• 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

for all we know the plants might only be able to access 5% of it ... for any number of reason and the other 95% laid to waste. This is certainly the case for CO2 and is the reason we try to add high ppm to the water because we know the vast majority will disappear into our lounge air. Its like trying to grab hold of leaves in the air on a very windy day (or being in the Crystal maze trying to grab the gold tickets.)
Can you give me any link to an article or any source of credible information where it is stated that aquatic plants are able to access only 5% of nutrients dissolved in the water? If my CO2 is dissolved in the water, and I pump more gas from the bottle, then I have 35 ppm CO2 dissolved in the water permanently. The potential loss is compensated by the new addition.
 
When the time comes for me to do this test, I plan to add a huge amounts of nutrients (at least full EI) to see if the plants are able to use it up. So don't be afraid of any nutrient limitation.
But plants need time to adapt. You have to do the test with perfectly healthy plants that have been this way for a few weeks.
 
How often do you dose these ammounts ardjuna? By the way ardjuna many people dose loads of nutrients and dont get algae.
The values stated are weekly dose, but I divide it into smaller daily dosages.
 
But plants need time to adapt. You have to do the test with perfectly healthy plants that have been this way for a few weeks.
Tell this to the scientists.

BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?
 
you have to be a little bit careful with Purely because Ceratophyllum demersum is an obligate aquatic plant and usually grows entirely submerged. If you looked at the majority of the plants sold as aquarium plants they aren't obligate aquatic plants, quite the opposite, they are terrestrial plants that will survive submerged. I think this will make a real difference, because atmospheric CO2 levels are about 400ppm.
I agree with this comment at 100%. As to the CO2 level this can be a reason to use higher amounts for some of our plants. But at the same time I would say that if we grow terrestrial plants underwater with such a low CO2 levels, then these plants won't grow very well or very fast in aquatic conditions, and thus they can have much lower nutrients demands then true aquatic plants. True aquatic plants are a real fast growers, whereas terrestrial plants underwater don't grow too fast (because of very limiting light levels and much lower CO2 levels).
 
Why? Are you not interested in finding out the truth? Why would you do the test then?
Sorry, that was an allusion to how scientists do their tests. They usually take a new shoots from grown plants, then store them in a cold environment for a couple of days, and then use them in their test. I suppose they know what they're doing. I plan to do my test not until the end of January, so there's plenty of time to acclimate my plants to higher concentrations. The only problem I see are algae, as at higher concentrations of nutrients there is much bigger probability of getting algae which can distort the results (although EI users won't agree ... maybe they could do this test in their tanks if they have no algae problems under high nutrients levels + high light + tank without any filter media and algae-eaters).
 
The only problem I see are algae, as at higher concentrations of nutrients there is much bigger probability of getting algae which can distort the results (although EI users won't agree ... maybe they could do this test in their tanks if they have no algae problems under high nutrients levels + high light + tank without any filter media and algae-eaters).

Tom Barr has supposedly done these tests and the result is that the maximum consumption for a planted tank is EI ammounts more or less. For this you need laboratory equipment tomeasure ions in water.

Scientists are not always right. For example until recently phosphates were thought to be the cause of algae and it turns out it isnt.

About your tank the only thing I can say since its not in front of me is that you are just limitting you plant growth/metabolism by limitting phosphates. A plant that doesnt get enough phosphates might not look too bad and could live with this low levels. In the long run you will most probably have GSA or other problems, unless you adapt your dosing and give an extra dose every now or then (but I wont be there to see you).
 
BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?

He has written about this. I havent asked him but I dont need to. Ive seen evidence in my tanks that he is right and so have many others. This doesnt mean that all tanks have an EI consumption which I think is where you are getting confused. Most tanks are under 2/3 of EI, so yes you can dose much less probably without problems, but then again you might have loads of light and not know it and this is when you stop believing in high ammount of nutrients, because you get algae but it might be the CO2 or low ferts.
 
BTW, did you have the same requirements on Tom Barr and his EI? Did you ask him on how did he come to his estimates?
I agree with Marcel on this. My most sincere respects and acknowledgment to someone who spend his time and money on this and wants to share his results (no matter if it is something that complex, an eqipment review, a tutorial, etc.). Mates, have a look at his website (explore the Czec version, it is worth it), it is not the first time he thinks about this. Of course, anyone can be wrong but why are we in general so reluctant to accept new approaches when most of us have never questioned our previously accepted knowledge/techniques? Each time this experiemnt is discussed (not only here) there are dozens of comments trying to deny everything (very few people really ask things) while these same people have never questioned what they are doing and demanding the same level of accuracy to the one who "invented" this theory.

Honestly, I'm really looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. Hopefully everything defended in a forum could be demonstrated this way, with a fully-open access. Cooperative research is the future!

