This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. We are after as many aquarium plant images that we can get, doing so will assist us in completing the aquarium plant database.

    https://barrreport.com/threads/aquatic-plant-images-wanted.14374/
    Dismiss Notice

Fertilizer Routines, Which One?

This article is designed to give a back ground on various dosing routines from the past and present. Some of the older semi complete fertilizer...
  1. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,673
    Likes Received:
    623
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    This sticky is designed to give a back ground on various dosing routines from the past and present.

    Some of the older semi complete fertilizer routines are PMDD(about 1995-1996):

    Practical PMDD Information

    In this recipe, the goal is using test kits to monitor NO3, Fe(as a proxy for all the other traces) and PO4 to mee the demands of the plants.
    This assumed(incorrectly as it was later shown/proven) that limiting NO3 and PO4 would reduce algae and provide good health for plants(this latter part is true however).

    The fertilizers are added to water and dosed by milliiliters.
    This provides higher accuracy than teaspoons but the original recipe is measured with teaspoons and tablespoons.
    However, anyone might use a gram scale accurate to 0.01 to 0.001 grams if they so chose.

    But are they gaining anything from this increased accuracy as far as the plants are concerned?

    No one has ever shown this to be the case. That's good also, plants are pretty flexible and can grow over a wide range well.

    Also noted is the infinite series dilution factors to help re set a tank that gets too far outside a particular range of ppms.

    Thus testing is the key here and water changes are done to keep things balanced if the dosing and tweaking for each tank is neglected.
    Some other methods have co opted this and claimed it as their own original idea and concpet.

    From this method, evolved the list of levels and parameters(1997, see sfbaaps.com, the first local aquatic plant club in the USA and now the largest).

    References

    This was the first time it was suggested to add PO4 as a fertilizer to help plant growth. That radically changed fertilization routines. It also increased uptake of CO2, NO3 and K.

    Steve Dixon had a profound influence on me and this article.
    He is still the wisest and smartest person I've met in this hobby.
    We all owe a lot of gratitude to him.

    You'll note I suggest several accuracy and qualitity levels of test kits and rechecking the readings to be sure they are correct versus a reference. You'll also note a rather high level of traces I was adding to rule out any limitation there. One thing many assume I did not do much of, or rather, I am not really known for is suggesting testing and ranges or targets folks might want to try and aim for.

    I still suggest water changes. We discussed not doing water changes and simply monitoring the test readings instead. 3 members tried this and each reported a better level of plant health and tank health, especially with higher fish loading than without water changes. This is not right/wrong, black or white, it's more of what does better vs a tradeoff. No water changes can be done. I've never stated otherwise in the past:cool:

    I ran into issues heping people with no access to test kits in third world countries and folks that are just honest enough to say they will not test, or are too cheap to buy the good test kits that are accurate, or lack the skills or motivation to claibrate them.

    I was cheap, I was lazy, so I looked for a simple solution to get around testing. I'd always done large water changes. I like fish and they always are healthier with large weekly or 2x a week 50% water changes.
    Ask any Discus breeder.

    So using that habit which most anyone can do with a pair of hoses(I laugh at silly folks that use buckets) to drain and fill, see Python automatic water changers or a DIY set ups........I used the dilution factor with a 50% weekly water change to target and estimate a range or index and developed EI.

    Many folks where not ready to abandon test kits however.
    They had been engrained to believe and place all their faith in them by every book, magazine and article.

    But the data is only as good as the person taking the measurement and only as good as the test kit and it's accuracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The test kit makes assumptions(that it's accurate, many are not!!).
    So do we.

    The link to EI is here:
    https://barrreport.com/threads/ei-light-for-those-less-techy-folks.2794/

    The full version:
    https://barrreport.com/threads/the-estimative-index-of-dosing-or-no-need-for-test-kits.52/

    Some errors and misunderstandings often occur: it's not written in stone, 50% weekly water changes, nor the levels added, account for fish loads, account for tap water with NO3/PO4 etc. You may not need to add as much and still get the same results.

    Hate water changes and like low mainteance slow growth?

    Here's yet another solution to non CO2 methods and some arguments why this method is very good for our human habits and tanks:

    https://barrreport.com/threads/non-co2-methods.2792/

    Given that many folks have killed fish using CO2 gas, I still have not met nor heard of any substantiated cases of PO4 or NO3 poisoning using KNO3 etc, I often onder how some can carry on and on about bad levels of NO3, PO4 etc and miss the fact that they "pollute" their tanks with CO2 gas to the point of killing their fish or stressing them out.

    Clearly when used correctly, CO2 does not pollute their tank..........but nor does KNO3.........but some enjoy using such flawed logic in their arguements.

