LondonDragon
Member
Nice to see you here Dusko 😉 your article has helped many of us resolve their algae issue and identify what was wrong.
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Dusko's Algae Guide
- Thread starter George Farmer
- Start date
Hi Dusko,
Welcome to the forum. 😀
If you review my initial post on this item you'll note that I stated:
Where I felt the mistakes existed I noted that there were inconsistencies with the T. Barr premise which stipulates in no uncertain terms that nutrients cannot cause algae. The mechanism of algae trigger in our aquariums is based on the combination of lighting stimulus plus fluctuations (or availability) of NH4 within the water column. The higher the ambient light energy the less peak NH4 level is required for algal spores to germinate.
Now, many people have difficulty with this premise and reject it because it does not seem to be rational, yet it is very easy to test and I'm surprised more don't do it. Take two glasses of RO water. In the first, put some ammonia in, and in the second put some KPO4 and KNO3. Place the glasses under bright lighting in order to see which glass get algae formation first. You'll find that the water with ammonia will develop algae first. Now, clearly, both glasses will develop algae, and when this happens, the second glass will then experience accelerated algal growth because the algae that forms will then feed on the nutrients that you have placed in that glass. But there is a difference between algal formation and algal growth. Many people confuse the two, observe accelerated algal growth rates and blame the nutrients for everything. High light and NH4 and nutrients can be (and often are) present in the tank at the same time. It is an error however to attribute causality to the nutrients. This may seem like a trivial difference but it's actually critical and significant. I see this error in thinking all the time and I relentlessly try to argue against what I believe to be false correlation.
Now, lets think about newbies for a moment. We've read many beginner posts over the years essentially entitled "I have algae and I don't know why". I'll be willing to bet that if we study each case, many more times than not we'll see that, the cause of most cases is due to NOT ENOUGH nutrients being dosed for the level of lighting or not enough CO2. We observe that increasing the dosing or injection level solves the issue of poor growth and algae. If that is so how can anyone rationally maintain the philosophy that nutrients cause algae?
Now lets address the issue of "unbalanced nutrient levels". I personally think this is an incorrect phrase within the context of EI. EI does not enforce any relative amounts so the term "balance" is irrelevant because it implies an amount of one nutrient relative to the amount of another. This is unnecessary because EI enforces minimum levels of nutrients. There is always some minimum level of required PO4 for the amount of light, for the amount of biomass in the tank and for the distribution efficiency of the tank (i.e flow/circulation). That minimum level is not related to the level of the other nutrients, and is difficult to quantify but it is very easy to see when the tank is below this level. The tank expresses itself as being below this minimum required level by exhibiting an outbreak of GSA. If there is a balance to speak of it is the balance between growth rate and nutrient levels. More nutrients mean more growth.
It also appears from your post that you have something against maintaining a eutrophic tank. In fact eutrophic aquatic environments are among the most productive water systems on the planet. The Grand Banks, The Marianas Trench, The Hawaii Island Chain, The Humbolt Current off the Western South American Coast and others have the highest diversity of life and support the highest populations of life of any other systems. Oligotrophic systems, or nutrient poor systems on the other hand are essentially sterile and in fact, studies indicate that in Oligotrophic systems more than 50% of the biomass withing those systems are algae. Algal blooms associated with Eutrophication of water systems is blamed on nutrients such as NO3 and PO4 when it is more likely that the causal factors are related to increased levels of ammonia such as in the content of sewage dumping and runoff of ammonia based fertilizers.
Barr has determined that under high light the levels of ammonia required to trigger blooms are lower than can be recorded by your ammonia test kit which is calibrated to register levels of ammonia toxic to fauna which is at least an order of magnitude above what can cause algae. This is another reason I felt your article was inconsistent with EI. I noticed that you mention in some of your posts that while dosing EI you neglected to perform the 50% water changes and you got algae. You then attributed the algal bloom to nutrient buildup caused by the lower percentage water change but again, I believe this observation to be a severe case of optical illusion. The organic waste production for high biomass/high growth rate systems is tremendous. This organic waste decays. The first product of decay is ammonia which is sensed by the algal spores.
