Not Buying That Dosing Ei Is Required For 2wpg And Up

[Mako Man111]

Alright, so I've had my planted 20 gallon up and running for over a month now, and currently have 3.25wpg. I only dose Seachem flourish once a week, and I basically have hardly any algae (spare a little hair algae on some plants that stays very small and is hardy noticable). I've even seen my amazon sword pearling. I DO have a nutrafin co2 system, but I really wouldn't think that that is the reason for my having so little algae, because i'm not dosing every day. My tank is not even heavily planted so its no full of algae busters. I'm gona try an experiment and see how my tank does without co2 and see if that is what is preventing my algae. because if I don't get a major increase after taking away my co2, I really don't think that it is necessary to do EI with over 2wpg, at least in my case. What do you think?

 

[craynerd]

Alright, so I've had my planted 20 gallon up and running for over a month now, and currently have 3.25wpg.

What Colour temp?

and where are they from?


Chris

 

[Themuleous]

EI is by no means necessary, many top people don't use it, Amano runs his tanks much leaner with ferts, but then he uses very good substrates.

The thing with EI IMHO is that is covers all the bases. We know from the work Tom Barr did that excess nutrients in the water column do not cause algae on their own, in which case we might as well make sure there are lots so the plants have a ready supply. It also means that they are not dependent on the substrate to provide them with all the need. What EI does is to create a complete nutrient rich environment from substrate to water column, that gives the plants the best conditions to grow.

I think you might have misunderstood slightly, CO2 not fert dosing (to a certain extent at least) becomes necessary at over 2WPG on the whole, as with out it the plants are unable to use the extra energy they get from the lights, it also has certain algae preventing properties itself.

Sam

 

[craynerd]

We know from the work Tom Barr did that excess nutrients in the water column do not cause algae on their own

So, under which circumstances do they cause algae?

Chris

 

[jimbooo]

when there are too many nutrients and not enough light and/or co2.

basically the stronger the light & co2 the faster the plants metabolism (sp?) if they are not photosynthesising fast enough and using the nutrients in the process then the extra nutrients in the water will be used by algae. hence any deficiency in light and/or co2 when dosing EI will result in algae...and lots of it. (you may remember my cobweb type algae problem in my riccia. that was the result of nutrifins on a 40G. now i'm pressurised i have no problem)

it's all about balance my friends.....

 

[Mako Man111]

EI is by no means necessary, many top people don't use it, Amano runs his tanks much leaner with ferts, but then he uses very good substrates.

The thing with EI IMHO is that is covers all the bases. We know from the work Tom Barr did that excess nutrients in the water column do not cause algae on their own, in which case we might as well make sure there are lots so the plants have a ready supply. It also means that they are not dependent on the substrate to provide them with all the need. What EI does is to create a complete nutrient rich environment from substrate to water column, that gives the plants the best conditions to grow.

I think you might have misunderstood slightly, CO2 not fert dosing (to a certain extent at least) becomes necessary at over 2WPG on the whole, as with out it the plants are unable to use the extra energy they get from the lights, it also has certain algae preventing properties itself.

Sam

So, I can continue dosing my Seachem Flourish once a week with my 3.25wpg (1 65 watt 6700k), as long as I keep my co2?

 

[craynerd]

when there are too many nutrients and not enough light and/or co2.

basically the stronger the light & co2 the faster the plants metabolism (sp?) if they are not photosynthesising fast enough and using the nutrients in the process then the extra nutrients in the water will be used by algae. hence any deficiency in light and/or co2 when dosing EI will result in algae...and lots of it. (you may remember my cobweb type algae problem in my riccia. that was the result of nutrifins on a 40G. now i'm pressurised i have no problem)

it's all about balance my friends.....

Exactly jimboo (and nice to speak to you again !!) , my point is, i keep hearing this "excess nutrients do not cause algae" dashed around all the forums, this simply is not true under all circumstances so surely it should not be a phrase we use off-the-cuff!!

Chris

 

[Themuleous]

I never said they wouldn't cause algae!

 

[plantbrain]

Well, with respect to excess NH4, that will cause algae, the others will not over extremely wide ranges.

NH4 is the critical "excess", bad for fish, fry, plants, great for causing algae blooms.

NO3? 150ppm etc, never was able to induce any algae species, that's lethal ranges for shrimps also.
PO4? 5ppm ? Does no harm.
K+, 100ppm? Again, nothing
Traces? 200mls in a 80- liter tank of Seachem flourish, 20 mls of MG etc in the same tank for several weeks, nothing.

Defiencent levels of these nutrients cause algae? You bet.

CO2, poor CO2, accounts for about 90-95% of all algae issues.
Non CO2 tanks are slow growing, but the CO2 is nebver outside a very low, but Stable range, 0-3ppm. Plants adapt well to that and don't do a water change, pack the tank with plants and those tanks will not need much esle.

Amano does do EI essentially, he does weekly large water changes, adds nutrients daily thereafter.

