You could try the coco fiber in a substrate and see how it does. After all, no lives will be lost if it is a mistake We can speculate all day, but an actual test will tell all of us more than the speculation does.

If you have expensive fish perhaps you might not want to experiment with that particular tank.

I have a 90 gallon tank that has been set up for about 2 1/2 years. It has 2.4 wpg and is half flourite/gravel. The filter is a sump setup. I do battle algae on the plants and my fish pulling the plants out or eating them. The only plants that remain untouched and algae free are the crypts. I usually do a water change about every 4 weeks (about 20%). If I go much longer, my nitrates start going up. The tank is fully stocked with fish.

I was using kent products and couldn't get a reading when I tested for iron.

This is what I dosed yesterday:

1/4 tsp Seachem Eq
1/4 kno3
1/8 kh2po4

Some of my plants are turning yellow or brown (before dosing). How long will it take to see some results? If I don't see some improvement, how do I figure our what to increase?

Any help will be appreciated.

2.4 watts per gallon is too much for a non CO2 tank. And, the amounts of fertilizers you are using are too small for that much light, if you did have CO2. I suggest cutting the light intensity by either raising the lights a few inches, or removing one bulb. Then, your fertilizing will be more in proportion to the light, and doing without CO2 might work better.

I know I have a real challenge but I really do not want a co2 tank. My lights are on only 6 1/2 hours which has really cut down on the algae. I can't raise the lights as it is built into a hood. I am also hoping that because it is a 90 gallon tall , it will help decrease the light intensity. However, to make things even more challenging, the tank is facing a large window.

So in light of my situation and being the stubborn gal I am, what amount of fertilizer would you recommend that I try? If worse comes to worse, I can forget about a variety of plants and just keep different types of crypts which seem to do very well in my tank. I have had the same ones in there since the beginning.

Thanks for your help.

Here is the trade off and the problem when folks go about things this way, you say you want better plant growth, more growth, healither growth...............

I'm joking here a bit but am being truthful as well:
Do not lie to me or yourself either about it........... I know.
You do not ask such questions unless you want these things.

So what makes a plant growth?
Well, light for one, what's next?
CO2............

Last?
Nutrients.

There's a difference between being ignorant, being stubborn, and just not getting it.

CO2 gas is the one thing many folks avoid like the plague, yet also say they want better plant growth/health.

They do not want to be bothered, mostly out of fear, not knowing much about it, and this mental block they place in their way that suggest it's not a fertilizer like NO3, K+ etc all of which are much more familiar terms and things they view as things they can add to increase growth.

After all, "I do not need to add CO2 to my terrestrial plants but can to increase growth if I really wanted too".

However, in submersed conditions, this all changes dramatically.
Adding enrich CO2 to terrestrial plants might increase growth by say 30%, but for aquatics? 1000-2400% percent!
A huge difference.

If you are already limited by CO2, then the NO3 rate of uptake is very very low relative to what we might add to a CO2 enriched tank, like 1000-2400% less.

So you can see what I am getting at here.

A 1/2 step might be adding SeaChem Excel, kills algae and adds a carbon source without going too far , sort of a middle ground for many folks.
This way you can go wild with water changes, dosing etc, but not have plant growth or algae issues in a no CO2 gas enriched tank.

You just are not ever going to get away from the balance between light/CO2 and nutrients in a non CO2/no Excel type of tank.
Adding KNO3 or KH2PO4 at low levels as I've suggested will help relieve some, but not all of the issues folks might have with plants living together in such a tank, the CO2 issue is really tough to say. Which plant is able to beat up the others and get a jump on CO2 uptake?

Adding plenty of CO2 drives growth faster and reduces or eliminates the competition for CO2. Then you go back after seeing that and try things out on a non CO2 without any nutrient, light limitations.

Not easy to do.

I'd say it's easier to change one's attitude and perspective about CO2 than beating yourself up being stubborn. This is not something where you are going to power through, or discover some new thing, just suffer and not reach your goal of the tank you want.

Switching out plants might be required etc, something fairly simple, but the bottom line is that adding KNO3 will not have the dramatic effects on improved growth, health etc that CO2 will, even at lower light values.