We often see beginners list their tanks specs as something like: NH4=0, NO2=0. Of course this is never true, Ammonia in a tank is never zero because it is always being produced. Ammonia is all around us, in every living system. Do you have bad breath? Well, something in your mouth is decaying and the odor is caused by ammonia production of that decay. Do you have Body Odor? Well, that's caused by the decay of perspiration which results in ammonia. Urine? Feces? A dead cow in the field? It goes without saying, those horrible smells are all caused by ammonia as the product of decay. I feel it would be more productive to emphasize this fact than to talk about "balancing nutrients" or "nutrient buildup". We may someday realize that the role of algae in the environment is to actually clean it up as we are more likely to observe algae in systems that exhibit some form of decay. Again, having formed from spore to flagellate, yes, algae will then feed on any nutrient present but the metamorphosis from spore to flagellate is more related to light energy and the presence of ammonia.
O2 levels in the tank is augmented by the "waste" products of photosynthesis, which is O2. Photosynthesis is maximized by having high levels of CO2 and nutrients. Augmentation of O2 levels helps the nitrifying bacteria by supporting their populations and allowing them to use the O2 to use in the nitrifying equation NH4->NO2->NO3.
I have never observed any difference in hair algal formation between low and high Fe levels. I can easily induce hair algae by lowering my CO2. In fact the appearance of hair algae in my tank tells me immediately that my CO2 is lower than it was yesterday. This will be due to the fact that there is higher biomass in the tank due to growth and therefore high CO2 demand, or that my CO2 cylinder is getting low or that something else in the CO2 delivery mechanism is faulty. Increasing the injection rate always cure hair algae assuming all other nutrient levels are high. I dose 2-3 ppm per week of Fe therefore I have eliminated high Fe as a possible causal factor of hair algae while having very strong correlation between low CO2 levels and hair algae. Of this there can be very little doubt.
If you get a chance, re-read my disagreement statement:
If a newbie gets algae due to poor circulation then the obvious solution is to add more circulation. That is why you will see many of our posts here ask the newbie about what pump/filter ratings they are using and so forth. However, if pump ratings are poor the second solution is to add more nutrients/CO2 to compensate for the poor circulation. It would be a disservice to advise them to lower the nutrient levels because that actually plays into the hands of the algae.
Dusko, the reason we have algae has more to do with what is in our minds, not what is in the tank. If we are afraid of nutrients, or if we think of nutrients as some kind of noxious chemicals we will be in deep trouble. It is a physiological impossibility for plants to sustain high growth rates under high lighting without these fundamental components. We need to think of nutrients in terms of food and not in the same way we view medicine or bleach. My tank maintains 60 ppm or more NO3, probably 90 ppm or more K+, over 10 ppm PO4, and at least 2.5 ppm Fe. That's just what I am dosing, I have no idea of the nutrient content of my tap water so some of these numbers could actually be high. I don't have algae. So this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that algae are not scrounging and that there is some other mechanism at play. Why hasn't algae ravaged my tank with these high levels of nutrients?
I do mercilessly comb the tank for any dead leaves every morning, I fluff the leaves vigorously to dislodge any particles and I am paranoid about organic waste. It is this waste in a high light tank that causes us problems because of the increased ammonia production. Algae could care less about nutrient levels. I even do 70% water changes but I immediately dose like crazy after the water changes so I always have extremely high levels of nutrients, but have very low levels of ammonia producing organic waste.
This is what a Eutrophic tank looks like if you maintain low levels of organic waste and high flow rates. My advice to anyone would be to stop worrying about nutrient buildup or scrounging algae and instead worry more about keeping it clean and having high flow rates. Life will be simpler:
Cheers,
Welcome to the forum. 😀
If you review my initial post on this item you'll note that I stated:
I hardly think this qualifies as "hunting for mistakes only". In no way was I flogging your article, but we are on a mission to understand the truth. Of course I cannot expect you to be perfect, so please do not take offense, I was not attacking you personally. I always aspire to perfection in any articles however, because anything less than perfection results in misinterpretation and poor decision making by hobbyist who may not be aware of the nuances.
