# Plant impacts on fish capacity



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

How significantly do plants impact the fish capacity of a tank?
I'm curious because most everything I have read from other hobbyists here seems to indicate that plants increase the capacity of a tank to house fish (I'm referring to biocapacity, not "swimming room"). Opinions?

Assuming a single species tank, an adequate filter, proper water changes, and good tank maintenance, what are your thoughts on how many more fish a heavily planted tank _could _house above the "typical" capacity of the filter/tank without plants? 0%-200% ? Somewhere in between? This is more for a discussion, not a definitive answer since tank stocking depends on so many factors!


----------



## Geomancer (Aug 23, 2010)

Good, no definitive answer, I can do that =)

I'll just say one of the variables is how fast the plants grow, the faster they grow, the faster they assimilate the nutrients (ie Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate).

So a tank full of Anubias and Java Fern isn't going to do as much as a tank full of stem plants and floating plants.

So no idea on the percentage, I imagine you'd have to slowly add fish, and checking how quickly Nitrates rise to determine a balance.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

I agree with Geomancer but only up to the last sentence.:lol: Nitrate is not the only issue, as I'll try to explain.

In non-planted tanks, nitrates are a significant indicator of water quality, but only with respect to the nitrification cycle. In natural (low-tech) planted tanks the nitrates should be very low because of the plants' rapid assimilation of ammonia/ammonium primarily, and perhaps nitrite and nitrate. But with the plants grabbing much of the ammonia/ammonium, little goes through the nitrification oxidation to end up as nitrates. And there are bacteria that take up the nitrates. This occurs in non-planted tanks too, but here the nitrifying bacteria are on their own to oxidize ammonia to nitrite to nitrate. So, all else being equal, nitrate would be somewhat higher in non-planted tanks than in planted.

But the "crud" that you cannot see or measure in any manner, is the real issue. Pheromones released by fish that other fish can "read," dissolved waste and urine, and I don't know what all else--this is the stuff that filters can't remove and for which we use plants and do water changes. In planted tanks, the more plants there are, the more of this "crud" they can take up and remove. Which is why we can get away with fewer water changes, or less volume, with live plants. And again, this crud cannot be measured.

So that brings us back to DKRST's initial question. And I agree as I said that faster growing plants will remove this quicker. But of course, there is a limit to the capacity of plants in a closed system. Some time back I read that a 55g heavily-planted tank that was stocked with 6-7 neon tetra would be self-sufficient with respect to this issue, and never require a water change. The plants would handle the "crud" with this minimal a fish load. And no filter either, just the plants doing the job naturally. Diana Walstad, who advocates no water changes, says this works with well planted tanks with what she calls "a small or moderate number of fish." I have considerably more fish than what anyone could call small or moderate stocking, hence I do weekly 50% water changes. But I have no actual data as to how far I could let this go by simply relying on the plants.

Byron.


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

Nice response Byron, thanks!
Assuming everything else being equal, I'm the hypothesizing that a high-tech tank with pressurized CO2 and medium-high light should have a greater "processing" capacity for fish waste. That set-up _could _would work well with an overstocked tank since water change % in a high-tech tank are often greater than 50% per week.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Mar 28, 2011)

The thread opens an interesting conundrum. The 'crud' Byron speaks of is essentially dissolved organics...the aquatic equivalent of compost tea in my organic garden. Fearing it's bad in the planted tank, the water change will remove much of this (organic fertilizer) to be 'replaced' with chemical ferts... hmm.

It would seem that a moderate to heavily planted tank could offer an additional buffer for an increased bio-load, however one can't discount other measures that make it equally possible. Regardless, we can never let our guard down in providing the best water chemistry we can for our finned friends.

