High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life - Page 5 - The Planted Tank Forum
 236Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 08:45 PM
Algae Grower
 
c9bug's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 114
I don't understand your logic (sorry). Let's say we have some fish, and we want to find out what concentration of nitrates will kill 50% of the fishes during 96 hours. Do we need to define what are the toxic levels before we start this experiment? Or course not! We just prepare some test tanks with different concentrations of nitrates, and monitor the condition of our fish samples (toghether with other parameters of our test like dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, temperature, etc.). At the end of our test we find out that for our fish species, for example, 40 ppm of NO3 is the LD50 value. That's it. Then we can decide to study the toxic effects of NO3 on another species. This way we can gather some amount of data, that show us some species that are more sensitive to nitrate toxicity than others. Based on that we can give out some recommendation as to what concentration of nitrates can be considered safe for even the most sensitive fish species. There will never be some precise threshold. There'll always be a percentage of species that may be affected by this or that concentration. For example, 7.5 ppm NO3 is considered safe for 95% of aquatic species, but toxic for the rest (5%). 11 to 16 ppm NO3 is considered safe for 80-90% of aquatic species, but toxic for the rest (10-20%), and so on. Again, these numbers are based on some research, on some statistical data. It does not mean that your Otocinclus will be in the affected group (but who knows). So again, again, again: Our subjective observations can't help us much in finding out the objective data. Similarly, science may not give us any definitive answers (because most issues is very complex, not black-and-white as we often think), but it may show us possible risks, or may point us in the right direction.

I'm not sure I understand you here either. When you set up a scientific study you define the variables. You should state what levels you find dangerous or induce algae growth. For instance, is KNO3 dangerous at 1ppm, 10ppm, 40ppm, 400ppm? You would test all of them and display your data. Again though there are many factors that would influence this data such as lighting, plant mass, species, etc. I already stated that everything is toxic depending on the concentration. To me that is obvious and I do not see anyone arguing otherwise. We need to know what concentration you are referring to when you say high levels of nutrients. What fertilizer levels do you consider safe.


If someone links to scientific articles that say exactly the opposite that what to referer says, this is true pseudo-science for me. Similarly, if someone uses scientific articles for backing up his method, and it shows up that the scientific data present much different results, this is true pseudo-science for me. If someone ignores hundereds of scientific papers and professional books, as well as many generations of researchers, teachers and professors that as confident about the correlation between nutrient levels and algae biomass, and someone says they are all ignorants that don't see the truth, this is true pseudo-science for me, and his statements based on this pseudo-science are true myths. It's not about my or anyone else's position. It's about the approach to objective facts, scientific reasearch, or even to other people positions. So let's set our subjective opinions aside for now, and focus on scientific methods.

That's fine, however characterizing all EI users the same way is disingenuous and counter productive. I also would like to see any links of scientific papers that you provide that focus on an aquarium environment using the fertilizers we use. Please link the articles, not just the quotes.

Does it offend you to see the nicknames (which are not even a real names)?

Again, I find it strangely personal, and it comes off like you are picking a fight. It does not, however, offend me.

You can do a simple test using the scientific method to see the results yourself. Or you can try to find out some studies that already researched this topic.

You are making a claim, please back it up in regard to planted tank systems. The scientific method is about disproving accepted theories. I haven't seen any evidence that you have provided that convinces me that fertilizer levels dosed in the standard EI fertilizing regimen are harmful to fish. This to this would be very interesting, yet all I see in this topic is "EI users say this or EI users say that..." Please focus on aquarium salts, not ammonia based fertlizers.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by c9bug; 02-04-2016 at 03:17 AM. Reason: changed a word
c9bug is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 08:49 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
happi's Avatar
 
PTrader: (21/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,139
Send a message via Yahoo to happi
i have read many articles based on scientific research, if i follow them i would be lost by now, even they had different conclusion from each others, that is why i have always said you will get mixed results and there is no end to it. i was reading somewhere most scientific research say's PO4 cause Algae, NH4 cause algae, Urea cause algae and at the same time companies made their aquatic plant fertilizers from all these chemicals and am sure this involve scientific research too.
dukydaf, dukydaf, Hoppy and 7 others like this.