    When I've called folks out on that, I'm a bad guy.
    I guess I am expected to say only nice furry things:rolleyes:

    Still, more folks have killed fish using CO2 gas than any other parameter. And it's meaurement is wrought with errors and assumptions.

    Myself and Vaughn, Gomer and others have sought to rectify this.

    Even more disturbing is the lack of light meaurement and testing that is never done in this hobby.

    I think I may be one of the very few people using a PAR light meter to measure specifically my light intensities.

    So for all the banter the "You should be testing" crowd rattles on about, I've never met yet that's tested their light in plant useful units in their tanks.

    Sort of ironic ain't it?

    Still, there are critical things like not adding too much light, adding enough CO2 with decent surface current, but the nutrients only play a fraction of the role here, folks place wayyy too much importance and try to draw correlations between their successes and never bother to critical assess things like light or CO2.

    You'd be best served focusing more on CO2 and adpoting most any dosing method. Plants all have the same needs and the rates of growth may vary depending on light, CO2 and limitations

    In order to really know what is occuring however, you need to have command of CO2 and the test kit methods, few do and even fewer are willing to test a control tank to see if their hypothesis is correct or not.

    You can add Excel in here as well as an alternative slower growth method as well. Roughly assume 1/3 EI dosing using this. Even less with higher fish loads.

    Excel is a poison at higher levels as well, but not one single hobbyist has ever even bothered to test this either :rolleyes:

    But that does not include myself..............I have a test method, actually several methods to do so.

    Question things and see if your baloney meter and snake oil detector goes off based on their responses.

    That is a good idea. Ask them if they have tested their hypothesis when they state things as fact, ask them how the set up the test etc.

    Then decide.
    Then test it yourself and see.

    Then you'll know.

    I suggest that folks try each method that's out there.
    Non CO2 and a CO2 enriched method.
    High light and low light.
    Lean vs rich, mess with CO2 levels.
    Commericial vs DIY.


    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
    #1 Tom Barr, Jul 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2017
  2. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,673
    Likes Received:
    623
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Light routines?

    CO2 routines?

    You should give these due consideration prior to choosing a nutrient routine!
    It can make your life 100% easier and the hobby much more enjoyable.

    Less light= less work, more stable systems

    So do not run out and get a high light set up, try lower light values, this will still help when used with CO2 and some dosing.

    Clearly you do not need a lot of dosing if the light is low also, so if that is goal(less), then use less light to match.

    Regards,
    'Tom Barr
     
  3. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,673
    Likes Received:
    623
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Sediment routines are becoming more common than in the past.
    This is perhaps rediscovering what many used 30 or more years ago.
    CO2 helped many to grow aquatic plants well and aquarist went with inert sand and dosed the water column for some time. Dupla suggested the CO2 and inert sand with some laterite.
    So this was marketing driven really.

    Some aquarist did not allow the sediments to mature or did enough water changes in the initial phase. Variations on recipes also varied widely for nutrient rich sediment, as well as fear and myths about anaerobic sediments and PO4, NO3 etc.

    Many tried soils but when uprooting, often made a mess due to not being careful.
    Changes to trimming(mostly going to topping instead of uprooting) helped this problem.

    ADA had a rich sediment product and this marketing helped increase interest in sediments once again. ADA still added fets to the water column , however, fairly low in concentration. This helped placate the fear and myth dogma that is still in place in the hobby about nutrients and the water column, but.........still has a source of nutrients for plants/roots.

    Still, whether the aquarist believes nutrients to be the Root of all Evil or not, adding enriched sediments tends to be a good idea overall, no matter which approach you chose, unless you move plants around all the time and do not want to bothered with being careful.

    So this works whether you use water column ferts, or not..........CO2, Excel, or no Carbon enrichment of any sort.

    It adds a back up supply if you forget to dose the water column, or leave for a few days on a vacation. Water column fertilizers increase the life span of of the sediments by reducing demand. Reducing light also increases the life span and the ability to maintain even lower residual levels of nutrients if that is your goal. It should be noted however, adding enriched sediment still adds plenty of nutrients, you just will not measure a high residual in the water column, the total nutrients is still much higher however.

    Many show test(ADA did this quite unfairly) with plain sand vs their enriched sediment and show the growth differences. Of course you will see huge dramatic differences, one has nutrients, the other has none.............

    It's like comparing CO2 enrichment vs no CO2, the difference is huge.
    To be fair, you would want to show a several types of sediments with different concentrations of nutrients, % organic matter and particle size.

    You could show an upper range, some modified hoagland's solution, then DI water and plain sand, plant the plants in hydroponic culture(99% of the aquatic plants will adapt and do well, most are amphibious), as this will make CO2 independent and non limiting. All the sediments will fall somewhere in between these two controls(non limiting and strongly limiting).

    This is an easy simple way to measure the effectiveness of a sediment on aquatic plant growth without any dependency from CO2, water column nutrients or light(assuming all plants are exposed to the same PAR and duration).