AD


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> The thread opens an interesting conundrum. The 'crud' Byron speaks of is essentially dissolved organics...the aquatic equivalent of compost tea in my organic garden. Fearing it's bad in the planted tank, the water change will remove much of this (organic fertilizer) to be 'replaced' with chemical ferts... hmm.
> 
> It would seem that a moderate to heavily planted tank could offer an additional buffer for an increased bio-load, however one can't discount other measures that make it equally possible. Regardless, we can never let our guard down in providing the best water chemistry we can for our finned friends.
> 
> AD


A correction here...my term "crud" is for the partially "unknown" pollutants along with those we do know are present--pheromones, urine, liquified waste, plant chemicals. All these pollutants cannot be measured, and they are not dissolved organics. In nature these are so widely dispersed that the fish do not remain in them for more than a few seconds. Water changes will remove these, and plants will take up some of it but with our normal stocking levels no where near all of it.


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Plants consume quite a bit of bioload. More then a lot of people expect. But as already mentioned it depends a lot on their growth rate. I've maintained filterless tanks with moderate stocking levels without any problems. Before I moved it and it started to have issues, the 15gallon supported 24 neon tetra sized fish,many shrimps and snails for many months. Its water quality was actually the best out of all my tanks at the time. Most my planted tanks have decent or heavy stocking. My 20 recently had really really high stocking levels for a couple weeks. It was over 2 fish per gallon lol. The tank and fish didn't seem to mind in the slightest. 

One thing I think is over looked is plants prefer ammonia. They will take ammonia before nitrates. But taking the ammonia means the nitrates are not even produced in the end. This is why I prefer to go with minimal filtration and more circulation in planted tanks. Use a smaller filter then normal then just add a powerhead to make flow. Heavy filtered planted tanks the plants and filter are competing for the ammonia. What the filter gets will end up as nitrates. What the plants get is removed from the system.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Mikaila31 said:


> Plants consume quite a bit of bioload. More then a lot of people expect. But as already mentioned it depends a lot on their growth rate. I've maintained filterless tanks with moderate stocking levels without any problems. Before I moved it and it started to have issues, the 15gallon supported 24 neon tetra sized fish,many shrimps and snails for many months. Its water quality was actually the best out of all my tanks at the time. Most my planted tanks have decent or heavy stocking. My 20 recently had really really high stocking levels for a couple weeks. It was over 2 fish per gallon lol. The tank and fish didn't seem to mind in the slightest.
> 
> One thing I think is over looked is plants prefer ammonia. They will take ammonia before nitrates. But taking the ammonia means the nitrates are not even produced in the end. This is why I prefer to go with minimal filtration and more circulation in planted tanks. Use a smaller filter then normal then just add a powerhead to make flow. Heavy filtered planted tanks the plants and filter are competing for the ammonia. What the filter gets will end up as nitrates. What the plants get is removed from the system.


I think we're on the same page Mikaila, but one thing you didn't mention that I wanted to check, namely water changes. If memory serves from from your other posts, you do weekly water changes?

Byron.


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Byron said:


> I think we're on the same page Mikaila, but one thing you didn't mention that I wanted to check, namely water changes. If memory serves from from your other posts, you do weekly water changes?
> 
> Byron.


Since I moved last June... I'm not terribly sure :-?. I no longer have a specific day of the week to do water changes. I've also gone from perviously having tap water with 20ppm of nitrates to tap water with 0 nitrates. I'm pretty sure I currently do 50% water changes every 1-2 weeks on most my tanks. My one soil-filterless tank I haven't touched in a long time, but its been basically plant/shrimp only for a while. Its been doing lots of weird stuff lately and I just don't want to deal with it -_-


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

I'll attest to ammonia's impact on plant growth. My _Myriophyllum _never grew so well as the time I had a filter clog and my ammonia level crept up unexpectedly! Grew more during that week than than it does with CO2 now! Obviously, ammonia isn't necessarily something we want in our tanks, but if I had a plant-only tank, I'd be tempted to try fertilizing with (very) small amounts of ammonia to see what would happen!