Scientists are not always right. For example until recently phosphates were thought to be the cause of algae and it turns out it isnt.
Scientists are very often right... actually most of the aquatic ecologists I know and work with on wetland management have indeed very good arguments to link phosphates and algae (which does not mean that you can add phosphates to a planted tank and not having algae)

Jordi
 
phosphates dont cause algae. Youd have to say; phosphates feed algae if conditions for this are right. So its a totally different argument. Ammonia causes algae.

I back anyone who wants to do an experiment. But this is anything but new Parotet. There are already a few threads on the internet saying the same things as this one. There are always people asking why you should listen blindly to what Tom Barr says. Well I dont think you should and I used to think that EI was wrong until I saw the evidence in my own tanks. You dont need expensive things to see that Tom is right. I am not a Tom Barr boy, but if something hasnt been proven wrong in the last few years then there is a chance that he is right. Ive tried both methods. Limitting nutrients and excess nutrients. I can see that non limitting nutrients works a charm and didnt have the same experience by limitting nutrients. This is enough evidence for me. I understand the mistrust there is towards EI because I also felt it. But if you are flexible enough and keep your eyes open then youll get to a good conclusion.
 
I'm just really happy that someone is doing rigorous experiments about planted aquariums. We can only learn something from discussions like these and Marcel's experiments.

I use EI and it works for me but EI cannot be the end of our understanding. EI is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is a methodology, open to adaptation and originally published on a forum like this one.

P
 
Scientists are very often right... actually most of the aquatic ecologists I know and work with on wetland management have indeed very good arguments to link phosphates and algae (which does not mean that you can add phosphates to a planted tank and not having algae)
This is false. In fact there is no correlation between nutrient levels and algae levels in natural waters. In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants. I dont know much about this I have to say but what Ive read seems to suggest that more nutrients means more aquatic weeds. Im open to evidence though.
 
Last edited:
In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants
Sorry, but too generalictic to be truth... the reality is much more complex. Just an example of the hundreds possible: Mediterranean shallow lakes are in most cases euthrophic (due to high amounts of PO4 from agriculture). More nutrients in that case do not lead to more plants, but to no plants at all. The phytoplankton (mostly algae) creates a barrier for light and macrophytes are not able to grow (other side-effects occur). If you go to the other end, aquatic habitats rich in plants are very often poor in nutrients compared to our tanks. I'm sure other experts can add more examples.

Once again, the point is that PO4 do not lead necessarily to algae on planted tanks, but it does not mean that PO4 cannot be related to algae. Despite our tanks being called "Nature Aquarium", there is nothing that can be further from reality. Aquatic habitats rich in plants do no look like our tanks. Aquatic hábitats rich in plants are often monocultures, no one chose the position of plants, no one mix plants with different demands, plants do not look super healthy, etc. We need eutrophic tanks to achieve such a look (densely planted and diverse... well this high-tech look we all imagine), and it is true that these euthrophic conditions do not lead necessarily to algae (because we supply Co2, because we change water, etc.)

Jordi
 
I have to admit that I dont know a thing on this. Was just speakin out of memories. I remember Tom Barr saying there are more plants in places where there are more nutrients available. Of course I dont think this accounts for artificially contaminated places etc. Dont think it adds much to the thread but its interesting to know anyway.
 
Hi all,
I'd have to say straight away that I've never added CO2, and I've always had aquariums with lean nutrients, where at least one element is limiting. If you like it is a "faith position", rather than being based upon scientific experiment.

To quantify what makes one aquarium "successful", and another not, is almost impossible, the range of variables is immense. If you had data from a lot of smaller studies you could perform meta analysis and develop a "generalized linear model (GLM)", but I'm still not sure it would give you a definitive answer, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.

My suspicion would be that there are a number of zones in the PAR - CO2 - Nutrients triangle where you reach some stability. I think the main difference is that if you have high PAR - CO2 - Nutrients you have a situation where that stability is transitory without continual attention, and things can "go wrong" relatively quickly.

Before I joined this forum I was very dubious that "Estimative Index" could work, but it obviously does for many people, as long as they follow the rules about CO2 distribution, water changes etc.

From my point of view, I have a method that works for my situation. I like plants, but they are principally in the tank to maintain high water quality for the live-stock.

I don't really care what light I have and I plant lots of low tech plants including some floaters and I aim to keep them in growth, it really is as simple as that.

If I don't have much PAR I have a relatively low biomass, and if I have a large PAR I have a large biomass. Once the tanks are grown in I leave them in their "steady state".

Again I'm a regular small volume water changer, others don't change much water. Because I use rain-water for water changes I'm not adding any CO2, which may make a difference.

Do I have algae in my tanks? Yes I do, but in most of the tanks I would welcome a bit more of it.

