Yamato Green

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by mistergreen

I barely dose PO4.. My tank naturely through all the fish & plant processes provide 2ppm of PO4. I'm sure the substrate has something to do with it too.
I bring it up to 3-4ppm with KH2PO4 but honestly I don't think I need to do that. Nitrate uptake is fine.

But you do need to change the water every week for the health of the fish.

Lighting levels?
CO2?
Substrate type?
Tap water?

All play a large role.

I think the approach I took rather than adding "just enough", adding non limiting PO4 for all tank set ups, works much better.
Folks can slowly dial things down if they really think it helps.

There is no ill effects in non CO2 nor CO2 enriched tanks, high/low light etc due to high PO4, much like K+. The range for NO3 for that matter is huge as well, at least 50-75ppm. Same deal with dosing traces/GH etc.

You can use less by simply slowly reducing the volume you have been dosing till you see a negative effect. You need a stable starting point though.

The non limiting conditions provide that and also show if you have decent CO2 etc in many cases or not.

This way without ever touching a test kit, you can dial in a dosing routine based on the plant's health for any type of aquarium. Do one at a time and write down how much you added. Then do the next and so on.
You have 3-4 things at most to dose. So that can be done pretty quick, given 3-4 weeks for each fert.

That's simple, effective and relevant.
You can also use an O2 meter to measure plant growth to compare fertilization.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[mistergreen]

true, true.
But I keep fish with the plants too and I see behavioral changes with 70ppm+ of NO3. So they(the fishes) also tell me the limit... Maybe someday when I do a mostly planted tank, I can go crazy. Or I can do the opposite and do a natural plant tank ala Walstad.

[jebarj90]

Hey Kent,
I actually havent been using the yamato green. I dont see anything special abou it. I think the dry ferts and EI dosing is really the best way to go.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by mistergreen

true, true.
But I keep fish with the plants too and I see behavioral changes with 70ppm+ of NO3. So they(the fishes) also tell me the limit... Maybe someday when I do a mostly planted tank, I can go crazy. Or I can do the opposite and do a natural plant tank ala Walstad.

Really?

Think about why your tank has 70ppm + NO3 and how it must form if you have a high fish stocking level, fish do not excrete NO3, they excrete NH4............

So is it the NO3, or is it the NH4 that's the issue?

I have very high stocking levels with lots of plants.
I have no issues and the fish health and behavior are awesome and have been fine for many years. Also, what type of test method do you use for measuring NO3?

Are you adding KNO3 to discern whether it's due solely to NO3?
If your comments matched the observations I've done, I've done this same type of test many times over many years, I'd agree with you.
But they do not. Discerning behavioral changes is difficult, but we will ignore that issue and assume that we can tell to be on the safe side.

How is it that your tank is having 70ppm + NO3's BTW? Assuming that the test method is giving you the correct readings at such a high range.

Something does not add up. some make dosing mistakes, but it's rare anyone would purposely dose 70+ ppm of NO3.

I've never been able to, nor have 1000's of aquarists, been able to keep NO3's without dosing KNO3 even with heavily stocked tanks with CO2/mod to higher light.

A 120 gallon discus tank with 14 full sized adults, fed 2x a day, worms, 2w/gal, CO2, 85% planted, never managed to build up and required about 1/2 teaspoon KNO3 3x a week to maintain decent 20 ppm range NO3's

I'm not suggesting anyone needs 75ppm of NO3(20-30ppm is fine and a decent non limiting range), but how you determine the NO3 and the source make enormous differences. As does how you define behavioral issues and whether they are really due to the high NO3 or rather something else.

I do not see anything that suggest those issues where addressed.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[mistergreen]

Oh, it's not 70ppm.. it's around 15-25 ppm of NO3. It had been up there in the past though, that's how I know it affects the fishes.

Naturally, the tank is around 8ppm of NO3 through the tank's processes. NH4 is converted to NO3 really fast because the substrate is really mature, really mature and lots of plants like NH4.

I add 1/8 of a teaspoon of KNO3. Any more would bump it up too high for my 29G tank. PO4 is always present (1-2 ppm). The only thing I dose regularly is KH2SO4. My tank is by no means perfect that's why it's good to read and experience.

