Questioning the "science" behind FW planted tanks

[gpodio]

BTW, just to put everything into perspective, specially if you're following this without having read the original EI article. Tom advocates the following nutrient levels:

CO2: 20-30ppm
NO3: 5-10ppm
K+: 20-30ppm
PO4: 0.4-1.0ppm
Fe: .5ppm or above

These are quite normal levels for fast growing tanks, actually they are conservative based on today's standards for such tanks. The main difference is he "resets" the tank back to "close-to-tap-water" levels each week allowing one to dose for example the full 5-10ppm of nitrate without having to worry about what's left over from previous doses. The tollerances for FW planted tanks are quite large and well within most people's tap water levels. My tap water for example contains 5ppm nitrate, that would bring me to 15-20ppm which is fine, if it hadn't been fine, I'd have to lower the amount dosed, but I'd still be able to dose it repeatedly each week without testing once I have established the required amount...

That along with the addition of PO4 was basically the only "new" things Tom elaborated on from the PMDD paper. It was becoming quite evident that PMDD was not working as well under strong lighting and CO2 while this approach did, wasteful as it may be.

I guess you could compare it to doing water changes in a reef tank to replenish traces and such Vs having to test for all of them and dose them individually as needed.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, the water changes address these directly. We in the US are quite lucky with tap water quality and for the most part, it contains nutrient levels that are well below those required for fast growing tanks. The frequent large water changes assures that the water in the tank remains relatively close to original tap water conditions prior to dosing. If we stop the changes, we must pull out testing equipment to monitor any accumulation due to the three items you pointed out. When you're changing 50% weekly, accumulation due to top-off, feedings and doses becomes quite diluted.

Not over a prolonged period of time, though, particularly if large amounts of top off water are required as with an open-top tank. There's a wonderful chart on this site, it may be in the library, having to do with accumulation over time and water change efficacy. Although if these two are the only extra factors (putting aside the soil, now that you've said EI prefers a more inert substrate base) I suppose doing a near total water change once every several months would solve that.

Thank you for the PPS link, I'll read it next.

Wow, at those levels you will quickly become a fan a Tom's EI Seriously, 3-4WPG is all that is needed to grow the most demanding of plants.

Yes, I know. But I assume floaters will greatly cut down on light transmission, hence the going overboard.

I also feel that PCs will give you better bulbs to choose from, unfortunately T5 choices are still pretty slim.

To me it's no contest, hands down the T5s are the superior product

Either way at these light intensities you should not have any problems keeping floaters and carpeting plants, just keep the floaters in check by weekly removal.

Cool, thank you.

 

[gpodio]

Wow, at those levels you will quickly become a fan a Tom's EI Seriously, 3-4WPG is all that is needed to grow the most demanding of plants.

Yes, I know. But I assume floaters will greatly cut down on light transmission, hence the going overboard.

Yeah you can always cut down on lighting by leaving more floaters at the surface...

I also feel that PCs will give you better bulbs to choose from, unfortunately T5 choices are still pretty slim.

To me it's no contest, hands down the T5s are the superior product

I know where that line of thought comes from, yes technically it is a better product, but availability of good bulbs is still limited. You won't have problems finding bulbs that work, you just won't have as much choice that's all. Even with MH, the choice is limited unfortunately, ADA does have a great 8000K HQI bulb available if you choose that route.

So after all this... what methodology do you think you will start with? What kind of substrate?

Regards,

 

[gpodio]

Actually, the water changes address these directly. We in the US are quite lucky with tap water quality and for the most part, it contains nutrient levels that are well below those required for fast growing tanks. The frequent large water changes assures that the water in the tank remains relatively close to original tap water conditions prior to dosing. If we stop the changes, we must pull out testing equipment to monitor any accumulation due to the three items you pointed out. When you're changing 50% weekly, accumulation due to top-off, feedings and doses becomes quite diluted.

Not over a prolonged period of time, though, particularly if large amounts of top off water are required as with an open-top tank. There's a wonderful chart on this site, it may be in the library, having to do with accumulation over time and water change efficacy. Although if these two are the only extra factors (putting aside the soil, now that you've said EI prefers a more inert substrate base) I suppose doing a near total water change once every several months would solve that.