----------



## GwenInNM (Feb 2, 2011)

*interesting thread*


Liked reading all the info in this thread. I just recently went to only doing a WC every 2 weeks in my 40 gallon, as I do have a lot of plants now in that tank. I checked my nitrates yesterday, before I did the wc, and it was at 10ppm (after 2 weeks) The tank is 100% stocked according to that aquarium stocking site. I only feed once a day, but I think I give them plenty of food. I still did a 40% WC, but I feel pretty confident I can do WC every 2 weeks in that tank.

Still haven't done that in my 30 gal, because of GBR's in there, plus I'm only doing 5 gal WC each week, because I always get a nitrate reading of 0. As Bryon mentions is there other stuff that isn't measured that gives me a reason to take out more than 5 gallons each week? 

Gwen


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

GwenInNM said:


> Liked reading all the info in this thread. I just recently went to only doing a WC every 2 weeks in my 40 gallon, as I do have a lot of plants now in that tank. I checked my nitrates yesterday, before I did the wc, and it was at 10ppm (after 2 weeks) The tank is 100% stocked according to that aquarium stocking site. I only feed once a day, but I think I give them plenty of food. I still did a 40% WC, but I feel pretty confident I can do WC every 2 weeks in that tank.
> 
> Still haven't done that in my 30 gal, because of GBR's in there, plus I'm only doing 5 gal WC each week, because I always get a nitrate reading of 0. As Bryon mentions is there other stuff that isn't measured that gives me a reason to take out more than 5 gallons each week?
> 
> Gwen


As I said earlier, nitrate is not the sole guage for a water change. A rise in nitrate is one indicator of deterioriating biological equilibrium, but only one and there are other issues that cannot be measured and are not connected to nitrate. So relying on nitrate is not advisable. By the time you see nitrate rising by 5ppm the trouble has occurred.

What does work, and there is sufficient scientifically-based evidence for this, is a regular routine of partial water changes, whatever they may be. There are simply too many factors affecting a tank's biology to come up with "rules" or "guides" that work in every situation. And as I read somewhere a while back, I think it was by Neale Monks who is an acknowledged reliable source on freshwater aquaria, as no one has found any detrimental reaction from water changes every week, and there are certainly benefits--it cannot hurt to do them.:-D


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

I entirely agree that nitrate does not indicate water changes. I'm more of a plant keeper then a fish keeper. I add nitrates too all my tanks now since it does not come in my tap water. My goal is 20ppm of nitrates and I usually bump it right up to that after every water change. I don't usually monitor nitrates after that. Water changes are done regardless. I know the one time I tested them before a water change the nitrate had still dropped, meaning the tank was consuming everything from the bioload and then some. 

I've always viewed planted tanks as having higher capacity then non-planted tanks. If you follow that one stocking sight both my main tanks shoot way above 100%. I have 169% and 175% ATM and that is for permanent stocking. Temporary stocking can be almost double that. That site is good for beginners, but stocking is extremely complex. That site doesn't take live plants into account at all either. Live plants need to grow though, to be of any use. It is the pruning back and removal of plants that is the removal of the wastes that would be in your water. The more growth you have the more nutrients/wastes (depend how you look at them) are being taken out of the water.


----------



## GwenInNM (Feb 2, 2011)

Mikaila31 said:


> I entirely agree that nitrate does not indicate water changes. I'm more of a plant keeper then a fish keeper. I add nitrates too all my tanks now since it does not come in my tap water. My goal is 20ppm of nitrates and I usually bump it right up to that after every water change. I don't usually monitor nitrates after that. Water changes are done regardless. I know the one time I tested them before a water change the nitrate had still dropped, meaning the tank was consuming everything from the bioload and then some.
> 
> I've always viewed planted tanks as having higher capacity then non-planted tanks. If you follow that one stocking sight both my main tanks shoot way above 100%. I have 169% and 175% ATM and that is for permanent stocking. Temporary stocking can be almost double that. That site is good for beginners, but stocking is extremely complex. That site doesn't take live plants into account at all either. Live plants need to grow though, to be of any use. It is the pruning back and removal of plants that is the removal of the wastes that would be in your water. The more growth you have the more nutrients/wastes (depend how you look at them) are being taken out of the water.



