Ok

Now this recipe have PO4~7g/l, NO3~37.2g/l (no need for higher accuracy).
PO4:NO3~1:5.3.
Suggested dosage 4-8ml per day by Tom gives PO4~2.6-5.2ppm PER WEEK in a 20gal (75L) tank.

You can also make a solution with a KH2PO4=5 grams as suggests EI as lower level for PO4 (PO4:NO3~1:10).

EI suggests rather high nutrient levels.
Lots of people regardless of system they used (EI, PPS-pro, ADA, their own or any combo) came to the routine for an average aquascapers tank with PO4 dosage ~0.5-1.5ppm per week, so dosage could be ~0.75-2.5ml per day for a 20gal (75L) tank.

Taking ADA’s tanks as an “aquascapers standard”, solution with KH2PO4 10 grams and KNO3 60 grams, for target level PO4~0.5-1.5ppm dosage will be:

60x30x36H cm (~60L) 4-12ml per week
90x45x45H cm (~160L) 12-34ml per week
90x45x60H cm high type (~200L) 14-42ml per week
120x45x45H cm (~200L) 14-42ml per week
120x45x60H cm high type (~280L) 20-60ml per week
180x60x60H cm (~560L) 40-120ml per week
(double dosage if you have made solution with KH2PO4 5 grams instead of 10)

Dose greatly depends on light intensity, plants species, whether you intentionally limiting plants grows with “peak method” of lighting and/or PPS-pro method: this gives less algae bloom in case of problems with CO2 etc, less trimmings = more stable composition...
but NEVER allows plants to run out of nutrients keeping main concept of Estimative Index's approach.

Personally I prefer to make a macro recipe equal in N and P to Seachem Flourish Nitrogen™ and Flourish Phosphorus™ (PO4~4.1g/l, NO3~66g/l) and use their rule of thumb on dosage.

Note for beginners: if you need to know dosage of ANY liquid ferts on certain compound, do this:
(Tank volume*, L x desired dose of compound, mg/l) / concentration of this compound in ferts, grams/L = week dose, ml
* water volume without gravel, decorations etc

If we talking on liquid dosing vs. dry ferts, I can say that in Europe cheap and reliable micro is JBL Ferropol 24 – 10ml costs $5. As dosage is just 1 drop for 50L per day it is VERY easy to dose, and runs ~1.25-2.5 month for a 180L (48gal) tank.
I guess Oliver Knott uses them long time ago and could give good comments on it.
There are also very economical Easy-Life® ProFito®.

You can easily skip JBL’s routine and do not by costly JBL Ferropol making DIY ferts by PPS-pro recipe of macro (PO4:NO3~1:10) with K and Mg.
Surely using “JBL Ferropol 24” is convenient when you using PPS-pro macro’s recipe, as this micro do not contain Mg and K.

Note: as soon as you placed ADA Aqua Soil in your tank, the system turns to quite different, so PO4:NO3 ratio and PO4 dosage in water becomes far LESS important.

(details in Russian on P and N dosing available at my Amania – sorry, it’s still under construction, use IE only)


naman

Thanks Naman,
That was precisely the input I wanted to see

ADA AS adds a measure of buffering, so you can have even a wider range, and can run things leaner if you chose.

Rather than using PPS nutrients to slow growth/CO2 demand, both ADA and myself prefer light.

PMDD also limited PO4 to the point is reduced CO2 demand as well.
So 15ppm was fine.
However, they used 1.5-2 w/gal max back then also using plain old T12 FL light.
Some seem to overlook this, almost on purpose.

This makes far more practical sense as well, cost less, adds less heat, uses less initial cost, and drives CO2 uptake.

When plants are CO2 limited due to high light, algae are not.
So if you are interested in less algae and better plant growth, it makes far more sense to use less light, then you need less CO2 and less nutrient demand.

That is why non CO2 methods work, less light= less CO2= less nutrient demands and is why you do not need to ferts to such a tank, fish waste alone can easily supply the plant demands.

Plants also have a wide range of parameters they can grow in before really taking a beating.

The ADA As works very well with non CO2 methods as well BTW.

Ha!
Never thought of that, but not on purpose :-)
While I never understood misunderstanding of PMDD concept (it was NOT limiting P to limit algae)
Excellent remark.


Precisely.

There is no any “soil methods”, really.
Put a rich enough substrate (as ADA’s Aqua Soil or Profile/Turface + earthworm castings), and you can lower light to such extent that you can switch to “non CO2 method” without any water column dosing at all, at any moment… without totally remaking your tank… and do backwise, again at any moment… again without totally remaking your tank…
And non CO2 method means lessen light to lessen nutrients demand (including CO2) – no more (shorter “peak”, for example).

I also like very much possibility with rich substrate to make huge water changes without massive water column dosing while eradicating algae* (if you don’t – plants will not start to grow well and algae will never go away, without taking plants together with them, I mean )
while not dosing at all with pure substrate for this period means no plants growth = no algae death.
This often leads to mistakes – it is needed to have a good practice to catch the moment when you should start a little dosing liquid ferts during massive WC to feed your plants and do not feed algae (close to the end of this period).
Rich substrate gives possibility to relax and just do water changes by means of “brainless technology” – plants will take Whatever they need, and Whenever they need from substrate.

* I guess this method called “resetting the tank”.

Yes, you can reset with a water change and rich sediment, or with the water column.

The problem arises when folks add algae to the issue.
Some believe you can limit algae(PO4, CO2, NO3 etc)
Vegetative adult algae growth and new spore germination are two VERY different things.

None of these folks have done any algae test I'm aware of other than myself.
At least none with a single control.

So if you are going to talk about algae, you need to ID algae, and you need to test specifically for algae. You need to know at least one or more causes also.

Some folks claim nutrients(NO3/PO4) in the water column = algae.

That is total baloney and simply put: wrong.
It can be easily falsified and many planted aquarist have done so for a decade or more now, repeatedly. This should be accepted as it has stood the test of time and passes the muster. I'm really not sure why some people keep suggesting it, it's a myth.

They want to suggest less is better and seem to think less = less algae if you dose less in the water column, and it's just not so.

Rich sediment ferts is fine, I've never once had any issue with that method.
I have no idea why some seem so in love with a lean water column.......I've never understood this.

Yet add lots of CO2, which is much more toxic to fish than NO3 and we do not ever have data on toxic levels of PO4.

It makes no sense as far as fish, as far algae or plant growth.

If you desire slower more consistent easier to prune growth, use less light, use a midday blast with a HQI MH for 2-4 hours etc.

Use lower light T5's etc.

There's no need, neither Amano nor Oliver use high light either and if so, they only use a small amount for a very short while.

Then folks scratch their heads and wonder how they do it
David tells folks, so does Amano, so do I and so have other going back 10+ years, but they still do not listen.

Light starts all uptake.

So that's the best wisest place to start.

Water changes can flush out any differences and keep the nutrients in line.
Using less light means you can run it leaener and get more life out of the sediments, the CO2, and the water column.

It's not "either or" the sediment/water column, it's both.

You do not even need to do water changes with lower light non CO2 tanks either, for months, years even, no testing either.

But back to PMDD........

You will get more out EI/PMDD + PO4 etc, any method, Sediment sources of ferts by reducing the light intensity, and if you insist on still using it, try a little blast midday only.

Worm castings was all the rage several years ago, but they did not have access to KNO3, or KH2PO4 etc, they had to make do with what they had.

Still, it adds ferts just like the water column methods.

When folks test and measure nutrients, it really depends on WHERE you test.
Kasslemann came to the USA, showed slide after slide of plants and showed water column nutrient levels, which where pretty much zero ppm for many.

I asked her later if she had measured the soils and the pore water in the sediments where she collected the plants "No".

Now it does not take genius to figure out the plants are getting plenty of nutrients, and why would you show such data and make comments without also measuring the sediment nutrient content as well?

Water column test kits are the only method hobbyists use.

But they do not test where plnts can also get and obtain nutrients from.
You can only make assumptions on the water column with inert sediments like sand etc.

But folks, even Kasslemann sat there and tried to do it.
Plants have roots after all.

Regards,
Tom Barr

This phrase deserves a separate thread.


And WHAT you test. Plans do use DOC (amino acids etc) and other organics from water column and sediments. In ocean there is a 5-6ppm of DOC, in rivers much more.
How much Fe bonded by organics in sediments and in water column etc. ?
Never seen such a data on rivers in those “scientific” books on planted aquaria… Never.

Moreover, our plants grow mostly in rivers, but there is a FLOW.
Take those 0.05-0.01ppm of PO4 which most of folks consider as very lean nutrition, and multiply by slowest river flow 0.5m/sec – you will see that plants during light time have unlimited source of P…
Water/plants mass ratio is much more in rivers than in a tank, so PO4 source replenished at any moment without problems. Day and night. It NEVER comes to 0.000ppm.

The same thing happens with “low” supply of CO2~5-10ppm, NO3~1-5ppm etc.

I have never saw people posing such question to themselves…

This is the same as to change ALL aquarium water every second(!) with those lean 0.05ppm.
How much PO4 will pass along plants leaves during a day? Ha!?

Comparing to this, “high” EI dosages is a mere TOY :-)

Place a plastic box from water surface to the ground around lush batch of plants in a river, and I am sure soon they will stagnate.

This is why we should dose in a tank much more, and it does not leading to algae – it feeds our plants which out compete algae.

One more thing which surprises me quite well is misunderstanding of terms “dosage” and “to keep level” in a water column.
You can dose 5ppm of PO4, but when plants grow well, concentration in a water will be, and must be, very low (say PO4<0.2-0.1) quite fast. No?
Maybe Tom made tests on it?
Or I am wrong here?

naman

Naman,

DOC's are easy to measure and control for actually.
If you want a contro to compare the effects of DOC's on a treatment organism(Fish, shrimp, algae, plants etc)l, simply use Activated carbon to remove them, this is a standard method for many such experiments.

You need to look at rivers and lakes over the course of season/s, not just the average, or a one time reading. It's like getting to know a person based on a quick 2 minute meeting vs living with them for a year.

Chelation has been discussed here in natural systems. Quite a bit in fact. There are two good text for it as well, The Ecology of Humic Substances and the Limnology of Humic Waters.

Generally it's discussed in terms of Hg, Cd, Se etc, nasty toxic metals, less so for Fe and Mn.

Reduction is also something to really look at as it is a larger driver of metal biogeochemistry than humics are in general.

You are correct about rivers having a non limiting but very low molar concentrations. 0.5 ppm of NO3 is common in many rivers with plants, sometimes 10X less, but the plants are not stressed, actually well adapted.

Takes time to adapt to low external levels though, but once this occurs, it's pretty easy for the plants.

Actually such topics use to be discussed on the web, namely the APD, back in the mid and late 1990's, since the list has been diluted and most of the more academic minded folks have long since left.

Lots of good discussions back then, you will not see such discussions in the future except here and there by myself and very few others.

PO4 time series measurements I made some years ago in several tanks, they do not drop rapidly, but showed and fairly normal uptake response.

This suggested little preciptation and lock up from other critters/bacteria/algae/OM etc.

Lakes are good models, better actually for our purposes, but few usee tropical lakes, and even fewer used large numbers with a representative no# of lakes.
Adding to that, you need 30-50% coverage with PLANTS, which florida also has(as well as plant less lakes for the most part).

Looks at Crismann, especially Bachmann, Hoyer, etc for Trophic status for lakes in Florida, USA.
I know all these folks.
Florida has about 7800 lakes 4 hectares and larger, lots of different types.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I dose dry chemicals and I believe that plants don't care a NO3:PO4 ratio if they are not limited in nutrients. So does it make sense if there (in the water column) PO4=1-2 ppm and 20-30 ppm of NO3? 30:1 or 20:2? Raft of variation as you can see and what? Plants stop the growth? Rely upon it they’re still alive and look pretty much superbly. Algae? Nope. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

In some cases I used to dose PPS-PRO solution. As far as you know this one is very low of nutrients mix. But in order to be successful with this approach I should adjust my CO2 concentration at 15 ppm level and tune the photoperiod according to PPS-PRO standard. To my mind JUST IN THIS SITUATION NO3:PO4 ratio may play the key role, not as for EI.

Also I don't quite understand why anybody needs to make DIY liquid NPK for EI method. EI works perfectly fine with dry powders as well and it’s more easily to dose.

PPS pro works at 15ppm for exact SAME REASON as does PMDD.

As a matter of fact, it darn neat the same advice and target paremeters.
Hardly new, hardly advanced and hardly the method that drives better plant growth.

ADA uses a similar routine for the water column, but drives plant growth far better by using more CO2 and as a large amount of nutrient via the sediment(ADa As etc).

If you limit PO4, which is a decent nutrient to chose if you had to pick one, that will reduce the uptake of everything up stream from there.

It does not however, limit algae.
Plenty of folks have a lot of algae related issues, same with any method.

If you strongly limit PO4, you also limit NO3 uptake, as well as NH4, and certainly less CO2.

And you can use less light obviously.

However, this is a much smaller target that using less light to begin with, then using that to control rates of growth. Both myself and ADA have long used that advice (going back at least a decade).

Take a look at PMDD advice.
It's virtually the same as PMDD.

Here's the link and it's been used since 1995. Much longer and without the new name and new claims that it's someone else's and that they developed it themselves.

Practical PMDD Information

and

Control of Algae in Planted Aquaria

That's pretty much an out right lie and claiming your work is really someone else's.

I came along and used non limiting growth as a standard rather than several factors which could vary and make comparing anything nearly impossible.

Basic science suggest you need a standard reference control for non limiting growth if you want to compare different limiting treatments.

However, such logic eludes many.

If you limit light, which Sears did, and I've had these same talks with Paul over a decade ago and debates, you have less demand.

2 w/gal of plain old FL's was about anyone had back then. I used MH's and Fl's as well on other tanks.

I needed 30ppm of cO2.
I also needed higher levels of nutrients.
I had not sediment ferts at all.

I also found that nutrients did not limit algae, which is why I kept adding them to see if I could induce algae.

Still to date I never have with PO4 or NO3.

However, you can certainly limit plant growth using light, CO2 or nutrients,.

That is common sense.
Choosing PO4 is hardly something new, and when you have less CO2 because of a PO4 limitation, you obviously have less CO2 demand as well.

If you want slower plant growth, go non CO2, then no dosing , no water changes and no CO2 issues
Method works far better than EI or PMDD.
It also tends to use less light.

How far do you take such logic?

I explore the entire range, not just one side and put poor assumptions into my model merely because I believe it and can make is sound all nice and furry.

If you plan on dosing plants and want leaner or reduced dosing for some reason, say less plant growth, start at the non limiting range(ei) then reduce it down slowly.

Do not start at the supper lean end where the potential for stunting plants and algae are higher.

Use less, not more light.

Use less, not more CO2(unless there are no fish etc).

These things are common sense, but folks muddle and confuse such basic things and inject their belief and uncontrolled observations and algae blooms.

Adding 3-4 way interactions are almost impossible to find anything significant, let alone single factors for most aquairist.

I can do 2 way, but have not tried any 3 way, they get geometrically large at that point. Does not matter too much at 3 also, you tend to bounce between 2 limiting factors, very rarely a 3 way issue.

Regards,
Tom Barr