Where I felt the mistakes existed I noted that there were inconsistencies with the T. Barr premise which stipulates in no uncertain terms that nutrients cannot cause algae. The mechanism of algae trigger in our aquariums is based on the combination of lighting stimulus plus fluctuations (or availability) of NH4 within the water column. The higher the ambient light energy the less peak NH4 level is required for algal spores to germinate.
Now, many people have difficulty with this premise and reject it because it does not seem to be rational, yet it is very easy to test and I'm surprised more don't do it. Take two glasses of RO water. In the first, put some ammonia in, and in the second put some KPO4 and KNO3. Place the glasses under bright lighting in order to see which glass get algae formation first. You'll find that the water with ammonia will develop algae first. Now, clearly, both glasses will develop algae, and when this happens, the second glass will then experience accelerated algal growth because the algae that forms will then feed on the nutrients that you have placed in that glass. But there is a difference between algal formation and algal growth. Many people confuse the two, observe accelerated algal growth rates and blame the nutrients for everything. High light and NH4 and nutrients can be (and often are) present in the tank at the same time. It is an error however to attribute causality to the nutrients. This may seem like a trivial difference but it's actually critical and significant. I see this error in thinking all the time and I relentlessly try to argue against what I believe to be false correlation.
Now, lets think about newbies for a moment. We've read many beginner posts over the years essentially entitled "I have algae and I don't know why". I'll be willing to bet that if we study each case, many more times than not we'll see that, the cause of most cases is due to NOT ENOUGH nutrients being dosed for the level of lighting or not enough CO2. We observe that increasing the dosing or injection level solves the issue of poor growth and algae. If that is so how can anyone rationally maintain the philosophy that nutrients cause algae?
Now lets address the issue of "unbalanced nutrient levels". I personally think this is an incorrect phrase within the context of EI. EI does not enforce any relative amounts so the term "balance" is irrelevant because it implies an amount of one nutrient relative to the amount of another. This is unnecessary because EI enforces minimum levels of nutrients. There is always some minimum level of required PO4 for the amount of light, for the amount of biomass in the tank and for the distribution efficiency of the tank (i.e flow/circulation). That minimum level is not related to the level of the other nutrients, and is difficult to quantify but it is very easy to see when the tank is below this level. The tank expresses itself as being below this minimum required level by exhibiting an outbreak of GSA. If there is a balance to speak of it is the balance between growth rate and nutrient levels. More nutrients mean more growth.
It also appears from your post that you have something against maintaining a eutrophic tank. In fact eutrophic aquatic environments are among the most productive water systems on the planet. The Grand Banks, The Marianas Trench, The Hawaii Island Chain, The Humbolt Current off the Western South American Coast and others have the highest diversity of life and support the highest populations of life of any other systems. Oligotrophic systems, or nutrient poor systems on the other hand are essentially sterile and in fact, studies indicate that in Oligotrophic systems more than 50% of the biomass withing those systems are algae. Algal blooms associated with Eutrophication of water systems is blamed on nutrients such as NO3 and PO4 when it is more likely that the causal factors are related to increased levels of ammonia such as in the content of sewage dumping and runoff of ammonia based fertilizers.
Barr has determined that under high light the levels of ammonia required to trigger blooms are lower than can be recorded by your ammonia test kit which is calibrated to register levels of ammonia toxic to fauna which is at least an order of magnitude above what can cause algae. This is another reason I felt your article was inconsistent with EI. I noticed that you mention in some of your posts that while dosing EI you neglected to perform the 50% water changes and you got algae. You then attributed the algal bloom to nutrient buildup caused by the lower percentage water change but again, I believe this observation to be a severe case of optical illusion. The organic waste production for high biomass/high growth rate systems is tremendous. This organic waste decays. The first product of decay is ammonia which is sensed by the algal spores.
