# Overdose of ferts



## John Wong (Dec 2, 2015)

Hi everyone, if you ever experience any kind of fertiliser overdose and toxicity problem, mind to share your experience and post any photos related to the effects of toxicity. Just now found an interesting article that mention about micronutrient toxicity. Is it possible that sometimes even we know that nutrients are readily available to plants but somehow plant just not doing well. Example, I heard too much of zinc may inhibit iron absorption and cause iron deficiency. 
https://classicalaquascaping.wordpress.com/category/deficiency-toxicity/page/2/

Please list down in this format
What happen : description, photo etc
Why: proof that support your idea, example, own experience, test report etc. 


Sent from my MX4 using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisSingh (Nov 8, 2004)

That great blog is by Mr. Solencia
I'm not sure if i support micro toxicity at all.
But there are a few out there, so could be legit


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

John Wong said:


> Hi everyone, if you ever experience any kind of fertiliser overdose and toxicity problem, mind to share your experience and post any photos related to the effects of toxicity. Just now found an interesting article that mention about micronutrient toxicity. Is it possible that sometimes even we know that nutrients are readily available to plants but somehow plant just not doing well. Example, I heard too much of zinc may inhibit iron absorption and cause iron deficiency.
> https://classicalaquascaping.wordpress.com/category/deficiency-toxicity/page/2/
> 
> Please list down in this format
> ...


I haven't seen my plants complain about over fertz. But I can see algae growing well when I dose on my HIGH SIDE (every two days). My white ceramic co2 diffuser will have a layer of yellow green, then to full green, to dark green algae that increases everyday. My rocks also grow a green haze and will turn dark green if the shrimps dont eat it in time. green dust algae will haze the glass of my tank within days. 

Since then I have been running my tank leaner. I do water changes every 2 months or so. I dose about 1 time a week. My algae problem is pretty much at 0 with dosing excel.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You'll see all kinds of BS blogs, information doesn't mean anything contained in it is true. 



IntotheWRX said:


> My algae problem is pretty much at 0 with dosing excel.


Anyone can have zero algae if they dose enough Excel. When you don't do regular water changes, your organic content is higher, thus the algae. You wouldn't need to use excel if that wasn't the case.


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

Tried it the solencio way and it was a no go. It actually got much worse, and his claim that high light somehow negates low fert levels is total bull[censored][censored][censored][censored]. Tried it while I low dosed and it was a total failure. Never seen so much BBA so fast.
Resumed normal light levels and EI dosing @ 0.2 FE and it is starting to recover finally. I expected it to end up this way but it was worth a try. I do not buy the toxicity claims at all any more, not when dosing "correct" EI levels anyways.


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> You'll see all kinds of BS blogs, information doesn't mean anything contained in it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can have zero algae if they dose enough Excel. When you don't do regular water changes, your organic content is higher, thus the algae. You wouldn't need to use excel if that wasn't the case.


i do what i wanna do. i have my own style, you have your own. just because we disagree on how we run our tanks doesn't mean you have to make personal attacks on me on this forum. lay off my back please.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

IntotheWRX said:


> i do what i wanna do. i have my own style, you have your own. just because we disagree on how we run our tanks doesn't mean you have to make personal attacks on me on this forum. lay off my back please.


Where' the personal attack? I'm stating a fact about using Excel. 

BTW, since you brought up personal attacks I'm not sure why you think it's O.K. to have two user IDs? Your not fooling anyone. It's pretty obvious that @MacDre2016 and you are the same person. Stop trying to BS everyone.


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Where' the personal attack? I'm stating a fact about using Excel.
> 
> BTW, since you brought up personal attacks I'm not sure why you think it's O.K. to have two user IDs? Your not fooling anyone. It's pretty obvious that @MacDre2016 and you are the same person. Stop trying to BS everyone.


Mac Dre is my respected friend. we work together on tanks.


----------



## DennisSingh (Nov 8, 2004)

I wish ppl would do away using excel...


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

StrungOut said:


> I wish ppl would do away using excel...


how come?


----------



## DennisSingh (Nov 8, 2004)

Cause this sterilizer is unnecessary. If overdosed it can kill off plants and shrimp, not sure about other fauna. 

Idk, I like natural over chems. 
Water changes will solve a lot of issues with balance if nutrients and light. 
Not a personal attack but like a tank more naturally developed...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I could see the excel when you don't have co2, dosed at low dosage, but people abuse it and things start dying when they could have just done some of the things @StrungOut mentioned. Most people don't take the necessary stems to avoid algae at tank startup especially.


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

StrungOut said:


> Cause this sterilizer is unnecessary. If overdosed it can kill off plants and shrimp, not sure about other fauna.
> 
> Idk, I like natural over chems.
> Water changes will solve a lot of issues with balance if nutrients and light.
> Not a personal attack but like a tank more naturally developed...


oh wow i didnt know it can kill plants. about what range is considered overdose? I think the bottle says a capfull for 10 gal once a day. I dose about 60% of a cap every other day for my 9 gal. how many capfulls would it start killing stuff?

i like all natural too.


----------



## DennisSingh (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't know how much to overdose
I don't see excel as a source of co2 despite seachems claims, if co2 is a macronutrient and excel is liquid co2 then why can you not overdose it like you can with pressurized injection.

With your amount your dosing, shouldn't be enough to overdose so i think your good.

Here's a chemical burn of excel. I don't have pictures of it melting stuff, this is all i could pick up. I know syngonanthus, vallisneria, some mosses are sensitive to[censored]the stuff.


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

IntotheWRX said:


> oh wow i didnt know it can kill plants. about what range is considered overdose? I think the bottle says a capfull for 10 gal once a day. I dose about 60% of a cap every other day for my 9 gal. how many capfulls would it start killing stuff?
> 
> i like all natural too.



Well it is obviously toxic enough to kill off algae at small doses. Some plants are known to be more sensitive then others.


----------



## sohankpatel (Jul 10, 2015)

On the subject of excel, some people in my local fish club HATE excel. This is simply because it is normally used as a hospital disinfectant, and it is pretty nasty stuff if you read the msds. Excel isn't quite glutaraldehyde (spelling butcher), it is a couple steps down the road to being usable to plants. Other things like Metricide 14 are a bit more concentrated, and it is not a couple steps down the road, so just be more careful with anything that is liquid co2.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

When it comes to excel I'm still not sure which is of greater benefit. Excels ability to provide a carbon source or it's ability to kill algae that would have interfered with growth.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Fissure said:


> Tried it the solencio way and it was a no go. It actually got much worse, and his claim that high light somehow negates low fert levels is total bull[censored][censored][censored][censored]. Tried it while I low dosed and it was a total failure. Never seen so much BBA so fast.
> Resumed normal light levels and EI dosing @ 0.2 FE and it is starting to recover finally. I expected it to end up this way but it was worth a try. I do not buy the toxicity claims at all any more, not when dosing "correct" EI levels anyways.


i had similar issue, BBA etc, because plant did not do well when csm+b was reduced to extremely low levels, but that doesn't prove toxicity isn't real, it just prove csm isn't good source of trace, the ratio in csm isn't that great, i had worse BBA when i induced more Zn, i have changed the ratio and plant responded differently when not using csm at all, these ratio were much different and some of them were even lower when i used csm during this experiment.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

happi said:


> i had similar issue, BBA etc, because plant did not do well when csm+b was reduced to extremely low levels, but that doesn't prove toxicity isn't real, it just prove csm isn't good source of trace


That's a bunch of BS. Been using only CSM+B forever on countless tanks, hi to low light and many with different source water and have no deficiencies whatsoever.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

houseofcards said:


> That's a bunch of BS. Been using only CSM+B forever on countless tanks, hi to low light and many with different source water and have no deficiencies whatsoever.


i don't think you understood what i meant to say, let me explain in more detail. i have dosed csm+b without issue too far as plant health is concerned, but you might have to dose more or less of something, such as Mn, Fe, Zn, B etc. if plant only used maximum of 0.1 ppm of Copper and 1 ppm of Fe per week and you dose csm that lets say add 0.2 ppm Cu instead when plant will only uptake maximum of 0.1 then you will start to see buildup of copper in your water, but it might get absorbed by the high CEC substrates such as ADA soil, the rise of Cu will occur in inert substrate fairly quickly, same is true for other trace minerals as well. all am saying is your plant might only need 0.1 ppm of Fe and 0.02 ppm of Boron at maximum, adding 0.2 ppm boron instead of 0.02 ppm boron will results in stunted plant, because the balance is way off now, while some of the minerals are good and bad for both fish and shrimps as well depending on the amount.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

There are so many theories on what causes BBA. When you hear one, take it with a grain of salt.

On excel, it offers a big carbon molecule that plants can take in but it takes a bit of energy for plants to use it so it's not as good as CO2. It's also very good algaecide. If you over dose to 3+ times the recommended amount, it'll usually kill plants and fish. If you keep shrimps & snails, I'd recommend not to use it at all.


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

IntotheWRX said:


> Mac Dre is my respected friend. we work together on tanks.


Your respected friend who just happened to join after you had failed attempt at a second account to get around forum rules about picture posting.
Kind of odd how your respected friend has never initiated a post and has only commented on posts that you initiated or commented on.


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

happi said:


> i don't think you understood what i meant to say, let me explain in more detail. i have dosed csm+b without issue too far as plant health is concerned, but you might have to dose more or less of something, such as Mn, Fe, Zn, B etc. if plant only used maximum of 0.1 ppm of Copper and 1 ppm of Fe per week and you dose csm that lets say add 0.2 ppm Cu instead when plant will only uptake maximum of 0.1 then you will start to see buildup of copper in your water, but it might get absorbed by the high CEC substrates such as ADA soil, the rise of Cu will occur in inert substrate fairly quickly, same is true for other trace minerals as well. all am saying is your plant might only need 0.1 ppm of Fe and 0.02 ppm of Boron at maximum, adding 0.2 ppm boron instead of 0.02 ppm boron will results in stunted plant, because the balance is way off now, while some of the minerals are good and bad for both fish and shrimps as well depending on the amount.


Not using CSM+B myself but TNC Trace but think they pretty much are the same. Not saying that TNC Trace or CSM+B is perfect in its ratios. To be honest I have no idea and nor does anyone else on this forum, we can only speculate. But sol claimed tox issues and never explained why, I tried it out and it got worse pretty fast like I said. Knowing how much for example Copper you put into your water and knowing the copper from your tap it is pretty simple using the calculators available to see where the copper amount will end up, assuming you do your WCs. If you do not enter your suspected plant uptake you should always be on the "safe" side. Then it's only down to the matter what is a good Cu level for our planted tanks. And there is also noone that really knows...


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

John Wong said:


> Hi everyone, if you ever experience any kind of fertiliser overdose and toxicity problem, mind to share your experience and post any photos related to the effects of toxicity. Just now found an interesting article that mention about micronutrient toxicity. Is it possible that sometimes even we know that nutrients are readily available to plants but somehow plant just not doing well. Example, I heard too much of zinc may inhibit iron absorption and cause iron deficiency.
> https://classicalaquascaping.wordpress.com/category/deficiency-toxicity/page/2/
> 
> Please list down in this format
> ...


 John Wong, that link is from my friend Lawrence So, he have done some great work, i recommend people to read about it with open mind, me and him are doing several experiments to understand more about plants, toxicity etc. we have another member who's no longer active here, his name is Marcel Golias, he also have some great data which was done based on real analysis, lab tests etc. he use much more advance tools than simply relying on observation. 

here is some of my observation: 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1063889-plant-deficiency-toxicity-experiments.html


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Fissure said:


> Not using CSM+B myself but TNC Trace but think they pretty much are the same. Not saying that TNC Trace or CSM+B is perfect in its ratios. To be honest I have no idea and nor does anyone else on this forum, we can only speculate. But sol claimed tox issues and never explained why, I tried it out and it got worse pretty fast like I said. Knowing how much for example Copper you put into your water and knowing the copper from your tap it is pretty simple using the calculators available to see where the copper amount will end up, assuming you do your WCs. If you do not enter your suspected plant uptake you should always be on the "safe" side. Then it's only down to the matter what is a good Cu level for our planted tanks. And there is also noone that really knows...


those minor difference can make a Huge difference, since these are used in very small amount.


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

happi said:


> those minor difference can make a Huge difference, since these are used in very small amount.


That is of course also true. In this case CSM would be a much safer product to use. I think that a normal dose of TNC would yeild a max of 0.01 ppm Cu which is the max recomended limit from the litterature I could find in low alkalinity waters and CSM+B almost half of that. So the Cu toxicity should not be an issue with CMS+B if dosed correctly? 
As for zink TNC would flat out around 0.17 where the recomended levels are max 0.03 (this is from catfish farming) and CSM+B 0.06. Both are above those recomended limits but CSM way better then TNC trace.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

The Toxic Avengers strike again!


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

happi said:


> we have another member who's no longer active here, his name is Marcel Golias, he also have some great data which was done based on real analysis, lab tests etc. he use much more advance tools than simply relying on observation.
> 
> here is some of my observation:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1063889-plant-deficiency-toxicity-experiments.html


So where are the data?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> So where are the data?


i need his permission to share that. but some of his work can be found here:

Rotala wallichii: growth experiment - Fertilizing - Aquatic Plant Central


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Fissure said:


> That is of course also true. In this case CSM would be a much safer product to use. I think that a normal dose of TNC would yeild a max of 0.01 ppm Cu which is the max recomended limit from the litterature I could find in low alkalinity waters and CSM+B almost half of that. So the Cu toxicity should not be an issue with CMS+B if dosed correctly?
> As for zink TNC would flat out around 0.17 where the recomended levels are max 0.03 (this is from catfish farming) and CSM+B 0.06. Both are above those recomended limits but CSM way better then TNC trace.



hi Fissure,

honestly i think TNC looks much superior, am not sure why its so high in Zn, am guessing same reason why seachem also use high Zn as well, Zn helps with the root development. Mo is also much higher in TNC, this will help uptake the nitrogen in plants. 

i have mixed results with Boron on the other hand, both good and bad. i personally think Cu is much more important than some of the other nutrients, but it needs to be balanced. 

i still believe that ratio and balance is extremely important, i know nothing is perfect, even after playing with all kind of ratios, i still had good and bad results, even something minor throw off the whole balance, but i know for certain that any kind of change i made to the ratio, it did make a huge change to how the plant looked, it also had great affect on algae as well and this change is simple as adding 0.02 Mn instead of 0.03 Mn. simply adding extra Zn to my csm+b did something wrong to the plants, plant had some good growth at the same time and some kind of damage at the same time, there was a serious outbreak of BBA, looked carefully and plant were turning yellowish from bottom, now what exactly went wrong, am not sure, the only change that was changed here is, adding more Zn throw off the whole ratio with other nutrients, which might be needed in correct amount, maybe there is something lacking now that prevent the uptake of extra ZN in the mix. dosing excess of everything might fix this issue temporarily, until one of the excess runs out and now you add more and this fix the issue again until one of the nutrient runs out again, now some of the nutrients will start to build up, even with water changes, it will only reduce them, good soil will help as well. 

i am very passionate about plants and fertilizer and i know am not perfect, i know things can go both ways good or bad, i know some will deny and some will accept the fact. am still learning more as i play with fertilizers, its not that easy to come up with exact numbers if someone ask me or someone looking for magic numbers that will benefit the plants. my best example would be that simply adding more Cu can benefit or kill things, depending on other conditions, ratio, parameter etc.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Kubla said:


> Your respected friend who just happened to join after you had failed attempt at a second account to get around forum rules about picture posting.
> Kind of odd how your respected friend has never initiated a post and has only commented on posts that you initiated or commented on.


Yeah i noticed that as well. The "respected friend" is only on when he's on and for some strange reason he needs the respected "friend" to take pictures of his tank. 

Look at this two posts from his thread. Anything similar about them?



IntotheWRX said:


> *What it do everybody*. First I want to thank Mac Dre for posting pics to keep the tree and cave dream alive. I have great news for the planted tank family here. I did a water change.





MacDre2016 said:


> *yoooooooooooo wwwwwwwwwhat it do*. Mac Dre reporting in from the yay area home to the thizz nation. Getting my boi intothewrx's back like a chiropract with some pics. Supporting my homie's aquascape game reppin it hard from the bay. her tank gives me the feels. im in the club and im feeling myself. yadidamean. Everyone on this forum, enjoy.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

happi said:


> i need his permission to share that. but some of his work can be found here:
> 
> Rotala wallichii: growth experiment - Fertilizing - Aquatic Plant Central


I might be missing something but he adds increasing amounts of SO4 & Na (139ppm Na at highest) in the experiments. I think even beginners know salt is bad for fresh water plants.


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

happi said:


> hi Fissure,
> 
> honestly i think TNC looks much superior, am not sure why its so high in Zn, am guessing same reason why seachem also use high Zn as well, Zn helps with the root development. Mo is also much higher in TNC, this will help uptake the nitrogen in plants.
> 
> ...


Interesting, I find the discussion really interesting as well and I hope in the end something good will come out of it. Just now it just feels like its two extremes fighting each other both sides have not much to prove things either way. I got a bit scared with all the tox talk myself to be honest and did reduce my previous let's call it EI+ levels of ferts to almost no dosing at all and it went to [censored][censored][censored][censored] quickly low FE levels did not work for me. I am still worried about the copper levels in CSM and most of all TNC but to be honest I have no freaking clue if those are dangerous levels or not. Maybe the Aquarebell stuff I use currently are way to low, I thought it looked better at first glance but once again I really have no idea when fish and plants start to take damage from either to little or to much. 


If we target for 0.2Fe x 3 times a week (E.I levels) we would end up with the following after a couple of weeks (50% WC)

CSM+B
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu - 0.018 ppm
Zn - 0.06 ppm

TNC
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu -0.03 ppm
Zn - 0.17 ppm

AR Flowgrow
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu - 0.0006 ppm
Zn - 0.0048 ppm

Note that plant uptake is not taken into consideration in the above numbers. What I think would be interesting to know is where the companies got the ratios from, was it a wild guess or some actual research behind them (hopefully) and even more interestingly why does it in this case has such a big variation?
And you say TNC looks better, but from a tox point of view would it not potentially be to worst option or am I missing something here? But of course if we would test for copper in our tanks I don't think there is any commercial test kits available that can measure that low anyways? Looked at my pretty expensive Cu test kit here at home and saw it can only read down to 0.1Cu and claims it to be safe at that level and below 
I ordered 3 test kits that I will use on my large tank here at home at different intervals (have not decided when it would be most interesting to take them though) that will be sent for lab testing using some ICP-OES equipment (plasma thingy), mostly out of curiosity.

I am thinking if one should return to TNC after my current batch of nutrients dry up. Always had great growth for most species using TNC but I did have issues with pinholes. But those issues have persisted through no dosing, new substrate and the Aqua Rebell ferts. Not sure why I continue to have these issues, but now I am pretty certain it got nothing to do with toxicities.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> I might be missing something but he adds increasing amounts of SO4 & Na (139ppm Na at highest) in the experiments. I think even beginners know salt is bad for fresh water plants.


we have wondered the same and am sure he knows salt is bad for plants. i have requested him to explain why there is 139ppm Na


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Fissure said:


> Interesting, I find the discussion really interesting as well and I hope in the end something good will come out of it. Just now it just feels like its two extremes fighting each other both sides have not much to prove things either way. I got a bit scared with all the tox talk myself to be honest and did reduce my previous let's call it EI+ levels of ferts to almost no dosing at all and it went to [censored][censored][censored][censored] quickly low FE levels did not work for me. I am still worried about the copper levels in CSM and most of all TNC but to be honest I have no freaking clue if those are dangerous levels or not. Maybe the Aquarebell stuff I use currently are way to low, I thought it looked better at first glance but once again I really have no idea when fish and plants start to take damage from either to little or to much.
> 
> 
> If we target for 0.2Fe x 3 times a week (E.I levels) we would end up with the following after a couple of weeks (50% WC)
> ...


CSM+B
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu - 0.018 ppm
Zn - 0.06 ppm

TNC
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu -0.03 ppm
Zn - 0.17 ppm

AR Flowgrow
Fe - 1.2 ppm
Cu - 0.0006 ppm
Zn - 0.0048 ppm

you have less chance of toxicity with csm and TNC due to Chelated form, AR use non chelated form, they are available to plants right away, even Fe that AR use is Fe gluconate far as i remember. BTW am not suggesting to add 1 ppm of Fe per week at all, i was using that as an example. to put it in better word, adding 0.03 Cu in EDTA will not do any harm, while adding 0.03 Cu in CuSo4 form will not go so well.

here is a quick question for you: if everything was fine before, why did you decide to dose less traces?


----------



## Fissure (Jun 29, 2014)

happi said:


> CSM+B
> Fe - 1.2 ppm
> Cu - 0.018 ppm
> Zn - 0.06 ppm
> ...


It was not all fine before, had pinholes in a couple of species and sol claimed toxicity so I lowered the trace amounts and eventually changed it to AR just to try something else. Things did not improve and I am back were I was before.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

happi said:


> we have wondered the same and am sure he knows salt is bad for plants. i have requested him to explain why there is 139ppm Na


So you're basing your clams on a guy who adds Na to inhibit plant growth? Even if he meant Ca, that much Ca locks out a whole bunch of nutrients and micros. Look up calcium toxiticty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> So you're basing your clams on a guy who adds Na to inhibit plant growth? Even if he meant Ca, that much Ca locks out a whole bunch of nutrients and micros. Look up calcium toxiticty.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


It's better to wait till I get respond from him, I know for sure that he will respond to your question. And No my observation is not based on his experiments and had nothing to do with him all, I only shared about him because he does more serious tests in lab and stuff in case someone who want to get deep into this study.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

@happi So people like fissure followed your anecdotal claims and didn't find it to de true. Also, there are people dosing EI without issues. So who's right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> @happi So people like fissure followed your anecdotal claims and didn't find it to de true. Also, there are people dosing EI without issues. So who's right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


and then there are people dosing EI who also have tons of issue. the answer is both yes and no for now, i have already said it in my own previous posts if you read.

when fissure lowered the dosing, he must have lowered one of the nutrients that is require to uptake the other nutrients, so how does that prove my claim false? when i myself have clearly mentioned in my previous posts why this will occur and it will go away soon as you add lets say 0.1 ppm csm+b because you just temporally added that missing nutrient. i wont be try to explain any better than what Marcel have already explained, my answer is the same as his, if you read carefully you will get your answer to the question you just asked me. if you have further questions or doubts, i suggest you read Marcel thread couple more times instead of skipping through it. 

now ask your self why these guys got banned when they challenged someone, i wont mention his name but you know who that someone is, Marcel have mentioned it in that thread. why ban someone who have brought up some good point and very good information? was he afraid that it will debunk his theory that has been around for many years now? was he afraid that it will prove him wrong? it cant be because those guys deserve to be banned, it rather looks like it was done to hide the truth or protect his own reputation.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

happi said:


> and then there are people dosing EI who also have tons of issue. the answer is both yes and no for now, i have already said it in my own previous posts if you read.


Do you actually think that everyone who does EI doses regular water changes? People get lazy, people get busy, life gets in the way, that's why you might see issues in different tanks that seemingly have the same setup. IT'S A HOBBY. Any lab grade work doesn't carry over because of this. There are many ways to dose and run successful tanks, plenty of people have proven that. What you can't account for is someones lifestyle. 

The irony here is that lab work could in fact be more anecdotal then people's experience.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> So you're basing your clams on a guy who adds Na to inhibit plant growth? Even if he meant Ca, that much Ca locks out a whole bunch of nutrients and micros. Look up calcium toxiticty.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


so you are accepting the fact that Ca can block other nutrients?

*as i promised you, i got the reply from him and this is what he have said about your question:*


Hi Happy, 
this may be one of the potential issues that would be worth of further study.
Unfortunately, I need some time now to take a rest from my experiments.
But again, there is no simple answer to salinity tolerance as different plants will have a different tolerance to sodium (Na) => see the following study:
http://web.pdx.edu/~sytsmam/papers/parrotfeathersalinitytolerance.pdf
Most aquatic plants studied grew better under a little higher salinity. Also, I used NaHCO3 (bicarbonates), not NaCl (salt) in my tests, which may play some role also. Theoretically, 100 µS/cm (conduct.) ≈ 0.05 ‰ (salinity), so 750 µS/cm ≈ 0.375 ‰ (salinity). Compare it with the salinity used in the above study, and in my tests. The theoretical salinity in my tests is minimal compared with regular salt water.
I am open to any suggestion that may shed some light to R.wallichii issues, so thank you for your notice. Also, look at my final tests with R.wallichii on my website: Akvaristika (Test #6 vs. #7). In both tests there was about the same concentration of Na (45 vs 54 ppm), yet in the test #6 (where the growth was the best I ever had) there was 1.88% Na in the plant tissue, while in the test #7 there was only 1.03% Na in the plant tissue (= dry matter). So it seems that other factors are obviously affecting the uptake of sodium (Na) into the plant tissue. How else would you explain this big difference in the sodium content in dry matter under very similar Na concentrations in both tanks? Why the well-growing plants in test #6 were uptaking a lot more Na than the bad-growing plants in test #7 (given that neerly all other nutrients were uptaken in much higher rate, except only zinc and copper)?


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

happi said:


> so you are accepting the fact that Ca can block other nutrients?


I think we all agree that when you have ~200ppm of any nutrients, it'll cause issues with plants and animals. Most of us don't have levels that high.

You're debating between .005 and .0015 ppm of this and that is kind of ridiculous. So we need a mg scale and magnifier to measure out the ferts.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> I think we all agree that when you have ~200ppm of any nutrients, it'll cause issues with plants and animals. Most of us don't have levels that high.
> 
> You're debating between .005 and .0015 ppm of this and that is kind of ridiculous. So we need a mg scale and magnifier to measure out the ferts.


i wont waste my time talking to you any further unless you have something better to offer. if those small ppm dont matter then start dumping 1 ppm of Cu in your tank and go from there, that should not cause any issue because its a small 1 ppm number vs 200 ppm.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> i wont waste my time talking to you any further unless you have something better to offer. if those small ppm dont matter then start dumping 1 ppm of Cu in your tank and go from there, that should not cause any issue because its a small 1 ppm number vs 200 ppm.


Happi did you get your cheerful demeanor and warm personality from the same cult as Sol?? Remember we are talking about growing plants in an aquarium here. It's a hobby.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

IntotheWRX said:


> sorry about my original comment. it was a joke but i agree that it was inappropriate. i wouldnt call it perverted. i was referencing your hairgrass looks like they could use a trim. :flick:


I am 150% positive that you and @MacDre2016 are the same person. Let the algae gods inflict my tank with every imaginable algae and my EI dosing cause Micro Toxicity if I am wrong.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

happi said:


> i wont waste my time talking to you any further unless you have something better to offer. if those small ppm dont matter then start dumping 1 ppm of Cu in your tank and go from there, that should not cause any issue because its a small 1 ppm number vs 200 ppm.


1ppm is 200 times greater then 0.005 ppm. You totally missed the point.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Tomorrow's a holiday in the U.S.

Do we REALLY have to spend time cleaning up yet another thread filled with insults and personal attacks?

Get it together, folks. Treat others with respect. I won't clean this thread up again.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> I am 150% positive that you and @MacDre2016 are the same person.


They're the same person.

Reminder to all: multiple accounts are not permitted.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Because you're all behaving as children, this thread is closed.

Any other discussion on this particular topic that gets derailed into nonsense and personal attacks will result in permanent bans - not suspensions.


----------

