held most folks back.
It was what we were taught and told to believe.

The utility with EI is really this: it rules out limitation of the ferts. Thus makes ferts INDEPENDENT, so....you can focus on adjusting light, or CO2, which i much more fruitful for growing plants, gardening, dealing with algae and controlling/managing rates of weedy growth.
That's a huge headache that folks do not have to fret over. Then they can master CO2 well and use moderate light etc.

Folks in the EU and Japan tend to not go for the nuke powered lighting that many in the USA do. Which is good.


----------



## Yo-han

@ceg: I had eggs all the time with EI, but now I do have fry


----------



## ceg4048

That's great. I've had fry as well. I've raised two successive generations of apistogrammas in an EI dosed community tank. Also see Toms post in EI dosing impact on fish breeding and Fry | UK Aquatic Plant Society

You cannot blame the inability to get fry simply based on the presence of water column nutrients alone.

Cheers,


----------



## Mortis

Dude you are dosing much more than 2x EI. My tank is about the same size and my mix is almost the same. 6tsp KNO3, 2tsp KH2PO4, 2 tsp K2so4 and 3 tsp MgSO4 in 600ml water and dose 15ml 3x a week. CSMB 1.5 tsp in 600ml water and dosed 3 x a week. Are my doses too low ? I calculated this  by multiplying the number of doses (600/15 = 40) by each of the single dose tsp amounts for my size tank as given by Tom Barr in his EI simplified thread


----------



## Reuben

@Ceg 4048;  Those are great photos you have, the plants look superb.

@Mortis;  Yes I might be more that 2x dosing.  Since my original post I have reduced to NPK 50ml every other day, Trace 25ml every other day -using the same recipe.




plantbrain said:


> The utility with EI is really this: it rules out limitation of the ferts. Thus makes ferts INDEPENDENT, so....you can focus on adjusting light, or CO2, which i much more fruitful for growing plants, gardening, dealing with algae and controlling/managing rates of weedy growth.


 
Well that sounds good to me, and is what I am hoping to achieve.  I've never understood the hang up about adding nutrients.  As an example; if a gardener had a veg patch and got weeds among the crop, he wouldn't remove all the nutrients to 'starve' the weeds, as obviously this would damage his crop.  Surely it's much the same in our case where the aquatic plants are like the veg, and the algae like the weeds.  Unless these nutrients were harmful to fish, I struggle to understand the problem people have adding them?


----------



## plantbrain

The hang up goes back 30-50 years of myth based correlation. So excessive nutrients are still a very ingrained part of the hobby lore. ADA, Dennerle, most of them, Tropica is an exception, myself, and a few others, but not most. They still cling to myths of yore and yesterday, even though anyone with a few brains cells can see it's not true independent of other factors.

Then you get many that still know that it's not the case, but then think there's got to be something to it, so they still leave the myth open to possibly being correct even with 100% falsification, hop damn sam.
One thing to only have a few brain cells, but then to not even bother to use them and use semantics and every non local double speak trick in the book to make your case?
It's insulting.

Here's a long list of bad logic used in this hobby and on the internet, it should be beaten with a stick and repeated as often as needed
I've seen virtually ALL of these used in the hobby. Some have used it to support me, but I tend to be equally harsh there as well

Fallacies

Which is amazing how many try the same manure over and over.
Sometimes we have been taught to use this same bad logic, but we really should undo that teaching!


----------



## Yo-han

plantbrain said:


> The hang up goes back 30-50 years of myth based correlation. So excessive nutrients are still a very ingrained part of the hobby lore. ADA, Dennerle, most of them, Tropica is an exception, myself, and a few others, but not most. They still cling to myths of yore and yesterday, even though anyone with a few brains cells can see it's not true independent of other factors.
> 
> Then you get many that still know that it's not the case, but then think there's got to be something to it, so they still leave the myth open to possibly being correct even with 100% falsification, hop damn sam.
> One thing to only have a few brain cells, but then to not even bother to use them and use semantics and every non local double speak trick in the book to make your case?
> It's insulting.
> 
> Here's a long list of bad logic used in this hobby and on the internet, it should be beaten with a stick and repeated as often as needed
> I've seen virtually ALL of these used in the hobby. Some have used it to support me, but I tend to be equally harsh there as well
> 
> Fallacies
> 
> Which is amazing how many try the same manure over and over.
> Sometimes we have been taught to use this same bad logic, but we really should undo that teaching!