We often see beginners list their tanks specs as something like: NH4=0, NO2=0. Of course this is never true, Ammonia in a tank is never zero because it is always being produced. Ammonia is all around us, in every living system. Do you have bad breath? Well, something in your mouth is decaying and the odor is caused by ammonia production of that decay. Do you have Body Odor? Well, that's caused by the decay of perspiration which results in ammonia. Urine? Feces? A dead cow in the field? It goes without saying, those horrible smells are all caused by ammonia as the product of decay. I feel it would be more productive to emphasize this fact than to talk about "balancing nutrients" or "nutrient buildup". We may someday realize that the role of algae in the environment is to actually clean it up as we are more likely to observe algae in systems that exhibit some form of decay. Again, having formed from spore to flagellate, yes, algae will then feed on any nutrient present but the metamorphosis from spore to flagellate is more related to light energy and the presence of ammonia.
O2 levels in the tank is augmented by the "waste" products of photosynthesis, which is O2. Photosynthesis is maximized by having high levels of CO2 and nutrients. Augmentation of O2 levels helps the nitrifying bacteria by supporting their populations and allowing them to use the O2 to use in the nitrifying equation NH4->NO2->NO3.
I have never observed any difference in hair algal formation between low and high Fe levels. I can easily induce hair algae by lowering my CO2. In fact the appearance of hair algae in my tank tells me immediately that my CO2 is lower than it was yesterday. This will be due to the fact that there is higher biomass in the tank due to growth and therefore high CO2 demand, or that my CO2 cylinder is getting low or that something else in the CO2 delivery mechanism is faulty. Increasing the injection rate always cure hair algae assuming all other nutrient levels are high. I dose 2-3 ppm per week of Fe therefore I have eliminated high Fe as a possible causal factor of hair algae while having very strong correlation between low CO2 levels and hair algae. Of this there can be very little doubt.
If you get a chance, re-read my disagreement statement:
As you can see, the sentence in your article talks about scavenging algae. My disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with 2-3 day dosing regimen. My disagreement has everything to do with "algae scavenging nutrients." Algae can survive with nutrient levels of over 1000 times LOWER than can any other species of plant. It is totally misguided to think that somehow we can "starve" algae out of existence. This is the fundamental flaw in thinking as we see that algae can thrive in poor nutrient environments while Macrophytes fail very easily in those environments. So if we believe that algae "scrounge" and that we can keep nutrients away from them, this can lead to the thinking that we can starve algae unilaterally. When anyone tries this it always fails because the plant suffers before the algae does. This philosophy is even more doomed to failure as the lighting level increases.
If a newbie gets algae due to poor circulation then the obvious solution is to add more circulation. That is why you will see many of our posts here ask the newbie about what pump/filter ratings they are using and so forth. However, if pump ratings are poor the second solution is to add more nutrients/CO2 to compensate for the poor circulation. It would be a disservice to advise them to lower the nutrient levels because that actually plays into the hands of the algae.
Dusko, the reason we have algae has more to do with what is in our minds, not what is in the tank. If we are afraid of nutrients, or if we think of nutrients as some kind of noxious chemicals we will be in deep trouble. It is a physiological impossibility for plants to sustain high growth rates under high lighting without these fundamental components. We need to think of nutrients in terms of food and not in the same way we view medicine or bleach. My tank maintains 60 ppm or more NO3, probably 90 ppm or more K+, over 10 ppm PO4, and at least 2.5 ppm Fe. That's just what I am dosing, I have no idea of the nutrient content of my tap water so some of these numbers could actually be high. I don't have algae. So this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that algae are not scrounging and that there is some other mechanism at play. Why hasn't algae ravaged my tank with these high levels of nutrients?
I do mercilessly comb the tank for any dead leaves every morning, I fluff the leaves vigorously to dislodge any particles and I am paranoid about organic waste. It is this waste in a high light tank that causes us problems because of the increased ammonia production. Algae could care less about nutrient levels. I even do 70% water changes but I immediately dose like crazy after the water changes so I always have extremely high levels of nutrients, but have very low levels of ammonia producing organic waste.
This is what a Eutrophic tank looks like if you maintain low levels of organic waste and high flow rates. My advice to anyone would be to stop worrying about nutrient buildup or scrounging algae and instead worry more about keeping it clean and having high flow rates. Life will be simpler:
Cheers,
aaronnorth
Member
I dont think there is enough time left in the day to read that - blimey Clive 
Well better get started asap
Well better get started asap
Dave Spencer
Member
One thing this thread highlights for me is how similar circumstances can trigger a different type of algae for someone else.
