EI weekly dosing

[SniperLk]

Hello all,

Since nutrients excess cannot induce algae, why does Tom Bar not suggest to simply dose the weekly dose of EI after the 50% water change ? Is there any problem to do that ?

Thanks !

 

[Tom Barr]

Fest or famine dosing really never did fair well in practice or in theory.
You can go daily, or 2-3x a week.

I am not sure you get the basics here............the goal is to grow plants well, they do well within a range, the range becomes too wide if you drive the lights higher, and dose only once a week, say going from 30ppm, down to 5ppm, vs 20-25ppm range.

It's not about algae, it's about plants.

You can dial the range in narrower if you chose.....dose daily etc.
Some do.

Or even hourly and automate.........but the trade off is what do you gain from that? Not much, the breaking point for water column dosing is about 2-3x a week for CO2 enriched systems.

If you add sediment ferts, lower light, you likely can extend this, it's not some "written in stone" cut off.

It's a starting point and if you want to try making it a weekly thing, then a non CO2/Excel style approach with low light is likely more suited for that goal.

But it's not about algae, never was.

All I show and have shown for decades now..........was that excess nutrients are not the cause of algae.

A not one person can/has demonstrated that they are.

It does not imply dumping 100ppm of NO3 is a good thing and we can avoid dosing routinely. There are limits to growing plants well and the flexibility with dosing. However, doing so should not induce algae if you keep NO3 at say 50ppm over time.

There's no need to go that high, or much over about 30ppm NO3 for example.
Plants will not grow any faster above 30ppm NO3.

This is supported by aquatic plant growth studies(Geoff, 1966).

If you drop to say 5ppm, growth drops off by about 60-70%.
If you keep it at 20-30ppm, growth declines only about 5%.
Which is fine.

A lower target of 20-30ppm works quite well, giving you +/- 10ppm.
A pretty large target.

The goal is not to lard it on without any regard for plant growth/fish etc, it is to target a max range that will not limit growth or by very much at all.

Some critics have suggest that it is excess, but it does have a limit based on a sound principle on fish/plant demand for non limoiting concentration and a range to keep things within.

You can get away with less certainly, but at higher levels of light, less nutrients in the sediment, non limiting PO4 etc......then it becomes progressively harder to achieve. With more sediment nutrients, less light, you can get away with 1-2x a week dosing certainly with CO2. But few would suggest you do as well with dosing that way say daily or 3x a week.




Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[ccLansman]

i guess a good follow up question would be....

what causes algae then ???

 

[SniperLk]

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.

 

[Tom Barr]

Weekly is due to that fact that such advice is for non CO2 aquariums, in which case, weekly dosing is adequate.............

It's a good question.........and a rather obvious one.

K+ , Mg, Ca are more like plain old salt in terms of use by plants.
They can be fairly high and left there.

I know of no known adverse effect of any sort with them.
I know how far I can push the limits without having negative plant growth.

The main ones are K+, PO4, NO3, CO2..........

Mg, less so, same for Ca.

Mg/Ca/K+ are rarely ever limiting in natural systems, NO3 and PO4, are very much so..........and CO2 even more than NO3/PO4...........

So if you consider that, and the fact plants have sets of enzymes for each concentration of NO3, CO2, and PO4.............(low, med, high, very high etc), keeping them within a decent range allows you to keep the plants growing at a nice stable rate.

Enzymatically, this is what occurs.
Enzymes can explain a lot, and if you go back and few steps, to the , Ribosomes, ER, RNA and DNA.........but few folks are plant physiologist on line or on the forums.

So they often just guess or make stuff up. Ironically claiming to "want to learn", and use big words like "Science".

Uh huh.........

One of the two, cause they curiously never mentioned enzymes, concetrations, of low or high affinity systems. Which is how and why plants respond to different concentrations and different nutrients.

I've talked plenty on line for 12-13 years or so now, never once has anyone ever brought these things up. Not once. It's more sad than anything.

"What causes algae" is another thread.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

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.

My tank uses about 3-4ppm per day at that light level(if T5's) and about .2-.4 ppm of PO4.

Some also.......comes from fish waste, and also ADA aqua soil.
Which is why ADA AS improves many folks' plants/growth etc, they where limiting it to begin with.

Also, it can depend on the plant species and duration etc.

If you prefer, you can dose EI daily, see the thread for that.
I would add more PO4than 0.1ppm per day.
Like 2x that amount.

That's more typically what is found in aquatic plant dry weight tissues..........

