# CSM+B Toxicity Experiment



## fablau

Hi Andrew, I am your mentioned Member that had success with AR by increasing traces!!

Well, irony of the story, I had the same exact issue, 4 weeks ago... I begun to notice that my AR stopped growing, and some of my Rotalas also were stunted... Marsilea Minuta also stopped growing, whereas usually I see a steady growth every other day... why was that? I had everything in place, full EI nutrients, Co2 at extreme levels (1.5 PH drop, over 70ml/minute)... well, actually I changed something a couple of months before: whereas before I used to dose macros every 3 days and micros in the two days in between, I changed the fert schedule by dosing macros just once a week, on Saturday after WC, by keeping the same amount of macros of course, for each week as before (NOTE: I perform a water change every 2 weeks, therefore I dose less than traditional EI, but please, keep reading...)... and then I kept the same micros dosing for the other days of the week until the next Saturday... I knew that by doing that at the end of the 2 weeks cycle, I would have added at least 1/3 more of micros, but I really didn't expect a "toxicity" (I dose also Fe DTPA besides regular Plantex)... well, as I said above, after just 6 weeks since I begun this new schedule, some of my plants begun to stop growing. I didn't actually reach the toxicity level of Andrew (aclaar877), but I could stop all this by just making 2 big water changes and revisit the schedule by reducing micros of 1/2, every day... so, now I dose macros on Sat, and half micros every day after that until the following Sat where the cycle re-start... I am now after just 2 weeks of this new schedule, and my AR are already getting better, as well as my Rotalas... and Marsilea also!!

So, I really think that in my case, where I perform less water changes than recommended by EI, a leaner dosing may be necessary... I also strongly think that every tank is different and so its requirements. What works for you maybe is not working for me, what make your plants grow great, causes a toxicity in mine, etc... always keep an eye when you make a change, and get ready to revert back or fix any possible damage.

To answer your question Andrew, I think that Swordplants are a good candidate to check for micro deficiencies or micro-related issues. Swordplants in my tank grow super-fast, so I guess they behave similarly in yours. I don't know about Bacopa, never had one... my best plants to check for deficiencies are Higrophilas. If you have the chance to get them, they'll help you a big deal to spot deficiencies several weeks ahead of slow-growing plants like Anubias.

If I were you, I'd try to reduce micros at least 1/3 (similarly to what I have done), and see what happens....

Please, keep us posted!!


----------



## burr740

You wanna see a clear cut example of trace/fe overdose? Load up the tank with Osmocote+ and then try EI levels of trace.

As the OP mentioned, the results will be most visible in red plants, usually as often as a day or two after dosing. Severe necrosis, withered, discolored, and dropping leaves.

I screwed up my high tech 75 for 3 months on account of this. It took that long to pinpoint the problem. I went almost 4 months w/o dosing csmb or fe.


----------



## aclaar877

Yep, that's what I did - Osmocote+ under Glandulosa, Swords and Reineckii plus traces in excess of EI. I also had the drooping leaves, most noticeable on Ludwigia Ovalis and to some extent on AR and Glandulosa. Ovalis was tallest and closest to the light. I had some giant hygro before, but couldn't keep it from shedding leaves, but I may get some compact hygro. 

Will update this post in coming days as things (hopefully) improve. The twisted sword leaves are already starting to unwind, and I'll see if the leaves stop drooping.


----------



## fablau

Great to know that! Please, let us know your improvements, and I will post mine. Thanks


----------



## bcarl_10gal

This is an interesting topic with many threads and discussions. At what levels do you think CSM+B becomes toxic? 

I also find it interesting that both of you loaded up with Osmocote in addition to the CSM. Is it possible that too much Osmocote is the issue? How much did you add?


----------



## aclaar877

I couldn't tell you what levels CSM+B becomes toxic - I don't have any test kits for iron or anything else in CSM+B. I probably had 15-20 inch-long gelcaps of Osmocote+ in a 155-gallon tank (placed there over a period of 8 months), and had been dosing close to 2x the EI level of CSM+B for a short time. The thread referenced in my first post at the top of this thread is a good discussion.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I missed the 2X E.I. part.... That's a lot of traces.... Why did you dose that much? I think if we look at the break down of CSM+B to try to guess the element that may cause this it could be zinc. I highly doubt it is iron, people dose 1ppm and up without issues. Zinc is also present in Osmocote at .05%. Another element to consider would be copper, but since people dose CSM+B with inverts safely I highly doubt a plant toxicity would occur before the inverts starting dying.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

The problem with such tests is the difficulty of measuring concentration and uptake rates at the hobbyist level. Also, to exclude other factors, this kinda assumes you can grow plants near perfection in an initial state - a lot of people think they have optimal scenarios, or healthy plant growth, but when you look at their pics.... often it is not so. More things are involved in growing healthy tanks than just nutrient dosing and measuring CO2 through a pH drop. If it was so, everyone would have fantastic plant growth, cos those two points are so damn easy. Everyone uses EI and claims to have high CO2, but the results vary across a tremendous range.

If I differ to people who for sure have plants that are growing healthily and who conduct such tests with far more sophisticated testing equipment i.e. Tom barr... who have found no such toxicity even at relatively elevated levels... then I find it hard to be convinced by people running poorer quality tanks with less sophisticated knowledge and equipment.

Not saying that you are wrong per se. But the odds are stacked

Some stuff that would help in convincing people: having good quality pics - and good quality growth to start with, listing the threshold concentrations in PPM over time to be accurate (not just load up on traces/osmocote!), testing across more than 1 tank, and having a holistic record sheet over time/days like










To establish that it is causation and not correlation is difficult; and requires much more steps. One must also have some answer for those of us who dose more than EI levels, and don't see such negative downsides in plant growth.


----------



## fablau

bcarl_10gal said:


> I also find it interesting that both of you loaded up with Osmocote in addition to the CSM. Is it possible that too much Osmocote is the issue? How much did you add?



I didn't and never used Osmocote. Just dry ferts with EI regime, but water change every 2 weeks... Maybe just that made the trick to accumulate too many traces?


----------



## Hoppy

It would be extremely unlikely that "CSM+B" would become toxic. But, it might be possible for one of the many trace nutrients in CSM+B to be excessive in some tanks that also get some of those nutrients from a different source. If you wanted to test this it would be better to do normal dosing of CSM+B, and add more of one of the included nutrients. After a few weeks you could say "that nutrient, in excess did or didn't affect the plants". Then you would try another of those nutrients, and repeat until all of them had been tested. Of course you would have to start with a tank where the only thing restricting the plants growth rates is light intensity.


----------



## aclaar877

In response to Dennis (who used photos of my crappy AR in one of his youtube videos last year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HHr2SPsoxg), "experiment" may be the wrong word. I tried to edit the title after I posted it but I couldn't do so. (My AR has turned around since those photos in the video!!) I said up front I don't have an answer for those who lard on the traces without incident. All I can talk about is my tank. I haven't tested iron or other trace levels and don't intend to. I watch the plants rather than test kits, and to have an immediate "frying" of swordplant leaves after increasing traces and nothing else points to something in the trace category. Swords, glandulosa and AR showed very drastic changes in such a short time. 

I was dosing so much because some plants appeared to have trace deficiency, and my nitrates stayed pretty high without dosing for long periods, and I thought maybe everything was trace-limited and thus other nutrients were also not being used up as fast. If plants revert back to decent growth without such high trace doses, then I'm happy and I'm not out to prove anything to anyone else. I don't have inverts, so I don't have that canary in a coalmine so-to-speak.

The thread mentioned above suggests that symptoms of iron/trace excess can appear as deficiencies, and that's what I think I had. I was hoping to contribute a data point to that discussion more than anything else.


----------



## burr740

@bcarl - Regarding how much Oscmocote+ I used....way too much. It was a total rookie mistake on my part.

When I first set the tank up, I had a tendency to rearrange it every 2 weeks. It started out low tech, excel only, lots of crypts and swords. Every time Id rearrange it, I'd put a new batch of root tabs around everything in it's new location. Fast forward a couple months later and there was probably something like 50 tabs worth. (75 gal tank, inert sand substrate, and by tab I mean a full 00 gel cap). Nevertheless, it was all well and good for several months. Then I went to CO2. The first month was glorious. Everything exploded, and during this time I used up the last of my Seachem liq ferts. 

Enter dry ferts at full EI levels. Immediate frying^ is a good way to put it. Within days Lud. Red, Mermaid weed, A gracilis all showed severe symptoms. Some to the point of dying completely. Like I mentioned above, it was only the reddish plants. Nothing else seemed to mind. I didnt know what was happening at first. But soon figured out it was trace/fe related. Luckily I had more of the same plants doing well in a small grow out tank, so I was able to replace the really bad ones as I continued to work on the problem.

To make a long story short, finally I stopped all csm-b/fe. The plants in question did well again. About once a month I'd try another dose or two. Usually it only took one to see the plants still didnt like it. Also tried dosing only Fe with no csm-b. Same response, so I believe that is the main nutrient in question. Early symptoms do in fact look the same as a deficiency. So anyway after a few more months with none at all, they finally started responding well again to moderate doses of csmb. I assume this was the Osmocote running out of juice.

So that is merely my own personal experience, nothing scientific about it. Hopefully a few others can gain some helpful insight from it. I still use O+ in all my sand tanks....just not nearly as much.


@aclaar - to edit the thread title, under display modes, switch to "threaded". From there you can edit the title. Then switch back as fast as you can because that mode is awful.


----------



## jart

Great thread...


----------



## Skillet

I would like to pipe in here. I ran across this thread searching for something regarding nutrient uptake rates in Co2 injected, high light, EI dosed tanks. I was dosing my six gallon with a higher recommended dose of macros and micros. The reason was because even at dosing 1/4 tsp of K and N and a 1/8 tsp of P three times a week I was getting less than the recommended levels of the fertilizers (I always test before and after a water change). I erroneously decided to bump up my CSM+B to match the other ferts since I assumed that it was being taken up by plants just as fast as the macros. I never even considered for a second that _micro_ nutrients can build up faster and are used more sparingly than macros. Well, lo and behold my plants, specifically Telanthera reineckii, started to be affected. The leaves elongated and began to twist up and become wavy. When I tried to move them around while doing a water change, the leaves were breaking off from the pressure of the siphon touching them. I'm not talking about breaking at the nodes, either. They broke off mid-leaf. I decided to start measuring my doses through a gram scale again, and after a few weeks my levels must have leveled out because all of my plants recovered. 

I did a lot of researching while I was trying to figure out what was causing my plants strange stunted growth. I came across a lot of "deficiency" type articles, but I ruled out those because I was certainly _OVERDOSING _ my plants. That's when I started to look at the effects of having excess nutrients, one nutrient at a time. Now I would like to say that everyone is different, and every tank is different. I've seen where people dose up to 8ppm of iron in their tanks with no ill effects. Other people, like me hardly dose it at all (I can't tell you what my ppm is because I don't have an Fe kit). However, with that being said, I have found a pretty good thread (an experiment, too) that pointed to excess Fe causing symptoms in plants similar to mine: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/pittsburgh-area-planted-aquarium-society-papas/11645-way-too-much-iron.html. If you don't read it, just know that the guy was performing an experiment with dosing 50ml every other day with fluorish but accidentally did so with Fe and he got symptoms similar to what I had and what was described in this thread within the week. 

Further reading led me to this very scientific article of Fe's role in aquatic plants in different water parameters and its chemical properties that determine its availability to plants: http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/ferrous-ferric. After reading this I can definitely see how some people can get away with dosing more and how some are fine dosing less. It all boils down to a lot of different chemical variables based on our individual tanks.

Lastly, this article comes to mind and I think that Tom Barr makes a very valid point. http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/general-plant-topics/6917-iron-toxicity If you read it, you will see that basically, unless someone does an experiment that proves the Fe in CSM+B is for sure causing these problems, its hard to say that the problem is excess Fe without at least a little doubt. My personal hypothesis is that there is little known about the effects of excess nutrient effects on aquatic plants (although there are a plethora of scientific articles on the subject regarding agricultural plants) but that I do believe that Fe is responsible for the stunted growth I had on my red Telanthera. 

In any case, I wish that I had more time and tanks. I would love to set up a test where I could create a dosing regimen, have a control, and see what the effects on the plants are with excess nutrients. We all know what the lower threshold of nutrients are for our plants but we don't know the excess, probably because in most cases our plants grow fast due to the environment we cultivate them in, the EI method allows us to over dose in a way that doesn't add up to super high levels (most of the time), and regular water changes also bring these values down. 

Anyways, I that's just my 2 cents on the issue. Thanks for a great thread!


----------



## Beefy

Skillet said:


> Lastly, this article comes to mind and I think that Tom Barr makes a very valid point. http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/general-plant-topics/6917-iron-toxicity If you read it, you will see that basically, unless someone does an experiment that proves the Fe in CSM+B is for sure causing these problems, its hard to say that the problem is excess Fe without at least a little doubt.


Iron is good for people, right? You need it in hemoglobin to carry oxygen in your blood, in cytochrome enzymes for ATP production, etc. In any situation where you have identifiable iron loss from gastrointestinal bleeding, menstruating women, etc. iron supplementation is prudent. But this all breaks down in somebody who has hereditary hemochromatosis, in which case iron becomes very bad for them.

I'm sure plant iron overdosing is less-well characterised, but the presence of doubt does not preclude due diligence and common sense. Everything that is good can be bad in excess under the right (wrong) circumstances. So why overdose to silly levels unless you have a specific reason to believe there is a deficiency?


----------



## Zapins

I agree with you beefy and what's more, there are several papers that discuss metal toxicity in aquatic plants, specifically for iron and several other nutrients. I summarized some papers in another thread a while back, I will see if I can fin the thread. 

Dosing huge amounts of traces is not a good idea. Plants don't need huge amounts... that is why they are called traces.


----------



## fablau

Here is your mentioned thread Zapins:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=503585


----------



## fablau

I think the main problem is, as you already wrote in that thread Zapins, that aquarists get often confused because micros deficiencies look often similar to micros toxicity.

I am currently having this kind of trouble: all plants are doing great with the exception of Althernanteras and Rotalas, a little bit stunted at the tips... (Please note that I dose a light version of EI because perform water changes every 2 weeks)... So, is that a deficiency or a toxicity? In the past I had that problem, and I increased micros... And plants got better, therefore was probably a deficiency... Then I kept that regime for a while (3-4 months), then by mistake I doubled micros for 2-3 weeks, and the same plants begun having issues... Similarly as before: stunted growth at the tips. Then I thought about a toxicity, then I got back to the previous regime but after several weeks the problem didn't disappear, then I thought "maybe the toxicity was too heavy, then I need to reduce micros even more"... And that's what I did, I halved micros again and plants are still struggling after 3 weeks ever since! So, now, I have no idea if they are suffering by a deficiency or a toxicity... Just confused!!

Maybe what would help, is to set standard dosing ranges (not requiring Fe measuration) inside which aquarists can confidently say "that's a deficiency" or "that's definitively a toxicity". I hope you get my point...


----------



## Skillet

fablau said:


> Here is your mentioned thread Zapins:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=503585


Great read! I specially enjoyed the paper on iron and sulpher interactions in wetland plant species. To me, this is very interesting. I love seeing what different nutrients effects are and I like how small changes can make a large impact down the road. Also, the detective work is quite fun. After my Homer Simpson doh! moment with the csm, I haven't had any problems but I hope I have enough tanks one day soon to recreate what zapins did.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I am still intrigued by this topic. Fablau said it best, it is hard to figure out if you have a toxicity or deficiency. I have seen many threads about this on CSM+B but does a similar problem exist with Miller's Microplex?


----------



## tylergvolk

I stumbeled upon this thread as I am having similar issues.

125g; dirted; 60-70par; O+ Tabs; dosing 1/2; EI levels including csm+b and iron.

The plants doing well: bacopa Polysperma, Cardinal plant, Java moss, Java fern, crypts, sag etc

The plants "frying" are: ar min; regular ar; my crypt Wenditti green shows def./tox. Behavior too; my thick sag carpet has sections where it's dies off possibly where I jammed a O+tab.

For the longest time I thought I had deciciency issues but when testing parameters nitrate phosphate etc with calibrated kits I realized I was way high. After getting those under control, I moved on to flow and co2. Added more flow; injected from both sides of my 6ft tank. 

It's beenseveral weeks with no "real" improvement on the troubled species.

After reading this, I'm convicted my combination of dirt, O+ tabs, and dry dosing is killing my plants!

Next on the list to try. Drastically cut back on my dosing. Wait 1 month, and watch the AR like a hawk. lol


----------



## plantbrain

Not ANY papers dealt with Fe chelated in submersed aquatic plant studies. 

Here's about the only one:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._growth_of_Hydrilla_verticillata_(L.F.)_Royle

Hydrilla is not A reineckii. 

I do well with the plant. The older leaves need preened and then they do quite well with the mini type. 




AR is a bit different in terms of its allocation, it'll take a bit till it roots well, then it'll form nice tops. Once it settles in, it does well. 

I've dosed daily, heavily. 
Not seen any interaction.

KH might have some influence with traces perhaps. 
With lower values having less problems, but then again, it might be more due to the KH being higher vs low. Say a KH of 1-2 vs say 5-7. 

My Fe stew micro mix is 1 tablespoon of CMS+B and then 1 teaspoon of DTPA and Fe Gluconate in 1 liter of hot tap water. I'll dose 60 mls of this daily. Never seen anything other....than positive results. 

Now the sediment also is loaded with traces being ADA AS. So roots and water column, certainly added, but at least according to Haller et al, I'm stilla long way off from max growth rates.

In other words, EI is not.............non limiting, it's just richer than the other fert routines. This includes NO3, see Gerloff 1966. Max growth does not occur till you hit about 80-160ppm of NO3 for Vals............

With ADA AS or a rich sediment, soil etc.that's relatively new + EI, then you come pretty close for most species. 

AR also grows very easily emergent. So you can add Fe to the soil and see, or use a foliar spray with tank water. This gets away from KH/CO2 and algae etc, other bad confounding issues. 

Then you have far more control regarding nutrient/growth issues. 
Now there's some methods aquarist can use that's a simpler way and one that isolates things far better. 

So there's a few methods folks can use. 
But I think good general care of the tank, good dosing, good light/CO2, good current, but also things like preening the leaves, trimming off the ugly stuff and allowing those nice new side shoots to grow out has a good deal to do with it also, like something like cleaning your canister filter more often etc.........

Nawww.........it's always got to be some subtle nutrient magic. :tongue:

One nice thing about doing this awhile, I've grown all the plants very well that folks list complaints about and I've really run over a wide range of ferts/CO2/lighting. Yea, I use to think all this same stuff most mention here. Fortunately, I realized long ago it was a waste of time. You will figure that out if you stay in the hobby long enough.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Now, I couldn't read the whole text of the paper you cited but from the abstract they only tested the hydrilla. Now since this plant can tolerate a bunch of iron as shown in the study some plants probably require more or less amounts of iron to grow "optimally." Now I didn't have access to the full text so they may have discussed this further.

It seems like most of the threads about a possible toxicity the tanks 9 times out of 10 have Osmocote+ and dose CSM+B. I am not convinced that the Iron is what is causing the problem. If such "toxicity" conditions do exist I would think it would be more likely to be excess boron or another trace mineral. 

Personally, I grew AR beautifully in a tank where I dosed 5ML of the standard trace mix into a 26 gallon tank along with 5ML of flourish iron every 3 days.







[/URL][/IMG]

I have also tried removing traces from my current tank. I have seen a few stunted tips from plants that were happy a few weeks ago. Now its hard to pinpoint a precise cause and effect in our tanks since most of us are not scientists and cannot keep every variable constant. There are too many of these kinds of posts that make me believe something may be causing a poor plant reaction.


----------



## roadmaster

I think lot's of folks still cling to sneaking suspicion about the dry fertz and want to control exact ppm they THINK the plant's need or as mentioned, have some constant amount of this or that which in very fluid situation makes no sense .
Plant mass it is hoped does not remain static or fixed, so why would one want to try and limit gowth via nutrient limitation when plant mass is ever increasing?
What might be enough ppm for x plant mass will always need to be adjusted for more and more growth if your only wanting to use ppm that is actually being take up by plant's No?(some enjoy this)
Much easier to add maybe excess than to try and pinpoint exactly how much your plant mass is actually using and then leaves only light and CO2.
Light is easy to control ,leaves only CO2 which everybody is certain that they have dialed in.
Estimative index is close to non limiting as Tom has mentioned and this would allow more time to focus on Light/CO2 rather than some toxicity with regards to nutrient's.
Do believe you can have a tank of soup with rich sediment + water column dosing but too many folks dose 2 to 3 times EI levels without issues for there to be much fear of EI levels producing some toxicity.
Does not stop folks from believing otherwise,never will.


bump


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I've dosed enough CSM+B to kill all of my shrimp and snails and cause health problems to the fish. Is it possible to overdose? Of course.

For those who counter that LD50 is extremely high for certain metals, LD means "lethal dose". That's the amount that will kill 50% of the population of a certain animal within a given time frame. That does not mean they are in perfect health up until this point. Indeed, they may suffer chronic and permanent health conditions as a result of even low doses, but the dose just isn't enough to kill them. Further, LD50 experiments don't continue for months or years so it would not be able to show long-term effects.

I've changed my mind that high amounts of certain fertz are harmless, both to plants and animals. My observations strongly indicate otherwise, that there are negative acute and long-term effects. Less CSM+B results in better growth of many plants and the fish appear and behave more normally. E.g., snails no longer die off (previously attributed to low pH from CO2) and H. pinnatifida no longer suffers necrosis or perpetual pinholes from apparent K-deficiency (previously attributed to low K.) From these and many other observations, I conclude that providing nutrient excess ultimately leads to harmful toxicity. If I ever supported EI dosing and made claims that it's harmless in the past, I now withdraw my support. I recommend knowing uptake levels before adding nutrients. This takes much more time to learn, but you become much more observant and knowledgeable as a result.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I think one important point to determining if micro's are toxic at a certain level we should also see toxic issues when dosing too much Millers or flourish trace. I cannot recall seeing any threads documenting such occurrences. 

A personal observation in relation to snails. I had a controlled pest snail community when I set up my current tank. The snails were fine for a few months while I was dosing 5ML of CSM+B daily. After a few months and about the same time the plants deteriorated the snails all disappeared. No other variables had changed. My hypothesis is that when I was using eco-complete the excess CSM+B was getting absorbed by the substrate until it reached a saturation point in which there was too much of metal X concentration in the water column. What could be the cause of the problem is that if you dosed heavy CSM+B and tried to cut back the toxic threshold of X metal is still present for a long time but the plants now develop a deficiency around the more used metals such as Fe, Mn, etc. I could very well be wrong but just a thought....


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Most people do not use Microplex, hence the over-representation bias of CSM+B. Flourish Trace is far more dilute.


----------



## klibs

The more I read about overdosing EI ferts (in general vs just CSM+B) and the more I read about people with issues having greater success after getting rid of these symptoms the more I agree that overloading your tank with nutrients could be harmful. Especially in red plants for some reason.

I had religiously dosed EI levels of everything (little bit of extra K2SO4) and my red ludwigia would not stop melting. It would just burn away and struggle to survive. Especially at the lower sections (dirt tank). Blyxa Japonica and DHG belem were just fine.

Nitrates as well as phosphate levels were crazy high when I tested them before redoing my entire tank. Probably changed about 70-80% of all water in the process and I STILL had 40+ nitrates and ~5-10 phosphates.

I feel that a good way to address dosing is to scale EI based on your nitrate levels. This is the approach I am going to take moving forward... If nitrates are maintained at around 20-30ppm then I will simply dose EI frequently or infrequently enough to maintain these levels. If nitrates / phosphates begin to pile up and approach high values then it is a good warning to cut back.

I feel that it is safe to say that by dosing EI 3x a week for about 10 months straight allowed all elements to pile up. I had noticably more success in the earlier months then things went downhill. Like others have said I was unsure if I was seeing deficiencies so I kept dosing and dosing. Eventually gave up and redid the whole tank... Dying plants led to algae and I didn't have the strength to win the battle.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## tylergvolk

Im glad I'm not the only one who is having/had the same issue as the OP. 

I think it's important to note those dosing ei with low plant growth/plant mass and/or low light/low co2 is a bad idea as nutrient can build up over time. Even in medium light/co2 setups. Therefore, like Klibs was saying; just watch nutrient uptake and dose a scaled back EI accordingly. I'm gunna try that and see if things improve.


----------



## Silversea

Tom,
You gave a recipe for the micro-mix you dose and gave how many liters and ml of dose but failed to say what size tank you are dosing this to. You say you are dosing heavy on the Iron\micros but without this bit of information, how do we know it is in fact heavy.

Thanks.


----------



## Hoppy

tylergvolk said:


> Im glad I'm not the only one who is having/had the same issue as the OP.
> 
> I think it's important to note those dosing ei with low plant growth/plant mass and/or low light/low co2 is a bad idea as nutrient can build up over time. Even in medium light/co2 setups. Therefore, like Klibs was saying; just watch nutrient uptake and dose a scaled back EI accordingly. I'm gunna try that and see if things improve.


If you do a 50% water change every week, the highest concentration you can get of any of the nutrients you are dosing is twice what you get with a weeks worth of dosing. This is why EI includes such a big water change so often. I don't think any of the things we dose are a problem at twice the total week dosage.


----------



## Beefy

Hoppy said:


> If you do a 50% water change every week, the highest concentration you can get of any of the nutrients you are dosing is twice what you get with a weeks worth of dosing. This is why EI includes such a big water change so often. I don't think any of the things we dose are a problem at twice the total week dosage.


If you consider the water column as the only place nutrients 'reside', then yes, you are right.

But with most people using a substrate with high CEC, or other mechanism for sequestering/sinking nutrients, you might initially end up with a lot lower concentration than you think. As the nutrient sink is filled, you can get progressive increases in concentration - a potentially dramatic change in conditions even though what you are adding/removing is proportionally identical. A more serious change in other conditions from unrelated causes (esp. pH) might cause the nutrient sink to suddenly dump its contents.


----------



## Hoppy

Beefy said:


> If you consider the water column as the only place nutrients 'reside', then yes, you are right.
> 
> But with most people using a substrate with high CEC, or other mechanism for sequestering/sinking nutrients, you might initially end up with a lot lower concentration than you think. As the nutrient sink is filled, you can get progressive increases in concentration - a potentially dramatic change in conditions even though what you are adding/removing is proportionally identical. *A more serious change in other conditions from unrelated causes (esp. pH) might cause the nutrient sink to suddenly dump its contents.*


Is there a reference that we can read that discusses this?


----------



## Beefy

pH changes can cause ion-exchangers to, well, exchange ions. Altering salt concentrations can have the same effect.


----------



## roadmaster

Beefy said:


> If you consider the water column as the only place nutrients 'reside', then yes, you are right.
> 
> But with most people using a substrate with high CEC, or other mechanism for sequestering/sinking nutrients, you might initially end up with a lot lower concentration than you think. As the nutrient sink is filled, you can get progressive increases in concentration - a potentially dramatic change in conditions even though what you are adding/removing is proportionally identical. A more serious change in other conditions from unrelated causes (esp. pH) might cause the nutrient sink to suddenly dump its contents.


 
And where might this nutrient sink dump it's content's where 50% water change each week would not work against said progressive increases in content/concentration,and or dump?
You would need in my view,, virtually no uptake by plant's and no water changes or..sudden removal of large % of plant mass.


----------



## exv152

This whole nutrient uptake/toxicity discussion could be all in vain if you missed the OP's initial post where he mentions he's using DIY co2 on a 155g tank.


----------



## Beefy

roadmaster said:


> And where might this nutrient sink dump it's content's where 50% water change each week would not work against said progressive increases in content/concentration,and or dump?
> You would need in my view,, virtually no uptake by plant's and no water changes or..sudden removal of large % of plant mass.


I don't disagree. But pH/GH/KH/TDS shift in tapwater, or plenty of other external factors, could potentially cause an ion exchanger like humic substances or high CEC gravel to release a large amount of something undesirable into the water column.

It may be unlikely and it may be rare, but a 50% water change every week is not an absolute assurance that nothing can ever build up in the water column to excess levels.


----------



## tylergvolk

I would like to retract my previous post to this thread. After "really" turning up my co2 in my 125g it was clear to me that co2 is defiently the issue in my 125g not nutrient toxicity.


----------



## aclaar877

exv152 said:


> This whole nutrient uptake/toxicity discussion could be all in vain if you missed the OP's initial post where he mentions he's using DIY co2 on a 155g tank.


I am the original poster here - I made a typo with the DIY CO2 in the original post. I meant pressurized, and made a correction. I used DIY CO2 in the past on the 155 gallon, and grew many types of plants just fine. For the past year I have had pressurized CO2, and pump enough to get more than 1.0 pH drop. My two reactors can't handle much more without big bubbles sloshing around, so I have adjusted light accordingly. I believe my problem was related to the large CSM+B doses on top of lots of Osmocote plus. I reduced the CSM+B dosing a lot and the problems went away--it was that simple. I can induce leaf curling and "drooping" in A Reineckii and Ludwigia Ovalis at will with a big trace dose, though I only have the one tank so I prefer to not ruin plants for experiment's sake. The big swordplant sent out normal leaves after I reduced the trace dosing.

I also recently asked local club members if they knew our Ca/Mg ratio, and I found out it was 2:1 Mg/Ca in water with GH of 7. I found that interesting, since most people have more Ca than Mg, but I don't think either of those were limiting in my case.


----------



## roadmaster

Beefy said:


> I don't disagree. But pH/GH/KH/TDS shift in tapwater, or plenty of other external factors, could potentially cause an ion exchanger like humic substances or high CEC gravel to release a large amount of something undesirable into the water column.
> 
> It may be unlikely and it may be rare, but a 50% water change every week is not an absolute assurance that nothing can ever build up in the water column to excess levels.


 Well ,with tap water and 50% weekly water changes, the sudden change in pH,GH,KH, should not be as much of a concern for the tank's parameter's should not differ too greatly from the tap.(unless you are altering the water). 
With that said,I and I suspect other's,, have indeed seen sudden release of substances from substrate usually as a result of uprooting plant's.
Is suggested to perform large water change after such uprooting to minimize the effect's and to maybe prevent sudden algae bloom's due in large part to organic matter suddenly available to plant's and algae alike.
Nothing to prevent me/you from performing 60-70 % water changes and or twice weekly if one feel's like it.
I have raised lot's of fishes from babies to adult size with large frequent water changes to help remove organic matter from several feeding's a day for baby fishes.
I can do the same thing and do on my planted tanks.


----------



## roadmaster

aclaar877 said:


> I am the original poster here - I made a typo with the DIY CO2 in the original post. I meant pressurized, and made a correction. I used DIY CO2 in the past on the 155 gallon, and grew many types of plants just fine. For the past year I have had pressurized CO2, and pump enough to get more than 1.0 pH drop. My two reactors can't handle much more without big bubbles sloshing around, so I have adjusted light accordingly. I believe my problem was related to the large CSM+B doses on top of lots of Osmocote plus. I reduced the CSM+B dosing a lot and the problems went away--it was that simple. I can induce leaf curling and "drooping" in A Reineckii and Ludwigia Ovalis at will with a big trace dose, though I only have the one tank so I prefer to not ruin plants for experiment's sake. The big swordplant sent out normal leaves after I reduced the trace dosing.
> 
> I also recently asked local club members if they knew our Ca/Mg ratio, and I found out it was 2:1 Mg/Ca in water with GH of 7. I found that interesting, since most people have more Ca than Mg, but I don't think either of those were limiting in my case.


 Well trace mineral's such as the CSM+B are needed in small amount's hence the word "Trace".
By reducing the light intensity, the method of distributing the CO2 which is just as important as amount available caught a break, due to less light driving the demand from plant's.
This alone could have brought relief I should think.
You say you can induce the symptom's with a big trace dose but what is big??
Thousand's of folk's with inert and or enhanced substrates such as Aquasoil,dirt, and or substrates with high CEC capabilities use EI dosing without issues with shrimp's,fishes,plant's.
Some use twice the suggested EI ranges due mostly to the megawatt's of light they insist on using driving demand, and they too have good successs with the weed's judging from photo's and or log's describing the tank's build(s).
Maybe it is not true with all the aquatic plant's, but this would lead me to believe that to reach toxic level's with respect to fishes/plant's you would indeed need to dose very large amount's of all nutrient's .
Just too many folk's NOT having issues for my curiosity.
EI is not carved in stone as it's creator has said many times ,and with enriched substrate,one could as you have done reduced the trace mineral's accordingly.
Those with low tech tank's and or inert substrates ,could increase or decrease as well (ie) "Tom Barr's NON CO2 method", where good growth albeit slower can be realized with less light,and considerably less CO2.
I do agree that many variables come into play when we start to analyze plant issues we may be having but nutrient's and or light can easily be eliminated from the majority of said issues.
That leaves only CO2 and flow + distribution for the smart money to begin looking at more closely. IMHO


----------



## aclaar877

The "big" doses I was doing were 1 tsp, in about 145 gallons of water. I know that amount by itself shouldn't be toxic to anything, but I have no idea what's already in tap water plus I was using the Osmocote. The "frying" of plants was immediate, and something I never had happen even when running DIY CO2 years ago with medium-high light on the same tank. 

Plants improved soon after two large water changes, and weeks later I reduced the light just to give myself more margin of error. 

The intent of this thread was to provide another observation to folks who may be dumping in lots of traces and still experiencing curled tips and "fried" plants. It may be worth backing off a bit and seeing what happens. For my tank EI levels of macros and 1/2 EI level of CSM+B has everything humming along and looking good except Ludwigia Glandulosa, which I may ditch anyway since it grows so slow and I can't keep it looking good.

Here's something weird - for a while I had stems of A Reineckii that were part of the same plant with the same roots. They got the same light, CO2, flow, etc. One had a curled, stunted tip and the other did not - it had big, nice leaves and no hint of curling. Anyone explain that, or see something similar before?


----------



## PerfectDepth

aclaar877 said:


> 1/2 EI level of CSM+B has everything humming along


Maybe you've already mentioned it, but just to be clear, roughly how many ppm of Fe is provided by this 1/2 dose? 

For some reason, the calculators use 0.5 ppm Fe as the target for CSM+B, which I think causes some confusion. I think most only dose 1/4 to 1/2 of that amount, and supplement with another source of Fe instead of trying to hit 0.5 ppm Fe with CSM+B alone.


----------



## aclaar877

PerfectDepth said:


> Maybe you've already mentioned it, but just to be clear, roughly how many ppm of Fe is provided by this 1/2 dose?
> 
> For some reason, the calculators use 0.5 ppm Fe as the target for CSM+B, which I think causes some confusion. I think most only dose 1/4 to 1/2 of that amount, and supplement with another source of Fe instead of trying to hit 0.5 ppm Fe with CSM+B alone.


The 1/2 EI level of CSM+B dosing I'm using now provides 0.13 ppm of Fe each dose. Even with the larger doses I was doing I don't think the iron was a problem, as I have dosed heavily with DPTA in the past and never saw any problems like I had with the large CSM+B doses.


----------



## PerfectDepth

aclaar877 said:


> The 1/2 EI level of CSM+B dosing I'm using now provides 0.13 ppm of Fe each dose. Even with the larger doses I was doing I don't think the iron was a problem, as I have dosed heavily with DPTA in the past and never saw any problems like I had with the large CSM+B doses.


Right, it's not the iron that's the issue. I'm not sure which element would build to toxic levels first with CSM+B, but it's definitely not iron. So you were experiencing problems dosing only twice this amount (0.26 ppm worth) while doing 50% weekly water changes? If so, that's surprising. That's roughly the same as 1/32 tsp per 10 gallons, which is on the high end of the standard dosage guideline. I would think it would take a lot more than that to cause issues.

I can definitely see how it could be troublesome trying to use CSM+B as the only source of Fe if you need to add any more than say 0.3 ppm per dose. Plug it in the calculator, though, and it tells you to dose CSM+B to 0.5 ppm Fe, 3X per week. Does anyone actually dose this much? EDIT: never mind, I just saw that you said you WERE dosing about that much. That is a rather large dose. 3X per week?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I though I came across an article that Boron could become toxic at pretty low levels, I didn't save the research paper but im sure someone can find it or provide some input.


----------



## Italionstallion888

I do full ei, my AR is still struggling. Plenty of light, pressurized co2. 




























57g of csm+b in a 500ml solution. Dosing 5ml per week. Not enough or to much? I was dosing 10ml weekly, but I started getting gba/bba and a terrible oil slick on top. I cut back to 5ml and it has gotten better but the AR looking sad.


----------



## aclaar877

The only time I grew AR well was under a 55g under a double T5 NO with DIY CO2. That tank struggled with green water, so I held back on ferts thinking that would exacerbate it. The plants grew fantastic, though. This was ten years ago. In my current high tech setup it is starting to grow OK after over a year - I think it takes a long time to get rooted. Mine is growing consistently, but lower leaves always get cracks and fall apart. I don't know how to keep the whole plant looking good. I've probably read every forum piece on this plant - even translating the Swedish forums! In my experience the plant doesn't like to be moved, and it does not handle CO2 deficiency or CO2 level swings very well. I wonder if it is easily out-competed for CO2. I finally gave up on test kits and have been doing full EI plus a little extra K for macros - I had stem plants with yellowing lower leaves and super-high nitrate readings on the API kit. I calibrated it, but don't trust my measuring, so I'm ignoring it altogether. So far I'm getting vertical growth but ratty-looking lower leaves. Forum member Fablau revived his AR with extra trace dosing, and it may have helped mine for a short time too (can't tell if it was traces or time to develop roots), but then my extra trace dosing had some negative effects.


----------



## fablau

Italionstallion888 said:


> I do full ei, my AR is still struggling. Plenty of light, pressurized co2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 57g of csm+b in a 500ml solution. Dosing 5ml per week. Not enough or to much? I was dosing 10ml weekly, but I started getting gba/bba and a terrible oil slick on top. I cut back to 5ml and it has gotten better but the AR looking sad.



What's your tank size? My AR do well if I dose 10-20ml of micros made from a solution of 40gr of CSM+B in 500ml of water. Less than that and my AR gets like yours.


----------



## Italionstallion888

55g

Here are some other plants in the same tank.


----------



## fablau

If you perform regular weekly water change, I'd dose at least 40ml of that solution for your 55gl tank. Of course macros must be given proportionally to that. Something like 10-15ml per dose, alternating with macros. You have definitively a deficiency, not a toxicity.


----------



## Speed

So i have a question regarding people not dosing csm+b. Do you keep dosing regular EI dose of macros? Iron? I ask this because ive seen some stunting on some hygro i have that usually grows too much in a low-tech tank that i have and it makes me wonder if its related to micros toxicity.

Thx in advance


----------



## fablau

Speed said:


> So i have a question regarding people not dosing csm+b. Do you keep dosing regular EI dose of macros? Iron? I ask this because ive seen some stunting on some hygro i have that usually grows too much in a low-tech tank that i have and it makes me wonder if its related to micros toxicity.
> 
> 
> 
> Thx in advance



I don't understand your question. Who's not dosing csm+B and still using EI?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I want to bring this thread back to life. Now thanks to Ry's test equipment a few members have documented high levels of trace metal with dosing EI levels of CSM+B. Have people had success in cutting back on traces? Also can anyone speak to the high levels of metal affecting inverts, this might give us some clues?


----------



## philipraposo1982

In my tanks I notice csmb overdosing is bad. I can't say for sure as I haven't studied it enough to be certain, but when I stop dosing it things always seem to improve.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

plantbrain said:


> Not ANY papers dealt with Fe chelated in submersed aquatic plant studies.
> 
> Here's about the only one:
> 
> Absorption of iron and growth of Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle
> 
> Hydrilla is not A reineckii.
> 
> I do well with the plant. The older leaves need preened and then they do quite well with the mini type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AR is a bit different in terms of its allocation, it'll take a bit till it roots well, then it'll form nice tops. Once it settles in, it does well.
> 
> I've dosed daily, heavily.
> Not seen any interaction.
> 
> KH might have some influence with traces perhaps.
> With lower values having less problems, but then again, it might be more due to the KH being higher vs low. Say a KH of 1-2 vs say 5-7.
> 
> My Fe stew micro mix is 1 tablespoon of CMS+B and then 1 teaspoon of DTPA and Fe Gluconate in 1 liter of hot tap water. I'll dose 60 mls of this daily. Never seen anything other....than positive results.
> 
> Now the sediment also is loaded with traces being ADA AS. So roots and water column, certainly added, but at least according to Haller et al, I'm stilla long way off from max growth rates.
> 
> In other words, EI is not.............non limiting, it's just richer than the other fert routines. This includes NO3, see Gerloff 1966. Max growth does not occur till you hit about 80-160ppm of NO3 for Vals............
> 
> With ADA AS or a rich sediment, soil etc.that's relatively new + EI, then you come pretty close for most species.
> 
> AR also grows very easily emergent. So you can add Fe to the soil and see, or use a foliar spray with tank water. This gets away from KH/CO2 and algae etc, other bad confounding issues.
> 
> Then you have far more control regarding nutrient/growth issues.
> Now there's some methods aquarist can use that's a simpler way and one that isolates things far better.
> 
> So there's a few methods folks can use.
> But I think good general care of the tank, good dosing, good light/CO2, good current, but also things like preening the leaves, trimming off the ugly stuff and allowing those nice new side shoots to grow out has a good deal to do with it also, like something like cleaning your canister filter more often etc.........
> 
> Nawww.........it's always got to be some subtle nutrient magic. :tongue:
> 
> One nice thing about doing this awhile, I've grown all the plants very well that folks list complaints about and I've really run over a wide range of ferts/CO2/lighting. Yea, I use to think all this same stuff most mention here. Fortunately, I realized long ago it was a waste of time. You will figure that out if you stay in the hobby long enough.