Clive, you associate hair algae with CO2, yet for me it is always BBA and staghorn. If I reduce CO2 today, these two will be booking a room in my tanks by Saturday.
The other type I can induce at the drop of a hat is Spirogyra. An over vigourous trim, followed by a lazy water change regimen to compensate for this, brings on Spirogyra every time.
Just to add further credence to growing algae in nutrient deficient environments, I have grown Cladophora using sunlight and a jar containig water at a purity of 0.02mS/cm.
Dave.
Clive, you associate hair algae with CO2, yet for me it is always BBA and staghorn. If I reduce CO2 today, these two will be booking a room in my tanks by Saturday.
The other type I can induce at the drop of a hat is Spirogyra. An over vigourous trim, followed by a lazy water change regimen to compensate for this, brings on Spirogyra every time.
Just to add further credence to growing algae in nutrient deficient environments, I have grown Cladophora using sunlight and a jar containig water at a purity of 0.02mS/cm.
Dave.
Yes I agree, maintaining good plant "diet" (regular nutrient dosing), good hygiene (WC, vacuuming, removing dead/old leaves, introducing shredders like shrimps and snails to help in nutrient recycling, clean filters), good nutrient transport (sufficient water flow/circulation, pruning overgrown plants), good Oxygen levels (sufficient surface agitation) will lead to a balanced planted aquarium Eco-system.
What I don't agree with is that one advocates Eutrophic systems as something good. Yes maybe it is good for plants but not that good for fish and crustas IME. You see I also overdose some of my tanks (low and hi lights) and tanks which don't receive extra liquid/dry nutrients only via mulm or soils don't have any fish losses. My over dosed tanks do have issues with fish deaths (mostly Dwarf Guramies and Dwarf Cichlids, but not Tetras, Barbs nor Rasboras).
I have a need to draw a line between dosing nutrients and overdosing them. Also, dosing nutrients to just a few plants and heavily planted aquarium is not the same. Dosing lots of nutrients in a tank like yours with lots of tall stem plants will do but what with the beginners which plant mostly Anubias, Java Fern, Cryptos is another thing.
defdac Moderator from Barrreport.com wrote to me once;
He wrote "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes". Interesting!
Note; PMDD here in Sweden (he is Swedish) includes PO4.
There must be a difference between eating a balanced diet and stuffing your self to death 😉
I don't agree with overdosing at least not with advising newbies to do so.
Another important thing is keeping a good buffering KH levels (4KH) especially in CO2 Hi-Tech tanks, but also in Low-Tech tanks which use very soft tap water like mine. Under very low pH (fluctuating pH) FeOOH becomes soluble which can cause Thread algae problems. I like to keep as much of the Fe in the substrate (clay or soil substrates which bind nutrints well) especially because I grow mostly easy to maintain plants like Cryptos, Aponogetons, Crinums... (rosette plants are heavy root feeders). Stem plants don't have much place in my busy life 😀 too much work.
ceg4048 I find you to be very knowledgeable (looking forward to read your posts) and I thank you for the thorough reply.
Regards, Dusko
What I don't agree with is that one advocates Eutrophic systems as something good. Yes maybe it is good for plants but not that good for fish and crustas IME. You see I also overdose some of my tanks (low and hi lights) and tanks which don't receive extra liquid/dry nutrients only via mulm or soils don't have any fish losses. My over dosed tanks do have issues with fish deaths (mostly Dwarf Guramies and Dwarf Cichlids, but not Tetras, Barbs nor Rasboras).
I have a need to draw a line between dosing nutrients and overdosing them. Also, dosing nutrients to just a few plants and heavily planted aquarium is not the same. Dosing lots of nutrients in a tank like yours with lots of tall stem plants will do but what with the beginners which plant mostly Anubias, Java Fern, Cryptos is another thing.
defdac Moderator from Barrreport.com wrote to me once;
He wrote "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes". Interesting!
Note; PMDD here in Sweden (he is Swedish) includes PO4.