 
Yes, working at a lfs I know all about it. Most people when they have algae start reading the internet. First thing they always find: too much phosphate and nitrate. Really giving me a headache explaining them all those people are wrong and that they must believe a young fellow like myself instead of all the internet sources. I often let them google EI after giving them a brief explanation or throw some phosphate in one of our algae free showtanks. This convinces most of them.

The other day someone came in for nitratesomething because they had algae. I grabbed a bottle of potassium nitrate and start explaining how much to add... Add? NO! They needed nitrateminus because they had 5 mg/L of nitrate and that was causing the algae the neighbor told them. I really admire your patience Tom!


----------



## tim

Funny though, if you try to start a myth that too much light causes algae everyone ignores that myth straight away


----------



## Yo-han

I think most people know. Everybody knows sunlight on a tank = algae. Most people just want lots of light to make the plants nice and red and pearl. Upping EI to make it work, but overlooking CO2.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Reuben said:


> As an example; if a gardener had a veg patch and got weeds among the crop, he wouldn't remove all the nutrients to 'starve' the weeds, as obviously this would damage his crop. Surely it's much the same in our case where the aquatic plants are like the veg, and the algae like the weeds.


Not really, there are photosynthetic organisms across all the different taxonomic groups that are adapted to conditions of low or high nutrients, this means that some "plants" & "algae" occur only in nutrient rich (eutrophic) conditions, and some occur only in nutrient poor (oligotrophic) conditions, most are somewhere in the middle (mesotrophic). A similar range of organisms occur along pH and salinity gradients as well.

To use the vegetable analogy you might add lots of manure to your Brassicas and Potatoes, but you wouldn't to your Onions or Garlic. Brasiccas need lime, but it makes Rapsberries go chlorotic. Beet-root and Asparagus might appreciate a bit of sea salt, but other crops certainly wouldn't, and you can only grow non-containerised Blueberries or Cranberries if you garden on a peat bog.

One effect of adding nutrients in the natural environment is that aquatic eutrophic situations are characterised by huge algal blooms, and often have a total lack of macrophytes (higher plants).  You get a similar result in agricultural situations (in silage, cereal fields etc.), where you ideally want a single palatable grass species with a high growth response to added nitrogen (Wheat, Rye-grass etc). The problem comes that high nutrient levels also favour the growth of other weedy plants from naturally eutrophic conditions, that are either unpalatable or actively poisonous, like Docks, Nettles, Hemlock, Wild Oats etc. and you can only sustain yields with active management (herbicides etc.)

In the aquarium what we describe as "low light" plants are really plants with fairly low potential growth rates, things like mosses, ferns, _Anubias, Cryptocoryne, Tonina, Eriocaulon, Blyxa, Utricularia_ etc. They won't grow very quickly whatever you do to them.

Other plants can make use of higher levels of PAR, nutrients and CO2, and will grow extremely quickly when grown high tech.  As you add light, nutrients and elevated levels of CO2, you are adding the potential for faster growth, but you are also adding the potential for things to go wrong (become unbalanced) extremely quickly.

I'm not interested in "maximal" or "optimal", I want sustainable stability.

Low nutrient levels give you stability, as an analogy you can think of this as the orchid, bromeliad, fern, succulent or alpine growing approach, it is aimed at growing plants with low potential growth rates in nutrient poor conditions.

