The Planted Tank Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life

43K views 282 replies 55 participants last post by  Wasserpest 
#1 · (Edited)
As @[U]roadmaster[/U] rightly pointed out:

Rephrased as if it was me who says this: "All this thread was ... was a not too thinly veiled attack on EI method along with it's creator, and those who use the method. It's my genuine concern/frustration that all hobbyist's do not immediately abandon this particular method/principal's, and adopt more scientifically controlled method of supplying only what plant's need for any given day/week ... Thing's get heated or perceived to be off topic when not all agree with either side's view, and where no so thinly veiled attacks on ones intelligence or lack thereof, are lobbed about. The hope was that through argument, the sinner's would repent and come into the realization of their unscientific way's. But this is easier to hope for, than what may be desired. Clearly the science presented takes a fair bit of intelligence by those who present it that way. Clearly I was intelligent enough to realize fairly quickly the difficulty in getting the masses in agreement. With this intelligence clearly evident, then it becomes more [than clear that] the whole exercise/thread [was] less than intelligent attempt at discrediting one method, while hoping to shame other's into submission. [But] some of you [are obviously] smarter than I figured on."

Thus there is no need to continue in this farce.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Well you do miss the main point of EI dosing which is provide sufficient nutrients to avoid nutrients being a limiting factor without having to test. It is a tool to help you get nice healthy planted tanks. The point is not to get a high enough concentration of nutrients to cause a toxic mess. Of course too much is bad.
 
#3 ·
I am used to getting beat up a lot.
I'll offer an opinion here.

In the total realm of things aquatic and plant related.
I believe lighting and micro dosing are the two main factors to disaster.

Testing and dosing based on results are my anchor.
Truthfully I don't really like dosing anything in the aquarium.
For me it is a necessary evil daily process.
 
#4 ·
I can't say for certain, but I get the feeling that most of the scientific studies are conducted in the wild, where changes happen rapidly. Here's some creek, there was a sudden influx of P from runoff, a subsequent explosion of algae, P = bad. Is it solely the increased concentration of P that caused the issues, or did the rate of change of concentration also have an effect?

Life does adapt. This is without question. It's the reason why we can read these words instead of still swimming in a puddle of water, or swinging through some trees. However, the rate of adaption is slow. We didn't stop swinging through tress overnight for instance. In aquatic nature, it is my understanding that P is the limiting nutrient. When we understand that life can adapt, we can understand that P being the limiting factor isn't such a big deal. Over millennia, life has adapted to the low P levels, and even with these low P levels, life functions well.

Since algae contains the same growth mechanisms of plants, clearly, increasing nutrient levels provides a platform for the increased growth rate of algae also. However, it is my belief (opinion or whatever you want to call it), that it's not the nutrient concentration in and of itself that solely promotes the increased growth of algae, but at least three other factors. The rate of change of the nutrient concentration. And algae' apparent ability to adapt to changes at a faster rate.

The other confounding factor seems to be at what levels do these nutrients cause toxicity affects. We don't even half half an idea of what levels constitute toxicity for wanted plant species, let alone algae. Evidence seems to suggest the Green Spot Algae has a strong relationship between P and light levels, with increased P and/or decreased light levels having a negative affect on GSA growth, and decreased P and/or increased light levels having a positive affect on GSA growth.

So we may find that there are concentrations of nutrients that do indeed have a negative affect on the ability of algae to thrive, while having a positive affect on other plant species to thrive. We may also find that given the sheer number of species of both plants and algae, there is no one level of nutrients that supports the thriving growth of plants, without also supporting the thriving growth of some species of algae. This then leads back to controlling the rate of change of nutrient levels, but I don't want to swell my head with to much supporting anecdotal evidence.

I also think that if nature was given enough time to adapt, she would probably also increase the number of algae eating species in high algae environments. We find concentrated populations of animals where food and water is plentiful.

The other issue I have with nature based scientific studies against our little eco-systems, is with our supply of aquatic life. To run a successful business in today's economy, you need to generate profit. To generate good profit you need things like economy of scale. Breeding fish from one adult pair in a 5000 liter puddle of water is very poor economy of scale, whereas breeding fish from 1000 adult pairs or more, in the same volume of water is better economy of scale. Providing that all other factors (maintenance, water changes etc) are equal, clearly, the volume of water containing increased numbers of fish will contain higher levels of toxic substances.

So while Joe fish that was caught in some natural river system may find nutrient A toxic at concentration B, it's reasonable to assume that the same breed of Joe fish that has been breed from generations of high fish to low water volume, probably has applied the same genetic adaption that all life is capable of, and is thus capable of sustaining life at elevated levels then his wild breed counterpart.