There must be a difference between eating a balanced diet and stuffing your self to death 😉
I don't agree with overdosing at least not with advising newbies to do so.
Another important thing is keeping a good buffering KH levels (4KH) especially in CO2 Hi-Tech tanks, but also in Low-Tech tanks which use very soft tap water like mine. Under very low pH (fluctuating pH) FeOOH becomes soluble which can cause Thread algae problems. I like to keep as much of the Fe in the substrate (clay or soil substrates which bind nutrints well) especially because I grow mostly easy to maintain plants like Cryptos, Aponogetons, Crinums... (rosette plants are heavy root feeders). Stem plants don't have much place in my busy life 😀 too much work.
ceg4048 I find you to be very knowledgeable (looking forward to read your posts) and I thank you for the thorough reply.
Regards, Dusko
Hi Dave,Dave Spencer said:
Yeah this is still a mystery to me and it wouldn't surprise me if there is another layer of variability based on the type of plant (how that plant is able to respond to nutrient shortages), the lighting conditions and as well as the nutrient composition and other environmental conditions in the tank. The specific type of algae that is triggered could easily be a combination of these factors. I've never seen Spyrogyra, yet in my tanks the very first indication of even the slightest CO2 shortage is reflected in Hair. If I don't pay attention and allow the CO2 levels to drop further then Staghorn appears. If I were to allow even further drops in the CO2 I would then see BBA. This is a slow pattern of CO2 deficiency. If there were to be a sudden CO2 cutoff then the pattern would change. So I suspect there is another nuance, and that may be a difference between acute deficiency (a sudden drop in nutrient level) versus a chronic deficiency (a longer term steady state drop).
Just like your experiments with the jar I've put RO water in jars out in the sunlight and very easily was able to grow green water and other types. It's undeniable evidence that the single most important factor is light. Algae are opportunists and will take whatever they can find. If anything it's the plants that inevitably are scrounging for nutrients and they are much less adept at it...
Well, I have bred and raised consecutive generations of A. caucatoides in an overdosed Eutrophic tank. These fish lived for several years in that tank. Now admittedly this is probably one of the easiest of dwarf chiclids so this is not that big of an achievement but it does indicate that inorganically dosed nutrients have little effect on fauna. I mean, how can you be so certain that the fish deaths were a result of these inorganic salts without having an autopsy? Why would you automatically attribute the deaths to nutrients and not to disease or even CO2 (if this occurred in an injected tank)? That would be implying that there are less unexpected fish losses in non-water column dosed tanks around the world.Dusko said:
Of course, there are practical limitations when breeding and rearing these sensitive species. But their sensitivity has more to do with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), not necessarily with nutrient cation/anion component. TDS needs to be low for breeding and may need to be "lowish" for peak health so adding our dosing salts/liquids raises these TDS levels - but it wouldn't matter if the TDS was raised by nutrients or by simple carbonates.
Well, again this is a personal preference and many hobbyists elect to control the nutrient levels. Many like yourself produce excellent results. No argument there. What I am saying though is that I would advise to a beginner to avoid becoming mesmerized by the method of control. It doesn't matter if you overdose but it does matter if you underdose. Folks who fail with Anubias (and other slow growers) more times than not fail because of other factors like excessive light or poor maintenance. For example check George's Harlequins Heaven shown in this thread:=> Aquascaping discussion - fast, slow and styles in which it is demonstrated that by controlling the light Anubias can be used successfully. I don't believe George overdosed this tank but I'm almost certain it is an EI dosed tank using liquid TPN+. What is clear is that he wasn't worried at all about dosing too much because he paid attention to all of the other procedures of plant husbandry such as flow, CO2, maintenance, etc. A beginner might fail at this but not just because of dosing but due to neglect and inattention to these other important factors.Dusko said:
I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion that defdac's comment regarding "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes" is absurd. defdac produces excellent results and he is highly regarded, but the results of my testing and the growth seen in my tanks and others who dose EI/PMDD clearly disproves this statement. That filter bacteria are somehow intoxicated by high levels of PO4 and NO3 is inconceivable, I mean bleach, Hydrogen Peroxide? Yes - PO4? No. :?