On my allotment I add fertilisers and do a lot of weeding. In the garden I practice nutrient deprivation on lawns, borders and pond, the outcome of this is that I don't do any weeding and only occasionally have to mow the lawn. 

Have a look at these threads for some more discussion and images of my pond, tank and garden: <Problem with El Natural | UK Aquatic Plant Society>

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantbrain

tim said:


> Funny though, if you try to start a myth that too much light causes algae everyone ignores that myth straight away


 

Classic irony.

Irony has no limit, it is highly selective however.


----------



## plantbrain

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I'm not interested in "maximal" or "optimal", I want sustainable stability.
> cheers Darrel


 

Well, many that enter this hobby are not going to buy into this goal.
Maybe later, after they suffer. But you can modify this goal easily with plant species choices.
Or use less light,


----------



## Reuben

dw1305 said:


> Not really, there are photosynthetic organisms across all the different taxonomic groups that are adapted to conditions of low or high nutrients, this means that some "plants" & "algae" occur only in nutrient rich (eutrophic) conditions, and some occur only in nutrient poor (oligotrophic) conditions, most are somewhere in the middle (mesotrophic). A similar range of organisms occur along pH and salinity gradients as well.


 
Well I suppose I was oversimplifying a bit.  But doesn't the point still stand to some degree, particularly so, when almost every book on the subject tends to say 'problem with algae - you have excess nutrients that must be removed'.  But I do take your point.



dw1305 said:


> Low nutrient levels give you stability, as an analogy you can think of this as the orchid, bromeliad, fern, succulent or alpine growing approach, it is aimed at growing plants with low potential growth rates in nutrient poor conditions.


 
So in our case is there list of which aquatic plants require high nutrients (though I realize the demand is generated by light and Co2 availability) and which are adapted to low.  Or is it more the case that they can all make adaptations to the water they are in, still I suppose some must of evolved to occupy certain niches?



dw1305 said:


> I'm not interested in "maximal" or "optimal", I want sustainable stability.


 
I just want the plants and tank to look as good as they can, and the 'low tech' method does appeal.  I have seen yours and others aquariums on here an they look great.  I do like the tinkering about that the 'high tech' option has for now, and I'm really still learning how to grow things well.  Maybe I need two tanks after all

Thanks.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I love plants, but my main reason for having them in the tank is to improve water quality.


Reuben said:


> But doesn't the point still stand to some degree, particularly so, when almost every book on the subject tends to say 'problem with algae - you have excess nutrients that must be removed'.


 I'd look at as much more if you have conditions suitable for plant growth "plants" will grow, the problem from most peoples point of view is that they want plants, but they don't want algae, but my point would be that they are all plants.

Adding CO2 or using EI isn't a route I've ever been down, but it obviously works, as long as you follow the "rules".

I think that as aquarium keepers we are always juggling light and nutrients, I'll include CO2 in this, but by adding CO2 and nutrients you are juggling a lot more balls, are lot higher, and unless you are a very skilled juggler, who fully understands the trajectories of all the balls, the potential for something to go wrong is much increased. I want stability more than anything else, and low nutrients, and as lower juggle as possible, gives me this. 

Have a look at this one, it probably explains a little more where I'm coming from: <http://www.britishcichlid.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=7161>.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Michael W

Reuben said:


> Well I suppose I was oversimplifying a bit. But doesn't the point still stand to some degree, particularly so, when almost every book on the subject tends to say 'problem with algae - you have excess nutrients that must be removed'. But I do take your point.


