** Fe is being used as a proxy for micro nutrients. Please use a complete micronutrient formula.
DISCLAIMER: The above is merely to give you a starting point. Every aquarium is different so you will need to tweak to find what is optimal for your ecosystem.
So this is where I would normally say, "Beuller, Beuller?"
I think it's important for a new person to have a starting point based on the type of aquarium they are setting up. I went from a high energy stem plant to a middle energy low light plant tank and had to do some work to figure out how to change my fertilization. I can't imagine a newbie doing this.
Specifically for new persons as mentioned is there some credibility to the argument that we make the hobby more complicated than necessary? How often is overdosing a problem, compared to underdosing? 50/50, 80/20, 20/80? Even experienced hobbyists find it hard to describe how the art of "dialling in ferts" should be done, how can new hobbyists even cope with that?
My personal approach, just my opinion and others may disagree, is to start dosing enough so that the risk of deficiencies is minimised. For any setup. Let the tank work, don't focus too much on ferts. Some may stick to that forever and focus on other parameters/skills, as I do, and some others may want to go into the rabbit holes of dialling ferts and win competitions. So I am not so sure if there could be general consensus on this topic.
Thanks @Yugang, that's certainly true. I too don't think newbies should worry about fine tuning fertilizer. Experienced hobbyists still discuss whether to "lean" dose or go full EI or somewhere in between.
My question with this post is whether there is a consensus on what we should recommend to a newbie based on their general aquarium setup?
I can be, hey, dose X amount of a commercially available fertilizer and you'll be fine. Or, it can be, save some money and use this NPK + Micro DIY dry mix and you'll be fine.
Or, maybe it's something else to try to give them a starting point to go with.
I have been using Rotala Butterfly’s setting called “EI Low Light/Weekly” for my low light, no c02 tanks and it has me me dosing:
10 ppm NO3
1 ppm PO4
10 ppm K
.1 ppm FE
I guess these are within the range of Art’s low energy tank specs.
I have recently added back a low amount of cO2 (maybe 10ppm) to one tank, some coloured stem plants and turned up the lights a bit in one tank so I am simply increasing each dry fert amount by a small margin for now to see how things respond.
I front load all the ferts once a week after a 50% water change.
My tanks have always struggled with anything other than a PPS Pro dosing approach, particularly the version with a portion of nitrogen from urea. I’m not sure what to make of it.
My tanks have always struggled with anything other than a PPS Pro dosing approach, particularly the version with a portion of nitrogen from urea. I’m not sure what to make of it.
Hmm... what other approaches have you used? I know Edward and he's developed a straightforward method that many people use but I've never used it personally.
Like I said above, I think most people find what works with their ecosystem and go with that.
I've joined the front-loading club recently. Disconnected one of my dosing pumps so macros are front loaded after a water change. Micros are still dosed daily though.
How do the dosing recommendations correlate to the amount of the nutrients you want to still be in the tank at the end of the week? Or at the end of the day, if you’re dosing daily? I always thought if you had “some” of everything left before dosing again, then that should be good, but from reading the forums here, it seems there needs to be a certain amount in reserve. I realize that depends to a certain extent on what plants you’re trying to grow, but are there ballpark recommendations for this too?
We first have to know and understand the impact water change volume has before these dosing totals mean anything
To illustrate what that means, here's what you actually wind up with in the water dosing 20 ppm /week, adjusted for accumulation and ignoring plant uptake
Water change % - Whats actually in the water dosing 20 ppm /week
You can see why 20 ppm can mean drastically different things depending on how much water youre changing. Knowing what someone doses is useless unless you also know how much water they're changing
Micros @ .5 Fe should be plenty for any tank. Having a baseline level of micros in the water is not important like it is with macros. Plus the concern with dosing too much Fe/micros. Unlike macros where too much (within reason obv) is not a concern but is actually beneficial. It also helps slow growing epiphytes like anubias and buce do great and not get algae in high energy tanks
The reasons why are long and complex. My attempt at a brief summary goes something like this
Micros plants can take micros in small sips as needed and be fine. It is also important to remember plants do not have an "off-switch" to stop when theyve had enough of something. Which is why (generally speaking) we have to be very careful and not add too much
Macros including Ca and Mg dont work that way. Due to the strong influence they have on each other when it comes to availability, and the high concentrations present (compared to micros) it may take 30 ppm of Ca in the water for plants to be able to get the 2-3 ppm they actually need, and to properly utilize it internally. We cant run 0 ppm Ca in the water and think a single dose of 2-3 ppm will be good, even though thats all the Ca they actually use. Macros dont work like that. Generally speaking the non-Fe micros do work like that
Back to the .5 ppm Fe per week, knowing all this explains why the celiing for micros is around .5 ppm , even with larger water changes. Fe and micros should be proportionately reduced with smaller water changes (ie .2 doing 30%, because too much is a concern) But they should not be proportionately increased with bigger water changes beyond a .5 or so ceiling. A little more wont necessarily hurt anything, but for some plants it would
I think the above quoted macro numbers are good for "high energy" tanks, and I would say also good for "medium energy" tanks. Because there is literally zero concern dosing more than enough macros. The only plants that dont like this is Ammania species in particular. Literally every other plant in the hobby will thank you for it including so-called sensitive plants like certain Rotalas, Erios etc
The whole "I need low NO3 for good color" idea needs to die. Because for one thing its not true, and even though limiting no3 can produce deeper colors, and Dennis has certainly illustrated successful low NO3 routines, hobbyists dont understand how to apply it properly. And the notion esp for beginners becomes low macros is somehow beneficial
As a matter of fact whenever Im having a issue, if I know CO2 is good and the tank is clean, raising macros will fix it 9 times out of 10. It should be the first thing a person rules out along with CO2. Raise macros and watch the plants get better and the algae disappear
Has anybody ever looked at my plants and said damn they need better color?? Lol... dont think so
** Fe is being used as a proxy for micro nutrients. Please use a complete micronutrient formula.
DISCLAIMER: The above is merely to give you a starting point. Every aquarium is different so you will need to tweak to find what is optimal for your ecosystem.
Fe here is good. Macros... maybe, maybe not. A lot will depend on the substrate (rich vs inert) Substrate is another factor that strongly influences what needs to be in the water column, it is nutrient specific too. You can drop NO3 way down with a fresh rich sub, but not K. And not really PO4, Ca/Mg or Fe, especially with higher energy tanks. Some of the lesser micros sure
With all this said, I believe these are good weekly dosing amounts for co2 injected tanks, with medium or above light, some portion of fast growing stem plants - regardless of substrate - to go along with 50-60% weekly water changes
NO3: 15-20
PO4: 4-7
K: 25-30
Fe: .4-.5
*Ca: 30-40
*Mg: 5-7
*total in the water column, not dosing amounts
Fresh soils can get by with far less NO3 but please know what youre doing before trying to limit a macro nutrient
Err on the side of more when it comes to macros. Get the plants healthy first. Then if you want slower growth or think you need better colors you can start playing with less NO3
This is just my personal philosophy. Lots of other methods out there and Im sure many will have a different opinion. No matter who is saying what, your own personal experience and results will be your real proof
We first have to know and understand the impact water change volume has before these dosing totals mean anything
To illustrate what that means, here's what you actually wind up with in the water dosing 20 ppm /week, adjusted for accumulation with water change %. (ignoring plant uptake)
Water change % - Whats actually in the water based on accumulation dosing 20 ppm /week
Thats why 20 ppm can mean drastically different things depending on how much water youre changing. Knowing what someone doses is useless unless you also know how much water they're changing
Micros @ .5 Fe should be plenty for any tank. Having a baseline level of micros in the water is not important like it is with macros. The reasons why are long and complex but to sum it up briefly
Plants can take micros in small sips as needed and be fine. It is also important to remember plants do not have an "off-switch" to stop when theyve had enough. Which is why (generally speaking) we have to be very careful and not add too much
Macros including Ca and Mg dont work that way. Due to the strong influence they have on each other when it comes to availability, and the high concentrations present (compared to micros) it may take 30 ppm of Ca in the water for plants to be able to get the 2-3 ppm they actually need, and to properly utilize it internally. We cant run 0 ppm Ca in the water and think a single dose of 2-3 ppm will be good, even though thats all the Ca they actually need. Macros dont work like that. Generally speaking the non-Fe micros do work like that
Back to the .5 ppm Fe per week, knowing all that explains why the celiing for micros is around .5 ppm even with larger water changes. Fe and micros should be proportionately reduced with smaller water changes (ie .2 doing 30%, because too much is a concern) But they should not be proportionately increased with bigger water changes beyond a .5 or so ceiling. A little more wont necessarily hurt anything, but for a lot of plants it would
I think these macro numbers are good for "high energy" tanks, and I would say also good for "medium energy" tanks as well. Because there is literally zero concern dosing more than enough macros. The only plants that dont like this is Ammania species in particular. Literally every other plant in the hobby will thank you for it including so-called sensitive plants like certain Rotalas, Erios etc
The whole "I need low NO3 for good color" idea needs to die. Because for one thing its not true, and even though limiting no3 can produce deeper colors, and Dennis has certainly illustrated successful low NO3 routines, hobbyists dont understand how to apply it properly. And the notion esp for beginners becomes low macros is somehow beneficial
As a matter of fact whenever Im having a issue, if I know CO2 is good and the tank is clean, raising macros will fix it 9 times out of 10. It should be the first thing a person rules out along with CO2. Raise macros and watch the plants get better and the algae disappear
Has anybody ever looked at my plants and said damn they need better color?? Lol... dont think so
Fe is good. Macros maybe, maybe not. A lot will depend on the substrate (rich vs inert) Substrate is another factor that strongly influences what needs to be in the water column, and it become nutrient specific too. You can drop NO3 way down with a fresh rich sub, but not K. And not really PO4, Ca/Mg or Fe, especially with higher energy tanks. Some of the lesser micros sure
I think a better guidline for beginners to shoot for is an approximate water column level. But everyone would have to understand how accumulation works and the role water change % has on things. And they dont. So for now I think its best to simply use weekly dosing totals with the caveat of a specific water change %
Doing 50-60% water changes, I believe these are good weekly dosing amounts for co2 injected tanks, with medium or above light, and some portion of fast growing stem plants
Regardless of substrate. Fresh soils can get by with far less NO3 but please know what youre doing before trying to limit any macro nutrient
Err on the side of more when it comes to macros. Get the plants healthy first. Then if you want slower growth or think you need better colors you can start playing with less NO3
This is just my personal philosophy. Lots of other methods out there and Im sure many will have a different opinion. Personal experience and results will be your real proof
Thanks for the detailed reply @Burr740! One more question—these dosing suggestions are on top of whatever is added to the water as remineralizer, right? For instance, I add enough to my tap water to bring it up to 6 dgH before doing a water change, and don’t add anything for kH (it’s 1-2), but that doesn’t affect fertilizer dosing at all?
Thanks for the detailed reply @Burr740! One more question—these dosing suggestions are on top of whatever is added to the water as remineralizer, right? For instance, I add enough to my tap water to bring it up to 6 dgH before doing a water change, and don’t add anything for kH (it’s 1-2), but that doesn’t affect fertilizer dosing at all?
Right. KH doesnt affect dosing at all. dGH is Ca and Mg, which is usually done all at once with water changes. I should probably edit the above post on Ca and Mg to indicate those two are water column values not dosing totals...
I have been using Rotala Butterfly’s setting called “EI Low Light/Weekly” for my low light, no c02 tanks and it has me me dosing:
10 ppm NO3
1 ppm PO4
10 ppm K
.1 ppm FE
I guess these are within the range of Art’s low energy tank specs.
I have recently added back a low amount of cO2 (maybe 10ppm) to one tank, some coloured stem plants and turned up the lights a bit in one tank so I am simply increasing each dry fert amount by a small margin for now to see how things respond.
I front load all the ferts once a week after a 50% water change.
Personally, it is my firm belief that CO2 drives growth as much as ferts and even light. Low energy tanks can be very successful and grow amazing plants - as long as co2 is low too (and consistent!) Low ferts + Low CO2
Light can even be high, just need both low to moderate CO2, and low to moderate ferts. Wanna blast 200 uMol at the sub? Go for it. Just dont try to throw 40 ppm CO2 on a low energy/low fert routine
My friend Vin is having great success right now with his own low energy routine. (for those that dont know, Vin Kutty aka Saxa Tilly aka Pikez, author of the famed Rotala Kill Tank and Going Dutch w Aquasoil journals on barr report, and current AGA Judge)
He's not active much online these days but we still talk frequently. He sent me this a couple weeks ago. I asked him if it was OK to share his routine here and of course he said yes
Back story, he sorta just stumbled into this routine. About a year ago he got busy and had to be gone a lot, didnt really have time for it. Almost quit the hobby, but instead he just cranked everything down like screw it, we'll see what happens. Turns out it worked pretty damn good and saves a lot of time on maintenance
Can be of course. I usually dont, I just let her run a little rich and lets go!
But yeah first year or so with soil is the perfect time to run low no3, or any low dosing routine. Main benefit of soil is less nutrients to add to the water
Last question, are the numbers relevant from a plant mass perspective? Essentially, would you dose the high energy numbers with a freshly planted high energy tank when plant mass is much lower?
Last question, are the numbers relevant from a plant mass perspective? Essentially, would you dose the high energy numbers with a freshly planted high energy tank when plant mass is much lower?
This is always a good question. Im sure that accurate testing would show a dramatic difference in use. Personally the only time I adjust is when a tank is truly overgrown, like this
I might give it an extra dose of macros post wc. But I never reduce just because mass is low, like this
Im sure you could reduce and itd be fine, but its just too much of a guess how much, esp when too much doesnt hurt anything but not enough definitely will
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
