Is there any correct way to dose ferts?

[madnugget]

Would like to know the different methods everyone do in regards to dosing the ferts

I heard of injecting the ferts into the substrate, pouring into the opening of a water skimmer and pumping straight into the water. Is there any ideal way? Dilute it before pouring into the tank?

I myself would pour into the water skimmer, as i dont know is there any side effects when the fishes "consume" it. What i meant was when i pumped directly in, my always hungry fishes thought its food and rushes to the source, coming into contact with concentrated ferts. (referring to those readily available ferts, not powder forms)

[yeoyl87]

i think it should be fine. I have been throwing in powders for 2 years already with no problem.

[Plantbrain]

i think it should be fine. I have been throwing in powders for 2 years already with no problem.

+1, I've been doing ti for 20 years, no issues.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[madnugget]

thanks for the replies... what about planted shrimp tanks>?

[PKB]

I take out some tank water in a 1.5L Coke bottle and drip in the fert. Mix them.

Then I slowly pour them slowly back into the planted tank, evenly in all corner of the tank. It prevent the fert to be concentrated and harm the shrimps and also allows the fert to be evenly spreadout. So far it doesn't affect my shrimps.

thanks for the replies... what about planted shrimp tanks>?

[Plantbrain]

thanks for the replies... what about planted shrimp tanks>?

These are shrimp tanks, I have several hundred each in 4 of the 5 aquariums.

Breeding and selling them too.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[felix_fx2]

I take out some tank water in a 1.5L Coke bottle and drip in the fert. Mix them.

Then I slowly pour them slowly back into the planted tank, evenly in all corner of the tank. It prevent the fert to be concentrated and harm the shrimps and also allows the fert to be evenly spreadout. So far it doesn't affect my shrimps.

Don't need to pour slowly, make use of some left over filter wool and stuff it into the tube your using to drip.

i am using the same method, shall we call it the IV drip way?
PS: instead of using wool to stuff up the tube, can also use the IV drip thing

[Aquaticz]

I make up solutions so I know what I am adding :-)
I use a feeding syringe that is marked off in ml.
One day macro next day micro

[Plantbrain]

I know what I'm adding with dosing dry ferts the same as liquids, this makes no difference.

Nor is "accuracy" in dosing any "cure all".

It's never once made any difference.
Unless you are right on a razor's edge, which is a poor management method in the first place.............it should never make a difference.

If a method is truly that rigid to have to use liquid dosing vs dry, then the method cannot be used wide and broadly among many aquarist.

It may still work, but not because of anything to do with liquid vs dry dosing

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Aquaticz]

I love message boards. However they do lack emotion :-)
I was simply replying to "is there a correct way to dose ferts"
Never said it made a difference, never said it was a cure all, and never even commented on a method that is broadly used among aquarist.
I simply shared how I do it. In fact a friend of yours got me started on EI (using solutions). Seems to me that by keeping a written & photographic log one would learn a great deal more about one's tank. One could literally see what happens if for instance you dosed too much P or what happens when you dose so many ppm of iron etc. Basically if I am keeping a log I'd rather have the same ppm in a solution and be able to track it rather than wonder if that 1/2 teaspoon was the same amount as the last teaspoon's worth. Does it really matter? I think it does if your learning & want to alter dosing for optimum color, growth etc. It's just a bit more accurate. If you do not keep logs, than I do not see what difference it would make, because you have no record to compare it to. Hope that clears up my prior post. Is this the only way - nahhhhhhh there are many ways to get to the top of the hill & I am picking a way that I *think* will help me get there. Due to variables I do not think there is "one way" to do it. As an example, I am a builder & some of my friends are also. There are many ways to build the same project but is there one correct way? No there are many correct ways & each has its positives & negatives.
Thanks for sharing Tom & nice to be able to correspond with you as a fellow aquarist.
I have learned a great deal from your writing - Thank you
Have a great week

[Plantbrain]

Yep, they do lack the emotion!

I think you may have thought it was directed at you personally, rather than the idea of dosing liquids

Many folks read these post. Some think this, but pointing out the issues, trade offs etc helps everyone, it's not directed at you personally however. Some assume that liquids are best/better.