Having said all that, I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of this thread. General statements regarding these things are daft. There are so many confounding factors that even full blown chemists and biologists don't yet fully understand. And yet forum goer Fred Bloggs, will happily state things like high nutrient levels provide great growth in his tank, without even considering the role that algae eaters play on the growth rates of algae, or any of the other confounding factors. So poor old Joe Someone who has no algae eaters, follows the advice given to him and has a completely different experience. To make matters worse, when Joe Someone then comes back to describe his results, he is often told that he must be doing something wrong, when in reality, it is forum goer Fred Bloggs and his lack of understanding that has neglected to also advise of many of the confounding factors involved with his general statements.

Also, just because mass breed fish may develop adaption to higher levels of things, doesn't necessarily mean we should be promoting this, or accepting that just because we are higher life forms, these lower life forms should be adapting to our ways of doing things.
 
#5 ·
Marcel, I'm no scientist, biologist, or anything really.

But with all due respect, the title of this thread should have been.........

In my opinion high nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life

I'm just saying, this is far from settled science. And there are some very knowledgeable people who have very successful tanks whose opinion differs with yours.

If this was completely settled, we would all have the perfect algae free tank of our dreams. In the real world, and my experience, what works for one may not work at all for another. It seems this may be part art and part science after all.
 
#7 ·
If you peruse the literature, the statement that 'high nutrients promote algae and are toxic to aquatic life' is well established. Dismissing science when it is inconveniently opposed to certain dogmatic paradigms that are common in the hobby is like denying climate change/global warming. Denial is a result of fear; it functions as a coping mechanism. In this case, if it's true that high nutrients cause problems, then that means those who've been dosing high levels of traces have been poisoning and killing their fish and shrimp. In truth, most people don't want to hear that they are the ones who are responsible for the deaths of their pets; it's easier to place blame on someone or something else.
 
#8 ·
am not sure why my name is in there, but i do know that when you read my threads and posts you might find mixed information, the reason behind that is because as i mature in this hobby i have learned more and more and my opinions changed after caring out my own experiments. i use to dose EI and it worked great in my hard water but it failed me when i switched to soft water. when i was dosing EI, i did not have any algae at all in my hard water, but in my soft water it was a disaster, GDA would cover the tank immediately when i dosed high NO3, then i switched to urea, i had great looking plants and no more gda or ant other algae. then suddenly one day things went down hill again and i tried all method from EI to my own with more or less ferts and couldn't defeat some of the algae. i have never said high po4 cause algae, i have said it can increase the existing algae and decreasing it to 0 PO4 wont help either if algae already exist. i can only share my experiments and people can try them, for some it works for some it doesn't, so there is not exact answer to these kind of questions. i use to dose 8+ ppm PO4 at water change and 1 ppm urea daily and tank was crystal clear, when i had algae issue i tried 0 PO4 and 8 ppm PO4 and algae still grew, so you see there is no exact answer to why algae still occurs. there are few other things that happened in my tank, every time i dosed high NO3, my red plants would suffer and die eventually, there only thrived once i started using urea. people are told they would get algae if they use NH4, but they should understand Urea works different and actually make the plant grow better due to its highest Nitrogen content. other thing i noticed is when PO4 and Fe levels were high cyano bacteria like to grow, bba was also present when Fe levels were high especially from Fe gluconate.

am down for any kind of debate, but in the end we will get mixed results.
 
#11 · (Edited by Moderator)
List of names from the old thread

am not sure why my name is in there ... as i mature in this hobby i have learned more and more and my opinions changed after caring out my own experiments ... am down for any kind of debate, but in the end we will get mixed results.
I ment no harm, I was just listing the people who were arguing for EI in the original old thread from 2011:
here is a good proof of overdosed nutrients, 80ppm of nitrate, everything else is dosed 2 times more than what EI recommend. co2 is also running very high, drop check yellow all day and no fish gasping. see it for yourself => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQImF2Sk78
My point was just to point out what arguments were used for advocating high nutrient levels. "No fish gasping" in this case.
 
#10 ·
And how does ADA run their tanks?

Simplified: Lean water column WITH a daily dose of fertilizers AND rich substrate that is active in the sequestering of nutrients.

Can anyone here tell me why in America these basic principles are not followed?
Why we marvel at the (same old) Japanese aquascape copy-cats and try to emulate them but do not emulate HOW they are maintained?

We love to use calculators and tests and what not fertilizers. Of course things will get accumulated if you add excessive amounts. Water changes do not take care of the accumulations because the rate of use by the plants is dynamic, there are tons of dynamic physico-chemical processes going on in the tank, etc.


At the end of the day in the US the average hobbyist checks about 8 parameters, adds about 6 fertilziers, changes water as if that's some kind of magic and believes that is right.

