• 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

PPS pro

Here is a statement which I always found curious about EI (not saying EI is bad or anything of that nature)...."by adding nutrients in the water in amounts that plants always have an abundance at their disposal, plants can out compete algae"....
If there is more than enough nutrients for plants, surely there is enough for algae.
 
One more word about my motivation. My goal is not to discredit EI method or any other method. I just want to find out what the plants in an average (not any supernatural and super theoretic high tech) planted tank can utilize to have a good growth. I used to use EI method myself, so I know that the EI recommended amounts of nutrient may not lead to algae outbreak if you have enough "anti-algae" factors present in your tank (mainly algae-eaters, relatively low light for only 7-10 hours, good filtration, regular water changes and maintenance, big plant biomass etc.). Also it is possible that when we use EI method of fertilization in our tanks, the relatively high nutrient levels may be inhibiting some kinds of algae ... for example higher amounts of phosphates may suppress GSA/GDA, and high levels of CO2 may suppress BBA (this we know from experience, but no one did any tests with it yet). These are questions I would like to find answers to. So it's possible that our plants may need relatively small amount of nutrients (compared to recommended EI levels), but to suppress some algae it may be good to increase these amounts to some algae-toxic levels. So technically, I'm not against EI method. I'm against people who blindly advocate something or criticise scientists while they don't know much of it.
 
If phosphates cause algae then how is it if you put a container of RO water on a windowsill it will grow algae? Where do the phosphates come from that cause the algae? It is more likely due to dust particles decaying / rotting and causing ammonia. That is what most people say causes algae. Local ammonia spikes.

When I ran a tank for 14 months without water changes I used to only add fertilisers when I saw GSA on the anubias. That would be every month or couple of months. I would never add traces and just add a pinch of KH2PO4. That was however a low energy well stocked fish tank and therefore the nitrate and traces should be covered in fish wastes and foods.
 
For algae to grow they need a full range of nutrients (CO2, N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, trace elements, some vitamins etc.), optimum temperature (20-24°C), enough ligh intensity (ideally 50-200 µmol PAR) with long photoperiod of 16:8 (day:night cycle), optimum pH between 7-9, aerating and water circulation + some time to set and develop. If you give them this, then they have an optimum environment for growth ... unless you suppress their growth by some obstracles like algae-eaters, water changes, filtration, low photoperiod etc. Most algae need some time to create suitable environment for their growth (this is called "lag phase") which takes usually 1-2 weeks. But if you do a regular maintenance, clean glass, vacuum substrate, or do a water change, then you actually "reset" them their environment, so that after each maintenance they have to start from scratch. So this all (along with algae-eaters) contributes to algae suppression. So although the algae may have enough nutrients in your tank, other factors effectively prevent them from growing. So you need not only nutrients (especially nitrates and phosphates), but also other optimum conditions for algae to grow and multiply. So it's a mistake to think of only phosphates in regard to algae. But at the same time, it's a mistake to think that high level of nutrients pose no risk.
[BTW, plants and algae prefer NH4 before NO3, so it's better if they have some nitrogen in the form on NH4.]

Also, look at my simple test with 8 kinds of environment and algae growth:
http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeSugars. In distilled and tap water the algae did not develop during 3 weeks.

PS: If you still believe that high nutrient levels don't pose any risk in regard to algae, then try to get rid of all algae-eaters in your tank, increase your light intensity to 100-200 µmol PAR at the substrate, and prolong your photoperiod to at least 16 hours a day (with 8 hours lights off), and add 100 ppm NO3, 10-20 ppm PO4 + other important nutrients into your tank, so that you can be quite sure you have enough available nutrients in water column for algae ... and don't do any maintenance for at least 3-4 week (nor any water changes). Also try to keep your CO2 level on an optimum levels of 10-20 ppm (as higher values may cause inhibition of some kinds of algae). If you'll have no algae after this period, then there may be something on your theory about high nutrients don't contributing to algae infestations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I do not understand why people are so reluctant to admit that phospates may be related to algae. Does it make it a sin? There is plenty of evidence in science literature (papers regarding natural aquatic habitats, practical knowledge on water treatment, media used for cultivating algae in laboratories, etc.) that IMO is much more reliable, transparent and objective than:

- scientists' conspiracy theories (do you really think scientists do care about this? Do you think that all the scientists, paper reviewers, laboratories and a very long etc. in this world are aligned to cheat on us? Come on, algae blooms are not strategic to rule this world. I can believe that a company whose incomes depend on algae cleaning can say so, but the whole international scientific community?)
- personal experiences on tank management in which parameters' control is very difficult, do not have accurate measure equipment, reliable methdologies, repeated samples, etc.
- internet forums

I am not saying it is the absolute truth and that the rest is faulse, but I am careful enough to admit that it makes a lot of sense (even being aware that everything has not been answered yet and that others' opinion makes also sense). I try to be open minded, that's all.

