Some folks have brought back to old topic we discussed many times going back to 1990's as "something new".
When we limited PO4 then(except for myself), the demand for growth was considerably lower, that makes sense. Thus the demand for CO2 was much less.
That makes logical sense. If the plant does not have enough PO4, the amount of CO2 will not matter. PO4 limitation is not that bad either.
The reasoning for it on the otherhand was (induces algae was the claim). But limiting a nutrient/s can reduce the CO2 demand by plants. Given that CO2 causes many algae related issues, it is no surprise that so many folks blame poor plant health and algae on nutrients and routines,m rather than isolating and effectively measuring CO2 over the course of the entire day cycle.
Nutrients are not ephemeral, CO2 most certainly is.
How can one aquarist add high nutrients and have good success at high CO2 and such, while another tries and has algae and plant health issues, yet when tries a leaner routine, suddenly has success?
Why might one case be algae/problematic yet another doing a similar routine have no such issues?
Light and CO2.
If you are not supplying good CO2, or perhaps you have much more light than you might think.the other guy etc......then limiting a nutrient will cause reduced CO2 demand and less nutrient uptake.
Your tank will "right" itself.
Now what might occur when you take the other tank with ample CO2/high light etc, and no algae/plant health issues and apply lower limiting levels?
Algae and poor health for the plants.
This model explains in logical simple sense why both methods appear to work if you are not critical and do not confirm and recheck things.
Many aquarist do not, they solved their iassue, then run and tell everyone how they did it, and do not double check their data from the past and try and induce the resposes they see on purpose to check their hypothesis.
So they believe, honestly, that the results suggest that say EI is great and that those other folks have issues. Likewise the leaner routines that some feel strongly about are better since "it worked for them".
Neither group really took the approach as to why we might see a supposedly conflicting result in one method and that of another with respect to plant health and algae.
The above accurately explains both, I tested this model a long time ago in the 1990's. I revisited it again recently for another client in Reno NV.
Ironically, the client had both types of tanks and a simple test showed it.
The client focused on CO2 for one tank instead of limiting and then other tank had more nutrients added.
Now both tanks are running well and the client has reduced the lighting.
When PMDD came out in the mid 1990's, I came along and found it did not do so well and was hard to keep that low level of NO3 in my tank for some reason.
I'd eyeballed the CO2 and had PO4 also. My CO2 turned out to be about 20-30ppm and of course, I had high light as well(also had other tanks with low light, they did better most of the time till I started adding more CO2 to the higher light tanks).
I reasoned that by removing the PO4 limitation, I'd also need to add more CO2 and K+, traces and KNO3.
That is just plain common sense to scale things up.
If you have 0.1ppm of PO4, 3ppm of NO3, and note, that's only one point in time throughout an entire day etc, then the CO2 is fine if you have 15ppm(also assuming an accurate measurement there).
Now history repeats itself.
And the folks repeating it appear unable to learn from the past and make the same assumptions and mistakes.
Folks in SFBAAPS noted leaner routines than say EI worked and they used less light to do that. But what advantage?
Less slower growth.
But lower light is the best solution for reducing CO2 demand, go low enough and you no longer need CO2 at all.
Some have used Excel in lower light tanks and bypassed the CO23 altogether and still have some decent growth rates. Some are more patient and use non CO2 methods.
I think some argue that high levels of CO2 are bad for fish(30ppm etc), if so, then no CO2 should be added, as 15ppm is still bad under most definitions.
It's(adding CO2 gas) not required to grow plants at all.
Nor is high light.
As we add more light, we now need CO2, and then we need more inorganic ferts etc.
This is a very logical thing but some folks appear to confuse this relationship and claim "miracles of plant growth and health" without adding "anything" and that less is better, why the heck does that not apply fully to no added CO2 and less light then?
That's where growth starts, not with PO4 or Fe etc.
If you have not set things up right and are not testing well/calibrating etc, well, you might just happen upon a method, gert lucky and stick with it.
Then argue those high EI levels are not needed.
Sure, not for you and not when are limiting PO4 and have a reduced CO2 demand, even though you are not aware of it.
Likewise, those that argue that high nutrients are needed for for lower light tanks are also wrong. They are not. Nor are they for non CO2 tanks, but they also do not hurt either. Those that argue they cannot add limiting lean levels to their tanks without algae are also right, but.............they can if they limit specific nutrients and thereby reduce their CO2 demand and NO3 demand etc.
Methods are very similar, the dynamics define them in pretty straight forward and logical ways however.