The result is beautiful aquascapes, AGA contest full of non-recycled ADA tanks, and an active community that discusses everything else but aquascaping.

And since for some people what I said above may not be clearly connected to the thread topic - "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life" here's a final food for thought:

- Where in Nature can you find a body of water that has Nitrate 5-20, Phosphate 0.5-2.0, 30ppm CO2, and loads of traces?
- Would that be considered "polluted" water?
- How stable would be a tank with the above parameters?
- How easy would be to eradicate budding algae in such a tank?
- Why do I believe that a glass box is something so different than Nature that I have to artificially create a completely unnatural environment in it so live plants grow in it? Feel free to call me "stupid" if you do think I am.

Good night. Sweet dreams now :D
 
#20 ·
I am now using all things ADA. Previously I had a few problems with algae, sometimes very minor, sometimes more serious. When I finally switched to the aqua sky LED with my ADA tank and used their step 1 2 3 ferts regimen, all my algae problems went away.

I am not an expert by any means, but for almost a year now I never have any algae. I don't really know why, but it seems that using all things ADA did the trick.

Waddo
 
#22 ·
I have seen the ADA tank set up video step's#1 #2 and #3 paying particular attention to the additives in addition to the aquasoil.
I have built my soil substrates in a similar fashion lacking fund's for the ADA product's and or easy access to same.
Could easily understand how fewer nutrient's might be needed with this approach and maybe for some time.
Don't believe anyone has suggested that too much of anything is not gonna present issues but... No one has proven that the Estimative index dosing scheme,or any other scheme is too much and absolutely, positively, harmful/toxic for plant's and or fish, and or that it will cause algae independent of other variables that they wish to dismiss as they have done throughout several forum's .
Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.
Forgive them for tourturing their fish and plant's that they raise and sell from these tank's with nutrient's /gas, and or chemical's (ie) such as.. EXCEl.Metricide,Glut,Peroxide,urea,fish food's.alage fixes,all manner of medication's, "For they know not what they do".
Forgive them for their ignorance , and bow before those who point out just how unknowledgeable and evil the rest of us are.
Thank them for making the hobby a better experience for all of us praise GOD almighty.
PFFFFFT!
 
#28 ·
Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.
Forgive them for tourturing their fish and plant's that they raise and sell from these tank's with nutrient's /gas, and or chemical's (ie) such as.. EXCEl.Metricide,Glut,Peroxide,urea,fish food's.alage fixes,all manner of medication's, "For they know not what they do".
Forgive them for their ignorance , and bow before those who point out just how unknowledgeable and evil the rest of us are.
Thank them for making the hobby a better experience for all of us praise GOD almighty.
PFFFFFT!
Right or wrong, politically correct or not, thanks for the laugh out loud read.

I did a small spit take with my coffee reading that!:laugh2:
 
#24 ·
Sarcasm and combativeness only reinforce Marcel's argument that it can be impossible to have a level headed debate on EI. Too many times I see it decending into "you're different and we are just right because we are" without any further substance.

I use EI on high light tanks and it worked pretty well for me. I'm running a lowish light CO2 injected tank at the moment and only provide the minimum ferts I can get away with and that's great also, just a different way of managing things. So you see I am on the fence, not taking sides.

To the 'gurus' here who constantly decend into arguments based on anecdotal evidence with an "it's right because we all do it" mentality - show some scientific evidence or shut up.
 
#25 ·
I think EI works to an extent, as long as you use your head while doing it. No need to dump all these ferts in the tank if you don't need it. Feed the fish a lot, have a high bio load? Probably don't need as much nitrate or phosphate. Seeing possible toxicity from micros? Reduce it. EI is a good starting point, but as noted already, all tanks are different. Some have more fish, less plants. Some have plants on every square inch and no fish. Each tank has different needs.

This is where I can see PPS Pro working better, but it's more work to really pay attention to your tanks needs weekly. I don't think you have to be that precise, but a nice middle ground with modified EI will work for most. Just understand you don't need full EI unless you really see no substrate or glass and you have a forest in there. Most tanks can do with a good deal less.

Took me a while to understand this and to just stop dosing NO3. Since I did that, 99% of my problems are clearing up.
 
#27 ·
I'm sure these questions have been answered but forgive me as the other thread is like 20 pages.


I absolutely believe that too much of anything is bad for the fish, and eventually plants as well. I'd need more evidence that EI dosing with weekly 50% water changes can get you past that threshold.

Are you suggesting that the EI ratio of macros to micros is off, or that EI simply provides too much of every component?

Do you think that reduced dosing (say half of EI) would be better, or do we need something elase entirely?
 
#35 ·
I don't have a belief as to what's best or not but I do try and add as little as I can to my tanks. I constantly work to find that sweet spot for my setup.

