Are ferts needed with Flourite/Eco-Complete

[geofied]

One would think that too much ferts would contribute to algae outbreak, and I have confirmed this through other sources. So, maybe you can elaborate somewhat to help with my confusion.

I found an old post by Tom Barr that describes what folks around here refer to when they say "low nutrients will feed algae, ferts will feed plants". The idea is that algae is much more adept at using tiny amounts of a nutrient than plants, so algae can thrive while plants will dwindle until a sufficient supply of nutrients is added back in.
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200107/msg00066.html

Maybe Tom has some new info on this since the post was back in 2001 I believe. This makes sense to a point, but my experiences with combatting algae do not quite mesh with this theory (unless my fish food fertilizing is creating a surplus of nutrients).

What I've found so far:

-Duckweed kicks algae's butt by outcompeting them for excess nutrients, while my plants have still thrived.
-Extended light/high light have not made algae worse, in fact the opposite seams to be true (possibly due to plants growing better, beating out algae).
-Emergent plants seem to help as well.

So for the time being, I am not going to add any additional ferts to my heavily planted tank, because it seems to be in a good balance.

 

[phanmc]

Geofied,

Looking at your tank pics, it's easy to see how you've managed to achieve the balance. Your tank has significant emergent growth which is filtering a good amount of light from the tank. Your tank is in essence a low light tank. With the reduced light comes lower nutrient requirements which the fish food and waste can accommodate for.

 

[geofied]

Why would a lack of something lead to algae growth? Because it reduces the growth of the plants. And when plant growth is reduced, it allows the algae to grow in it's place.

This theory certainly makes sense logically and practically. To expand the scope of this reasoning a bit, making sure light is adequate for optimal plant growth should inhibit algae as well. Since algae is more adept at using low levels of light than submersed plants, things like blackouts and decreasing light times, would logically do more to hurt plant growth than control algae.

 

[geofied]

Geofied,

Looking at your tank pics, it's easy to see how you've managed to achieve the balance. Your tank has significant emergent growth which is filtering a good amount of light from the tank. Your tank is in essence a low light tank. With the reduced light comes lower nutrient requirements which the fish food and waste can accommodate for.

Works for me. If low light allows for good growth of most plants and balanced conditions, I'm all about it. Keep in mind I am getting window light from an adjacent window, some filtered, some dirrect, during the day.

 

[phanmc]

This theory makes certainly makes sense logically and practically. To expand the scope of this reasoning a bit, making sure light is adequate for optimal plant growth should inhibit algae as well. Since algae is more adept at using low levels of light than submersed plants, things like blackouts and decreasing light times, would logically do more to hurt plant growth than control algae.

Blackouts work on the basis that plants are able to store reserves in lean periods so they can survive for days without nutrients or light. Algae is a simpler organism and cannot survive as long without light or nutrients. A blackout is a temporary solution in the most extreme cases of algae infestation, should the condition still exist after the blackout then the algae will return.

Regarding the photo-period, the plant photosynthesis process has 2 phases, one that uses light and one that does not. Contrary to some beliefs, plants do not need a period where it is dark. However, there comes a point where the extended light period is unnecessary because the plants have gone into their light independent phase. This is evident in some stem plants that will actually "close up" as if it was dark even when the light is on.

 

[plantbrain]

Perhaps I can tie a few things together for you folks.

I use and am 100% successful with both non CO2/Carbon enriched/fertilized systems.

I am also 100% successful using CO2 gas or Excel in low med or high light systems.

I am successful in both methods using sand, flourite, onyx, sand+ soil, ADA aqua soil etc.

I am successful at lower lean nutrients as well as very rich nutrients.

So.............

Is it the method, or is it you?

I'd say it's you if you have problems. And any and every method can have those..............

We learn by making mistakes, some repeat them many times, some get lucky and learn from the mistakes.

Some see a method that is working for someone and then tries very hard tio figure out how to make it work for them.

Success means many things to many people.
Ask 5 folks what happened during the fight at the bar...you'll get 5 different versions.

What we do in our tanks, wether with CO2 or not, it hardly natural.
What we do in ecosystem restoration is not natural either.
Organic farming is not natural, farming in general is not natural.

Do not even bring that loaded word into the fray.

Horticultural goals vary.
Define your goal, then look for methods that balance the trade offs that are important to you.

If you are lazy, cheap, smart perhaps, hate water changes, hate trimming, do not mind some trade offs with scaping and plant choice, have patience then a non CO2 method is ideal for you.

You can do it with or without soil, that is hardly a requirement.
You can dose or not, that also is hardly a requirement.

However...........if you claim you do not dose, then you must not be feeding the fish either? That is dosing, fertilizers whether they are from waste or from inorganic fertilizers are still the same.

It is very disingenious to suggest dosing inorganic ferts is hard vs feeding your fish, they are the same and given that many feed their fish daily, feeding the plants once a week on a non CO2 tank is pretty easy.........

Suppose your goal in a non CO2 tanks without fish and without soil?
It can be done fairly easily.

The rate of uptake is about 10-20X less in a non CO2 tank, so you have a lot more time for nutrients to cycle from other sources such as fish food.

As you increased the rate of growth 10-20X then you have to add the inorganic ferts to match the increased growth.

Adding 10-20X more fish is not an option, this would increase NH4 through the roof, and NH4 is highly toxic, about 400 to 10,000X more than NO3, and you overcrowding and low O2 as a result, as well as algae.

So rather than do that, we add KNO3/KH2PO4/Traces etc.
That balances the goals with a different method.

Saying one method is better than the other is foolish: it depends on your goal. Some seek a low maintenance tank, some like faster growth and gardening more.