Regards,
Tom Barr


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[SniperLk]

Ok thanks for your explanations, it makes sense

About my second tank yes I'm using 3x54W T5 HO (osram 965 and sylvania 10000°K) + 2x38W T8. For the substrate I'm not using Aquasoil ($$$) but inert black quartz with a layer of JBL Aquabasis (plant substrate) under it.

Here are the others specs :
- 300L / 80g
- pressurized CO2, Drop checker - with 4°dKH solution - is yellow/green
- water flow : 1000L/h (filter) + 1200L/h (circulation)
- heavly planted : HC on the ground, ~1/3 of the surface is planted with rotala (green, rotundifolia, indica). Others mains plants are HZ, HM, limnophila aromatica.

Almost no algae, I do have some hair algae on some parts of my HC (where the current is high) but you really have to look after it to notice it. It's not growing a lot but it doesn't seem to disappear either.
There are also some plants which are a bit pale, it's really obvious if you look at the HZ from the top, the center of new leaves are almost white (never melts though). I'm a bit surprised since I'm adding 0.1ppm/day of EDTA chelated iron (provided with a household fertilizer, no NPK) + 7ml/day of easy life profito (recommended dose is ~4.5mL/day for my volume). Maybe I'll try to increase my dosage.

About my macro you think I should try to double the phosphate dose only or both nitrates & phosphates ?

Thanks a lot once again Tom !

(By the way, if I prefer using a lean dosing on this tank this is because I don't want to do a 50% water change (water is quite hard here, so I've to use RO water = work and lot of good water wasted)

 

[Tom Barr]

What do you think RO water does as far as wasting water?

90% is rejected, perhaps higher in the hard water areas........then, the cost of the unit etc, storing the water.

Here's an example of an EI dosed tank, KH, 11, Gh 24, no RO water:

and so on..........I've done many tanks in very very hard water without issue.
Several folks in our club have very hard water. You can easily add much more than lean levels, keep them there etc with test kits etc.

Just because you reduce water changes, does not imply you need/require lean levels.

Also, do the math with RO..........do you get 90% less frequent water changes using RO?

Eg, you go 2.5 months without water changes?

You have to extend the water change frequency(assuming the same volume changed, takes same time to change 50% as say 30% for most and just as much hassle) if you use the RO as some water change reduction rational/goal.

Test kits and RO cost more $ as well.

It's a trade off.

I think RO is good for a very limited no# of species of plants, a few fish species etc.

Then the trade offs match well.

If 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...........

I think some suggest, at least like to, that lean nutrients are better, without consideration to the very basics of what drives plant growth to begin with.

As I am often known for EI, it is not the only method I suggest, but the one that often makes the most sense as far goals, trade offs folks want/desire. Still, rich CO2/nutrients, water changes and low light yield dramatic results, with less care required, you can avoid a few water changes and even without test kits etc and still have plenty of nutrients. Adding nutrients to the water column or sediment, does not matter.

Here's a tank with 1.5W gal on T5...........1/2 the lighting you have on a 70 gallon tank:

Do your plants and tank look this good?

Well, you know........it's obviously not the light. And we know algae and poor growth are not due to richer nutrients, good stable CO2.

And we also can say that the growth rates, and therefore the uptake rates.......are reduced with a reduction in light intensity as well.

Less growth= an easier method to maintain a stable leaner nutrient concentration.

So if that is truly a goal, and reduced water changes, then nutrients in the sediment, low light, lean nutrients dosed to the water column, reduced pruning etc is the method that best suits such goals.

Not one dimensional "nutrient only" methods.
You need to consider how a plant grows, many over look the basics of applied plant growth.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[SniperLk]

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...

You talk about less water change with RO water, I don't really see the link..

If 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...........

I agree

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.

I do agree with you about EI : easy way to rule out a lot of deficiencies, only have to focus on CO2/light/aquascape and... water change as well.
Using less ferts also works, testing are not compulsory at all either, in fact everyone should rely on their plants (never lies) instead of test kits to avoid problems. Yes it requires maybe more knowledge and more fine tuning but huge water change are not needed at the end of the week.

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..

 

[Tom Barr]

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...

Then the RO water is a good trade off. Breeding, caring for the fish etc.
Not really for the plants........

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 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".

Simply 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.
Just more/less.

Plants all grow for the same reasons.
You are not going to get around that.
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.

You start with reduced light and use a enriched sediment.
These are general growth considerations.
And I'm suggesting a reduced water change.
How it this EI?

Sorry, this makes no sense.