[plantbrain]

So how did it get to 70ppm+ and how did you test for it?
What behavioral changes and species where involved?
Also, what confirmation do you use for PO4?
How on earth can it be that high without a tap water source?

Even if it is that high from the tap, adding another 2ppm via KH2OPO4, will not harm anything nor tilt the tank towards poorer growth of health.

You do not have to add it if it's high from the tap, but something does not add up if you claim you have 1-2ppm of PO4 inorganic from fish waste in the tank you speak of..............

And that's the topic.....

Regards,
Tom Barr

[mistergreen]

I use a calibrated API test kit.. I did tests against known numbers from our local waterwork's annual report { from the tap : NO3 is around 1.3ppm, PO4 is around 0.14 ppm }

What I'm saying is in a mature tank, NO3 & PO4 will naturally exist if you feed the fish but not to the amount where you recomment for optimal plant growth. Are you saying it's impossible for PO4 to exist without adding PO4 ferts?

Mine really does hover around 2ppm PO4 without dosing PO4.

[Hypancistrus]

Nitrates and phosphates coming from fish and fish food has been the standard practice of the Europeans, Dutch, and Asians for quite some time now. It works great for them, and they always beat the Americans in the big contests.

Take a look at the majority of the published ADA specs and tanks, and they don't dose nitrates and phosphates. ADA does make their own nitrate + phosphate product, and they themselves don't use it on the majority of their high light, CO2 injected tanks.

It's the Americans who got behind the whole EI thing with "nitrates and phosphates don't cause algae, buy farm products and dump loads of them in." And it's always people following these techniques that have loads of problems.

[Wö£fëñxXx]

Originally Posted by Hypancistrus

Nitrates and phosphates coming from fish and fish food has been the standard practice of the Europeans, Dutch, and Asians for quite some time now. It works great for them, and they always beat the Americans in the big contests.

Take a look at the majority of the published ADA specs and tanks, and they don't dose nitrates and phosphates. ADA does make their own nitrate + phosphate product, and they themselves don't use it on the majority of their high light, CO2 injected tanks.

It's the Americans who got behind the whole EI thing with "nitrates and phosphates don't cause algae, buy farm products and dump loads of them in." And it's always people following these techniques that have loads of problems.

Nitrates and phosphates coming from fish and fish food is fine in a low light setting, that is stupid in a highlight tank. you would completely pollute the water trying to keep enough NPK added.
Seriously, wouldn't you agree?

What exactly are you trying to say? because it all sounds a little naive to me,
algae is algae, plants are plants, water is water and NPK is NPK.

I use this so called EI and "dump" loads of farm bought ferts into my tanks, and funny thing is, I don't have loads of problems except for what I cause by mis-use of either light or C02.
It is all in what you know and how you use it.

My tanks all look very good and grow just the same, I care nothing for a contest because I have other cares in life.
I do however enjoy growing plants and how the tanks look in my house, I am sure if I wanted to enter a contest, I would not have a problem scoring.
That is not my cup of tea.
Your post sounds angry and grudgingly apposed of "farm ferts".

Help me understand? are you saying we should not use them and that they are bad for our tanks?

KISS

[Rex Grigg]

Hypancistrus would rather buy high grade chemicals and dump those into his tank. He apparently has the money to spend 10-20X as much to get an extra 9.

[mrbelvedere]

Originally Posted by Hypancistrus

they always beat the Americans in the big contests.

It's the Americans who got behind the whole EI thing with "nitrates and phosphates don't cause algae, buy farm products and dump loads of them in." And it's always people following these techniques that have loads of problems.

ADA tanks have to add less P and N, mostly due to their substrate system that leaches nutrients for many months.

The Dutch have a greater presence, as their hobby is more widespread than in America.

Who has problems when they follow the established directions?

Most of my favorite tanks are from American hobbyists. Steven Chong and Roy Deki to name a few. Aaron and Craig for their "Tonina" tanks that the true aquascapers don't seem to like.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Hypancistrus

Nitrates and phosphates coming from fish and fish food has been the standard practice of the Europeans, Dutch, and Asians for quite some time now. It works great for them, and they always beat the Americans in the big contests.

Methods do not define art.
Art does not define methods.
Many have high NO3 and PO4 in their tap water, Dutch and Germans and the English for example. I know folks there, it's an issue and has been.