DIY Trace/Micro/Macro Recipe
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


DIY Trace/Micro/Calculation Etc
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
happi is offline  
post #63 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 09:20 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Queensland
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by c9bug View Post
That's fine, however characterizing all EI users the same way is disingenuous and counter productive.
To their egos..........yeah, I agree.

Feel free to edit.
Audionut is offline  
 
post #64 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 09:38 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (84/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
To their egos..........yeah, I agree.
No, it has nothing to do with egos. In fact if you were to survey all users of the EI method I would expect you to end up more confused than when you started. EI is a concept, not a group of mandatory dosage tables. People use what they consider to be EI when they are dosing just Seachem Flourish and a couple of other Seachem products. People also use what they consider to be EI when they have low light and dose the full amounts in the tables. Others use what they consider to be EI when they don't even know what their GH is, let alone dosing GH booster.

The EI concept is extremely flexible, and reduced to the simplest form, is just dosing on a regular schedule, with weekly big water changes, and never testing the water. This has worked so well for many of us that it allows us to have very nice planted tanks where we had been struggling endlessly before.

Plantbrain first called it the "Estimative Index" method about 10 years ago, after realizing that he could not get algae growths by using what had been considered overdoses of nitrates and phosphates, and adding the realization that if you do weekly 50% water changes the highest amount you can get of any of the things you dose is twice the weekly total dosage of that thing, so as long as that number is not a problem, you don't need to test the water to avoid overdosing. Since then the EI method has matured a lot, even though the concept is still the same.

As I understand this "debate" it is based on the belief that even the amounts of "things" that we dose that are twice the weekly total dosage are toxic to our tanks. Is that what we are debating?
burr740, burr740, c9bug and 1 others like this.

Hoppy
Hoppy is offline  
post #65 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 11:14 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
dukydaf's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 1,273
Let me start with expressing my OPINIONs and FEELINGS on the topic.
1. The title “High [levels of plant] nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life” is axiomatic. I can also say “High oxygen levels are toxic for all life.” “ Too much water will kill you.” As others have said nobody will disagree. But what is high, what are the nutrients, what type of algae and what aquatic life … now those are more interesting questions.

2. @Marcel G maybe it would be more constructive, for your idea of fertilizing, to present Evidence #1-n: for reduced dosing instead of trying to find counterarguments. If both work, then great found a different way to grow all the aquatic plants in the world.

3. While Marcel names members of this forum opposing the hypothesis, he forgets to make clear that his beliefs are strongly for the hypothesis ( at least based on his previous posts and active threads). That is alright, his post is an opinion piece after all. Every one of us is prone to taking one side or the other. But it should be clear that the first post is biased. Even if everything looks good in an ecological study in the Gulf of Mexico financed with BP $, would you give it the same level of trust ? Marlboro and lung cancer ?

4. Asking hobbyists to accurately and precisely measure the levels of nutrients in the aquarium is unreasonable

5. In my view, at the moment most environmental science journals have a strong publication bias. Most look for articles that prove that any human intervention causes death and destruction, thus they will select to publish the studies that recommend the lowest levels of NO3, PO4. Studies where fish/ inverts are not affected are not published because there is no significant effect of NO3… on X

6. I know there is a lot of literature on trout and salmon because of their commercial importance. However, trout and salmon would die if put in a similar natural environment of our tropical aquarium fish (main factor would be lack of oxygen). Comparing trout with aquarium fish is difficult at best.

7. The major problems I had with plants were because there was a LACK of a nutrient/light not an overdose. Damaged plants lead to algae. In EI aquariums I run into problems when the plants have no place left to grow.

8. Members of this forum are often interested (exceptions are there, I am sure) in having the best / fastest growth of difficult plants. If some compromises in fish longevity/ selection need to be made, then so be it. I am that guy who names fish, wakes up at 5am to see the Betta spawning, feeds individual flakes to fish just to see them more, pets the goldfish in the pond on the head…. But fish are just a sidenote in a high tech/ high nutrient planted tank. Want a discus tank, maybe try other plants… Want to raise fish fry , another setup comes to mind. I am sure, in the future the EU aquarium police will come, bang the door and handcuff me because I have 20ppm NO3 and 3ppm PO4 in my fish aquarium but until then I will enjoy my high nutrient planted aquarium.
Hoppy, Hoppy, Greggz and 5 others like this.

On hiatus till later this year

Last edited by dukydaf; 02-03-2016 at 11:49 PM. Reason: edited mention
dukydaf is offline  
post #66 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 11:17 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
d33pVI's Avatar
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
As I understand this "debate" it is based on the belief that even the amounts of "things" that we dose that are twice the weekly total dosage are toxic to our tanks. Is that what we are debating?
Yeah, but we are going to discount any and all experiences based on simple hobbyist observation over the past decades, because objective.


Instead, let's focus on the more relevant studies about plant mass in Lake Okeechobee, acceptable nitrate levels in Canadian lakes, the effect of CO2 on farmed Atlantic cod, clever analogies about human fornication in heavily polluted urban centers, and some guy that extrapolated enough data to determine the dissolved CO2 levels of the entire Amazon River, because Science, brah. SCIENCE!
dru, dru, burr740 and 1 others like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
d33pVI is offline  
post #67 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 11:19 PM
Algae Grower
 
c9bug's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
To their egos..........yeah, I agree.
Wow... really? My point was that starting off a debate that is meant to be civil by ostracizing people who don't share your view is unwise and counter productive to a healthy debate. The only thing you will accomplish is creating an echo chamber. Characterizing every user of EI by the faulty arguments of a few is disingenuous.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
c9bug is offline  
post #68 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 11:19 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
dukydaf's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 1,273
I am waiting for unlimited sun ( summer) to run some exploratory trials... see how algae grow under different conditions and continue my BBA testing. Lots of nutrients and light combined with few plants is certainly a good algae growing solution. Algae will grow so much that they acutally lead to nutrient deficientcy in plants.

Now some remarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by roadmaster View Post
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 .
Couldn’t have said it better. I would recommend people read carefully Tom’s article on EI, before critising actual EI.
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr...-for-test-kits

From Tom’s article
Quote:
This will give an assumed “maximum uptake rate”. This rate is important in setting the upper limit of the needs of the plants. Once the aquarist knows this rate, they can be confident that they are not going to run out of any nutrient at most any lighting variable. This “rate” of uptake or dosing is what is truly important rather than maintaining some static “residual” level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadmaster View Post
Those that have no such issues with EI are just ignorant, and is dumb luck that they can repeat their success over and over.
Good thing our medicine also gets lucky time after time and treats us ...Lucky things these medicine thingies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
By definition "overdosing" would be bad, but the problem is determining what constitutes an "overdose".
total amount of nitrates
plant mass a
growth rate of the plants.
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to get good growth of a few stems of Species X, what will you need when you have the tank half full of that same species? If you need 5 ppm of nitrates to grow a few anubias, and crypts, what will you need if you add Hygro polysperma to the tank? If the above is with low medium light, say 40 PAR at the substrate, what will you need if you double the light intensity? It just seems overwhelmingly logical that the minimum needed is a function of many variables. And, I am assuming that you measure your nitrates once a day, not every hour.
What @Hoppy says makes the most sense both in theory and in practice. One often sees an aquarium with a few slow growing plants, plenty of light, dosing EI and struggling with algae. It also points out, rightly so, that algae in the aquarium is not a pure function of nutrient levels. If one wants to model algae growth in the aquarium you need to put all the nutrients ( both dosed, env. accumulated, bioaccumulated), light levels, light duration, animal load, plant mass, plant growth rate, plant species, algae mass, algae type, cleaning crew, pH…….
If we had a big enough dataset with accurate measurements maybe we can see what is significant for each algae type and make a multifactorial model to diagnose/run your aquarium
Is it reasonable to propose that a hobbyist runs his aquarium according to such models? I would say NO. It is expensive and unreliable at hobbyist levels. Too many variables need to be controlled. Not to mention catching all the right variables.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel G View Post
but I think they don't belong to this thread.

But stay away from discussing all kinds of personal feelings and life histories here. If you feel you have to tell everyone your own story, please, create your own thread.
These are just examples of the posts that do not belong here!
please respect the goal of this thread, and stay on-topic.
Marcel, I respect your activity in this forum but if you want to have a controlled discussion maybe your personal website or a wiki would be more suitable. If you want to hold an uninterrupted lecture, fine. But don't expect to censor the comments that follow it. Even if somebody decides to post his/hers personal opinions over and over, there is little you yourself can do. Why would one knowingly open a controversial thread and then shun people away from participating? Is it too noisy? Well, it is a forum.