You also seem to suggest that's useless to have 3W/gallon on my tank.

I have not seen your tank, I did suggest you could have a very easy to care for by reducing the light and it would be easier to maintain. And I provided a nice example of such a tank to illustrate that it does work and works very well.

That's ADA method, again, this is not about EI.
and this tank went some time without water changes etc, and is well suited for soft water species.

If you use RO, perhaps you do not mind doing water changes, most do however.

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)

Let me explain things to you:
Stay on topic.

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.

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.

So it really is about reduction of water changes.
The advice I gave you was specific to that goal and was on topic.

Why is adding say 20ppm vs 10ppm any issue for you?
Why do you have to do a water change at 20ppm vs say 10ppm?
Does one induce algae, cause poor plant growth or?

If it makes no difference, then what is the issue?
Whether you do a water change is not measured by the ppm's..........
You suggest you do not do water changes, and watch the plants.
So why is that an issue then?

If you want to reduce water changes, then a slower rate of growth will achieve this far better. To do that: less light, richer sediment(alternative source of ferts).

Some of things you are saying are not adding up.

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..

I suggested a more ADA approach, not EI, and ADA also suggest weekly 50% water changes........and low light........and yes, they(ADA) do have most of the top world rankings.

Here's a top AGA tank using EI:

So I supported my advice.

If I added more PMDD drops vs someone else, does that imply another method?
No, if someone uses 1/2 EI suggested rates, is that a different method?
If I use test kits to avoid water changes, is that a different method?

No.

Sediment ferts?
No.

Less/more light?
No.

Watch the plants to do water changes?
No.

The pictures are used to show that a high level of scaping and health can be achieved. Not some silly petty personal jib that you appear to have assumed.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[SniperLk]

Then the RO water is a good trade off. Breeding, caring for the fish etc.
Not really for the plants........

Absolutely. I never said it was for the plants . I don't know why you thought that.

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".

Light drives everything, I never said it didn't.. once again I agree with you.

Simply 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.
Just more/less.

Less = leaner
more = richer
It sounds right to me

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 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.

If you use RO, perhaps you do not mind doing water changes, most do however.

I guess it's ironic

Let me explain things to you:
Stay on topic.

I do, I was just answering.

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.

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).

I can also give you some photo like you do :

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.

 

[Tom Barr]

Light drives everything, I never said it didn't.. once again I agree with you.


Less = leaner
more = richer
It sounds right to me

So if this is the case............then would not less light provide a more manageable routine for leaner nutrients?

That is the point I was making.

Why would you have high light+lean nutrients?

What advantage does this yield? Seem like more work and bad trade offs to me.
It's a less stable method than say ADA. I'm not saying it does not work, only that it can be made to be easier and more stable.

This is true with any dosing method.
Not just lean, also, what advantages tdo you get with lean vs rich, say NO3 kept at 5ppm, vs say.......20ppm?

You say you want to trim often........but want lean nutrients?
A farmer or any one in horticulture would not suggest leaner is better if they want a higher yield of crops.

What you are telling me is contradictory. No amount of semantics and talk is going to avoid this or the lack of logic it presents.

You also tell me that you do not test, just watch the plants, so how do we/you know, can you confirm that the test kit is accurate firstly, and that the levels are "lean" in the first place?

Have you tested over a few weeks with calibrated test kits?

What is lean vs rich?

These are very vague terms as it is.
Is it just for N and P? Fe?

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.

I'd say it depends on what level you want to maintain things and which trade offs you want/willing to accept.

You say you want more growth/trimming. So richer nutrients would be the best method there since they have no limiting effects.

Then you have a better stable range of nutrients that's easier to manage.
You gain nothing by micromanaging them down low.

Folks have been trying to claim that this is the key algae, then after that was blown out of the water, then suggest leaner is better for fish, then that was clearly falsified, then they suggested waste and the water, when that is shown to be a simple trade off for labor/test kits, then they go after something else........

But I've had no issues, and many have seen my tanks..........in person..........quite a few on this list.......at "rich levels", 20ppm or so of NO3, 2-3ppm of PO4.

Can I do a few weeks of 25% water changes?
Certainly.

Can I do monthly water changes?
Certainly, or longer.

The concentration, whether it's 5ppm NO3, and 0.3ppm PO4 or 20ppm NO3/3ppm PO4 over time does not matter(you seem to contend that it does). Plants will adapt and pull in as much N/P as they can, but they require less energy to do so at higher concentrations. This gives us the highest rate of growth.

