High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life - Page 8 - The Planted Tank Forum
 236Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #106 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-05-2016, 05:41 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
Chlorophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: State of Emergency
Posts: 1,290
This is SOO long and multifaceted I dont dare get involved but I just want to say as far as Fish are concerned, the reason things like Nitrate dont kill fish, but ammonia and nitrite do, is because fish are able to keep them out of their bodies effectively or are non toxic when in the fishes body.. It is a notion we as humans should all be aware of - EVERYTHING is toxic at a certain level and if fish are not dying at 80ppm nitrate, and even sensitive fry are not dying at 80ppm nitrate, and picky eaters are thriving at 80ppm nitrate, etc, etc, etc. There is no reason to assume it is having a negative effect on the fish.
If you find the level where lifespan is reduced, or there is a certain amount of death, or disease is becoming more prevalent, then you have your proof - but its not the levels we commonly target.

Keep in mind that fish evolved to live in an ecosystem where nitrate was the final stage of a waste removal process - if there had never been a bacteria that turned nitrite into nitrate you can guarantee we would see the same level of nitrite tolerance today as we see nitrate tolerance.
Or conversely there could be something so toxic about nitrite that they would not have adapted, and we would not be here today either in that case.
Things like Heavy metals are more toxic and less prevalent so fish have not adapted, or they are inherently too damaging on a cellular level for adaptation to have ever occurred.

There are plenty more pathogens associated with dirty water that fish succumb to, the common compounds in all soils and waterways like Nitrate.. are not of concern to fish in that dramatic a sense.

Bump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipraposo1982 View Post
Wouldn't you need to know how much the plants uptake in order to determine what's left in the water? What high amounts of nitrates in one tank is not necessarily high in another.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
Part of EI and you can see this in tons of graphs is that the 50% water change will keep the PPM fixed even if there is almost no uptake, as the dosages are based on water volume, of which we remove half of weekly
dukydaf likes this.
Chlorophile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #107 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-05-2016, 04:29 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21,015
EI method 50% water changes don't keep the level of nutrients constant, they do limit the maximum level to twice the total that is dosed between water changes. So, if we know that X ppm of nitrate is toxic, we need to dose less than 50% of X in total between 50% water changes.
heel4you likes this.

Hoppy
Hoppy is offline  
post #108 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-05-2016, 05:43 PM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 3,859
One easy mistake to make with EI is changing less than 50% of the water every week. Nutrients can further build up. Early on I was bad about doing that. At a glance it looked like I was changing half, but closer inspection showed far less. Now I make sure to change a good 60% or so

Last edited by burr740; 02-07-2016 at 12:35 PM. Reason: clarified
burr740 is offline  
 
post #109 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-05-2016, 07:19 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21,015
If you change 33% of the water, the build-up is limited to 3x the total doses between water changes. 25% limits it to 4x the total doses.

Hoppy
Hoppy is offline  
post #110 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 07:31 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
Chlorophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: State of Emergency
Posts: 1,290
Right, I just meant even without plant uptake there is a constant (limit ) imposed by water changes
Chlorophile is offline  
post #111 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 01:14 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
roadmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Missouri united states
Posts: 4,967
Once more we drift back to our fondness for the plant's with pondering over rates of uptake,etc.
Believe for those plenty confused by now,that EI method is good place to start and then after some week's,one can scale down if plant's allow.Alway's has been this way.
Hard to know what you might be able to dose less or more of, if you ain't never seen good growth before, due to limitation brought on by just these sort of discussion's.(might get confused)
If the plant's your buying are dying, before you get to observe any sustained growth ,then compounding the problem with practicing limitation is not likely to improve your chances IMHO.
From livestock position ,I might (If your scared,just say your scared),start the tank without any fishes, but buy all the plant's you can cram in it.(fast grower's mostly)
Dose the nutrient's however you might like, and then you can see what effect the nutrient's alone have on your particular tank.(choose a method )
Run it this way for a few week's, month's, (not day's), and then maybe introduce a few shrimp,then a few fish over a few week's.
I was no easy convert to using mineral salt's that I knew only what I was told as to what effect they might have on fishes/shrimp's, so this was the approach I took.(gave me time to watch plant's)
I was determined this time, to get the plant's to perform so I focused on growing them independent of any fishes.
Maybe a few snail's that hitched a ride with purchased plant's.
I was at first delighted, to have found forum's discussing planted aquarium's for I was much in study of these .
Did not take long though ,for my tried and true belief's from lack of knowledge,and running fish only tank's came under fire .
What??? I can dose lean version of EI and not have to change water as often ,and way less nutrient's are needed? NON CO2 can work?(fact)
Yes is what I have discovered.(fact)
Other's can and have done it also (fact).
Best advice I ever got was..."Choose a method and do not deviate" Then choose another.
Plenty of time for learning all about the other variables with respect to growin the weed's, but you can easily forget the basic's (light ,nutrient's,CO2)
Plenty of good information and opinion's are awash here, but don't become so focused on one grain of sand,that you lose sight of the beach.
If from my own experience, I can say EI dosing scheme has had no measureable negative effect , it's cause I believe it .
Can't eliminate personal experiences of other's ,which is what I first came to hear.(some other's)
Would not have taken me long to hear of all manner of livestock issues from EI dosing scheme, for me to abandon completely the idea of adding more stuff to my tank that I knew would bring sharp increase to TDS.
would have just gone back to keeping learge cichlid's which I have always had a fondness for.
I have described my approach,and it was less stressful than worrying bout livestock.
Anybody can do it .
d33pVI likes this.