If you do not keep logs, than I do not see what difference it would make, because you have no record to compare it to. Hope that clears up my prior post. Is this the only way - nahhhhhhh there are many ways to get to the top of the hill

I agree, however, we all should be careful in our assumptions.......does the result imply the method was the reason of success?????????

Perhaps it was something to do with current, CO2, or light PAR?
Many associate correlation with cause, this leads to many many mistakes and myths.

Logs also have issues: what if the plant biomass changes through time?
ADA As declines over time in terms of nutrients any enriched sediments etc.
Logs can help, but it is often trying to hit a moving target, so they are not all they are cracked up to be, the same is true for test kits and the same is true for EI, you have to keep up on it f you want to keep a certain range.

However, in all cases, some observations and adjustments can and should be made to suit. Still, folks tend to place more emphasis on dosing for some reason than good CO2 and moderate or lower light PAR.

Liquid dosing is well suited for aquariums under 10 Gallons, nano's etc, then such accuracy offers some trade off advantage as error in dry dosing increases.

You can also measure a sample of dry weight dosing, then calculate the erorrs.

I honestly do not believe there's any ill feeling or will between yourself and I I speak rhetorically about things in general when a post mentions some things that often get confused by hobbyists. Mostly folks all agree on the topic/points raised, I am not going after you or anyone personally ever.
God, that'd suck to be like that

In person, this is comes across much differently than the web.
What you meant does as well

Take care,

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Aquaticz]

Thanks for the reply Tom


I honestly do not believe there's any ill feeling or will between yourself and I I speak rhetorically about things in general when a post mentions some things that often get confused by hobbyists. Mostly folks all agree on the topic/points raised, I am not going after you or anyone personally ever.
God, that'd suck to be like that

In person, this is comes across much differently than the web.
What you meant does as well

First things first ---->You are 100% correct. There is no ill feeling or will
No reason for it. I have learned a ton of information on boards similar to this. I like to discuss because it brings to light what is not understood by those in the discussion. Your comment about logs and moving targets could not have been more descriptive of my situation & I am sure many others.

Personally I think dosing is the easiest variable to deal with( LOL...especially since I use EI as a guide) . My tanks look so much better (thx). However always wanting to strive for better I have been looking at some of the other variables but lately have been honing in on CO2 & current. Plenty of questions about C02 to include drop checkers, PH meters & the KH/PH chart. Each seems to have its downfall. I am looking for a way to cross check Co2 levels that makes sense to a non chemist like myself. Ahhh but that would be another thread eh?
Thank you Tom - I have learned a lot from your posts/writings. Keep on discussing and I'll do my best to learn.

Regards,
Aquaticz

[Plantbrain]

Well ..........many hobbyists start off very humble and simple, then they get more interested, go high tech, more species, more gizmos......more test, more "stuff".

At some point, they either give up, or they start to simply and realize too much junk interferes with what it was they truly wanted in the first place.

So they reduce and simplify.
What is easier to keep?
What is easier to do?
What do I not mind doing?
What will I actually do and what are my habits?
Do I really care that much about having the newest stem plant of the month, or do I want a nice tank that is more stable and less hassle to keep?

These are very important questions.
Perhaps more so than any others.

I rarely see sub forums labeled light and algae, or CO2 and algae, it's almost universally associated with fertilizing, and ferts can cause issues, but they tend to be pretty mild compared to light/CO2.

I agree, dosing is easy, however, once set, light is the easiest, getting it set if hard if you lack a PAR meter, or someone with experience or that can estimate based on the brands etc. Still, once set correctly, light makes the other two: CO2/nutrients so much easier. Also reduces algae way way down, and makes CO2 dosing much easier and less critical.

I do not think methods are all that different, they all add nutrients etc........at some rate. what controls the demand of nutrients are: light/CO2. Those control the rates of uptake, so while many say there's many ways to the top, there is still only one top. Some are okay with only 1/2 way up also, but plant growth is caused by the same things no matter what.

That does not change, only the rates of growth/demand.

So a low light non CO2 planted tank with soil grows for the exact same reason as the high light/CO2 enriched water column dosed aquarium does, and algae is controlled by the same factors, the rates of growth are 20X different, but the reasons why the plants grow are still the same.