 
To be honest In my opinion algae growth in the aquarium is more to do with poor plant growth to compete with them. Poor plant growth can be a result from several factors such as giving plants too much light which drives and plant for nutrients and CO2 as you know. If the light is high and you don't provide enough nutrients and CO2 then algae can appear because they can adapt to changing conditions better than aquatic plants. When plants reach their critical concentration (the point where the plants have enough nutrients to grow) when taking up nutrients the excess nutrient is still taken up but stored yet this does not mean the plant will have their growth rate increased because if the light and CO2 is still a limiting factor the plant won't be able to take advantage of having the excess nutrients. While excess nutrients can still cause algae due to their better adaptation to lighting levels it is unfair to truly pin point the cause of algae to just excess nutrient as you can see from my explanation, but instead a combination of light CO2 and nutrients. People use floating plants to rid algae because they have the aerial advantage meaning that they have excess to CO2 due to leaves having access to CO2 directly from the atmosphere and being closer to the source of light. This leads them to being able to take up and use the nutrients faster than algae not because the excess nutrient is removed but rather plants being able to out grow algae- survival of the fittest.

My tanks are all low tech tanks with floating plants consisting of Riccia, Duckweed and Pennywort. They help me to limit the light source and out compete algae in growing due to the aerial advantage. This automatically limits the needs of CO2 and nutrients therefore slowing the growth of my plants which do not have access to the atmosphere. Yet this does not cause algae because the plants at the surface out competes the algae. I keep low demanding plants in these tanks due to the reasons listed by Darrel in these tanks. On the other hand if you have a HI-Tech tank you are prone to algae and other problems. HI-Tech tanks aim to increase plant growth through high light, nutrients and CO2 levels, the opposite of low tech tanks.For example, If you limit the CO2 you essentially limit the growth rate as Carbon is what grows plants and due to the high light your plants won't do well as the higher the light the more CO2 is needed therefore, the plant is not being able to compete as efficiently as it was with high CO2 against algae.



Reuben said:


> So in our case is there list of which aquatic plants require high nutrients (though I realize the demand is generated by light and Co2 availability) and which are adapted to low. Or is it more the case that they can all make adaptations to the water they are in, still I suppose some must of evolved to occupy certain niches?


+



Reuben said:


> I just want the plants and tank to look as good as they can, and the 'low tech' method does appeal. I have seen yours and others aquariums on here an they look great. I do like the tinkering about that the 'high tech' option has for now, and I'm really still learning how to grow things well. Maybe I need two tanks after all


 
I don't think you can really short list plants into those sections as I think plants will adapt to both low and high nutrient levels and other factors. Instead try asking what you yourself want. Do you want a low maintenance tank and not mind about slow growth of plants? If so plants like Anubias, Java Ferns and mosses etc are the plants you want to keep. Do you want to enjoy a tank that will fill up quickly with plants and not mind spending a lot of time in maintaining the tank? Then go for a High Tech tank. Both setup in my opinion can grow any plants but getting them to look "nice" is a different matter. Say making a HC carpet in a low tech tank for example, the HC may still grow at a slower rate but it will most likely grow tall and lose lower leaves instead of forming a carpet. This can be happening because of the limited carbon, yet it does not mean this plant is dying but rather changing its form. Therefore, some people chose different plants for High Tech and Low tech due to their appearance rather than the ability to grow the plant.

I hope this might be useful. I too am only just starting to enter the planted side of the hobby and this is my understanding so far and you know there may be parts that I may have not understood well enough and might be wrong and I might not have phrased particular parts as clearly as I could potentially do so I'm welcoming a more experienced member to correct me if I'm wrong.

Michael.


----------



## plantbrain

Turn this on it's head, why does algae grow when we have low, absent or limiting nutrients?

Riddle me that.

Since the philosophy "less = best" is applied.


This is a plant issue, much more than an algae issue, as we are trying to grow plants as the goal.
How to grow plants best? algae free? Well, emergent obviously. But........who wants no fish and water? Hey, the tank is easy to grow, no water changes, plenty of nice healthy growth, no CO2 enrichment?

Too much devil there, sorry.


But Liebig really hits the point across, you can farm crops easier, or add more labor, fertilizer etc.
But you get more production.

So how much more? In terms of Aquatic Plants? Tropica's article Claus, Ole and Troels anyway hits the nail on the head, we see about 20X(2000%) differences in plant growth rates over a range of light and CO2.
So there's a massive range for nutrients as well, and in all cases, the plants still "grow".

