SniperLk;35329 said:Hello Tom and thanks for your answer.
So the problem with a weekly dosage is the lack of consistency in the NO3 & PO4 concentration and not the concentration itself, right ?
Is this also valid for potassium and magnesium ? Because on my second tank (CO2, 3W/g, 80g) which is not fertilized by EI I'm adding 1ppm of NO3 and 0.1ppm of PO4 daily + 2ppm of magnesium (my water is fairly low in magnesium 2ppm and 45ppm of Calcium) and 5ppm of Potassium after the weekly water change.
I've to say I'm a bit confused because almost all brands of ferts advise to dose weekly
Thanks again .
ccLansman : According to Tom and surely others, NH4 and lack of CO2/inconsistent CO2 are the main causes of algae blooms.
I agreeIf you want reduced water changes, use LEAN light, not lean nutrients.
Otherwise, you are wasting light/testing, labor etc instead of water.
All growth starts with light, not nutrients.
Then light drives CO2, and Carbon drives N and P, and K, Ca, and so on...........
SniperLk;35363 said:I know you've already shown that most of aquatic plants can be kept in hard water (I've seen those photos a couple of times ). I use 50% of RO water mainly for my fish, I've some wild dicrossus filamentosa which lived in soft water. Maybe they could live in very hard water too but I don't think this is totally illogical to choose to maintain soft water fish in soft water...
Don't blame me for not using EI on a high light tank. As you said EI is not the only way to go and we both know we can also have excellent plant growth with less ferts. Once again we both know that each method has pros and cons.
You also seem to suggest that's useless to have 3W/gallon on my tank.
So are all the owners of top 10 AGA 2008 tanks stupid because they all use more than 3W/gallon ? hum...We all know that it's a matter of plant species... (nevertheless I think going above 1W/L begin to be wasteful)
It's not that I want lean dosing, it's just that I don't want to throw 20g of ferts when 10g are enough and make me able to do less water change.
Yes it requires more adjustments and yes it also works (otherwise all the top 10 AGA tanks would be fertilized with EI which is not the case as far as I know).
So please don't preach at me for not using EI on a high light tank..
Absolutely. I never said it was for the plants . I don't know why you thought that.Tom Barr;35370 said:Then the RO water is a good trade off. Breeding, caring for the fish etc.
Not really for the plants........
Light drives everything, I never said it didn't.. once again I agree with you.You are not getting the concept here..........
This is not about dosing methods, it's about being able to reduce the growth rates, thereby reducing the CO2 demand and then...........the uptake rates.
This is not "about EI".
Less = leanerSimply adding less nutrients, no matter what the so called method...... is leaner, adding more of some other suggetsion is richer. They both add the same things.
I never said I want less trimming, less growth etc, in fact I like to trim ; ). I said I don't want 50% water change since it's not compulsory, it depends on the dosing routine.What I am suggesting here, it both a way to reduce the labor and reduce the water changes, RO requirements.
as well as make the dosing routine, whether it's EI or ADA or PMDD or whatever........ easier for you or anyone.
I guess it's ironicIf you use RO, perhaps you do not mind doing water changes, most do however.
I do, I was just answering.Let me explain things to you:
Stay on topic.
There is nothing personal, sorry if I expressed myself wrong.I never said this and never implied it, only that it's obvious lower light tanks can be done at high level. You are assuming the rest of this on your own.
If you cannot stay on topic and take things personally, go elsewhere.
We all make mistakes, I give folks one good chance there. This is yours.
Get personal again, and you will be only the second person in 4 years that I will ban on this web site.
SniperLk;35378 said:Light drives everything, I never said it didn't.. once again I agree with you.
Less = leaner
more = richer
It sounds right to me
I never said I want less trimming, less growth etc, in fact I like to trim ; ). I said I don't want 50% water change since it's not compulsory, it depends on the dosing routine.
There is nothing personal, sorry if I expressed myself wrong.
Here is the thing. You seem to say that high light tanks need 50% water change, and this is exactly the point where I disagree.
It depends on the dosing method.
EI or ADA are not the only working method.
You can have a beautiful high light tank without big water change and by dosing accordingly to plants needs (that's to say not 3x what the plants may need).
From Bjorn Hoorelbeke. High light tank. No flourite, no ADA AS, just a layer of plant substrate under the gravel. weekly 25% water change.
You suggest "I could have a very easy to care for by reducing the light and it would be easier to maintain."
That's perfectly true and a good piece of advice. What you forget to say is that reducing the light can also have some unwanted effects.
If there was absolutely no advantage to have 3W/gal instead of say 1.5W/gal, everyone would use 1.5W/gal.
This is not because some Rotala sp green, java fern and eleo parvula do well with 1.5W/gal that every plants will show their best with that lighting. That's not true. Like I said prior it depends on which plant you are considering. Tonina and java fern have not the same needs (not in quality but in quantity).
But of course you can have beautiful tank with low lighting setup, never said you couldn't. Just have to pick the right plants.
From someone who claims to want proofs for any statement, I'm a bit surprised.. I'd rather say congratulations to the owner of that tank.Tom Barr;35386 said:Let retouch the cherry red colors that have been photo shopped also:
I wasn't talking about beginners but about all the winners of AGA 2008 which are experienced and talented aquarists. They were all, yes ALL using more than 3W/gall. So your point is that they are all doing so for the love of trimming, is that right ?This is simply not a logical statement.
Plenty of folks believe more light is better and have long been marketed by light companies, magazines and LFS's.........this has gone on for decades.
I did. A few months ago I was still using approx 170W (~2W/gal) and then I added another 54W tube.I think we are bit closer on things than you might, and myself at times, realize.
However, try and see if you can disprove your own claims
Actually I did,