I have seen this chart in the past, but it assumes no other form of export is present. In planted tanks, and in particular fast growing ones which the EI is aimed at, the macros we dose are mostly consumed by end of week and most traces are oxydized or lost through other means. In reality, these water changes end up leveling the ratios more so than diluting macros. In such a tank, it is more likely you will reach an imbalance of say K+ and NO3 (dosing KNO3) because they are dosed at ratios that are not equal to the ratio at which they are consumed. You will likely never accumulate nitrates or phosphates in one of these tanks, they are consumed at far too fast a rate. I dose more like 50ppm a week (hourly) in my 55g and NO3 test results never show more than 5ppm in the water...

Luckily for planted tanks, the elements that mean algae to a reef tank are considered "macros", something that is consumed in high quantities. Traces are harder to deal with IMO...

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah you can always cut down on lighting by leaving more floaters at the surface...

As well, the 96w T5 fixture I'm intending to go with runs 2 independent circuits, so I don't need to have all 96w going all the time. I can run the second 48w as a noon burst, or more if needed, depending on how things go.

So after all this... what methodology do you think you will start with? What kind of substrate?

I'm not 100% committed to anything just yet, but.... ADA soil products (amazonia, power sand and tourmaline BC), carbon supplied via Excel possibly supplemented with yeast-based CO2 injection. Ferts... still up in the air. Need to do more reading. Still, I have to say I lean towards a more measured, conservative approach than EI.

 

[gpodio]

Amazonia is great, just know that initially it can be problematic both in the initial release of organics and consumption of carbonates. But it grows stem plants like no other! You won't want to follow EI to the letter if you go with such a substrate, but I'm sure over time you'll be dosing just as many macros as we all do, regardless of how you decide to keep the levels in check.

I would however consider a CO2 setup under such lighting, or a mixture of both Excel and CO2. Yeast can be good but it's a little unstable and can be difficult to maintain good CO2 levels.

At least in such a small tank Excel won't be too expensive to use and if needed you can always do the 2-3x dose trick to rid the tank of most algae.

 

[Anonymous]

Amazonia is great, just know that initially it can be problematic both in the initial release of organics and consumption of carbonates.

Yeah, I've been told that. Consider me forewarned

I would however consider a CO2 setup under such lighting, or a mixture of both Excel and CO2. Yeast can be good but it's a little unstable and can be difficult to maintain good CO2 levels.

I know. I just want to try to avoid having to deal with a pressurized CO2 setup on this tank if I can. If the Excel and the yeast turn out not to do the job well then I'll grab up one of the ADA disposable can CO2 systems. Small and no refill hassles, at the price of having to swap cans every couple of weeks at $12 a pop.

 

[gpodio]

Cool, ADA has some nice products, pricey but nice! You are in the US right? Are you getting the ADA gear through ADG?

 

[Anonymous]

Cool, ADA has some nice products, pricey but nice! You are in the US right? Are you getting the ADA gear through ADG?

Yup. Haven't ordered anything yet, but when I do it will be through ADG.

 

[gpodio]

Cool, Jeff and Mike are both great folks to do business with, call them up with any questions you may have, they use the ADA products as much as they sell them so they know what they are talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

if nutrients are low, and light is good-plants will still outcompete algae

if nutrients are high, and light is good-plants will outcompete algae

Yes, but in the first instance under fast growing conditions plants will usually start to show simptoms of deficiencies as uptake rates of certain elements drop. Osmotic pressure plays a great role in uptake rates and this is the reason why for example 5ppm NO3 is not as efficient as 10ppm.

Obviously that doesn't mean that you blindly throw ferts into such a tank, but I can assure you that if done properly this approach gives very good growth quality and still remains algae free.

that's pretty much his entire philosophy-blindly overfertilizing a tank, and then assuming a water change will then balance it out (an outright fallacy!).