So back to your dosing Tom. You said you mix 1 tablespoon of CSM per 1 liter and 60ML daily. Assuming you are dosing 1ML/gal this dose is weaker than the EI sticky, which calls for 3.25 teaspoon per .5L, dosed at 1ML/gallon. I am going to make the assumption that this tank is for sure not smaller than 30 gal since you dose 60MLs of ferts therefore making it 60 gallons or larger meaning you don't follow EI traces. 

I now have seen 15+ experienced hobbyists discuss this topic and find their opinions and concerns valid. You have dismissed them and claimed there logic is invalid. Since you are a very knowledgeable and respected person in the hobby I suggest you put an end to this thing. Why don't you increase the CSM+B in your trace mix by 3 or 4 times (4TBLS/liter)(This should put you slightly higher than actual EI) hold everything else constant including your additional iron. Add a few shrimp to see how they react. Maintain your dosing for 4 weeks and let's see what happens? If you really think this won't cause anything you should have no issues trying it?


----------



## Audionut

As an example.

Targeting 0.5ppm of Fe with CSM+B gives a Cu dose of 0.01ppm. This in of itself doesn't seem bad. However following strict EI guidelines leads to an accumulation of between 0.03ppm and 0.06ppm.



If we consider those who might throw in a little extra CSM+B, and only change 40% water.



How to make tap water safe for fish - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki


> Even tiny amounts of heavy metals may harm fish. It has been suggested that fish should not be exposed long-term to more than 30 micrograms per litre of lead or iron, or to more than 15 micrograms per litre of copper. (1 microgram per Litre is equivalent to 1 part in 1,000,000,000.)


15 microgram per liter = 0.015ppm. So suggested dosing of CSM+B leads to accumulated levels of copper being two-four times greater then suggested levels.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Audionut said:


> As an example.
> 
> Targeting 0.5ppm of Fe with CSM+B gives a Cu dose of 0.01ppm. This in of itself doesn't seem bad. However following strict EI guidelines leads to an accumulation of between 0.03ppm and 0.06ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> If we consider those who might throw in a little extra CSM+B, and only change 40% water.
> 
> 
> 
> How to make tap water safe for fish - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki
> 
> 
> 15 microgram per liter = 0.015ppm. So suggested dosing of CSM+B leads to accumulated levels of copper being two-four times greater then suggested levels.


Very good insight. Here copper is only addressed but I remember reading that boron also has a low threshold until plants are effected. Does anyone have insight on this?


----------



## Audionut

bcarl_10gal said:


> Very good insight. Here copper is only addressed but I remember reading that boron also has a low threshold until plants are effected. Does anyone have insight on this?


Well if we look at Hoagland solution we can see some interesting things. But in terms of this discussion, B is listed at a concentration of 0.5ppm. Applying the same as above, A strict EI regime with CSM+B leads to an accumulation between 0.18ppm and 0.36ppm of B. 

@Zorfox has a handy little chart showing the significant differences in ratios between EI and the Hoagland solution in terms of trace elements. But a quick look should be sufficient to see that EI calls for a full Hoagland solution of traces. The difference being that the ratio between macro and micro elements in the Hoagland solution is say 200:1 and only 20:1 with EI.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/playing-rules-biochemical-sequence-nutrient-caitlin-blackman

I've just started trialing a nutrient regime that maintains the same balance of nutrients as in the Hoagland solution at 1/10th of the suggested concentration. Initial results seem to suggest that 1/10th is probably a bit light, with 1/5th probably being more beneficial to plants.

For the micros, I've been finding the dose of micros that maintains the required concentration (taking into account accumulation) of the limiting micro nutrient. In my case since I use an Amgrow trace mix, I target based on zinc, copper and molybdenum, and then add iron, boron and manganese as needed to bring those micros up to the required concentration.


----------



## WaterLife

bcarl_10gal said:


> Very good insight. Here copper is only addressed but I remember reading that boron also has a low threshold until plants are effected. Does anyone have insight on this?




I have no idea on the math like AudioNut has done, but here is some info regarding Boron levels for plants, in which there is a fine range of deficient, optimal and toxicity.


Optimal Boron Levels - Fertilizing - Aquatic Plant Central
Zapins is a member on this forum as well so you can contact him if you so wish.
Here is more in-depth info, same link as he posted in the link above.
Toxicity / Deficiency Literature Research - Page 2 - Plant Deficiencies - Aquatic Plant Central


Here is some info on Boron tolerance on fish, inverts, microorganisms, algae and bacteria.
5. What are the effects of boron on organisms in the environment?
Note that, the link is of page 5 and there is a ton more information to be found there about Boron if you desire.


----------



## Audionut

Toxicity is also affected by pH and ORP. High pH and high ORP will precipitate most of the nutrients. As pH and ORP lowers, these elements will remain as free cations in the water for significantly longer periods of time.

https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm

edit: oh, and tannic acid works as a chelate (which protects against toxicity). So if you needed just one more reason to add wood/peat/leaf litter/whatever to the aquarium.......................


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Hard water, water with high levels of Ca and Mg, will work as an antagonist to metal toxicities. This would explain why I was able to dose CSM+B at incredibly high levels (I killed all my shrimp and snails and harmed fish) and it didn't affect plants very much because I was also dosing very high levels of Ca and Mg (from CaSO4, MgSO4).


----------



## Audionut

The toxicity of an element is greatest when that element is in free from. ie: It's not bonded in a complex arrangement with other elements.

The reason why chelation works, is simply because it bonds the (toxic) elements into a complex ionic form. The side benefit that is often talked about (interesting as far as dosing is concerned) is the slow release of the element, since it takes time for the complex arrangement to be broken down, which also protects against precipitation.

Cations (Ca, Mg, Fe, B, Zn, Cu, etc) cannot bond together. Cations can only bond with Anions (SO4, HCO3, CO3, etc). With all due respect @Solcielo lawrencia, but I suspect it wasn't the level of CaSO4 or MgSO4 in the water that affected the plants ability to withstand the high levels of micro elements. Simple elemental bonds like FeSO4, CuSO4, are exactly that, simple. This is why the same amount of FeSO4 is significantly more toxic then a chelated Fe, because FeSO4 breaks apart very easily to form other ions, or remain as free Fe and SO4.

Unfortunately, I only know just enough to be dangerous, and not enough to sufficiently explain further.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Audionut said:


> As an example.
> 
> Targeting 0.5ppm of Fe with CSM+B gives a Cu dose of 0.01ppm. This in of itself doesn't seem bad. However following strict EI guidelines leads to an accumulation of between 0.03ppm and 0.06ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> If we consider those who might throw in a little extra CSM+B, and only change 40% water.
> 
> 
> 
> How to make tap water safe for fish - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki
> 
> 
> 15 microgram per liter = 0.015ppm. So suggested dosing of CSM+B leads to accumulated levels of copper being two-four times greater then suggested levels.





Audionut said:


> Well if we look at Hoagland solution we can see some interesting things. But in terms of this discussion, B is listed at a concentration of 0.5ppm. Applying the same as above, A strict EI regime with CSM+B leads to an accumulation between 0.18ppm and 0.36ppm of B.
> 
> @Zorfox has a handy little chart showing the significant differences in ratios between EI and the Hoagland solution in terms of trace elements. But a quick look should be sufficient to see that EI calls for a full Hoagland solution of traces. The difference being that the ratio between macro and micro elements in the Hoagland solution is say 200:1 and only 20:1 with EI.
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/playing-rules-biochemical-sequence-nutrient-caitlin-blackman
> 
> I've just started trialing a nutrient regime that maintains the same balance of nutrients as in the Hoagland solution at 1/10th of the suggested concentration. Initial results seem to suggest that 1/10th is probably a bit light, with 1/5th probably being more beneficial to plants.
> 
> For the micros, I've been finding the dose of micros that maintains the required concentration (taking into account accumulation) of the limiting micro nutrient. In my case since I use an Amgrow trace mix, I target based on zinc, copper and molybdenum, and then add iron, boron and manganese as needed to bring those micros up to the required concentration.


So how you have dosed traces is dosing zinc, copper, molybdenum targeted at a lower than toxicity level, then add iron, boron, manganese up to a level that is 1/5 of the hoagland solution? With Boron it appears the limit is around 2.ppm. So full EI puts us pretty close to it. I'm not sure if we would be in toxicity at that point but we are pushing it. The graphic in Zorofox's calculator would be nice to look at.....

Bump:


Audionut said:


> Toxicity is also affected by pH and ORP. High pH and high ORP will precipitate most of the nutrients. As pH and ORP lowers, these elements will remain as free cations in the water for significantly longer periods of time.
> 
> https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm
> 
> edit: oh, and tannic acid works as a chelate (which protects against toxicity). So if you needed just one more reason to add wood/peat/leaf litter/whatever to the aquarium.......................


And since we inject CO2 which causes our tank's pH to run around 5.8-6.3 these metals will precipitate slower and be more toxic for a longer period of time?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Audionut said:


> but I suspect it wasn't the level of CaSO4 or MgSO4 in the water that affected the plants ability to withstand the high levels of micro elements. Simple elemental bonds like FeSO4, CuSO4, are exactly that, simple. This is why the same amount of FeSO4 is significantly more toxic then a chelated Fe, because FeSO4 breaks apart very easily to form other ions, or remain as free Fe and SO4.


Ca and Mg compete with Fe and other heavy metals for uptake by plants. Higher proportions of these cations reduce the uptake of other cations such as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn... It's not the binding to anions that prevents toxicity, it's concentration of competing cations as it is absorbed by plants. This is the reason why trace metal toxicity occurs at much lower concentrations in soft water compared to hard water.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Ca and Mg compete with Fe and other heavy metals for uptake by plants. Higher proportions of these cations reduce the uptake of other cations such as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn... It's not the binding to anions that prevents toxicity, it's concentration of competing cations as it is absorbed by plants. This is the reason why trace metal toxicity occurs at much lower concentrations in soft water compared to hard water.



Solcielo, you mentioned somewhere that you reached toxic levels of Cu in your tanks. Do you have hard or soft water?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

fablau said:


> Solcielo, you mentioned somewhere that you reached toxic levels of Cu in your tanks. Do you have hard or soft water?


Very soft water:
GH~2-3
KH~2
TDS~80

Water can be even softer than this during the winter, rainy months.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Very soft water:
> GH~2-3
> KH~2
> TDS~80
> 
> Water can be even softer than this during the winter, rainy months.


+1 I use RO/DI water as well..... What about plant recovery? It seems like it would take longer to recover from a toxicity than from a deficiency? Even when you have reduced the toxic levels will poor growth continue for some time?


----------



## Zorfox

It seems to me that many view nutrients as being completely linear despite varying PH. A toxic dose of say iron at a PH of 6 may not be toxic at a PH of 8. So why is it that a dose of say 0.5 ppm of iron is equal in a tank with a PH of 6 versus 8? 

The speciation and bioavailability of trace elements are heavily influenced by PH.

_“nutrient availability for plant uptake at pH above 7 may be restricted due to precipitation of Fe2+, Mn2+, PO3 −4, Ca2+ and Mg2+ to insoluble and unavailable salts (Resh, 2004)."_

Even nitrogen and phosphorus are influenced by PH.










It seems potassium is about the only nutrient which is not influenced by PH. 

_"Potassium is almost completely present as a free ion in a nutrient solution with pH values from 2 to 9; only small amounts of K+ can form a soluble complex with SO4-2 or can be bound to Cl- (De Rijck & Schrevens, 1998a)." _

I think it's funny that potassium is the only nutrient everyone seems to agree never really causes an issue. :icon_idea

Should dosing be adjusted for PH ranges? We already change chelates for iron based on this. 

What about our carbon sources? Does this influence toxicity issues?

It appears it does for phytoplankton,

pH Tolerance and Metal Toxicity in Populations of the Planktonic Diatom Asterionella: Influences of Synthetic and Natural Dissolved Organic Carbon

I realize that telling people to dose X, Y, Z is easy and causes much less confusion. In the long run is this simplicity causing more confusion than it prevents?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> +1 I use RO/DI water as well..... What about plant recovery? It seems like it would take longer to recover from a toxicity than from a deficiency? Even when you have reduced the toxic levels will poor growth continue for some time?


It took about 2 weeks for Rotala sp. "Green" to recover from the toxicity and start producing normal-looking leaves. However, this plant had been stunted for several months. Some other plants which were stunted exploded in growth, such as Hydrocotyl tripartita. What once took weeks to grow out now takes two days. So I don't know if toxicity is slower to recover than deficiency, but I think it is slower.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Very soft water:
> 
> GH~2-3
> 
> KH~2
> 
> TDS~80
> 
> 
> 
> Water can be even softer than this during the winter, rainy months.



I see... That's why you got a toxicity more easily than other people, like me, with hard water of GH 13 and KH 7.


----------



## plantbrain

Audionut said:


> As an example.
> 
> Targeting 0.5ppm of Fe with CSM+B gives a Cu dose of 0.01ppm. This in of itself doesn't seem bad. However following strict EI guidelines leads to an accumulation of between 0.03ppm and 0.06ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> If we consider those who might throw in a little extra CSM+B, and only change 40% water.
> 
> 
> 
> How to make tap water safe for fish - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki
> 
> 
> 15 microgram per liter = 0.015ppm. So suggested dosing of CSM+B leads to accumulated levels of copper being two-four times greater then suggested levels.



That is not a paper citation, that's heresay. 
Hooey.

The other issue is in a planted tank, the uptake rates of Cu and Fe are very high, look at the Haller paper.......the plants are mopping up the Fe like CRAZY.
I few ppb of trace metals will be used and take up really really fast. Also, can you name a method that can test such low residuals in any aquarium hobby or even a decent semi lab grade test? 

So how do these aquarist actually "know" without just guessing?
They are not measuring these ranges in their aquariums, no way. 

Then where's this wiki page research from? 
What is it based upon? Tropical fish or trout fry and eggs?

The difference in the applied research used to justify things might sound great........... till you actually look at it. Trout fry are hyper sensitive, whereas warm water species tend to be far tougher. 

Also, as a shrimp breeder, generally the toxicity for metals is much higher, but I've dosed quite high for about the last 5 years with several types of shrimp species and they breed quite well. 

These are just some basics that folks over look often times when citing things. We should ask the questions beyond the basic level of wiki.


----------



## plantbrain

Zorfox said:


> It seems to me that many view nutrients as being completely linear despite varying PH.
> 
> I realize that telling people to dose X, Y, Z is easy and causes much less confusion. In the long run is this simplicity causing more confusion than it prevents?


For something like NH4/NH3, toxicity plays a larger role, the pH with salts, like Carbonates and their cations versus CO2 gas also is an issue.

Then the CO2 gas itself is one of the largest issues.
Almost daily, we have folks killing their fish and shrimp on forums. 
And those...are just the ones admitting it.

You might get more use efficacy out nutrients over a range of pH's, but we add more than is needed(this is horticulture, we have all the control over each growth factor), so this is going to play little role except with a few KH sensitive plants(rather than pH itself).

We can add all the CO2 gas and lower the pH to 6's in hard water, and some species still..........will do poorly. 

But we can do the same with low KH's and those same plants do well. Thus pH is independent but KH is not. These are pretty easy test to set up and then use the plants as the growth "test".
If you have baking soda and RO/or soft tap.........then it's pretty easy. 

Try a dKH of 1 and then a dKH of 10, target the same pH drop and target.

Simply having the methods that are doable for a hobbyists to test themselves..........resolves many of these long running debates and rehashing over the same old thing over and over on forums and in each new cohort that comes along. 

So the methods and the test are really the key to this. 
Does not need to be a research proposal by any means, but something that simply falsifies the hypothesis. 

And for each one that is falsified...........you learn more and more. 
Well worth your time to try this test and see for yourself. 

then you do not need me nagging, hehe >


----------



## Zorfox

I agree that PH is independent in regards to KH sensitive species. However, my point was not related to plants in general. Instead the mere chemical transformations we see at various PH levels. The chemical changes are independent of plant mass or type.

A silly analogy,

Let’s say Aquaman becomes toxic to kryptonite levels of 1ppm. If kryptonite precipitates, transforms, or in any way becomes unavailable to Aquaman faster in high PH environments then it would be more difficult to poison him at a higher PH. If kryptonite remains bio-available at lower PH for longer periods then with frequent dosing it would seem more likely to cause problems for our aquatic super hero.

That’s basically my point. The fact is most of our trace elements will precipitate or otherwise become unavailable to plants within a few days, faster at higher PH ranges. So predicting the levels of these nutrients over a month or two seems pointless. Instead, focus on the bio-available period. If we exceed or approach the “red zone” then low PH tanks would be the first to take a hit. How close are we to toxicity in a planted tank? I’ve never seen a study involving multiple species and multiple elements. Probably never will. Tons of terrestrial plants but that’s comparing apples to oranges. Applying those directly to the planted tank causes nothing but more myths and misconceptions. 

I do however find it hard to believe (or understand may be a better way of putting it) how we could see toxicity from normal dosing. God knows I have slathered traces and iron on without issues. Then again, I’ve always had high GH and KH. What I don’t understand is how much of these traces are reintroduced via whatever process. Are they gone forever? How much is recycled? That I don’t know.


----------



## Audionut

plantbrain said:


> The other issue is in a planted tank, the uptake rates of Cu and Fe are very high, look at the Haller paper.......the plants are mopping up the Fe like CRAZY.


I tried a quick google search for the "Haller paper", but seems lots of people have the Haller in their name, and I haven't been able to narrow the search results down to the useful paper in question. Mind sharing a link please.


----------



## Audionut

bcarl_10gal said:


> So how you have dosed traces is dosing zinc, copper, molybdenum targeted at a lower than toxicity level, then add iron, boron, manganese up to a level that is 1/5 of the hoagland solution?


Generally we target a concentration of iron, and then just let the other micro elements fall where they may based on their concentrations in the powder we use (CSM+B or whatever).

But this might mean that when we dose 1ppm of iron (or whatever dose, it's just an example) that we also dose say 3 million ppm of Zinc.

If we don't want 3 million ppm of zinc, then instead of targeting an iron dose, we actually need to target our dose based on zinc, and then let the other micro elements fall where they may based on that dose of zinc.

So in the Amgrow trace mix, zinc, copper and molybdenum are in the ratios that I want them. By this I mean, that it doesn't matter if I target zinc, copper or molybdenum, each of these nutrients doesn't exceed my preference for concentration when I target just a single one of these.

What this does mean though, is that iron, manganese and boron are dosed at concentrations below what I would like. So I then add these elements separately to bring their concentration to my required level.

If you're targeting a long term concentration level, then the nutrient accumulation calculator from Zorfox will show you the dose to reach that accumulated concentration.



bcarl_10gal said:


> And since we inject CO2 which causes our tank's pH to run around 5.8-6.3 these metals will precipitate slower and be more toxic for a longer period of time?


No quite. A larger portion of the metals in the water will be in a more toxic form. 

Precipitation occurs when a cation and an anion form a bond that creates a solid in the solution (water). While these elements are in this solid form, they play no role on plant nutrition or toxicity. Given the right circumstances, these solids can dissolve.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> it's concentration of competing cations as it is absorbed by plants. This is the reason why trace metal toxicity occurs at much lower concentrations in soft water compared to hard water.


It is my understanding that you would need to increase the concentration of all of the macro elements, to limit the uptake of all the micro elements.

Does this apply also to fauna?


----------



## Positron

Mr. Barr,

I think what most of the forum-goers in this thread are asking is:

Give us, in ppm, the amounts of traces you add to your tanks each week. If they don't match almost exactly to the sticky at the top of this forum, then why? Have you changed your regimen in the past 5 years? Do you dose each of your tanks differently? If so, ok, good, fine. You wouldn't be a good scientist if you don't constantly reexamine your methods based on observation and fact. Don't be ashamed to change your EI recommendations, and most importantly change your recommendations based on certain factors. 

Micro's have burnt my tanks time and time again. CO2 levels are as high as I can get. 1.8 pH drop. Drop checker with 4kdH solution is so yellow you can even see the color. 

Currently I run .07 ppm Iron (CSM+B) 3x a week. I'm now bumping it to .15 3x a week and we'll see if the tank crashes and burns like usual. Even at .15 that's less than 1/3 of EI targets. 

my kh is 1.2 and GH >2. 

If I'm mistaken, please correct me. What are EI "targets?" The only EI target I've heard from you is "Lard"

Does 1 Lard = 1ppm, 2ppm ?

So I guess I just shouldn't play with my micros, and continue to let my plants burn down? It's the only thing that works for me, and some of the others that post here. Less Micro's. 

What we are saying here is that EI isn't some magical thing that simply works for everyone given their water chemistry from the tap.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Look, we can sit here and talk science and point fingers all day/night long. Here are the facts, everyone has had more success when dosing less than EI for micros. I have yet to hear someone say they had more issues when backing off CSM+B. So let the results speak for themselves. Lets post all the differences in plant growth after dosing less CSM+B over time holding other variables constant. If tom wants to defend his position and the 10+ of us are wrong thats his choice. Let's share notes and we can come to a logical/scientific explanation and help others who may encounter similar issues.


----------



## Zorfox

Plantbrain gave his dosing in this thread already.

Post #23 of this thread,



plantbrain said:


> My Fe stew micro mix is 1 tablespoon of CMS+B and then 1 teaspoon of DTPA and Fe Gluconate in 1 liter of hot tap water. I'll dose 60 mls of this daily.


The image in the same post is a 120 gallon tank. Based on this he is dosing this amount each day.

B 0.0136
Cu 0.0015
Fe 0.2082
Mg 0.0239
Mn 0.0319
Mo 0.0009
Zn 0.0063

That's exactly what Wet's calculator has recommended for EI daily for years. As far as I know Wet received those amounts from plantbrain. I've seen him recommend the same amounts countless times.

As far as nutrient levels in your aquarium to maintain? Read his post explaining EI. It's all there. The Estimative Index of Dosing, or No Need for Test Kits. That was posted over a decade ago btw.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

On the Zorofox EI thread, 1ML/gallon (of water volume) is 3.25 tsp per 500 ML three times a week. Lets use copper as the target here since he adds other iron types. This translates to 0.0069 of copper X 3 doses per week yields 0.0207ppm. Tom's dose is 0.0015 X 6 doses yields 0.009 per week. Am I missing something here, he is only at half the amount of copper?


----------



## Zorfox

bcarl_10gal said:


> On the Zorofox EI thread, 1ML/gallon (of water volume) is 3.25 tsp per 500 ML three times a week. Lets use copper as the target here since he adds other iron types. This translates to .0061 of copper X 3 doses per week yields .0183ppm. Tom's dose is .0015 X 6 doses yields .009 per week. Am I missing something here, he is only at half the amount of copper?


Actually, one dose using the 1ml/gallon solution provides 0.0069 ppm of Cu. However, I see your point. Plantbrain is dosing smaller traces than typical EI calculators call for due to additional iron. Very astute observation. Should the trace mix for standard EI be corrected to increase iron and decrease other traces?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Zorfox said:


> Actually, one dose using the 1ml/gallon solution provides 0.0069 ppm of Cu. However, I see your point. Plantbrain is dosing smaller traces than typical EI calculators call for due to additional iron. Very astute observation. Should the trace mix for standard EI be corrected to increase iron and decrease other traces?


I updated it . I downloaded your calculator today and still learning exactly how to use it. (Thanks so much btw its awesome!!). Anyways it looks like he wants to get the iron dosing increased independent of CSM+B. I wouldn't disagree the iron is the most commonly absorbed micro and I would be far more concerned about Cu, B and Zn becoming toxic before Fe. I would like to know why he only doses half of EI for CSM+B...... I pointed this out a few pages ago.


----------



## fablau

It is my understanding that in soft water the chances to reach a toxicity are much higher... But how much? Of course, would be definitively useful to have some more absolute quantities from Tom about his micros dosing regime, so we all can easily compare with his results.


----------



## Positron

Zorfox said:


> Actually, one dose using the 1ml/gallon solution provides 0.0069 ppm of Cu. However, I see your point. Plantbrain is dosing smaller traces than typical EI calculators call for due to additional iron. Very astute observation. Should the trace mix for standard EI be corrected to increase iron and decrease other traces?



This is exactly what I'm wondering.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> Plantbrain is dosing smaller traces than typical EI calculators call for due to additional iron. Very astute observation. Should the trace mix for standard EI be corrected to increase iron and decrease other traces?


So by volume, there's 2x the amount of Fe sources than CSM+B.

Fe(chelate):CSM+B = 2:1

I've mixed a solution of FeDTPA and CSM+B at this ratio, then I'll dose half the amount PlantBrain doses to achieve a dosage of 0.1ppm of Fe. I will dose twice per week unless the plants show symptoms of deficiency. This should be simple.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Positron said:


> This is exactly what I'm wondering.


I really wonder how many people he has told to increase their Co2 that resulted in fauna deaths when the issue is a CSM+B toxicity.


----------



## Zorfox

I for one would like to discuss the topic without berating the one person who has done more for the hobby than most here. Tom is thick skinned and probably could care less. None the less, I’m more interested in learning what could potentially be going on here. There’s nothing wrong with challenging the status quo. In fact, science is based on this. However, a lucid intelligent challenge should be factually based. Eliminating biases and false assumptions is the only way to resolve issues.

Chemical transformations in the planted tank are very complex. Without understanding how this works it’s difficult to make an assumption in regards to toxicity. No doubt Tom understands this process more than most. I would like to be able to make an informed decision. Yet I have very little knowledge in regards to what happens to elements when being exposed to water. The most intelligent response in any discussion is to admit ignorance and ask for help in my opinion. Quite frankly I’m ignorant in regards to this process and want to learn more. It’s not my thread but I would ask we keep the discussion focused on learning how this *is* possible or why it’s *not*. 

Sorry, End rant :wink2:


----------



## PerfectDepth

I've been following this thread since I'm currently experimenting with decreasing CSM+B dosage to see if it will help the s. repens recover (stunted and curled new growth, dead patches between veins on old leaves). 

Since I use only tap water, what I'm wondering is has anyone who uses strictly RO water (with GH booster) ever had issues dosing EI amounts of CSM+B? Or it is just those using tap water? Is it possible that a trace metal(s) that might be common in tap water supplies is being eventually pushed into toxic range by the continuous addition of CSM+B?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

There will always be trace metals present in the water. If there are copper pipes, copper levels can be higher than the source. If there are steel pipes, Mn, Ni, and others will probably be present. Lead pipes: Pb will be present. Any of these can be toxic in high concentrations.


----------



## PerfectDepth

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> There will always be trace metals present in the water. If there are copper pipes, copper levels can be higher than the source. If there are steel pipes, Mn, Ni, and others will probably be present. Lead pipes: Pb will be present. Any of these can be toxic in high concentrations.


Yes, exactly. One thing I'm not clear on is if these micro mixes made for aquarists have ratios that are somewhat skewed in attempt to compensate for the metals that are more likely to already be present in the source water. If not, then that could very well be the crux of the matter.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

No, these mixes do not account for anything in the water.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

PerfectDepth said:


> I've been following this thread since I'm currently experimenting with decreasing CSM+B dosage to see if it will help the s. repens recover (stunted and curled new growth, dead patches between veins on old leaves).
> 
> Since I use only tap water, what I'm wondering is has anyone who uses strictly RO water (with GH booster) ever had issues dosing EI amounts of CSM+B? Or it is just those using tap water? Is it possible that a trace metal(s) that might be common in tap water supplies is being eventually pushed into toxic range by the continuous addition of CSM+B?


I use 100% RO/DI water and still have had these issues. While the amount found in tap would contribute to the issues I do not think it would be the reason to push people over the threshold (In most cases). I have had the same issues with AR mini and S. Repens. I was dosing 4ML of 40g mixed into 500ML daily into my 26gal. This would equate to .024ish ppm of copper per week. I was only doing small WC at the time so it most likely built up to .09 ppm over time (pure guesstimate here).


----------



## PerfectDepth

bcarl_10gal said:


> I use 100% RO/DI water and still have had these issues. While the amount found in tap would contribute to the issues I do not think it would be the reason to push people over the threshold (In most cases). I have had the same issues with AR mini and S. Repens. I was dosing 4ML of 40g mixed into 500ML daily into my 26gal. This would equate to .024ish ppm of copper per week. I was only doing small WC at the time so it most likely built up to .09 ppm over time (pure guesstimate here).


Wow, that's quite a lot. I did some calculations, and .024 ppm of copper from CSM+B equates to 1.74 ppm of iron per week, roughly 2.5X what I was dosing. I was having issues only dosing CSM+B at 0.7 ppm iron per week, now I've reduced to half of that. I may even halve it again and see how it goes. I also supplement Fe with Flourish Iron, 0.25 ppm 3X per week. I might decrease this dosage also, I'm not quite sure at this point.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

PerfectDepth said:


> Wow, that's quite a lot. I did some calculations, and .024 ppm of copper from CSM+B equates to 1.74 ppm of iron per week, roughly 2.5X what I was dosing. I was having issues only dosing CSM+B at 0.7 ppm iron per week, now I've reduced to half of that. I may even halve it again and see how it goes. I also supplement Fe with Flourish Iron, 0.25 ppm 3X per week. I might decrease this dosage also, I'm not quite sure at this point.


It has been a LONG time since dosing this much. I have went back to normal EI and still have experienced the same issues. Starting to think we all would be better off targeting .1 of Fe from CSM+B and making up the rest from other iron sources. After all that's what Plant brain is really doing. :wink2:


----------



## kevmo911

I'd like to throw my two cents' worth in here, and then I'll bow back out. This is an incredibly informative thread that, thus far, has been relying on a combination of raw data paired with personal experience, including a few cases of specific-chemical testing, and seems to be in the process of coming up with a working hypothesis. While there is clearly far to go, people are picking up the bits and pieces of evidence and creating a picture with them. I'm not convinced yet, but most of you are. Which is fine, especially since y'all continue to comb through the research and pull out relevant data.

Three things. One, there's a very limited amount of study data available that pertains directly to our applications. So there *needs* to be a lot more testing before anybody can be certain of ...well, much of anything. No disrespect intended to those who have clearly spent a lot of time thinking and tinkering, because you guys are the ones who never get, but always deserve, the credit for every new practice that we soon take for granted in this hobby. There just needs to be more of it.

Two, and I could be wrong about this, but there seem to have been relatively few complaints about damage due to *standard EI dosing of micros specifically* up until the past year or two. And of those complaints, most have turned out to be the result of human error or a completely different issue (often CO2). So this thread is news to a *lot* of people, for whom this issue has never come up.

And finally, please don't dismiss the perfectly legitimate opinions of people who don't agree, even if they come off as pompous jerks sometimes. In totally unrelated news, Tom Barr has a PhD in ...well, plants. That, combined with decades of experience, makes him exactly the kind of person you want trying to poke holes in your hypotheses.

Anyway, apologies to those for whom my ramblings aren't news, or in any way necessary. I appreciate the information in both halves of this resurrected thread, and I appreciate the work y'all are doing. Carry on!


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I've watered plants using old aquarium water and it appears to have caused them to stunt. Thus, I don't think that the micronutrient toxicity only affects submersed plants. It also affects terrestrial and emersed grown plants. I was expecting them to take off but they stopped growing, leaves melted and died back. Some plants showed signs of calcium, potassium, and micronutrient deficiency. Nothing I did alleviated these problems and have persisted for well over several months. Now I know why. What appeared to be a deficiency was actually a toxicity.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

There are several paper that have studied copper in relationship to aquatic plants. One article I found summarized copper in relation to how terrestrial plants react to copper. Role of Copper in Plant Culture | PRO-MIX

Here are the highlights: 
-It is also required in the process of photosynthesis, is essential in plant respiration and assists in plant metabolism of carbohydrates and proteins. 
-Copper is immobile, meaning its deficiency symptoms occur in the newer leaves. High levels of copper can compete with plant uptake of iron and sometimes molybdenum or zinc. 
-The new growth can become initially greener than normal, then exhibit symptoms of iron deficiency or possibly other micronutrient deficiencies. 

Second article addresses some chemistry and aquatic applications. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/pesticides/aquatic/copper.pdf

Here are the highlights:
-Toxicity of copper is related to water hardness; copper in water with a hardness
of less than 20 mg/l CaCO3 is more toxic to fish than copper in the water at a greater hardness.
-High levels of copper inhibit the growth of algae and other plants by causing an imbalance in
cofactors involved with enzyme function, especially those involved with photosynthesis. Inhibition of
photosynthesis leads to a diminished ability to thrive and eventually to plant death (WSSA, 1994).
-The toxicity of copper to aquatic invertebrates generally decreases as hardness increases. 
-Concentrations for crustaceans the range was from .006 to .900 mg/l; and for mollusks the range was .04 to 9 mg/l
(WSDOE, 1992).
- Concentrations of copper of .001-.002
mg/l inhibit photosynthesis and plant growth (WSDOE, 1992). Toxicity data for individual plant species
are lacking (USEPA, 1980).


----------



## aclaar877

I'm the OP here on this thread - I appreciate all the input, responses and debate that's been going on. My intent was never to doubt the experts who use a lot of traces and grow great plants. I was hoping to my tank as another data point to the discussion, and offer the possibility to those people that swear they are doing "_everything right_" with regard to lighting, CO2, ferts, flow, and O2 that there could be a buildup of traces that is hindering growth of some plants. Like me, some others were using CSM+B and O+ tabs and the combination of those could be more potent than we realized. In my case I suspect it was copper or boron that was getting too high. I've never tested my tap for copper, boron or iron but we do get orange-brown rings in the tub and toilet after a while. I do 50% weekly water changes so a harmful buildup of iron is unlikely, from what I've read here about harmful iron levels. A scientific test would be awesome, especially if we could compare the affects of high traces in soft and hard water, low kH and high kH. I'm not the one to do it though - I'd rather buy more plants/fish than test kits and more tanks! I am confident that I could show immediate negative effects of high CSM+B doses in my tank, but I'd rather not go through that again...

Even after reducing my CSM+B doses to 1/2 EI levels shortly after the original post, things were mostly going OK but I'd have the occasionally stunted stem plant tip, and poor growth of vallisneria. (I kept EI levels of macros). A Reineckii would still stunt occasionally, some stems hardly grow and for some reason plants often looked worse the evening after I dosed micros. After sending PMs to a few people here, and observing a thread on Barr Report I decided to stop CSM+B cold turkey a week ago. I also did a 50% WC on Saturday and tested NO3 and PO4 (which I hadn't done in months). NO3 and PO4 were very high - I have come to the conclusion that my nutrient uptake is lower than I thought, even with a moderately-planted high tech tank.

So far I've had no stunted tips on anything, and I'm getting more side shoots from three different Ludwigias. Vals are spreading again with fatter new leaves. After another 50% WC this weekend, my plan is to resume CSM+B and DPTA iron in a 2:1 ratio, with about 0.5 ppm of iron weekly between those sources. I don't want to bottom out, but I want to be careful because I still have some O+ tabs in there and I have no idea what my tap already has.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> - Concentrations of copper of .001-.002 mg/l inhibit photosynthesis and plant growth


[email protected]!? That's 1-2 parts per billion and it inhibits photosynthesis? I have 30-140x that amount from the tap!


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Wh[email protected]!? That's 1-2 parts per billion and it inhibits photosynthesis? I have 30-140x that amount from the tap!


I questioned this number too. I tried to find the paper they referenced. I may have found the paper but no reference to this information (it was a 400pg paper).


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

If it's true that plants really don't use much copper, then it's probably important to know exactly what comes out of the tap. Then we can figure out what extra amounts of trace elements we need to fertilize without running into toxic ranges. This would allow us to mix our own bespoke trace mixes instead of using a shotgun approach such as CSM+B. If I were to mix my own, I'd forego adding copper since the tap has more than enough.


----------



## Audionut

bcarl_10gal said:


> Second article addresses some chemistry and aquatic applications. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/pesticides/aquatic/copper.pdf





> Copper is an essential element in humans, animals and plants, but in high enough concentrations it can be harmful to biota. Toxicity of copper is related to water hardness; copper in water with a hardness of less than 20 mg/l CaCO3 is more toxic to fish than copper in the water at a greater hardness.




It doesn't specifically say why higher hardness levels reduce the toxic nature of copper, but there are some hints to what's going on.





> Copper complexes have been developed that serve to decrease the availability of the copper ion in the water column through chelation. Ionic copper in solution normally complexes with carbonates. The chelated copper complexes prevent these copper carbonates from forming, thereby decreasing the toxicity to non-target organisms including humans and fish (Ross and Lembi, 1985).


So one of the dangerous forms of copper seems to be copper carbonate. Calcium and magnesium also like to bond with carbonate to form CaCO3 and MgCO3 respectively and together can form CaMgCO3. So it makes sense that an excess of calcium and/or magnesium will help negate the toxicity of copper, since some of the available carbonate will bond with calcium and magnesium.

Carbonate transforms to bicarbonate, which then transforms to carbonic acid as pH decreases (Bjerrum plot). So as pH decreases, carbonate availability decreases. So I would expect that if you're south of pH 6.0, this copper carbonate, and hence, the level of calcium and magnesium in the water is a non-issue. Although, it may be simply that since copper is toxic at minute concentrations, then simply it only needs a minute amount of carbonate to form this toxic copper carbonate. One of the disadvantages with only knowing just enough, is that the knowledge is only just enough to make educated guesses.




> The copper ion (copper II) is responsible for the toxicity of all of the formulations. Although the mechanism has not unequivocally been elucidated, it is believed that high levels of copper interfere with photosynthesis. Inhibition of photosynthesis leads to plant death.





Pourbaix diagrams for copper 










Information regarding Pourbaix diagrams can be found here: https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm

Basically, the lines represent where the concentrations of the adjoining chemical species is equal. The vertical axis representing ORP with the horizontal axis representing pH.

Clearly, water with a reasonable oxygen level, below 6.5pH will contain a significant portion of copper in this toxic form Cu2+. But.........It's never that simple. Add some sulfide to the solution and other things happen.










So @Solcielo lawrencia, it may not be the uptake rates of various elements, but simply the reverse of what I was describing earlier. That is, large amounts of CaSO4 and MgSO4 do indeed help drive copper into non toxic forms.

Apologies for the formatting, copy pasting from the PDF was to much for the forum editor.

Cheers.


----------



## Zorfox

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I've watered plants using old aquarium water and it appears to have caused them to stunt. Thus, I don't think that the micronutrient toxicity only affects submersed plants. It also affects terrestrial and emersed grown plants. I was expecting them to take off but they stopped growing, leaves melted and died back. Some plants showed signs of calcium, potassium, and micronutrient deficiency. Nothing I did alleviated these problems and have persisted for well over several months. Now I know why. What appeared to be a deficiency was actually a toxicity.


This is very interesting!

I may be foggy about chemical transformations, toxic levels and several others but I do know my calculations. So I decided to compare apples to apples here.

In the data below I used four fertilizers. I left out Fe in the graph because it makes all the others difficult to see.



Plantex in the tank dosed every other day at standard EI levels. I degraded the traces over *7* days due to precipitation etc. I also omitted plant uptake completely.


The same as above but a more realistic trace degradation period of 3 days.


Miracle-Gro all purpose Plant food


Hoagland solution (Hydroponic solution that's been used nearly a century)


Here is the side by side comparisons in graphic form,










Here is the raw data.



Code:


Plantex No Uptake	Plantex No Uptake 		Miracle-Gro All		Hoagland
and Degrades over	and Degrades over 		All Purpose		Solution
7 days.			3 days				

Fe	2.1654			0.1665			0.5			1-5 ppm
Cu	0.0299			0.0023			0.2333			0.02 ppm
B	0.2655			0.0204			0.0667			0.5 ppm
Mn	0.6202			0.0477			0.1667			0.5 ppm
Mo	0.0074			0.0165			0.0017			0.01 ppm
Zn	0.1226			0.0094			0.2			0.05 ppm

I think we can all agree that Miracle-Gro and Hoagland solution is not toxic to terrestrial plants. That's why I compared to these common fertilizers.