So once again, I would say that there is quite a lot of evidence to say that phosphate may induce algae BUT hobbyists do not have to fear phosphates in a planted tank, as they are necessary for plant growth (at least in high light conditions) and they do not lead necessarily to algae.

Why adding phosphates do not necessarily lead to algae blooms? There is probably more than one reason. I like Darrel's approach on different posible "stability areas/proper configurations" in the CO2-PAR-nutrient triangle, I like the allelopathy theory (not sure if it is right) and I like the "anti-algae" approach (algae need time to grow and don't like to be disturbed -as any other organism. Our tank maintenance (WCs, scraping glass, removal of dead tissues, etc.), equipment (filter, flow, distribution, etc.) and animals (grazers) don't give algae the time to develop. Think about it in the opposite way, what about trying to grow aquatic plants in a tank with herbivore fish, no filtering, no WC?... not imposible but certainly much more difficult, right?

Probably none of them by itself is enough to explain why high nutrients tank can be algae free (I'm probbaly missing some more), but it looks quite reasonable that in high nutrient tanks our behaviour/approach/setup/configuration/plant healthiness/equipment has a huge influence for keeping algae under control. It may sound weird for a beginner but we can cope with high nutrients levels as long as we can keep planted tanks in good conditions.

Merry Christmas to all of you (with or without PO4) 🙂

Jordi
 
Last edited:
Ill tell you why I think Tom Barr is right.
His assumption is that excess phosphates dont cause an algae bloom in a healthy tank. This is just true since its been tried by hundreds of hobbiests around the world.
Now what you are saying is that phosphates do cause algae blooms. I believe your statement might needs to be specified. You should say that phosphates feed (feed not cause) algal blooms in a non healthy tank/water. So you cant just say that phosphates cause algae because it would have to be true always and it just isnt.

So if you use high light and high CO2 you need to do a few things so as to get that healthy tank/plants. If its not healthy overall youll get algae but whats causing the algae bloom is not the phosphates (its probably ammonia which comes from everywhere also from unhealthy plants). The phosphates are just feeding the algae and the more phosphates the faster the algae will grow.

I believe that all the misunderstanding comes from such a simple statement as phosphates dont cause algae blooms. People should swim into it and look at all the subtleties untill they can go banging at Tom Barrs doors.

Also not all natural waters have huge PAR as stated above. They have a constant flow of renewed water with new nutrients. Also plants can get their nutrients from the soil which scientists normally dont measure etc.There are many variables. Tom Barr as Ive said before works for a laboratory which probably has more fundings than any of us will ever hear about. His got the ways to do things and test things most of us cant. So many things we have to believe if we want or not but many others we can proof to ourselves just by watching with our eyes.
 
ardjuna said:
For algae to grow they need a full range of nutrients (CO2, N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, trace elements, some vitamins etc.), optimum temperature (20-24°C), enough ligh intensity (ideally 50-200 µmol PAR) with long photoperiod of 16:8 (day:night cycle), optimum pH between 7-9, aerating and water circulation + some time to set and develop. If you give them this, then they have an optimum environment for growth ... unless you suppress their growth by some obstracles like algae-eaters, water changes, filtration, low photoperiod etc.
Click to expand...

Hi ardjuna.
Plants in a healthy tank is also an obstacle for algae. Why? Because they consume ammonia.

Algae can grow in a much wider range of conditions as stated above. That data is probably for a certain species.

Also you can look at a low tech tank without water changes and with excess nutrients which doesnt have algae. This falsifies all your theory.

Water changes in a high tech tank is not for getting rid of spores or things like that. Tha main reason for wcs is to eliminate the organics generated by plants due to their very high metabolism in a CO2 and high light tank.
 