Regards,
Tom Barr
When we limited PO4 then(except for myself), the demand for growth was considerably lower, that makes sense. Thus the demand for CO2 was much less.
That makes logical sense. If the plant does not have enough PO4, the amount of CO2 will not matter. PO4 limitation is not that bad either.
The reasoning for it on the otherhand was (induces algae was the claim). But limiting a nutrient/s can reduce the CO2 demand by plants. Given that CO2 causes many algae related issues, it is no surprise that so many folks blame poor plant health and algae on nutrients and routines,m rather than isolating and effectively measuring CO2 over the course of the entire day cycle.
Nutrients are not ephemeral, CO2 most certainly is.
How can one aquarist add high nutrients and have good success at high CO2 and such, while another tries and has algae and plant health issues, yet when tries a leaner routine, suddenly has success?
Why might one case be algae/problematic yet another doing a similar routine have no such issues?
Light and CO2.
If you are not supplying good CO2, or perhaps you have much more light than you might think.the other guy etc......then limiting a nutrient will cause reduced CO2 demand and less nutrient uptake.
Your tank will "right" itself.
Now what might occur when you take the other tank with ample CO2/high light etc, and no algae/plant health issues and apply lower limiting levels?
Algae and poor health for the plants.
This model explains in logical simple sense why both methods appear to work if you are not critical and do not confirm and recheck things.
Many aquarist do not, they solved their iassue, then run and tell everyone how they did it, and do not double check their data from the past and try and induce the resposes they see on purpose to check their hypothesis.
So they believe, honestly, that the results suggest that say EI is great and that those other folks have issues. Likewise the leaner routines that some feel strongly about are better since "it worked for them".
Neither group really took the approach as to why we might see a supposedly conflicting result in one method and that of another with respect to plant health and algae.
The above accurately explains both, I tested this model a long time ago in the 1990's. I revisited it again recently for another client in Reno NV.
Ironically, the client had both types of tanks and a simple test showed it.
The client focused on CO2 for one tank instead of limiting and then other tank had more nutrients added.
Now both tanks are running well and the client has reduced the lighting.
When PMDD came out in the mid 1990's, I came along and found it did not do so well and was hard to keep that low level of NO3 in my tank for some reason.
I'd eyeballed the CO2 and had PO4 also. My CO2 turned out to be about 20-30ppm and of course, I had high light as well(also had other tanks with low light, they did better most of the time till I started adding more CO2 to the higher light tanks).
I reasoned that by removing the PO4 limitation, I'd also need to add more CO2 and K+, traces and KNO3.
That is just plain common sense to scale things up.
If you have 0.1ppm of PO4, 3ppm of NO3, and note, that's only one point in time throughout an entire day etc, then the CO2 is fine if you have 15ppm(also assuming an accurate measurement there).
Now history repeats itself.
And the folks repeating it appear unable to learn from the past and make the same assumptions and mistakes.
Folks in SFBAAPS noted leaner routines than say EI worked and they used less light to do that. But what advantage?
Less slower growth.
But lower light is the best solution for reducing CO2 demand, go low enough and you no longer need CO2 at all.
Some have used Excel in lower light tanks and bypassed the CO23 altogether and still have some decent growth rates. Some are more patient and use non CO2 methods.
I think some argue that high levels of CO2 are bad for fish(30ppm etc), if so, then no CO2 should be added, as 15ppm is still bad under most definitions.
It's(adding CO2 gas) not required to grow plants at all.
Nor is high light.
As we add more light, we now need CO2, and then we need more inorganic ferts etc.
This is a very logical thing but some folks appear to confuse this relationship and claim "miracles of plant growth and health" without adding "anything" and that less is better, why the heck does that not apply fully to no added CO2 and less light then?
That's where growth starts, not with PO4 or Fe etc.
If you have not set things up right and are not testing well/calibrating etc, well, you might just happen upon a method, gert lucky and stick with it.
Then argue those high EI levels are not needed.
Sure, not for you and not when are limiting PO4 and have a reduced CO2 demand, even though you are not aware of it.
Likewise, those that argue that high nutrients are needed for for lower light tanks are also wrong. They are not. Nor are they for non CO2 tanks, but they also do not hurt either. Those that argue they cannot add limiting lean levels to their tanks without algae are also right, but.............they can if they limit specific nutrients and thereby reduce their CO2 demand and NO3 demand etc.
Methods are very similar, the dynamics define them in pretty straight forward and logical ways however.
Regards,
Tom Barr