It may not be very exciting, but it is a stable position and allows me to leave the tanks for 3 - 4 week periods without any maintenance, or fish feeding, without having to worry about it.

I know that things will be pretty similar when I come back to how they were when I left.

cheers Darrel
 
aquatic habitats rich in plants are very often poor in nutrients compared to our tanks
These are often (probably even always) in situations where there are currents "replacing" the lost nutrients infinitly. :geek:
 
Can you give me any link to an article or any source of credible information where it is stated that aquatic plants are able to access only 5% of nutrients dissolved in the water? If my CO2 is dissolved in the water, and I pump more gas from the bottle, then I have 35 ppm CO2 dissolved in the water permanently. The potential loss is compensated by the new addition.

Maybe a misundertanding but the 5% was an example made up by me to suggest that plants will not use up all that is added or in the tank. Just because we add 10ppm of something does not mean that if the next test reading is zero that the plants have taken it up. As for the CO2 it is not dissolved in the water permanently. It will be dissolved in the water for a very very short time. You can see this pretty easily in terms of ppm changing within a couple of hours after the CO2 is turned off. This will also be happening whilst you are injecting. You inject it and it is continually gassing off. I would suggest that for CO2 that 5% being used and 95% being lost to the atmospher is very very realistic and probably not far from the truth at all. For other nutrients it will be an exaggeration but we can't assume that adding 10ppm today, reading 0ppm tomorrow means that 10ppm was used. There are all manner of things that can happen other than plant uptake to reduce the ppm.

So yes you can take the 5% generalisation I used with a very large pinch of salt (scuse the pun) for the nutrients but with CO2 it is a reality. 100% dissolved OR as micro bubbles it is continually gassing off. With 100% dissolved you just can't see it. With the micro bubbles you can clearly see it. I think even Tom Barr would suggest this is pretty much true.

As for the scientists part as suggested above I would say far from scientists 'used to believe' that phosphates cause algae, they probably never did BUT it suits an agenda. I am pretty sure that scientists know that phosphates do not cause algae yet they perpetuate the myth because that myth gives credence to government objectives. Namely the reduction of fertilisers to appease campaigners and at the same time covers their own backs for clearing all the 'unsightly weeds' from riverbanks to make them prettier which is more likely the cause of the algae. Namely they are doing the opposite to us. If we heavily plant and don't disturb the substrates then the plants beat the algae. The authorities don't want heavily planted, they dredge the rivers/ditches regularly and take away all the weeds that were combating the problem.

I am not arguing for adding more phosphate at all. I am just arguing against the suggestion that limiting phosphate at the same time as having high light and non limiting CO2/other nutrients will do nothing other than cause algae. If you do not have GSA then it is more than likely that you are meeting the phosphate demands of your tank. Of course that is only my opinion.
 
In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants.
Please, read the articles by Roger W. Bachman. Here are the links to them: barrreport.com. He's the expert on limnology and aquatic ecology at Florida. I'm not a man who believes misleading statements of one person who says that phosphates do not correlate to algae bloom, while most of the scientists agree that high level of nitrates and phosphates do correlate with algae. It could be very deceptive to argue by own experience as often we overlook many factors which can play significant role in it. For example, Tom Barr says that when we add high amount of nutrients into our planted tanks and we have no algae outbreak, then we have "falsified" this theory. But this is just wrong assumpsion as he don't take into account so many factors which work against algae in our tanks (like algae-eaters, filtration, water changes, regular maintenance, relatively low light compared with full sunlight etc.). I tried to argue with EI users about this, but it seems that they don't want to see/admit this.
 
Just because we add 10ppm of something does not mean that if the next test reading is zero that the plants have taken it up ... I am pretty sure that scientists know that phosphates do not cause algae yet they perpetuate the myth because that myth gives credence to government objectives.
I agree with the first statement. It's quite clear that our plants consume only part of the total amount of nutrients available. Part of the nutrients can precipitate or being used by bacteria etc.
But I don't agree with the second part about phosphates and alleged scientists' "believe". There is quite simple possibility for you to find out what "causes" algae to grow. How are scientists growing algae in laboratories? Do you think they put algae sample into petri dish and then pray to God? No! They put algae sample into petri dish, put lot of nutrients inside, and add strong light. The result: algae. It's that simple! You can look at the nutrients solution they use to grow different kinds of algae (usually Bold's Basal Medium). You can look here also (use Google Translate). So I just don't understand you belief in Tom Barr, ignoring all the scientific findings (not only in laboratories, but in field also) about excess nitrates and phosphates correlating with algae infestations. Tom Barr says for example that most algae are in a spore stage in our tanks, while most algologists say that most algae are present in a vegetative state. The exact mechanism for algae spores to germinate is not known yet (see this article). But if algae are in vegetative stage, then only nutrients and light is needed for them to grow.
 
Back
Top