He runs it leaner, but there's more in the substrate.
EI can be used in conjuction with ADA aqua soil for a super tank growth.

This way the ADa soils last longer sincwe there's less demand.

Higher Fish loads with less light, non CO2 methods require less inorganic ferts as a rule.
The plant growth rate is slower...............

When you start talking about farming and horticulture and growing this faster, then you need inorganic ferts.
You cannot keep adding mkore and more fish to such tanks to supply the nutrient though.

Ask yourself why that might be?

What does the fish waste/food become first?

NH4.

Add just tiny amount, sick fish, dead shrimp, lots of algae.

So we use KNO3 instead.

EI is for CO2 methods.
There is an article I have for optimizing the Non CO2 method as well that does not suggets water changes.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[netcode]

Interesting that you say non co2 don't need water changes...

is this really healthy for the tank in general? or are the plants going to use most of the waste..etc.

Is there any access to this article as well? I would be interested in reading it as I am currently running a low light setup.


thx

 

[plantbrain]

Yes, it's on the public side of my site (www.BarrReport.com) under non CO2.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Themuleous]

Thanks for that Tom, really interesting. So when you and others talk about having a balanced tank, is that achieved by dosing the same schedule week in and week out, and the tank adapts to that accordingly, algae takes hold when a part of that balanced tank gets out of sink?

The whole getting a balance idea has baffled me ever since I heard about EI, how do you get a balance?

Thanks Tom

Sam

 

[plantbrain]

Simple, in fast growing planted tanks(CO2 and Excel enriched), we add nutrients frequently, ansd do large water changes to prevent any build up.

In slow CO2 limited tank, there' no need to do water change because the growth is so slow and plants can handle the lower light/CO2, algae slows down with respect to this parameters as well BTW...........
You have a huge amount of wiggle room with less light/ less CO2 in the dosing routines.

Ask yourself why that might be.

Think about a car, if you drive real fast and you make a mistake, you'll likely die, slow? Juast a littkle dent.
If something happens, you have plenty of response time.

Same deal here, with more light, more CO2, you have much higher Nutrient demands.
That follows logically.

I think many get all messed up when I explain this and they get stuck in the details of some myth some one fed them awhile ago etc.

It's very straight forward to me at this point, but is was quite the paradox before I noticed and figured out what was occuring.

You slow things down enough, but still have barely enough light, CO2 etc, virtually any dosing, fish waste etc will work fine.

I actually measure the rate difference between a non CO2 and CO2 tank, it's, on average about 10x slower growth, the range is also supported by researchers, eg Barko et al etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[netcode]

Interesting comments Tom.

Just wanted to comment myself on something that was said:

Simple, in fast growing planted tanks(CO2 and Excel enriched), we add nutrients frequently, ansd do large water changes to prevent any build up.

In slow CO2 limited tank, there' no need to do water change because the growth is so slow and plants can handle the lower light/CO2, algae slows down with respect to this parameters as well BTW...........
You have a huge amount of wiggle room with less light/ less CO2 in the dosing routines.

in a co2 limited tank your nutrient levels are normally at much lower levels due to the slower growth so a little more or little less isn't going to have such an impact on the health of the plants/tank. This is what I really enjoy about my co2 limited, low-light tank. I can achieve keeping just as healthy plants(health not including growth rates) as a co2 enriched tank but have some room for error incase things go astray, also I am prolly at a lower risk of massive uncontrollable algae blooms. The more and more I think about this makes me wonder if there really is more pros then cons to growing in a co2 enriched environment.

 

[plantbrain]

You got it!

The arguments for non CO2 methods are quite strong.

I like both CO2 and non CO2 methods personally.

It's important to note, you need to be well versed in both non CO2 and CO2 methods to give a fair assessment.

Personal prejudices can often skew one's opinion and limit the scope and understanding of the topic/s and ability to help all planted tank folks/questions and be able to explain the seemingly conflicting advice that is wide spread in the hobby.

I have strong opinions myself, but they are formed from doing, not sitting on me hiney
Thgen I can argue about it, if I have no experience with it and there is little support in the research, it's tough to say much.

If you feel somethingis not right, prove it.
If you feel something is right, prove it.

Prove it to yourself.
Then ask "why" and figure out a way to answer that question why and how and what mechanism is at work here.

Be specific.
Give hard data, eg,

"5 to 100ppm of NO3 never induced any species of algae with non limiting nutrient levels on the other significant parameters(Light/CO2, K+, Fe etc)"

Not "excess NO3 causes algae", that's of no use and subjected to myths and other issues.
I've done the background research and the test myself and I've been actively doing it for a decade, so I'm a bit more experienced with these issues than many and if folks don't know that about me(my past), it seems a bit unbelievable.

But I am obsessive about aquatic macrophytes and algae.
Not everyone has the same intensity and that's okay too.
I ended up working all the way through school through the Ph.D. and studying with the top folks with aquatic plants.

There are many Aquaschisters on the web, I'm not one of them.

Regards,
Tom Barr