One more thing - There is no evidence on Planet Earth that overfeeding a plant ever results in it's stuffing to death. Plants want to rule the world and overfeeding plants only ever results in overgrowth, never stuffing to death. And this is what we see in our tanks. On the other hand I see lots of example of starving plants every day... 🙄
Cheers mate,
You guys in the UK seems to have gotten to the point of EI-revolution I was in about six years ago.
I have since then learnt a few tricks because EI makes experimentation with rather exakt levels so easy. I use PMDD, so I use NO3 and PO4. The plants need them and six years ago I could easy see the difference in better plant health dosing them. Not to mention growth rates. Thumbs up. I dosed a weekly dose each day and every thing was cool.
I hope you all understand that I if anyone knows that you really can't overdose nutrients in planted tanks regarding plant health. So let's lay all that aside and come to the point with "PMDD-toxicated filters".
This is what I wrote to Dusko at the swedish forum http://www.plantswap.se. First his question:
It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think.
It has do with chelate denature because of high pH which causes the iron to precipitate inside the filter and/or on the substrate. As the kelates breaks the iron also might be more prone to bind with PO4, but as I said when I dissolved the rust with acid neither the NO3 nor the PO4-test did show anything. The iron test did spike though.
In Sweden we often have somewhat wierd tap water: It has over pH 8 with a very low KH. Shake the pH 8/KH 2 water in a bottle and it reaches less than pH 7 in matter of seconds.
By the time I had the rust precipitation I used "NutriSi" or "CSM+B". It mostly consists of EDTA that is unstable above pH 7. I also did water changes where I had two hoses and let the water change go for hours. The tank had over pH 8 when I was finished, and then I dosed the EDTA-based micro. It probably denatured and ended up as rust in the filter.
And there you have a PMDD-toxicated biological filter.
A dead or unstable filter without microbial activity and without exoenzymes breaking down POC and DOC might work fine as long as the plants are happy. You will have no second line of defense against NH4 if the plants for some reason will not take in anymore NH4. What happens if the plants don't get any iron because it ends up as rust in the filter and you have a dead inert gravel substrate that can't mineralize the rust?
You might argue that bacteria and ecology is not important in planted tanks with EI-dosing, but as I have found out through years of EI-experimentation it sure helps. A lot. A nice working ecology in the filter and substrate will make the life of an aquascaper so much easier.
Add som shredders ontop of a healthy filter and substrate (snails, shrimps, corys) and you will have one stable planted tank.
Kill them (shredders, bacteria and microorganisms) with prolonged PMDD overdoses and you will for sure get NH4, low oxygen and.. algae.
This is how the PMDD-toxicated filter media looks like. As you can see it's not the usual brownish color. It's really deep rust red. Inside the orange bucket you can see the acid-treated Ehifimech/substrate and Biomax - their normal white color:
Mark Evans
Member
i checked out your blog and tank pics defdac. amazing scape
mark
mark
Hi defdac,defdac said:
OK, now it's clear what you meant. I couldn't imagine that bacterial failure in the filter would have anything to do with macronutrients and this was what I was saying to Dusko, who evidently misinterpreted your statement as he presented it to me. I was beginning to think "wow there must be something special in that soft Swedish drinking water if these guys think that" 😀
I second saintly's comments - thrilling scape mate. 8)
Cheers,
LondonDragon
Member
Welcome aboard defdac, nice great debate here, loved reading the last posts on this thread 🙂
defdac those scapes are great 🙂
defdac those scapes are great 🙂
🙂 No disrespect but PMDD includes so many nutrients 🙂
I was 100% sure you referred to actual PMDD (all nutrients) over dose which might lead to toxicated biological filter. My bad!
Maybe stating FeOOH-toxicated biological filters might avoid such misinterpretation in the future 🙂
Any who, I did learn something new again so I thank you a lot!
I didn't know FeOOH can create such wreck in the filters. I knew it can form rust on the substrate surface but not in the filter.
I am a lot for dosing nutrients and always advise on the net or in the Zoo Shop I work in "Do not reduce nutrients, Dose them".