Tropica Aquarium Plants - Rådgivning - Tekniske artikler - Vandplanters biologi - Interaktioner mellem lys og CO2

The article explains why non CO2 and high light CO2 enriched aquariums(or any combo or low, med or high light or CO2) both grow plants well, the differences? Mostly the RATE at which they grow.
Once you see this, you have the holistic picture.


----------



## plantbrain

And if things are low, med or high, say A, B or C/D in the graph above, then the plants can further optimize their enzymatic machinery:



This takes some time and stability, but after a few weeks, things do settle down and they can do quite well under a wide range of conditions.

These are common uptake vs growth or plant yield graphs from most any basic agriculture text. You will note, they are non linear.
Hobbyist RARELY measure dry weight biomass or other methods for nutrient content or relative growth rates. So comparing the rates of growth is very difficult amongst hobbyists with ferts, let alone getting a decent standard method for measuring CO2 based on a known solution.
Or light........

Light and CO2 also have a similar shaped graph that the nutrients do.

So if you took the light and CO2 matrix that Tropica did, then added a row of low, med and high nutrients, now you have gone from 9 blocks, to 27 blocks. And you are still just talking about one plant species.
And you also need to do several reps for statistics, say you do n= 5 => 5 x 27, oh, and you'll need to repeat this experiment to publish it also. So 2x 5 x 27= 270. Say you want to have a generalized result from several common but different types of aquarium plants?
Say 5 species: Anubias/Crypt, Egeria, Rotala, Gloss, Hygro, Riccia.

270 x 5= 1350.

This would be a lot of work, but would answer a fair amount. Who would fund this? Not many. You can see why Tropica chose just the CO2/Riccia combo. 
Adding algae into these systems, and measuring the growth is fairly straight forward. Do you add lots of algae eaters? Or none? Or a few? Water changes? Water temps?
As you can see, there's a lot of variables. It can be overwhelming fast. Given this, go for the low picked fruit and things you know are *not true.*
*Falsification is your friend.*


----------



## ceg4048

Michael W said:


> This leads them to being able to take up and use the nutrients faster than algae not because the excess nutrient is removed but rather plants being able to out grow algae- survival of the fittest.


As explained by plantbrain, there is no competition between plants and algae. Plants will lose every time. It's better to think in terms of predation, where algae are the predators and the plants are the prey. They do not compete for the same resources. Predators do not attack strong, fit prey. When there is a weakness the predator will attack.

Cheers,


----------



## Michael W

ceg4048 said:


> As explained by plantbrain, there is no competition between plants and algae. Plants will lose every time. It's better to think in terms of predation, where algae are the predators and the plants are the prey. They do not compete for the same resources. Predators do not attack strong, fit prey. When there is a weakness the predator will attack.


 
That does clear up a misconception quite well. Thanks for the example..


----------



## plantbrain

Several folks, groups may acknowledge that plants need ferts, but they will try and argue that a low residual and daily dosing are somehow better and able to "control algae".
But as you can see from the graphs above, such dosing will place you into the A or B areas of the graph. Plants will still grow, but they will not grow as wel/as fast as the non limiting nutrients.

What I find interesting is all the debate over this issue with ferts, less= best... but virtually nare a single word is uttered when it comes to "limiting" Light.
Which as we can plainly see from Tropica's article that growth rates can be massively altered by changes in intensity.

So why do hobbyists, even ones that have a lot of skill and experience, still cling to this myth?
Why do companies still state such things?

It is only under dependencies will you ever see any nutrient control of algae, which means you have to have dependent conditions like poor CO2, too much light etc.
When those dependencies are removed, now you no longer have those algae or plant growth issues. 