Last edited:
I believe that all the questions arising with EI come from not understanding the dynamics of a high tech tank (please noone be offended)

In a high tech tank your plants produce loads of stuff because they are living things. These organic molecules decompose in your water generating ammonia which causes algal blooms which are fed by the phosphates in your water. This is why you have to do many water changes. You could also use activated carbon and things like that but whichever way you choose if your plants grow fast you need to eliminate the plant poo.

Ardjuna, You want to look for an example where EI doesnt work. This is a wrong approach. You dont have to go to the extremes. No method will work in the extremes you are suggesting.

And about Darrels triangle of PAR, Nutrients and CO2, I believe its more like an area above a certain limit. A triangle means that you have limits above also. I am more inclined towards a line or curve above which plants grow just fine for a certain light. You can up the nutrients and CO2 as much as you want although there might be a salinity limit and a CO2 limit they are so high that you dont really need to look at them (regarding plants not animals).
 
Jose said:
Algae can grow in a much wider range of conditions as stated above. That data is probably for a certain species ...
Click to expand...
Hi Jose,
please read the paragraph carefully, as I say (manytimes) that these are optimum ranges, not the only ranges that algae can live and grow in! Algae can grow even in a bottled water for babies, although there are nearly no nutrients.

As for the low tech tanks without algae, this is no falsification of my theory at all, as in these tanks the light is very low, and for most algae species the light intensity is of crucial importance. Again, try to fill a jar with a water from such a low tech tank, put it under a low light source and wait. I bet algae won't develop even after a month. In the same way I can say, that my tank with high light and low nutrients without algae falsifies all your theory.

As to the ammonia and algae, do you know that T.Barr do not believe in ammonia causing algae from 2011? If you don't believe me, please, read his own words here:
"I suggested some years ago that NH4 was a cause for GW blooms, and other algae perhaps. This seems false, but the increasing fish loading sure seems to cause algae in every test I've done or seen."

Also if T.Barr works for some super laboratory and has access to different analyzers why the hell he doesn't publish some of his results and findings? I never saw any table, graph or analyses data except one or two graphs from his own CO2 meter. He should have tons of data supporting his theory, so why doesn't he share them with us (even through his Barr Reports)? In his reports there are no such data. I just don't understand his (and your) approach.
 
parotet said:
PS: If you still believe that high nutrient levels don't pose any risk in regard to algae, then try to get rid of all algae-eaters in your tank, increase your light intensity to 100-200 µmol PAR at the substrate, and prolong your photoperiod to at least 16 hours a day (with 8 hours lights off), and add 100 ppm NO3, 10-20 ppm PO4 + other important nutrients into your tank, so that you can be quite sure you have enough available nutrients in water column for algae ... and don't do any maintenance for at least 3-4 week (nor any water changes). Also try to keep your CO2 level on an optimum levels of 10-20 ppm (as higher values may cause inhibition of some kinds of algae). If you'll have no algae after this period, then there may be something on your theory about high nutrients don't contributing to algae infestations.
Click to expand...

That is mad. You are trying to prove that phosphate causes algae by suggesting that we push the light as high as we can and at the same time reduce CO2. That in itself will cause algae because we will be supplying less CO2 than is needed for the speed of growth the light is driving the plants at. I don't get it.

Anyway. We're way off topic now and its back to the age old phosphates cause algae statements. So I shall bow out here.
 
I'm sorry for this off topic conversation. Just a final note. I did not speak of phosphates only, but of high nutrient levels (again you disinterpret my statements). And 100-200 µmol PAR is not so high light intensity, as it is 10-times lower then full sunlight. And at full sunlight and non-limiting nutrients most aquatic plants need only 20-40 ppm CO2 for reaching their maximum growth rates, so 20 ppm CO2 just can't be the cause of algae (as you and T.Barr constantly claim). You blame CO2 for most algae issues, although due to high CO2 levels you try to keep (50-70 ppm) it can have strong algae inhibiting effects, co if you would lower CO2 levels so that it's not toxic to algae, then immediately you get algae because of high nutrient levels. What about that? I just try to show that your arguments may not be based on correct assumptions.
 
Hi ardjuna,
Again I believe if you want to keep a tank simulating natural environments then you should do many other things as a natural environment as well. First thing is that in natural waters you dont have 30 ppm CO2 normally. You would have to have a constant supply of new water and probably a fertile substrate. But still I dont see the need to emulate natural waters since our tanks look much better anyway.