    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  4. Julia Adkins

    Julia Adkins aquariumfertilizer.com
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    36
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Hello. I am new to forums in general and this one in particular. I have seen questions about how long fertilizers last in solution and whether to refrigerate. I am the owner of AquariumFertilizer.com. The nutrients in the fertilizers are used by all living organisms. So if there is anything living in the water you mix your fertilizer in, the organism will be thankful and grow. This uses up the nutrients and can make your fertilizer solution, and your tank, cloudy and clumpy. My suggestion is to only mix as much as you will use in about a month or less. And keep the solution in a cool dark place.


    Also water changes of about 1/4-1/3 of tank water twice a week. Especially if you have a fish load. The goal is to maintain an even water chemistry; not to let it go a long time and then make radical fixes. This is hard on both plants and fish. How would like to live in your toilet???
     
  5. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,673
    Likes Received:
    623
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Folks can add a few different things to preserve the solutions mixes.


    Potassium sorbate is common in the UK.


    Vinegar is a nice cheap widely available as 5% white distilled.Say 10mls in 500 mls of solution(this will also soften and remove KH in the solution, which is good for trace chelators generally)


    HCL was suggested 2 decades for PMDD, about 1-2 mls of say 9M HCL in 500mls of solution


    Glutaraldehyde at about 10 mls of a 1.5% solution for 500mls.


    There's a few right there.
     
  6. Julia Adkins

    Julia Adkins aquariumfertilizer.com
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    36
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Aquariumfertilizer.com had a dry mix that was labeled PMDD. The name has been changed to Macro Micro Nutrient Mix as the formula is no longer a strict PMDD formulation. Our Macro Micro Nutrient Mix contains an equal part mix by weight of KNO3, K2PO4, MgSO4 and Plantex CSM + boron. What are the thoughts out there? Would it be good to increase the K2PO4 to make this more like the PMDD formula? Thanks for any feedback.
     
  7. Nelson Castillo

    Nelson Castillo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    9:07 AM
    Hi tom, i cant access any of your links
     
  8. DutchMuch

    DutchMuch Junior Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    387
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    They work for me, does this specific link work for you? http://sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html
    The bottom ones (from the forum) since the forum updated they most likely deleted those old posts or forgot to add them in.
     
    Nelson Castillo likes this.
  9. Nelson Castillo

    Nelson Castillo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    9:07 AM

    that one does work! thanks a lot!
     
    DutchMuch likes this.
  10. Jason King

    Jason King barrreport.com
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    333
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    I'll update this later :)
     
  11. Jason King

    Jason King barrreport.com
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    333
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Updated the links :)

    First two worked fine, last three now fixed.
     
    DutchMuch and Nelson Castillo like this.
  12. Jason King

    Jason King barrreport.com
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    333
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    I'm also going to make the links articles in the article section.
     
    Nelson Castillo likes this.
  13. Jason King

    Jason King barrreport.com
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    333
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
  14. Nelson Castillo

    Nelson Castillo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    9:07 AM
    I know i should probably ask this somewere else, but can you help me doing the math of doising EI for smaller aquariums.
     
  15. VaughnH

    VaughnH Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    89
    Local Time:
    4:07 PM
    Remember, the dosages in the tables in the EI article are approximations. For example: all of the dosages are in teaspoons, and are "accurate" to about +/- 1/16 tsp, which is a big range for a 1/8 tsp dose. And, the dosages are for 10-20 gallon tanks, not for a 10.5 gallon tank, introducing another approximation. The ppm goals are expressed as 10-20 ppm, for example, not 12 ppm, introducing a big range of acceptable values. If that is confusing, and it is to most of us, you can use one of the on-line programs that calculate the dosages for whatever exact amount of water you are dosing. One such programs is http://rotalabutterfly.com/nutrient-calculator.php This is how I have been calculating dosages.

    Now, add in the fact that those dosages are for high light tanks, with heavy plant loads. Obviously, for lower light levels, the dosages can be reduced, and for less than heavy plant loads the dosages can be reduced.

    One thing you can try is to use those high light/heavy plant load dosages for a few weeks to see what plant growth with plenty of each nutrient looks like. Then reduce one of the chemical dosages (KNO3, for example) by a third, and dose that for a few weeks, looking for any reduction in how good the plants look. Do that again until you do see a reduction, and assume that indicates what too little of that nutrient looks like. Go back to the previous dosage for that nutrient. Now, repeat that for each of the chemicals, until you have reduced all of them to be just above the minimum best dosage. If you enjoy doing things like this, you should enjoy this process. If not, just use the original dosages and accept that your weekly 50% water change prevents you from having any serious overdose possibility.
     
    Jason King and DutchMuch like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice