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.Other than these key points the article is very complete and is a good reference. He/She stress the importance of dosing nutrients and clearly explains the differences in application of low tech versus high tech. There are also some nice pictures of algae to help identify.
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."...The best fertilizing method so far is the Estimative Index method (by Tom Barr), where nutrients are dosed every 2-3 days instead of adding all nutrients at once giving algae chance to scavenge..."
Umm, OK I'll agree to the first half of the sentence but the second half is misguided. The whole "algae scavenging for nutrient" theme is off the mark and can subsequently lead to invalid analysis/conclusions.
He wrote "PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes". Interesting!There are a lot of NH4-sources in planted aquariums. Sad plants and rotting leaves produce NH4 and reduces oxygen levels. Uprooting large root systems will get you a really nice high NH4-boost and low oxygen levels. Overfeeding will cause rotting food leech NH4 as the protein breaks down. Dead forgotten fish. PMDD-toxicated biological filter will kill the bacteria causing NH4-spikes etc etc etc..
Hi Dave,Dave Spencer said: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.
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: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)
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 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.
You guys in the UK seems to have gotten to the point of EI-revolution I was in about six years ago.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.
It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think.BTW, what did you mean by PMDD-toxicated biological filters will kill bacteria causing NH4 to spike??
Hi defdac,defdac said: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.
No disrespect but PMDD includes so many nutrientsExactly, you should have asked that first perhaps =)
It has nothing to do with NO3 or PO4 as ceg4048 and you seems to think.
I didn't know you can lower the tap water's pH in this fashion another useful thing to know. Thanks a bunch defdac!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.
let them comeYou might get a lot of mail from the Phosphate haters now though..