Based on this data your terrestrial plant issues are NOT caused from the trace mix you may be dosing. If it's a nutrient toxicity causing this it's coming from your tap water. So basically, to say EI dosing is excessive is, in your case, erroneous.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. I lowered the dose of Miracle-Gro to match iron levels we dose using Plantex. If I used the recommended amount on the label the levels would be twice as high for Miracle-Gro. That just made it too hard to compare in the chart.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Playing devils advocate: We know the toxicity ranges of copper to terrestrial plants is a different amount compared to aquatic. The article I posted earlier said copper in growing mediums for terrestrial plants can range from .05ppm-.5ppm (this makes me think higher than .5ppm would be troublesome, but it depends on the species of plant). Someone stated earlier that copper becomes an issue in aquatic life at .015ppm. While I think we can compare the effects on plants interaction with copper and how their growth changes, it is much harder to nail down exact ppm levels. So, to claim since miracle grow is not toxic at .23ppm with terrestrial plants must mean that this level is safe with aquatic life is invalid. I understand your though process but in my opinion you are comparing apples with oranges. 

In connection to SL's experiment I believe he was using a plant known for sensitivities to metals so it's toxicity threshold is most likely lower. I am sure he can clarify.


----------



## PerfectDepth

Speaking of copper, while playing with the calculator I just discovered that when you match up the Fe concentration, CSM+B apparently contains about 44x (!) the amount of copper that Flourish comprehensive contains:

*CSM+B:*
B 0.061182
*Cu 0.006883*
Fe 0.499400
Mg 0.107069
Mn 0.143014
Mo 0.003824
Zn 0.028297

*Seachem Flourish: *
B 0.014028
Ca 0.218206
Cl 1.792407
Co 0.006234
*Cu 0.000156*
Fe 0.498757
K 0.478495
K2O 0.576688
Mg 0.171448
Mn 0.018392
Mo 0.001403
N 0.109103
NO3 0.480053
Na 0.202620
P 0.006858
P2O5 0.015586
PO4 0.020262
S 0.432204
Zn 0.001091

Also 26x the amount of Zn, 8x the amount of manganese, 4x the amount of boron, 3x the amount of molybdenum...


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> In connection to SL's experiment I believe he was using a plant known for sensitivities to metals so it's toxicity threshold is most likely lower. I am sure he can clarify.


I was growing emersed Monte Carlo, HC, Limnophila aromatica, Cyperus helferi, Poaceae "purple bamboo", Rotala rotundifolia variants (Ceylon, H'ra, Green, & Singapore), H. tripartita, and various mosses. Every single one of these plants stunted showing the signs of Ca, K, and/or trace element deficiencies.

I was also growing a common water house plant and it stunted until after CSM+B was significantly reduced.

Also, I added some aquarium water to my daphnia cups and it caused the development of egg sacs, which is a sign of environmental stress. The added water accounted for less than 1% of the total volume but it was enough to cause this at least three times in two different cups. Now that I've cut back on dosing CSM+B, the daphnia no longer produce egg sacs when I add some aquarium water.




Zorfox said:


> Plantex No Uptake	Plantex No Uptake Miracle-Gro All Hoagland
> and Degrades over	and Degrades over All Purpose Solution
> 7 days. 3 days
> 
> Fe	2.1654 0.1665 0.5 1-5 ppm
> Cu	0.0299 0.0023 0.2333 0.02 ppm
> B	0.2655 0.0204 0.0667 0.5 ppm
> *Mn	0.6202* 0.0477 0.1667 0.5 ppm
> Mo	0.0074 0.0165 0.0017 0.01 ppm
> Zn	0.1226 0.0094 0.2 0.05 ppm
> 
> Based on this data your terrestrial plant issues are NOT caused from the trace mix you may be dosing. If it's a nutrient toxicity causing this it's coming from your tap water. So basically, to say EI dosing is excessive is, in your case, erroneous.


Is Mn causing the toxicity? CSM+B contains the highest concentration of it. Also, the Hygrophila pinnatifida had the appearance of pinholes in the older leaves and ultimately necrosis. I've searched the internet for Mn toxicity and in some plants, it causes similar issues with pinholes and necrosis in the older leaves. Thus, it may very well be that CSM+B contains excessively high concentrations of Mn which can cause toxicity.


----------



## Zorfox

bcarl_10gal said:


> So, to claim since miracle grow is not toxic at .23ppm with terrestrial plants must mean that this level is safe with aquatic life is invalid. I understand your though process but in my opinion you are comparing apples with oranges.


I completely agree. However, I was comparing apples to apples. I claimed the nutrients added was not the problem for his terrestrial plant. 



Zorfox said:


> Based on this data your terrestrial plant issues are NOT caused from the trace mix you may be dosing.


I’ve been thinking about this whole toxicity problem a lot. As I’ve said I don’t fully understand the chemical transformation process. I, as well as everyone else here, do not even know what the toxic levels are for a combination of aquatic plants. So to say a toxicity issue cannot exist must mean there is simply not enough evidence correct?

Well, that was the “aha” moment. Falsification!

Science uses a basic principle called falsification. I don’t need to fully understand every ion exchange or other complex problem to show that average dosing does not cause toxicity issues.

Example,

Jerry buys a plant from a local nursery and takes it home. The plant does very well on Miracle-Gro but never as nice as the nursery’s plants. So Jerry decides to buy the same fertilizer the nursery uses and applies it the same way. Suddenly, the plant takes a nose dive. Jerry tells the nursery the fertilizer they sold him is the problem. Of course the nursery has great success with it so they tell him that can’t be it. What the nursery is doing is falsifying the claim that the fertilizer is the problem. 

What caused Jerry’s plant to plummet into oblivion? Who knows? All we know is what it cannot be because that fertilizer has been falsified as an option by the nursery. 

Thousands have dosed EI for many years without issues. A few have had issues that seem to change when dosing is adjusted. Since the dose has been used heavily by so many without issue all we can ascertain is what it cannot be. 

I’m not saying that hobbyists don’t have issues that seem to resolve when they decrease Plantex dosing. Instead, I’m saying that there may be an underlying cause that is leading to the problem. Light, CO2, substrate, tap water… who knows. However, focusing on what we already know it can’t be will only lead us down endless paths. Instead of assuming the levels are to blame we should instead be looking at what else can cause the issue.

Edit: I failed to point out that my example was explaining that fertilizers *alone *cannot be the cause. The thread for the most part has failed to examine other possible causes. Those other cause are dependent factors that have been ignored. My example only proves that fertilizers are not the cause independent of others factors.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> Thousands have dosed EI for many years without issues. A few have had issues that seem to change when dosing is adjusted. Since the dose has been used heavily by so many without issue all we can ascertain is what it cannot be.


Who are these thousands? No poll has been conducted about peoples' experiences. This is an assumption which forms a false sense of security in numbers. Thus, it's not valid to say this.


----------



## BruceF

edit


----------



## Zorfox

I suppose that's a valid point.

Add one to the list. I've dosed EI without issues. In fact I've dosed 3 times the trace amounts as EI calls for without issue. Nearly 10 times the Fe. Anyone else care to add personal experience?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I was growing emersed Monte Carlo, HC, Limnophila aromatica, Cyperus helferi, Poaceae "purple bamboo", Rotala rotundifolia variants (Ceylon, H'ra, Green, & Singapore), H. tripartita, and various mosses. Every single one of these plants stunted showing the signs of Ca, K, and/or trace element deficiencies.
> 
> I was also growing a common water house plant and it stunted until after CSM+B was significantly reduced.
> 
> Also, I added some aquarium water to my daphnia cups and it caused the development of egg sacs, which is a sign of environmental stress. The added water accounted for less than 1% of the total volume but it was enough to cause this at least three times in two different cups. Now that I've cut back on dosing CSM+B, the daphnia no longer produce egg sacs when I add some aquarium water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Mn causing the toxicity? CSM+B contains the highest concentration of it. Also, the Hygrophila pinnatifida had the appearance of pinholes in the older leaves and ultimately necrosis. I've searched the internet for Mn toxicity and in some plants, it causes similar issues with pinholes and necrosis in the older leaves. Thus, it may very well be that CSM+B contains excessively high concentrations of Mn which can cause toxicity.


I find this experience really interesting. Do you have pictures of this? How long where the plants exposed to the aquarium water? How long did they take to recover?

Bump:


Zorfox said:


> I suppose that's a valid point.
> 
> Add one to the list. I've dosed EI without issues. In fact I've dosed 3 times the trace amounts as EI calls for without issue. Nearly 10 times the Fe. Anyone else care to add personal experience?


I was dosing about 2X EI in my 5 gallon tank for the last 2 months. I cut CSM+B completely for about a week. I will share some pictures and further remarks in a few more days.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> I suppose that's a valid point.
> 
> Add one to the list. I've dosed EI without issues. In fact I've dosed 3 times the trace amounts as EI calls for without issue. Nearly 10 times the Fe. Anyone else care to add personal experience?


Yes, I've done something similar. 2.7ppm of Fe/week from CSM+B, high amounts of Ca, Mg, and 140+ppm of K weekly for a couple of weeks. Results: harmed fish and killed all my inverts. Fish became less active and hid most of the time. Spawning drastically reduced. Body color became permanently splotchy. A number of fish had severely swollen gills. One fish had gills so swollen that it dislocated it's own jaw. Eventually it starved to death because it couldn't eat. All shrimp suffered from neurological disorders which included tremors and lethargy before they died. All snails died as did the copepods and other micro-crustaceans. This was just when I was dosing the highest as I was already dosing very high to begin with.

How long did you dose for? Was it acute or chronic as was my case? Was your substrate new with a high CEC?

Bump:


bcarl_10gal said:


> I find this experience really interesting. Do you have pictures of this? How long where the plants exposed to the aquarium water? How long did they take to recover?


I can take pictures of them. Plants stunted almost immediately upon adding the aquarium water. It's currently recovering, sort of.


----------



## Zorfox

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> How long did you dose for? Was it acute or chronic as was my case? Was your substrate new with a high CEC?


Dosed 3x the trace via Plantex in a RCS tank with moderate planting. Did that for probably two months. I did it to see how much was too much in regards to RCS. The substrate was eco-complete. The plants didn't show any change one way or the other. RCS seemed un-phased. Then again they were RCS not more sensitive shrimp.

Did the same in a heavily planted tank, high light CO2. The substrate in that was inert gravel. I hammered that tank with high levels of just about everything. The plants never showed any change with more than standard EI. The fish were pretty hardy in that tank however. Neons, serpaes and otos. No problems. The only minor improvement I could see was dosing everyday versus every other day. Yet the changes were so minor it may have had nothing to do with the dosing frequency. I dosed iron that high for probably 3 months. If memory serves me correctly I also dosed 3ppm of PO4 every other day while doing the ridiculous iron regime.

Both tanks were using hard tap water and no GH booster.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> Both tanks were using hard tap water and no GH booster.


This might explain it. My tap is very soft: GH~2-3; KH~2.

I should also mention that the RCS and snails didn't start dying until I reached that dosing point in a mad scrabble in trying to figure out what was causing the pinholes and necrosis in the H. pinnatifida.


----------



## kevmo911

I had a thought. It's different, but something to consider.

One of the most popular YouTube gardening channels is by a guy named John Kohler. He grows amazing food in raised beds at two houses in SoCal and Vegas. The beds all start with a base of 100% compost, to which he adds worm castings, biochar, humus, coco coir, a couple other things, and rock dust. And then he adds compost tea. The rock dust (there's your micros), actually several brands, is added at 1 pound per 1 square foot. Obviously, he ends up with insanely nutrient-rich soil. He tops off each bed with a similar mix at least once a year. Yes, these are terrestrial plants I'm talking about, but how much different is it?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

kevmo911 said:


> Yes, these are terrestrial plants I'm talking about, but how much different is it?


Hugely different. The substances in the dirt bind with the metals and various other factors such as low pH keep toxicity at bay. Since the only way for plants to acquire these nutrients is by root contact, nearly all of these added nutrients are unavailable. But in aquariums, there isn't much of anything that can function similarly in the water column.


----------



## kevmo911

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Hugely different. The substances in the dirt bind with the metals and various other factors such as low pH keep toxicity at bay. Since the only way for plants to acquire these nutrients is by root contact, nearly all of these added nutrients are unavailable. But in aquariums, there isn't much of anything that can function similarly in the water column.


Okay. You brought up the anecdote of feeding your emersed plants with tank water and claimed their subsequent poor health was a result of toxicity, so I figured I'd mention it.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

It's not being grown in soil but used Aquasoil and Floramax. Roots are submerged in water.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Since we are sharing personal experiences I'll throw mine out there. I started my 26 gallon bow in mid july 2014, everything grew wonderfully so much AR I didn't know what to do with and the thickest carpet of S. repens you can imagine. I am using 100% RODI and a fresh new bed of Eco-complete fine grade only changing roughly 20% weekly(I was not running EI macros at the time). I dosed 5ML of 40g of CSM+B mixed into a 500ML container 6 times a week. This is about 1.6 ppm of Fe from CSM+B per week. In mid august my S.repens began to melt and other plants followed suit similar to the symptoms everyone talked about. I made 0 changes to my dosing. Then I noticed my tolerable pest colony of snails all died and I found empty shells. I also added rams that never colored up or grew(May or may not be related). Also could not keep a neon tetra alive for longer than a month (Once again may or may not be related). I tried to add some amano shrimp in December. Acclimated for several hours, they all died within a 2 day time frame. Personally I have a hard time believing that all of these similar personal experiences are not just by chance.


----------



## Audionut

The only useful way to determine the effects of a thing is in very controlled conditions. Typical aquariums are anything but controlled.

Significant numbers of people have problems that seem to be related to deficiency. Toxicity can display deficiency symptoms. Toxicity of an element can be defeated with an overabundance of other elements/ions.

If you defeat the toxicity of an element with the overabundance of other elements, did you really have a deficiency! Or should we just call it what it is, a toxicity.

Continuing the copper trend, there are conditions where the elemental (highly toxic) form of copper will be the predominant form. The addition of sulfide will push this elemental predominance zone to well outside the reach of typical aquariums, leading to the predominance of CuSO4 at what is otherwise the same conditions as previously, except the addition of sulfide. Was it a sulfide deficiency? Or did the addition of sulfide simply reduce the predominance (and hence concentration) of the elemental copper?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Can anyone guess which plant this is? I'll send the first person who can guess correctly a box of plants when I do a trim. The very top has finally sprouted a normal new leaf. No cheating on this one.








This is Limnophila aromatica grown emersed. You can see which parts of the plant were grown under toxic conditions and when toxicity was removed.








Note the bottom leaves with the necrotic black tips. Then farther up, as conditions improved, the leaves grew slightly twisted. Then, when conditions were out of toxic range, leaves grew normally.


----------



## dukydaf

One of the most interesting threads going on at the moment. I like how everybody brings his/her knowledge to the discussion. Though I never used CSM+B, I have used other trace mixes with similar concentrations. 



Zorfox said:


> Add one to the list. I've dosed EI without issues. In fact I've dosed 3 times the trace amounts as EI calls for without issue. Nearly 10 times the Fe. Anyone else care to add personal experience?


I honestly doubt this thread is the right place or way to gather thousands of reports on using CSM+B. It can only dilute the very smart information already published here. We should think in more general terms like Tom Barr did when he came up with the EI system.


Zorfox said:


> What caused Jerry’s plant to plummet into oblivion? Who knows? All we know is what it cannot be because that fertilizer has been falsified as an option by the nursery.


I would like to point a flaw regarding personal experience and falsification (as previously mentioned). Not targeting Zorfox, just used his examples as they are well expressed.

*Example:*
Theory: We think malaria is transmitted by mosquito bites.
Experiment: Some mosquitoes that are confirmed to carry _P. falciparum_ are released in a room with people. People that get bitten are included in the study and observed for a period.
*Result:* Some people get sick, some do not
*Conclusion:* (apply the reasoning from previous posts) The hypothesis that malaria is transmitted via mosquito bites is falsified by the people not getting sick. Mosquito bites do not cause malaria, because some people got bitten and are not sick. 

*Personal experience:* One person reads this study and decided that there is no need to get mosquito repellent. Mosquitoes bite him, but he never gets malaria. He is now sure, malaria is not transmitted by mosquito bites. Try to convince him otherwise. BUT this person has sickle cell anemia.

So this person does not get sick because he has sickle cell anemia, not because mosquitoes do not carry malaria (as we know they do).

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - Biology - Protective Effect of Sickle Cell
*
Coming back to CSM and toxicity….*
Saying that dosing X concentration of Y trace does not induce toxicity syndromes says nothing without knowing a lot of other potential confounders like:
For how long, how often
What level of CO2, GH, KH, PH, O2
What plant species are affected, substrate used, water changes
Other nutrient levels, what substances are were used to create that GH and KH
Etc.
*X concentration of CSM might be toxic under low KH but not under high KH. Is CSM toxic ?*

So then how can we eliminate all the possible confounders? How can we say CSM causes toxicity with all these variables known and unknown?
1.	*Experiment*: Have a control population that is the same in all aspects with the experimental population, but different in one aspect, say KH
2.	*Observe*: Gather a lot of information from a lot of people so that on average we can observe a correlation. Calculate risk ratios for subsets of entries. Use suspected variables to create a model , etc
Observation is hard to do with plants at hobbyist level. How would you get people to use the same measuring equipment? How would you quantify the level of toxicity? The results are likely to be cover a wide range of ‘safe’ dosing.

Running an experiment is equally challenging. Set up two aquariums exactly the same, each one will be different after a time, just because nature is random. Keep in mind trace elements are scarce in nature. If you take a plant exposed to high levels of trace, put it in water with no traces at all (assuming it is possible ), It could probably live on what is already in the living or dying biomass for a good while. This said an experiment run with a control is better.

If the effect is strong enough it can be done. Just need money, space and patience. We can come together with ideas on what to test and what to take care of. *Now who would like to try ?*


----------



## burr740

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Can anyone guess which plant this is? I'll send the first person who can guess correctly a box of plants when I do a trim. The very top has finally sprouted a normal new leaf. No cheating on this one.


I dont need any trimmings but my guess is Ammannia gracilis


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

burr740 said:


> I dont need any trimmings but my guess is Ammannia gracilis


No.


----------



## roadmaster

Ludwigia var Cuba?
We are speaking of aquatic plant's aren't we?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Speaking of personal experiences I'd like to share my most recent. I set up a 5 gallon tank with my Co2 system in order to try a few different things. Anyways I will cut right to the point, I dosed this tank using the 1ML per gallon method per EI. Water is a 50/50 mix of RODI and city water with a KH of 2 GH of 7. I do not have any fauna so I can jack my CO2 way up, it is injected into a Aquaclear 30 intake at about 4 bps. Lighting is only a old current sat plus.My micros were 5ML(Erroneously did not account for a change in water volume from the substrate, dose equivalent is roughly 1.5x EI) 3 days a week of 3.25 TSP of CSM+B mixed in 500 ML and one TSP of the GLA Iron to match the popular 3:1 ratio. Here were the plants after a month.







[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]

I have done 2 large water changes and stopped all dosing of CSM+B. These are the results after only ONE WEEK. Here is a picture of the R.Macandra with a new healthy shoot.







[/URL][/IMG] Ludwigia red is finally getting some color.







[/URL][/IMG] AR mini has magically become unstunted and will hopefully start to color back up.







[/URL][/IMG]Just a picture....







[/URL][/IMG] So this last one is harder to see, but what I am trying to show is the length of the leaves on the pogo. You hopefully can see the top 1/4 of the plant is starting to get longer healthier leaves compared to the bottom of the plant. 

I would love to put my BML dimmed back on the tank, but I do not want to change variables and give the naysayers here a scapegoat


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

roadmaster said:


> Ludwigia var Cuba?
> We are speaking of aquatic plant's aren't we?


Yes, it is aquatic. No, it's not L. "Cuba". The plant is the most sensitive to trace metal toxicity I've ever had, slightly more sensitive than Rotala wallichii, which looked exactly like this and just wouldn't grow.

Bump:


bcarl_10gal said:


> AR mini has magically become unstunted and will hopefully start to color back up.
> 
> So this last one is harder to see, but what I am trying to show is the length of the leaves on the pogo. You hopefully can see the top 1/4 of the plant is starting to get longer healthier leaves compared to the bottom of the plant.


I also observed the same growth with Pogostemon erectus with the shorter leaf lengths when it was growing under toxic conditions.
AR mini also suffered from massive stunting which just never grew.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

You know those threads that asks about why their Rotala rotundifolia variants have transparent leaves? I've also experienced this since I first got into this hobby a couple of years ago and have never found the cause. Until now. Is this also a sign of trace element toxicity?


----------



## Zorfox

dukydaf said:


> I would like to point a flaw regarding personal experience and falsification (as previously mentioned). Not targeting Zorfox, just used his examples as they are well expressed.


Quite frankly, I would be disappointed if others didn't question my ramblings lol.

I edited the post you referenced for clarity. I failed to point out that my example was explaining that fertilizers *alone *cannot be the cause. The thread for the most part has failed to examine other possible causes. Those other cause are dependent factors that have been ignored. My example only proves that fertilizers are not the cause independent of others factors.

When we can all agree that EI dosing alone is not to blame we may start to gain some ground here. Instead, start looking at other variables that could cause the issues that had spurred the thread. Without that, this thread will become nothing more than a long list of rants and conjecture accomplishing nothing more than perpetuating misguided presumptions.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> When we can all agree that EI dosing alone is not to blame we may start to gain some ground here. Instead, start looking at other variables that could cause the issues that had spurred the thread. Without that, this thread will become nothing more than a long list of rants and conjecture accomplishing nothing more than perpetuating misguided presumptions.


I'm not blaming EI for the growth problems (because I know it will immediately spur defensiveness.) I'm targeting CSM+B. I have no issue with dosing NPK according to EI suggested schedules but dosing CSM+B has caused problems for years and I didn't even realize it. 

How do we know a toxicity when we see one if we never realized it was a toxicity to begin with? So we assume it must be a deficiency and start numerous threads about it on this and other forums. Then do things like dosing 160+ppm of potassium and 2.7ppm of Fe from CSM+B per week thinking more will solve the issue only to kill all the shrimp and snails and some fish.

Bcarl_26g:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/787305-deficiency.html
BCarl's 26 gallon Bf Build - Page 53 - Aquarium Advice - Aquarium Forum Community
Deficiency? - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report

Solcielo lawrencia:
EI doesn't address Na and Cl requirements - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/753753-h-pinnatifida-how-much-potassium.html
Hygrophila pinnatifida issues | AquaScaping World Forum

There are many more. Here's TPT's search for "clear leaves":
Planted Tank and Aquarium discussion forum. - Search Results for clear leaves

Thus, these observations are not isolated incidents as others have reported these same issues in these same threads. What do all of these threads have in common? All dosed CSM+B.


----------



## Zorfox

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Thus, these observations are not isolated incidents as others have reported these same issues in these same threads. What do all of these threads have in common? All dosed CSM+B.


Exactly! What do they all have in common?

CSM+B and....*?*

It cannot be CSM+B alone as I have dosed far more than you and never had an issue. So it is NOT CSM+B *ALONE*.

What other factors can be combined with CSB+B dosing to reproduce the issue? That's my point.

Is it only one variable that can cause the issue in combination with CSM+B dosing? Multiple ones? We have no idea because we have never gotten past the fact it's not CSM+B in and of itself.

Identify other variables that can lead to this issue and we will actually accomplish something.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer. I believe people have had this issue. It's clearly not an isolated problem. We just need to approach the problem in a more logical fashion rather than assuming reducing CSM+B doses across the board is the solution because it's simply not that simple.

Make sense?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

To be entirely honest. I completely rejected the idea of this until I was able to repeat it on the experimental 5 gallon. I would really like to be able to prove it though.... I think my 5 gallon experiment will give us some good evidence. I would agree with your statement Zorfox, there has to be more factors that contribute to this than purely CSM alone. For all the naysayers out there what would be convincing evidence for you?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> It cannot be CSM+B alone as I have dosed far more than you and never had an issue. So it is NOT CSM+B *ALONE*.
> 
> What other factors can be combined with CSB+B dosing to reproduce the issue? That's my point.
> 
> Is it only one variable that can cause the issue in combination with CSM+B dosing? Multiple ones? We have no idea because we have never gotten past the fact it's not CSM+B in and of itself.
> 
> Identify other variables that can lead to this issue and we will actually accomplish something.
> 
> I'm not trying to be a naysayer. I believe people have had this issue. It's clearly not an isolated problem. We just need to approach the problem in a more logical fashion rather than assuming reducing CSM+B doses across the board is the solution because it's simply not that simple.
> 
> Make sense?


Like you said, you have hard water which reduces toxicity issues. I have soft water which makes toxicity more likely. Even Tom has stated something along these lines by saying that GH needs to be added, otherwise it's not EI (though I doubt that it was an issue with GH and actually toxic concentrations of traces.) Even the correlational observation of "CO2 deficiency" isn't actually CO2 deficiency but toxicity by reduced uptake of metals.

But, it's also misleading to say that CSM+B ALONE doesn't cause toxicity. What's causing these issues is what is in it and most likely the concentrations when added at high levels (EI).

Even dosing at high concentrations, there may be ways to offset toxicity by significantly increasing Ca, Mg, and K concentrations as I have done and observed. If you reduced your water hardness to GH=2 and KH=2, then tried dosing as normal, would you see these same effects we've observed?

Staghorn algae, which I previously attributed to low potassium, was most likely early signs of trace toxicity which caused damage to the leaf margins. In nearly all cases, I was able to eliminate staghorn by dosing extra potassium (on top of the already high concentrations of it) but not by dosing extra CSM+B which exacerbated pinholes and necrosis. But the likely reason was because dosing extra potassium reduced trace element toxicity by crowding them out.

This may also be the reason why certain kinds of algae dies and disappears in EI dosed tanks: It's just too damn toxic to grow in these conditions. Since reducing CSM+B, I've had some minor hair algae grow. This never happened before in the 450+ days it's been running. So this raises new questions regarding the effects of high concentrations of CSM+B and the reduction of algae.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Look guys, 

We have gone on for about 140 posts on this thread alone not counting a few other big ones that have talked about this topic. We have provided a great array of data points of personal observation, actual science, and some really great chemistry. Everyone that has contributed here is really a bright mind and highly regarded in the hobby regardless of your opinion on this issue. To be honest, everyone in the hobby needs us to work together and draw some final conclusions on this thing. They count on us. 

Underlying this whole issue is the opposition of Tom Barr. While Tom is highly regarded in this hobby and has an extensive knowledge of the biology and chemistry of plants he is not the end all be all. I feel like there is a significant amount of people that see Tom say it cant be true and they just follow along. NEWS FLASH even conclusions found in academic papers can be debunked at some point. Just because Tom holds his opinion doesn't mean we all take it like its the bible. I still find it concerning the biggest advocate of EI is only dosing half the recommended amount for traces and continues to claim since "he lards it on" no one else should have issues, I cannot recall one scientific post he has made to support his point. I am not trying to target Tom here, but we shouldn't take his advice as end all be all, we are all human no one is always 100% right. 

The whole point behind EI was to give a simpler non limiting approach to plant keeping, no test kits and easy dosing. So to sit here and try to figure out why there are an array of experiences with different KH/GH may be counter productive to EI as a whole. I think the solution will end up being finding an similar approach to traces, maybe its more appropriate to dose less CSM+B and more iron instead? We need to come up with an end solution that will work for ALL water types. 

So with all that being said, why don't we either come up with a way to test this via an experiment that we can all agree upon, or we can continue to fill in the dots of picture we are already painting and try, test, document? 

For me personally, I want to be able to provide a solution to help the hobby move forward. It makes me sick to think about all the issues I have delt with in the build thread that SL posted above. Quite frankly 80+ pages talks about issues with the tank and most people would have quit by now. Lets work on this together so we can GROW this great hobby. 

/Rant


----------



## Audionut

bcarl_10gal said:


> So to sit here and try to figure out why there are an array of experiences with different KH/GH may be counter productive to EI as a whole.


The sooner people stop making this an EI vs whatever, the better off we will be.

We should not be here trying to argue against EI, we should be here trying to find the specific cases where EI fails, *and why*. I am quite confident that if we find the specific circumstances where an EI dose causes toxicity, Mr Barr himself will conduct his own experiments, and adjust *his *recommendation as needed. Right now, he has nothing to go on except a few people saying very general statements like, "CSM+B dosed at EI recommendation cases toxicity". Clearly, this may be the case. Clearly, this is not always the case..........

*The onus is on us* to determine the cause of the toxicity, and present the cause so that it can be reproduced by others. That is what science is all about, presenting a set of methods that others can use to verify claims.

Frankly, I would have been happy to simply have my own understanding of the processes involved, and left it at that. Since as others have pointed out, trying to convince people that something doesn't work exactly like the overwhelming evidence seems to suggest is pointless. Maybe not pointless when it involves malaria, but hobby fish tanks...........

Having said that, if there is a group of people who want to make this a scientific adventure, and not simply an opinionated matter, I am more then happy to use what assets I may have to help.

Cheers.


----------



## Audionut

https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/382628.Al_Zn_lemna.pdf



> Since both Zn and Al induced ROS production, as seen by accumulation of H2O2, a significant component of their phytotoxicity can be explained by oxidative stress — the generation of oxidative damage..................................The results of the study suggest that, combined with advisable harvesting, L. minor can be used for the phytoremediation of low-level Zn and Al contaminated waterways. Since many environmental factors can have an impact on the bioavailability of the metals, in situ studies over a prolonged period of time are being conducted in order to estimate the efficiency of L. minor in treating effluents from mining operations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoremediation



> Phytoremediation (from Ancient Greek φυτο (phyto), meaning "plant", and Latin remedium, meaning "restoring balance") describes the treatment of environmental problems (bioremediation) through the use of plants that mitigate the environmental problem without the need to excavate the contaminant material and dispose of it elsewhere.
> 
> Phytoremediation consists of mitigating pollutant concentrations in contaminated soils, water, or air, with plants able to contain, degrade, or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil and its derivatives, and various other contaminants from the media that contain them.


----------



## kevmo911

A couple of you have said that you have soft water, and the hypothesis that toxicity thresholds exist at lower levels in soft water has been tossed around. Could the culprit be a Ca or Mg deficiency, since those elements are the primary movers in GH? Twisted, stunted leaves are a sign of Calcium deficiency, yes?

I'm not sure if GH booster is technically part of standard EI, but it's pretty common. Rather than cutting back on CSM+B, can you try adding hardeners?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

kevmo911 said:


> A couple of you have said that you have soft water, and the hypothesis that toxicity thresholds exist at lower levels in soft water has been tossed around. Could the culprit be a Ca or Mg deficiency, since those elements are the primary movers in GH? Twisted, stunted leaves are a sign of Calcium deficiency, yes?
> 
> I'm not sure if GH booster is technically part of standard EI, but it's pretty common. Rather than cutting back on CSM+B, can you try adding hardeners?


No, it's not a deficiency of Ca or Mg as evidenced by PortalMasterRy's water testing thread. There is way more than enough to eliminate deficiency of these cations.

And I've tested adding more GH. It's not directly related for the previously posted reasons.

Bump:


Audionut said:


> https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/382628.Al_Zn_lemna.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoremediation


RE: phytoremediation

Some plants are capable of utilizing high concentrations of heavy metals and show no signs of toxicity. _Myriophyllum aquaticum_, "parrots feather", is one such plant. This is one of the few plants I've kept that has shown no signs of toxicity. If anything, keeping plants that are capable of absorbing high concentrations of heavy metals is a boon to a planted tank if you are absolutely clueless. This may explain why I've had ups and down in my tank because I've added and removed this plant a couple of times.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I would also add that I have tried slightly higher GH levels and did not notice any improvement. I bought a Ca nutrafin test kit and it tested around 60ppm. I reconstitute with 3:3:1 GH booster. 

I would add bylxa japonica does not seem to be effected. I really think I could grow that in rubbing alcohol.


----------



## Audionut

kevmo911 said:


> A couple of you have said that you have soft water, and the hypothesis that toxicity thresholds exist at lower levels in soft water has been tossed around. Could the culprit be a Ca or Mg deficiency, since those elements are the primary movers in GH? Twisted, stunted leaves are a sign of Calcium deficiency, yes?


Increased hardness appears to mitigate heavy metal toxicity, however I would never call the level of calcium/magnesium a deficiency, if an increased level simply mitigates heavy metal toxicity. This is an indirect relationship. In this situation, the level of calcium/magnesium hasn't filled a void that plants need, it's simply had the indirect effect of reducing the toxicity of heavy metals.

And then, it appears that it's not simply the excess of calcium/magnesium, but the fact that calcium/magnesium bond readily with carbonate, since with copper at least, when copper bonds with carbonate it forms a toxic ion (copper carbonate). So an increased calcium/magnesium supply in essence reduces carbonate availability. So you see calcium/magnesium have a very indirect relationship.

People generally want soft water for a reason, so I wouldn't increase calcium/magnesium levels to defeat toxicity. I would reduce the level of the element that is causing toxicity, and/or in the case of copper at least, reduce carbonate availability.

CO2 doesn't affect carbonate alkalinity, but it does affect pH. As pH drops, the predominant form of heavy metal shifts towards elemental form, the most toxic. So by using CO2, we reduce pH without affecting carbonate alkalinity, whereas in nature, low pH almost always equals low carbonate alkalinity. So by using CO2, we reduce pH, and hence, push heavy metals towards elemental predominance, _without reducing carbonate availability_.




Solcielo lawrencia said:


> RE: phytoremediation


Just another piece in the extremely complicated puzzle.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

If we wanted to run some type of experiment I would offer to do it, but I would need some equipment donations from you all to make it happen. I would need: 3 small hob filters or small internal filter(azoo palm filter $25 shipped), 2 standard diffusers ($15 shipped), a co2 splitter ($40?) to fit a GLA regulator, some extra plants, possibly substrate, and 3 small sterilite tubs ($20). So I may not be the ideal person for this.... I don't mind spending some on this experiment but not $100....


----------



## fablau

bcarl_10gal said:


> If we wanted to run some type of experiment I would offer to do it, but I would need some equipment donations from you all to make it happen. I would need: 3 small hob filters or small internal filter(azoo palm filter $25 shipped), 2 standard diffusers ($15 shipped), a co2 splitter ($40?) to fit a GLA regulator, some extra plants, possibly substrate, and 3 small sterilite tubs ($20). So I may not be the ideal person for this.... I don't mind spending some on this experiment but not $100....



I am ok to donate for such an experiment.


----------



## anastasisariel

I'd rather donate to your experiments then stomach anymore mention on how this is all Mr. Barr's responsibility to prove/disprove. 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Yes, I've done something similar. 2.7ppm of Fe/week from CSM+B, high amounts of Ca, Mg, and 140+ppm of K weekly for a couple of weeks. Results: harmed fish and killed all my inverts. Fish became less active and hid most of the time. Spawning drastically reduced. Body color became permanently splotchy. A number of fish had severely swollen gills. One fish had gills so swollen that it dislocated it's own jaw. Eventually it starved to death because it couldn't eat. All shrimp suffered from neurological disorders which included tremors and lethargy before they died. All snails died as did the copepods and other micro-crustaceans. This was just when I was dosing the highest as I was already dosing very high to begin with.



I have some fish with swollen gills (mollies and some neons), but I always attributed that to high Co2 levels... Can't high Co2 give the same effect?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

fablau said:


> I have some fish with swollen gills (mollies and some neons), but I always attributed that to high Co2 levels... Can't high Co2 give the same effect?


No.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

anastasisariel said:


> I'd rather donate to your experiments then stomach anymore mention on how this is all Mr. Barr's responsibility to prove/disprove.
> 
> Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


What would work better, setting up a "go fund me RAOK" to get cash for the equipment and buy exactly what we need or try to find someone willing to led the equipment? If I got enough crowd sourcing i would give the equipment back through various RAOK.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> This is very interesting!
> 
> I may be foggy about chemical transformations, toxic levels and several others but I do know my calculations. So I decided to compare apples to apples here.
> 
> In the data below I used four fertilizers. I left out Fe in the graph because it makes all the others difficult to see.
> 
> 
> 
> Plantex in the tank dosed every other day at standard EI levels. I degraded the traces over *7* days due to precipitation etc. I also omitted plant uptake completely.
> 
> 
> The same as above but a more realistic trace degradation period of 3 days.
> 
> 
> Miracle-Gro all purpose Plant food
> 
> 
> Hoagland solution (Hydroponic solution that's been used nearly a century)
> 
> 
> Here is the side by side comparisons in graphic form,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the raw data.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Plantex No Uptake	Plantex No Uptake 		Miracle-Gro All		Hoagland
> and Degrades over	and Degrades over 		All Purpose		Solution
> 7 days.			3 days
> 
> Fe	2.1654			0.1665			0.5			1-5 ppm
> Cu	0.0299			0.0023			0.2333			0.02 ppm
> B	0.2655			0.0204			0.0667			0.5 ppm
> Mn	0.6202			0.0477			0.1667			0.5 ppm
> Mo	0.0074			0.0165			0.0017			0.01 ppm
> Zn	0.1226			0.0094			0.2			0.05 ppm
> 
> I think we can all agree that Miracle-Gro and Hoagland solution is not toxic to terrestrial plants. That's why I compared to these common fertilizers.
> 
> Based on this data your terrestrial plant issues are NOT caused from the trace mix you may be dosing. If it's a nutrient toxicity causing this it's coming from your tap water. So basically, to say EI dosing is excessive is, in your case, erroneous.
> 
> EDIT: I forgot to mention. I lowered the dose of Miracle-Gro to match iron levels we dose using Plantex. If I used the recommended amount on the label the levels would be twice as high for Miracle-Gro. That just made it too hard to compare in the chart.



It needs to be pointed out that the Miracle-Gro is dosed infrequently, definitely not at the same frequency as CSM+B. Further, it's added to the soil, not the water column, which means the concentration will only gradually disperse and taken up. Thus, this is not a good comparison to make.


----------



## chocological

Just wanna point out that I have very soft water and have had issues with hygrophila pinnatifida pinholes and necrosis, growing in ADA AS, EI and CO2 under high par lighting. It has never grown for me like it has for others. I'm gonna cut back my CSM+B and start dosing more Flourish Iron and see what happens.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

chocological said:


> Just wanna point out that I have very soft water and have had issues with hygrophila pinnatifida pinholes and necrosis, growing in ADA AS, EI and CO2 under high par lighting. It has never grown for me like it has for others. I'm gonna cut back my CSM+B and start dosing more Flourish Iron and see what happens.


Here's the thread about the same issues and my idiocy described in excruciating details:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/753753-h-pinnatifida-how-much-potassium.html

If you do notice improvement, please keep up updated.


----------



## chocological

It's funny, I also thought there was a deficiency and decided to increase my micros and KH2PO4 dosing. 
Of course, that did nothing. 

For those interested, NYC water is very soft -- I test my GH from the tap at 1-2 dGH.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

It's also kinda funny to me that both SL and I initially dismissed the idea of a Toxicity. After reducing CSM+B we have both seen improvements in the tank. Coincidence? Possibly, but the other people saying lowering traces helped there tank as well... Even if we designed an experiment to test this won't we all still agree to disagree? The reality is without a lab we probably will never know EXACTLY what is causing this and the factors at play. All we know is that CSM+B at EI levels or higher CAN possibly cause toxicities in soft water. In addition to saying the typical "check your CO2" (still the issue for most people), some members may need to lower their traces.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

To add more info:
In my low-tech shrimp tank (pH=7.4, KH=2, GH=2-3), I started dosing CSM+B at less than "low-light/weekly" because I saw a lot of hair algae, believing that the plants were deficient in micros. I thought CSM+B would get rid of the algae by improving plant health. The algae didn't seem affected so I assumed that the plants were more deficient in traces so I added CSM+B more frequently, but still less than the suggested dose. After a couple of months, the RCS population which was booming suddenly shrank. The hair algae continued to rage on. RCS and CBS all declined. Few shrimplets were observed, fewer females carried eggs, and the full sized adults disappeared. These were high-grade RCS and CBS, too. How much did the population shrink? Estimate: 30-40%. The CBS appeared to be affected much sooner than the RCS as they stopped carrying eggs long before the RCS stopped carrying eggs. None of the CBS shrimplets, if they ever hatched, survived.

The concentration of CSM+B was very low, lower than the suggested amount for EI/low-light weekly. Even at this lower concentration, it appeared to have adversely affected the shrimp population. Since realizing that CSM+B is most likely the culprit, I did massive water changes to reduce trace metal concentrations. Results: shrimp are more active. And plants are growing better.

I mention this to wonder if there is a correlation between various pH values, low GH and/or KH, and CSM+B? This could be another experiment that could be tested. Also, perhaps PortalMasterRy could help with testing the water parameters with his photometer?


----------



## chocological

I wonder then, what the ideal dose of CSM+B would be? At what point does it stop being beneficial? Should it just be dosed once weekly? Once monthly?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

My guess is CSM+B dosed at PPS pro is sufficient but may require additional iron from other sources.