This article should be read really carefully

http://www.tropica.com/article.asp?t...aristic&id=142





Regards,
Tom Barr

[Navanod]

Read article really carefully and it makes alot of sense. To all organisms, its all about getting that net gain in ATP (the most basic energy generating unit).

Let me make an analogy.
CO2 is like water to us while sunlight is like air. Ferts are like the food we eat.
We can stay alive as long as we have air, water and some food. If we don't get the proper balance of food, we get some vitamin deficiencies or stunted growth, but we normally wouldn't die. Too much food and we'll simply not be able to stomach it.

Very good read Tom, thanks for the link.
With that being said, do you think there are any plants that would act as a very good indicator marker for fert deficiencies?
Its should be the first to start showing signs of deficiencies and ideally, the symptoms should be clear and different for different sorts of deficiencies. eg. yellow leaves for lack of iron, stunted stems for lack of potassium etc...

[Plantbrain]

I think we should include CO2 as a "nutrient".

Like PO4 or others..........the plant will still live without much...but does not grow as fast or as well, competition between different species and within the same species for PO4, and very much so for CO2.....occurs.

So some plants appear to be more sensitive over all, but it does depend on the make up, and the dosing of CO2/nutrients, the light PAR etc.

Hard to separate the other elements in isolation
So some generalizations are tougher to make.

It's not that there's many different ways to grow plants, it's more that there are many different situations where plants can grow. The real question is what method is the best for management goals of a particularly aquarist.

Aquarist often come to this hobby with myths/dogma and other ideas, and want to apply these to planted tanks, so it should be modified further, informed best management practices for a given realistic goal.

Here's soem general things I've seen and heard over the years:
Things like "more light? is "better"", "CO2? we just add it and that's it", "test kits? they are all accurate and should be used, not doing so means you do not care about your plants/fish", telling people what they want to hear rather than looking into things deeper, "there are many ways to grow aquatic plants", or this one "there's so much we and Science do not understand yet..."......etc.

None of these things help, they do not expand the knowledge of aquatic horticulture. Generally, they lead to more confusion and contention.
They do nothing to tie concepts together to explain the observations.

I would suggest that hobbyists re read the article several times carefully.
It is quite good and ties many concepts together.
You will note, the nutrients where rich and non limiting so that they are independent and do not influence the results.

I did this long ago with EI, but.......I also needed to make CO2 non limiting and lastly, I went after light as a non limiting factor.
Later, I went back with the CO2/nutrients at non limiting levels, then reduced light.

This si what ADA, Tropica, myself all suggest, quite independently.
ADA of course insist, as they should, they are a business after all, to buy their ADA brand, but their lights are low out put, less than most aquarist would predict, adding to the issue, the open tops on ADA also place such lighting much farther away than many typical non ADA set ups.

And as you can tell from the article, that would make a HUGE DIFFERNCE

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Shadow]

This si what ADA, Tropica, myself all suggest, quite independently.
ADA of course insist, as they should, they are a business after all, to buy their ADA brand, but their lights are low out put, less than most aquarist would predict, adding to the issue, the open tops on ADA also place such lighting much farther away than many typical non ADA set ups.

Regarding the light output. have confirm weather it is due to the light bulb generate less lumen, spectrum or due to the reflector?

[Plantbrain]

Regarding the light output. have confirm weather it is due to the light bulb generate less lumen, spectrum or due to the reflector?

PAR is the same in my tanks, Tropica's, etc. Reflectors will vary etc, but PAr is consistent between aquariums measured.

Spectrum seems much more about bulb marketing/making extra $ off hobbyists than any real significant difference in growth. Simply visually pleasing also, but as far plant growth PAR is suitable as a parameter.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[dannyfish]

I take out some tank water in a 1.5L Coke bottle and drip in the fert. Mix them.

Then I slowly pour them slowly back into the planted tank, evenly in all corner of the tank. It prevent the fert to be concentrated and harm the shrimps and also allows the fert to be evenly spreadout. So far it doesn't affect my shrimps.

May i know how much u mix?