Are you sure you don't have any axes to grind with Tom? I don't personally feel he does anything blindly, he may do it "stubbornly" but he does know what he's talking about. I too don't agree with everything he says, but I do recognize him for having made some important steps at a time when they were against popular beliefs. If you go back to the original EI article and take it as a starting point I think you too would find it works. Obviously anyone following the same schedule for years without any modification has learned nothing from their tank. One should be able over time to get a feel for their own tank and start to cut back on water changes and wasted ferts, following the tank's own trend moreso than any one particular fertilization regiem.

http://www.aquatic-plants.org/articles/ ... ndex1.html

Keep an open mind, IMO there are too many people doing this and having wonderful results to call him outright insane... I tried it, it worked for me and I later moved on by modifying it to my own needs... it came at a great time for me too as I was just entering the high-light scene from many years of low light, rich substrate tanks.

If you are truely honest about this and open to learning more about it, listening to other people's experiences in regards, I strongly suggest you visit a dedicated plant forum such as APC or APD. You will get comments from both ends, pro and against. Here I fear it will turn into a ping-pong match between the 4 of us :wink:

i do not know the guy, nor do i have any particular axe to grind

my issue is this:

without knowng the exact uptake rate of whatever one doses-to assume a 50% wc will bring it back down to previous levels is an awfuully huge and potentially dangerous assumption

there's no way to know if the levels are remaining stable, slowly rising higher, or dipping back down below pre-fertilizing levels

it's hocus pocus management and leaves too much open to a potentially big error in either over, or under, fertilization

 

[gpodio]

my issue is this:

without knowng the exact uptake rate of whatever one doses-to assume a 50% wc will bring it back down to previous levels is an awfuully huge and potentially dangerous assumption

But what makes you think these numbers are based on us not knowing what the plants uptake? Of course we know this, the point of my post showing the concentrations of nutrients was to point out that he's not advocating levels that are in any way different than the standard levels we have maintained for many years, he just offers a different method for maintaing them.

there's no way to know if the levels are remaining stable, slowly rising higher, or dipping back down below pre-fertilizing levels

Yes there is, test for them! Do you really think any of these methodologies were conceived in a day? It took a lot of trial and error to establish these. Tom is a biologist who has been studying algae for many years, he has run numerous test himself and hundreds have put his and others' methods to the tests too. Most of these methodologies don't come from a single person, even the EI while it is mostly Tom's research that led to it, many people from APD contributed in testing and verifying his initial ideas. If you search the archives the long road that led to this and other methodologies is well documented for all to see.

it's hocus pocus management and leaves too much open to a potentially big error in either over, or under, fertilization

How many times have you attempted this methodology to justify such critical judgements on it? What would you do differently under 3-5WPG? Chances are probably just avoid the water changes and test, test, test... that's the other option. When you have the light intensity and plant mass there's no limiting the amounts of macros the tank consumes, you'll end up needing to maintain similar levels, just in a different way which is quite fine and works just as well...

I don't mean to start a fight here, I just feel there are many ways of doing things "right" and for one to post such negative statements about one method you'd think you've discovered something everyone else has been overlooking. I mean the EI has been used successfully by many people in the last 5-6 years... I just don't understand what all this criticism is based on.

 

[Anonymous]

How many times have you attempted this methodology to justify such critical judgements on it? What would you do differently under 3-5WPG? Chances are probably just avoid the water changes and test, test, test... that's the other option. When you have the light intensity and plant mass there's no limiting the amounts of macros the tank consumes, you'll end up needing to maintain similar levels, just in a different way which is quite fine and works just as well...

prudence and sensibility dictate an initially smaller addition (when adding anything), testing and observing the results, and then adjusting accordingly

why the need for masisve wc's, if the dosing levels are proper to begin with? they aren't-a proper fert regime should NOT be dependent upon a predicated need for a 50% water change to ensure 'proper levels

How many times have you attempted this methodology to justify such critical judgements on it? What would you do differently under 3-5WPG? Chances are probably just avoid the water changes and test, test, test... that's the other option. When you have the light intensity and plant mass there's no limiting the amounts of macros the tank consumes, you'll end up needing to maintain similar levels, just in a different way which is quite fine and works just as well...

you couldn't pay me to try a method that predicates such a necessary corrective process as a part of it's methodology-it's too nonsensical to my way of thinking

why would i avoid water changes? you seem to be missing my point-water changes should need to be done as part of an overall sensible management program-not as a necessary corrective measure for a weekly, intently performed act recommended by someone else-regardless of their particular results

(i don't think that continual testing is always necessary-as long as one knows how to 'read' what's going on with their plants)

why not just add what the tank needs and do 'regular' water changes? what if time constraints prevent one from doing the water change for one or two weeks? with that large a dose of ferts performed weekly-you think ther'es no danger/possibility of burning the plants/overfertilizing/algal blooms?