----------



## nilocg

bcarl_10gal said:


> My guess is CSM+B dosed at PPS pro is sufficient but may require additional iron from other sources.


Are you suggest the PPS-PRO levels being dosed 3x per week(for normal ei dosing parameters or 7 days a week)? Would you still suggest the 0.5ppm of iron that EI suggests?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

nilocg said:


> Are you suggest the PPS-PRO levels being dosed 3x per week(for normal ei dosing parameters or 7 days a way)? Would you still suggest the 0.5ppm of iron that EI suggests?


FYI:
The hydroponics suggested dosing for Fe is 2ppm once every three weeks. That's less than 0.7ppm per week of Fe. These are for plants that are exposed to sunlight (3000+ PAR) and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (400ppm). If we were to scale this down to our aquariums (100-200 PAR, 30ppm CO2) that results in less than 1/10 of the nutrient concentrations needed to grow aquatic plants. This isn't a direct transfer, of course, but it does provide some perspective.

Certain aquatic plants are capable of absorbing high amounts of heavy metals from the water column, concentrations that would kill many terrestrial plants as well as aquatic ones. (Myriophyllum aquaticum is one example that is capable of absorbing high concentrations of heavy metals.) Many of the other plants are known weeds, capable of surviving harsh conditions that other species would simply die from. Thus, it may be that the aquatic plants in the hobby are capable of absorbing higher amounts of micronutrients, which means the excess dosing doesn't affect them as much as others.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I think anywhere from .75-1ppm of iron should be plenty per week. Of course only .3 would be straight from CSM+B. With aquarium's we deal with water changes and other factors that can impact iron absorption. I do not think iron is what is causing these issues and 1ppm per week with 50% water changes should keep levels down. We would need to test it though, pure speculation.


----------



## Julia Adkins

Once again, nutrients need to be added in balance with one another. The basic macro nutrients are the ones most and fastest used. They provide the materials for the plant to build the structure out of. Micro or trace nutrients are just that. Micro nutrients are only needed in very small amounts.


----------



## nilocg

bcarl_10gal said:


> I think anywhere from .75-1ppm of iron should be plenty per week. Of course only .3 would be straight from CSM+B. With aquarium's we deal with water changes and other factors that can impact iron absorption. I do not think iron is what is causing these issues and 1ppm per week with 50% water changes should keep levels down. We would need to test it though, pure speculation.


If you end up doing some tests, I could mix up different solutions and donate them if you wanted. Just tell me what concentrations you are wanting and i can do it.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> I think anywhere from .75-1ppm of iron should be plenty per week. Of course only .3 would be straight from CSM+B. With aquarium's we deal with water changes and other factors that can impact iron absorption. I do not think iron is what is causing these issues and 1ppm per week with 50% water changes should keep levels down. We would need to test it though, pure speculation.


For the past two weeks, I've dosed 0.2ppm of Fe per week (CSM+B and FeDTPA). This appears to be enough to prevent chlorosis of new leaves.

Also, 1ppm/week with 50% WC eventually results in 1.5ppm of Fe.


----------



## Zorfox

I'd be curious to see what happens if regular Plantex without Boron was used. Boron is the one micro nutrient that has a narrow range between not enough and too much. If I had to choose one element in the trace mix this would be it. It may be worthwhile for those having issues to try. 

Nothing can replace controlled experiments but to do them properly takes time. Before you can alter any parameters you need to have established plants that are doing well first. That alone takes time. Then all tanks must have the same parameters with the exception of the variable being tested. By the time you test *everything* you will most likely be collecting social security lol


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I would think maybe manganese is also an issue with Hygrophila's. Reason is because of the manganese toxicity pictures of certain terrestrial plants look very similar. I have manganese sulfate available but won't be conducting any experiment with it again anytime soon.


----------



## dukydaf

*Some thoughts on the experiment*



Zorfox said:


> Nothing can replace controlled experiments but to do them properly takes time. Before you can alter any parameters you need to have established plants that are doing well first. That alone takes time. Then all tanks must have the same parameters with the exception of the variable being tested. By the time you test *everything* you will most likely be collecting social security lol


As you rightly point out, you cannot accurately measure and manage everything. There will always be some unthought of, unmeasured parameter. That is why we need one or more controls.

There was at some point the question "What we need to prove/disprove CSM+B Toxicity ?"

*Short answer*: A controlled trial that is well documented, repeated and repeatable.

*Long answer:*

*A working hypothesis:*H1: CSM+B is toxic to aquatic plants if dosed according to EI.
Now that is what we want to achieve, so we will try to disprove this:
*H0:* Dosing CSM+B according to EI induces no observable toxicity syndromes in plants.

Now define terms PICO : 
*(Population)* aquatic plants ->what species will you use ? What species should be exposed together ? Althernathera seems like a good candidate. Based on personal experience S. senegalensis is very responsive to trace. Elodea, Myriophillum aquaticum, Ceratophyllum, Water wisteria etc might not be suitable.
*(Intervention)* Preferably a detailed protocol. CSM+ B dosed according to EI -> what ppm of what elements , how often,how long
*(Comparison)*
*(Outcome) *How will you quantify the toxicity ? Have a visual scale ? Have a symptoms code (stunning 1, melting 10)? How will you take accurate photographs to document your work ?

Protocol should contain:

Equipment used, Light used, Water used, Substrates, way and time to prepare CSM, change the water, measure. Basically all that touches the aquarium or the plants.
Also it is very important to describe when you will collect data, concentrations, durations and frequencies, analysis methods.
If you change the protocol after you begin the experiment, you need to document it. Have all the versions of the protocol available.

Comparison 
Probably this is the most difficult part of the study. You basically need at least two exactly similar set-ups . One for the control and one for the intervention. The control setup should receive exactly the same treatment as the intervention, except for the CSM. If say, you dose 2ppm PO4 in the intervention tank, dose 2 ppm PO4 in the control tank. But, if a day after, you test the PO4 and you have only 1ppm in the intervention and 2 ppm in the control, do not dose 1ppm to the intervention. We assume this 1ppm difference is because of some CSM interaction.


----------



## chocological

Soft water and copper seem to be involved as well.


----------



## Audionut

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Also, 1ppm/week with 50% WC eventually results in 1.5ppm of Fe.


Average concentration, with the swing being from 1ppm to 2ppm, dependent on plant uptake.


----------



## dukydaf

Wish I could do more for you this thread but since I do not have the CSM+B I can only provide advisory support. @bcarl_10gal all the best with your experiments.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> For the past two weeks, I've dosed 0.2ppm of Fe per week (CSM+B and FeDTPA). This appears to be enough to prevent chlorosis of new leaves.
> 
> Also, 1ppm/week with 50% WC eventually results in 1.5ppm of Fe.


I don't think we would see issues with a toxicity while dosing the EI regime. As you plants begin to grow healthier you might find they need a little more iron? Anyone else want so suggest a "safe" dosing regimen?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> I don't think we would see issues with a toxicity while dosing the EI regime. As you plants begin to grow healthier you might find they need a little more iron? Anyone else want so suggest a "safe" dosing regimen?


As plant mass increases, so does the nutrient demand. And my plant mass has been uniformly increasing across all species and I've only dosed when I notice deficiency. For example, today at 12 noon, I noticed chlorosis of Rotala sp. "Ceylon". I dosed the FeDTPA:CSM+B mix (2:1) which should have resulted in 0.1ppm of iron. Ten minutes later, plants started pearling madly when it wasn't before. Chlorosis disappeared by the end of the photoperiod. 0.1ppm of Fe doesn't sound like a lot, but it appears to pack a punch. This concentration lasts about 3 days in my tank before chlorosis is observed again. Photoperiod is 10 hours.

So if you have a high light, 10-hour photoperiod, CO2 injected, heavily planted tank, then maybe 0.3-0.4ppm per week of Fe is more than enough, but this may be too much if CSM+B is the sole source of Fe due to the high concentrations of the other metals.

I'll repeat this from what I mentioned already: 0.7ppm of Fe/week from CSM+B caused growth problems. 0.2ppm from CSM+B was the concentration that seemed to have no issues, although I suspect that this is borderline. This is not an iron toxicity but another trace element toxicity.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Here's a pdf article regarding metal toxicities. It's based on the research applied to terrestrial plants but the information also applies to submerged aquatic plants.

http://plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_i/Metal_toxicity.pdf

Section 3.3 regards solution culturing and states that this method is the most accurate way to test the effects of metals and other nutrients and plant response.
_
"The main advantage that solution culture has over soil culture is that the composition of the growing medium can
be defined, manipulated, and measured with a high level of precision (Rorison and Robinson, 1986). This is
important when undertaking research into metal toxicity. The number of factors affecting metal availability,
issues over what metal fraction is available, and the large amount of variability in soil, make toxicity studies very
difficult if quantitative and nonconfounded results are to be obtained."_


----------



## Audionut

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I'll repeat this from what I mentioned already: 0.7ppm of Fe/week from CSM+B caused growth problems. 0.2ppm from CSM+B was the concentration that seemed to have no issues, although I suspect that this is borderline. This is not an iron toxicity but another trace element toxicity.


Looking back at the copper PDF @bcarl_10gal posted earlier.



bcarl_10gal said:


> - Concentrations of copper of .001-.002mg/ inhibit photosynthesis and plant growth (WSDOE, 1992). Toxicity data for individual plant species are lacking (USEPA, 1980).


0.7ppm Fe CSM+B = Cu 0.0096ppm.

Run the numbers with a 50% water change once a week, and the concentration in the water over time from that dosage = Cu 0.0096ppm - 0.019ppm.

0.2ppm Fe CSM+B = Cu 0.0027ppm.
Concentration in water over time = Cu 0.0027ppm - 0.0054ppm.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> [email protected]!? That's 1-2 parts per billion and it inhibits photosynthesis? I have 30-140x that amount from the tap!


Perhaps not so WTF after all. Shortly after making this post, I finally settled on 1/20th Hoagland solution. That is maintaining 1/20th Hoagland solution in the water column accounting for accumulation. The concentration of the elements being (in ppm).



> N 10.5
> K 11.75
> Ca 10
> P 1.55
> S 3.2
> Mg 2.4
> B 0.025
> Fe 0.05-0.25
> Mn 0.025
> Zn 0.0025
> Cu 0.001
> Mo 0.0005


Where N = N, not NO3, P = P, not PO4, S = S, not SO4. It's far to soon to make overall conclusions, but lots of N (NO3 equivalent equaling 44ppm) has made a marked difference.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34113196/_MG_6139.jpg

Notice the stem plants at rear. Small growth and dying old leaves when maintaining 15-20ppm NO3, with new growth significantly "lusher" @ 10ppm N, with old growth maintaining color. I've boosted all of the other immobile nutrients previously (spastic concentrations) without change. Java fern has responded equally well, with significantly more lush growth. It might not even be just the N, I've also reduced S, K and trace elements.

To get to 10ppm N, I'm hitting my K target with KNO3, Ca target with Ca(NO3)2, and making up the deficit with (NH4)2SO4. My pH is around 5.4, so I'm not concerned about dosing NH4.


Excellent advice @dukydaf


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Audionut said:


> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34113196/_MG_6139.jpg
> 
> Notice the stem plants at rear. *Small growth and dying old leaves *when maintaining 15-20ppm NO3, with new growth significantly "lusher" @ 10ppm N, with old growth maintaining color. I've boosted all of the other immobile nutrients previously (spastic concentrations) without change. Java fern has responded equally well, with significantly more lush growth. It might not even be just the N, I've also reduced S, K and trace elements.


That looks a lot like micronutrient toxicity. High N concentrations reduces the energy requirements needed for uptake and increases growth rates.


----------



## Positron

bcarl_10gal said:


> I would also add that I have tried slightly higher GH levels and did not notice any improvement. I bought a Ca nutrafin test kit and it tested around 60ppm. I reconstitute with 3:3:1 GH booster.
> 
> I would add bylxa japonica does not seem to be effected. I really think I could grow that in rubbing alcohol.



I just needed to quote this because it hit something in my gut. Through out all my problems in my tank (I do have a low GH less than 2), Bylxa Japonica has always grown like a weed. It has so much surface area on that plant it must have evolved a way of dealing with excess cations.

A good test for toxic metals is to put Ludwigia needle leaf in your tank. I forget the actual scientific name, but it has very slender, supple leaves. If you are toxic from CSM+B the leaves will turn around, go up and down and look like a cork screw. The usual discoloration and dead areas do exist as well.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

_Hydrocotyl tripartita_


One of these leaves may be the result of copper toxicity. The others are normal size growth, measuring 24-25mm (1") in diameter.
I've never had this plant grow such large leaves before in the two years I've kept it.


----------



## brian3676

I have been dosing at the standard EI levels and noticed my plants started to struggle and discolor. I read this thread and stopped dosing all ferts and did water changes every 2 days for a week. Plants started to come back and grow like crazy. Next week I am going to try dosing half CSM and see how that goes


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> _Hydrocotyl tripartita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of these leaves may be the result of copper toxicity. The others are normal size growth, measuring 24-25mm (1") in diameter.
> 
> I've never had this plant grow such large leaves before in the two years I've kept it.



The difference in growth is amazing Solcielo!


----------



## fablau

brian3676 said:


> I have been dosing at the standard EI levels and noticed my plants started to struggle and discolor. I read this thread and stopped dosing all ferts and did water changes every 2 days for a week. Plants started to come back and grow like crazy. Next week I am going to try dosing half CSM and see how that goes



Wow, that's incredible. Did they start getting better right away? How long did they take to change growth rate? Have you idea of the levels of Fe or other micros you could have reached? Sorry for so many questions, but that's pretty exciting news!


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Its funny your posted this... The size of my Red Ludwigia Sp. are the biggest I've ever seen. I will post my week 2 without micros pictures soon.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

fablau said:


> Wow, that's incredible. Did they start getting better right away? How long did they take to change growth rate? Have you idea of the levels of Fe or other micros you could have reached? Sorry for so many questions, but that's pretty exciting news!


No, not right away. It took about 1.5-2 weeks after drastically reducing CSM+B and multiple large WCs (>75%) before the leaves started to grow so big. I don't think it looks very good this large. I actually preferred it smaller because it was more proportionate to the tank. I may have to remove this plant. Or create a copper toxicity to keep it small.  (I don't know for certain if this is the result of a Cu-tox.)

I don't know the concentration of Fe or other micros since I've reduced NPK and CO2 to slow the growth of the plants; they were just growing way too fast. While this was greatly enjoyable after 450+ days of problems, it was about to be unmanageable if I didn't do something to slow it down.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> No, not right away. It took about 1.5-2 weeks after drastically reducing CSM+B and multiple large WCs (>75%) before the leaves started to grow so big. I don't think it looks very good this large. I actually preferred it smaller because it was more proportionate to the tank. I may have to remove this plant. Or create a copper toxicity to keep it small.  (I don't know for certain if this is the result of a Cu-tox.)
> 
> I don't know the concentration of Fe or other micros since I've reduced NPK and CO2 to slow the growth of the plants; they were just growing way too fast. While this was greatly enjoyable after 450+ days of problems, it was about to be unmanageable if I didn't do something to slow it down.



I see... Thank you for the info. I am trying to reduce micro dosing by keeping them within reasonable limits by using a Fe colorimeter and a Cu colorimeter. I will publish the results of my experiment in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I just did a comparison between Seachem Flourish and CSM+B and the ratios are disproportionately high for the trace elements. 

*Fe:Mn*
Flourish = 27.2:1
CSM+B = 3.5:1

This means that CSM+B has 6.7x the amount of manganese compared to Flourish. This could very well support the manganese toxicity that has been observed of various plants. But if you look at the other ratios and dosed for iron, then all the other trace elements are astronomically high.

*Fe:Cu*
Flourish = 3200:1
CSM+B = 70:1

*Fe:Zn*
Flourish = 457:1
CSM+B = 17.5:1

_Except for boron_
*Fe:B*
Flourish = 35.5:1
CSM+B = 175:1

In this case, boron is lower for CSM+B than Flourish. (0.04%. Some other vendors add more B.)

So if we are to mix CSM+B and an iron source, how much extra iron should be added? The 2:1 Fe:CSM+B will still result in excessively high concentration of the other traces.

This may support ditching CSM+B altogether and relying solely on chelated iron sources and fish food for the trace elements. I'm sure NilocG will have to reformulate his micros mix.

Concentrations taken from:
Seachem. Flourish
Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , Nutritrace CSM + Boron


----------



## Positron

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I just did a comparison between Seachem Flourish and CSM+B and the ratios are disproportionately high for the trace elements.
> 
> *Fe:Mn*
> Flourish = 27.2:1
> CSM+B = 3.5:1
> 
> This means that CSM+B has 6.7x the amount of manganese compared to Flourish. This could very well support the manganese toxicity that has been observed of various plants. But if you look at the other ratios and dosed for iron, then all the other trace elements are astronomically high.
> 
> *Fe:Cu*
> Flourish = 3200:1
> CSM+B = 70:1
> 
> *Fe:Zn*
> Flourish = 457:1
> CSM+B = 17.5:1
> 
> _Except for boron_
> *Fe:B*
> Flourish = 35.5:1
> CSM+B = 175:1
> 
> In this case, boron is lower for CSM+B than Flourish. (0.04%. Some other vendors add more B.)
> 
> So if we are to mix CSM+B and an iron source, how much extra iron should be added? The 2:1 Fe:CSM+B will still result in excessively high concentration of the other traces.
> 
> This may support ditching CSM+B altogether and relying solely on chelated iron sources and fish food for the trace elements. I'm sure NilocG will have to reformulate his micros mix.
> 
> Concentrations taken from:
> Seachem. Flourish
> Planted Aquarium Fertilizer - , Nutritrace CSM + Boron



Just did a major rescape with aquasoil and i've decided to use this for micro's per dose (3x a week):

.03 ppm iron from CSM+B
.1 ppm iron from dtpa

so thats a 3:10 ratio of CSM : DTPA

If dosed at 3x a week with NO plant uptake and 50% water changes:

(.03ppm x 3) x 2 = 0.18ppm iron from CSM+B after about 4 weeks. I'm wondering if that is still too much Cu, B, Mn?

doing the same thing for the dtpa:

(.1 x 3) x 2 = .6ppm iron after about 4 weeks

total iron = .78ppm at the highest with absolutely no plant uptake. I'm thinking the plants will hopefully take up 25% of that?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

If your water is soft, that may be overdosing.

So after more than a week using FeDTPA:CSM+B at 2:1, dosing 0.1ppm of Fe per dose, results in this kind of growth:


This is most likely a manganese toxicity that presents itself as an induced calcium deficiency with the twisted, stunted new growth. You can see that the older leaves were recovering prior the toxicity. Thus, even at the lowered concentration of other trace elements, Mn may still be too high a concentration. Keep in mind that my water is very soft, GH~2-3 KH=2-3, so toxicities are much more likely to occur. I'll be ceasing CSM+B and dose only FeDTPA for now. What probably made this effect more pronounced was that I was trying to keep growth rates slower by reducing CO2 and macros, thus a slower uptake rate of all nutrients including micros.


----------



## Positron

Wouldn't it be more efficient to return to normal co2 levels that you had before, and then reducing or negating the CSM+B ? After things return to normal and you are getting good growth again then maybe think about reducing co2 / macro's ? 

Removing / changing one variable at a time will give you much better data.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

The lower CO2 concentration is what I'll be keeping the tank at since that slows growth rate. This will be more reasonable for figuring out how much trace elements are necessary, which appear to be much lower than suspected/assumed. It's also possible that the recent toxicity was also a combination of a major replant of stems which cut down biomass quite a lot. This would have resulted in lower uptake of all nutrients. Regardless, it indicates that these concentrations are borderline, and I exceeded it.

If anyone can figure out the mixing ratio for FeDTPA and CSM+B to be close to Seachem Flourish, that would be appreciated. 2:1 is still too high in traces relative to Fe.


----------



## Audionut

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If anyone can figure out the mixing ratio for FeDTPA and CSM+B to be close to Seachem Flourish, that would be appreciated. 2:1 is still too high in traces relative to Fe.


Against which element? This is somewhat pointless since you can only target against one element, with the others being determined by their ratios in the trace mix.

Boron is already low in CSM+B against flourish, so if you target against copper you'll be at 42:1 Fe:CSM or zinc 26:1 Fe:CSM, which will push boron down significantly further.

Roll your own, it'll be the best option in the long run. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8541586-post78.html


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Audionut said:


> Against which element? This is somewhat pointless since you can only target against one element, with the others being determined by their ratios in the trace mix.
> 
> Boron is already low in CSM+B against flourish, so if you target against copper you'll be at 42:1 Fe:CSM or zinc 26:1 Fe:CSM, which will push boron down significantly further.
> 
> Roll your own, it'll be the best option in the long run. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8541586-post78.html


Against Mn, since this is the element that is toxic.


----------



## Audionut

The maths is beyond my skill set. Here is what I would (and) do. Ascertain the concentration on Mn you want to dose. So if you want to dose 0.0001ppm of Mn, use a calculator and create a solution that doses that concentration of Mn.

Find the concentration of Fe from that dose.

Use calculator to find amount of Fe needed to be added to solution to bring Fe dose to wanted level. Adding more Fe doesn't change the Mn dose from the solution. It changes the percentages, but who cares, when you dose this solution with added Fe, you still dose 0.0001ppm of Mn per dose, you just dose extra Fe also.


----------



## fablau

Audionut said:


> The maths is beyond my skill set. Here is what I would (and) do. Ascertain the concentration on Mn you want to dose. So if you want to dose 0.0001ppm of Mn, use a calculator and create a solution that doses that concentration of Mn.
> 
> Find the concentration of Fe from that dose.
> 
> Use calculator to find amount of Fe needed to be added to solution to bring Fe dose to wanted level. Adding more Fe doesn't change the Mn dose from the solution. It changes the percentages, but who cares, when you dose this solution with added Fe, you still dose 0.0001ppm of Mn per dose, you just dose extra Fe also.



This is a great way to do it, thank you Audionut.

I have tested my Fe dosing with a Hanna checker colorimeter, and looks like the dose given by the calculator is pretty close to the actual dose. For example, with my dosing the calculator tells me that, with just CSM, I dose 0.18ppm of Fe, whereas the checker gave me a dose of 0.13. Pretty close really. I am now in the process of see how my plants and critters react by reducing CSM.

Since the Fe checker seems to work very well and consistently (accuracy should be +- 0.04ppm), I have ordered the low range Cu checker as well. As soon as I get it I will measure my dosage and see what's the right level for that.

As for Mn, I could consider the following one, but I am afraid it would be of too high range for our measurements since resolution is just of 0.01ppm:

http://shop.hannainst.com/products/checker-colorimeters/hi709-manganese-hr.html


----------



## Audionut

FYI, following the label directions for flourish gives an Mn dose of 0.00236ppm. They also say once or twice a week, not every other day.



fablau said:


> As for Mn, I could consider the following one, but I am afraid it would be of too high range for our measurements since resolution is just of 0.0-ppm:http://shop.hannainst.com/products/checker-colorimeters/hi709-manganese-hr.html


Following the directions for flourish gives a peak accumulation concentration of 0.0094ppm, below the resolution of that colorimeter.

Following EI with only CSM+B (no added Fe) gives a peak Mn concentration of 0.86ppm.

Even with flourish dosing, the colorimeter would show if you're dosing to much or not. Any reading would equal to much.



fablau said:


> I have tested my Fe dosing with a Hanna checker colorimeter, and looks like the dose given by the calculator is pretty close to the actual dose. For example, with my dosing the calculator tells me that, with just CSM, I dose 0.18ppm of Fe, whereas the checker gave me a dose of 0.13. Pretty close really. I am now in the process of see how my plants and critters react by reducing CSM.


I would trust the maths before I trusted that colrimeter. If you make a solution bottle for dosing, it's concentration will equal (concentration of dose * number of doses in solution). So if you make a 500ml solution and your dose is 5ml, then that equals 100 doses for the solution bottle.

If the dose is 0.5ppm Fe, then the concentration of the solution bottle equals 0.5 * 100 = 50ppm.


----------



## dukydaf

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The lower CO2 concentration is what I'll be keeping the tank at since that slows growth rate. This will be more reasonable for figuring out how much trace elements are necessary, which appear to be much lower than suspected/assumed. It's also possible that the recent toxicity was also a combination of a major replant of stems which cut down biomass quite a lot. This would have resulted in lower uptake of all nutrients. Regardless, it indicates that these concentrations are borderline, and I exceeded it.
> 
> If anyone can figure out the mixing ratio for FeDTPA and CSM+B to be close to Seachem Flourish, that would be appreciated. 2:1 is still too high in traces relative to Fe.


Please be aware that CO2 levels will potentially act as a strong confounder. As you point out, CO2 conc. affects the growth rate of plants, which affects the required (sufficient or too much) levels of traces. As this thread previously pointed out, CO2 affects the pH, which can affect the reaction of traces with other elements and the % of very toxic molecules. So CO2 presumably affects the Exposure (traces) and the Outcome (plant growth).

Basically, you cannot compare these effects with those previously seen of (over)dosing CSM+B. You can only compare the effects observed at the same CO2 level. If the CO2 level is different it is very hard to attribute the state of the plants to CSM+B.

Cutting plants also releases all kinds of nutrients into the water solution and should be avoided if you want to accurate measurement of the effect the traces have.

Hope this helps in your observations.


----------



## Zorfox

One dose, recommended by Seachem, of Flourish Comprehensive provides 0.002597672 ppm of Mn. Using that as the proxy for Plantex the amounts are listed below.

Dry dosing,

0.52584677 mg of Plantex CSM+B per gallon
Optionally, 18.93 mg of DTPA Fe (10%).

Solution,

263 mg of Plantex CSM + B (approximately 1/16 teaspoon) in 500ml of water dose at 1ml per gallon
Optionally, 9.47 gm (approximately 2 1/4 teaspoons) DTPA Fe 10%

Side by side comparison


Code:


		[B][U]Plantex[/U]		[U]Flourish Comp[/U][/B]
B		0.001111304	0.001981275
Cu		0.000125022	0.000022014
Fe		0.009071015	0.070445342
Mg		0.001944781	0.024215586
Mn		0.002597672	0.002597672
Mo		0.000069456	0.000198128
Zn		0.000513978	0.000154099

Fe		0.5 Via DTPA Fe 10% Optional


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I noticed the amount of traces used in Flourish Trace is a bit higher than what is used in Comprehensive.Would that be a better comparison?


----------



## Zorfox

bcarl_10gal said:


> I noticed the amount of traces used in Flourish Trace is a bit higher than what is used in Comprehensive.Would that be a better comparison?


Probably. Flourish trace is almost exactly twice as much Mn per recommended dose.

Dry,
1.075 mg of Plantex CSM+B.

Solution: 500ml and 1ml/gallon
537.7 mg (approximately 1/8 teaspoon) of Plantex CSM+B



Code:


		[B][U]Plantex[/U]		[U]Flourish Trace[/U][/B]
B		0.002272727	0.00175
Cu		0.000255682	0.002
Mn		0.0053125	0.0053125
Mo		0.000142045	0.0001875
Zn		0.001051136	0.0105625


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Wanted to add my week 2 with no traces update. I have one plant that has some not perfect growth, other than that everything is looking good. I am starting to see a little yellowing of tips so I will add a few drops of seachem iron tomorrow morning on "micro" day. Here are some pictures.







[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

dukydaf said:


> Please be aware that CO2 levels will potentially act as a strong confounder. As you point out, CO2 conc. affects the growth rate of plants, which affects the required (sufficient or too much) levels of traces. As this thread previously pointed out, CO2 affects the pH, which can affect the reaction of traces with other elements and the % of very toxic molecules. So CO2 presumably affects the Exposure (traces) and the Outcome (plant growth).


This is something I've considered, however, it's unlikely pH will have any large effect on the metals or its uptake especially with my water GH and KH (2-3)



> Basically, you cannot compare these effects with those previously seen of (over)dosing CSM+B. You can only compare the effects observed at the same CO2 level. If the CO2 level is different it is very hard (but possible through Mantel-Hänszel stratification, etc) to attribute the state of the plants to CSM+B.


The fact that these low doses were still toxic enough strongly suggests that the concentration is still way too high. The margin of error was way too small even at these small doses (2:1 Fe:CSM+B) There is an optimum range of nutrients, but this exceeded it into the toxic range even accounting for the slightly slower growth.

Also note, there may be an optimum range of CO2 for certain plants. Exceed it and plant growth slows. So even though the CO2 stays under 30ppm throughout the 10-hour photoperiod with a gradual concentration curve, the lower CO2 may be optimum for many plants. At this point, I don't know which is slowing the growth more, the lower nutrients (NO3 <10ppm, PO4<2ppm, K<10ppm) or the lower CO2 concentration. It's most likely a combination of both.



> Cutting plants also releases all kinds of nutrients into the water solution and should be avoided if you want to accurate measurement of the effect the traces have.


I doubt this has any effect. I've cut plants dozens of times prior so this is not an issue. Trimming must be expected in any tank that plants are growing, including replanting so this is a normal variable that must be accounted for.

Lastly, it's a live tank, not a carefully controlled experiment. Any short term observations must be considered in the context of the long-term.

Bump:


bcarl_10gal said:


> Wanted to add my week 2 with no traces update. I have one plant that has some not perfect growth, other than that everything is looking good. I am starting to see a little yellowing of tips so I will add a few drops of seachem iron tomorrow morning on "micro" day. Here are some pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]


Manganese toxicity and iron deficiency. It's funny how after years of observing and not being aware of a toxicity that once you know the symptoms, you see it right away, even in seemingly healthy tanks that people faun over. When people claim that their tanks are healthy, they think the growth patterns are normal when they are not.


----------



## happi

i will share my opinion later on today when i get time, i just came across this thread today and i must read it completely before throwing anything at it.


----------



## Positron

happi said:


> i will share my opinion later on today when i get time, i just came across this thread today and i must read it completely before throwing anything at it.



Happi,

I'm very interested in what you have to say, especially considering you were the author of this thread about two years ago:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/503585-toxicity-csm-b.html


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Earlier in the thread, I stated that 0.2ppm of Fe from CSM+B was a safe concentration per week in a high light tank. However, since using the 2:1 Fe:CSM+B amount, it's obvious that leaves have grown even longer than before.

_Rotala_ sp. "Vietnam"

The top portion of the stem is from last weeks growth. The middle section was from two weeks prior. You can see that the leaves are much shorter than the top portion. There is still some bending and twisting of the newer leaves so that indicates that even at 2:1 Fe:CSM+B, the concentration of other micros is still much too high.


----------



## Positron

Sorry, you probably posted it before, but if i remember correctly, the weekly dose of you 2:1 FE:CSM+B was

0.4ppm Fe and 0.2ppm CSM+B

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

No, it was 0.3-0.4ppm of Fe total per week. So this is 0.2-0.3ppm from FeDTPA and 0.05-0.1ppm from CSM+B.


----------



## happi

first of all let me introduce my self a little bit, i been in this hobby for many years now and i have learned a lot from all the guru's here, some of them which i had conflicts with from time to time but we are still friends, its always fun to debate at least in my opinion. i have many kinds of fertilizers, chemicals to play with, i carry out certain experiments with certain ratio to see how plant would respond to it. i also make fertilizers which react in such a way that plant respond better or worse, i do most of this just for fun. 

before i start, let me say that these tests are carried on my tank which run high lights and high co2 levels, now lets get to the main point, Trace toxicity are real, mainly Cu, Zn and Boron, even the ratio matter to some plants, ratio of B:Zn in some traces is wrong, the correct ratio should be 2:1 not equal or 1:2, this can lead toward buildup of Zn, you might not see much toxicity if you were dosing low to begin with, but if you suddenly see a issue with your plants when everything else is perfect then some kind of trace is building up, possibly Zn or boron, boron is also toxic if overdosed, it can burn plants, but most plant can consume it rapidly if you have fast growing stems. Cu toxicity will reduce the plant growth but not entirely kill the plant right away, it should also kill algae if its overdosed at very high amount. Mn toxicity which am not sure how it looks like but lack of it also resemble Fe deficiency, i can safely say that Mn is maybe the 2nd most important trace nutrient after Fe, you should be safe with 0.03-0.04ppm Mn per daily dose, i have gone quit high with Mn dosing and it actually help enhance plant colors, but no need to exceed over 0.05ppm daily. Magnesium is also very important when its used with Fe, it will further enhance the plant growth and colors, if you are dosing tons of Fe and not seeing good colors, then you might have low Mg levels or Fe toxicity. now lets talk about Fe toxicity, overdosing the Fe doesn't make the plant more Red, it will make it looks worse, it can actually make it look yellow. like i said before, if your plant does not look good color wise, make sure you try some Mg before attempting anything else. source of Fe chelated is also important to consider, Fe EDTA can last in water for few hours while DTPA can last for day or so, Fe gluconate can last for few minutes to hours, so it can be dosed in one heavy single dose without any issue, but its not needed, plant don't need that much Fe either. i would be more careful when using DTPA, i would suggest you try 0.05ppm fe daily if you want to play with it.

now let me explain why some of us do not see any toxicty when we overdose traces, first of all we need to keep in mind that our filterration can remove certain Chemicals inculding trace metals, Fe etc, Fe can be reduced by light and our filterration, most of the metals can react with certain things in our tank which our unknown to us, Fe can easily react with PO4 especially if its Fe edta or Gluconate based. if someone show you that they are dosing tons of traces, fe etc and still have very good looking plants, you should also consider how much PO4 they are dosing and how much filter ration and lights they use, even UV sterilizer reduce the Fe far as i remember, they must also have plants that are not very much affected by the overdose of traces, some plant can tolerate it and they will rapidly use those trace metals for there growth, mainly stem plants, some of them will out compete the other plants.

now let me also talk about something which isn't Trace related, this is more related toward Nitrogen, if your plants are suffering from nitrogen, lower leaves turning yellow/falling off and growth is slow, you must consider using different source of Nitrogen, i always had issue with my plants when i only depended on KNO3, now i only use Urea as my main source of Nitrogen, plants looks much more healthy. i also have ammonium Nitrate which i tested several times, i don't think its superior to Urea, i had less to no algae when i used urea only as my nitrogen source. i would be caution about using Nh4 based fertilizer including Urea, due to the fact that this is good source when you have acidic water and lower Ph, it can become toxic if not used properly mainly in higher PH water. am not encouraging you to try this, but if you do feel like your plants aren't dosing good as you expect them to do, then give this one a shot. i would dose 0.7ppm Urea daily and no other source of Nitrogen if you want to try this. 

now let me tell you how much nutrients plant could uptake in fully planted tank including fast growing stems, just remember these numbers are based on my own observation and testing, all the parameter were tested as well, beside potassium, traces, fe levels. i also observed that most plant do not need high calcium levels, they use Magnesium more than calcium, this was observed on fast growing stems plants, where calcium was only 2 ppm and magnesium was 6-8ppm, plant like HC might not like this ratio, i have observed that HC seems to grow better when carbonate is present in water, including high Ca and Nitrate, it care less about potassium levels as well. you would be surprised to see if i show you very healthy looking HC even in no CO2 tank. i have also observed that most of the Ludwigia and Rotala sp. will greatly benefit from Urea/NH4 dosing, if you struggle to grow these plants you might wanna try this source of nitrogen, having high amount of NO3 levels isn't good for most plants either, i have observed that when i dosed high amount of KNO3, most red plant would grow twisted or die, in most cases twisting was present. 

these numbers were dosed daily to keep the tank and plants looking healthy including good plant growth:
0.7ppm NH4 from Urea
1ppm NO3
1-2ppm K+
0.3-0.5ppm PO4
0.1ppm fe from csm+b


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> No, it was 0.3-0.4ppm of Fe total per week. So this is 0.2-0.3ppm from FeDTPA and 0.05-0.1ppm from CSM+B.


Thank you Solcielo for clarifying that. It has been one week since I have stopped CSM dosing, and then I had another 50% WC, and also I reduced Co2 of half rate (from 80ml/minute with a 1.5 PH drop, to 40ml/minute with a 1.2 PH drop now) and I see already improvements! My Java Moss seems to get back finally, after month of being stuck. Also, sounds incredible, but when lights comes on, plants pearl right away and I see bubbles everywhere despite lights hasn't changed, and Co2 has been diminished! I see an overall healthier tank now: less Co2, less ferts, better looking plants, happier critters! Still early to say, but it looks like it is working indeed!

I'll keep you posted on my progress, and I leave the conversation to replies to Happi's post above...


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Earlier in the thread, I stated that 0.2ppm of Fe from CSM+B was a safe concentration per week in a high light tank. However, since using the 2:1 Fe:CSM+B amount, it's obvious that leaves have grown even longer than before.
> 
> _Rotala_ sp. "Vietnam"
> 
> The top portion of the stem is from last weeks growth. The middle section was from two weeks prior. You can see that the leaves are much shorter than the top portion. There is still some bending and twisting of the newer leaves so that indicates that even at 2:1 Fe:CSM+B, the concentration of other micros is still much too high.



you should also consider the fact that plant will grow fuller and better when they are about to reach close to light, now look at the same mother plant where lower part with new leaves on different stem of same plant still have smaller/thinner leaves


----------



## kevmo911

Hey happi, what are your water parameters?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

happi said:


> you should also consider the fact that plant will grow fuller and better when they are about to reach close to light, now look at the same mother plant where lower part with new leaves on different stem of same plant still have smaller/thinner leaves


Yes, that probably true, but if you look even lower on the stems, you'll see that the leaves are even longer than the middle section. That growth is when I wasn't dosing any CSM+B at all, just FeDTPA.

So from top down:
1) FeDTPA:CSM+B - longer leaves
2) CSM+B - shorter leaves
3) FeDTPA - longer leaves

Bump: 
*Copper toxicity symptoms:*
interveinal chlorosis
leaves wilted
leaf tips and margins necrotic
shortened roots
inhibited root hairs

*Manganese toxicity symptoms:*
necrotic brown spotting on leaves, petioles, and stems, starting from the bottom up
bronzing and shortening of internodes
"crinkle-leaf" of youngest leaves, stems, and petioles
chlorosis and browning
chlorosis from older toward younger leaves, starting at leaf margins to interveinal areas
roots brown in color and may crack

*Zinc toxicity symptoms:*
chlorosis of younger leaves, which may result in reddening due to anthocyanin production
smaller leaves
vertically oriented leaves
brown spots
necrotic lesions, progressing to entire leaf death
reduction in root growth, fewer and shorter lateral roots, and yellowing

*Boron toxicity symptoms:*
die back of new leaves
chlorosis of margins
leaves dwarfed, curled
shortened internodes
leaf tips and margins yellow and burn
leaf tips brown


----------



## Zorfox

Welcome back Happi. :wink2:

What ever happened to trying Plantex without Boron? That's been quite awhile now. Also, anymore thought about the trace mix you wanted to develop? Never heard back. Sounds like an interesting project.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Assuming these descriptions of toxicity of terrestrial plants can be applied to submerged aquatic plants, based on these descriptions of toxicity, which one affected the Rotala sp. "Vietnam" in the picture? Manganese appears to be the culprit due to the crinkled leaves. Or is it a B-tox? If it's boron, that would fit the descriptions much better.


----------



## happi

kevmo911 said:


> Hey happi, what are your water parameters?


100% RO and some GH booster and MgsO4, those listed experiments were carried under this water parameter, no added KH either, low PH as well.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Hoppi so based on your post, in your opinion would you say that obtaining toxicity levels is possible while dosing higher levels of CSM+B in accordance with EI? 

So your recommendation would be to dose .1ppm of csm+b and .05 of Fe DTPA daily? This would be very close to PPS pro amounts correct? 

To clarify, you would recommend Urea for lower pH sourced tanks?


----------



## happi

Zorfox said:


> Welcome back Happi. :wink2:
> 
> What ever happened to trying Plantex without Boron? That's been quite awhile now. Also, anymore thought about the trace mix you wanted to develop? Never heard back. Sounds like an interesting project.


hey bro, yeh i been away testing some ferts and yes am still interested in needing your help with the traces that i want to make, did not get time to order all the stuff, been busy at work. but it might be little expensive experiment this time.


----------



## Zorfox

happi said:


> hey bro, yeh i been away testing some ferts and yes am still interested in needing your help with the traces that i want to make, did not get time to order all the stuff, been busy at work. but it might be little expensive experiment this time.


Yes. It's an expensive venture to create your own trace mix. However, when it comes to trace mixes you don't need a lot of each component. When you do have the trace components then you can create custom mixes for various applications. 

I think there would be a market for that, small one though, to offset your hobby costs. Why not get paid to play. I'm sure a few here would love to order custom levels of traces. Mixing equivalents could be a market for others that want to convert to dry due to cost. Seachem makes plenty off of selling water. :wink2:


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Yes, that probably true, but if you look even lower on the stems, you'll see that the leaves are even longer than the middle section. That growth is when I wasn't dosing any CSM+B at all, just FeDTPA.
> 
> So from top down:
> 1) FeDTPA:CSM+B - longer leaves
> 2) CSM+B - shorter leaves
> 3) FeDTPA - longer leaves
> 
> Bump:
> *Copper toxicity symptoms:*
> interveinal chlorosis
> leaves wilted
> leaf tips and margins necrotic
> shortened roots
> inhibited root hairs
> 
> *Manganese toxicity symptoms:*
> necrotic brown spotting on leaves, petioles, and stems, starting from the bottom up
> bronzing and shortening of internodes
> "crinkle-leaf" of youngest leaves, stems, and petioles
> chlorosis and browning
> chlorosis from older toward younger leaves, starting at leaf margins to interveinal areas
> roots brown in color and may crack
> 
> *Zinc toxicity symptoms:*
> chlorosis of younger leaves, which may result in reddening due to anthocyanin production
> smaller leaves
> vertically oriented leaves
> brown spots
> necrotic lesions, progressing to entire leaf death
> reduction in root growth, fewer and shorter lateral roots, and yellowing
> 
> *Boron toxicity symptoms:*
> die back of new leaves
> chlorosis of margins
> leaves dwarfed, curled
> shortened internodes
> leaf tips and margins yellow and burn
> leaf tips brown


thanks for posting this info regarding toxicity, it will be very useful. sorry i must have missed something on that picture. far as i remember Fe dtpa have some NH4 in it, i could be wrong, this will boost the plant growth including leaves, i cannot confirm for sure though, need to look more into it.

Bump:


Zorfox said:


> Yes. It's an expensive venture to create your own trace mix. However, when it comes to trace mixes you don't need a lot of each component. When you do have the trace components then you can create custom mixes for various applications.
> 
> I think there would be a market for that, small one though, to offset your hobby costs. Why not get paid to play. I'm sure a few here would love to order custom levels of traces. Mixing equivalents could be a market for others that want to convert to dry due to cost. Seachem makes plenty off of selling water. :wink2:


yes if we succeed in making this, me and colin can sell them, am normally the one to test things before we will sell it. you are our calculator :laugh2:

Bump:


bcarl_10gal said:


> Hoppi so based on your post, in your opinion would you say that obtaining toxicity levels is possible while dosing higher levels of CSM+B in accordance with EI?
> 
> So your recommendation would be to dose .1ppm of csm+b and .05 of Fe DTPA daily? This would be very close to PPS pro amounts correct?
> 
> To clarify, you would recommend Urea for lower pH sourced tanks?



i would even go low as 0.05 ppm Fe from csm+b and add that additional 0.05ppm Fe DTPA daily, i have done this experiment as well and it turn out to work very well too. yes i would recommend using urea in lower ph and acidic tanks, it can also be combined with KNO3 as well


----------



## Zorfox

happi said:


> far as i remember Fe dtpa have some NH4 in it, i could be wrong, this will boost the plant growth including leaves, i cannot confirm for sure though, need to look more into it.


Nope. There is no NH4 in DTPA iron. It's just iron (Fe) and DTPA, (C14H23N3O10).


----------



## happi

Zorfox said:


> Nope. There is no NH4 in DTPA iron. It's just iron (Fe) and DTPA, (C14H23N3O10).


oh sorry i must have mistaken it with Na (sodium) which i think it does have some, correct me again :smile2:


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Assuming these descriptions of toxicity of terrestrial plants can be applied to submerged aquatic plants, based on these descriptions of toxicity, which one affected the Rotala sp. "Vietnam" in the picture? Manganese appears to be the culprit due to the crinkled leaves. Or is it a B-tox? If it's boron, that would fit the descriptions much better.


i can safely say it shouldn't be Mn toxicity, most of us dose quite high levels of Mn without any issue, i use to dose it extra when i reduced the Csm+b. 0.04ppm Mn should be safe, but like i have mentioned, some plant might uptake it quickly and we might not see much toxicity in other plants. TPN also use this ppm number which is dosed once a week, so you can use the same to see if the toxicity would occur. better test would be to dose 0.04ppm Mn from csm+b in single dose and dose 0.03-0.05ppm Fe from Fe DTPA daily.


----------



## kevmo911

happi said:


> 100% RO and some GH booster and MgsO4, those listed experiments were carried under this water parameter, no added KH either, low PH as well.


Starting to seem like there might be a correlation between low GH and possible toxicity issues. Can you be more specific about GH, or did you not test for it?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

happi said:


> better test would be to dose 0.04ppm Mn from csm+b in single dose and dose 0.03-0.05ppm Fe from Fe DTPA daily.


So one single dose of CSM+B to reach a concentration of 0.04ppm of Mn per week is safe and keeps the other trace elements within optimum concentrations?

I do have MnSO4 so I can dose this instead.


----------



## Zorfox

happi said:


> oh sorry i must have mistaken it with Na (sodium) which i think it does have some, correct me again :smile2:


Not busting your chops. Your post sounded like you were unsure so I was simply giving you a heads up. It has no sodium either. 

14 carbons, C14 
23 Hydrogens, H23 
3 nitrogens, N3 
10 oxygens, O10
and of course Fe at various percentages.


----------



## happi

Zorfox said:


> Not busting your chops. Your post sounded like you were unsure so I was simply giving you a heads up. It has no sodium either.
> 
> 14 carbons, C14
> 23 Hydrogens, H23
> 3 nitrogens, N3
> 10 oxygens, O10
> and of course Fe at various percentages.



its always good to know man, no worries, am not good as you are at breaking down those chemicals formulas, i have no chemistry background i must be mistaking some where when i read some of these formulas. some of them still confuse me, thanks for breaking it down. BTW i just ordered some of those traces to make my own mix, now get ready for some headache, i will be bugging you more often. only 4 of those chemicals cost me over $100 already lol, but it will be fun experiment. :nerd:

Bump:


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> So one single dose of CSM+B to reach a concentration of 0.04ppm of Mn per week is safe and keeps the other trace elements within optimum concentrations?
> 
> I do have MnSO4 so I can dose this instead.



like i said i have never gone 0.04 Mn per week from csm+b and never tested it, but i have a feeling it might work well when you combine this with daily dose of some Fe, if there is no improvement then add some Mn to the Fe mix without increasing the csm+b dose and see what happen, i assume you should still have good amount of trace even with that single dose compare to seachem trace. if things dont go well you can always adjust back, it will be good experiment for you. make sure you do some very big water changes before attempting this. good luck


----------



## Zorfox

happi said:


> its always good to know man, no worries, am not good as you are at breaking down those chemicals formulas, i have no chemistry background i must be mistaking some where when i read some of these formulas. some of them still confuse me, thanks for breaking it down. BTW i just ordered some of those traces to make my own mix, now get ready for some headache, i will be bugging you more often. only 4 of those chemicals cost me over $100 already lol, but it will be fun experiment. :nerd:


Your'e one of the few that I have no problem correcting in open posts. You seem to be able to take constructive criticism. We all have strengths and weaknesses. God knows I screw up on a daily basis lol. 

Bug me all you want. I enjoy doing the math and tinkering. It is a hobby after all. :wink2:


----------



## happi

kevmo911 said:


> Starting to seem like there might be a correlation between low GH and possible toxicity issues. Can you be more specific about GH, or did you not test for it?


yes certain metals are known to be more toxic at lower gh/kh. whenever i tested the gh it would register extremely low on the api test kit far as i remember, its been a while. 2-3ppm Ca and 6-8ppm Mg, this is when tank was almost algae free and stems were growing very fast, HC didn't like this environment.


----------



## happi

Zorfox said:


> Your'e one of the few that I have no problem correcting in open posts. You seem to be able to take constructive criticism. We all have strengths and weaknesses. God knows I screw up on a daily basis lol.
> 
> Bug me all you want. I enjoy doing the math and tinkering. It is a hobby after all. :wink2:



thanks man, if i would have argued with you i would have lost anyway, if i showed off and said am right and you are wrong then we wont see knowledgeable people like you sharing their ideas, they would waste no time on such a topic. am glad people like you are here to help others with their knowledge. :smile2:


----------



## chocological

This week, I'm aiming for .07ppm Fe with CSM+B and .2ppm Fe with Flourish Iron. This will be the total dosing for the week. I'm gonna make a solution with this and split the solution to dose 3 times a week.


----------



## Positron

Thanks Happi for the informative post(s).

I see where you are coming from, especially the Mg dosing. I believe Mg to be very important to protect plants from heavy metals; even more so than Ca. I do believe that plants, when growing fast and building structure will have no choice but to use more Ca than Mg (probably in a 3:1 ratio), but Mg seems to do a better job at protecting existing growth from chlorosis and the dreaded mini pinholes that I once thought was K+ deficiency. 

However, from what I've observed, is that when i double my Ca concentration from 8ppm to 15.7ppm (not dosing, overtime peak concentration), twisting and abnormal new growth is at least partially healed. Calcium, on the whole, is more reactive than Mg so it stands that it would negate perhaps some of the negative side effects of Fe,Mn,B,Cu,Zn binding to unwanted sites in a plant's cell; especially when the plant is making new growth. 

Reactivity series of common cations:

https://granvillescience.wikispaces...eactivity.gif/81420279/biteszedreactivity.gif

Also, notice how reactive K+ is. Running high K+ (50+ ppm) both has it's advantages and disadvantages. More K+ will definitely offset the effect of heavy metal toxicity, but it also competes with Ca and Mg, although not as strongly. In my tanks K+ is important, and it was in Mr. Amano's setups. In fact ADA doses NO Mn,Zn,Cu,B usually. And for Macro's seldom does N and P. I think it's because of the specific water chemistry in Japan, but I also agree with the methodology. 

ADA dosing:

3.4ppm K+ daily
0.01-0.06ppm K+ 3x a week
0.01-0.02ppm Fe 3x a week

Optional:

0.2ppm N 3x a week
0.2ppm P 3x a week

Rich substrate (aquasoil)

Yeah I don't see any traces except Fe at all here. Hmmm.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

ADA Aquasoil provides the N from ammonium and the other micros including iron from the soil once plants have rooted. The P comes from the tap water, which is high in PO4, 0.5ppm.

I've been wondering if planted tank aquarists in Japan have the issues we in the US have. I strongly doubt that this is even an issue and they probably have no idea what's going on here. I think they're just enjoying their tanks while we're all struggling because we use off-the-shelf DIY fertilizer. That's probably one reason why there are so few US entrants in aquascaping contests, because we just can't seem to grow healthy plants. I didn't enter the IAPLC this year because my plants looked terrible and struggled to grow well.


----------



## fablau

Well, if everything really lies in trace overdosing, the formula should be simple: either reduce micros to the minimum, or get rid of them completely and add what necessary when you see any issues. In my personal experience, I setup my tank 5 years ago, the first 2 years plants grew like crazy and I dosed just Flourish comprehensive once a week, little Co2 and inert substrate (Eco complete). Then I begun messing with things, found some deficiencies, tried to tackle them, and then adopting EI: there all weird problems started. Now I wanna see if all those problems (stunted growth of some plants, BBA always around, not happy critters, etc.) have been caused by overdosing for the past 2 years! But, I mean guys, if this is the truth of all the story, we should really revise the EI blue papers!


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> Thanks Happi for the informative post(s).
> 
> I see where you are coming from, especially the Mg dosing. I believe Mg to be very important to protect plants from heavy metals; even more so than Ca. I do believe that plants, when growing fast and building structure will have no choice but to use more Ca than Mg (probably in a 3:1 ratio), but Mg seems to do a better job at protecting existing growth from chlorosis and the dreaded mini pinholes that I once thought was K+ deficiency.
> 
> However, from what I've observed, is that when i double my Ca concentration from 8ppm to 15.7ppm (not dosing, overtime peak concentration), twisting and abnormal new growth is at least partially healed. Calcium, on the whole, is more reactive than Mg so it stands that it would negate perhaps some of the negative side effects of Fe,Mn,B,Cu,Zn binding to unwanted sites in a plant's cell; especially when the plant is making new growth.
> 
> Reactivity series of common cations:
> 
> https://granvillescience.wikispaces...eactivity.gif/81420279/biteszedreactivity.gif
> 
> Also, notice how reactive K+ is. Running high K+ (50+ ppm) both has it's advantages and disadvantages. More K+ will definitely offset the effect of heavy metal toxicity, but it also competes with Ca and Mg, although not as strongly. In my tanks K+ is important, and it was in Mr. Amano's setups. In fact ADA doses NO Mn,Zn,Cu,B usually. And for Macro's seldom does N and P. I think it's because of the specific water chemistry in Japan, but I also agree with the methodology.
> 
> ADA dosing:
> 
> 3.4ppm K+ daily
> 0.01-0.06ppm K+ 3x a week
> 0.01-0.02ppm Fe 3x a week
> 
> Optional:
> 
> 0.2ppm N 3x a week
> 0.2ppm P 3x a week
> 
> Rich substrate (aquasoil)
> 
> Yeah I don't see any traces except Fe at all here. Hmmm.


 you are right about every thing you have said. Trace toxicity occurs less in harder water due to calcium or magnesium, while even low amount of traces can become toxic in soft water. This might explain why I was able to grow most plants only in 2ppm Ca and 6ppm Mg while dosing high amount of traces, this tank never had any curling or twisting of plants even in such a low calcium levels. IME I never had any issue with this ratio, potassium levels were also kept high 20+ PPM.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Extra dosing of fertz may help offset the toxic effects of these metals. Extra potassium, calcium, and magnesium helps offset trace toxicity, probably through competition since it has a positive charge as does the metals. But also dosing nutrients with a negative charge may offset trace toxicity through precipitation. For example, dosing higher concentrations of phosphate can cause precipitation, resulting in copper phosphate, iron phosphate, manganese phosphate, etc. So this may explain why dosing so much phosphate is necessary if also dosing high concentrations of trace elements, because the phosphate binds and renders the metals non-toxic.


----------



## Positron

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Extra dosing of fertz may help offset the toxic effects of these metals. Extra potassium, calcium, and magnesium helps offset trace toxicity, probably through competition since it has a positive charge as does the metals. But also dosing nutrients with a negative charge may offset trace toxicity through precipitation. For example, dosing higher concentrations of phosphate can cause precipitation, resulting in copper phosphate, iron phosphate, manganese phosphate, etc. So this may explain why dosing so much phosphate is necessary if also dosing high concentrations of trace elements, because the phosphate binds and renders the metals non-toxic.


Keep in mind phosphate binding is very specific to each metal, and a precise equilibrium reaction exists between free metal cations and bound phosphate complexes. Ph play a huge role as to how much is formed on either side of the equation with low ph (sub 6.5 for some down to sub 5 for others)almost always favoring free cations. 

This could be another argument as to not blast your co2. Lower ph means more free metal cations. 

The only metals not very much effected by lower ph are the alkali earth metals ca and mg. they don't bind to phosphate in the same manner and rely more on higher ph environments to form complexes, particularly with carbonate and phosphates at very high ph.

However as the ph lowers, the ability of organic and non organic chelates to hold metals increases, so it's a balancing act to be sure. Aqua soil has a ton of organic chelation ability. Perhaps this is a good reason why you can dose .5 ppm csm 3x a week and get away with it for a long while. It fills up and what's left is toxic substrate that belongs next to the reactor at chenobyl. 

Sure dosing huge ei levels of trace is cool if you want to replace your substrate aqua soil once a year or two at most. I wonder how often mr Barr replaces his AS?


----------



## dukydaf

I also experienced some leaf cell apoptosis that I blame on high conc. of traces. I just have a hunch, that is why I am interested in this thread. So while I agree with your theory, I am taking the role of ‘advocatus diaboli’ here pointing out points that need to be addressed in future experiments.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> This is something I've considered, however, it's unlikely pH will have any large effect on the metals or its uptake especially with my water GH and KH (2-3)


I’m sorry, I think I didn’t come across or I don’t understand your reasoning. Could you get into more detail please ?
Assuming KH is just carbonate hardness, for 30ppm you will have a pH of 6.3. At 10ppm CO2 will only give you a pH of 6.8. See how the balance of Cu containing molecules changes even in this range (previously posted in this thread)








At 30ppm plants will grow faster , thus needing more traces than at 10 ppm CO2. (depending on the metalAt a higher CO2 conc. ,trace toxicity would be higher but at the same time they might be needed more. At a lower CO2 conc. , trace toxicity might be lower but you do not need as much and more trace accumulates overtime.




Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The fact that these low doses were still toxic enough strongly suggests that the concentration is still way too high. The margin of error was way too small even at these small doses (2:1 Fe:CSM+B) There is an optimum range of nutrients, but this exceeded it into the toxic range even accounting for the slightly slower growth.


The elements might have already accumulated in high levels in plant tissue, substrate and water. So now if you add a little you get toxicity. Compare this with normal aquariums where people start with low dosing… they might be able to add more, a lot more and not get any toxicity.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Also note, there may be an optimum range of CO2 for certain plants. Exceed it and plant growth slows.


Do you know of any plant species that does worse when you increase the CO2 ? Even above 30 ppm, never noticed this in any of my plants, given proper nutrition and light. The plant metabolism might become an issue at one point, shading from faster growing plants another, but not CO2. There is however an argument for diminishing returns. With the RUBISCO enzyme being as it is, I doubt that even 30ppm is the optimum CO2 conc and that plants mind a higher conc. of CO2.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Lastly, it's a live tank, not a carefully controlled experiment. Any short term observations must be considered in the context of the long-term.


I would say any observation either long term or short term should be considered as grounds for hypothesis building. At that point your hypothesis is just your belief, not a scientific opinion, not a conclusion, not a fact. This hypothesis needs to be tested and proven to be true.


----------



## dukydaf

Positron said:


> Keep in mind phosphate binding is very specific to each metal…….
> Aqua soil has a ton of organic chelation ability. Perhaps this is a good reason why you can dose .5 ppm csm 3x a week and get away with it for a long while. It fills up and what's left is toxic substrate that belongs next to the reactor at chenobyl.


Well put @Positron. Completely agree.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Earlier in the thread, I stated that 0.2ppm of Fe from CSM+B …However, since using the 2:1 Fe:CSM+B amount….
> _Rotala_ sp. "Vietnam"


I took the liberty to edit your image to show what other factors could affect that large stem . Hope it’s alright with you.

You can say the different trace dosing is responsible for the different leaf shapes and growth rates. I can say light or CO2 or all the other changes you did to your aquarium are responsible. I see nothing to disprove my hypothesis here. If you look for effects of CSM, you will find some …. Even though it has nothing to do with CSM.
Solcielo what is the outcome you look after as a symptom of toxicity ? Is it cell apoptosis? Twisted leaves? Reduced growth rate? Reduced leaf size ? Need

I tried to make a short diagram of the interactions of the confounders . This has only some of the known confounders, imagine if we are to include the ones we have suspicions about…


If you want to establish a link (orange arrow) between CSM and plant growth, you need to control at least these parameters. And by control, I mean keep them in a constant range, measure them and report them. 
As you see this gets complicated rather fast, and this is the reason why it is hard to establish a link in the aquarium, more so with no control. Any symptom (good or bad) you see after you dose CSM can be generated by a combination of the other parameters. Thus, you cannot say CSM did this or that , if one parameter is changed ( in the experiment and not in the control, or in time if you rely on previous performance of the same tank).
So in future experiments please keep this in mind.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

dukydaf said:


> I’m sorry, I think I didn’t come across or I don’t understand your reasoning. Could you get into more detail please?
> 
> 
> Assuming KH is just carbonate hardness, for 30ppm you will have a pH of 6.3. At 10ppm CO2 will only give you a pH of 6.8. See how the balance of Cu containing molecules changes even in this range (previously posted in this thread)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 30ppm plants will grow faster , thus needing more traces than at 10 ppm CO2. (depending on the metalAt a higher CO2 conc. ,trace toxicity would be higher but at the same time they might be needed more. At a lower CO2 conc. , trace toxicity might be lower but you do not need as much and more trace accumulates overtime.


The pH stays within 1 degree of change, around 7.4-6.4. So whatever effects there are probably won't be very large. Also, it doesn't really matter because this is a live tank where conditions change all the time. I don't think most people keep their CO2 running 24/7 to maintain a stable pH for this reason. Also, knowing how dosing traces affects a live tank is more practical for our purposes. Knowing exactly why something occurs, I'll leave that to others who have the equipment to run controlled experiments on.



> Do you know of any plant species that does worse when you increase the CO2 ? Even above 30 ppm, never noticed this in any of my plants, given proper nutrition and light. The plant metabolism might become an issue at one point, shading from faster growing plants another, but not CO2. There is however an argument for diminishing returns. With the RUBISCO enzyme being as it is, I doubt that even 30ppm is the optimum CO2 conc and that plants mind a higher conc. of CO2.


Someone did growth experiments and reported that there is an optimum range for various species. Exceed this concentration and growth slowed. This is where I got that idea from. However, it could have also been a drop in the pH which could have affected growth either directly or indirectly by reducing metals into their free ionic state and thus becoming toxic.



> I would say any observation either long term or short term should be considered as grounds for hypothesis building. At that point your hypothesis is just your belief, not a scientific opinion, not a conclusion, not a fact. This hypothesis needs to be tested and proven to be true.


I never say short term observations are fact. They are indeed just working hypotheses that need much more observation and testing to confirm or deny. I've gone through dozens of working hypotheses in the 450+ days of running my tank trying to figure out what's wrong with the plants. Most of them have shown themselves to be false, though there were strong correlations such as higher GH and K improves plant growth. But the likely reason for this is because it reduces toxicity of heavy metals.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

> You can say the different trace dosing is responsible for the different leaf shapes and growth rates. I can say light or CO2 or all the other changes you did to your aquarium are responsible. I see nothing to disprove my hypothesis here. If you look for effects of CSM, you will find some …. Even though it has nothing to do with CSM.
> Solcielo what is the outcome you look after as a symptom of toxicity ? Is it cell apoptosis? Twisted leaves? Reduced growth rate? Reduced leaf size ? Need


I look for changes in growth patterns and health such as the symptoms you describe.

I do not believe that CO2 affects growth morphology based on changing concentrations of CO2 multiple times from high, to low, to high, to medium... I've never noticed a direct result that could be reproduced. Also, in my non-CO2 tanks, I had always assumed that smaller leaf sizes were the norm because these tanks always had plants with smaller leave sizes. However, since realizing that toxicity may be occurring, I've made massive water changes and ceased dosing trace elements. Results: leaves grow much larger, similar to what you'd expect in a CO2-added tank. This was not a fluke; ALL plants grew much larger, faster, and appear much healthier.

I also do not believe that light has a big effect on morphology to what is observed. Yes, different spectra and intensity does affect growth patterns, but not to the varying extent observed. Also, I've run this tank for 450+ days constantly experimenting with dozens of different variables trying to pin down the causes the growth problems. I know from experience what has had an effect and what has not. This is not one of these effects.


----------



## dukydaf

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Also, it doesn't really matter because this is a live tank …


That is a very weak argument / excuse… A live tank can be a good place to run certain experiments. Use 2 live tanks set up and treated themthe same in all but one thing and you have a controlled experiment. 
And of course a parameter that affects both the exposure and outcome matters, wherever the observations are made.


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The pH stays within 1 degree of change, around 7.4-6.4. So whatever effects there are probably won't be very large.


Even within this range you can see on the Cu graph that you are crossing from CuO to CU2+. This is only for Cu, other traces will change to more toxic variants at different pH levels. However, the greater problem is that you said that you changed the amount of CO2 so even the range changed.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Someone did growth experiments and reported that there is an optimum range for various species. Exceed this concentration and growth slowed.


So, what were these plants ? Do you have a link to this experiment ?



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> However, it could have also been a drop in the pH which could have affected growth either directly or indirectly by reducing metals into their free ionic state and thus becoming toxic.


Good, now you are thinking of confounder 



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I look for changes in growth patterns and health such as the symptoms you describe.


Well, I was afraid of that. You need to be more specific,narrow and provide a detailed description of the symptoms you seek. Looking for pinholes in this plant, hunting for necrosis in all leaves and observing a distorted leaf 2 minutes after you dose… leads to false conclusions based on random observations. Just looking for changes will lead everybody on a false path.
An example of a possible outcome would be: Plant X will have necrosis or distortions on the top leaves within 2 days of dosing. ( even this can be improved)



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I've made massive water changes and ceased dosing trace elements. Results: leaves grow much larger


Look at my chart about confounder and see how many links water change has. Can you say plants did not grow better because another element was removed with the wc ? Or a missing element was added with the new wc? If you used tap, you’ve added more CO2 to the aquarium with the water change.


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I do not believe that CO2 affects growth morphology


Well, try and grow the same plants in a non CO2 and a CO2 aquarium and see what happens. (preferably both aquariums withe everything else the same)



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I also do not believe that light has a big effect on morphology to what is observed. Yes, different spectra and intensity does affect growth patterns


YEAH! NO! Is it yes or no ?0>:surprise:
If you have no changes in the way plants look under high CO2 and light, you are doing something wrong. I’ve seen larger changes in plant morphology from CO2 and light than in the photo with Rotala. Changes are easier to tell in some plants than in others. For example Egeria and Anubias will look almost the same. In more demanding plants the changes are like night and day, if you get any growth under lower CO2 and light. L senegalensis and M. tuberculatum come to mind.
Crowding /shading can also influence leaf size.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I know from experience what has had an effect and what has not. This is not one of these effects.


Experience is good to gain. However, it will not result in a proof that CSM+B causes toxicity, nor in good advice about CSM regime. Better use it for planting and trimming. You need good un-confounded evidence to argue about CSM+B…

As it stands, all your observation were severely subjective and confounded and should not be seen as arguments or evidence.


----------



## Positron

I'm curious. We all talk about evidence and scientific explanation for observable phenomenon within our planted tanks. Being a scientist myself, there is no other way to justify a hypothesis except by using the scientific method. Good great.

Not very many of us have the expensive equipment to perform the testing needed, and those that do, wave a magic wand (co2 detector) around the inside of their tank and say something like "the co2 is only 10-15 ppm around the plant bed, but 40+ppm a few cm from the outflow. I knew this all along, and the naysayers can eat crow!" or something similar. Okay where is the scientific study? I'd like to see a video of someone using a co2 detector and observing, first hand, this phenomenon. 

My point is that few people have the equipment, and time to do research, and the ones that do, don't follow the scientific method. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1]"

It's strange that I never hear of one rejected hypothesis in the planted tank community! Either experiments that sputter out and have no conclusions, or ones softly leaning towards a positive hypothesis, but are undeniably not able to be replicated. Experimentation on the agricultural level is always better because these guys are actual scientists. In the 1970's these guys knew how to test prediction. Science isn't taught correctly anymore. I'm not even an old geeser (I'm 33), but it pains me to say it. 

One of my favorite Ghostbusters quotes illustrates how I feel about some of the scientists in this hobby:

"Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"

The only solid scientific reports come from people not directly involved in the planted aquarium hobby, and because of this, the testing conducted isn't directly applicable to an aquatic environment. Testing Fe toxicity of elodia in a small 2 gal jug with different controls is great, but the chemistry of our tanks is far from a pristine lab testing environment.

In fact I hope it stays this way. I don't want a planted tank enthusiast getting a degree in freshwater biology and then conducting experiments to "prove" what he or she thought for decades. It's bad science. We need impartial analysis. Not CO2 once size fits all big mac America D: What good scientists (in the hobby) should be doing is observing a phenomenon, asking what are the possible reasons this happens, and then conducting experiments. No emotional consideration. You might not even be interested in the result. It's best not to be interested in the result, for if you are, bias can occur. Bias is the biggest enemy to a scientist. 

You never prove a hypothesis. Nothing is ever proven. Confirmed? Maybe. I need to see how you laid the experiment, exactly, so i can go into your lab the next day and preform the exact same experiment myself. 

Explanations like this seldom exists. All that do are walls of text on an internet forum. At least I know I'm just a hobbyist, and my conclusions aren't conclusions. They are observations. That's it. We never are able to prove, or even confirm anything. 

I usually try to keep out of scientific debate about this hobby because my specialty isn't in biology, but I can spot false pretenses and a pursuit of an engineered agenda.

@dukydaf

So then do you have a proper scientific report concluding that CSM+B when dosed at EI levels (0.5ppm x 3 a week), doesn't have a chance to cause toxicity of it constituent elements? I'm firmly planted on my seat awaiting such a report.


----------



## Audionut

I don't think @dukydaf' point is to change people into scientists, and I know for sure it's not my point when I harp on about things.
I think the point is to to stop people changing 100 things, randomly picking one of the 100 things that changed, labeling that thing as the thing of interest, and presenting it as fact.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> I don't think @dukydaf' point is to change people into scientists, and I know for sure it's not my point when I harp on about things.
> I think the point is to to stop people changing 100 things, randomly picking one of the 100 things that changed, labeling that thing as the thing of interest, and presenting it as fact.


I totally agree with that mentality. Changing one variable at least carries with it more meaning. It doesn't carry with it confirmation, but it's a "stronger" observation. 

Currently I'm reducing my micro dosing to a fraction of it was before. I'm observing better growth, that is wider and higher, AND more healthy looking. 

This is what I observe. I'm not even attributing it to the CSM reduction, but it is the only thing changed. 

Now my observations don't even count. I've changed my substrate to AS amazonian, but I'm still going to keep my lower micro dosing.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

dukydaf said:


> As it stands, all your observation were severely subjective and confounded and should not be seen as arguments or evidence.


Okay, if you say so. But while everyone else has plants that don't grow well, mine will.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

We can sit here and say scientifically you cannot pinpoint CSM+B as the cause. To me its a pure technicality. I know one thing, I stopped dosing CSM+B for two weeks and all of a sudden my plants came back to life, no other variables changed. Other hobbyists share the same experience. I hold my opinion based on my tests and observations and to me that's all that really matters.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> We can sit here and say scientifically you cannot pinpoint CSM+B as the cause. To me its a pure technicality. I know one thing, I stopped dosing CSM+B for two weeks and all of a sudden my plants came back to life, no other variables changed. Other hobbyists share the same experience. I hold my opinion based on my tests and observations and to me that's all that really matters.


Aren't you also enjoying that the surface of the water doesn't develop as much scum as before?


----------



## dukydaf

@bcarl_10gal 2 weeks is too short of a time for the accumulated traces to wash out. 6 months or more with no trace dosing and frequent water changes and pruning would be a starting point.

The reason I write this threads is that I want there to be a good experiment. I want to be able to say overdosing X leads to Z with some degree of certainty. I don’t have any problems with people posting on threads ‘ in my experience there may be …’ ‘ in my opinion…’ ‘what I noticed… ‘ . Heck that is mostly why people come on this forum, to share experiences and crowd source. 
I get a little bothered when people state as fact or ’strong evidence’ what is in fact their opinion. Back before the 2000’s when I started with my aquariums I did a lot of stupid stuff because other people stated as fact a short term, confounded experience they had. 
Alas, I don’t intend to correct the internet but I can offer my critical thinking on an experiment that is intended to come to a generally applicable conclusion. 



Positron said:


> Not very many of us have the expensive equipment to perform the testing needed, and those that do, wave a magic wand (co2 detector) around the inside of their tank and say something like "the co2 is only 10-15 ppm around the plant bed, but 40+ppm a few cm from the outflow. I knew this all along, and the naysayers can eat crow!" ….


As you rightly point out expensive equipment does not mean scientific evidence. The reverse is also true, basic equipment does not mean your results are unscientific. If it is simple it does not mean it is unscientific. It just has to be done right.

Scientific methods and scientific thinking are responsible for us using the EI at this moment, phosphate in commercial fertilizers, plant optimized light, for all the medicine against ichthyo parasitosis and the correct dosing of said medicine. Scientific testing certainly goes on at Tropica, JBL, Dennerle , Seachem and others. The problem is that they are in this business to make money so they keep their results and methods mostly secret and almost never disclose the contents of their solutions.


Positron said:


> So then do you have a proper scientific report concluding that CSM+B when dosed at EI levels (0.5ppm x 3 a week), doesn't have a chance to cause toxicity of it constituent elements? I'm firmly planted on my seat awaiting such a report.


Hope you didn’t stay in your seat all this time  I will use your rejected hypothesis or null hypothesis argument here.


What I am saying here is that there is no/not enough good data to reject H0 at a statistically significant level. The onus, therefore, is on the people trying to reject the H0, to gather data.

For example: We do not need to gather data that water is not toxic for humans and defend H0, that is the accepted view. You need to gather data to show that water is significantly unsafe for humans and reject H0. As a scientist I am sure you already know this.

To my knowledge there is no such paper about the mix of traces know as CSM+B, which does nothing to improve the quality of the data presented here.

I do lean towards toxic or not. I just want to grow plants in a healthy environment, and do so based on scientific information. Also I have no agenda regarding the use or disuse of CSM+B as I have no relationship with the seller. More so, no way to use CSM+B.


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Okay, if you say so. But while everyone else has plants that don't grow well, mine will.


Funny ) But humor does not solve the confounding.

All that being said, I feel that by now I’ve drawn the alarm bells and pointed out the flaws that need to be addressed to get results worth something. Further comments will just serve to repeat myself so I shall abstain.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

dukydaf said:


> @bcarl_10gal 2 weeks is too short of a time for the accumulated traces to wash out. 6 months or more with no trace dosing and frequent water changes and pruning would be a starting point.
> 
> The reason I write this threads is that I want there to be a good experiment. I want to be able to say overdosing X leads to Z with some degree of certainty. I don’t have any problems with people posting on threads ‘ in my experience there may be …’ ‘ in my opinion…’ ‘what I noticed… ‘ . Heck that is mostly why people come on this forum, to share experiences and crowd source.
> I get a little bothered when people state as fact or ’strong evidence’ what is in fact their opinion. Back before the 2000’s when I started with my aquariums I did a lot of stupid stuff because other people stated as fact a short term, confounded experience they had.
> Alas, I don’t intend to correct the internet but I can offer my critical thinking on an experiment that is intended to come to a generally applicable conclusion.


The closest we are going to get to an experiment is Happi's post. To simply dismiss this because we cannot prove it through a scientific experiment is damaging to the hobby. We have logically and scientifically explained how this can occur. We have shown more traces can do more harm than good. IMO we don't need some fancy experiment. I have yet to see one shred of scientific evidence to prove this theory wrong. The only counter arguments are, "I dose heavy so you should be able to" and "you have to prove it in a scientific experiment". These are ridiculous counterpoints, what has been presented here is strong evidence compared to the normal crap you get online. While I respect you trying to protect the hobby at large from group think, there are so many factors at play here any experiment will be challenging to prove regardless of how well we design it. 

@SL, For the surface scum, that's interesting.... I run a HOB filter on my small tank that breaks it up and a surface skimmer on the other so I have not seen this observation. I could try putting the ramp on the HOB to minimize CO2 loss and see if I get scum...


----------



## chocological

At most we can do is scale back our trace dosing with CSM+B and report our results. As for me, I've got everything the same in my tank except for the trace dosing that I've stated I was scaling back. My new leaves of hygrophila pinnatifida are looking good. Old leaves still have pinholes. I should take a pic to show the difference.

For me, I am sold on the idea that using CSM+B as a sole iron source when dosing EI is problematic, based on improvements when minimizing it in favor of iron by itself. I don't think it's entirely toxic and useless in my experience, but we will see.


----------



## Audionut

Saying that the reduction of trace dosing reduces the chances of toxicity conditions isn't science, it's simple logic. The reduction of a thing reduces its concentration.

Is it the simple fact that the concentration of trace elements in a dose of CSM+B at 0.5ppm Fe proxy will generate toxic concentrations?
Is it only at low pH?
Is it only at low hardness?
Is it only because people do not dose Ca+Mg at the recommended concentration also?
Is it because people dose full EI strength with aquariums that do not meet the definition of high light, high CO2, high plant mass?

These questions need to be answered, because if the effect isn't consistent over a wide range of variables, then you simply create a mentality whereby, "trace elements are toxic, only dose 0.000005ppm of Fe from CSM+B".

Then what happens when Joe Happy, who has an aquarium with conditions suitable for the large influx of traces, who is only dosing some tiny amount of these traces based on the claims in this thread, suffers a deficiency?

Think about that for a moment. 

By saying to reduce CSM+B dosing to 0.05pppm Fe regardless, simply segregates people of the community, since there are people who will have aquariums whereby this general recommendation, based on a few very uncontrolled experiments, will lead to deficient conditions. For Joe Happy and his counterparts, your recommendation is simply false and misleading, no matter how you want to spin it.

Phosphates promote algae guys!!!!! <--That was a good experiment, I'm sure they had best interests at heart also.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Audionut, I feel that you are trying to dismiss our experiences. Are you trying to defend something or justify something?

This is why I consistently state that I have soft water (GH=2) when I state that 0.1ppm of Fe from CSM+B per week in a high light, CO2 added, heavy plant mass tank still results in toxic concentrations. That's a lot of qualifications just to state something is toxic at a particular concentration. It's already known that Ca and Mg plays a large role in reducing toxicity of heavy metals. However, even in hard water conditions, toxicity still occurs. These examples abound in planted aquariums with hard water and high trace element dosing. You just have to know what the symptoms of toxicity are; once identified, it's very difficult to forget. pH plays a limited role since most aquarium water pH is between 6-8, not at the extremes of acidity or alkalinity.

Also, it's much better to have a deficiency and be able to easily identify it than to have a toxicity and have no clue what's going on. Too many of us have no clue when toxicity strikes and the solution has always been to "dose more XXX" when all this does is exacerbate the problems. Deficiencies are easy to alleviate. Toxicities are not.


----------



## fablau

I agree with Solcielo that toxicities are much harder to spot than deficiencies. If I had to choose, I'd choose deficiencies.

I think that from the "practical" stand point, the choice depends by your approach. If you have no problems to perform water changes minimum once a week, and hate testing, and have pretty high light and high plant mass, go with full EI.

But if you hate WC (like in my case) or can't do it more than twice a month (like in my case) and don't mind testing once in a while (like in my case) and have medium light (like in my case)... Then you may be careful with full EI because of the issues explained here.

I think it should be as simple as that.


----------



## chocological

The issue is not with EI though. It is with specifically using CSM+B at EI levels.


----------



## Zorfox

chocological said:


> The issue is not with EI though. It is with specifically using CSM+B at EI levels.


I think it's more related to trace doses as well as one or many other variables. 

I also agree with Audionut. There's more to this than a simple dose adjustment solution. I don't think Audionut was downplaying the fact people have problems. Instead, he was explaining it's a multi faceted problem. Many fail to see this. I have never had problems dosing high traces. Yet others have. Why? What's the difference? I think that was his point. You can focus on one problem, doses, or look at other related variables. That's the only way you will ever find an answer for everyone rather than a select few that have problems. Sure lower your dosing and move on. But WHY? Should everyone lower trace doses X%? I don't think so.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> I have never had problems dosing high traces. Yet others have. Why? What's the difference?


How do you know you don't have problems dosing high traces? When I was dosing high traces and everything else, I didn't think there was a problem with the plants even though symptoms of toxicity were right in front of my eyes. I was so accustomed to seeing this as normal growth that I never once thought this may have been a toxicity. If anything did go wrong with certain plants, my solution was to dose more.

Certain plants are much more tolerant of toxicities that others. E.g. amongst _Rotala rotundifolia_ varieties, R. "Green" is the most sensitive; R. "Ceylon" is the most tolerant. _Myriophyllum aquaticum_ is incredibly tolerant and would probably survive trace element concentrations that would kill a giant redwood. So it's possible that the plants you keep also happen to be very tolerant of trace metal toxicities.

Lastly, do you know what a trace toxicity looks like? Some people say they don't have problems dosing high concentrations of traces and claim their plants are healthy, but when you look at pictures of their tanks, the plants show obvious toxicities across multiple species. There are even threads asking if a plant is supposed to grow a certain way, because they don't think it should. However, the responses are unanimous: "that's normal". So it appears that a lot of people think the symptoms of toxicity are normal because they've never seen these plants grown under optimum conditions. Why is that?


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> Saying that the reduction of trace dosing reduces the chances of toxicity conditions isn't science, it's simple logic. The reduction of a thing reduces its concentration.
> 
> Is it the simple fact that the concentration of trace elements in a dose of CSM+B at 0.5ppm Fe proxy will generate toxic concentrations?
> Is it only at low pH?
> Is it only at low hardness?
> Is it only because people do not dose Ca+Mg at the recommended concentration also?
> Is it because people dose full EI strength with aquariums that do not meet the definition of high light, high CO2, high plant mass?
> 
> These questions need to be answered, because if the effect isn't consistent over a wide range of variables, then you simply create a mentality whereby, "trace elements are toxic, only dose 0.000005ppm of Fe from CSM+B".
> 
> Then what happens when Joe Happy, who has an aquarium with conditions suitable for the large influx of traces, who is only dosing some tiny amount of these traces based on the claims in this thread, suffers a deficiency?
> 
> Think about that for a moment.
> 
> By saying to reduce CSM+B dosing to 0.05pppm Fe regardless, simply segregates people of the community, since there are people who will have aquariums whereby this general recommendation, based on a few very uncontrolled experiments, will lead to deficient conditions. For Joe Happy and his counterparts, your recommendation is simply false and misleading, no matter how you want to spin it.
> 
> Phosphates promote algae guys!!!!! <--That was a good experiment, I'm sure they had best interests at heart also.


i don't think am recommending people to try what works for me, i was just telling them that there is no need to add so much trace and plant can grow great even at 0.05 Fe from csm+b daily, even though it will eventually lead to toxicity one day, it could settle in the soil etc, even if you do heavy water changes. your reply remind of me of when Barr tells us CO2 is the issue and we keep on increasing it till we kill everything in our tank, while no good results on plant growth either, did Barr say we need to do controlled experiment for co2 to see if we have enough co2? no he did not because plant will speak for them self if there is good co2 or not, same goes for trace toxicity, if you have problems with plants and you have high co2, high light, good NPK Fe and still have issue then reducing the traces can be worth a shot, if it works that explain everything and there is no need to do any controlled experiment. i have no problem with Barr theory, but increasing the CO2 isn't always the answer to everything, me and Barr are friends so am sure he wont mind if i offend him sometime  

trace toxicity is more prone in softer water, in harder water Ca and Mg have influence over traces and it render them less toxic. i use to dose EI and i used to grow tons of fast growing stem plants and i never had any issue, the reason might be heavy dose of Mg even though Ca was only 2ppm, somehow Mg prevent the traces from becoming toxic. i could never grow any moss or HC in this tank, it was not a co2 either, recently i had HC suddenly melt at some areas, some other plants become twisted and new growth looked abnormal, the only thing i changed was to dose higher dose of Miller. i have a tank with HC that have no co2 and it looks great, that tank only have shrimps and no dosing at all, just aqua soil with some flora max mixed to it, there are some carbonate stones in there too, which provide some Mg and Ca. 

now explain to me why TPN+, seachem use very low amount of traces and yet people are able to grow great looking plants even in high lights? by comparison to these brands we are way overdosing our tanks with traces, Fe can be dosed excess depending on chelate being used, dose 1 ppm DTPA Fe in single dose and look at the plant to see if they really turn red or look healthy. 

i trust the plants more than i trust the kits, plant never lie, one have to make changes to what their plant likes. there is no need to prevent people from trying other methods, EI isn't answer to everything, neither is overdoing many other brands, one have to look at their plants and growth. Zapins is a well known member here on TPT, he can show you how close we are to toxicity when overdosing with Traces. you could simply kill Duckweed with overdose of trace, this plant is like cancer, if you cannot grow duckweed then you have a higher chance your tank have some excess metals. 

my tank isn't perfect either, i carry many tests on it and it serve as an experiment tank, i just did the 70% water change yesterday and skipped the csm+b dosing which would have been 0.1 ppm fe and i only dosed 0.02ppm Mn, 0.02 Fe DTPA, 0.1ppm Fe gluconate and plant grew normal looking leaves without any abnormal growth, i got new growth in just one day after skipping the csm+b dose which wasn't there for last few days. so my plants are lying and i need to use test kit to make sure if i didn't sleep walked and dosed my tank with csm last night. 

i will repeat this again, some plants can tolerate higher toxicity of metals while some will just melt and burn in front of your own eyes. my ludwigia panantal is a good metal consumer, its the only plant that can handle most kind of changes that i make to traces/fe, even though some changes make its leaves looks all weird and twisted, but even a minor change could make it look better, this plant grow fastest in my tank and good indicator of changes that i make to the tank. 

i encourage people to do their own experiment and observe plants, not only you will gain knowledge about plants, you will have fun understanding how these kind of things could make the difference.


----------



## happi

chocological said:


> The issue is not with EI though. It is with specifically using CSM+B at EI levels.


that's the problem, people are so much brainwashed into this thinking. EI is fine when it comes to NPK but definitely not Traces, i think even tom barr use half of trace compare to what is being told by EI calculators. his tank is much bigger with tons of filter ration, plants etc, imagine what kind of issue those would have who only have few plants in their tank when using full EI trace dose.


----------



## chocological

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> ...amongst _Rotala rotundifolia_ varieties, R. "Green" is the most sensitive...


This was one of my first signs that there was issues in my tank. This, and the pinholes in h. pinnatifida. My "green" is twisted, stunted and ugly, while my regular rotundifolia is just fine.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

chocological said:


> This was one of my first signs that there was issues in my tank. This, and the pinholes in h. pinnatifida. My "green" is twisted, stunted and ugly, while my regular rotundifolia is just fine.


There's another symptom of toxicity that occurs well before the twisted, ugly growth, and it actually looks desirable:








The leaves curl upward and internodes shorten considerably.

It should really look like other Rotala rotundifolia's, like this:









So how can we identify the symptoms of toxicity if we think the growth is normal (and even desirable)?


----------



## kevmo911

happi said:


> imagine what kind of issue those would have who only have few plants in their tank when using full EI trace dose.


Well, for most people, apparently, they'd have no special issue with it. That's one of the reasons this idea is running into so much resistance. We're all still trying to figure out under what parameters toxicity would even be apparent.


----------



## happi

TPN is very good trace and very well balanced, its one of the best fertilizer used in EU. you can google tropica TPN for more info and watch how beautiful their tank looks even while using high lights. there are some DIY recipe for TPN on the internet but no one could make a balanced one unless you add each chemical individually, you could never get a clone of TPN while using CSm+b or miller. TPN is used once a week, even if we dose it more often it still wouldn't add the excess trace metal that are more toxic which are Zn, Cu and Boron. Zn is maybe more toxic compare to other two even in smaller amount. lets say even if we dose only 0.08 ppm Fe from csm+b once a week just like TPN, it still adds more B (almost 3.5x), Zn (2x), only Cu is 5x smaller compare to TPN, Cu affects on plant growth isn't bad as Zn and B

Once a week dose:
TPN
0.07 Fe
0.04 Mn
0.006 Cu
0.002 Zn
0.004 B
0.002 Mo

Once a week dose:
Csm+B
0.08 Fe
0.02 Mn
0.001 Cu
0.004 Zn
0.014 B
0.0006 Mo

csm+b daily dose for 6 days (6 days total amount added)
Csm+B
0.48 Fe
0.12 Mn
0.006 Cu
0.024 Zn
0.084 B
0.0036 Mo


even with 0.08 Fe daily dose of csm+b you are already at such a high dose with Zn, Born. Cu looks even with TPN, so no issue with Cu here. but the issue here is that TPN use more of Mn and Mo while csm+b is so low in some of these elements, keep in mind TPN is made for aquatic plants, while csm+b is not.


----------



## happi

Here are some picture of how bad the toxicity could get, first two pics were taken when full EI dosing was being used on that tank, 3rd picture is rotala sunset where half of EI dose of csm+b was dosed.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Regarding the ratio of Fe:Mn in CSM+B which is 3.5:1 (or 3.8:1 in other countries' formulations of CSM+B*), since plants use up way more iron than manganese, what appears to happen is that it uses up the iron which results in low Fe:Mn, which results in Mn-tox. Mn-tox affects Rotala's in the signature deformed, twisted, stunted, short internode growth patterns as seen in the pictures. If there are aerial roots, then these may darken.

Another observation: after dosing 0.09ppm of Mn from MnSO4, aerial roots developed significantly on _Ludwigia_ "Red" and _Rotala rotundifolia_ "Green". Is Mn a factor in root development? The stems of Rotala's also bent downward. Plants decreased rate of photosynthesis and growth slowed.


* It appears that the ratio of metals in CSM+B sold in other countries are different than in the US. Why is that? Is it formulated for the countries' agricultural soil conditions or possibly crop nutritional requirements?

For example, in the Netherlands:
Fe: *33.3* mmol/L
B: *27.7*
Mn: 8.74
Zn: 4.3
Cu: 0.79
Mo:0.52

Why is there so much boron?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

One thing that hasn't been discussed recently is substrate. If the substrate has a high CEC capacity it would be easier to create a toxicity since these nutrients soak into the substrate. Water changes would be more effective at removing trace metals in a tank with sand compared to a tank with eco complete. I recently broke down my tank, I moved the plants that were doing well after not dosing traces into my tank with eco complete that has been SATURATED with overdoses of CSM+B for the past year. What do ya know.... I am seeing signs of toxicity once again.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I mentioned high CEC substrate earlier and how it can actually reduce toxicity, not increase it, by adsorbing the heavy metal particles. Once it's adsorbed, it won't be free to cause toxicity. However, this only works with new substrate, not old. It's possible that the old substrate releases the metals into the water column somehow. If anyone knows how this occurs, that'd be great knowledge to have.


----------



## burr740

I can only offer my own personal experience, nothing "scientific" so tifwiw.

I went through similar issues about a year and a half ago. Took several months and many fried plants to pinpoint the problem. Everyone kept saying CO2, CO2.

Turns out it was too much csmb. I just updated a thread I made 15 months ago HERE. There's some plant pics and details on the problems I was experiencing. 

Just going to quote the latest post here since it includes the relevant info.



burr740 said:


> 15 Months later update. The problem was overdose of csm-b.
> 
> Went to pressurized CO2 shortly after starting this thread. The problem was never CO2.
> 
> After several months of trial and error, and many fried plants, I became certain that either traces or Fe was indeed the problem.
> 
> Long story short, I went about 3 months with no micros at all. Everything grew fine again. Only when I started to notice a deficiency did I bring csmb and fe back into the mix.
> 
> One confounding factor was that I'd used a considerable amount of Osmocote+ to supplement the inert blasting sand substrate. I suspected that was causing EI levels of trace to become too much.
> 
> But now, Im not even sure the Osmocote+ made any difference, because there's hardly any in there now and I still cannot dose much csmb.
> 
> The routine that has been working well for the past few months is csmb dosed for .1 ppm Fe 3x week, and .06 ppm Fe dtpa 11% dosed almost every day.
> 
> 75 gallon tank
> Densely planted
> 120-ish PAR at sub
> 1.3-1.4 PH drop with CO2
> KH 6-7
> GH 8-9.
> 
> I use straight tap, which the water report claims 70 something ppm Ca and 8 Mg, so I add 10 ppm Mg via Epsom salt with each water change. Although I cannot say for sure if it makes any difference.
> 
> Macros dosed 3x week - 7.5 ppm N, 2.5 ppm P, 5 ppm K2S04.
> Micros as listed above.
> Calculated for 65 galons.
> 
> Weekly 60-70% WC
> 
> 
> Figured I would update this since trace toxicity seems to be a hot topic atm.
> 
> TIFWIW


----------



## 58417

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Another observation: after dosing 0.09ppm of Mn from MnSO4 ... The stems of Rotala's also bent downward. Plants decreased rate of photosynthesis and growth slowed.


Just a side note to _Rotala rotundifolia_ bending. I'm just doing a growth experiment using R.rotundifolia as my test plant right now. I use 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 ppm NO3 in each tank. The ratio of nutrients is as follows: 1 : 0.1 : 0.01 : 0.625 : 0.0025 (NO3 : PO4 : Fe : K : Mn). So in the first tank I have 2 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4, 0.02 ppm Fe, 1.25 ppm K, 0.005 Mn ... etc. And the bending occurs in all five tanks. So I doubt it's related to Mn concentration as in each tank it's different (and in most tanks it's quite low). I suspect high light intensity, but may be wrong.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Marcel G said:


> Just a side note to _Rotala rotundifolia_ bending. I'm just doing a growth experiment using R.rotundifolia as my test plant right now. I use 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 ppm NO3 in each tank. The ratio of nutrients is as follows: 1 : 0.1 : 0.01 : 0.625 : 0.0025 (NO3 : PO4 : Fe : K : Mn). So in the first tank I have 2 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4, 0.02 ppm Fe, 1.25 ppm K, 0.005 Mn ... etc. And the bending occurs in all five tanks. So I doubt it's related to Mn concentration as in each tank it's different (and in most tanks it's quite low). I suspect high light intensity, but may be wrong.


Yeah, it could just be the light intensity and the observation was coincidental. R. "Green" tends to bend and send out aerial roots a lot more than any other variety, but I don't know if this is normal or a symptom of toxicity.


----------



## Positron

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I mentioned high CEC substrate earlier and how it can actually reduce toxicity, not increase it, by adsorbing the heavy metal particles. Once it's adsorbed, it won't be free to cause toxicity. However, this only works with new substrate, not old. It's possible that the old substrate releases the metals into the water column somehow. If anyone knows how this occurs, that'd be great knowledge to have.


Agreed. Another huge factor in how toxic CSM+B can be is imposed by stuffing the substrate full of 00 O+ root tabs. The substrate's cation exchange snags up alot of K+ which is used more than the micro's. After perhaps years (in some cases months with soft water), the substrate becomes toxic with heavy metals. Now what many people don't know is that the adsorption effect of eco-complete (or any high CEC substrate), isn't a one way street. Plant roots actively uptake adsorbed materials through disposing H+ ions in the active zone around the roots. What the plant wants is probably NH4+, K+, Ca++, Mg++, but what the plants get is a crap load of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and perhaps B (I'm not sure how B interacts with CEC). 

I had the most problems when i lined the bottom of my eco-complete tank with O+ root tabs and dosed micros EI. 

It's unfortunate to say, but if you used lots of O+, had soft water without Ca++ and Mg++ to displace some of the other metals, well then your substrate is toxic and must be replaced. Even with hard water toxic effects will happen, but sometimes much slower. My water from the tap is insanely soft (GH less than 1, 2ppm Ca, 0.7ppm Mg). 

Well I didn't feel like just throwing the eco-complete in a pile in the woods behind my house. I thought terrestrial plants would like the increased metal content. Wrong. I used 100% eco-complete (from an old EI, osmocote dosed tank) to plant some fast growing succulents in. I have tons of succulents. Love them. I know how to grow them. The succulents with the eco-complete withered and died in less than a month. There were no root tabs or anything else in the soil. I thought I had cleaned it well. 



Marcel G said:


> Just a side note to _Rotala rotundifolia_ bending. I'm just doing a growth experiment using R.rotundifolia as my test plant right now. I use 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 ppm NO3 in each tank. The ratio of nutrients is as follows: 1 : 0.1 : 0.01 : 0.625 : 0.0025 (NO3 : PO4 : Fe : K : Mn). So in the first tank I have 2 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4, 0.02 ppm Fe, 1.25 ppm K, 0.005 Mn ... etc. And the bending occurs in all five tanks. So I doubt it's related to Mn concentration as in each tank it's different (and in most tanks it's quite low). I suspect high light intensity, but may be wrong.


All plants do this. With high enough light, I can get star grass to grow completely horizontally. It's not so much how they grow, but the health and condition of new and old growth that must be examined. 

What Solcielo was talking about in earlier post regarding how people seldom know if they have tox symptoms because they think their growth is normal. Went to a friend's house the next town over and he was doing a 20 gal setup with some fast growing plants (high tec setup). He asked me how to fertilize over a year ago. I suggested EI. 

Like usual things were good for the first few months. Tons of growth. Then the Eco-complete gave out and he started to get wierd growth. His water is very hard because he uses an artesian well.

I went over there again and he said, "Wow! Look at my stems they are really doing well, right?"

I replied, "Nope, dude, sorry they are looking quite bad, and the advice I gave you last year about dosing was wrong."

Suffice to say when he looked at my tanks he knew. The greens on his rotala didn't "glow." They had brown, curly, algae ridden old growth. The new growth looked to him as "acceptable." To me the plants where struggling big time.

Look online. See some of the glowing green stems and carpets that europe and japan do. Most people there don't do EI.


----------



## Christophe

Ok, I’ll add my anecdotal ‘evidence’ to the pile also. Since none of us are doing genuine controlled experimentation, I think it’s very premature to go around saying “Aha! It’s manganese toxicity!”, but I think it’s fair to say that something might going on here for some of our systems.

My system has been up for just over a year now. Things had been going pretty well, but growth seemed to stall out in late April. I had solidly been dosing basic suggested EI levels (micros mixed Fe-DPTA & CSM+B such that 60% of the iron was from DPTA), CO2 injection to drop pH by 1.1 by lights on, 1.3 peak, 55% water changes weekly with 50/50 tap/DI water with some added Mg. Light at about 65 umol at substrate level, 7 hour photoperiod. Filtration via wet/dry sump, 5.5x turnover with pronounced surface rippling. Substrate is ADA Aquasoil Amazonia.

As growth stalled, everything became rimmed in BBA. Small new leaves, old leaves overwhelmed or simply shed. My staurogyne carpet all looked like tiny little palm trees, not a single plant of any of them looks right. Blyxa Japonica thin, fragile, patched with holes, algae-ridden. A. Reineckii stunted, twisted.

I boosted micros, went to twice a week 55% water changes. Nope, no change.

I ran up the CO2 to drop pH a max of 1.4 for a several weeks. Stressed fish & shrimp, but no other change. 

I continued twice a week changes throughout the summer, slowly migrating to straight tap water — thought maybe more calcium? My tap has 49ppm Ca per the city water report. Nope, no change.

Tank description leading up to/through the growth problems:

Water volume — Full system volume 306L / 81 gallons
Water changes	— Weekly, 166L / 44 gallons, about 54%
Filtration — 29 gallon wet/dry, 5.5x turnover rate, pronounced surface rippling.
Tap water quality — pH 7.8, dGH 8.5, dKH 5.5 — Full report at http://www.abcwua.org/files/waterquality/datatables-2014/zone3.html. I add MgSO4 and K2SO4 to bring their levels to 10ppm each.
Tank water quality — pH 7.7 fully degassed, dGH 9, dKh 5.5, temp 25C / 77F. When tested, nutrient levels routinely NO3 30-60ppm, PO4 3-5ppm per calibrated API test kits.
Substrate — ADA Aquasoil Amazonia
Lighting — BML MC Series Dutch Planted. Manufacturer claims PAR 110 umol at 18” when fully on, I run it at 55%, estimated 60-65 umol. 7.5hr photoperiod, lights & CO2 controlled by a DIY Arduino controller.
CO2 — pressurized, 4”x20” DIY Grigg reactor on a separate pump loop from/to the sump
CO2 level — Generally pH drop > 1.05 by lights on, 1.30 peak, as measured by pinpoint pH probe. Turns on an hour before the lights, off an hour before lights off.
Other nutrients dosed and frequency — Macro solution 3x per week, 7.5ppm NO3, 1.5ppm PO4, 7.6ppm K+. Micro solution was originally 4x per week, alternating days from macros. 11% Fe-DPTA with CSM+B such that 60% of Fe is from DPTA. Originally dosed at 0.4ppm each dose.
Plant names and changes:
[*]Staurogyne repens — Very slow, stunted growth, severe deterioration & loss of old leaves, BBA infestation. No plants anywhere in the entire carpet looked like healthy stauro.
[*]Blyxa Japonica — Slow growth, weak, damaged, holy leaves, BBA infestation
[*]Alternathera reineckii —	Slow growth, twisted leaves, BBA on leaves, some older leaf deterioration
[*]Didiplis diandra — completely stalled growth, stem decay and melt. Two small segments remaining
[*]Taxophyllium sp. moss — Slow growth, BBA infestation
[*]Fissidens Fontanus — Extremely slow growth, BBA infestation​
Other considerations — I live at relatively high altitude, 1609m / 5281ft
. 


I started reading & following this thread as it came up. A couple weeks ago I thought ‘Reduce CSM+B? Why not, I’ve tried all the other stuff…’. Two weeks ago, I stopped all micros. Last week resumed Fe-DPTA only, at only 25% of the 1.6ppm/week that I was doing before. I have new growth occurring for the first time since May. I’ll continue the reduced Fe-only dosing for a while, until it looks like I’m having an obvious deficiency.


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Regarding the ratio of Fe:Mn in CSM+B which is 3.5:1 (or 3.8:1 in other countries' formulations of CSM+B*), since plants use up way more iron than manganese, what appears to happen is that it uses up the iron which results in low Fe:Mn, which results in Mn-tox. Mn-tox affects Rotala's in the signature deformed, twisted, stunted, short internode growth patterns as seen in the pictures. If there are aerial roots, then these may darken.
> 
> Another observation: after dosing 0.09ppm of Mn from MnSO4, aerial roots developed significantly on _Ludwigia_ "Red" and _Rotala rotundifolia_ "Green". Is Mn a factor in root development? The stems of Rotala's also bent downward. Plants decreased rate of photosynthesis and growth slowed.
> 
> 
> * It appears that the ratio of metals in CSM+B sold in other countries are different than in the US. Why is that? Is it formulated for the countries' agricultural soil conditions or possibly crop nutritional requirements?
> 
> For example, in the Netherlands:
> Fe: *33.3* mmol/L
> B: *27.7*
> Mn: 8.74
> Zn: 4.3
> Cu: 0.79
> Mo:0.52
> 
> Why is there so much boron?


\

if this is true then it might also explain those random roots that i get on some stems of the plants which hangs along with the stem, making it look ugly, am guessing that is what you are referring as aerial roots. correct me if am reading this correctly.


am not sure how much toxicity Mn could cause, but it appear TPN use 0.04ppm per week while Aqua Rebell dose these amount quite high along with high Fe gluconate. i have gone quite high with Mn as well but at the same time i was dosing everything at higher level. i will test it this week while dosing no traces or any additional Mn, i will dose about 0.1ppm Fe from gluconate daily to see the results. 

you guys encourage me now to go very deep into this subject


----------



## Positron

dukydaf said:


> Hope you didn’t stay in your seat all this time  I will use your rejected hypothesis or null hypothesis argument here:
> You want to find out (H1): CSM+B dosed at EI levels for Y amount of time causes toxicity symptoms in plant species X.
> You need to reject (H0): CSM+B dosed at EI levels for Y amount of time DOES NOT cause toxicity symptoms in plant species X.
> 
> What I am saying here is that there is no/not enough good data to reject H0 at a statistically significant level. The onus, therefore, is on the people trying to reject the H0, to gather data.
> 
> For example: We do not need to gather data that water is not toxic for humans and defend H0, that is the accepted view. You need to gather data to show that water is significantly unsafe for humans and reject H0. As a scientist I am sure you already know this.
> 
> To my knowledge there is no such paper about the mix of traces know as CSM+B, which does nothing to improve the quality of the data presented here.
> 
> I do lean towards toxic or not. I just want to grow plants in a healthy environment, and do so based on scientific information. Also I have no agenda regarding the use or disuse of CSM+B as I have no relationship with the seller. More so, no way to use CSM+B as I live in the EU.
> 
> All that being said, I feel that by now I’ve drawn the alarm bells and pointed out the flaws that need to be addressed to get results worth something. Further comments will just serve to repeat myself so I shall abstain.


I understand what you are saying here. It's unfortunate, but I don't have the ability to reject a null hypothesis. I would, at the very least, need a spectrometer, a co2 probe, o2 probe, PAR meter, so that these variables can be addressed. I also would need a centrifuge, and reagents that would separate pulverized plant matter. Also, a hood with a gas collector would be nice so I could burn up plant parts and see what's left behind. Oh yeah, and a high powered microscope to examine the vacuoles of plants, and the other storage areas within the cell. I'd love to take some of my H. Pinnatifida that was suffering months ago, grind it up and separate it. I would then like to see the concentration of heavy metals compared to a leaf (of same mass) I have now. 

What I'm trying to say is that there are TONs of things I'd love to do, but I just can't 

For now I'm completely sold on the more naturalistic way of providing trace elements to plants. Tiny amounts and continual access through good flow. 

Just to clear things up, I wasn't pointing the finger at you. I know you don't have an agenda for CSM+B or any other trace mix. 

I was more alluding to how many want to use CO2 as a backbone for all plant problems. If you dose EI, then the only thing that can go wrong (with good maintenance, and a proper salute to EI), is CO2 and light. I mean come on here. We are adding non organic heavy metals and salts to an aquarium were plants are supposed to grow like they would in nature. 

How about the concentration of NO2, K, PO4 in hydroponics solutions ment for plants in open air and PAR 1000+ ? The Hogland solution uses 210 ppm of NO3, and 2 ppm iron (on average). So we can say that Hogland has 105x more NO3 than Fe.

People using EI typically want 20-30ppm of NO3. Using that logic 30ppm NO3 / 105 we should have no more than 0.29 ppm of iron in the water at any time. And this, of course, is if you want to grow a specialized underwater variety of tomato 

So the EI guys thought it would be perfectly fine to add 0.5ppm three times a week! This is hydroponics level where NO3 is supposed to be 200ppm +, 1000+ Par and atmospheric CO2 levels of 350ppm. 

I'm laughing at how ignorant I was just a year ago. 

/rant off
Sorry for the rant


----------



## fablau

Christophe said:


> Ok, I’ll add my anecdotal ‘evidence’ to the pile also. Since none of us are doing genuine controlled experimentation, I think it’s very premature to go around saying “Aha! It’s manganese toxicity!”, but I think it’s fair to say that something might going on here for some of our systems.
> 
> 
> 
> My system has been up for just over a year now. Things had been going pretty well, but growth seemed to stall out in late April. I had solidly been dosing basic suggested EI levels (micros mixed Fe-DPTA & CSM+B such that 60% of the iron was from DPTA), CO2 injection to drop pH by 1.1 by lights on, 1.3 peak, 55% water changes weekly with 50/50 tap/DI water with some added Mg. Light at about 65 umol at substrate level, 7 hour photoperiod. Filtration via wet/dry sump, 5.5x turnover with pronounced surface rippling. Substrate is ADA Aquasoil Amazonia.
> 
> 
> 
> As growth stalled, everything became rimmed in BBA. Small new leaves, old leaves overwhelmed or simply shed. My staurogyne carpet all looked like tiny little palm trees, not a single plant of any of them looks right. Blyxa Japonica thin, fragile, patched with holes, algae-ridden. A. Reineckii stunted, twisted.
> 
> 
> 
> I boosted micros, went to twice a week 55% water changes. Nope, no change.
> 
> 
> 
> I ran up the CO2 to drop pH a max of 1.4 for a several weeks. Stressed fish & shrimp, but no other change.
> 
> 
> 
> I continued twice a week changes throughout the summer, slowly migrating to straight tap water — thought maybe more calcium? My tap has 49ppm Ca per the city water report. Nope, no change.
> 
> 
> 
> I started reading & following this thread as it came up. A couple weeks ago I thought ‘Reduce CSM+B? Why not, I’ve tried all the other stuff…’. Two weeks ago, I stopped all micros. Last week resumed Fe-DPTA only, at only 25% of the 1.6ppm/week that I was doing before. I have new growth occurring for the first time since May. I’ll continue the reduced Fe-only dosing for a while, until it looks like I’m having an obvious deficiency.



Please, keep us posted with your experiment, I am experimenting as well and my situation and experience is very similar to yours. I will post my results here as well.


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia, were you referring to something like this (tank 1, 1st pic) , i was dosing extra Mn in this tank, this tank is rich with lights, co2 and fertilizer.

i would also like to post a picture of HC (tank 2, 2nd pic) that is grown in shrimps tank with some neons, this tank gets water changes once it start to evaporate, maybe every few months or so, the tank have some rocks that might release some gh/kh/ph, nothing is being dosed in this tank, most importantly no co2 or liquid carbon.

you are looking at two different tanks here, in case if someone gets confused.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

@ Happi,
Yes, the aerial roots. I swear they weren't even there the day before I dosed Mn, but the day after, it looked very similar to the picture.

Also, regarding the necessity of CO2, since understanding what was going on, I realized that adding CO2 just isn't necessary, even for a tank with high light intensities. I've even started a new tank without adding CO2 with medium-high light intensities which also gets indirect sunlight. Plants are healthy and growing! No need for an expensive 2-stage CO2 regulator, CO2 tank, metering valve, solenoid, or reactor/diffuser!


----------



## anastasisariel

Wow, your posts become less and less objective. You deny the addition of co2 as any factor yet blame some evil ingredient in csm+b. Are you serious or just trolling the whole forum at this point?


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Positron

Atleast modest levels of CO2 (15-20ppm) is absolutely necessary IF you want the fullest, fastest and most colorful growth. If you don't want any of those then co2 isn't necessary. The differences between co2 and non co2 tanks is obvious, and it's obvious in hydroponics when co2 is added to the atmosphere. 

So yeah, I have a need for CO2. When CO2 ran out on my 20L, I just let it sit there for almost a month with no injection. Things died back, and an equilibrium was established with plants that needed it less. "Harder" plants like rotala macandra simply sputtered out and died. I had an entire tank full of java fern and crypts.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Positron said:


> So yeah, I have a need for CO2. When CO2 ran out on my 20L, I just let it sit there for almost a month with no injection. Things died back, and an equilibrium was established with plants that needed it less. "Harder" plants like rotala macandra simply sputtered out and died. I had an entire tank full of java fern and crypts.


Are you sure it wasn't the excess traces that killed off the plants when the CO2 ran out?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Orrrrr, Co2 injection pushes pH down and allows metals to not bind be therefore be more toxic. So maybe less Co2 allows some of the metals to bind easier, and therefore be less toxic. But I would say reducing Co2 below 35ppm is probably not a good idea.


----------



## Positron

Positive. I stopped dosing that tank all together and lowered the lights. Carbon accounts for 40-50% of a plants mass. You have to fertilize it if you want good looking plants. 

Traces on the other hand usually account for much less of a plants mass. For example when researchers put 0.11 mg/L of copper in a substrate, 502 mg/kg of copper where found in the plant's tissues*. So this would be 0.05% of the plant's mass. I would also conclude that a Cu level of .11 at the roots is much more than we want to see, so it's conceivable that even less would be in a plant where traces were not overdosed.

*Ecology of the planted aquarium, pg 155 on an iphone.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

bcarl_10gal said:


> Orrrrr, Co2 injection pushes pH down and allows metals to not bind be therefore be more toxic. So maybe less Co2 allows some of the metals to bind easier, and therefore be less toxic.* But I would say reducing Co2 below 35ppm is probably not a good idea.*


I challenge this idea by the fact that I've reduced CO2 so that it never increases past 30ppm. I've also started CO2 at lights on, not hours before, and I turn it off 3 hours prior to lights off. Plants are growing fine with the exceptions to the experimental dosing which somehow always ends in toxicity symptoms. 

Also, ADA tanks also turns on CO2 at lights and concentrations stay under 25ppm throughout the photoperiod.


----------



## happi

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> @ Happi,
> Yes, the aerial roots. I swear they weren't even there the day before I dosed Mn, but the day after, it looked very similar to the picture.
> 
> Also, regarding the necessity of CO2, since understanding what the hell was going on, I realized that adding CO2 just isn't necessary, even for a tank with high light intensities. I've even started a new tank without adding CO2 with medium-high light intensities which also gets indirect sunlight. Plants are healthy and growing! No need for an expensive 2-stage CO2 regulator, CO2 tank, metering valve, solenoid, or reactor/diffuser!


i am sure you can get away without using co2 in some cases, but its really needed by plants in larger amount, i cant really grow any stem plant in that non co2 tank, only HC can grow it, i just wanted to prove my point that HC can grow even with no co2, we were told you cannot keep it without co2, you will hear this from experts. on the other hand the tank with high co2, lights, fertilizer HC would eventually melt or die due to possible toxicity.

Bump:


bcarl_10gal said:


> Orrrrr, Co2 injection pushes pH down and allows metals to not bind be therefore be more toxic. So maybe less Co2 allows some of the metals to bind easier, and therefore be less toxic. But I would say reducing Co2 below 35ppm is probably not a good idea.


actually its the other way around for traces, they are more available to plants compare to high PH, Zn is more toxic in lower ph than it is in higher ph. someone can correct me if am wrong.


----------



## Positron

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I challenge this idea by the fact that I've reduced CO2 so that it never increases past 30ppm. I've also started CO2 at lights on, not hours before, and I turn it off 3 hours prior to lights off. Plants are growing fine with the exceptions to the experimental dosing which somehow always ends in toxicity symptoms.


If you've overloaded your substrate with O+ tabs, and have done EI dosing for long periods of time, you have to replace the substrate I'm afraid. Or not dose any CSM+B and only a little bit of Fe. I guess eventually the plants will purify the substrate. Who knows how long that will take. 

There's also some interesting chemistry that tells us if the substrate is saturated with heavy metals, a constant equilibrium will be achieved with the solution, which is in this case the water column. How much of the metal goes into it's free state is dependent mostly on pH. 

So millions of water changes a week will only take out of the water column the amount established in the equilibrium. A few hours after you refill the tank and lower the pH due to co2, the equilibrium is then reestablished. For instance with Fe(III)phosphate:

The solubility of FePO4 in water is: 0.642 g/100 mL. Even if you put 25 pounds of FePO4 in your aquarium only about 0.642g/100mL will dissolve. This isn't entirely accurate because solubility assumes pure water is used with a pH of 7.


----------



## happi

is there anyone who use seachem trace? what bothers me is that seachem recommend dosing their trace 2x week and this adds 0.0028 Boron and 0.0169 Zn per each dose, while 0.084 Boron and 0.024 Zn is total dose of csm+b for 6 days if we dose 0.1ppm fe daily. is it possible we are actually seeing boron toxicity instead of Zn toxicity? personally i never used trace when i used their product, i just used their seachem comprehensive and NPK which grew great looking plants. what bothers me further is that TPN and some other brand also grow great looking plants even with such a low dose of these elements. so we must look at some tanks with those who use seachem trace and we can rule out Zn toxicity


----------



## Zorfox

Food for thought.

Take a look at your bag of Plantex. Notice any color variations? I do. It looks like salt and pepper.

I recently helped someone with individual trace doses. The amounts were so low it was difficult to measure on a standard scale (+-1 mg). Now imagine throwing everything a a single bag. Is one scoop equal to the next? I can visually see the differences. At the very least we should be suggesting that Trace mixes be mixed well before measuring. 

I seriously doubt that percentages are accurate when using a few teaspoons at a time. Some of these chemicals are in VERY small amounts. Do you really expect to get the same ratios in every scoop? Sorry, it's just not going to happen with dry fertilizers IMO.


----------



## happi

Zorfox said:


> Food for thought.
> 
> Take a look at your bag of Plantex. Notice any color variations? I do. It looks like salt and pepper.
> 
> I recently helped someone with individual trace doses. The amounts were so low it was difficult to measure on a standard scale (+-1 mg). Now imagine throwing everything a a single bag. Is one scoop equal to the next? I can visually see the differences. At the very least we should be suggesting that Trace mixes be mixed well before measuring.
> 
> I seriously doubt that percentages are accurate when using a few teaspoons at a time. Some of these chemicals are in VERY small amounts. Do you really expect to get the same ratios in every scoop? Sorry, it's just not going to happen with dry fertilizers IMO.


remind me of a post by darkcobra where he mentioned something about Cu in csm+b, he said something about how we might be dosing more Cu when using it dry, something to do with the grain of Cu.


----------



## tippeecanoe

Holy cow, you guys have done a lot of work on this topic. It has been a fascinating read. Thank you for sharing this.

Note to self: Stick with easier plants and go slow. Seems a whole lot less aggravating! 

All the best, TC


----------



## Immortal1

Zorfox said:


> Food for thought.
> 
> Take a look at your bag of Plantex. Notice any color variations? I do. It looks like salt and pepper.
> 
> I recently helped someone with individual trace doses. The amounts were so low it was difficult to measure on a standard scale (+-1 mg). Now imagine throwing everything a a single bag. Is one scoop equal to the next? I can visually see the differences. At the very least we should be suggesting that Trace mixes be mixed well before measuring.
> 
> I seriously doubt that percentages are accurate when using a few teaspoons at a time. Some of these chemicals are in VERY small amounts. Do you really expect to get the same ratios in every scoop? Sorry, it's just not going to happen with dry fertilizers IMO.


Curious, and I apologize if this was already covered, would you have less of a chance over dosing one chemical over another if you create a solution and then dose the solution?

I am currently dosing PPS-Pro where I mix the csm+b with distilled water. Is it possible most of those who are having toxicity issues might also be dry dosing? I seem to remember on Zorfox's calculator that some mix amounts cannot be completely dissolved in 500ml of DI water - just don't remember if EI level of csm+b was one of them.


----------



## happi

i was trying to come close to TPN which is used once a week, am not sure if my calculation is correct, so i would let Zorfox look at the recipe to correct if there is any mistake, am sure i made some error. i have added some extra Fe and Mn to clone it close to TPN much as possible. i also used miller instead of csm+b due to the fact that miller is already premixed and should be accurate.

500ml solution
15ml dose for 45 gallon water

2.84 Gram Miller's MicroPlex 
2.58 grams DTPA Fe (11%) 
0.35 grams MnSO4.H2O 
22.46 grams MgSO4
10.12 grams K2SO4 

Fe 0.07
Mn 0.04
Zn 0.008
B 0.002
Cu 0.008
Mg 0.39
K 0.8
SO4 0.8


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

RE: Anions and its effects on cations

"Mn:Anion Balance: Heavy fertilization with materials containing Cl-, NO3-, SO4-, can also enhance Mn uptake (termed the anion effect)."
Manganese Basics

This may explain why the effects of toxicity may be limited by dosing high concentrations of nitrates and sulfates - KNO3, CaSO4, MgSO4, K2SO4. So high concentrations of these anions offset micro-tox by increasing rate of uptake of these heavy metals. This may also explain why dosing 0.1ppm of Fe from CSM+B resulted in toxicity symptoms in my tank, because of lower levels of anions: NO3 <10ppm, MgSO4 <7ppm of Mg, K2SO4 <12ppm of K. If true, then dosing lower amounts of the macros results in a greater affinity toward micro-toxicity.


----------



## Audionut

*Mn:Si Balance:* Research has shown that silicon (Si) applications can alter the Mn distribution in leaf tissue in such a way as to reduce the possibility of *Mn toxicity from excess Mn uptake*.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Audionut said:


> *Mn:Si Balance:* Research has shown that silicon (Si) applications can alter the Mn distribution in leaf tissue in such a way as to reduce the possibility of *Mn toxicity from excess Mn uptake*.


I have silicate available to dose.


----------



## Zorfox

happi said:


> i was trying to come close to TPN which is used once a week, am not sure if my calculation is correct, so i would let Zorfox look at the recipe to correct if there is any mistake, am sure i made some error. i have added some extra Fe and Mn to clone it close to TPN much as possible. i also used miller instead of csm+b due to the fact that miller is already premixed and should be accurate.
> 
> 500ml solution
> 15ml dose for 45 gallon water
> 
> 2.84 Gram Miller's MicroPlex
> 2.58 grams DTPA Fe (11%)
> 0.35 grams MnSO4.H2O
> 22.46 grams MgSO4
> 10.12 grams K2SO4
> 
> Fe 0.07
> Mn 0.04
> Zn 0.008
> B 0.002
> Cu 0.008
> Mg 0.39
> K 0.8
> SO4 0.8


Numbers, numbers, numbers.

Take 1/32 of a Teaspoon out of a bag of Plantex. Analyze it. It will NOT be what you thought.

Trace elements are very minute measures. Plantex is a commercial hydroponic dry fertilizer. It's intended to be added to thousands of gallons of water. When you do that the ratios fall into place. However, use the same for our purpose. 1/32 of a teaspoon? It's not the same. 

Instead, we need accurate concentrations of elements. The only way to do that is with concentrated solutions. I know we all hate to pay for water but when it comes to traces it simply makes sense. No one can guarantee proper ratios when we use dry fertilizers for traces. It simply is not possible. Am I missing the obvious?


----------



## Christophe

Zorfox said:


> Numbers, numbers, numbers.
> 
> Take 1/32 of a Teaspoon out of a bag of Plantex. Analyze it. It will NOT be what you thought.


I've thought this often when looking at my CSM+B. It has little white clumps in it -- it's definitely not a homogeneous mixture.

Making solutions of it might mitigate that slightly, but I'm not using more than a teaspoon or so at a time at most.


----------



## fablau

On aquariumfertilizer.com they recommend to make a solution of 60 grams of CSM+B with 500ml water and start dosing 1 drop per gallon. I think that recommendation looks reasonable.


----------



## Positron

Christophe said:


> I've thought this often when looking at my CSM+B. It has little white clumps in it -- it's definitely not a homogeneous mixture.
> 
> Making solutions of it might mitigate that slightly, but I'm not using more than a teaspoon or so at a time at most.


This is why I might just say enough with the CSM+B and just purchase flourish comp.

If dosed 3x a week @ 4mL per 75 gal, it's about 0.05 ppm of iron from gluconate each dose. The only differences is that none of the heavy metals are chelated, but they are present in much lower concentration.

I might just make a micro mixture with .02 ppm dtpa iron and dose that 3x a week with the comprehensive. 

a 500 mL bottle should last me a decent amount of time. Sure it's wayyy more expensive than csm+b mixing, but I'm liking the metal ratios much better and it's always going to be homogeneous. 