My planted aquarium customers don't have much if any algae issues thanks to my favorite product Tropica Plant Nutrition+ N&P which they all use.
I do have respect for people's experience and if your experience sais that nutrient over-dose can't hurt fish nor shrimps I will believe you and test for my self of course. I can't help but be concerned for the living creatures we all keep in our planted gardens 🙁 😉
I didn't know you can lower the tap water's pH in this fashion 🙂 another useful thing to know. Thanks a bunch defdac!
One more thing defdac; I can't find that thread over at plantswap.se (so I can't quote) where I said that it is good to dose more PO4 to minimise GSA. If I remember right (I might be wrong though) you said something that overdosing with PO4 might cause wrinkled leaves or weird looking leaves. (this is in context of overdosing vs. normal nutrient dosage EI)
Can you give us some info on this please? Thanks.
NOTE; I will post this reply on both forums ukaps.org and plantswap.se
Regards, Dusko
It seems the PO4-overdosing causing curly leaves (calcium deficiency symptoms) was actually NO3-overdosing, and it only seems to affect tanks with really low KH - even if you have really high calcium content (GH). Bluesboy.se have seen this also and kekon on plantedtank.net. Actually it was kekons experimentation that showed it probably was NO3, and not PO4 nor calcium.
It seems to be mostly very "woody" plants like some Ludwigias and Althernanthera reineckii that is sensitive to NO3 above 10 ppm.
So ok. You actually can overdose PMDD (NO3 in this case) with respect to plant health, but it's under quite unique conditions and very few plants so I would like to round that off to say "you can't overdose PMDD regarding plant health".
But if you get curly leaves on L. glandulosa, L. arcuata and A. reineckii despite having good Ca-levels and you also have low KH, try lowering the NO3/KNO3-dosage to max 10 ppm between wc:s and check the response...
It seems to be mostly very "woody" plants like some Ludwigias and Althernanthera reineckii that is sensitive to NO3 above 10 ppm.
So ok. You actually can overdose PMDD (NO3 in this case) with respect to plant health, but it's under quite unique conditions and very few plants so I would like to round that off to say "you can't overdose PMDD regarding plant health".
But if you get curly leaves on L. glandulosa, L. arcuata and A. reineckii despite having good Ca-levels and you also have low KH, try lowering the NO3/KNO3-dosage to max 10 ppm between wc:s and check the response...
aaronnorth
Member
some great info there, thanks.
OK time for an update all 😀
I edited my algae article and now it looks like this;
http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/
I didn't edit anything under the individual algae description but will come to that also.
So what say you?
Kind regards, Dusko
I edited my algae article and now it looks like this;
http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/
I didn't edit anything under the individual algae description but will come to that also.
So what say you?
Kind regards, Dusko
Hi Dusko,
Yes it certainly appears now to be consistent with the Barr principles as well as with our collective experience. You might get a lot of mail from the Phosphate haters now though... 😀
Cheers,
Yes it certainly appears now to be consistent with the Barr principles as well as with our collective experience. You might get a lot of mail from the Phosphate haters now though... 😀
Cheers,
let them come 
I am definitely for dosing PO4. I have a few tanks where I dose Tropica Plant Nutrition+ and IMO it contains very little P (from tropicas declaration). When I dose TPN+ I also add a bit of KH2PO4 to spice things up 😉
I wrote about TPN+ not containing enough of P on Barrreport once.
Thanks!
Regards, Dusko
Lisa_Perry75
Member
Very good scientific debate. Very interesting.
Ceg I am slightly sceptical about the point you made, that urine, faeces and dead bodies smell is ammonia based. Mammalian urine is urea based, as that is how we excrete our nitrogenous waste. The others I am not sure, but I do not believe them to be caused by ammonia. Could you expand upon this please? (I know it may not be of key importance to planted tanks).
Ceg I am slightly sceptical about the point you made, that urine, faeces and dead bodies smell is ammonia based. Mammalian urine is urea based, as that is how we excrete our nitrogenous waste. The others I am not sure, but I do not believe them to be caused by ammonia. Could you expand upon this please? (I know it may not be of key importance to planted tanks).