I do not think the popularity of the aquatic plant hobby would have become what it is today without CO2 gas though.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

Geofied wrote:
"Works for me. If low light allows for good growth of most plants and balanced conditions, I'm all about it."

So that is your goal then the non CO2 is a good method to achieve that with the least amount of trade offs for you and the most benefits. Wise choice.

I think the arguments for non CO2 methods are stronger than that of CO2 methods, and they are not Diana's by any means, she wrote a book on the topic and supports the methods, much like I do.

I lay no claim to them nor does she. People have been growing non CO2 planted tanks at a much higher level than she has since at least the 1940's. A lot of the approaches I've tried are based on some rather old notions.

They are not my own, however, I synthesized them a new way and provided an argument for them. Diana also has done the same with the book. The methods and how are correct in the book, some of the "why" is really questionable. But that was 10 years ago also.


We learn and evolve and try new things.
I would highly suggest if that is your goal, learning and exploring the trade offs with various methods, you should try CO2 methods, likewise you should also try a non CO2 method out as well if you have not.

It's not the method's faulty, both work to very high levels.
It's your fault(anyone in general), and you need to learn why things went wrong and how to fix and solve the issue. You can not fairly judge something you have not had success with or tried out/tested.

Some methods might be workable for you, but the trade offs just outweigh the work load etc involved, so we try to make that less work and address the trade offs.

But if you have not bothered to even try it, then you really do not have the ability/crediability to say anything about something you have never tried.

If someone does not try the other methods, gives them a fair chance, then they speak out of ignorance of that method and have little creditability.
It also shows that the person has little control over the parameters.

If I had BBA algae and got rid of it consistently, and have a nice tank free of it, and I add PO4 and still no BBA, how can I accept it when a newbie who has 3 species of algae blooms occurring, makes the claim that BBA is caused by excess PO4?

I have the control and the stable tank to start with to see if excess PO4 causes BBA or not, they do not have the control and nothing to compare anything to.

Same type of things with various methods to grow plants, you need a measure of success to understand the method fairly.

I do understand frustrations newbies have and they think they have addressed things, but often there's something they over looked or made a bad assumption somewhere. They do not yet understand the path to BBA free tanks etc, so they cannot understand how high PO4 might help get rid of algae and help their plants.

Note, this applies to non CO2 tanks as well, you can add high PO4/NO3 and not get algae. I've done it to 12 non CO2 tanks over the years, no algae there either. Adding more fish/too much fish food = NH4 first, not NO3/PO4.
You may add NH4 and induce algae. So adding NO3 vs NH4 you can pinpoint where along the cycle is causing the algae.




Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

Maybe Tom has some new info on this since the post was back in 2001 I believe. This makes sense to a point, but my experiences with combatting algae do not quite mesh with this theory (unless my fish food fertilizing is creating a surplus of nutrients).

What do you think fish food adds that KNO3/KH2PO4 does not?
Hint, it's a species of nitrogen and is very deadly at higher levels.

-Duckweed kicks algae's butt by outcompeting them for excess nutrients, while my plants have still thrived.

The Duckweed is mainly out competing algae for light, not nutrients, that's secondary and then mainly for NH4. See above.

What happens when you add lots of plants as far as NH4 levels in a tank?
Up?
Or down?

Now repeat this with all sorts of species.

Now apply this to natural lakes, why is a nutrient rich lake chocked full of plants, while another lake with wind driven suspension pea soup?

How is my tank with 80ppm of NO3, 3ppm of PO4 algae free?
Note, this is a non CO2 tank.

If you claim that is causes something, then we should be able to add it and see some effect that you claim.

But.....we do not.
So we reject that hypothesis and move on to a better hypothesis that hopefully explains things better. I add NH4, I get algae consistently.
I add KNO3 and I never can induce algae to a stable system.

There might be other causes than NH4 also, NH4 cycles rapidly through a system and is hard to measure for professionals, let alone hobbyists.

-Extended light/high light have not made algae worse, in fact the opposite seams to be true (possibly due to plants growing better, beating out algae).
-Emergent plants seem to help as well.

So for the time being, I am not going to add any additional ferts to my heavily planted tank, because it seems to be in a good balance.

Higher light will work if you allow good biomass and established first, try it in the initial stages sometime:mad2:

Emergent plants mainly outcompete for light, which is why you saw what you saw, but concluded for the wrong reasons.

Note: you can also add other algae to "out compete" algae for NH4 also and many species will dominate once their biomass is rather high and you can see some species fade away in the process.

So what driving factor/s might be responsible over such a wide range or plant species and algae species and methods?

Light is one, it drives growth and CO2 uptake/nutrient uptake rates.
CO2 stability is another.
Stable nutrients is the last.

What universal parameter would be a good one to detect if it would be a good time to grow and that no one else is there and actively growing already?

NH4.

If the plants are limited, stunted, not enough biomass etc, then there will be a back up in the NH4 uptake.

If you have high light in conjunction with NH4, lower plant biomass etc you are asking for an algae bloom. Changing the CO2 all over will vary the NH4 uptake.

If you honestly believe in your theory, try trimming all those plants back and put say 20% of the biomass back. You'll get algae with the higher light you say you now have. It will not be due to excess nutrients either, it'll be due to NH4. You'll have 5x less uptake of NH4.

You can test PO4/NO3 before the trim and it can be near zero, and then later, you can add PO4 remover and NO3 remover(but not NH4 remover) to account for those.

After the plants grow back in, or if you add them back again, the algae will abate.

You can also add rotting plant trimmings and it can act much like excess fish food.

Regards,
Tom Barr