So how do you add nitrates? I use florish Comprehensive, is that what your talking about? I've increased the amount I feed my fish, and still don't see high numbers of nitrates. Don't get me wrong, I still do a water change weekly in my GBR tank, but only take out and add 5 gal, in a 30 gallon tank. Are you suggesting I take out more water each week. Like I said, my nitrates are at 0, so assume plants are using them up very well. 

Gwen


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

GwenInNM said:


> So how do you add nitrates? I use florish Comprehensive, is that what your talking about? I've increased the amount I feed my fish, and still don't see high numbers of nitrates. Don't get me wrong, I still do a water change weekly in my GBR tank, but only take out and add 5 gal, in a 30 gallon tank. Are you suggesting I take out more water each week. Like I said, my nitrates are at 0, so assume plants are using them up very well.
> 
> Gwen


You're fine. Mikaila is referring to her high-tech setups, though I shouldn't second-guess her and she can correct me if needed.

Most aquatic plants prefer nitrogen as ammonium. In our natural or low-tech systems, this comes from ammonia produced by fish and bacteria, and there is usually enough to provide all the nitrogen the plants need. Remember, they need 17 nutrients, of which nitrogen is only one.

High tech setups need more nutrients to balance, so more nitrogen. And dosing nitrate is assumed to be safer than dosing ammonia/ammonium. Plants when pushed into the corner will begin using nitrate, but they have to convert the nitrate back into ammonium. It is believed by some microbiologists that they actually might prefer nitrite to nitrate [but here again of course no one is going to suggest dosing nitrite]. Nitrate has less effect on fish than either ammonia or nitrite, so it is in that respect safer to use.

Flourish Comprehensive contains some nitrogen; they don't say in what form. But their Flourish Nitrogen product says it is in both nitrate and ammonium form. But unless you are running CO2 and higher light, dosing nitrogen should not be necessary as there will be more than enough from the natural sources. If there is sufficient carbon, there is certainly sufficient nitrogen.

You want nitrate as low as possible in a natural system, and you should expect to see it no higher than 10ppm. All my tanks are between zero and 5ppm. Nitrate i said is "safer" but it does still have an effect on some fish, depending upon many factors perhaps.


----------



## fish monger (Dec 29, 2011)

Way back in the day, I always had well planted aquariums with under gravel filters and incandescent bulbs. By today's standards, my tanks were always over-stocked ( I used the standards from Dr. Axelrod's Exotic Tropical Fishes back then). I had some of the most healthy environments. I think that the plants and the light filtering overcame many of my mistakes.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Mar 28, 2011)

Plants are highly over rated. They need extra intensity light, evil chemical fertilizer, trimming, sometimes special substrate and CO2.
Plastic plants look perfect everyday, no ferts, no special lighting or substrate, no trimming, no worries.

LOL


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

Evil chemical fertilizers? :-D
I like that one! I (humorously) disagree that real plants are overrated. Yes, you can have a tank w/o plants. Planted tanks do better mimic nature, at least as much nature as you can get in a closed-system cube full of water! It's a balance that we maintain either through more natural means (the plants) or unnaturally (the various filters and water changes). As an ecologist/wildlife biologist, I'd have to say my preference is for a system that mimics nature as well as we can - of course that doesn't stop me from using all sorts of filters to stock my tanks more heavily that a "natural" system would ever allow :lol:. I also still have fluorescent plastic plants in one tank 

Great discussion, thanks for all the responses so far - keep 'em coming if anyone has more opinions to share!


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

plants are under rated lol! You just can't match a planted tank with a plastic tank :-?. Fertilizers are not evil at all, unless you get into the weird liquid carbon ones that I never suggest. I dose dry fertilizers in all my tanks now. Even the ones that use to be low tech before I moved. There was a major change in tap water parameters and that messed up all my tanks. I use 5 different dry fertilizers in total. All are harmless to the fish if used correctly. They are less chemical then dechlor. Most are considered salts. Potassium Nitrate is my nitrogen fertilizer, KNO3. When added to water it dissolves to NO3- and K+, both are macro nutrients for plants. Then I have Phosphate, potassium, Magnesium, and trace fertilizers. 