The effect 10-20x less than with CO2.

Using CO2 is not that tough.
We have learned a lot in the recent few years, more circulation really helps and improved fish health as well. Then the upper ranges are not nearly as critical=> more wiggle room.

Keeping low intensity light also helps.

Regards,
Tom Barr

It looks like your tank is 31" tall. Is that right? If so, you may not have too much light for it. The intensity of the light drops off at least proportional to the distance from the light, if not to the square of the distance. Since a standard depth for large tanks is about 21", the light intensity at the substrate in your tank, assuming 4 inches depth of substrate, and the bulbs being 4" above the water, is between 21/31 (68%) and (21/31)squared (45%) of that in a "standard" depth tank. That makes your effective watts per gallon be between 1.1 and 1.6 watts per gallon. However, anything in the upper parts of the tank will still get the full blast of the light, and there, algae is likely.

My aquarium has driven me nuts with algae too, mostly because I just don't wish to spend the time every week that is needed for the light intensity I was using. So, I raised my light and switched to anubias, java ferns, and crypts for my plants. I hope to eliminate most of my algae problems that way. But, I do still use CO2.

You could buy 4 Litre bottles of Excel from BigAl's online store, and dose that in place of CO2. That might greatly reduce your algae problems, as well as encouraging more and better plant growth. The dosages you mentioned in post 152 would probably be about right for 2 times a week then.

Quick question about the non-CO2 method...

My tap water is rather hard (12 GH) and has a high content of Ca and Mg, so I've never bothered with Seachem Equilibrium or similar products, since I figure my water changes put Ca and Mg right back in the water. I have now been experimenting with the non-CO2 method and my question is:

Will my GH go down over time as the plants use up the Ca and Mg, if I am not doing water changes? If so, I'm thinking to get some Equilibrium and add some occasionally. I figure I'll just add enough to keep my GH around 12 or so. Sound like a good idea? Or, am I off base?

Edit: It should be noted that I typically replace evaporated water with RO water. I guess that I could replace evaporated water with tap water occasionally and keep the Ca & Mg up that way. However, I thought that some of the other ingredients in Equlibrium (like manganese) might be important too.

Vaughnh, I think you might be getting closer to what I want. I do not want to spend the time and effort it takes to have the perfect planted tank. I am happy to have live plants that grow slowly and hopefully are not covered completely with algae. I am OK with accepting the consequences of not adding CO2 to my tank. I might change my mind down the road but right now I really want to try to make my tank work.

My concern with adding excel is the expense and that I would have to dose every other day. According to their website, it is one capful for each 50 gallons, once a day or every other day. I am also very concerned with harming my fish. I've had excellent luck with keeping my fish healthy, including having many pleco babies. I would rather have all my plants die rather than risk losing any of my fish.

So with that in mind, if I decide not to add excel and keep going as I am, do I need to increase the dosage or should I start working with what I dosed a couple of days ago. Right now my algae exists but is under control. The only major problem I am having is some leaves are turning brown or yellow.

Excel dosed per the instructions on the bottle, 1 ml per 10 gallons every other day, does not harm fish. Some shrimp might be affected, but I doubt even that if you stick to that dosage. It is when we do 2X or 3X doses, trying to blast the algae, that some fish can be affected, and even some plants can be killed. Big Al's has it for $40 for 4 liters, which is $1 per 100 ml. For a 90 gallon tank, 9 ml per every other day, that becomes $1 every 22 days - that's not very costly.

Another option for a non-CO2 tank is to have a nutrient filled substrate, such as ADA Aquasoil, or an inert substrate over a nutritious lower layer, like Leonardite or river/delta silt. Some people use ordinary garden soil for that nutritious layer. Then, the plants get the carbon from the substrate.

OK VaughnH, I bought a small bottle of Excel and I will try it. If I see enough of a difference, I will go ahead and purchase the larger bottle from Big Al's. I will dose the nutrients twice a week as you have suggested and see what happens. How long should it take before I see any results?

Also, if I do see some positive changes but still problems how do I determine what nutrient I need to increase?

thanks again for your help.