This is basic Plant Physiology in ornamental plants, agricultural crops, and it's supported by aquatic plant growth research going way back to the 1960's with NO3. Here's a citation for you:

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_11/issue_4/0529.pdf

Specifically, look at the dry weights in table 2 and at the ppm's of N.
They no longer yield more dry weight(biomass) after around 20ppm of NO3, at 10ppm, you have nearly 1/2 reduction in growth and at 5ppm, again, another 1/2 growth and so on...........

Leaner concentrations that folks discuss have massive impacts on the rates of growth. There's no way around this one.

You cannot have faster/better growth and limiting nutrients.
Unless you do dry weights and tissue analysis(believe me, I've done a lot more than I care to have), you cannot say that much. It's a guess. It might look nice, or you might think you have lean nutrients etc.....or you might think the plant growth is fine and might for your goal, but they do not grow faster, they grow slower.

If you want slower growth and lean nutrients, then less light makes more sense.
Particularly if you use CO2 since it much less likely to limit nutrients and CO2 this way.

The nutrient solution is a modified Hoagland's solution. Very similar to PMDD, which is also a lean dosing routine that targeted 0.2ppm of PO4(not absent PO4!!). PMDD never suggested that PO4 should be absent, only low.
Paul and Kevin used a lot of what Gerloff and Krombholz(whom I know personally) did to support their ideas for PMDD, bleach dips also are in there as algae killing.

There is nothing personal, sorry if I expressed myself wrong.

A simple rule: heated debates are good, as long as they go after the topic, never the person. I'm very easy going, folks think much of this is hot head stuff, but it's a process to figure things out, convince ourselves of the logic and whether things are reasonable for a given goal/s. There's a lot more Human and Behavioral Science involved with aquariums than Plant Science.

That much is clear to me.
So I have thick skin there.

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.

Haha, no, I've never once stated this.
Never. This is a classic EI myth and misconception.
I've never said they need 50%.
Neither has Amano for his methods.

It's a starting point.
You can tweak from there.
Virtually everyone that suggest a method does this.

EI just uses this 50% as an example, and uses it for the math. It makes it easier to calculate the ranges since it's only 2X the max build up for that week's dosing using 50% dilutions.

You can do 80%, or 20%.
You accept less/more error as a result...........
You may also use test kits to see if you tweak the % water change down, or to target a certain ppm for a nutrient or many nutrients.
I've never once stated you "must" do this or not use test kits.
I use test kits a lot. But I make sure to calibrate them, even with a 1500$ spect.
No way around that one either.

But simply because you can do it, does not mean staying on top of things is bad either. Some tweak and can do so well, others? They often have a lot more issue. So it's a trade off. Some have trouble, so they can go back to the 50-70%, or 30-40% 2x a week, whatever works for them.
Some are more skilled and able to reduce the labor and watch their tanks much more often.

Some are just not able to do that, so they need methods as well. But it does not imply if I do the same 50% weekly water change, that it's worse or something....only that for whatever reason, I do not have the time, patience or eye for it.

You have to include people into this, not assume that everyone is going to have the same passion and eye for this. I use a no# of methods, not just EI, to help folks get there.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

It depends on the dosing method.

I'd say it depends more on the people involved.
Every single dosing method around has examples of true failure and algae.
It's not the method of dosing, that's only 20% at most, it's people that fail, not the method.

We fail.

EI or ADA are not the only working method.

How about PMDD and non CO2? How about sediment ferts?
You have to add the same things no matter what, so the methods are not that different.

Plants grow for the same old reasons after all............
EI is not that different from PMDD, it added more PO4 and pretty much everything nutrient wise(and CO2 and light). PMDD is leaner, but adding less EI is nearly the same thing.

Non CO2 can go either way, this is very much like your view with respect to dosing the water column and avoids all water changes for the most part.
I suggested a method to do a non CO2 tank with no sediment based ferts.

However, just like the CO2 enriched methods, adding them and water column ferts provides the most stable long tern solution.

The rates of growth are different, due to less light/CO2, but the methods are pretty much the same, they add the same things, and in different locations.

They used Hoalgand's solution for hydroponics and for the study above.
EI is pretty much like that, it's a non limiting amount.
Then you reduce it down slowly, till you see a negative response.

You do not start super lean, then raise things up. Research and Science are not done that way, you have issues with very lean because of limitations and confounding factors influencing results. If you start at non limiting levels(sediment and/or water column), then you can be assured of independent results.

You can reduce and lower one nutrient at a time(I've done this many times) and test what effect it has on algae, plants, a particular species etc. This way you knwo that the other nutrients, CO2, light etc is not influencing your results.

