Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"
Graeme Edwards said:
Thats the most rounded and honest post you have written about EI that I have seen, Clive.
Nice one.
Normally people who love EI dont talk about the algae, or the pitfalls, because there are, you mention them your self. ( scrubbing, 3x water changes etc...... thats the first time ive heard some one talking about EI in that way...... )
My interpretation of EI from what I read, not what I have done, ill be honest, is loads of light, loads of ferts and a big water change. Well I know, and I know you know, its not as basic as that. And that is why I have had to deal with many people trying to get EI right. Because EI to the nubie or the non ppm/science waffle waffle, minded people is not black and white like some science, techie peeps see it.
That post, to me, finally admits that EI is still a case of balance and its not about throwing everything you have at the plants all the time from the day dot. Come on, its not that simple.....
Nice post Clive.
I talk about algae, but generally in the context what we know does
not cause it.
This person did a few thing, none of which address nutrient specifically.
There was no replacement series test done here, so you cannot conclude that one thign specifically caused the algae.
Removing this much plant biomass alone, regardless of the dosing can lead to algae.
I did it recently when I hacked the Starougyne way back. Dosing was the same, but....algae appeared. If I trimmed less % of plant biomass no algae.
In both cases the algae has the same access to nutrients. So that was not it.
Would doing a large water change and then not adding ferts back prevent this algae bloom?
Plenty of folks do not dose much and also get algae
😉
Each dosing method also have good examples where they no algae, also good examples where there is a lot of algae, every method. This suggest that dosing itself is not the only cause/issue. There must be other factors both direct and indirect potentially.
Removal of biomass is one, but I've also done large removals without algae too.
Still, the % chance of algae goes down as the % biomass goes up in any aquarium, I think this is a good general observation we could suggest is a rule of green thumb/generalization that is safe to make.
CO2 is also addressed poorly, even myself and Amano admit this. He's killed tanks full of fish more than once. Ask him if you do not believe me. We are both aware of it a bit more than most, CO2 is much harder to rule out.
I have another tank where I removed the same amount, no algae. Depends on the plant species in question also.
However, can we say it's really about balancing JUST the dosing/nutrients?
I think not, nor is this a wise thing to do, focus solely on one element to suggest dosing is the root of algae.
the observations I've seen simply do not support that conclusion, even a little bit, and I've done enough test on many tanks of various sizes to have a good safe set of data to draw from.
You can say what it is not, but rarely can you say what it is that causes algae. Many are tempted to conclude much more than they really can with algae and nutrients. This leaves you wide open to make mistakes and errors in the assumptions. You have to test and see if you can falsify your claims. Even that does not guarantee you did not make a mistake in the experimental set up.
I have falsified many hypothesis I've made about algae.
So have others.
I have to let them go and see why I made those mistakes. Often it is things like I had a lot more light than the person who showed it was false, maybe my CO2 was a tad off? It's only when I get no response, no algae etc, that I can really say I falsified it. Another aquarist may never get to that point however. So they will not believe it.
They will look for other causes, and often nutrients are insanely popular left with few options in their own minds.
Nutrients do have indirect effects on CO2 and light use efficacy. So if you moderately limit PO4 say, you can reduce the CO2 deamnd indiretcly. the CO2 is now non limiting, but was slightly limiting prior when you had good PO4.
This effect leads many to believe nutrients play a role in algae reduction, and entirely overlook the real issue: CO2. In one case, the CO2 was limiting, but switched to a PO4 limiting, which does not induce much algae, other than say some GSA.
Liebig's law applies strongly with aquatic plants, but also with CO2(and should be included with any limitation model) and light since we add these and they can limiting and changes the rates of growth dramatically.
EI is simple: it provides non limiting nutrients.
Like modified Hoagland's solution for hydroponics testing.
Unlike terrestrial plants, CO2 is also highly limiting in submersed aquatic plants.
So it must be included.
Next is light, which also must be included for management of rates of growth. This is very different than the sun outside, we can change the PAR a great deal tank to tank. This in turn, affects the CO2/nutrients.
I view this issue holistically, not just with nutrients in mind, but whole the entire plant grows. There's more to each also and more subjects like plant species and % biomass, current etc........CO2 is complex in and of itself, more than I ever thought.
Still, Ole, Troels and Claus hit the nail on the head with their conclusion and they used a non limiting, thus independent(no interactions due to nutrients)m nutrient levels for the study, this way they could look at CO2 and light without confounding factors.
This allows them to make much more clear conclusions.
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technic ... light.aspx
We spoke a couple of years ago along with Karen Randall after a meeting. I took them to see the Redwoods and the coast etc, good food etc. We spoke maybe 4-5 min on plants, that was it.
Can any of you guess what we discussed?
Regards,
Tom Barr