I don't mean to start a fight here, I just feel there are many ways of doing things "right" and for one to post such negative statements about one method you'd think you've discovered something everyone else has been overlooking. I mean the EI has been used successfully by many people in the last 5-6 years... I just don't understand what all this criticism is based on.

this is a friendly argument/discussion once again, intentionally overfertilizing a system and then performing a large correction just seems to me to be a huge waste of materiel time, is logically flawed to begin with, and leaves too much open for error/mistakes

i have a huge problem with the 'logic'/reasoning it demonstrates

everyone can also start crossing a street after timing the interval for the light to change, on average, without looking up to verify it-just because 100 people, or 1000 people use that method to cross a street, doesn't make them any less silly in my eyes, or will cause me to not check the status of the signal light before crossing every single time

it's analogous to gorging oneself all week, and then going to a vomitorium every saturday night-why not just eat what you need daily? it's far healthier to the (any) organism over the long haul, imo. -but if that's how you want to maintain your body weight, abd you're pleased with the results who am i to stop you ?

fwiw-i've mostly followed a daily dosing regimen, fine tuning as i go along, based on how the plants perform, with regular 25%ish wc's weekly- i feel that with smaller doses involved to begin with, a mistake will have less chance of large impact, if it does at all

i have no argument with the results-a beautiful tank is a beatiful tank -just the logic behind the method, and the wisdom of following/advocating that type of 'logic'

 

[Anonymous]

Fortunately my tanks do not listen to all those debates.

Here is my newer 20g long in feb and tonight. untreaded tap water, no water changes, no ferts, no co2, $25 in lights, no filter, no circulation, aquarium gravel. Just the tank, water, plants, and fish.

Additionally the glass has not been touched between the pictures.

Plus the tank is on my back porch and has experienced tank temperatures ranging from 60F to 95F. It does have two heaters but only because outside temperature got down to 20F last winter. In a normal room I do not use heaters.

The cycle platys have expanded to around 20 plus the 6 I harvested for a local club member. Which are doing fine in that member's co2 planted system.

There are also 5 silver hatched fish in there as well. And a couple of female guppys.

So you can keep debating this or that fert. reaching for a bottle of whatever, adding co2, doing water changes and so on. All my plants need is the minor and majors from my tap water and the fish.

I'll just keep harvesting a little algae/moss and adjusting lighting until the algae/moss is out competed.

With the full confidence that if I do nothing but replace evaporative tap water, feed the fish, there will be descendants from the platys 6 years from now. With a stable population of 40-50 fish.

To me this tank is great for any livingroom or bedroom. Even if not internet quality. :lol:

And obviously a very good canidate from someone on a limited budget.

Plus it can be left alone for up to two weeks with no loss of fish.

so keep on debating this or that. My fish and plants do just fine with none of that.

my .02

 

[Anonymous]

barr's problem is that he unequivocally states that light, and not nutrients, is the root cause of algae, when it's soooo plainly obvious, and proven, even! that the opposite is in fact the case

All the algae in my planted 55g has just now finally died off. The first month or two was an utter wreck of out of control algae. I'm using 4 65w lights. I did not alter my light timing or levels, I just waited for the algae to use up whatever nutrient was feeding the outbreak. Now it's gone completely, and my Amazon swords are looking fine. I've been dosing with the Searchem carbon and iron. Occasionally the trace elements. I have not done a water change in this time.
I think that supports what you're saying.

 

[gpodio]

Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation...

I don't think we're really comparing apples to apples here.

beaslbob: I agree with you, your tank is far from a high light/fast growing/densly planted tank. Adopting any kind of "fast" regime would be like putting ocatane in a Yugo. I would certainly stick to what you're doing or any other low light regiem if you desire to experiment at any time. I don't think however your tank represents any argument pro or against a fast regime, it just isn't the type of tank these methods are made for.

with that large a dose of ferts performed weekly-you think ther'es no danger/possibility of burning the plants/overfertilizing/algal blooms?