I agree with what Bryon said above. Though I don't feel that plants actively take Nitrite, at least according to Walsteds research if I remember correctly. 

Fish don't interact with plastic plants they same way they do with live plants. Live plants are much softer fish actively make body contact with them, swim into dense patches, and move them around. 

Live plants grow and the tank changes day by day making things always new to you and the fish. They help control wastes, inhibit algae growth, provide oxygen and extra filtration, make the tank more stable, and they reproduce much easier then most fish lol. 

Maybe one day you will try plants AbbeysDad. They don't have to cost more or be more hassle then any non-planted tank. You might have to bend your ways a little though;-) . 

Ignore a planted tank for awhile it turns into a jungle. Then you can prune it and go trade the plants for stuff at the store lol.


----------



## GwenInNM (Feb 2, 2011)

*agree!*

I must agree with the two posts. Plants are where it's at! I often think what makes some people tire of their aquarium, is how fake it looks, with plastic and colored stones. IMO. 

Live plants are so nice looking, but to each his own. :lol:

I love the look of nature as best as we can duplicate it in so much space.

Gwen


----------



## beetlebz (Aug 2, 2007)

it would save us alot of trouble just to beat up byron and steal his already gorgeous tanks :lol:

since i started going planted, my fake plants have been slowly disappearing one by one. Its just not the same!


----------



## AbbeysDad (Mar 28, 2011)

Hey kids - it was a joke that accompanied a LOL.

I would likely have plants but would need all new lighting as the two 18" 15w lights that came with my Marineland 60g ensemble might support floating plants, but not rooted plants two feet deep.


----------



## 1077 (Apr 16, 2008)

Mikaila31 said:


> plants are under rated lol! You just can't match a planted tank with a plastic tank :-?. Fertilizers are not evil at all, unless you get into the weird liquid carbon ones that I never suggest. I dose dry fertilizers in all my tanks now. Even the ones that use to be low tech before I moved. There was a major change in tap water parameters and that messed up all my tanks. I use 5 different dry fertilizers in total. All are harmless to the fish if used correctly. They are less chemical then dechlor. Most are considered salts. Potassium Nitrate is my nitrogen fertilizer, KNO3. When added to water it dissolves to NO3- and K+, both are macro nutrients for plants. Then I have Phosphate, potassium, Magnesium, and trace fertilizers.
> 
> I agree with what Bryon said above. Though I don't feel that plants actively take Nitrite, at least according to Walsteds research if I remember correctly.
> 
> ...


As per Tom Barr's NON CO2 method (can google this), I too use the dry fertilizer salt's in much less amount's than those who run High energy tank's with CO2 enhancement.
Once a week, I add these salt's along with Micronutrient's and plant's respond well and fishes thrive also.
Have noted larger ,broader,faster leaf development, and a bit faster growth than previous effort's with only amount's found in some liquid fertilizer's which are largely water with smaller amount's of Nitrogen,phosphate,pottasium,and heavy on Micronutrient's.
Am still studying the plant's, and listening to what they are saying in low tech moderate light, but find that adding a little more nutrient's each week, is no more difficult than adding food for the fishes, and the dry fertz last much longer than the more expensive liquid fertilizer which as mentioned,is largely water.
Dry trace minerals (CSM+B) are also used in my tanks and they too are much cheaper and last longer than product's such as flourish (gave mine to my sister).
Purchased the fertz I use at( Aquariumfertilizer.com) and for around 20 dollars,I can get around three pounds of the fertilizer which last's around a year or more depending on number of tank's and tank volumes.
Put away my nitrate test when it was suggested by those much more knowledgeable, that without calibration, the result's were suspect at best.
I observe the plant's and fish and they can offer much in the way both perform.
Water changes in three planted tank's vary from once a month, to twice a week depending on species and number's.
Don't necessarily believe that planted tanks offer more stocking capacity for as mentioned in first post in this thread,,many variables to consider.
Plant mass and volume of water would be my starting point when considering stocking levels.
What some folks call planted or heavily planted, is also another variable to consider I think.
Anyhow,, this is my two cent's.


----------



## beetlebz (Aug 2, 2007)

those same dry ferts came up in conversation in the planted forum a few days ago.. Im considering using the same ferts from the same site for my 2 planted display tanks... because a small bottle of flourish will go to fast and a big bottle will spoil before I use it, without a fridge readily available. Not to mention it affords great value and flexibility. Im glad to see someone having a positive experience!


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

AbbeysDad said:


> Hey kids - it was a joke that accompanied a LOL.


I got it! :lol:
Says the man who still has bright florescent red, orange, and blue plastic plants mixed in one of his planted tanks


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

AbbeysDad said:


> Hey kids - it was a joke that accompanied a LOL.
> 
> I would likely have plants but would need all new lighting as the two 18" 15w lights that came with my Marineland 60g ensemble might support floating plants, but not rooted plants two feet deep.


But you know this is just an reason to get another tank;-). 

I also get my fertilizers from aquariumfertilizers.com. They sell a number of them. I use KNO3, K2SO4, KH2PO4, and CSM+B. Then MgSO4 which I get from target or walmart. 75% of dry fertilizer costs is in the trace fertilizer CSM+B which costs usually $15 a pound. But out of that it costs less then $1 to make up a 500mL bottle of what is basically flourish. That pound can make 15 500mL bottles. In comparison all the other common dry fertilizers cost around $4/lb. I've been using dry fertilizers for over 3 years now. 

When you get dry fertilizers they look like this. Mixtures and dosage varies a lot depending what method you follow. Bag usually give you some standard to go off. How much you need is up to you so they don't normally tell you that. These are from Rex, but I don't think he sells stuff anymore. These were my first dry fertilizers and I still have that bag of KNO3 lol.


----------



## beetlebz (Aug 2, 2007)

Yeah I got it all figured out just from reading the labels on those bags. If my math is right I need to dose 9 lbs every 3 hours. There is also the possibility, that I shouldnt have slept through chemistry, and math 

I actually did the math not that long ago, and to switch to dry ferts, dosing once a week what they recommend to start at, would last something like 4 years. If you have the patience to do the math, and mix the solutions, you really cant beat it.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

I have been meaning to look into those dry ferts, but need a good source. Can one of you (Mikaila, Lee) suggest a good online supplier where I could review the product and order if I decide to?



> I agree with what Bryon said above. Though I don't feel that plants actively take Nitrite, at least according to Walsteds research if I remember correctly.


This actually came from Walstad's book, and I just tossed it into the discussion more as an aside. She says there is no definitive answer to whether plants use nitrite over nitrate, but some studies suggest it likely for some plants. She mentions duckweed that clearly preferred nitrite over nitrate, and Spirodela oligorrhiza when grown in media containing ammonium and nitrite removed both at approximately the same rate. But she notes that nitrite uptake and assimilation into proteins requires special transporters and enzymes, and these are not required for ammonium uptake.

Byron.

P.S. I knew AD was kidding, which is why I wasn't drawn into that little exchange.:tease:


----------



## beetlebz (Aug 2, 2007)

Byron said:


> I have been meaning to look into those dry ferts, but need a good source. Can one of you (Mikaila, Lee) suggest a good online supplier where I could review the product and order if I decide to?


Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , , , , Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , ,


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

Byron said:


> I have been meaning to look into those dry ferts, but need a good source. Can one of you (Mikaila, Lee) suggest a good online supplier where I could review the product and order if I decide to?


I purchased mine from Greenleaf, a very slight bit more more pricey, but I was already ordering some other stuff so it was convenient.

Aquarium Plant Fertilizer | Green Leaf Aquariums

From experience, I'd recommend an iron test kit for some folks, depending on local water supply. Thought I had low iron in one tank, turns out it was significantly elevated and I don't need to dose iron after all.