Perhaps I'll just leave the csm+b where it belongs: in the hands of the hydroponics guys.


----------



## Positron

happi said:


> Solcielo lawrencia, were you referring to something like this (tank 1, 1st pic) , i was dosing extra Mn in this tank, this tank is rich with lights, co2 and fertilizer.
> 
> i would also like to post a picture of HC (tank 2, 2nd pic) that is grown in shrimps tank with some neons, this tank gets water changes once it start to evaporate, maybe every few months or so, the tank have some rocks that might release some gh/kh/ph, nothing is being dosed in this tank, most importantly no co2 or liquid carbon.
> 
> you are looking at two different tanks here, in case if someone gets confused.


Happi,

Try growing that HC well with a ton of stems like your top picture without injection 

HC is the only plant in that tank, and it isn't covering everything yet. It has 100% access to all the carbon in the tank. 

I'm not saying growing HC with no CO2 can't be done, but it's alot easier in my experience. Heck, I have trouble growing HC in my setup with injection. However, I haven't tried growing it in good conditions yet (very much lowered micro).

I'm currently growing Monte Carlo in my redone 75g w/ AS. I'm thrilled at what I'm seeing...even during the initial die off new, green leaves are moving in. Thought i'd try Monte carlo...it's supposed to be easier than HC.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Positron said:


> This is why I might just say enough with the CSM+B and just purchase flourish comp.
> 
> If dosed 3x a week @ 4mL per 75 gal, it's about 0.05 ppm of iron from gluconate each dose. The only differences is that none of the heavy metals are chelated, but they are present in much lower concentration.
> 
> I might just make a micro mixture with .02 ppm dtpa iron and dose that 3x a week with the comprehensive.
> 
> a 500 mL bottle should last me a decent amount of time. Sure it's wayyy more expensive than csm+b mixing, but I'm liking the metal ratios much better and it's always going to be homogeneous.
> 
> Perhaps I'll just leave the csm+b where it belongs: in the hands of the hydroponics guys.


I was also thinking about trying Seachem Flourish or Easy-Life ProFito in place of CSM+B. Both are about the same price. Wise minds think alike! :iamwithst


----------



## 58417

My two cents here:

1) A Hoagland solution was mentioned in some earlier posts. As some of you may know the Hoagland solution is usually used when growing terrestrial plants in lab (or in hydroponics). This solution uses an extreme concentrations of nutrients to ensure all elements are in unlimited amounts. The original Hoagland's solution is this: 210 ppm N (= 930 ppm NO3), 235 ppm K, 31 ppm P (= 58 ppm PO4), 200 ppm Ca, 48 ppm Mg, 1 to 5 ppm Fe + other important elements. But you may not know that for aquatic plants the scientists use a 5-times dilluted Hoagland's solution: 42 ppm N (= 186 ppm NO3) + 47 ppm K + 6.2 ppm P (= 19 ppm PO4) + 40 ppm Ca + 9.6 ppm Mg + 0.4 to 0.8 ppm Fe + other important elements. From this you can see that even in one of the most nutrient-rich solution out there there is "just" 0.4 to 0.8 ppm Fe. So the trace elements won't be that high, and for sure they won't accumulate. When using Hoagland's solution there is no substrate, and in scientific experiments they usually change 100% water every couple of days. So I think we are more prone to face toxicity issues in our tanks with substrates, and only partial water changes where the trace elements may accumulate.

2) I use an individual compounds for my trace elements mix (w/o Fe), and they are as follows:
96.40 g Mn-EDTA
35.70 g H3BO3
17.50 g Cu-EDTA
17.50 g Zn-EDTA
7.00 g KCl
1.47 g Na2MoO2*2H2O
? *mg* (Co, Al, Ti, Ni, I)
_PS: mg = ppm_
From this it's obvious that it should not be problem to find out some Mn, B, Cu, and Zn in the mix. The most problematic elements are Co, Al, Ti, Ni, and I (iodine) which are just a couple of small grains in the whole mix. So it's more than probable that when you weight just 0.5 g of this mix for 500 mL of distilled water (my stock solution) you may have no Co, Al, Ti, Ni or I (iodine) in your stock solution. And if you have bad luck and have one grain of these in your 0.5 g, then you may have a bad toxicity issues. Do you see what I mean?

3) I like what Gerald C. Gerloff said in his "Nutritional Ecology of Nuisance Aquatic Plants":
_The nutritional requirements of most autotrophic plants, including fresh-water algae and macrophytes, are relatively simple. *In the absence of toxic conditions,* green plants make normal growth upon exposure to suitable temperature, adequate light, water, and inorganic nutrients.
_


----------



## burr740

DFS has Flourish Comp on sale @ $24.14 for 2 liters, through Tue the 24th. http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=4652

Im sticking with csmb for the time being, but that's a pretty good deal


----------



## bsantucci

So would dosing Miller's Microplex be a smarter move at a much lower dose than EI calls for since it's mixed evenly versus CSM+B? I'd imagine you're getting the right amounts of Millers based on the amount you choose due to the mixing. Then just add the extra iron by itself?


----------



## fablau

Flourish Comprehensive 2 liters on Amazon with free shipping for Prime Members just $24:

Flourish, 2 L / 67.6 fl. oz. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001IJNJNW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_4fZuwbQRGA7H8

Flourish Traces 2 liters on Amazon with free shipping for Prime Members just $35:

Flourish Trace, 2 L / 67.6 fl. oz. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006JLXBU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_MhZuwbZAVEM9S


----------



## mot

Quite the hot topic. My observations have been similar to others that have posted with twisted/stunted growth of some plants especially rotala species and ludwidgia and I know I've always been heavy handed with the ferts thinking a water change would flush them out as I do very large changes. My interest is in more the aquascaping than the gardening. But without good gardening I know I will never have a great aquascape.

I accidentally bought a bottle of Flourish a while ago and pulled it out (anyone else done this when thinking they were buying Excel?). I'm going to shelf the csm+b for now and use the flourish and see what happens. My current scape is moss, UG, HC, marsilea, nana petite and assorted bucephs. Its been set up for about a month and Ive been dosing 1/2 EI. Im currently draining all the water and will start it fresh. Though someone said earlier that the soil can adsorb the minerals? I've reused the soil for quite some time. So maybe it will take a while to leach out?

I guess we will see.


----------



## Positron

mot said:


> Quite the hot topic. My observations have been similar to others that have posted with twisted/stunted growth of some plants especially rotala species and ludwidgia and I know I've always been heavy handed with the ferts thinking a water change would flush them out as I do very large changes. My interest is in more the aquascaping than the gardening. But without good gardening I know I will never have a great aquascape.
> 
> I accidentally bought a bottle of Flourish a while ago and pulled it out (anyone else done this when thinking they were buying Excel?). I'm going to shelf the csm+b for now and use the flourish and see what happens. My current scape is moss, UG, HC, marsilea, nana petite and assorted bucephs. Its been set up for about a month and Ive been dosing 1/2 EI. Im currently draining all the water and will start it fresh. Though someone said earlier that the soil can adsorb the minerals? I've reused the soil for quite some time. So maybe it will take a while to leach out?
> 
> I guess we will see.


Yeah, unfortunately it can take a great while to leach out, or be used by the plants. 

Heavy metals will become more available to plants at lower pH range. If your pH is 5.5-6.0, the damage could have happened quickly, but it will be quicker to resolve. There are alot of factors that determine if the transition metals in your substrate (Fe,Mn,Cu,Zn) become available to the water column. Lower pH is always a big role.

When the metals are in your substrate they are typically bound to substances that put them in a lower energy state. To get them back to a +2 charge requires at the very least plant or bacteria intervention. As the pH goes down it's easier for these life forms to take up the metals.

Also, as the pH goes down, the equilibrium reaction of solubility between phosphate pairs (iron phosphate, copper phosphate ect ect) usually shifts in favor of more free cations on the water!

Things can get complicated very, very fast


----------



## mot

Thanks. I have two tanks so Im going to stop trace on the large one and then my small scape Ill switch to Flourish once / week per their instructions.

The small tank has no aquasoil and is a new setup so I can compare the two as I have the same plants in both.


----------



## somewhatshocked

*KEEP IT FRIENDLY!*

Insults = suspension, no questions asked.

Mocking forum guidelines = suspension, no questions asked.

Complaining that your friend got into trouble for insulting and attacking other forum members (when they're telling you just half the story) = also a suspension, no questions asked.

This is a plant forum. This is not life or death. If you can't treat people with respect, we'll kindly show you the door.

The moderation team won't clean this thread up again.


----------



## chocological

Today is w/c and trim day for me. I was still dosing traces, but much more reduced. I'm seeing more pinholes today. I'm going to up my KH2PO4 dosing, and cut out traces entirely this week. I've done my 80% WC. Let's see how new leaves look.


----------



## quiquik

As of yesterday I am going to see what happens with no micros or should I say csm+b and just a little bit of iron every other day or so. Need to find out how some of my plants will react,,, very curious.


----------



## Positron

Marcel G said:


> My two cents here:
> 
> 1) A Hoagland solution was mentioned in some earlier posts. As some of you may know the Hoagland solution is usually used when growing terrestrial plants in lab (or in hydroponics). This solution uses an extreme concentrations of nutrients to ensure all elements are in unlimited amounts. The original Hoagland's solution is this: 210 ppm N (= 930 ppm NO3), 235 ppm K, 31 ppm P (= 58 ppm PO4), 200 ppm Ca, 48 ppm Mg, 1 to 5 ppm Fe + other important elements. But you may not know that for aquatic plants the scientists use a 5-times dilluted Hoagland's solution: 42 ppm N (= 186 ppm NO3) + 47 ppm K + 6.2 ppm P (= 19 ppm PO4) + 40 ppm Ca + 9.6 ppm Mg + 0.4 to 0.8 ppm Fe + other important elements. From this you can see that even in one of the most nutrient-rich solution out there there is "just" 0.4 to 0.8 ppm Fe. So the trace elements won't be that high, and for sure they won't accumulate. When using Hoagland's solution there is no substrate, and in scientific experiments they usually change 100% water every couple of days. So I think we are more prone to face toxicity issues in our tanks with substrates, and only partial water changes where the trace elements may accumulate.
> 
> 2) I use an individual compounds for my trace elements mix (w/o Fe), and they are as follows:
> 96.40 g Mn-EDTA
> 35.70 g H3BO3
> 17.50 g Cu-EDTA
> 17.50 g Zn-EDTA
> 7.00 g KCl
> 1.47 g Na2MoO2*2H2O
> ? *mg* (Co, Al, Ti, Ni, I)
> _PS: mg = ppm_
> From this it's obvious that it should not be problem to find out some Mn, B, Cu, and Zn in the mix. The most problematic elements are Co, Al, Ti, Ni, and I (iodine) which are just a couple of small grains in the whole mix. So it's more than probable that when you weight just 0.5 g of this mix for 500 mL of distilled water (my stock solution) you may have no Co, Al, Ti, Ni or I (iodine) in your stock solution. And if you have bad luck and have one grain of these in your 0.5 g, then you may have a bad toxicity issues. Do you see what I mean?
> 
> 3) I like what Gerald C. Gerloff said in his "Nutritional Ecology of Nuisance Aquatic Plants":
> _The nutritional requirements of most autotrophic plants, including fresh-water algae and macrophytes, are relatively simple. *In the absence of toxic conditions,* green plants make normal growth upon exposure to suitable temperature, adequate light, water, and inorganic nutrients.
> _


Using a 5x diluted version of the hogland for aquatic plants is definitely a good idea if you are doing short studies that don't include "reservoirs" for the accumulation of heavy metals like substrate and filter materials that have CEC or organic chelation abilities. 

The 5x diluted Hogland solution is the way to go if you want to absolutely rule out all nutrients, or one particular nutrient. In most cases dealing with aquatic plant toxicity or deficiency, labs will do sort of an LD50 (acute plant damage, not chronic) for plants where one species might produce 50% less oxygen, or manufacture 20% less chloroplasts under toxic conditions. 

These tests definitely show an abrupt line for different species, but the accumulation of metals in the substrate (or tons of O+ tabs) plus adding .5 ppm iron from CSB 3x weekly is not exactly an acute case. 

Damage will happen, and I believe it's just a matter of time depending on your substrate, KH, pH and GH.
@chocological

Have you made sure your macro dosing is in order? Adequate potassium, phosphate and nitrate? Make sure you have the big three at EI levels (or at least close). Also bigger than the big 3 is CO2. I'm not proposing anyone even attempt lowering N,P,K and CO2 levels. This is what i keep my tanks at for macros:

Carbon: 30-35 ppm
Nitrate: 10-30 (some people keep 5 ppm and it's good, but 10 is easier to keep up)
Potassium: 10-40
Phosphate: I used to keep this at 3-4ppm. I now keep it at 0.5 - 1.0 ppm


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I think many of the people who think CSM+B can become toxic would endorse ignoring general types of deficiencies or the need for Co2. If you see growth issues the first thing to look at should be Co2 intensity and distribution, then if you are dosing EI for macros you can rule out those deficiencies, then consider micro toxicity. 

I've noticed something interesting with my plants over the past week. I moved the plants that had mostly recovered from their toxic state into my tank with eco complete that was still receiving CSM+B EI dosing. Within about 2 days I am experiencing toxic symptoms yet again. I also noticed a good amount of surface scum even while I am running a surface skimmer. Can anyone speak to how these traces might hang around in your filtration and how long should I expect them to stay in my ecocomplete??


----------



## chocological

Yes, I'm using aquasoil, dosing KNO3 and KH2PO4, dry. 7.5 ppm NO3 from KNO3 dosed 3 times a week, 3 ppm PO4 (now) 3 times a week, 5-6 ppm K from these two, dosed 3x a week. I also add a "GH Booster" to raise my dGH by 3. It has K2SO4, so my K needs are met.
Also, running pressurized CO2, reactor, dual stage custom stainless steel regulator, etc etc.


----------



## RedDelPaPa

*It gets worse*

Hey bud. nice find. However, it gets worse if you change the dosing after water change switch. As everyone does. No one doses their ferts before they change water. Right?




Audionut said:


> As an example.
> 
> Targeting 0.5ppm of Fe with CSM+B gives a Cu dose of 0.01ppm. This in of itself doesn't seem bad. However following strict EI guidelines leads to an accumulation of between 0.03ppm and 0.06ppm.
> 
> 
> 
> If we consider those who might throw in a little extra CSM+B, and only change 40% water.
> 
> 
> 
> How to make tap water safe for fish - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki
> 
> 
> 15 microgram per liter = 0.015ppm. So suggested dosing of CSM+B leads to accumulated levels of copper being two-four times greater then suggested levels.


----------



## Audionut

There appears to be some misunderstanding (to put it mildly) regarding my intention in this thread. So allow me to make some things very clear, so that as we move forward, if further attempts are made to misrepresent my intentions in this thread, these attempts at misrepresentation will be seen for what they are.

My very first post in this thread, was an example situation showing how dosing of a substance leads to an accumulation of that substance. That is to say, you can dose 0.01ppm (trace amounts) of some substance, but over time, dependent on water changes and without consideration for plant uptake, CEC with substrate and whatever else I may not be considering, these substances can reach peak concentrations in the water some six times greater then what you are dosing into the water. I choose EI based dosing for the example, since that's what most people at these forums probably doses, but it should be clear that if you change less water then 50% once a week, or change the water less often, then the accumulation of the substance will be even greater.

My second post in this thread, was an example showing how the Hoagland solution (a well renowned hydroponic solution) has a concentration of micro nutrients that is below the accumulated concentration of what one may have in their aquariums when dosing full EI. It should be pointed out that Hoagland solution is the *maximum concentration of the nutrients in the water*. The Hoagland solution is the concentration of the nutrients that is in the water when first used, no other amount of nutrients is added to the water, there is no substrate for these nutrients to accumulate, and 100% of the water is changed at the end of a week for a fresh solution.

The Hoagland solution also clearly has a rather large amount of macro nutrients, with a large ratio of macro to micro nutrients. It should be pointed out that the macro concentration in the solution are of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulfur, not Nitrate, Phosphate and Sulfate as @Marcel G pointed out on the last page.



Marcel G said:


> The original Hoagland's solution is this: 210 ppm N (= 930 ppm NO3)..........31 ppm P (= 58 ppm PO4)


Marcel G didn't mention Sulfate, with the ratio of Sulfur (S) to Sulfate (SO4) being around 1:3, which puts the concentration of Sulfur in the Hoagland solution as a Sulfate equivalent around 190ppm. Clearly, in this solution only a very small amount of micro nutrients are needed for a rather large amount of macro nutrients.

It should also be pointed out that the Hoagland solution is not intended for fully submersed plants, and so a _direct_ correlation between that solution, and what is required for fully submersed plants cannot be made. However, to disregard the Hoagland solution on that basis, without any scientific reasoning is simply weak minded (obviously, that's just IMO).

My third post in this thread, was an example Pourbaix diagram which describes the state of the chemical species dependent on pH, and the waters oxidation/reduction potential (ORP). This shows that two different water bodies can have the same concentration of a nutrient, however, the toxicity of the nutrient in the water can be vastly different. So Joe Happy can have some concentration of some nutrient in his low pH aquarium, and happily grow very healthy plants, while poor old Joe Not So Happy can have the same concentration of the nutrient in his high pH aquarium and be suffering from a deficiency. And even Joe Not So Happy Jnr can have the same concentration in his even lower pH aquarium and suffer from toxicity.


I fully believe based on _my current understanding_, that full EI dosing of micro nutrients is probably not needed in almost all cases, regardless of plant mass, but instead, needs at least some consideration for factors other then simply the level of plant mass in the aquarium. However, what @plantbrain did for nutrient dosing of planted aquariums was effectively take the hobby from Neanderthal status, apply sound scientific evidence and reasoning, and produced a set of regimes that by and large, works. Regardless of any outcome to this investigation (into CSM+B dosing), that should never be forgotten. And most importantly, if we simply allow empirical evidence to dictate an outcome, without the same level of care, accuracy, scientific evidence and reasoning, then effectively we are pushing the hobby back into Neanderthal status.

I apologize for the manner in which I defend myself, and for creating a set of circumstances that caused unrest. What I don't do, is hold grudges. So if the net outcome is otherwise an improvement in the quality of this thread, then hopefully I can be forgiven. I probably should have ended my debate in the same manner as @dukydaf



dukydaf said:


> All that being said, I feel that by now I’ve drawn the alarm bells and pointed out the flaws that need to be addressed to get results worth something. Further comments will just serve to repeat myself so I shall abstain.


But alas, I have a bunch of flaws just as any other human being. I do have a set of big girl panties floating around here somewhere, so take that as an open invitation to comment further via PM if you feel the need.

Cheers.


----------



## Audionut

RedDelPaPa said:


> Hey bud. nice find. However, it gets worse if you change the dosing after water change switch. As everyone does. No one doses their ferts before they change water. Right?


I choose the option to skip dosing on water change day, since as far as I understand that is the recommendation per EI.

But yes, if you dose more then the recommendation, either through simply wanting to dose more, or not having an accurate method to determine the dose, or as per the recent discussion, the teaspoon you dosed had a higher concentration of a specific element, then yes, the accumulation will be even worse, and indeed, if you dose on water change day then the accumulation will be greater also.

If you get a little lazy, and don't change at least 50% of the water then the accumulation will be higher also.


----------



## Zorfox

Audionut said:


> The Hoagland solution also clearly has a rather large amount of macro nutrients, with a large ratio of macro to micro nutrients. It should be pointed out that the macro concentration in the solution are of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulfur, not Nitrate, Phosphate and Sulfate as @Marcel G pointed out on the last page.


This is a very good point. Many seem to forget this piece of information. 

Example, Nitrogen and Nitrate are not equal.

To convert between the two you have to account for the weight of each one. 

Nitrogen has a molar mass of 14.00670 g/mol
NO3 has a molar mass of 62.0049 g/mol

So to convert Nitrogen to Nitrate divide the weight of NO3 by the weight of N,

62.0049 / 14.00670 = 4.43

Now multiply the ppm of Nitrogen by 4.43

So the 210 ppm of nitrogen in Hoagland's turn out to be 929 ppm of Nitrate. Big difference!



Audionut said:


> It should also be pointed out that the Hoagland solution is not intended for fully submersed plants, and so a _direct_ correlation between that solution, and what is required for fully submersed plants cannot be made. However, to disregard the Hoagland solution on that basis, without any scientific reasoning is simply weak minded (obviously, that's just IMO).


No it's not just your opinion. I agree with this completely. 




Audionut said:


> ...what @plantbrain did for nutrient dosing of planted aquariums was effectively take the hobby from Neanderthal status, apply sound scientific evidence and reasoning, and produced a set of regimes that by and large, works. Regardless of any outcome to this investigation (into CSM+B dosing), that should never be forgotten. And most importantly, if we simply allow empirical evidence to dictate an outcome, without the same level of care, accuracy, scientific evidence and reasoning, then effectively we are pushing the hobby back into Neanderthal status.


Well said sir!

As far as your conduct, we all make mistakes. I for one have no problems with you.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> It should also be pointed out that the Hoagland solution is not intended for fully submersed plants, and so a _direct_ correlation between that solution, and what is required for fully submersed plants cannot be made. However, to disregard the Hoagland solution on that basis, without any scientific reasoning is simply weak minded


In my opinion, this is why the Hoagland solution must be discarded from anything growing under water:

In hydropoinics:

1)The root shaft of the plant is the only thing submersed. No leaves are in the water. Submersed foliage would add more surface area for a plant to grab nutrients. A plant also has a greater control over what it takes in through the roots. "Nutrient Uptake Process" (Page 5) https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/pubs/AGRY-95-08.pdf

2)The leaves of the plant are subjected to at least 350 ppm of CO2. On top of that, CO2(g) diffuses many many times faster than CO2(aq) and H2CO3 / HCO3-. Also, a serious hydroponic grower would inject CO2(g) into their greenhouse to achieve CO2 levels of 800-1200ppm. 

3)Emersed growth of plants are often able to use many times the PAR as submerged varieties. Typically there is no shade on the plants, either. Expect PAR values to be 1000-2000+. That's 10 to 20 times more than even a very high light tank. 

The only thing of real relevant concern are ratios of fertilizer. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoagland_solution

Unless this wiki page is incorrect, then typical concentration of Fe is 1 to 5 ppm. Mn 0.5ppm, Cu 0.02ppm. This is the full strength solution.

As you stated earlier, Cu levels can accumulate much, much higher if dosing is neglected or mistaken. It makes me wonder how many of us have 0.02 ppm of Cu or more in our water? Or any other trace exceeding the amount in a hydroponics solution made for 350-1000ppm CO2, 2000 PAR plants?


----------



## Audionut

Good points, although we appear to be in agreement for the point that matters most.



Positron said:


> The only thing of real relevance concern of the Hoagland solution are ratios of fertilizer.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoagland_solution


> The solution is very good for the growth of plants with lower nutrient demands as well, such as lettucehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettuce and aquatic plants with the further dilution of the preparation to 1/4 or 1/5 of the original.


The Hoagland solution at full strength is probably not a reasonable method for aquatic plants for the reasons you mentioned. _But it's the basis of the ratios in the solution that is the interesting part_. 

Does the reduction of the macro nutrients to a level suitable for aquariums, require a linear reduction of the micro nutrients? If we reduce the macro nutrients in the Hoagland solution by a factor of 10, should we also reduce the micro nutrients by a factor of 10. Or is there some logarithmic scale?

Hydroponics also calls for specific pH of the water, presumably to maintain elements in their useful form rather then allowing these elements to form not useful solids. So again, in our aquariums with varying pH levels, allowances need to be made, and it would seem impossible to generate one set of regimes suitable for everyone. At the very least, there would need to be allowances for pH. Low pH - dose this much, high pH - dose that much (as a very simple example).

Liebig's law of the minimum seems to be under some scrutiny recently as it does not consider the relationship that elements have with each other. It says that if we only dose the element that is deficient, we can increase growth through the addition of the deficient element, rather then just simply adding more of everything. But it does not consider the effects from the excess that other elements may be playing in the role of this apparent deficiency. And what role does this elemental relationship play when reducing Hoagland solution down to levels suitable for aquariums? Again, do we reduce macro and micros by the same linear amount, or some other amount to account for these factors and others?


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> Good points, although we appear to be in agreement for the point that matters most.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoagland_solution
> 
> 
> The Hoagland solution at full strength is probably not a reasonable method for aquatic plants for the reasons you mentioned. _But it's the basis of the ratios in the solution that is the interesting part_.
> 
> Does the reduction of the macro nutrients to a level suitable for aquariums, require a linear reduction of the micro nutrients? If we reduce the macro nutrients in the Hoagland solution by a factor of 10, should we also reduce the micro nutrients by a factor of 10. Or is there some logarithmic scale?
> 
> Hydroponics also calls for specific pH of the water, presumably to maintain elements in their useful form rather then allowing these elements to form not useful solids. So again, in our aquariums with varying pH levels, allowances need to be made, and it would seem impossible to generate one set of regimes suitable for everyone. At the very least, there would need to be allowances for pH. Low pH - dose this much, high pH - dose that much (as a very simple example).
> 
> Liebig's law of the minimum seems to be under some scrutiny recently as it does not consider the relationship that elements have with each other. It says that if we only dose the element that is deficient, we can increase growth through the addition of the deficient element, rather then just simply adding more of everything. But it does not consider the effects from the excess that other elements may be playing in the role of this apparent deficiency. And what role does this elemental relationship play when reducing Hoagland solution down to levels suitable for aquariums? Again, do we reduce macro and micros by the same linear amount, or some other amount to account for these factors and others?


These are all very valid points. The amount of variables is astonishing.

Liebig's law of the minimum always held some logic in my mind, but as you stated it doesn't account for the interplay between the ions and water parameters. It's very easy to see if a plant is nitrogen limited. Add more nitrogen, right? But what if the barrel had 25 holes (an arbitrary number). Some of the holes flow in reverse, others flow outward, and finnely some holes have no flow. The holes that have no flow are only activated by some external input whether it be pH, KH, GH, a plant enzyme, specific light spectra. Ect Ect.

The ol' hole in a barrel approach is a good way to start looking at things. There's more to it than a simple "1 thing can only be deficient at a time."

I have no proof, but perhaps there should be a law of the maximum as well? How about the law of excess? What happens in these conditions? 

Mostly, it seems like plants in general are very good at negotiating their nutrient uptake through roots. Mass flow and passive diffusion take care of getting the nutrients to the roots, and then the plant has a wide array of tools to either accept or reject based on it's needs. 

Turn the barrel over, empty the water out, and then submerse it in a pond.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> The amount of variables is astonishing.


Indeed. Another one that springs to mind is organic complexing agents.

So Joe Happy can dose some amount of metals and have healthy growing plants, thanks in part to the chelating properties of organic acids, but Joe Not So Happy has an aquarium with the same pH and ORP, but uses other methods to lower his pH that don't provide the same protection as organic acids.

http://jcsp.org.pk/ArticleUpload/960-4190-1-PB.pdf


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> Indeed. Another one that springs to mind is organic complexing agents.
> 
> So Joe Happy can dose some amount of metals and have healthy growing plants, thanks in part to the chelating properties of organic acids, but Joe Not So Happy has an aquarium with the same pH and ORP, but uses other methods to lower his pH that don't provide the same protection as organic acids.
> 
> http://jcsp.org.pk/ArticleUpload/960-4190-1-PB.pdf


Yeah. It's odd, though. From the vast majority of posts in this thread it seems as though hobbits typically start off great with EI micro dosing. It's not untill some time later that problems start.

Could the build of of organic chelation be another cause? As tanks get older they accumulate more mulm and other debris that bind metals.

Diana Walstad goes into this phenomenon in great detail.


----------



## burr740

Mine started immediately, within days plants began looking fried.

But as I mentioned earlier, the tank had considerable Osmocoat+ and was in the process of transforming from mid-tech with only seachem ferts and excel, to pressurized CO2 w/full EI. 

So my results Im sure are specific to that particular scenario relative to the afore mentioned water parameters.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> Could the build of of organic chelation be another cause? As tanks get older they accumulate more mulm and other debris that bind metals.


That would lead to a deficiency, with the elements bound in their complex arrangement and unavailable to plants. If the source of tannic acid was removed however, suddenly there may be a large supply of these metals that are no longer being constantly bound with complex chelates.

I would guess that those who only have problems some significant amount of time after tank setup, have probably reached the capacity of their substrate to accept positive elements. But it's only a guess.


----------



## Positron

burr740 said:


> Mine started immediately, within days plants began looking fried.
> 
> But as I mentioned earlier, the tank had considerable Osmocoat+ and was in the process of transforming from mid-tech with only seachem ferts and excel, to pressurized CO2 w/full EI.
> 
> So my results Im sure are specific to that particular scenario relative to the afore mentioned water parameters.


New tanks tend to fry plants anyway


----------



## Audionut

I think we've summarized (so far) that the factors leading to the toxicity of trace elements, apart from the obvious concentration level of the elements, as being.


pH
ORP
Age of substrate (Cation Exchange Capacity)
Supply of organic chelates
Concentration of other elements (those that block the uptake, those that bind (such as CO3) with the elements to form toxic ions, and those that bind with the other elements (such as Ca <> CO3) to reduce the supply of the elements (such as CO3) in the formation of toxic ions)
Plant species (some more tolerant of higher levels of the elements)


----------



## burr740

Positron said:


> New tanks tend to fry plants anyway


It wasnt new, it was a year old at that point. I suppose the transition from mid to high tech could be considered new, but I continued to struggle with problems over the next several months before finally realizing the culprit.

But again, that's just me. Everyone else's experience may be completely different, I am simply sharing my own experience, which should obviously be taken with context.


----------



## Positron

burr740 said:


> It wasnt new, it was a year old at that point. I suppose the transition from mid to high tech could be considered new, but I continued to struggle with problems over the next several months before finally realizing the culprit.
> 
> But again, that's just me. Everyone else's experience may be completely different, I am simply sharing my own experience, which should obviously be taken with context.


Ahh yeah. I do remember reading your post about that. Have you tried eliminating traces on that tank for a bit?


----------



## burr740

Positron said:


> Ahh yeah. I do remember reading your post about that. Have you tried eliminating traces on that tank for a bit?


More than once. 

That is how I know without a doubt my problems were csm-b related.


----------



## 58417

*Pseudo-science*



Audionut said:


> It should be pointed out that the macro concentration in the solution are of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulfur, not Nitrate, Phosphate and Sulfate as @*Marcel G* pointed out on the last page.


To clear things out, I did not state that in the Hoagland solution the nitrogen is in the form of NO3 (only). I just stated in the brackets that 210 ppm N is an equivalent of 930 ppm NO3.


Audionut said:


> Marcel G didn't mention Sulfate...


Yes, I did not mention a whole bunch of other elements to keep it simple.



Audionut said:


> It should also be pointed out that the Hoagland solution is not intended for fully submersed plants...


That's the reason why I stated that 5-times diluted version is used for submersed plants.



Audionut said:


> However, what @*plantbrain* did for nutrient dosing of planted aquariums was effectively take the hobby from *Neanderthal status*, apply *sound scientific evidence* and reasoning, and produced a set of regimes that by and large, works ...


This kind of statements I really hate, because you're saying by this that all the good hobbyist before T.Barr were Neanderthals ... living in a dark age. But that's just not true, and I must lift my voice agaist such offenses and arrogance. I thought the admins clearly pointed out that these kinds of things and judgements should not be uttered here. Also, I know of no "sound scientific evidence" about EI method. I never found out any scientific treatise or detailed explanation with clearly stated methodology of how T.Barr came to his EI proposals. So clearly there is no scientific evidence about EI ... just anecdotal evidence. I don't want to attack anyone. I just want to clarify it.

We speak a lot about trace elements toxicity issues and using EI method of fertilization, but did you ever studied how high levels of nutrients can be toxic to different aquatic critters also? So when you worship T.Barr and his enlightened EI method (vs. Neanderthal methods in dark age), do you really know the nutritional demands of our aquarium plants, and toxicity thresholds for different organisms in our tanks? I have read a few studies that came to a conclusion that more than 40 ppm CO2 can be toxic to some submersed plants. Also I know of some studies that say that more than 8-10 ppm CO2 can cause quite serious problems to juvenile fish (the recommended CO2 level in aquaculture is usually around 15 ppm => based on many studies). I might continue to cite different studies on NO3 toxicity, Fe toxicity, etc. I just want to point out here that although T.Barr took the old hydroponic principles and applied them to the freshwater aquariums, these principles are taking into account just plants, not animals. So although we can boost the growth of our plants by using much higher amounts of nutrients in our tanks, we can (a surely do) harm our critters by doing this. If you are interested there are many scientific studies about nutrient (incl. CO2) toxicity on aquatic animals.
And to show you how unimportant is to use these extra high EI levels of nutrients, look at the following chart:








This is chart of the growth rates of Ludwigia sp. 'Red' under different levels of nutrients (the whole bunch of nutrients is represented here by NO3 concentration = X axis). On the Y axis you have the fresh weight (in grams). The test was done under high light and high CO2 levels. You can clearly see from the chart that there is little difference in growth rate between 8, 16, or 32 ppm NO3 ... so why to use even the (dilluted) Hoagland's solution in our tanks? Why? It won't generate any more growth. I did a similar preliminary tests with other kinds of aquarium plants, and the chart looks similar in all cases. I don't want to discuss it here (as it is off topic), but just to show you that EI is not effective way of fertilizing, and may even post a risk for our critters. I hope that after the EI-fashion wave ends, we revert back to a more reasonable fertilizer methods (like D.Walstad suggests).


----------



## burr740

EI certainly works. The only problem is some peoples water parameters (for whatever reason) do have an issue with dosing .5 ppm Fe as a proxy for csm-b amounts.

As been mentioned several times, what works for one person is not going to work for everyone. Too many other factors involved.

The best proof in the world is personal experience. When it comes down to it, it makes no difference what Walstad or Barr or Amano or anyone else has said. If you cannot duplicate the results on your own...then all the talk in the world is useless.

Personally speaking, I greatly admire and respect each one for their contribution to the hobby, without which I would not be here today. Nor would the vast majority of everybody else.

That is why to me detailed personal experience is more valuable here than copy/pasted graphs or links or scientific documents...in my humble opinion.


----------



## Audionut

Marcel G said:


> To clear things out, I did not state that in the Hoagland solution the nitrogen is in the form of NO3 (only).


Nor did I say that you stated that.

I did not say that you _*stated*_ that the N was NO3. I said, that the N in Hoagland solution is N, and not NO3, as you pointed out on the previous page. In other words, I was reaffirming what you had already _*stated*_.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post, because clearly you have read my post with the wrong attitude. Good day to you Sir!

P.s. Providing your own emphasis to the words of others is just poor form. If you can't argue your point without emphasizing specific parts of my statements, then you probably just shouldn't bother.


----------



## 58417

*Personal experience with scientific method*



burr740 said:


> EI certainly works ... Too many other factors involved ... If you cannot duplicate the results on your own...then all the talk in the world is useless.


I also believe that EI certainly works ... for (most) submersed plants. There is no reason why it should not work if 5-times diluted Hoagland's solution work as well. And if someone has any (growth) problems with this method, then it's more than probable that something other than nutrients are involved, or that some nutrients accumulated into toxic levels. My point with this was that while the EI is good for plants, it is not as good for aquatic critters. Because the concentrations that help plants to grow better may (and usually are) not as good for aquatic critters. And this is what most EI users seem to ignore. There are far more toxicity issues than death. Death is just the final stage. So even if you may not see any negative effects, it does not mean that there are no such effects. In Tokyo there are also people living, have children, go to work, play, etc. But the polluted air still have negative impact on their health - more respiration diseases, higher mortality, etc. This is why I don't see as a good thing to apply what works in hydroponics into our hobby. If you had a tank with just plants (without any critters), then EI may be one of the best fertilizer method (if you have a way to control algae outbreaks).



burr740 said:


> But that is why detailed personal experience is far more valuable here than any copy/pasted graphs or links or scientific documents.


I don't agree with you on that. Personal experience is important. That's true. But without the scientific (understand "objective-oriented") data you can't be sure that your personal observations are correct. This thread is a clear evidence. You have many personal experiences here about bad plant growth. But although you discuss it with a great number of hobbyists here, you still have no objective result of what exactly is the cause. You have many opinions, but no objective evidence (or proof). No valid hypothesis. With just your personal experience you are doomed to stay in the realm of opinions forever! The scientific method is what can lead you to the final goal.
BTW, the chart is the result of my own research, so it's part of my experience also.

_PS: I don't want to quarrel on that. I just want to give you some hints to think about. I don't care if you use EI or Hoagland's solution in your tank. It's your tank so do whatever you think is best._


----------



## max88

Plants, aquatic and terrestrial, have evolved to live in their habitat. They grow, propagate, and reproduce as long as the environment remain stable, with all elements within the range in which they are comfortable.

When plants are in aquarium, they are subject to the elements we control. Those can be loosely grouped into 5 categories in the hobby: 1) light, 2) CO2, 3) macro and micro nutrients, 4) temperature, pH, KH, GH, 5) other chemicals, water quality, organism, substrate, etc. If all 5 groups of elements are within comfortable range for the plants in aquarium, they can live [STRIKE]almost[/STRIKE] just as good as in their natural habitat, [STRIKE]but never equal to or better than[/STRIKE] and better when conditions are more comfortable. The biggest problems are: a) we don't know all comfortable ranges, and/or b) we fail to control the elements. 1/2/3/4 are easier to control, if we know the comfortable ranges. 5 is not considered very often, at least not by a newbie like myself. The change of range in one element affects others' ranges, the number of possibilities are probably beyond my comprehension.

Acknowledging that no two aquariums are the same, we can control obvious common variables in 1/2/3/4, and some in 5 to a certain extend. Science is what we can control, personal experience is the combination of science and those we cannot. For the posters debating over personal experience vs. science, we can compare the setups, figure out similarities and differences. If change in one variable cause same change in outcome in all aquariums, that's science; otherwise that's personal experience. If you have done everything the same and your experience is different than all others, attribute that to the alignment of the stars :wink2:


----------



## 58417

max88 said:


> ...they can live almost as good as in their natural habitat, but never equal to or better than.


_Just a side note:_
Many (or maybe most) plants in "well-operated planted tanks" have better conditions than in their natural habitats. For example, many plant species live in soft water habitats not because they prefer soft water with low nutrient content, but because only in such water they are able to compete with other plant species. Once you transplant them into harder water (with higher nutrient content) they usually grow much better (if you control the competition by other plants). Also we usually use much higher CO2 (and sometimes even other nutrient) levels in our tanks, we use stable photoperiod, stable temperature, keep algae eaters which clean the plants 24/7, etc.


----------



## dmachado

Epic thread, read ALL OF IT (missing about 20% of the really complicated stuff  ).

I may have finally found out what is going wrong with my tank, several weeks ago things came to a halt, and since then downhill, the amazon sword does not grow past 4''.

Looking back, this happened about 6 months after I started EI, and trace dosing using this product:

(Fe) 7,4% - EDDHA 4,8% o-o, slightly red coloration to water
(Mn): 3,3%
(Zn): 0,6%
(B): 0,71%
(Cu): 0,25%
(Mo): 0,1%

Aimed for 0.12ppm Fe 3 times a week. The powder is dark brown and very homogeneous.

The plants go crazy after the water changes, but after a few hours, or maybe as soon as EI and trace is dosed, not sure, no improvement is visible.

So I will stop trace dosing for two or three weeks, at least, after two BIG water changes this weekend.

Two 70% water changes, cutting back to 25% EI dosing (plant mass is unfortunately low) and no trace dosing for two or three weeks. From there, if I get an improvement, I intend to cut back on the pressurized CO2 also.

I'll post some photos later if it can add to the discussion.

Keep it up, you may be getting somewhere!


----------



## fablau

dmachado said:


> Epic thread, read ALL OF IT (missing about 20% of the really complicated stuff  ).
> 
> I may have finally found out what is going wrong with my tank, several weeks ago things came to a halt, and since then downhill, the amazon sword does not grow past 4''.
> 
> Looking back, this happened about 6 months after I started EI, and trace dosing using this product:
> 
> (Fe) 7,4% - EDDHA 4,8% o-o, slightly red coloration to water
> (Mn): 3,3%
> (Zn): 0,6%
> (B): 0,71%
> (Cu): 0,25%
> (Mo): 0,1%
> 
> Aimed for 0.12ppm Fe 3 times a week. The powder is dark brown and very homogeneous.
> 
> The plants go crazy after the water changes, but after a few hours, or maybe as soon as EI and trace is dosed, not sure, no improvement is visible.
> 
> So I will stop trace dosing for two or three weeks, at least, after two BIG water changes this weekend.
> 
> Two 70% water changes, cutting back to 25% EI dosing (plant mass is unfortunately low) and no trace dosing for two or three weeks. From there, if I get an improvement, I intend to cut back on the pressurized CO2 also.
> 
> I'll post some photos later if it can add to the discussion.
> 
> Keep it up, you may be getting somewhere!