I believe its all down to one question: Why would you want to limit the growth of plants by limitting the nutrients. My opinion is that you use such high light that you cant keep up with the rest of parametres and this leads you to believe that the high nutrients are causing the algae.

High light is the origin of most the people who cant get around using EI.

Also It doesnt really matter if its ammonia or intermediates of organic molecules that cause the algae to me.
 
You are over simplifying all the time though. I am not saying that plants need 30ppm. We do not add 30ppm because that is what the plants need. If this were the case non of my planted tanks except the only one which is CO2 enriched would work yet they do.

The reason we add 30ppm is to ensure that under higher light the small fraction of the CO2 that isn't 'lost' is enough for the plants given the amount of light provided. You could well do this with 20ppm or 15ppm. I am not saying you can;t however at these lower injection rates it is narrowing the margin between failure and success. Similar to all the other nutrients. If you are sure that plants only need (example) 10ppm of nitrate and you aim for 10ppm then you are on the margin whereas if you add 20ppm you are ensuring that there is enough available. I'm not saying that lean dosing (or trying to exact dose) is doomed to failure, just that you are narrowing your 'margin for error' and the majority trying to do this will fail. Some will succeed. Some because they over estimated anyway, some because they didn't account for something (like using tap water) and some because they got it right.

With CO2 if you are sure that adding 20ppm will result in the plants being able to take (example) 3ppm then you are on the margin if you only add 20ppm. If you are adding 30ppm then there is more available to reach a desired goal. Under both ppms I would suggest that the majority (like 95% as I suggested before) is actually lost to the atmosphere whether you can see bubbles escaping or not. So 5% of 20ppm injection is a lower availability than 5% of 30ppm. Small margins but under high light CO2 is critical IMO.

100-200 IS high light. you only need 30-50ppm at the substrate to be able to grow nice carpets. ADA know this which is why their MHs were dialled back to be lower light than the wattages would have suggested. Keeping the ADA lovers happy whilst still letting them think they are blasting the light in. Anything higher than 100-200 harks back to the olden days. I don't have a PAR meter but on my non CO2 tanks I run at present circa 0.9WPG of LED. They are simply 9W downlighters where I have changed the lenses to a 90 degree angle so they aren't exactly luminaire setups. 1 of these 9W downlighters over each half of 20USG tanks. IMO these are still pretty much at the higher end of low light and I do get the odd problem with algae in them but not much. That algae is more caused by my laziness in that sometimes I don't water change them for weeks and I often forget to dose them.

In my only hi tec tank I have 54W LED above a 40USG. I would say that this tank is bordering very highlight as people seem to underestimate just how much more PAR and way more PUR Leds actually produce. That is properly setup as a luminaire and spaced out well. CO2 is probably about 35ppm in that tank and is newly setup so can't talk of algae problems but from experience with these parameters unless I get lazy with water changes and maintenance then I foresee no problems at all.

You cannot use examples from nature to talk about scenarios in an aquarium. In nature most waters are free from plants and are moving water. A continual supply of all the nutrients needed. In lakes there are plants but I suspect the size of the surface area and natural CO2 supplied from the substrate and other organics rotting away keeps them algae free in the main. Certainly lakes are much more susceptible to algae than rivers or streams. In very very hot summers many lakes can be quagmires of algae even in England and stagnant water is much quicker to get to this level. The smaller the body of water the quicker it gets gunged up. So I suspect that far from it being excessive nutrients that is the problem of causing algae it is the 'non flushing' of the system that cause algae with organic waste build up.

i.e. that stagnant pond in the farmer's field that seems permanently gunged up with algae vs the lake that seems to get gunged up only in extreme summers vs the river or stream that is permanently flowing and does not get much algae at all.

You also have to take into account when looking at the plants we grow in nature in most cases they do not look the way we want them to. In Rivers they are leggy searching for the surface to get CO2. In our setups they are required to be much denser and bushy and leggy is a no no.

As for the tank water under low light in a cup? TRy it for yourself. Add some of your algae free tank water to a cup. put it under 0.25WPG of light with no other light available at all. I guarantee that you will get algae. The same for RO water, DI water, any water. You cannot fight algae by starving nutrients unless you want to starve plants too. There is something else at work here where if you have loads and loads of plants in a tank and add 10x more (inorganic) nutrient than they need you get minimal algae. If you use the same setup and add no fish, no food, no inorganic nutrients, nothing added at all and use RO water. Have no plants in there (namely a normal fish tank but without fish) you will get algae.