This way you learn much more about the plants, and that nutrient's effect.
Note, you do not need a test kit to do this either, you can eyeball it with plants as the test kit (hint).

This is how I figured a particular Trace dosing rate that was non limiting.

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).

I've never said it cannot be done, only that given many of the trade offs, human, labor, watching their tanks when they are away, busy with other issues, cannot get them to test, or watch the plants carefully..............
If you want to whip a tank into nice shape for a photo shoot, I would certainly suggest doing 2-3 water changes per week and stay on top of everything.

"Need" is ambiguous.

I do not "need" CO2 enrichment 10x more than the plants "need" for example.
You cannot play this both ways, or add more light than the plants need.

You go with a "lean" concept, stick with it for the light and CO2 as well, since they play the dominate role with any dosing methods or concentration.

Why go lean with the last part of what provides plant growth(nutrients), when CO2 and light are both high?

Why waste all the CO2/light for lean nutrients?

This is not a natural system we are doing here, and we cannot control light/CO2 in natural systems, we can control nutrients much more. So that's why we see a lot of talk there and "nature", but adding CO2/light are options we have as aquarist, as an environmental manager, they do not have such options.

So we have the choice to start where all plant growth begins, light and then CO2/or not.

From Bjorn Hoorelbeke. High light tank. No flourite, no ADA AS, just a layer of plant substrate under the gravel. weekly 25% water change.

And this adds what?
what is plant substrate?
What's in the tap water?
What else do they dose?

These are basic questions.
Let retouch the cherry red colors that have been photo shopped also:

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.

Such as what unwanted effects??
I'd be careful with this one, all I need to do is show an example of nice Tonia, any no# of red plants with lower light............which I have.

If some ambiguous "unwanted effects" is all you have..........be specific and see if you can falsify those so called "unwanted effects". What specifically are speaking of there?

This is the main thesis for your argument here as well as reducing water changes(which is a non issue, I have no issue with anyone doing this and suggest it in EI and various other methods I've mentioned over the years).

If there was absolutely no advantage to have 3W/gal instead of say 1.5W/gal, everyone would use 1.5W/gal.

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.

Name some plants I cannot grow at this level of light, say 100 micrmol/m^2/sec.
Name some............
This is about where the light was on the tank I showed, and I know the tank, I know the person that tends it and see it in person, the picture I offer are not clips off the web(James ADA tank is the exception, but I spoke with him in person)

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).

Plenty of folks have nice Tonia at these same light values I showed above
Tonia is a weed.

But of course you can have beautiful tank with low lighting setup, never said you couldn't. Just have to pick the right plants.

Such as what? Beside Tonia?
I already can tell you folks grow it nicely without higher light, 2w/gal or less(cut off for high to med light).

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
See if you can grow certain species like R macrandra, Tonia, various stem plants, L pantanal, Gloss, HC, foreground plants, red plants etc nicely at lower light.

I think you will be surprised.

At lower light, they do better than most thing and have long been led to believe.
Try a light limited tank where you have plenty of nutrients and plenty of CO2, this gives optimal light use efficiency.

A concept I got from Daniel when discussing PAR vs PUF. Also, read Tropica's research with light and CO2 with Riccia.

I think you will find tweaking dosing is rather easy, light is very interesting and CO2 is the hardest of the 3.

I have a data logging controller that is planned for CO2 using partial pressures, no issues with pH, KH or water chemistry, just dissolved CO2.

I'm not sure how CO2 mist in the gas phase affects things
But that's another topic, but I'm excited to play around with some control functions and have an accurate meter ( about 1ppm).

Light meters are also useful and good for folks who do not like to test, they are quick and easy to use and then you do not need it for a long time after.
Makes comparing light between tanks much easier, simpler.

Hope this helps.




Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[SniperLk]

Ok I now clearly see this is a dead end conversation. And anyway I haven't the time to answer to such posts (I've to look after my plants )

I think you've got a problem with the word "lean", which doesn't deserve all that fuss at all... I wish I said 1/3 of Tom Barr's EI instead of lean (because this is what it is about actually).

Just a few things nevertheless :

Let retouch the cherry red colors that have been photo shopped also:

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.

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 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 ?

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,

I did. A few months ago I was still using approx 170W (~2W/gal) and then I added another 54W tube.
Overnight I saw an improvement in term of growth pattern, coloration and growth rate. Of course I'm most probably making wrong assumptions, like all the winners of AGA 08