A forum is just that. It is mostly about personal feeling and personal experience. We are here to learn from each other, exchange ideas and knowledge not to be whacked on the head and sent outside the classroom.
Greggz, Greggz, roadmaster and 9 others like this.

On hiatus till later this year

Last edited by dukydaf; 02-03-2016 at 11:59 PM. Reason: .
dukydaf is offline  
post #69 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-03-2016, 11:54 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (84/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21,015
One thing I like about this thread is that it caused me to think more about dosing. For example, we have often said or read where others said that you can dose the weeks load of each nutrient on Monday, then not have to dose on Tues, Wed., etc. That can't be a good idea, because that once a week dose really could get to be too high a concentration, for the first few days of the week. That's why the EI method says to dose every day of the week, alternating traces and macro ferts.

Then I started thinking more about dosing iron and phosphates on the same day Has anyone done any testing to see if the very low concentrations of both in an aquarium are enough to cause precipitation of the iron as an iron phosphate compound? If not, it would be a good test for someone here to do, even though I don't know how it would be done. Assuming the iron wouldn't precipitate out, would that mean that doing EI dosing of all of the nutrients daily is a better idea, because each dose would be smaller?

Does the PPS pro method combine iron and phosphate in the same solution?

Hoppy
Hoppy is offline  
post #70 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 12:05 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
sohankpatel's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Naperville, Illinois
Posts: 1,617
I personally have tried both PPS-PRO and EI, I just started EI, so I may not be the best source. When I dosed PPS-PRO I would have a ton of algae, It just wasn't doing it for me. Now The only algae that I have to deal with is GSA, and I would take it over staghorn or BBA. I think that dosing what fits your beliefs as well as your schedule will dictate what is truly "better".

Bump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post

Does the PPS pro method combine iron and phosphate in the same solution?
Nope, but macros and micros are dosed at the same time, possible causing the iron to react.

A 17-year old that faces parental opposition in this hobby

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
sohankpatel is offline  
post #71 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 12:56 AM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Queensland
Posts: 525
@Hoppy, yes that is what EI is. But it relies on a certain amount of ambiguity and laziness. What is low light? What is high light? Was is low or high CO2? What is low or high plant mass?

I would be very surprised if you could find a definitive answer to any of those questions. I mean, the goal posts move all of the time for a start. 10 ppm of CO2 was considered high once, then 30 ppm, and now some value in excess of that. Lighting is exactly the same.

What if I have low light, high CO2 and medium plant mass? Or any other combination? Ambiguity Sir.

And then there is the laziness. Tired of test kits and measuring water parameters, well we have some very special news for you today, you never have to measure water parameters ever again.........Introducing EI, the just dump stuff in and change some water once a week fool proof method. Clearly, EI is not as fool proof as those who dream of it day in and day out would have us to believe. As soon as there is any objection to the methods of EI, out of the wood works are tons of people who say, well.........actually.........you can't just dump stuff in and change some water, you actually need observational skills too. You need to dig through a bunch of threads to try and find some reasonable interpretation of what exactly is high and low light, CO2 and plant mass, use that research to find appropriate initial ion concentration levels that are fitting for the tank, and then use observational based skills to adapt those initial ion concentrations as needed. Pffft, and here I (and I'm sure others) just thought non-limiting actually meant what a dictionary states it to mean. Ambiguity!

Here is an example based on one of your posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
The PAR ranges for low light, medium light, and high light are a little bit arbitrary.
I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
if you also use good CO2 concentration and non-limiting fertilizing, you should be able to grow any plants you want to.
This isn't an attack on you Hoppy, far from it. I am also human and have the same susceptibility to being fallible as the rest of us. The point being, it's not until something is pointed out in a negative light towards EI, that all of a sudden people jump in and and describe all of the confounding factors related to the EI method. Laziness breeds laziness Sir.



This thread is purely regarding high concentrations of ions and their negative effect on creatures. And fact based studies regarding whether high ion concentrations promote algae growth.