It is the setup, its efficiency and the controller that normally determines if a tank has algae or not.

i.e. If I setup 2 identical tanks, same equipment, same scape, same plants, same light yet one is for someone else and one is for me. Then if I dose daily, do water changes weekly, monitor the CO2 properly etc mine may come out with virtually zero algae whereas the one I setup for someone else where they missed a dose or 2 here and there, didn't notice the water flow was being stifled as the plants grew, didn't notice the CO2 injection rate dropping etc may have tonnes of algae.
 
Last edited:
ardjuna said:
Also if T.Barr works for some super laboratory and has access to different analyzers why the hell he doesn't publish some of his results and findings? I never saw any table, graph or analyses data except one or two graphs from his own CO2 meter. He should have tons of data supporting his theory, so why doesn't he share them with us (even through his Barr Reports)?
Click to expand...

This is a good question. dont know and yes there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing for me too. He might be waiting for the time to come and win a Nobel prize:couchpotato:.
 
Last edited:
A couple of things worth noting about natural environments.
1) and this is the biggie, if you look at environments where plants are prevalent they either grow in shaded areas, at depth or are algae/silt laden (all of which reduce par and duration of exposure to the par)
Which leads me on to #2) your assumption that plants in nature are being bombarded with at least 12hrs at 2000um is flat out incorrect. If your interested I'll dig some numbers out of a book I've got.
3) in waterways that suffer from algae blooms (at least the studies I've read) phosphate is not the trigger elevated levels of phosphate will feed a bloom that may not have occurred without their presence but they are not the cause the trigger is the increased par levels provided by the onset of spring/summer.
 
Anyways I do believe there is a good experiment that someone with the materials could do. That would be finding out the nutrient consumption for a standard lit tank. This could be a tank with 40 PAR at the bottom. So this would give us a value that many people could use. Many people could run into problems though if they estimate their light without a PAR meter but that would be their problem:twisted:. Maybe tom has done this but he seems to be very reserved with his results.
 
I think Tom is more cautious because people simplify things so much and take things as black and white. He could put fully tested information out there and give numbers, ratios and quantities but then someone (or lots of someones) will take those figures as gospel, run with them and then get vocal about his figures being wrong. The reality would be that his figures are right.......for his setup........with his plants and livestock..........the way he runs it, but wouldn't be right for someone else's setup, with their plants and livestock, the way they ran it.

So rather than give an exact reading that people would take as the holy gospel he gives ranges which are perfectly fine. Thats more the problem with the original PPS Pro in that it was trying to be so exact that it was pointless in the end unless your hobby is actually mathematics, science and testing.
 
SuperColey1 said:
So rather than give an exact reading that people would take as the holy gospel he gives ranges which are perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
If T.Barr says in his EI article that non-limiting NO3 levels are in a range of 5-30 ppm, how can I have any assurance as to what applies to my tank? He did not presented any details of what plant species the 5 ppm is OK for, and what plant species the 30 ppm is good for. Besides this I know of number of papers which state much higher levels for NO3 and PO4 uptake rates. So for some plant species even 30 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 is far from being non-limiting. For example, Pistia can accumulate up to 2 ppm PO4 per day, and for Vallisneria americana the non-limiting concentration of NO3 is around 90 ppm! So how 5-30 ppm could be non-limiting? I don't close eyes before different findings. And although I think the plants in average planted tank consume much, much less nutrients even under stronger light, if T.Barr says that 30 ppm is non-limiting for most of aquatic plants, I would like to know how did he come to these numbers ... what are these numbers based on?
 
Pistia is a floating plant which can probably consume loads of ferts, its not the standard plant in our tanks.


ardjuna said:
Vallisneria americana the non-limiting concentration of NO3 is around 90 ppm
Click to expand...
What do you mean by non limitting? The concentration at which they grow the fastest? Ok, we all agree with that. The more nutrients the faster plants grow but we cant really be dosing so many nutrients because they would be wasted in water changes and the higher the concentrations the higher the conductivity in water which isnt something beneficial for some animals.

So, it seems Toms numbers have been optimized from what you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top