Does this imply you will be NOT be fine dosing LESS than EI? Absolutely not, in fact, in most cases, everyone can dose less than an upper non limiting range and still have nice plants/growth, this is frankly, expected.
That's why it is called "non limiting"

So you can use EI as an upper reference, then slowly and progressively lower the dosing rate till you hit the C or upper B range and then return to the last prior highest dosing rate.
This is the optimal range for your tank at that point in time. This is done by observation. Once you are fairly comfy with that routine and plant growth/health, then you can generally reduce either the frequency or the % of water changes.
This will = less work and labor and better efficiency overall.

This range will be different for every tank, and the observations are in essence, your "test kit". the plants themselves, not some arbitrary ppm of N or P.


----------



## Reuben

plantbrain said:


> What I find interesting is all the debate over this issue with ferts, less= best.


 
I'm still a bit puzzled why this is too, in this thread we've covered the concern with increased TDS, but there was nothing conclusive in what the actual problem was with that increase, -right?



plantbrain said:


> So why do hobbyists, even ones that have a lot of skill and experience, still cling to this myth? Why do companies still state such things?


 
I don't know!  Can anyone explain the answer?



plantbrain said:


> So you can use EI as an upper reference, then slowly and progressively lower the dosing rate till you hit the C or upper B range and then return to the last prior highest dosing rate.


 
Okay, but why bother, I still don't see a real need?



plantbrain said:


> This range will be different for every tank, and the observations are in essence, your "test kit". the plants themselves, not some arbitrary ppm of N or P


 
Yes well that's sort of full circle to the original question and I'm still not totally clear on what the actual fact based reason is for trying to work out or attain some ppm level of nutrients.  Perhaps there isn't one, and it's just some peoples preference, but it does allude to nutrients/bad so less=best.

Anyway as long as the plants are healthy then I guess it doesn't really matter what approach people take.  I just wanted to learn the rationale behind this thinking, still a bit unsure of it to be honest!


----------



## Michael W

Reuben said:


> plantbrain said: ↑ So why do hobbyists, even ones that have a lot of skill and experience, still cling to this myth? Why do companies still state such things? I don't know! Can anyone explain the answer?


 
In my opinion this is all down to the lack of knowledge from the early years of the hobby mixed with theories and opinions which slowly grew into "facts" in people's mind therefore they don't pay too much of attention to other factors because all the years with keeping a planted tank they held on the belief of high nutrients = aglae blooms.even when faced with charts and evidence I too myself had once agreed this until a bit of trial and error enlightened me. 

I have always ran low tech tanks planted tanks. I only say I'm new to this side of the hobby because its only now that I start to truely understand a planted tank. I had always wondered why algae infest in one of my shrimp tanks, I tried to manually remove it but it comes back. I tried to float some water sprite to soak up the nutrients and  block some of the light but eventually it just rotted away and Cyanobacteria overran my tank. At this point I was quite disappointed as I thought I followed the "rules".

Then what I did was teared down the tank scrubbed every plant free of Cyanobacteria and replanted them and added loads of duckweed and planted quite new plants here and there. I then reduced the time in which I have my lights on. Prior to doing this I have always heard about using 2w a gallon so I was ok with keeping this light. But it was wrong.I do still but I now have lots of floating plants and reduced hours. From here on my plants grew very slowly but they were not dying like the water sprite had. I had java fern, anubias, micro swords, java moss, duckweed, elodea and vallis and all grew well. This led me to think that my plants out competed the algae until this thread came about as Ceg commented that *algae would not harm healthy plants. *By reducing the light by plants could finally grow according to whats available in the tank, previously the high light increased the metabolism of the plants but with this increase I did not provide the CO2 nor nutrients to keep up the plant's needs resulting in unhealthy plants and ultimately algae. But now the plants are growing slowly yet healthy and not algae can be seen with the naked eye.

I think companies comment on the the idea that the high nutrient content will cause algae as some kind of idea to lure novices to buy fertilisers from their company since the idea of high nutrient causes algae talked about so much. I think that a lot of commercial bottled ferts contain labels where they say X is not contained to keep your tank free of algae.