I think this is a good approach.

I don't see any scientific proof one way or the other but I haven't gone searching either. But it only makes sense that the less we can add to our tanks the better. Overdosing anything is never good.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
 
#36 ·
Overdosing anything is never good.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
By definition "overdosing" would be bad, but the problem is determining what constitutes an "overdose". There are two parameters: one is the total amount of nitrates, for example, in the water vs. what the plants will use up. And, the total amount needed is a function of plant mass and the growth rate of the plants. The other is concentration of nitrates, for example, in the water vs. what concentration makes it easy for the plants to use it. I believe that is a function of what species of plants we have. We only discuss concentration, ppm, which eliminates the plant mass and growth rate from the discussion. Do we really want to include plant mass in the equation? I know I don't. At best we are estimating, not carefully determining what is an "overdose".

Those people who enjoy the science of the hobby, and enjoy spending lots of time figuring out what the best methods are, are probably going to enjoy something other than an EI approach the most, so that is how they should do it.
 
#37 ·
I don't believe that EI method and ADA are quite different anyway, just to say. Amano had his shares of algae when he began, like the other masters, and i do not think he became a master in one month, or even one year. He was interested in fishes and plants when he was a kid. He tells about it in one book i have from him. Everyone who makes planted tanks will face algae at one point of time, one method or the other.

I saw the term "overdosing" in this thread. EI is about making sure there are plenty of nutrients for the plants, it is not about overdosing. Those who use the term "overdosing", should return on Barr's report pages and read what EI is about again, because they do not understand the philosophy behind it, or either they feel negatively about it.

Nobody force them to use this method if they dislike it.

Michel.
 
#38 ·
I think "overdosing" as far as this thread is concerned is focused more on fauna. Fish and inverts will not tolerate higher levels of nitrate.

For plants, since their role in nature is to fix nitrogen and make it usable, will obviously not have huge issues with higher nitrates. But, as the author states, this is species specific. Giving a chicken pie to a starving person will obviously help alot more than giving the pie to an obese person.
 
#39 ·
Speaking for a high school graduate with no scientific experience I feel that so many of these "studies" are based on the persons doing the study having an agenda for their own gain.Examples are many but studies told my mom that milk was the greatest thing for my well being.10 tears later a study said it was not good and should be used in moderation. 10years later it was the best thing around and etc etc...I know nothing about the actual facts presented here but I feel these studies were done with nature being the main theme as opposed to an aquarium environment.What I do know is that I have been in the hobby for 40 yrs.first with just fish and the last two with planted tanks.In the beginning I had little luck with planted tanks until after a ton of research much of it here I learned about the correlation between light,ferts and co2 and now have two beautiful tanks with lush plants happy fish and a happier hobbyist.So show me studies from a scientific group that pertains only to an aquarium eco system than maybe I'll listen but till than I will be ei dosing and enjoying this hobby as it should be enjoyed.
 
#41 ·
If you have not had algae, you have not properly tested the limits of the variables under your control.
Do you think growing algae in a dedicated spot in your sump or tank, would prevent it from growing elsewhere due to the excess nutrients being consumed?

There always seems to be some algae somewhere in natural water bodies, no matter how healthy.
 
#43 ·
I have a really stupid question....

What is the problem with algae?

I mean I don't want algae growing all over my glass (GSA, GDA) and I don't like BBA..
But I currently have 6 tanks with plants and fish and 1 tank I toss my cuttings into to mature.
I have some algae in all of them.

I worked hard to get the algae I have on my driftwood and rocks to grow because I think it looks good there.
plus I have Ottos, BN, snail, shrimp, etc that appreciate a little algae growth from time to time.

I grew up in Florida between a creek and a river on a place that had 120 fish ponds.
Algae grew in anything wet. (so did the gators, but I digress)

I would think, and I could be crazy here, that certain algae growth might point to a healthy environment.
Or, maybe more to the point, maybe algae help to create/maintain a healthy environment.

Sure too much of anything is bad. But maybe trying to eradicate it all isn't good either.

Just my thoughts.
 
#47 ·
The idea is to start at levels that cannot be limiting, and then make adjustments according to observation. Don't forget the second part.
I'm not experienced but have had a CO2 injected Spec III for 10 months. I did EI daily in that tank with 0.5mL Fluval Comp, N, K and 1mL P. Constantly had mass green dust algae. Tried everything. Finally out of laziness I stopped doing EI daily and cut back to once per week at half EI levels. Algae is gone. HC stilling growing insane.


My point is no one ever mentions the second part to newbs. They always just talk about how awesome EI is. How you never need to test. The web address of the fert calculators and how a host of other problems are the reasons for your algae.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top