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

beetlebz said:


> Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , , , , Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , ,


Yep this place is where I get mine too. 

I've never bothered with any extra tests. I generally just go by no tests at all. CSM+B provides a good deal of iron. I just start with a standard dose and regime then give it a few weeks. If plants are lacking a nutrient they will show it. So I usually just adjust fertilizers on visual signs.


----------



## GwenInNM (Feb 2, 2011)

*iron question?*

Can someone tell me if my cities water report says average iron is 0.010 is that alot? Not much?

I'm going to look into these ferts over comprehensive, as there are some great points bought up.

Gwen

Okay, I just someone to tell me what I should buy  Looked on the site for purchasing. Should I just get the Macro Micro Nutrient Mix, or buy KN03 and Kh2P04?? How do you all decide what to buy? I'm sold on the idea of the dry fertz, as paying for mostly water with Comprehensive.


----------



## DKRST (Jan 11, 2011)

I use dry but also use the Flourish comp for my smaller tanks, it's just easier to measure and make sure my micronutrients are balanced. I have a 3ml syringe for dosing the comp, so the per gallon dosing is really easy (I also buy the big comp bottles and keep in the fridge).


----------



## 1077 (Apr 16, 2008)

GwenInNM said:


> Can someone tell me if my cities water report says average iron is 0.010 is that alot? Not much?
> 
> I'm going to look into these ferts over comprehensive, as there are some great points bought up.
> 
> ...


I purchased the Macro-micro nutrient mix which was one bag each of KNO3,KH2PO4,and CSM+B.;-)


----------



## 1077 (Apr 16, 2008)

Mikaila31 said:


> Yep this place is where I get mine too.
> 
> I've never bothered with any extra tests. I generally just go by no tests at all. CSM+B provides a good deal of iron. I just start with a standard dose and regime then give it a few weeks. If plants are lacking a nutrient they will show it. So I usually just adjust fertilizers on visual signs.


+one, When I purchased the Fertilizer's, I then began google search for EI dosing for 80 gal tank and noted that folks who use EI(estimative index) form of dosing, were adding much more of these dry fertilizer's for their tank's each day which were largely high energy tank's, with higher lighting,and CO2 injection.
I then took daily dose from formula for my/your size tank, and rather than dose this amount each day,,I simply dose daily amount once a week.
I searched out teaspoon measurement's from the EI dosing formulas I found during google search for my size tank, and EI dosing for same. (easier for me to grasp)
Found such a teaspoon formula for 60 to 80 gal tank and also same for 20 gal and 29 gal.
I simply scoop up a cup of aquarium water once a week,add the fertilizers and give it a good stir,and dump it in the tank. Done.
Would note that I wait to add the Trace minerals (CSM+B), a day after water changes and Macro nutrient's are added. 
My dechlorinator detoxifies metals so I wait for this reason until dechlorinator is no longer active and also because That's what the folks suggested that are far more expierienced than myself.
Seems there was/is is good reason for not mixing the macro and micro nutrient's together or adding them on same day, but I cannot remember what exactly this reason is so I just don't do it.:lol: 
Many folks get all caught up in precise measuring for their application but this form of dosing was never meant to be precise and more or less is often used depending upon application,plant mass,fish number's,food imput,CO2 enhancement or not,substrates, lighting,etc.
For low light ,low tech application ,,much less is needed and daily dose from EI formula for my /your size tank once a week, should be good place to start.
I have added more without any harm to plant's,fish,or most important to me,,not encouraging algae growth.
Plant's can tell you what they are wanting but perhaps this is for another thread, and it is also something that I am still studying which I should mention , makes me unqualified to diagnose with any large degree of certainty, but I AM learning.
Have spent many hours on planted tank forums, reading ALL of the threads from topics that I am curious about.
Folks there willing to help, but they do expect you to do a bit of searching for yourself before they respond to same old question's.
It is at it should be in my view.That which is quickly learned or easily learned is quickly forgotten unless your old like me,,then everything is much more quickly forgotten.:-(


----------