----------



## gmartins

ceg4048 said:


> As explained by plantbrain, there is no competition between plants and algae. Plants will lose every time. It's better to think in terms of predation, where algae are the predators and the plants are the prey. They do not compete for the same resources. Predators do not attack strong, fit prey. When there is a weakness the predator will attack.
> 
> Cheers,


 
Actually I disagree.  Plants and algae share the same resources for the most part: light, co2, nutrients. They probably require different amounts of each, but they do use the same resources.

It's just that algae and plants have two very different ecological strategies. Algae have an R-strategy: fast growth, lots of progules, highly influenced by environemtnal conditions, simple structure etc... Plants have a K-strategy: slow growth, less fertile, less vulnerable to environmental oscillations, complex structure and 'organs'.

It's like comparing an elephant with a mouse.

If we have stable conditions and generally good conditions for plant growth, plants will thrive, be strong and grow steadily. Algae, generally, need some environmental change (an external trigger). They bloom, reproduce and dye.

My view...


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


gmartins said:


> It's just that algae and plants have two very different ecological strategies. Algae have an R-strategy: fast growth, lots of progules, highly influenced by environemtnal conditions, simple structure etc... Plants have a K-strategy: slow growth, less fertile, less vulnerable to environmental oscillations, complex structure and 'organs'. It's like comparing an elephant with a mouse. If we have stable conditions and generally good conditions for plant growth, plants will thrive, be strong and grow steadily. Algae, generally, need some environmental change (an external trigger). They bloom, reproduce and dye. My view...


Mine as well. I still like the R and K approach to life strategies, although they have gone out of favour academically. This is right back to my first few posts on UKAPS <has anyone read this? (sears-conlin article on algae) | UK Aquatic Plant Society>.

cheers darrel


----------



## Reuben

dw1305 said:


> Mine as well. I still like the R and K approach to life strategies, although they have gone out of favour academically. This is right back to my first few posts on UKAPS .


Thanks for that link Darrel, I had not read that one before.  Yikes! I feel like I reopened a can of worms here.  I do have more of an understanding of where you are coming from now.  I suppose my original question formed itself because I wasn't sure what harm adding OTT nutrient levels would do, if any.  I like the simplicity of EI as it means I just focus on getting Co2 correct.  At the moment this is the style of aquarium I want to master.  Plus, I'm not sure any aquarium low tech or otherwise can be 'sustainable' in the long term can it?  I'd say that having a small glass box with fish/plants in will always require meddling of some kind.
That said, one of my favourite aquariums on here is Bigtom's Bucket of mud, which is very different to the high tech approach I'm learning at the moment.

@gmartins;  I think when it was said that 'there is no competition between plants and algae' that statement stands true, in as much that there is no real competition for the same resources (nutrients in this discussion) exactly because - as you highlight, their growth patterns and nutrient demands are very different.  

Anyway I have at least got a better grasp of the arguments now, thanks all


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Reuben said:


> Plus, I'm not sure any aquarium low tech or otherwise can be 'sustainable' in the long term can it? I'd say that having a small glass box with fish/plants in will always require meddling of some kind.


I have very limited intervention, I'm a regular water changer and filter cleaner, and I remove obvious dead leaves and the floaters when they cover more than 3/4 of the surface etc., but other than that I largely leave the tanks to get on with it. My kitchen tank has been set up for about 5 years, and it does need some intervention now, purely because the plants have spread and now covered the entire bottom area.Once it has had a limited thin I'll leave it again.

This is how it looked in 2010.






Major differences are that the _Echinodorus_ and _Cryptocorynes, _now fill the middle "space", and I have a less thick layer of floating _Ceratopteris._

Cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Reuben said:


> Thanks for that link Darrel, I had not read that one before. Yikes! I feel like I reopened a can of worms here. I do have more of an understanding of where you are coming from now.