It just so happens, that EI users with enough anecdotal evidence to sink a battle ship, are typically the ones who promote high levels of ion concentration, and typically state that these high ion concentrations are only ever beneficial, and never have negative effects towards the health and well-being of creatures, nor the ability for algae to grow.
58417, 58417, heel4you and 3 others like this.

Feel free to edit.
Audionut is offline  
post #72 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 02:54 AM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (84/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
@Hoppy,

I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.
My contribution to this ambiguity is the attempt to get us to define light intensity in a way that actually does involve light intensity, instead of just using the power rating of our many kinds of light fixtures to do it. And, my definition of low, medium and high light, is as I posted, related to when you need to use CO2 and when it is desirable and when it is essential to avoid serious algae problems. But, I agree that those new to planted tanks have a difficult time with all of the things they need to learn, unlearn, relearn, etc.
Quote:

This thread is purely regarding high concentrations of ions and their negative effect on creatures. And fact based studies regarding whether high ion concentrations promote algae growth.

It just so happens, that EI users with enough anecdotal evidence to sink a battle ship, are typically the ones who promote high levels of ion concentration, and typically state that these high ion concentrations are only ever beneficial, and never have negative effects towards the health and well-being of creatures, nor the ability for algae to grow.
EI advocates do insist that the levels of ions we use have not been shown to cause algae, nor to harm the fish - maybe some shrimp, but not fish. When someone finds data or, through experimenting, amasses data that shows that there should be limits lower than EI uses for how much concentration of ions is good for the plants and fauna, I think they should post those new limits, and suggest how to stay within those limits while still being able provide the nutrients the plants need so they grow well enough to inhibit algae blooms. They could label it the REI (rational estimative index) method or whatever else they want to call it, so we can know we are talking about the same subject. Just saying that we dose too much isn't that helpful.
dukydaf and dukydaf like this.

Hoppy
Hoppy is offline  
post #73 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 03:43 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
dukydaf's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post

Clearly, EI is not as fool proof as those who dream of it day in and day out would have us to believe. ......You need to dig through a bunch of threads to try and find some reasonable interpretation of what exactly is high and low light, CO2 and plant mass, use that research to find appropriate initial ion concentration levels that are fitting for the tank, and then use observational based skills to adapt those initial ion concentrations as needed.


I would really love to understand how someone new to the hobby is supposed to be capable of determining high, medium or low light level, when those who have been in the hobby for some time describe the levels of light as arbitrary.
@Audionut Not sure I understand the point here. EI is not good because users can make errors ? The hammer is wrongly built because the user can hit his fingers ?

To dose according to EI recommended levels is relatively easy. EI takes care of the nutrient part. What you are referring to is setting up a high light planted aquarium... light, substrate, filter, plant species, etc...another discussion.

There are plenty of articles and websites with good information on the subject. That being said, I would not recommend a high light planted tank for a beginner. Get some experience, read on dif subjects and slowly progress.

On hiatus till later this year
dukydaf is offline  
post #74 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 03:48 AM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Queensland
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
EI advocates do insist that the levels of ions we use have not been shown to cause algae, nor to harm the fish - maybe some shrimp, but not fish. When someone finds data or, through experimenting, amasses data that shows that there should be limits lower than EI uses for how much concentration of ions is good for the plants and fauna, I think they should post those new limits, and suggest how to stay within those limits while still being able provide the nutrients the plants need so they grow well enough to inhibit algae blooms. They could label it the REI (rational estimative index) method or whatever else they want to call it, so we can know we are talking about the same subject. Just saying that we dose too much isn't that helpful.
It's a tough world Hoppy when someone has to do all the things you suggest, just to put to rest anecdotal evidence. A much better solution for all of society, would be to teach people the problems associated with anecdotal evidence. Then we wouldn't need people wasting time shushing those with no evidence and loud voices.

As for evidence Sir, Counterargument #6.

@dukydaf. If the user is advised to hit the nail with the claw end of the hammer, is it still the users fault, or those advising?
heel4you and heel4you like this.

Feel free to edit.

Last edited by Audionut; 02-04-2016 at 06:35 AM. Reason: add reply
Audionut is offline  
post #75 of 283 (permalink) Old 02-04-2016, 07:30 AM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 200
EI-users' claims

Deleted

Last edited by 58417; 02-22-2016 at 06:06 PM. Reason: .
58417 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










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