Take a look at the majority of the published ADA specs and tanks, and they don't dose nitrates and phosphates. ADA does make their own nitrate + phosphate product, and they themselves don't use it on the majority of their high light, CO2 injected tanks.

They have plenty of NO3 and PO4 in these tanks, it's called sediment . You can add it to the water column or the sediment or both places.

The issue is when folks make stupid claims they have not even bothered to analyze suggesting that it's bad for fish and causes algae to have water column ferts for NO3 and PO4.

That is clearly poppy cock.
That also has no bearing on many tanks, say this example of James who in 8 months in the hobby managed to win the overall AGA contest:

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.or...=0&vol=2&id=71
Ricky's:
http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.or...=0&vol=2&id=43

and Erik's:

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.or...=0&vol=2&id=18

Now, mister expert, what do you have?

It's the Americans who got behind the whole EI thing with "nitrates and phosphates don't cause algae, buy farm products and dump loads of them in." And it's always people following these techniques that have loads of problems.

Actually it's the reverse, we have seen a massive change since EI came about, in the level and abilities to grow a wide range of plants much easier.

I see plenty of folks that have issues using ADA stuff, as well as any and every method.

You see what you want to see and need to frequent more boards outside the USA then if you honestly think this way.

However, it's obvious you have an agenda here that has little to do with Yamato green.

A product I have used in the past and supported.........

Understanding things means you need to use them, understand why they work, not that they do just for you.

If you have problems with a method, it is your fault, not the methods.
Most any method can be forced and tweaked.

That is all I did with PMDD, EI is not really my method, nor is Yamato green this guys.

They each have the same items, with more coming from various sources than the other(fish vs inorganic). Growth rates make a huge difference as do the plants, they are flexible.

If I had not bothered to test and induce algae in the past, I suspect many folks would still be chasing algae correlations and ghost. Those are not my methods either, they are standard methods in research.

All I did was justify things more, argue for, and add a few things to tweak a method better, same for ADA, non CO2 methods, Marine methods etc.
I'm hardly one dimensional with respect to methods or design.
I use them all to achieve the goals I have.

Some trade offs are not worth while for some goals, some are.
You need to show the lab grade stuff is really a significant difference.
You have never done that and I have plenty of lab grade stuff myself, here at my lab

As well as about 12 years using ag grade stuff also.
What do you think they use in larger scale Fert studies?

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Hypancistrus]

Originally Posted by plantbrain

However, it's obvious you have an agenda here that has little to do with Yamato green.

I'm not an expert. I'm a hobbyist who only buys things. I happen to have my own opinions. I have no affiliations with any businesses, partners, or any websites. I'm don't sell anything or make any money whatsoever from the aquarium hobby. I also don't care if others disagree with my opinions. To accuse me of having an "agenda" is both preposterous and insulting.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Hypancistrus

I'm not an expert. I'm a hobbyist who only buys things. I happen to have my own opinions. I have no affiliations with any businesses, partners, or any websites. I'm don't sell anything or make any money whatsoever from the aquarium hobby. I also don't care if others disagree with my opinions. To accuse me of having an "agenda" is both preposterous and insulting.

The issues about "agenda" are to have us believe the baloney rational used to justify ideas/contentions about ag vs lab grade fertilizers, then try and give baloney about Art and scaping being some how correlated to a method of dosing fertilizers, then using the ADA example where they obviously have a source, albeit not the water column as much, for PO4/NO3, that is not about Yamato green nor why it works in some vs other tanks.

You want me to believe that baloney?
I can easily say that is insulting and a joke to me. I can take all sorts of stuff personal and insulting, I do not. Should I be a bad sport about it and take it all personal after getting pummeled? No, I'll expose the baloney for what it is.

Now:
You do not have to have a web site, nor sell a product, nor sell anything on line/in the hobby etc to promote an "agenda". Where'd that come from? The same pot the other arguments you used?

If you add 3, now 4 arguments to support your contention that have nothing to do with the topic, then it really looks like "agenda", rather than debate.

Am I wrong about you there? Then why did you add those for support? Others made similar comments so it's not just me. Are you suggesting that we are all that stupid and dumb to fall for that argument?

Regards,
Tom Barr

[kkentert]

Tom-
Did you ever address the issue of auxins? I'd like to get your scope on it.