Just to address this one statement on it's own... which components do you feel are overdosed?

Just to repost the suggested values:
CO2: 20-30ppm
NO3: 5-10ppm
K+: 20-30ppm
PO4: 0.4-1.0ppm
Fe: .5ppm or above

Quite honestly, I don't see any values here to be above any other high light regime. They are actually quite conservative if compared to many others.

Giancarlo

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation...

I don't think we're really comparing apples to apples here.

beaslbob: I agree with you, your tank is far from a high light/fast growing/densly planted tank. Adopting any kind of "fast" regime would be like putting ocatane in a Yugo. I would certainly stick to what you're doing or any other low light regiem if you desire to experiment at any time. I don't think however your tank represents any argument pro or against a fast regime, it just isn't the type of tank these methods are made for.

with that large a dose of ferts performed weekly-you think ther'es no danger/possibility of burning the plants/overfertilizing/algal blooms?

Just to address this one statement on it's own... which components do you feel are overdosed?

Just to repost the suggested values:
CO2: 20-30ppm
NO3: 5-10ppm
K+: 20-30ppm
PO4: 0.4-1.0ppm
Fe: .5ppm or above

Quite honestly, I don't see any values here to be above any other high light regime. They are actually quite conservative if compared to many others.

Giancarlo

the way i see it-one is spiking the tank at the beginning of the week with a 'flood' of nutrients, and letting it dip towards the end with a (possible)lack thereof-that gives one a large weekly cyclical swing every week-i think plants do much better when all levels remain as stable and even as possible, which is why i prefer smaller, even, daily doses-why force upon them 'bolemia' ?

(keep in mind that their rate of processing the nitrogenous wastes in the tank will also 'swing' according to the fert. 'saturation' regime-i'd prefer to keep that at a steady pace as well )

 

[gpodio]

Well... weekly regimes have been around forever, daily or weekly I think it's been well proven that both work. I still don't see where this "flood" is coming from, establishing 5-10ppm of nitrate at the start of the week is hardly a lot, most of us have 5ppm from tap meaning you only need to add another 5ppm at most... What is your nitrate level after dosing?

Debating daily or weekly is one of those endless arguments, because both work and differences are minimal and perhaps best chosen based on one's personal needs, available time and preferences. I don't think anyone has made a concrete argument pro or against either.

Plants take in nutrients and store eccesses for later use, one of the principles of weekly dosing is that plants store eccess nutrients at the start of the week and can easily depend on these during the latter part of the week where levels drop, algae cannot do this. Plants can actually sustain themselves for 1 to 2 weeks on stored nutrients!

 

[Anonymous]

....

Plants take in nutrients and store eccesses for later use, one of the principles of weekly dosing is that plants store eccess nutrients at the start of the week and can easily depend on these during the latter part of the week where levels drop, algae cannot do this. Plants can actually sustain themselves for 1 to 2 weeks on stored nutrients!

Yep

but not the algaes. Which is why killing the lights works. Especially with cyano. the cyano dies off returning the nutrients the plants need.

And the plants grow during the dark period.

So when the lights come back on the now larger starved plants see increased nutrients and less algae/cyano to rob them of nutrients. So the plants are at the advantage and can keep ahead of the algae/cyano.

One guy on another board and on a reef tank used a 2-3 day black ever month or two to keep cyano at bay. He reports it is working extremely well.

 

[gpodio]

Yes a blackout works very well on many types of algaes, cyano in particular. During these dark periods however plants grow very leggy, they are actually consuming all their stored energy in a race to the surface looking for more light, the growth in this scenario is undesired by aquascapers which is why it's often avoided. BBA on the other hand is one of the few algae that seems to tollerate blackouts just as well as plants.

Funny how close these two methods are in reality, algae can't live long without available nutrients and/or light. You either cut the light on occasions or starve the algae of nutrients. The first is easier and would not interfere with one's current fertilization regime, but it will cause the plants to grow more leggy. The other starves the algae of nutrients while leaving the plant growth uneffected. Obviously something that is more important to an aquascaper than a living room aquarist.