Last edited by roadmaster; 02-07-2016 at 01:35 PM. Reason: additional
roadmaster is online now  
post #112 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 03:13 PM
Algae Grower
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Amherst, NS Canada
Posts: 142
While I will say there is a large element of subjectivity, I'm not sure the fish welfare argument isn't a straw man fallacy. In the case of the guppy, the level of SAFETY is 1/10 the ld50. Obviously, this doesn't suggest that all guppies can be guaranteed of health at 80 ppm (I don't think) but it would mean that the probability of illness (or death) occurs is deemed "acceptable". Obviously this is different from pharmaceuticals, completely different context. Though to make my point I will say 1/1000 of the LD50 does not guarantee humans remain unharmed, it just results in a probability that science/society deems acceptable given the benefits that a drug or substance provides.... Anyway back to our guppy, full EI with no uptake would result in 60 ppm of nitrates, this is 20% less than the "SAFE" level of nitrates. I believe 20% is a fairly significant buffer from safe. Two arguments are going to be proposed from the contrary viewpoint. Number 1, some people suggest more than the initial 3X10 ppm weekly dose. I'm not sure I can present an argument defending these people. I'm not sure there is a benefit to doing it at all besides the fact that human nature is that if some is good, more must be better. I'm confident that three times dosing at 10 ppm means that plants are provided a constant supply of nutrients with the possibility of 'starvation' being extremely remote. In my mind, I would have no problem advocating a position that it may not be worth the risk (again subjective). The second argument I foresee to my position is the valid research done on cod, and salmonids that is cited and that different species have different thresholds. Completely true but there is a reason that the common aquarium species are kept. While the Amazon itself is pristine as claimed, almost all of these species have evolved to survive extended periods trapped in glorified "mud puddles" during the dry season. This hardiness and ability allows them to be bred, transported and kept in conditions where no trout would survive. Obviously this doesn't mean that fish tanks, EI or other, provide an optimum environment. But it probably suggests that based on a spirit of causing absolutely no harm, one shouldn't probably keep fish in completely overpopulated glass boxes at all unless one adheres to the 1 fish per 100 gallon rule...Another consideration is that while we subject our fish to less than ideal conditions, many will live longer in an aquarium (EI or other) than they would in the wild, under pristine conditions. Many fish like neon tetras are considered annuals in the wild with huge population explosions seasonally. I'm not sure from a moral standpoint how this fact is too be considered.

Anyway, just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts out there. Glad to consider opposing viewpoints...
Chlorophile, 58417 and heel4you like this.

Dave

Wishing I had a pithy quote
Canuck is offline  
post #113 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 06:22 PM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 200
Black-and-white war

Deleted

Last edited by 58417; 02-22-2016 at 05:08 PM. Reason: .
58417 is offline  
post #114 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 07:08 PM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 200
Very good point

Deleted

Last edited by 58417; 02-22-2016 at 05:08 PM. Reason: .
58417 is offline  
post #115 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 07:19 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Tribble
Posts: 4,354
I still don't understand why you guys treat a planted tank in a home like a science experiment. There is no control. You could move from tank to tank whether your dosing EI, ADA, Pro whatever and everyone might have somewhat different results.

For example, do you think everyone with an EI dosed tank actually does the full 50% water change (if that's what the tank requires)? People are people life gets in the way and they might skip a water change or accidentally feed too much, etc, so you really can't blame the EI method for a fish or algae issue it just as easily might be a problem caused by the tank owner.

My personal experience:

Have been using an EI-type dosing routine on all my tanks for around 10 years. Whether the tank is high/med/low light, co2 or not, thinly planted or a jungle I dose toward the high-end of EI and make sure I do my water changes. I never have a problem with algae or have noticed any type of trend with shortened critter lifespans. There might be a fish lost here or there, but that happens in every setup man-made or natural. My fish live 7+ years many times and live longer life spans then they would in nature.
roadmaster likes this.
houseofcards is offline  
post #116 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 07:22 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,214
To further add to the EI method and why it's flawed:

Dosing excessively high NPK, GH, CO2, light, plus (twice) weekly large water changes, are done to alleviate toxicity of the micros. It appears that everything Tom has done over the past several years are the result of trying to alleviate the toxicity caused by dosing excess traces. This is why his plants grow better after a water change, because it lowers the toxic range of the trace nutrients. This is why CO2 needs to be "good" (I interpret this to mean high, 30+ppm), to maximize nutrient uptake and why you need, in his words, "good light" (I've always assumed "good" meant high, 100+ PAR, at the substrate) to drive that nutrient uptake. Why "it's not EI without GH", because Ca and Mg alleviate trace nutrient toxicity. It's also why Tom's said that plants grow better in hard water, because higher Ca and Mg reduces trace nutrient toxicity by improving the nutrient ratio balance, which contradicts his own statements that ratios don't matter. Ratios do indeed matter, and they matter a lot. Screw up any one of these and your plants grow poorly or not at all.

To put this into perspective, some of ADA tanks have 2X the light, half the CO2, far less fertilization, and smaller water changes.

A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC.

This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...


Bump:
The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.

Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43135477900793
Solcielo lawrencia is offline  
post #117 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 09:19 PM
Algae Grower
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Amherst, NS Canada
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solcielo lawrencia View Post
Bump:
The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.

Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"
Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry
You may want to reread that.

Dave

Wishing I had a pithy quote
Canuck is offline  
post #118 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 09:34 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck View Post
You may want to reread that.
There's nothing incorrect about my previous post.
Solcielo lawrencia is offline  
post #119 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 11:31 PM
Algae Grower
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Amherst, NS Canada
Posts: 142
I had assumed you misread it. 199 ppm of N as potassium nitrate would be over 800 ppm of NO3...

Dave

Wishing I had a pithy quote
Canuck is offline  
post #120 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-07-2016, 11:58 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Tribble
Posts: 4,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solcielo lawrencia View Post
A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC.

This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...
Who's setup are you referring to?
houseofcards is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome