# Happi's Recipe with Micro/Macro and Everything



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Looking good and yummy.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

future plan, Amino Acid Glycine will be put to test to replace EDTA, DTPA


----------



## jbvamos (Mar 18, 2018)

Why is it necessary to make separate solutions of each unchelated trace? I was under the impression everyone mixing their own unchelated micro mix were just putting all the dry micros into one solution bottle.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

Hi happi, 

thank you for re-posting your recipe and fertilization suggestions in this thread. I think it's great to have more methods of fertilization to choose from according to our goals and needs. I quickly skimmed over the post as I don't have a lot of time, there may be more points to discuss but I feel some were addressed over the years and will continue to be _ad infinitum_ in the absence thorough examination.

More examples of aquariums with greater plant diversity (15+ species) would also make a great case for your fertilizer.



happi said:


> these were repeated tests over the last few years.


It would have been nice to see the methodology and results /raw data of these experiments. This may help inspire others to run their tests and be able to try and duplicate your results. In addition it would allow the hobbyist to make his own interpretation of the data. Not just the experiment from the quote, but all the ones you mentioned. I for one would be interested how you ran the N source experiment. How did you inhibit the conversion and how did you test that conversion did not occur ? How did you prevent NH3 to escape as gas ?

You might say this is an undue burden for suggesting a fertilization recipe. Yes it is, but I think this hobby would benefit from actual data instead of dreamed up stuff. We had/have plenty of that, even from official companies.



happi said:


> next one i want to talk about is many people are confused with what fish really produce, is it NH4 or Urea or something else?* the fact is they only Produce NH4,* for those who have heavy fish load, they can expect very good plant growth.


emphasis added by me 

This statement is false. It is part of basic ichthyology courses and has been known for a very long time that fish *also* excrete urea *not only* ammonia (NH3). Some only excrete urea.:surprise:

See Randall et al. (Nature, 1989). Don't have to read very far, just the abstract :" Freshwater fish mostly excrete ammonia2,3 with only a small quantity of urea4,5". I find this slideshow from York University, Canada a very nice and basic introduction to the topic : http://www.yorku.ca/spk/fishbiol09/FB09lecture11.pdf . You will see there that NH3 is the actual molecule which crosses the gills and is then protonated (depending on the water characteristics). 

I had the above references at hand, but I think a basic search would reveal that fish also excrete urea. Like I said don't have a lot of time to go line by line, but this kind of statements make me be more skeptical regarding the rest of the post. 

Wish your approach to fertilizing helps us all learn more about growing plants.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

dukydaf said:


> More examples of aquariums with greater plant diversity (15+ species) would also make a great case for your fertilizer.


This has been my thought for quite some time.

Many tanks like mine have more like 20 to 30 species. Seems difficult to correlate anything to experiments performed on a single species or two in a bare tank? And a blend that one species loves......another may hate. 

And that is where the "art" part of the equation comes in. Figuring out the right mix of plants and ferts (and everything else) that keeps them all happy. I haven't seen ANY recipe that would do that for every tank, and frankly I don't think it exists. Too many other variables can have causal effects.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

dukydaf said:


> emphasis added by me
> 
> This statement is false. It is part of basic ichthyology courses and has been known for a very long time that fish *also* excrete urea *not only* ammonia (NH3). Some only excrete urea.:surprise:


Ammonia and urea transporters in gills of fish and aquatic crustaceans, http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/212/11/1716.full.pdf
Sharks, rays, skates, sawfish, coelacanth, Lake Magadi tilapia, gulf toadfish, amphibious fish, lungfish, lamprey eels, marine elasmobranch, …

Let’s see what urea producing fish is dukydaf having in his exceptional planted aquariums:


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

Edward said:


> Let’s see what urea producing fish is dukydaf having in his exceptional planted aquariums:


Edward, I and many other members (I think) of this community would thank you if you keep the sarcasm and inflammatory rhetoric out of this thread. 

Feel free to bring some interesting or constructive piece of literature or data (possibly not trademarked ™).

If you think that *fish only produce NH4* after reading the article you yourself quoted, there is BIG problem in basic logic and reality distortion.:help:

I'll try and stay short and on the point as there are plenty of other aspects to be covered.

For reference, the original statement was 



happi said:


> next one i want to talk about is many people are confused with *what fish really produce*, is it NH4 or Urea or something else? the fact is* they only Produce NH4,* for those who have heavy fish load, they can expect very good plant growth.


 emphasis added

The statement quoted is false just like these are: 
All mushrooms are poisonous to humans. 
Kittens are only scratching people.

Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this reference in as well. I think it provides just another piece of evidence that the above statement is false. 
From the paper (Weihrauch et al. 2009) you have referenced: 


> “As mentioned earlier, t*here are now several exceptions to the older dogma that fish do not excrete* substantial quantities of *urea *… T*he involvement of specific urea transporters is now heavily implicated in many species*,…”





> “Although it is clear that the ‘default’ condition for organisms immersed in water is certainly ammonia excretion, the capacity to detoxify ammonia to urea and subsequent buildup/storage and *excretion of urea has clearly been retained within the fish genome*.”





Edward said:


> Sharks, rays, skates, sawfish, coelacanth, Lake Magadi tilapia, gulf toadfish, amphibious fish, lungfish, lamprey eels, marine elasmobranch, …
> 
> The fish you list are good examples of fish excreting high % of urea. But there are many other fish that excrete urea *and *ammonia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deleted


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## FreshPuff (Oct 31, 2011)

Is "Pb" a typo? If not then why are you including lead in the pink formula and not the rest?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

FreshPuff said:


> Is "Pb" a typo? If not then why are you including lead in the pink formula and not the rest?



Pb comes from MoO3 85.5%, some other contamination as well, but they are in tiny amount.


----------



## FreshPuff (Oct 31, 2011)

happi said:


> Pb comes from MoO3 85.5%, some other contamination as well, but they are in tiny amount.


Ah got it! Thanks!


----------



## jbvamos (Mar 18, 2018)

Can you please answer why the unchelated traces have to be mixed in separate solutions when everyone making their own micro blend don’t do this?


----------



## FreshPuff (Oct 31, 2011)

jbvamos said:


> Can you please answer why the unchelated traces have to be mixed in separate solutions when everyone making their own micro blend don’t do this?


Compare the ppm traces of the chelated vs non chelated recipe, example chelated Ni	0.0015ppm vs Ni 0.000006 ppm. Notice how the ppm for the non chelated is much much lower? He basically made the separate solution so that he could cut it down to much smaller ppm for the final recipe. does this make sense?


----------



## jbvamos (Mar 18, 2018)

FreshPuff said:


> Compare the ppm traces of the chelated vs non chelated recipe, example chelated Ni	0.0015ppm vs Ni 0.000006 ppm. Notice how the ppm for the non chelated is much much lower? He basically made the separate solution so that he could cut it down to much smaller ppm for the final recipe. does this make sense?


understood, so as long as i am making a large enough solution to accurately measure the minute amounts of traces then i can skip the seperate solutions. I thought that maybe he found some precipitation occuring without mixing them seperately first


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

due to accuracy, i have trying measuring very low amount on my gram scale and it would be impossible to measure such a small amount, the solution was to simply make a stronger solution and then use say 20 ml from 500 ml solution, adding say 20ml to another 480ml solution give you 0.0001 ppm etc, i hope that make sense.


----------



## Lumlux (Oct 27, 2018)

The ppm mentioned with each recipe.Are those daily doses or weekly doses?
Has anyone tried the above formulas for trace elements in their tanks?If yes.I would love to see some


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Update: am bit late to respond as i had put Amino Acid Glycine to test as traces, it have many issues such as precipitation and formation of SO4 in the solution, only some of them were very soluble without issue. 

i hope to see other members try to make their own ferts, feel free to ask question


----------



## Lumlux (Oct 27, 2018)

Hi happi,
How does the ppm specially for macros given in the first post translate to someone having a high light and fully planted tank?Had problem with plants stunting in my tank(with high light) with full RO water(KH:3-5,Gh:3-5) remineralised with Barr's GH booster(didn't use any K2CO3).My dosing included NO3:7 ppm,Po4:0.7 ppm,K:15ppm.GSA and GDA also followed stunting.Co2 was at par(had no fishes so dosed about 4-5 bps,above 1 ph drop from 6.6 to 5.5 or so through JBL inline diffuser)
Was it due to lack of metals and other micro elements stripped away from water by RO?Or was it due to less dosing of macros?I was following your recipe no. 3 for micros.
Don't have any pics with me atm since I have dismantled my tank due to mentioned issues but I intend to plant it again after sorting out these issues.TIA


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Lumlux said:


> Hi happi,
> How does the ppm specially for macros given in the first post translate to someone having a high light and fully planted tank?Had problem with plants stunting in my tank(with high light) with full RO water(KH:3-5,Gh:3-5) remineralised with Barr's GH booster(didn't use any K2CO3).My dosing included NO3:7 ppm,Po4:0.7 ppm,K:15ppm.GSA and GDA also followed stunting.Co2 was at par(had no fishes so dosed about 4-5 bps,above 1 ph drop from 6.6 to 5.5 or so through JBL inline diffuser)
> Was it due to lack of metals and other micro elements stripped away from water by RO?Or was it due to less dosing of macros?I was following your recipe no. 3 for micros.
> Don't have any pics with me atm since I have dismantled my tank due to mentioned issues but I intend to plant it again after sorting out these issues.TIA


i had multiple members make mistakes while making most of the recipes, i hope you are making everything correctly as margin of error is very high, i do not suggest using Barr Gh booster or other Method such as EI while using my recipes, please refer to this quote:

*"next one, which source of N is superior for plants? some might argue NO3 is enough, this isn't simply true, i had a chance to try all kind of N sources and NH4 was the most superior one, next one that comes close is Urea, but Urea can sometime fail to work if your water lack nickel enzymes, process of urea degradation was also slow, NH4 can skip certain steps and directly used by plants making it superior to others. Monte carlo was an good example of this test, where it obtained very small leaves when NO3 was the only source of N, soon as NH4 was added, leave size was doubled or tripled. 
next one is Potassium, we should never add so much potassium, those who add so much potassium are likely to see pale looking plants and plant don't really use much as what most people has been adding for many years now, plant use almost 3-4x less potassium than Nitrogen, however extra potassium will enhance the plant growth by increasing the uptake of other nutrients.
next one is PO4, this one is tricky one, those who add tons of Po4, are most probably precipitating Iron and other important trace minerals, no need to add so much PO4 in water column, however plant like ludwigia pantanal seems to like little bit extra PO4, so you need to look for the right dose"*

for GH, plant don't really need such a high GH either especially Calcium, you will only need to add so much calcium if you are adding so many trace minerals in excess amount, especially Boron, 5 ppm Calcium and 2 ppm Mg is more than enough for weekly dose, this is already in upper range. far as GDA and GSA goes i suggest you read my article where i might have answer to these questions, if you are really Interested, just send me PM

i can tell you one thing for sure, don't believe if someone tell you "Not Enough CO2" or "Not Enough Nutrients" they have no idea whats truly happening.


----------



## Lumlux (Oct 27, 2018)

Thanks for the reply happi.I am gonna try those values for Ca and Mg then.Seems like I was dosing too much.Does excess Ca and Mg block any nutrient absorpotion?
I was facing bent edges and tips of plants' leaves hence started using Barr's booster which cured the problem.Would 2ppm Mg and 5ppm of Ca be enough for fully planted tank?
Regarding making traces recipe,Yes I was really careful while making measurements.I have a scale with least count to .001g.For chemicals that were way lower than min. count I made strong solutions just like yours.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Lumlux said:


> Thanks for the reply happi.I am gonna try those values for Ca and Mg then.Seems like I was dosing too much.Does excess Ca and Mg block any nutrient absorpotion?
> I was facing bent edges and tips of plants' leaves hence started using Barr's booster which cured the problem.Would 2ppm Mg and 5ppm of Ca be enough for fully planted tank?
> Regarding making traces recipe,Yes I was really careful while making measurements.I have a scale with least count to .001g.For chemicals that were way lower than min. count I made strong solutions just like yours.


it will depend on what source of Ca and Mg you also add, most of the time if the water is rich in CO3 coming from CaCo3, Mgco3 etc, you will face more issues with certain nutrients. for me 5 ppm Ca and 2 ppm Mg is more than enough, i myself use very low amount and you would be surprised if i said how much, i also use 100% RO/DI water, this could change the results for others as they they tap water, if something isnt working for you, please post a pics of the plants, pros and cons of what you observe etc, this would help further. its not Ca and Mg that could block other nutrinets, its more complex than that, for example one of the member use exact same recipe with their tap water and it failed to work for them, i use the same recipe and it works for me, simply because i have more control over my parameter while the other person doesn't. i can add you to our group chat on facebook, so you will be in touch with us more often and we can help you further.


----------



## Malakian (Aug 23, 2014)

Nice! Thanks a lot for this!

I've been out of the hobby for a while but back at it again, and Hoppi, you have helped me before. Some years ago, when I also came to the conclusion that Micros/CSM was the issue.

Anywho, some questions. The "pink" recipe, how much do you dose of it? Like how many ml pr gallon? Also, I can't find MoO3, but I can get Na2MoO4. You have any clue to what I have to add to get the same Mo concentration as the MoO3?

Thanks.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

@Malakian Na2MoO4.2H2O is already covered in one of the recipe, doses are also already covered, 5ml per 50 gallon. you can also calculate how much Mo to add based on the given formula

read this:
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...1233202-custom-edta-dtpa-trace-fe-recipe.html

use this approach: "Example of My method" on same link


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

What kind of bottles/containers do you like to use to store all these mixes? Do you add excel or anything else to prevent mold growth?


----------



## thefishey (Jan 11, 2020)

What PH would the water have to be to prevent precipitation between the Phosphate and Iron? I'm a bit confused on that topic.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

@Fishly 


Fishly said:


> What kind of bottles/containers do you like to use to store all these mixes? Do you add excel or anything else to prevent mold growth?


i use Smartwater bottles, i clean them with vinegar and use them to store all my solutions, i use potassium Sorbate and Ascorbic Acid in all my solutions, i sometime use SODIUM BENZOATE if needed, around 0.25-0.5 gram in 500ml solution, but the other two does the job just fine. see my 2nd thread under my signature 
@thefishey 


thefishey said:


> What PH would the water have to be to prevent precipitation between the Phosphate and Iron? I'm a bit confused on that topic.


you want the PH to remain acidic, more acidic the better it would be, PH of 5-6 is generally good but there is no need to measure the PH if you are adding the potassium Sorbate and Ascorbic Acid at decent levels. Phosphate and Iron precipitation doesn't easily occur with the the EDTA/DTPA/EDDHA, adding PO4 and Fe gluconate in the same solution could become more of an issue. also adding Fulvic acid to the mix will also prevent precipitation and actually make the Trace mineral more available to the plants by passing through the cell membrane of the plants due to smaller molecules. the only major issue could arise from fuvlic acid is Algae if added in excess amount, so play with it wisely. 


if you guys choose the ppm and the chemicals of your choice, I could help make the recipe.
i buy my chemicals from MBferts and customhydronutrients if you guys need them


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Here are some simple Chelated focused Trace recipes which should be simple to measure on the scale and mix, nothing complicated here compare to some of my other recipes. make sure you *add 0.5-1g Ascorbic Acid and 0.2-0.4g Potassium Sorbate* to each solution before mixing any of the other chemicals. #2 and #6 are my personal favorite, most of these were used at 0.1-0.2 ppm Fe per week maximum and I never really needed to add more, but you can add higher if you want to explore more. I also usually keep my water at 10 ppm Calcium, 4 ppm Mg, about 4-8 ppm Potassium weekly without adding any of these additionally unless I include them in the Mixes. you can also use Cacl, MgSo4, KHCo3 if you are using 100% RO water, i keep the GH and KH quite low. if you are keeping fish and feed decent amount of food, I see no real reason to add N and P, unless you are pushing for extreme plant growth. feel free to ask questions, I will update some of the NON-Chelated recipes in my free time. 

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #1, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

6.55 gram EDTA Fe 13%
Fe	0.045

4.30 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.025 

6.988 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.048

0.433 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.004

0.75 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.006

0.253 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.002

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #2, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

12 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.07

6.988 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.048

0.433 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.004

0.75 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.006

0.253 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.002

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #3, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

4.37 gram EDTA Fe 13%
Fe	0.03

6.88 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.04

4.557 gram Fe Gluconate 12.46%
Fe	0.03

6.988 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.048

0.433 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.004

0.75 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.006

0.253 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.002

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #4, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

6.55 gram HEEDTA Fe 13%
Fe	0.045

4.30 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.025 

6.988 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.048

0.433 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.004

0.75 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.006

0.253 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.002

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #5, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

8.735 gram EDTA Fe 13%
Fe	0.06

6.88 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.04

9.754 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.067

1.516 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.014

1.766 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.014

1.766 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.014

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002


*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #6, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

17.20 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.1

9.754 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.067

1.516 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.014

1.766 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.014

1.766 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.014

0.190 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.004
Na	0.002

*Simple Micro/Fe Recipe Version #7, based on 500 ml solution, 5 ml per 50 gallon*

34.41 gram DTPA Fe 11%
Fe	0.2

14.56 gram Mn EDTA 13%
Mn	0.1

1.516 gram Boric Acid 17.48 %
B	0.014

1.766 gram Cu EDTA 15%
Cu	0.014

1.766 gram Zn EDTA 15%
Zn	0.014

0.38 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.6582%
Mo	0.008
Na	0.004


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

@happi,

Recently, I've been thinking about adding fulvic acid (can't hurt) to my daily micro dosing and just saw your comment on it. May I ask what your source is (customhydronutrients mentioned above?) and how you determine dosage amount / gallon?


----------



## n70me (May 8, 2017)

Hi @happi.

thanks for posting , i see majorly two versions one is B 0.004 and other is B 0.014, which one to dose when?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Deanna said:


> @happi,
> 
> Recently, I've been thinking about adding fulvic acid (can't hurt) to my daily micro dosing and just saw your comment on it. May I ask what your source is (customhydronutrients mentioned above?) and how you determine dosage amount / gallon?


Deanna, I got my Fulvic Acid from Kelp4less few years ago. Far as how much to add and how I came up with that? well far as I know there is no way to accurately figure out the correct dose unlike other chemicals which gives us a % of certain content which can be calculated easily. With Fulvic Acid its little bit tricky, the closest we could come to calculate It, is by calculating the Carbon content based on https://www.webqc.org/molecular-weight-of-C14H12O8.html

Honestly, I have only tested it in my tank for few months, while it could give good results, but at the same time it could also cause this algae that looks like cyano and usually form on the tip of the plants, the results from using Fulvic acid was similar to adding Urea, there is tons of organics in this acid and you could expect some good amount of organic Nitrogen coming from this Acid, I add about 0.15-0.25 gram of Fulvic acid in my recipe for testing purposes, Adding too much resulted in some algae. 

I also played with Humic acid and it probably isn’t best used when mixing with the solutions. 




n70me said:


> Hi @happi.
> 
> thanks for posting , i see majorly two versions one is B 0.004 and other is B 0.014, which one to dose when?


you can use any of the above recipe from the list according to your needs, I wouldn’t go based on which recipe to use just based on the Boron. However, try to maintain Fe levels around 0.1-0.3 ranges weekly, you can split the doses in daily dose or dose 2-3x week or however you like, but I wouldn’t dose 0.3 ppm Fe in single dose. also, the only time you need to add more if your water is rich in PH/KH or say liquid hard.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

happi said:


> Deanna, I got my Fulvic Acid from Kelp4less few years ago. Far as how much to add and how I came up with that? well far as I know there is no way to accurately figure out the correct dose unlike other chemicals which gives us a % of certain content which can be calculated easily. With Fulvic Acid its little bit tricky, the closest we could come to calculate It, is by calculating the Carbon content based on https://www.webqc.org/molecular-weight-of-C14H12O8.html
> 
> Honestly, I have only tested it in my tank for few months, while it could give good results, but at the same time it could also cause this algae that looks like cyano and usually form on the tip of the plants, the results from using Fulvic acid was similar to adding Urea, there is tons of organics in this acid and you could expect some good amount of organic Nitrogen coming from this Acid, I add about 0.15-0.25 gram of Fulvic acid in my recipe for testing purposes, Adding too much resulted in some algae.
> 
> I also played with Humic acid and it probably isn’t best used when mixing with the solutions.


Thanks, much. I think that I'll try it as well. There seem to be several fulvic acid products on Amazon that are designed for hydroponics. 

Very interesting that you had the strong correlation to algae growth (first direct connection that I've encountered), albeit some odd form of algae. Like our dosing of urea or NH4 (in your case), which are attempts to match what our fish provide in the favored form of N to our plants, the organic stream from our fish also includes the humins, such as fulvic acid. The hydroponics people do know this to be beneficial, but perhaps our fish don't supply enough. We all attribute algae expansion to "organics" as a catch-all phrase and try to limit the "organics" development and clean it out to prevent this. Perhaps the various humin components play a big role in this. I wonder if various BB that develop consume humins or if there is any type of media that would.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Thanks, much. I think that I'll try it as well. There seem to be several fulvic acid products on Amazon that are designed for hydroponics.
> 
> Very interesting that you had the strong correlation to algae growth (first direct connection that I've encountered), albeit some odd form of algae. Like our dosing of urea or NH4 (in your case), which are attempts to match what our fish provide in the favored form of N to our plants, the organic stream from our fish also includes the humins, such as fulvic acid. The hydroponics people do know this to be beneficial, but perhaps our fish don't supply enough. We all attribute algae expansion to "organics" as a catch-all phrase and try to limit the "organics" development and clean it out to prevent this. Perhaps the various humin components play a big role in this. I wonder if various BB that develop consume humins or if there is any type of media that would.


you will find several companies sell Fluvic acid and its not same or you can say its different from each other especially in term of quality. far as the organic goes, am quite confident to say they do contribute to several algae's issues. adding excess amount of Urea can result in BBA and that Cyano on tip of the plant which appear to look dark in color and same odor as Cyano. Urea or NH4 isn't a problem when dosed properly.

honestly, I haven't seen any BBA for several years now. while I still conduct several experiments I do run into issues with plants and Algae, but again that is the whole purpose of my experiment to begin with. 

in case you were interested, these are next on my list especially the first two, 99% people will never see this in any of the recipes as they are not needed or already present in the water, i just wanted to give them the test to see if they benefit the plants. 

Rubidium Sulfate
Vanadyl Sulfate Pentahydrate
Aluminum Sulfate
Rubidium Iodide- 
Titanium DiOxide


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

happi said:


> Rubidium Sulfate
> Vanadyl Sulfate Pentahydrate
> Aluminum Sulfate
> Rubidium Iodide-
> Titanium DiOxide


Yes, I've seen some of those ingredients in various manufacturer's formulas and wondered why. However, like many of the traces, I believe that these all sneak in through fish food.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

happi said:


> I also usually keep my water at 10 ppm Calcium, 4 ppm Mg, about 4-8 ppm Potassium .. if you are keeping fish and feed decent amount of food, I see no real reason to add N and P, unless you are pushing for extreme plant growth.


 What are your favorite NO3 and PO4 concentrations without fish?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> What are your favorite NO3 and PO4 concentrations without fish?


in most cases:
*8.84 ppm NO3 weekly (2 ppm N coming from NH4NO3, truly only 4.42 ppm NO3-N weekly, rest is NH4-N)
0.8 ppm PO4 weekly*
in some cases I double the dose if I want aggressive plant growth


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

*Simple Macro Recipe Version #1, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon*

17.08 grams KNO3 
NO3	2.2100
N	0.4992
K	1.3935

5.072 grams Urea CO(NH2)2 
N	0.5000

2.765 grams KH2PO4 
PO4	0.4
P	0.133
K	0.17

N	1
P	0.13
K	1.56


*Very Simple Macro Recipe Version #2, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon*

34.1014 grams KNO3 
NO3	4.4200
N	0.9984
K	2.7869

2.765 grams KH2PO4 
PO4	0.4
P	0.133
K	0.17

N	1
P	0.13
K	2.957

*Advance Macro Recipe Version #3, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon*
13.520136 grams NH4NO3
N 1
NH4	0.64
N-NO3	0.5
N-NH4	0.5

2.078931 grams KH2PO4 
PO4	0.3066
P	0.1000
K	0.1262

8.43 grams K2SO4
K	0.8000
S	0.3281

*Advance Macro Recipe Version #4, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon*

6.76 grams NH4NO3
N 0.5
NH4	0.32
N-NO3	0.25
N-NH4	0.25

8.5254 grams KNO3 
NO3	1.105
N	0.25
K	0.7

2.5360 grams Urea CO(NH2)2 
N	0.2500
N	1

2.765 grams KH2PO4 
PO4	0.4
P	0.133
K	0.17



*Advance Macro Recipe Version #5 (Marchner Ratio), based on 500 ml solution, 10 ml per 50 gallon (make two seperate bottles for this one)*

*Bottle #1*

19.6 gram KNO3 
NO3	1.2707
N	0.2870
K	0.8012

22.34 gram Ca(NO3)2.4H2O
Ca	0.4005
NO3	1.2393
dGH	0.0561

13.33 gram Mg(NO3)2.6H2O 
Mg	0.1335
NO3	0.6810
N	0.1538
dGH	0.0308

3.78 gram Urea
N	0.1866
NO3	0.824

*Bottle #2*

5.5 gram KH2PO4 
PO4	0.4056
P	0.1323
K	0.1670

*Recipe #5 Note:* DO NOT MIX KH2PO4 with the other chemicals, keep it separate.


*
Advance Macro Recipe Version #6, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon*
10.15 gram Urea 
N 1

2.765 grams KH2PO4 
PO4	0.4
P	0.133
K	0.17

8.43 grams K2SO4
K 0.8000
S 0.3281


*Maintain 2-3 N weekly, which is Equivalent to 8.8 - 13.2 ppm NO3, Use N as Proxy*


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

here are some pictures of good, bad and the worse from some of the experiments gathered in several years, i will continue to upload more pictures in my free time, there are tons of pictures to share:

https://happi-singh.imgbb.com/

as you can see there are several good and several bad pictures of the plants, the purpose of the experiment was to observe plant health under different ratio, PPM, Chemicals, including varieties of light spectrums, Necrosis and chlorosis on plants were also observed under several conditions. these set of picture were not designed to impress you by only posting a good one and not sharing the bad one, it was designed for you to see how plant respond under different conditions. 

algae also responded to several different ratio, fertilizer and such. in some cases algae grew equally well along with the plants when condition were setup wrong on purpose, especially the fertilizer. 

root tabs were also put to the test, while root tabs benefited some plant simply by leaching into the water, it also caused several type of algae issues and negative impact on plant health. root tabs are not needed, it was observed that aquatic plant should grow quite well even free floating as well as in inert substrate, under this condition plant seems to grow well when NH4/Urea is the major source of Nitrogen and other nutrients were present in the water. once NO3 was the only source of the Nitrogen, plant would struggle unless there is a NH4 leaching from somewhere, from fish or soil. 

Urea, when Urea was added to the water, some plant from the soil will appear that were never there before or previously removed completely. it could be seeds that seems to be triggered by the addition of urea. i observed several plant would only appear when urea was added and they would stop appearing once urea was replaced by NO3 as a nitrogen source. it was also observed, under NH4/Urea dosing very little Calcium was needed and there were no calcium deficiency under even 1 ppm Calcium weekly. 

several plant are very sensitive to cold water, i observed that some plant would melt away if you added cold water to drop the temp from 78 to 60, under this condition Rotala Sunset for example dropped its leaves and slowly melted away. 

another observation was made where plant started to show more issue was when the balance shifted from NH4 to NO3 or simply say when NO3 became more dominated source of N, under such condition twisting became quite evident and rich color faded away. keeping the NO3 low seems to be more beneficial and let the plant use much of the NH4 coming from your tank naturally or by adding small doses of NH4 daily. if No3 is high, adding some addition of Nh4/Urea will reduce the issue mentioned above. 

i used the following recipes in most cases with great results
Micro #2 or #6, 0.1 ppm Fe weekly
Macro # 3 or #4, 1-2 ppm N weekly, 0.4-0.8 ppm Mg weekly 


there are several other observation which i will share in my free time


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Hi happi
Here is a chart with your seven trace element versions listed in post #29. Can you tell us why so many and which one should we use? I entered Hydroplus Tenso Cocktail that has also high copper as your versions 5 and 6 in ratio to the other elements. Did you find more copper helpful?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

@Edward Thanks for posting the Data. i can only speak of what works best for me and should work well for others, all these recipes are based on tested ratio and the response of the plants. nothing is set in stones and all these recipes can be modified for the user, for example: if one require more Fe, they can add more if their water doesn't favor the Fe very well in term of PH/KH or high PO4, but these recipe should work well as they are. 

the reason i have multiple recipes is because some of them use different source of chemicals especially the Fe, some user can choose to use varieties of Fe or mix different kinds of Fe as they wish. after several experiments, i settled between Tropica and Tenso numbers in term of PPM, keep in mind i usually only added 0.1 Fe as proxy per week, amount of Cu is still low compared to some of the name brand such as Tropica, but i find the additional copper to enhance the red colors in plants and tank water usually remain quite clear. 

in conclusion, plant seems to do well under Tropica and tenso ppm numbers or the between the two, somewhere in the middile. furthermore, NH4NO3 or Urea produced the best results when combined with these recipes. 

here is the quick breakdown for my dosing approach:

Dose 0.1-0.2 Fe as proxy weekly from any of my Micro recipe 
Dose 2-3 N weekly as Proxy weekly from any of my Macro recipe
Dose or maintain about 10 ppm Ca, 4 ppm Mg and about 4 ppm K, 8 ppm K should be Maximum and honestly 4-5 ppm K is plenty. 

i also find the Fe and Mn to play much more major role in term of Micro, so i maintain 2:1 ratio as i mentioned earlier, it has been lately being confirmed by some users that Mn is quite important after they started adding more. i discovered this many years back when i had rich colors while using Miller then followed by Tropica Clone.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

happi said:


> after several experiments, i settled between Tropica and Tenso numbers in term of PPM, keep in mind i usually only added 0.1 Fe as proxy per week, amount of Cu is still low compared to some of the name brand such as Tropica, but i find the additional copper to enhance the red colors in plants and tank water usually remain quite clear.
> 
> in conclusion, plant seems to do well under Tropica and tenso ppm numbers or the between the two, somewhere in the middile.


 Nice observations. So you found Tenso and Tropica having the best results. Your trace element versions #1, #2, #3, #4 and #7 resemble Tropica ratios, and #5, #6 Tenso. 



















These are two different products in terms of ratios. When should we use one or the other? 



> furthermore, NH4NO3 or Urea produced the best results when combined with these recipes.


 I don’t see nickel in your trace elements. Isn’t nickel necessary for plants in order to process urea? How did you solve this issue?


> Dose 0.1-0.2 Fe as proxy weekly from any of my Micro recipe


 Translated to daily language 0.014 – 0.029 ppm Fe a day.


> Dose or maintain about 10 ppm Ca, 4 ppm Mg and about 4 ppm K, 8 ppm K should be Maximum and honestly 4-5 ppm K is plenty.


 What methodology do you use to maintain 4 ppm of K?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> I wonder if various BB that develop consume humins or if there is any type of media that would.


 I think this is too complex and we will never know because there is about infinite number of compounds in this family. Some become food for bacteria and some can last hundreds of years maybe longer. There is a good chance BBA love to feed on some of those compounds, that’s why it is so mysterious algae.


happi said:


> adding excess amount of Urea can result in BBA …


 I don’t think it is caused by urea itself but rather by stressed plants reacting to higher than normal urea or NH3 - NH4 levels.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

happi said:


> once NO3 was the only source of the Nitrogen, plant would struggle unless there is a NH4 leaching from somewhere, from fish or soil.
> 
> it was also observed, under NH4/Urea dosing very little Calcium was needed and there were no calcium deficiency under even 1 ppm Calcium weekly.
> 
> another observation was made where plant started to show more issue was when the balance shifted from NH4 to NO3 or simply say when NO3 became more dominated source of N, under such condition twisting became quite evident and rich color faded away. keeping the NO3 low seems to be more beneficial and let the plant use much of the NH4 coming from your tank naturally or by adding small doses of NH4 daily. if No3 is high, adding some addition of Nh4/Urea will reduce the issue mentioned above.


I’ve read, in the aquaponics/hydroponics world, that when the NO3/NH4 ratio is low, Ca (and Mg and K) is increasingly impacted. Would you say that this is what you are seeing with your Ca observations?

Similarly, I’ve read some comments, in the aquaponics/hydroponics world, that plants increasingly prefer increasing NO3/NH4 ratios as pH drops below 6. Have you seen any indication of this?


----------



## megaagressor (Mar 16, 2020)

Hello, Happy. I wanted to know how you're going to dissolve TiO2, it doesn't seem to dissolve in water.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Nice observations. So you found Tenso and Tropica having the best results. Your trace element versions #1, #2, #3, #4 and #7 resemble Tropica ratios, and #5, #6 Tenso.


Regarding @happi's approach

My trace mix is also closely aligned with Tropica. However, their directions are, of course, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Light, CO2, plant mass, etc., will require dosing adjustments. 

So, what I had done, when considering how to dose my mix, was to take the “Inspiration” pages on Tropica’s website and aggregated the many approaches by Tropica-sanctioned hobbyists (some are by George Farmer). I was selective, though, in arbitrarily choosing tanks with heavy stems, high CO2 and light to more closely resemble my tank. I also chose tanks that used both Tropica's Specialised and Premium fertilizers, since they both contain traces.

When finished doing the numbers, on about 25 different tanks on the "Inspiration" page, the average *daily* ppm dosing of combined Premium and Specialised traces, in ppm, was:

Iron:	0.08
Mn:	0.046
B:	0.0046
Cu:	0.007
Mo:	0.0023
Zn:	0.0023
Cl:	0.55


I included Cl because it stuck out in Tropica’s doses.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> I don’t think it is caused by urea itself but rather by stressed plants reacting to higher than normal urea or NH3 - NH4 levels.


https://ibb.co/F3xTPFY

here is the quick quote from my Experiment. it was quite evident that BBA was result of dying plants and damages to the plant and had nothing to do with low or fluctuating co2 levels. Those nutrients in this test were enough to cause severe damages to the plant.



Edward said:


> Nice observations. So you found Tenso and Tropica having the best results. Your trace element versions #1, #2, #3, #4 and #7 resemble Tropica ratios, and #5, #6 Tenso.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both product can be used with any of the Macros, they both produce good results, one is slightly lower in term of PPM, if you feel you need to add more, stick with the one with slightly higher PPM. 

I personally didn’t see much difference when urea was added without the Nickel, it appears as Urea will eventually convert into NH4, this can be confirmed by the test kit where Urea will slowly degrade even in pure RO/DI water, one difference I noticed is that Urea will slowly convert into NH4 (hours to days) rather than being fully converted into NH4 within seconds. I added some nickel to some of my recipes, as you can see that its included in one of my original and favorite recipe in one of the Micro thread, but the PPM is set very low, almost close to 0.00006 ppm. It was very hard to determine if Nickel was playing any major role because I had good results with and without it. If we go with Seachem theory, then Nickel might be actually doing something in our aquarium. In conclusion, I think it’s best to include Nickel in the mix just in case if our water is lacking this trace mineral. I have noticed some name brand has switched to Urea as their major source of N lately, let’s see if they are going to include any Nickel, I know VIMI does. I have mentioned about adding Nickel in Burr micro thread as well, the recommended dose I suggested was somewhere in 0.0005 ppm range. 

Regarding potassium, some of my friends over sea who are much more involved with plants and experiments had access to lab and many things, they have also concluded that most of us has been overdosing our aquarium with potassium. In mine and their experiments, it was quite evident that plant didn’t really use that much Potassium, not just potassium but other nutrients as well. 5-10 ppm potassium is already at the upper levels but people are used to adding more of everything nowadays. So I set some of these numbers to meet their criteria



Deanna said:


> I’ve read, in the aquaponics/hydroponics world, that when the NO3/NH4 ratio is low, Ca (and Mg and K) is increasingly impacted. Would you say that this is what you are seeing with your Ca observations?
> 
> Similarly, I’ve read some comments, in the aquaponics/hydroponics world, that plants increasingly prefer increasing NO3/NH4 ratios as pH drops below 6. Have you seen any indication of this?


I have not seen this correlation, in most cases I did not need to add much calcium and my PH is usually around 6. Plant benefited from urea/NH4 regardless of whatever the calcium levels were. On the contrary plant did worse when NO3 was the only source of Nitrogen regardless of whatever the calcium levels were. Uptake of Urea/NH4 won’t be hindered by the Calcium/Mg or K at least in my experience. 




megaagressor said:


> Hello, Happy. I wanted to know how you're going to dissolve TiO2, it doesn't seem to dissolve in water.


Hi Nick, like I told you before anything with Oxide or Dioxide wont dissolve in the water, you will need to use HCL or strong acid to dissolve it. Same reason I don’t play with them, I thought about trying all form of Traces based on these chemical like ADA does, but dropped the idea. Maybe in the future I will give it a try. Since I never used these kind of chemicals, I can only suggest or attempt that you add some vinegar and see if it would dissolve, but I have a feeling that it might not dissolve or it might partially dissolve.

Bump:


Deanna said:


> Regarding @happi's approach
> 
> My trace mix is also closely aligned with Tropica. However, their directions are, of course, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Light, CO2, plant mass, etc., will require dosing adjustments.
> 
> ...


in controlled experiments we found these numbers to grow almost all kinds of plants with very little issue, see if you might find them interesting, there are based on Marchner ratio

N 1
K 0.6666
Ca 0.3332
Mg 0.1332
P 0.1332
S 0.066666
Cl 0.006666
Fe 0.006666
B 0.001332
Mn 0.003332
Zn 0.001332
Cu 0.0004
Mo 0.0000066
Ni 0.0000066


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Tropica Inspiration has 121 aquariums with most of them publishing data so I crunched the numbers to find out how are they following Tropica dosing recommendations. It shows that they don’t, most are dosing much more. To view the chart better right click and “Open image in new tab”.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Tropica Inspiration has 121 aquariums with most of them publishing data so I crunched the numbers to find out how are they following Tropica dosing recommendations. It shows that they don’t, most are dosing much more. To view the chart better right click and “Open image in new tab”.


Good info and that shows my point: the actual Tropica dosing directions do not reflect what the "Inspiration" tanks found was necessary. As you said, they are much higher doses than the directions indicate. My guess is that the Tropica directions are designed for the lowest low-tech tank possible.

Of the 121 that are listed, I only chose those tanks that were most similar to my setup. Your data is based upon all the tanks, which is a smattering of low tech, varying plant types and plant mass. For other readers inclined to try to match Tropica's "Inspired" tank dosings, I would suggest performing the same type of analysis as @Edward and I did, but choosing those tanks that most closely match your types.



happi said:


> in controlled experiments we found these numbers to grow almost all kinds of plants with very little issue, see if you might find them interesting, there are based on Marchner ratio
> 
> N 1
> K 0.6666
> ...


Thanks. I'll take a closer look at these, later, and compare them to what I have been using.

These are daily doses ...correct?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Good info and that shows my point: the actual Tropica dosing directions do not reflect what the "Inspiration" tanks found was necessary. As you said, they are much higher doses than the directions indicate. My guess is that the Tropica directions are designed for the lowest low-tech tank possible.
> 
> Of the 121 that are listed, I only chose those tanks that were most similar to my setup. Your data is based upon all the tanks, which is a smattering of low tech, varying plant types and plant mass. For other readers inclined to try to match Tropica's "Inspired" tank dosings, I would suggest performing the same type of analysis as @Edward and I did, but choosing those tanks that most closely match your types.
> 
> ...


we used 3 ppm N as Proxy for weekly dose


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

megaagressor said:


> I wanted to know how you're going to dissolve TiO2, it doesn't seem to dissolve in water.


 The horticulture research and field applications use Titanium ascorbate C24H32O24Ti. 
Titanium as a Beneficial Element for Crop Production


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

happi said:


> in controlled experiments we found these numbers to grow almost all kinds of plants with very little issue, see if you might find them interesting, there are based on Marchner ratio
> 
> N 1
> K 0.6666
> ...


Same ratios as this:
Typical concentrations sufficient for plant growth. After E. Epstein. 1965. "Mineral metabolism" pp. 438-466. in: Plant Biochemistry (J.Bonner and J.E. Varner, eds.) Academic Press, London.












Deanna said:


> For other readers inclined to try to match Tropica's "Inspired" tank dosings, I would suggest performing the same type of analysis as @Edward and I did, but choosing those tanks that most closely match your types.


 The numbers on the bottom of the chart match the IDs of the aquariums on the Tropica website. It makes it easier to locate and compare.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Returning back to your dosing strategy. 


happi said:


> in most cases:
> *8.84 ppm NO3 weekly (2 ppm N coming from NH4NO3, truly only 4.42 ppm NO3-N weekly, rest is NH4-N)
> 0.8 ppm PO4 weekly*
> in some cases I double the dose if I want aggressive plant growth





happi said:


> i used the following recipes in most cases with great results
> Micro #2 or #6, 0.1 ppm Fe weekly
> Macro # 3 or #4, 1-2 ppm N weekly, 0.4-0.8 ppm Mg weekly





happi said:


> here is the quick breakdown for my dosing approach:
> 
> Dose 0.1-0.2 Fe as proxy weekly from any of my Micro recipe
> Dose 2-3 N weekly as Proxy weekly from any of my Macro recipe
> Dose or maintain about 10 ppm Ca, 4 ppm Mg and about 4 ppm K, 8 ppm K should be Maximum and honestly 4-5 ppm K is plenty.





happi said:


> in controlled experiments we found these numbers to grow almost all kinds of plants with very little issue, see if you might find them interesting, there are based on Marchner ratio
> 
> N 1
> K 0.6666
> ...





happi said:


> we used 3 ppm N as Proxy for weekly dose


My chart below shows plant tissue analysis. All columns have the same ratios. The difference are the nitrogen levels from 1 to 10. Every column is referenced to a different nitrogen level. First column 15 000 N is from the table I posted here. The second column is what you posted above. Both have the same ratios, as the rest of the columns. 

You promote 1 - 3 N.
When I look at the table at these N values, it says 4.4 – 13.3 NO3, 0.4 – 1.2 PO4, 0.6 – 2.0 K, 0.1 – 0.4 Mg, 0.3 – 1.0 Ca, 0.007 – 0.02 Fe. I can understand the N and P, especially with fish load. But not the rest of the nutrients, they wouldn’t last a day or two. Is this the reason you go for up to 10x more of K, Mg, Ca and Fe than the table says? It is most likely obvious to you I just want to understand it. For example calcium, when you have 10 ppm of Ca then you should have 130 ppm of NO3 and 12 ppm of PO4 which I am sure you are not the one to do this.

Second question I have is, at such low levels of Mg, Ca and K testing water parameters becomes unmanageable. So the only option is lots of large water changes with preloaded minerals. Is it like that?


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> Returning back to your dosing strategy.
> 
> My chart below shows plant tissue analysis. All columns have the same ratios. The difference are the nitrogen levels from 1 to 10. Every column is referenced to a different nitrogen level. First column 15 000 N is from the table I posted here. The second column is what you posted above. Both have the same ratios, as the rest of the columns.
> 
> ...



Edward,

N 1
K 0.6666
Ca 0.3332
Mg 0.1332
P 0.1332
S 0.066666
Cl 0.006666
Fe 0.006666
B 0.001332
Mn 0.003332
Zn 0.001332
Cu 0.0004
Mo 0.0000066
Ni 0.0000066

these numbers only indicate if you were to dose 3 ppm N, plant would only need 1 ppm Ca, 0.4 ppm Mg and 2 ppm K to grow normally. even though these numbers are for terrestrial plants but they did work quite well for aquatic plants as well. but some of these numbers can be very forgiving, for example your tap could have 30 ppm Ca and 10 ppm Mg, my recipes for both micro and Macro will still work under this condition even if you were to dose only 2 ppm N, 0.2 ppm Fe weekly as example. 

adding 10 ppm Ca, 4 ppm Mg, 4-8 ppm K will insure that they are always present in the water even if you don't do a water change for 2-3 weeks. if your plant maximum uptake for N is 1 ppm per week, I wouldn't expect plant to use more than 1 K, 0.14 P, 0.34 Ca and 0.13 Mg unless they are precipitated or absorbed by the soil. if you want to test this and experiment, the recipe is posted in Macro #5. i Believe Tobi Special N also use Similar Approach as Marchner ratio for N, P, K, Ca and Mg. in my own tanks i sometime try to keep the N higher than the K similar to Tropica, but i do add extra K in some cases as our aquarium naturally produce some Nitrogen. but it appear as tanks with lower K compare to N seems to do very well, in some cases even better than when K was higher than N.


adding 10 ppm Ca to changed water and having the K and Mg mixed with Macro Solution might be a good idea too, actually might be more beneficial. in this case you can probably go without changing the water for months.

Macro #6 with Micro #6 should require very little calcium and watch those plant grow extremely fast.


----------



## megaagressor (Mar 16, 2020)

happi said:


> Edward,
> 
> N 1
> K 0.6666
> ...


Interesting, thanks to Happy, something to think about))


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

there is one more thing I haven't talked about for some time now, I was in touch with some great people over the year or so and their work can be found in Czech aquarium magazine, we have talked about Ca:Mg:K ratio, the ratio you are about to see is much different than what you have been using.

where Ca is 10, Mg is 3 and K is 2 ppm, these numbers can be doubled if you want to add 2x the amount. I didn't talk about this ratio because these guys were still testing them and I believe there is some merit to it if its being published in the Magazine. I believe these ratio are being implemented in other countries such as most of the EU, Germany etc. 

I think we could give it a try here in the US as well? lets see what we could find. based on my hypothesis, I personally believe this ratio has something to do with the Mg and K and less to do with the Calcium, I always found Mg and K seems to help plant grow very well when they were above 8-10 ppm and calcium was only 2 ppm, this is based on some of my tanks going back several years, I no longer add such doses. 

I wanted to share this here under my recipe thread, so I could post recipes based on these ratio if one decided to follow it.

EDIT: someone asked me if am recommending this ratio to be proven fact, the answer is no, I personally believe this ratio need more exploration. I asked the same question at UKAP to see how many are actually using this ratio successfully, so far I didn't find many or any. I only shared what was shared with me and one can give it a try and explore. far as the my original approach goes, K and Mg ratio hasn't changed, i am still using 2:1 K:Mg ratio and we should still be adding more K than the Mg. the entire purpose for this above ratio to see how it might play out if one decided to try it and i can help by giving out the recipe, only if you choose to try it. 

at UKAPS:
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/ca-mg-k-ratio.63319/#post-625102


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

Hi @happi

Is there a reputable test for K that we can get? I've looked around, and the only ones I've been able to find have lots of claims of being inaccurate.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> there is one more thing I haven't talked about for some time now, I was in touch with some great people over the year or so and their work can be found in Czech aquarium magazine, we have talked about Ca:Mg:K ratio, the ratio you are about to see is much different than what you have been using.


Do you have a link to the articles?

I would be curious to see the tanks and find out more about their complete methodology.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

jellopuddinpop said:


> Hi @happi
> 
> Is there a reputable test for K that we can get? I've looked around, and the only ones I've been able to find have lots of claims of being inaccurate.


sure if you want to spend this much :surprise: 

https://www.hannainst.com/hi96750-p...MI98jQvvyJ7gIVyFPVCh0FFgxZEAQYASABEgLdPfD_BwE

there are no real good test kits out there for potassium far as I could remember, but I could be wrong. I suggest asking this question in the UKAP forum.


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

happi said:


> sure if you want to spend this much :surprise:
> 
> https://www.hannainst.com/hi96750-p...MI98jQvvyJ7gIVyFPVCh0FFgxZEAQYASABEgLdPfD_BwE
> 
> there are no real good test kits out there for potassium far as I could remember, but I could be wrong. I suggest asking this question in the UKAP forum.


LMAO yeah, unless I had a really good reason, this is craziness. I only ask because I'm not using RO water, and have no idea how much K is in my well water. I suppose it would be useful to send a sample of well water out to a lab.

Side question, but will mineral content of well water change over time, or is it somewhat consistent? I know that city water can change by the day, but I don't know about well water.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> Do you have a link to the articles?
> 
> I would be curious to see the tanks and find out more about their complete methodology.


I have the PDF files, which I am forbidden to share. I do not have the link to the Article or the published Magazine. but here is the link to one of the website which seems to talk about this similar ratio

https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_the-corellation-between-calcium-and-magnesium


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

jellopuddinpop said:


> LMAO yeah, unless I had a really good reason, this is craziness. I only ask because I'm not using RO water, and have no idea how much K is in my well water. I suppose it would be useful to send a sample of well water out to a lab.
> 
> Side question, but will mineral content of well water change over time, or is it somewhat consistent? I know that city water can change by the day, but I don't know about well water.


sorry man, I never used a well water before, so I cannot be sure how much K would be in your well water, l have been using RO water for decade now. I think you could easily get a water report from your water company, unless you have your own well in the backyard which you might have to send in the sample to get it tested. 

usually well water is very rich in Minerals, calcium, Sulfur, Iron and many trace minerals. you will find very high amount of Sulfur in the well water, TDS also high in 300-500 ranges in most cases.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

jellopuddinpop said:


> LMAO yeah, unless I had a really good reason, this is craziness. I only ask because I'm not using RO water, and have no idea how much K is in my well water. I suppose it would be useful to send a sample of well water out to a lab.
> 
> Side question, but will mineral content of well water change over time, or is it somewhat consistent? I know that city water can change by the day, but I don't know about well water.


Well water can change seasonally.

Years ago when I was using softened well water my KH could vary from 13 to 18. It's one of the reasons I went to RO.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> I have the PDF files, which I am forbidden to share. I do not have the link to the Article or the published Magazine. but here is the link to one of the website which seems to talk about this similar ratio
> 
> https://www.aquasabi.com/aquascaping-wiki_nutrients_the-corellation-between-calcium-and-magnesium


Yes now that I see that article I am familiar with this theory.

They focus on Ca:Mg:K ratio at 2:1:0.5 always keeping K lower than Mg.

Myself and several people you would know including Joe Harvey explored this a while back. For our particular tanks, it was not optimal. However, it did lead to something good as many lowered their K dosing which was a positive. But keeping it too low long term resulted in poor overall plant growth, particularly weak root systems.

But as always, that is in relation to every single other thing going on in the tank, most importantly the mix of plants and density of plant mass.

And not discounting that they may have success at those levels, but myself and others did not. 

What would be interesting is to examine every single aspect of those tanks. IMO, nutrients play a small role in a successful planted tank in relation to everything else. That is the right "recipe" is simply one aspect of a tank. A well run tank can do well at a variety of dosing strategies, but a poorly managed tank has no chance even with the most perfect dosing.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> Yes now that I see that article I am familiar with this theory.
> 
> They focus on Ca:Mg:K ratio at 2:1:0.5 always keeping K lower than Mg.
> 
> ...


sorry I do not recall or seeing Joe, you or anyone here in this forum try these ratios. the link you are seeing to that website is fairly new or not that old. it was also posted year later after I had a discussion about these ratio with those who were testing them.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> sorry I do not recall or seeing Joe, you or anyone here in this forum try these ratios. the link you are seeing to that website is fairly new or not that old. it was also posted year later after I had a discussion about these ratio with those who were testing them.


I can't remember who exactly sent the information over, but we were discussing this about a year ago.

Here is a link to my journal where I switch from KNO3 to MgNO3 in an effort to drop my K values even further. The reference to my conversation with Joe was about the very topic you linked to. And we had several detailed conversations not posted in our journals regarding this via PM as well.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-saturday-maintenance-11-21-2020-a-139.html#post11164365


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> I can't remember who exactly sent the information over, but we were discussing this about a year ago.
> 
> Here is a link to my journal where I switch from KNO3 to MgNO3 in an effort to drop my K values even further. The reference to my conversation with Joe was about the very topic you linked to. And we had several detailed conversations not posted in our journals regarding this via PM as well.
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-saturday-maintenance-11-21-2020-a-139.html#post11164365


this looks like something more related to lowering the K, nothing to do with the ratio we are talking about here. this has been discussed for some decade now, Tropica for example use lower K than N, i have covered it for some time as well.

the lower K was also covered by Tobi https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/spezial-n-nitrogen-fertilizer.14594/

adding MgNo3, Cano3, KNO3 to lower the K has been covered by Tobi in 2011, almost 10 years ago.
but again nothing to do with the ratio am talking about.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> this looks like something more related to lowering the K, nothing to do with the ratio we are talking about here. this has been discussed for some decade now, Tropica for example use lower K than N, i have covered it for some time as well.


No this was very specifically some Czech's who were focusing on Cq:Mg:K ratios. The biggest thing they insisted on was that K must be lower than Mg. Myself, Joe, and others you would know discussed this quite a bit at the time.

Was not all related to the other lower K theories that are widely known that you cite. This was very specific and tied to ratios.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> No this was very specifically some Czech's who were focusing on Cq:Mg:K ratios. The biggest thing they insisted on was that K must be lower than Mg. Myself, Joe, and others you would know discussed this quite a bit at the time.
> 
> Was not all related to the other lower K theories that are widely known that you cite. This was very specific and tied to ratios.


sorry am not finding this to be relevant to what am talking out. I will let others to continue to read up on this thread, as Recipes being the primary target.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> sorry am not finding this to be relevant to what am talking out. I will let others to continue to read up on this thread, as Recipes being the primary target.


I only commented because you brought it up and suggested folks in the US should try that specific method/recipe. I thought you were inviting discussion about the Ca:Mg:K ratio theory that you cited.

I was pointing out several did experiment with that method over a year ago and it did not go well.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Greggz said:


> Yes now that I see that article I am familiar with this theory.
> 
> They focus on Ca:Mg:K ratio at 2:1:0.5 always keeping K lower than Mg.
> 
> ...



Interesting article. Knowing all the variables in my tank I think it would have a hard time staying happy with a K level of 1/2 of the Mg level which is 1/2 of the Ca level.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> I only commented because you brought it up and suggested folks in the US should try that specific method/recipe. I thought you were inviting discussion about the Ca:Mg:K ratio theory that you cited.
> 
> I was pointing out several did experiment with that method over a year ago and it did not go well.


post #56 I have updated it. the reason I didn't find your post to be relevant because you guys were still adding lower Mg compared to the K and this is the complete opposite.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

happi said:


> post #56 I have updated it. the reason I didn't find your post to be relevant because you guys were still adding lower Mg compared to the K and this is the complete opposite.


No in fact several did try raising Mg to keep it higher than K, myself included. Like I said, this was widely discussed a while back. Myself and others don't show every single dosing change we make until we have some time to understand it's effects. 

And this is not the first time some magic "ratio" has been experimented with. The best keepers of planted tanks in the world that I know mostly dismiss ratios. Yet others have success and swear by them. 

In the end, there are far more important aspects to keeping a successful tank than dosing. That's why I am not surprised when people report success with a wide variety of schemes. If you pay attention to the best tanks in the world, you begin to understand that it's everything else, not the dosing that makes them successful.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Greggz said:


> No in fact several did try raising Mg to keep it higher than K, myself included. Like I said, this was widely discussed a while back. Myself and others don't show every single dosing change we make until we have some time to understand it's effects.
> 
> And this is not the first time some magic "ratio" has been experimented with. The best keepers of planted tanks in the world that I know mostly dismiss ratios. Yet others have success and swear by them.
> 
> In the end, there are far more important aspects to keeping a successful tank than dosing. That's why I am not surprised when people report success with a wide variety of schemes. If you pay attention to the best tanks in the world, you begin to understand that it's everything else, not the dosing that makes them successful.


*"not the dosing that makes them successful"*

we can have a long separate thread on this one and go from there. Currently we are going bit off topic and am back to being more focused on the Micro/Macro Recipes.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Where is the definite *FTS* weapon !!!


.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> Where is the definite *FTS* weapon !!!
> 
> 
> .


LOL! I would fire one but seems like discussing what actually makes tanks successful is out of the scope of this thread.

But nonetheless interesting discussion and I enjoyed it.


----------



## Lystbaek (Mar 29, 2020)

Hello happi, thank you for this very detailed post!

I was wondering about the K dose, you said plants use almost 3-4x less K than N, so why is the reference 0.66 and not 0.25-0.33? Is it just to enhance plant growth? And if so, would it be viable to lower the K to 0.25-0.33 to keep healthy plants with slower growrate? For less pruning 

Also, the Fulvic acid, is that a 100% pure? I can only find solutions with about 6% Fulvic acid, where do you buy yours? (I'm from EU though)

Thanks!


happi said:


> next one is Potassium, we should never add so much potassium, those who add so much potassium are likely to see pale looking plants and plant don't really use much as what most people has been adding for many years now, plant use almost 3-4x less potassium than Nitrogen, however extra potassium will enhance the plant growth by increasing the uptake of other nutrients.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Lystbaek said:


> Hello happi, thank you for this very detailed post!
> 
> I was wondering about the K dose, you said plants use almost 3-4x less K than N, so why is the reference 0.66 and not 0.25-0.33? Is it just to enhance plant growth? And if so, would it be viable to lower the K to 0.25-0.33 to keep healthy plants with slower growrate? For less pruning
> 
> ...


looks like an error that i forgot to correct. people are use to the term NO3, PO4 rather than N and the P. 

*"plants use almost 3-4x less K than N"*

this suppose to be *"plants use almost 3-4x less K than NO3" * 

thanks for bringing this up, i will correct it. far as the Fulvic acid goes, i bought it online in powder form here in the USA, the quality or being pure is unknown. i have no idea where or what would be the best place in UK to buy Fulvic acid.

far as keeping the K levels, like i have mentioned, i usually keep them low. lets assume if your tank water naturally produces 4 ppm N weekly which is equal to 17.68 ppm NO3, you only really need 3-5 ppm K, not much. the ultimate goal is to keep the K lower than the overall N.


----------



## megaagressor (Mar 16, 2020)

Happy, and do you wake up in the future, in your theme to lay out a recipe with a low K


----------



## Margis (Mar 25, 2021)

Hi all,
I've found chelated elements mix. Composition is:
Fe 7,5 %
Mn 3.5 %
Zn 0.7 %
B 0.65 %
Cu 0.3 %
Mo 0.3 %

with little improvements it could be nice composition, just what I see it is way to much of Molybdenum. Does anybody know what could be consequences when added into tank high amounts of Molybdenum?


----------