I should also have said that since that thread, whilst my basic philosophy has remained the same, I've come to appreciate that the high tech tank concept using EI, the 10x rule, large water change, extreme clealiness and a drop checker to give 30ppm CO2 can work very well. You have to believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the evidence presented on this web-site is pretty conclusive. I think the "in balance" figure (3.) in the post by "Spider72" on the linked thread probably offers a good explanation of why.




From a personal point of view I still look on plants primarily as a mechanism for maintaining water quality, which means that I like a large plant mass, and I like it growing fairly slowly and sustainably.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Reuben

dw1305 said:


> I think the "in balance" figure (3.) in the post by "Spider72" on the linked thread probably offers a good explanation of why.


 
Oh, that is a very handy graphic .  Sums things up quite nicely.  Wish I'd known that when I set up...


----------



## gmartins

Reuben said:


> @gmartins; I think when it was said that 'there is no competition between plants and algae' that statement stands true, in as much that there is no real competition for the same resources (nutrients in this discussion) exactly because - as you highlight, their growth patterns and nutrient demands are very different.


 
By definition, competition exists when two or more species use the same resource (e.g. space, nutrient, light,...) and that resource is limiting. If there is no limitation, there is no competition. 



dw1305 said:


> Mine as well. I still like the R and K approach to life strategies, although they have gone out of favour academically.


 
The names have changed but the basics are still the same.


----------



## ceg4048

gmartins said:


> By definition, competition exists when two or more species use the same resource (e.g. space, nutrient, light,...) and that resource is limiting. If there is no limitation, there is no competition.


Those who follow this path in a panted tank are doomed to failure. Algae and plants are not competitors for nutrients because the amounts required by each are orders of magnitude different. Competition in this case requires the target amounts to be similar. Plants are constantly leeching nutrients and other products back into the water column. Algae do not need to compete with plants and plants could never survive the competition if it were the case.

Cheers,


----------



## ian_m

ceg4048 said:


> Those who follow this path in a *panted* tank are doomed to failure.


 
No wonder he is having issues with a panted tank...


----------



## gmartins

ceg4048 said:


> Those who follow this path in a panted tank are doomed to failure. Algae and plants are not competitors for nutrients because the amounts required by each are orders of magnitude different. Competition in this case requires the target amounts to be similar. Plants are constantly leeching nutrients and other products back into the water column. Algae do not need to compete with plants and plants could never survive the competition if it were the case.
> 
> Cheers,


 
I am not saying that they compete or that this should be the path. I use EI myself. I am just saying what is the ecological definition. If one uses EI it is impossible to have competition for nutrients as they are, by definition, non-limiting.

If we were to use distilled water with no substrate then they will compete for whatever the trace amounts of ferts that might get in, no matter the amounts they need. The premise about competition is that there is not suficient amount of a resource for all. It could be symmetrical (the two species compete) or asymmetrical (one species affects the other but is not influenced by that species).

and sure plants can survive algae. Lots of plants persist and thrive in eutrophied bodies of water (e.g. Egeria densa), despite intense levels of green water. But you are right, not all plants (and probably the majority) will not survive.


----------



## Eugine Thomas

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I should also have said that since that thread, whilst my basic philosophy has remained the same, I've come to appreciate that the high tech tank concept using EI, the 10x rule, large water change, extreme clealiness and a drop checker to give 30ppm CO2 can work very well. You have to believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the evidence presented on this web-site is pretty conclusive. I think the "in balance" figure (3.) in the post by "Spider72" on the linked thread probably offers a good explanation of why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a personal point of view I still look on plants primarily as a mechanism for maintaining water quality, which means that I like a large plant mass, and I like it growing fairly slowly and sustainably.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Where is that photo linked to? I'd love to read the full article.


----------



## Edvet

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/...ears-conlin-article-on-algae.8834/#post-95807


----------



## Eugine Thomas

Thank you.


----------