Keep us posted! Anyone trying this "detox" method should post their results.

I am now ending week #2 on my hi-tech tank and so far so good. Some BBA is also disappearing from old leaves by itself!

I have an additional 20gl low tech tank where I dose just the Flourish line, but I perform WC every 6 weeks and light is pretty low, so accumulation can easily occur. After some calculations with Zorfox's calculator, it looks like I could be in toxic range in that tank as well by just dosing 5ml/week of Flourish Comprehensive. My Anubias actually got worse in the past couple of months, mostly covered of tiny BBA. I wanna try to stop dosing micros there for a while and see what happens. This Sunday I'll have my WC in that tank and start experimenting. I'll post pictures of this small tank if everything works fine.


----------



## max88

max88 said:


> , they can live [STRIKE]almost[/STRIKE] just as good as in their natural habitat, [STRIKE]but never equal to or better than[/STRIKE] and better when conditions are more comfortable.





Marcel G said:


> _Just a side note:_


Thanks for the post. That statement was wrong, I have changed it. Just think about it, agriculture started by changing some of the parameters to increase more and better crop!

Your thread Nutritional requirements of aquarium plants is of great interest to me. I have been looking for target dozing concentration numbers for macros and micros, particularly their ratio as a group of parameters, since becoming aware of toxicity (thanks to this thread), this post is the only source I can find since then. (this does not mean I have not come across others, just not aware to pay attention, and certain have forgotten). My biggest problem was not knowing what concentrations to target, now I will be starting with targeting the concentrations between your tanks #3 and #4. Thanks for doing the experiment and sharing.


----------



## RedDelPaPa

Hi again folks. As I described earlier, I have two 75 gallon plant tanks linked together in a circulating system. I don't do standard water changes. I use my drip system to drip in a calibrated rate of fresh water and my leveling siphon draws off the excess as the tank levels rise. I'm dripping roughly 65 to 70 gallons per week. Spread over the total of 150 gallons between both tanks, what percentage of a water change would this amount to if done via the standard method? Anyone know the rough math on this?

Thanks.


----------



## Audionut

I use this one. Drip System Water Change Rate Calculator (W.C.S. Ltd.)


----------



## max88

For simplicity, lets ignore plants, fish, substrate, ornaments...
2x75g = 150g total
65g/week

Lets start with drain and refill.
drain 65gal water at once, refill 65gal fresh water at once: 65/150 = 43.33%
drain 1gal water, refill 1gal fresh water, wait for fresh water to fully mix with existing water. repeat 65 times: 1-(((150-1)/150)^65) = 35.26%
drain 0.1gal water, refill 0.1gal fresh water, wait for fresh water to full mix with existing water. repeat 650 times:
1-(((150-0.1)/150)^650) = 35.17%

Now here's the tricky part. In a drip system, fresh water gets into the tank while existing water overflows to the drain, continuously. We need to figure out how long, on average, it takes fresh water (or part of it) to travel from inlet to the overflow. I don't know of a reliable method to measure that. I would only guestimate with the 0.1gal drain/refill numbers, that "should" be close enough for that tank size.


----------



## Positron

max88 said:


> For simplicity, lets ignore plants, fish, substrate, ornaments...
> 2x75g = 150g total
> 65g/week
> 
> Lets start with drain and refill.
> drain 65gal water at once, refill 65gal fresh water at once: 65/150 = 43.33%
> drain 1gal water, refill 1gal fresh water, wait for fresh water to fully mix with existing water. repeat 65 times: 1-(((150-1)/150)^65) = 35.26%
> drain 0.1gal water, refill 0.1gal fresh water, wait for fresh water to full mix with existing water. repeat 650 times:
> 1-(((150-0.1)/150)^650) = 35.17%
> 
> Now here's the tricky part. In a drip system, fresh water gets into the tank while existing water overflows to the drain, continuously. We need to figure out how long, on average, it takes fresh water (or part of it) to travel from inlet to the overflow. I don't know of a reliable method to measure that. I would only guestimate with the 0.1gal drain/refill numbers, that "should" be close enough for that tank size.


I've done the math, and 35% is close enough no matter how you look at it. We are talking a 2% difference here depending on method. 

So yeah. For him, even though 43% of the water is being displaced, only ~35% of the water is being changed.

I can see how he would be running into more problems with micro tox in this setup, especially because he's not even following EI directives about atleast 50% water change a week.


----------



## Christophe

This week's update, I'm three weeks in. This week I continued only Fe-DPTA at 0.3ppm for the week, broken into daily doses.

All plants show recovery from their prior stalled state. Staurogyne is particularly looking better, filling in much more like how it's supposed to look. BBA is receding considerably, nearly gone from the staurogyne, even reducing some from the hardscape. Blyxa Japonica is growing all new cores of clean leaves and casting off the damaged, algae-ridden ones. A. Reineckii leaves are also much increased in size over what they had been. Even didyplis diandra, which I had all but written off, is recovering -- I was down to two last little surviving nubs of it, 6-8 cm each. Both are exhibiting about 1cm growth over the last week.

Shrimp are visibly more active and seem to have doubled their skin-shedding over the last week or so. Also, I’m starting to find amphipods (‘scuds’) in my filter sock on water changes. Never seen them before — not even one. I’ll take this as a good sign.

I will go forward with a micro mix of Fe-DPTA and CSM+B such that 85% of the iron is from DPTA, total iron of about 0.4ppm per week. I mix it somewhat dilute, aiming at 3-4 weeks worth at a time. I’m basing my continued CSM+B use on trying to keep copper at around 1 ppb per week, knowing that CSM+B’s contributions are going to vary from bottle to bottle.


----------



## fablau

Wow Christophe, that's great! I am having a very similar kind of recovery in my tank, and I will post my results with pictures in 1-2 weeks when recovery will be more evident. I am curious: how big is your tank? How much Co2 are you injecting now?

By the way, to find scuds in your filter is a VERY good sign!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Christophe

It's a custom tank a bit longer and lower than a standard 75. Today's pH drop was 1.08 by lights on, peaking at 1.35. It's done that pretty solidly over the last 10 months or so, definitely through the bulk of the stalled growth period. I'm quite sure CO2 is not a contributor to the problem I've been having. Since all the animals look good and things are growing for the moment, I'm going to keep everything stable for a few weeks to grow plants out, then start looking a few weeks at a time for things to start rolling back. Shorter CO2 admin period, maybe a little lower delivery rate, maybe a little lighter macro dose.

Less might in fact be more!


----------



## happi

here is my update:

i skipped the csm+b dosing for the whole last week followed by 2x big water changes (70%) on same day, only dosed 0.1ppm Fe from Gluconate for the first 3 days, plant started to color up and start growing better, did another water change and this time only dosed 0.07ppm fe from DTPA at water change, plant did well for first few days and started to become pale brown color, leaves did not look that great either. i guess i removed most of the traces out of the water, HC finally started to grow even while floating around, some other plant had new side shoots, otherwise those plant were just siting there doing nothing. 

my conclusion:

1. you can reduce the traces, long as you dose the Fe more often if plant started to look pale/weird.
2. Most plant growth is effected by too much traces, some plants did not care.
3. you no longer have to believe in the theory "increase CO2" unless its low to begin with
4. BBA started to decline, no other algae can be seen, just a little spot algae on the glass here or there.
5. you will no longer struggle to grow nice looking plants, you will tell yourself, i was just wasting so much co2 and overdosing killing my stuff. 
6. Traces can be limited but should not be fully removed.


----------



## fablau

Christophe said:


> It's a custom tank a bit longer and lower than a standard 75. Today's pH drop was 1.08 by lights on, peaking at 1.35. It's done that pretty solidly over the last 10 months or so, definitely through the bulk of the stalled growth period. I'm quite sure CO2 is not a contributor to the problem I've been having. Since all the animals look good and things are growing for the moment, I'm going to keep everything stable for a few weeks to grow plants out, then start looking a few weeks at a time for things to start rolling back. Shorter CO2 admin period, maybe a little lower delivery rate, maybe a little lighter macro dose.
> 
> 
> 
> Less might in fact be more!



Thanks for the info. I have exactly the same plan!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fablau

In my experience so far, here are the plants that were stuck before the "detox" treatment and that begun to grow again after 1-2 weeks of reducing CSM: Java moss, Alternanthera Reineckii, Lobelia Cardinalis, Marsilea Minuta. All other plants were ok before and some better now: Cabomba Furcata, Ambulia, Higrophilas, Microswords, Swords, Valisnerias. Anubias were ok before, but mostly covered of BBA... Now that's disappearing!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Zorfox

It appears there is significant anecdotal evidence to support trace toxicities. I like posts of users reporting results. However, it may be more useful to have a reporting format. 

If other things were changed that is VERY important to include. So regardless of whether any changes were made or not a reference should be included. i.e increased water "changes" or "no changes" etc. I'm not seeing basic tank parameters included as well. Sure I can go back and try and compile this information but it would be nice to see it in every report. It presents much better as well.

Here is a start of things we should be including. Please add/delete as needed. I think this would be more beneficial if everyone was on the "same page". 



Water volume
Water changes
Tap water quality
Tank water quality
Substrate
Lighting Hi, Med., Low
CO2 type if any
CO2 level
Other nutrients dosed and frequency
Plant names and changes


Note: Water quality = PH , dGH, dKH, Temperature, any other parameters available.


----------



## Zorfox

max88 said:


> Now here's the tricky part. In a drip system, fresh water gets into the tank while existing water overflows to the drain, continuously. We need to figure out how long, on average, it takes fresh water (or part of it) to travel from inlet to the overflow. I don't know of a reliable method to measure that. I would only guestimate with the 0.1gal drain/refill numbers, that "should" be close enough for that tank size.


I would ignore the variables you mentioned. Instead, concentrate on the resolution of the calculations.

The calculations you presented are correct. However, you are sampling once each day. Instead, calculate more frequently. This will increase accuracy to the point that those variables are meaningless for our purpose. 

I just added a drip water change calculator to my calculator. I calculate the frequency a ridiculous number of times. Computers really could care less that's what they do lol. 

I calculate the percentages each second. There are 86,400 seconds in 24 hours and 604,800 in a week. I am doing that many calculations in a split second. That seems to eliminate the discrepancies.


----------



## nicpapa

I just finish reading the post. 
Very interesting i never though about toxicity but only for deficiency.

I have a lot of planted tanks, and keep aroung 80 species of plants. 

The most pants grown realy well, i had problem with 3-4 plants that new grow was pale. 
Tank is this 
2015 AGA Aquascaping Contest - Entry #595

In the 180lt dutch tank high lights 
ferts for 180 lt
~1.6 gr K2so4 4ppm
~1,7 gr Kno3 6ppm
~0.4 kh2po4 1.5ppm
~0,8 gr tnc trace 0.4ppm fe
All those 3 times a week .
Water change 50-60% every week and some times i make two in the week, if i move plants. 
I keep some difficult plants and there is algae free tank, i clean only the front glass after 3-4 weeks. 
My water was ro and tap water mix , and get 2-3kh and 3-4gh. 
After see the pale on new grown i try to fix it with adding ca and mg. 
So after raising Gh around 2 , the leaves of the plants was biger but the pale was there. 

In this tank the pale was in Alternanthera reineckii 'Mini',Ludwigia repens, and Hygrophila polysperma. 
All other plants was fine and have a nice grow. 
The funny is that i moved polysperma and ludwigia to crs tank, without co2 and ferts and grow slower but correct.  

The other plants 
Micranthemum 'Monte Carlo',, Eriocaulon setaceum, Proserpinaca palustris from Cuba, Anubias barteri var. nana, Lobelia cardinalis,Staurogyne repens, Pogostemon erectus, Vallisneria nana MARBLE,Rotala macrandra,Rotala sp. 'Green', Myriophyllum aquaticum,Tonina sp belem, Ludwigia sp. 'Super Red',limnophila aromatica ,Mayaca fluviatilis, Micranthemum umbrosum,Rotala wallichii, Ludwigia repens, ,Cabomba furcata

I dont have a problem with shrimps , there are a lot, and before a month pleco leaves eggs , and the babies are fine. 

Some photos 






























And for small shrimp tanks ~36lt 
Same dosing as Ei but lowers ppm.
No3 1ppm, fe0.1ppm, po4 0.5oppm.
For fe i use tnc trace . 
There is no algae expect the gsa on glass ,that never clean it , i leave it the shrimp eating there. 
Never see a toxicity for shrimps. 
Water changes every week 1/3 . 
Water is kh 4 gh 5 and have co2 24h.
But again some plants are pale, all other plants grow corect. 





























I try to lower tnc trace in 180lt and see how Ar grown.

Zorfox nice app ... i just discovered. 
Thanks for publishing.


----------



## fablau

Nicpapa, could you please tell us your Co2 levels? pH drop? Thanks for so much info!


----------



## plantetra

I have been following this post for a while but never posted because I was not sure. Now its almost 4 weeks with my own experiment, I find that it is causing an issue. My issue started with A.R curling up, Bacopa and S Repens shedding all its leaves. Didnt see a problem with any other plants.
Going with the above mentioned format
Water volume - 20G
Water changes - Weekly 50%
Tap water quality - Hard Water
Tank water quality - Same as Tap water
Substrate - Eco Complete
Lighting Hi, Med., Low - Hi Light
CO2 type if any - Pressurized 
CO2 level - Maintain yellow on drop checker
Other nutrients dosed and frequency - EI Dosing, S/T/Th - 5ml Macros, M/W/F Micros 5Ml(CSM+B)
Plant names and changes - A.R, Bacopa, S Repens


So I decided to go through this post and test it myself. I dropped my Micros to twice a week and then once a week and all my plants are coming back at full force. No other changes. But now with 1 Micros a week(2ml Seachem Iron instead of Micro on other 2 days), I see that my Red Ludwigia is curling up a little bit like the leaves in one of the above picture in the above post.

I do a water in water out water change method. So if CSM+B is heavier than water, I might not be getting 50% out every week. That was the only thing I could think of.


----------



## fablau

Plantetra, how much ppm of Fe are you dosing now per week or per dose? Maybe you are now deficient in some way...


----------



## nicpapa

Its about 0.5-0.7 that is the diferents before and after the co2 start end close. 
But i dont trust the ph pinpoint measures...
I have an external reactor for co2 , for surface movement i have a hangon filter, and the outpout of two canister filters. 
So there is alot surface ripples. 

Before two days i make an experiment, i leave the tank without co2 all day and the next day i measure a biger diferent in ph, it was around 1 ph. 
Maybe all those riples canot fully degas the co2. 

In your tanks you measure 1 ph drop before and after the co2 start? 

So if you leave it the water to degass more , the ph is more than one. 

And in shimptanks im not adding a lot of co2. 
Ph is around 6.8-7 ... 

Ιt impressed me, that ludwigia sp cuba in 180 high light and all those ferts and co2 cant grow corect and i put it to 30lt shimp tank wiht a cheap led ligh and very litle co2, aroun 1bubble per 4 second, ph was 7.2 and very litle ferts is growing fine. 
And Cabomba furcata grown in crs tanks without ferts ,co2, just ligh and akadama. 

In shrimp tank 



















This was on 180lt.


----------



## fablau

nicpapa said:


> Its about 0.5-0.7 that is the diferents before and after the co2 start end close.
> But i dont trust the ph pinpoint measures...
> I have an external reactor for co2 , for surface movement i have a hangon filter, and the outpout of two canister filters.
> So there is alot surface ripples.
> 
> Before two days i make an experiment, i leave the tank without co2 all day and the next day i measure a biger diferent in ph, it was around 1 ph.
> Maybe all those riples canot fully degas the co2.
> 
> In your tanks you measure 1 ph drop before and after the co2 start?
> 
> So if you leave it the water to degass more , the ph is more than one.
> 
> And in shimptanks im not adding a lot of co2.
> Ph is around 6.8-7 ...
> 
> Ιt impressed me, that ludwigia sp cuba in 180 high light and all those ferts and co2 cant grow corect and i put it to 30lt shimp tank wiht a cheap led ligh and very litle co2, aroun 1bubble per 4 second, ph was 7.2 and very litle ferts is growing fine.


Wow, that's why I wanted you to state one more time the amount of Co2 you use! That's very low... and look at your growth! I am always more convinced that we don't need that much Co2. It also very interesting your ludwigia grows better in the non-Co2 tank (!!)

Personally, I have tried insane amounts of Co2, with PH drops of over 1.6 (from totally degassed PH 7.7 to low PH 6.1, pumping over 120ml of Co2 per minute! And yes, I always measure PH drop from totally degassed), an insane amount of Co2. I tried that in the desperate attempt to combat BBA, but didn't do anything good. BBA has always been around anyway. I have kept Co2 very high for a long time, over 1 year, because I though to control BBA that way (80ml Co2 per minute, with a PH drop of 1.5) but many of my plants were always stuck anyway: Java moss, Alternanthera Reineckii, Marsilea Minuta and BBA always there, not dramatic, but never gone. Of course all that Co2 didn't like to the critters neither. I have a wet/dry filter which degasses and add a lot of O2, that's why I could push Co2 to that extreme... but yet, most of my critters didn't like it. Shrimp were hiding all the time and I had mass deaths sometimes, with new fish after a few days from their introduction... because of Co2? Maybe... or because of high toxic CSM levels? Maybe... maybe both.

So... I repeat it here one more time in case anyone missed it: 2 weeks ago I decided to stop dosing CSM after reading this thread again, and at the same time I lowered Co2 half notch: 40ml/minute with a PH drop of 1.3 (still pretty high, right?)... now, after 2 weeks, all my "stuck" plants are finally back after more than 1 year (Java moss, AR, Marsilea Minuta) and my critters are back doing their business everywhere, shrimp are around all the day long. Finally I see them around!

So? High Co2? Is that really needed? Well... time will tell. Today I have lowered it again a little: 30ml/minute. PH drop will be probably in the range of 1.1-1.2, I have yet to measure it. I'll keep observing and taking pictures during the process and let you know guys, but I see this working!


----------



## happi

nicpapa,

that is POGOSTEMON STELLATUS 'BROAD LEAF', am not sure if you were calling this one cuba? anyway mine also looks similar to yours, the lower leaves would look like it was being eaten by something, holes, burnt looking leaves, all kind of weird things. am not sure what its lacking but all those symptoms were there even when dosing EI style ferts in that tank. i use to grow the same plant in the past with great success, at that time i use to dose very heavy Mg and K+ from SO4 source.


----------



## nicpapa

Maybe i m wrong, i remeber a friend gave me as ludwigia cuba, but now i think is STELLATUS. 
Anyway here is a photo i found when i grow it to shrimp tanks. 










fablau 
I think that we overdose in light co2 and ferts... 
A friend here keep plants , and some difficult species like pantanal , with lower fert ligh and co2 from me,and less water change. 
The plants dont grow very fast, but they grow correct with very nice collors. 
After read this post , i begin today , for calculate my dose again. 
Dosing 5 ppm no3, 1.3po4, 5 k2so4, 0.1 trace that i mix it in 250ml water, and add some seachem fe 0.3-0.5 ppm . 
If i see any diferetns at Ar , then its from trace toxicity.


----------



## 58417

*Good growth under low CO2 ... is it possible?*



fablau said:


> I am always more convinced that we don't need that much Co2. It also very interesting your ludwigia grows better in the non-Co2 tank (!!) ... So? High Co2? Is that really needed?


Hi, fablau! I was trying to point out that high CO2 levels are probably not needed in our planted tanks, and sometimes even toxic not only to aquatic critters but to plants also, but people don't want to hear that unless they have their own experience with it. Look at the picture of my friend's aquarium with no artificial CO2:








The numbers mean PAR values (= light intensity in µmol/m/s).
He estimated his "natural" CO2 level as somewhere around 10 ppm (source: fish & substrate). He doesn't add any fertilizer, or just very rerely. His NO3 level is around 5 ppm. There are some scientific papers (for those who doesn't discard science) which show that CO2 levels above ~40 ppm can be downright toxic to some aquatic plants. Of course, each plant species has its own tolerance threshold, but it's good to know that there is some upper limit also. I'm convinced that a range of 10 to 15 ppm CO2 should be optimal for most aquatic plants. But such an opinion is highly unpopular among planted tank guys.


----------



## happi

*Nicpapa*, pantanal is actually very easy to keep, its probably the easiest plant to keep in my tank. anyway i would consider you try some extra Mg during water changes to see if things improve, like i said i use to grow that plant like no others.

*Marcel G*, i haven't done much study on how much co2 is too much, but i have yet to see negative effect on plants with too much co2, i think co2 have a limit before it stop diffusing further, but i do agree that keeping in slightly lower is good for everything including fish, shrimps etc, there is no need to keep it extreme while thinking that's the only way to grow plants. my dosing it completely different from others and i can grow certain plants few inches daily, i study their reaction to certain fertilizers, i try to keep the co2 high as my fishes can handle it, i have a very high light and co2 gets used up by plants very fast. 
So far i can defiantly say that decreasing the traces have positive effect on plants, no doubt about that.


----------



## philipraposo1982

That tank is just crazy g healthy looking. And with no co2 I am baffled on how they do it.


----------



## fablau

nicpapa said:


> Some photos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Nicpapa, by looking at your pictures above more in detail, I see some deformed growth. Could be possible you have a mild toxicity of some sort? I wish Solcielo could be here to comment. Guys, your thoughts on that?


----------



## Positron

In reguards to the previous post:

Looks like Ca deficiency or Ca deficiency brought on by micro's blocking the ability of the plant to uptake it. 

If Ca levels are suficient, I'd look to eliminating traces. 

Also, the old growth is ratty and damaged from probably prolonged exposure to trace damage.

If your macro's are in order, then I would definately suspect trace tox. Look at the plant to the right of the AR (I think it's pogo erectus?), the old growth is badly damaged. At first it looks like phosphate or nitrogen deficiency, but if those are kept 5-10+ NO3 and 0.5+ phosphate, this looks like classic tox problems. I had the same issues with AR. I just recently got some more (3 days ago) and the the plant is actually growing!









Sorry for the murky water. The AS is still clouding things up even with 3 water changes a week. Notice the AR in the back growing and without holes, twisted growth and dying old growth. All the other plants are doing great.


----------



## plantetra

fablau said:


> Plantetra, how much ppm of Fe are you dosing now per week or per dose? Maybe you are now deficient in some way...


I am really sorry I missed that. I was sure that it will be deficient in Fe. So I dosed Seachem Iron on the days of Micro instead of Micros. I will edit it to add that information


----------



## kevmo911

plantetra said:


> I am really sorry I missed that. I was sure that it will be deficient in Fe. So I dosed Seachem Iron on the days of Micro instead of Micros. I will edit it to add that information


I think it's worth noting that your case seems to be an outlier, in that most folks who claim to be seeing signs of micro toxicity have very soft water (while yours is "very hard"). I'm not sure what GH you have, but it doesn't sound like it's even borderline

While it's possible that you're experiencing what some others have, to me it seems likely that there are other factors at play here, possibly in addition to toxicity.



I also want to note that, for me, it's really difficult to try to understand what's going on here when posts alternate between hard science and personal anecdotes. Both are entirely valid, but would it be possible to separate "science Friday" from "show and tell", to two separate threads?


----------



## fablau

Marcel G said:


> Hi, fablau! I was trying to point out that high CO2 levels are probably not needed in our planted tanks, and sometimes even toxic not only to aquatic critters but to plants also, but people don't want to hear that unless they have their own experience with it. Look at the picture of my friend's aquarium with no artificial CO2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers mean PAR values (= light intensity in µmol/m/s).
> He estimated his "natural" CO2 level as somewhere around 10 ppm (source: fish & substrate). He doesn't add any fertilizer, or just very rerely. His NO3 level is around 5 ppm. There are some scientific papers (for those who doesn't discard science) which show that CO2 levels above ~40 ppm can be downright toxic to some aquatic plants. Of course, each plant species has its own tolerance threshold, but it's good to know that there is some upper limit also. I'm convinced that a range of 10 to 15 ppm CO2 should be optimal for most aquatic plants. But such an opinion is highly unpopular among planted tank guys.



Thank you Marcel for your reply. Wow, I can't believe that tank is without Co2, and PAR is not different by mine! As I said, I will try reducing Co2 gradually and see what happens. Having already tried to increase it to the possible high extreme, I have no problems to try the opposite now. Thanks again!


----------



## RedDelPaPa

Good info here folks. Keep testing and posting your results.


----------



## Audionut

fablau said:


> Wow, I can't believe that tank is without Co2,


To be clear, the tank is not without CO2, just the tank maintainer produces CO2 without external injection.


----------



## 58417

*10 ppm CO2 tank*



Audionut said:


> To be clear, the tank is not without CO2, just the tank maintainer produces CO2 without external injection.


But compared to our "common" CO2 levels (35+ ppm), his levels are quite low, don't you think?


----------



## fablau

Yes, of course, I meant "artificial Co2 injection". And Yes Marcel, 10ppm are considered quite low!


----------



## Audionut

*Logarythmic is better*



Marcel G said:


> But compared to our "common" CO2 levels (35+ ppm), his levels are quite low, don't you think?


If you like to look at things in a linear fashion, yeah I guess so.


----------



## plantetra

kevmo911 said:


> I think it's worth noting that your case seems to be an outlier, in that most folks who claim to be seeing signs of micro toxicity have very soft water (while yours is "very hard"). I'm not sure what GH you have, but it doesn't sound like it's even borderline
> 
> While it's possible that you're experiencing what some others have, to me it seems likely that there are other factors at play here, possibly in addition to toxicity.
> 
> 
> 
> I also want to note that, for me, it's really difficult to try to understand what's going on here when posts alternate between hard science and personal anecdotes. Both are entirely valid, but would it be possible to separate "science Friday" from "show and tell", to two separate threads?


I agree with you. I am not good at Chemistry. But what i know is, my water is on the hardest side in US. Atleast thats what the water report says. but by Saturday, my water has low Gh and Kh before water change. And the water is usually at around 6.8ph


----------



## bcarl_10gal

*Personal Experience/ Guidance Needed*

Long story short, I had a 5 gallon with ludwigia sp red and R Mac that were left 2 weeks without traces and I saw massive improvement. I had to do some tank work and move them into another tank with old eco complete that has had A LOT of exposure to CSM+B overdosing and osomocote. The ludwigia does not look so hot anymore. ALL other plants in the tank look great, but have had shorter time without traces. Its been about 4 weeks since the ludwigia has seen a trace dose besides a few drops of Seachem Iron. Do you guys think this poor growth is the result of a micro deficiency? I should note that these are grown under a BML at about 50% strength. IMO this growth is different from the usual toxicity growth, and may finally be a sign of a deficiency. The trace mix I made up is .05ppm CSM+B in Fe and .05ppm from DTPA, I would dose 3 times a week. What do you guys think?







[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]







[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Positron

Yeah that damage still looks like tox. For me it's always burnt, crinkled new growth with spotty discoloration and brittle, algae old leaves. 

Is there any other Mac or red in that tank besides the new additions? If so are they growing correctly? A trace deficiency simply would not look like that imo. Perhaps low boron and zinc, but that kind of damage seems to effect the entire plant. 

If you want to try some micro finely I would say your still adding to much there. I've moved to using seachem trace and flourish. Flourish is dosed plus .02 ppm dtpa iron. This still seemed like too much dtpa. The next day all the roots of my plants turned brown, and the outlines of the leaves had a brown tint. I've halved the flourish mixture and dose seachem trace 2x a week at prescribed dose. The pearling had never been better.


----------



## happi

bcarl_10gal

if you still have osmocote in your substrate, i suggest you trim one branch from that plant and plant it in some container that doesn't have any osmocote in it, try it. the other issue is you might be getting low on some of the traces while some traces are still present in your water, thats the main issue when using csm+b, its not a well mixed trace fertilizer, you will have something go off more or less. other thing i would suggest trying if nothing else helps is to dose some Mn, you can dose about 0.01-0.2 ppm Mn from MnSo4 along with your DTPA dosing.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I haven't added osmocote in about 2 months. The eco complete has not seen CSM+B in 4 weeks, but was used in the 26 gallon which it was dosed heavily over the past year. I rinsed the eco complete out and canister before moving the plants. I have also increased water changes the past week, I haven't seen improvement. I know eco complete has a high CEC but is it really that good...? 

In the past when I for sure was in tox, I would notice slightly better growth right after water changes and when I switched to 2 WCs per week a few months ago I saw great improvement. The other plants in the tank are fine but they are more tolerant of toxic conditions. Only the new growth is effected and I have not other micro substances to dose other them Fe Gluc, DTPA, and, CSM+B.


----------



## burr740

bcarl_10gal said:


> I haven't added osmocote in about 2 months.



O+ can last a lot longer than a couple months, more like 6 at least in my experience. 

Have some left from about a year ago in one of my tanks that will still release the "smokey" stuff if you pop one. Im sure they are not as strong as in the first few months, but they certainly appear to still have some juice left even a year later.


----------



## Christophe

Zorfox said:


> It appears there is significant anecdotal evidence to support trace toxicities. I like posts of users reporting results. However, it may be more useful to have a reporting format.
> 
> If other things were changed that is VERY important to include. So regardless of whether any changes were made or not a reference should be included. i.e increased water "changes" or "no changes" etc. I'm not seeing basic tank parameters included as well. Sure I can go back and try and compile this information but it would be nice to see it in every report. It presents much better as well.
> 
> Here is a start of things we should be including. Please add/delete as needed. I think this would be more beneficial if everyone was on the "same page".
> 
> 
> 
> Water volume
> Water changes
> Tap water quality
> Tank water quality
> Substrate
> Lighting Hi, Med., Low
> CO2 type if any
> CO2 level
> Other nutrients dosed and frequency
> Plant names and changes
> 
> 
> Note: Water quality = PH , dGH, dKH, Temperature, any other parameters available.


I've updated my original post (#265) to cover Zorfox's suggestions. I've committed to the ONLY changes since Nov. 7 being a 90% reduction of use of CSM+B and a 70% reduction of Fe. I'm going to ride on only this change until mid-February. I'd encourage anyone who is simultaneously reducing CO2, macros, changing lighting, etc. to go back to what you were doing before, to improve credibility of the claim that perhaps we've been overdoing the micros.


----------



## 58417

*Osmocote*



burr740 said:


> O+ can last a lot longer than a couple months, more like 6 at least in my experience. Have some left from about a year ago in one of my tanks that will still release the "smokey" stuff if you pop one. Im sure they are not as strong as in the first few months, but they certainly appear to still have some juice left even a year later.


_*Side note:
*_There are at least 4 types of Osmocote: red, brown, blue, and yellow. Each type has a different "lifetime" (from 3 to 14 months) => see the picture below:








Each type contains the same amount of fertilizer (nutrients), but the rate of releasing is different. Once all the fertilizer gets outside the shell, it does not disappear, but remains there until it fully dissolves in water. If the granules are burried deep in the substrate the dissolution may not happen so easily/readily. This may be then seen as some "smokey stuff" even after a prolonged period of time when the granules are already depleted (the fertilizer is outside the granules, not inside anymore). The release of nutrients from the granules is slow but steady. The only factor that drives the rate of release is temperature. The calculated lifetime stated by the manufacturer applies for 20°C (68°F), so under 25°C (77°F) the release rate will be higher, thus the lifetime will be shorter.


----------



## Kaen130

First, thanks for such a wonderful thread. I spent my whole afternoon reading through and gain a lot from it.

I'm not an expert and quite new in planted tank, but I just want to share some of the observation I have for the past one month.

1) When I received my dry fert shipment, by comparing the other Ferts to CSM+B, it is very obvious that CSM+B is not as uniform like other fert crystal/powder (see attached), there are some part brownish, some part yellowish....for my 100litres volume aquarium and if I am only using a pinch, I may be dosing more brownish today, and dosing more yellowish part 2-days....









2) Into my 3rd week, my plants, MC, & S.repens (except Rotala Rotundifolia) did not do well...another thread actually "ring the bell" on overdosing. I'm using ADA AS. After reading a bitC i discovered ADA only recommend dosing K during the initial stage (probably due to the rich nutrients in the soil), so I stopped all my dosing except K2SO4. Meanwhile, I received other advise to increase my light intensity and increase my CO2. 

After taking all these 3 approaches, my plants did turns out better within a week, there are more new green leaves. However, the conclusion I had then was the light and CO2 issue. I didn't suspect the dosing method because over the years many are still following...

3) I started asking around the forum to get advise on EI Dosage for my tank. After confirmation, i started dosing again, KNO3, KH2PO4, K2SO4 & CSM+B....few days I started dosing full EI, plants started to look a bit different (see attached).








More MC turning yellow and transparent.








S.Repen changed.








Rotala leaves tip yellowish.

Specs:
1) Water Volume: 100L

2) Water Change: still pretty new tank, so twice a week 50%. (Today just did a 60-70% after reading this thread)

3) Tap Water: GH 4 KH2

4) Tank Water: GH 5 KH4-5

5) Substrate: ADA Aquasoil

6) Light: Not really sure...should consider high

7) CO2: Pressurized CO2 with Up Aqua Inline Diffuser

8) CO2 Level: about 50 bubbles per 10 sec (recorded and playback with iPhone Slow-Mo). Drop checker with 4dKH solution showing lime green. Fish and shrimps looks a bit stressed out...Reduced to 40 bubbles per 10 sec after reading this thread.

9)







This was the formula I gotten and what I had been dosing (expect MgSO4 and Fe 10% which I newly acquired). Macro and Mirco alternate days for 6days a week. 
* Thanks to the shrimps that are in my tank, worrying harm may be done to them, I had already reduced CSM+B significantly.

10) Plants: MC, S.repens, Rotala Rotundifolia


- What I am going to do after today:
After my WC today, I will go without CSM+B and monitor the plants. Hope my little experiment can contribute a bit to all the experts here to conclude whether CSM+B is suitable for aquarium plants or not.


- QUESTION:
Can anyone name some good alternative to CSM+B in terms of cost and effectiveness?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Positron

@Kaen130

Yes this is the problem with csm +b, especially if you are dry dosing and not mixing atleast 1000mL at once. The problem still remains if people don't stir the csm +b like crazy before making the mixture.

Something that is just as cost effective of csm +B? I would go with plantex. It comes in tiny green balls like osmocote. They are completely uniform and will dissolve easily. 

With the plantex, you will have to be careful with your dosing results. In my opinion there is no need to dose more than 0.1 ppm iron from something like plantex a week. If you need more iron after that, use DTPA iron and no more than an additional 0.1ppm and perhaps 0.2ppm (per week) in an extremely planted tank. 

You have soft enough water to where these values should be more than enough.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Positron said:


> @Kaen130
> 
> Yes this is the problem with csm +b, especially if you are dry dosing and not mixing atleast 1000mL at once. The problem still remains if people don't stir the csm +b like crazy before making the mixture.
> 
> Something that is just as cost effective of csm +B? I would go with plantex. It comes in tiny green balls like osmocote. They are completely uniform and will dissolve easily.
> 
> With the plantex, you will have to be careful with your dosing results. In my opinion there is no need to dose more than 0.1 ppm iron from something like plantex a week. If you need more iron after that, use DTPA iron and no more than an additional 0.1ppm and perhaps 0.2ppm (per week) in an extremely planted tank.
> 
> You have soft enough water to where these values should be more than enough.


Are you referring to millers microplex here? Isn't that higher in trace metals, including copper?


----------



## 58417

*Some nutrient concentration calculations*



Positron said:


> In my opinion there is no need to dose more than 0.1 ppm iron from something like plantex a week.


I have some more calculations for our discussion:
According to a few well-known scientist like G. Gerloff, under an unlimited amount of nutrients in water plants accumulate about 1.6% of nitrogen (N) in their tissue (meaning dry weight content), 0.14% of phosphorus (P), 0.8% of potassium (K), and 0.00006% of iron (Fe). There are numbers for other elements, but I will try to keep it simple.

If we admit that the maximum growth rate is reached at about 32 ppm NO3 (which corresponds to 7.2 ppm N), then we can calculate the approximate concentration of other nutrients needed for this maximum growth rate:

7.2 ppm N = 1.6% (32 ppm NO3)
x ppm P = 0.14%
x = 0.14*7.2/1.6 = 0.63 ppm P = (which corresponds to 1.9 ppm PO4)

In the same way we can get to the following numbers for K and Fe:
=> 3.6 ppm K (0.80%)
=> 0,00027 ppm Fe (0.00006%)

So for our plants to grow at maximum possible rate, we need roughly 30 ppm NO3, 2 ppm PO4, 4 ppm K, and only about 0.0003 ppm Fe.

As you may noticed from my thread on Nutritional requirement of aquarium plants, it seems (so far) that aquarium plants grow quite well even at about 10 ppm NO3. This would leave us with only 0.7 ppm PO4, 1.3 ppm K, and 0.0001 ppm Fe. Of course, we need to take these numbers as rough guesswork, but it shows us how little nutrients may be needed for a good growth. Keep in mind the ratio: there is about 2% of nitrogen in the plant tissue, and only 0.00006% of iron (so the ratio is 1 : 0.00003 of N : Fe, or 1 : 0.0001 of NO3 : Fe). So even if you are dosing 30 ppm NO3, you should not need more than 0.0003 ppm Fe. Plants can uptake more, but they are not able to use it for further biomass production (in other words, they can store the excess, but can't use it for growth). I can understand we may want to add a little more iron in case some of it precipitates (so let's say we can add 100-times more => 0.03 ppm). But why are we adding 1000-times more (0.3 ppm) or even more? And why are we adding more than 4 ppm K? Just think of it.


----------



## Positron

bcarl_10gal said:


> Are you referring to millers microplex here? Isn't that higher in trace metals, including copper?


Whoops! Sorry i meant microplex. 

Yes it does, but atleast it's consistant and you can dose only a very small amount of the microplex to obtain all the trace elements. Dose Fe separately if needed.


----------



## Positron

Marcel G said:


> I have some more calculations for our discussion:
> According to a few well-known scientist like G. Gerloff, under an unlimited amount of nutrients in water plants accumulate about 1.6% of nitrogen (N) in their tissue (meaning dry weight content), 0.14% of phosphorus (P), 0.8% of potassium (K), and 0.00006% of iron (Fe). There are numbers for other elements, but I will try to keep it simple.
> 
> If we admit that the maximum growth rate is reached at about 32 ppm NO3 (which corresponds to 7.2 ppm N), then we can calculate the approximate concentration of other nutrients needed for this maximum growth rate:
> 
> 7.2 ppm N = 1.6% (32 ppm NO3)
> x ppm P = 0.14%
> x = 0.14*7.2/1.6 = 0.63 ppm P = (which corresponds to 1.9 ppm PO4)
> 
> In the same way we can get to the following numbers for K and Fe:
> => 3.6 ppm K (0.80%)
> => 0,00027 ppm Fe (0.00006%)
> 
> So for our plants to grow at maximum possible rate, we need roughly 30 ppm NO3, 2 ppm PO4, 4 ppm K, and only about 0.0003 ppm Fe.
> 
> As you may noticed from my thread on Nutritional requirement of aquarium plants, it seems (so far) that aquarium plants grow quite well even at about 10 ppm NO3. This would leave us with only 0.7 ppm PO4, 1.3 ppm K, and 0.0001 ppm Fe. Of course, we need to take these numbers as rough guesswork, but it shows us how little nutrients may be needed for a good growth. Keep in mind the ratio: there is about 2% of nitrogen in the plant tissue, and only 0.00006% of iron (so the ratio is 1 : 0.00003 of N : Fe, or 1 : 0.0001 of NO3 : Fe). So even if you are dosing 30 ppm NO3, you should not need more than 0.0003 ppm Fe. Plants can uptake more, but they are not able to use it for further biomass production (in other words, they can store the excess, but can't use it for growth). I can understand we may want to add a little more iron in case some of it precipitates (so let's say we can add 100-times more => 0.03 ppm). But why are we adding 1000-times more (0.3 ppm) or even more? And why are we adding more than 4 ppm K? Just think of it.


That is interesting. Mind sharing the link to that report?

Are they just measuring the actual amounts of elemental N, P, K, Fe ect ect? Because if so, plants can only store so much. I think what is more important is looking at the entire dry wieght of the plant (mg/kg). Much of the N would be locked up in amino acids, the P in ATP and other things, and K is directly taken up and released by a plant cell to maintain fluid balance. 

So we can say that only 1.6% of the plant has elemental N, but in reality the entire plant is made up of much more N in different forms. 

So if you have 30 ppm of NO3, and a plant is at 100% stock of N...say it is now 1.6% of the plant's weight, the plant grows and makese new shoots dropping that to 1.5%. Immedietly the plant replenishes this store by grabing nitrogen from NH4 or NO3 (in our aquariums). 

In his book "Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry" by George Riegel, on page 368 he details a similar makeup of plant tissue by elemental breakdown. I can't provide a link because it's behind a paywall.

It seems, atleast by element, that you are correct. Most of the plant is made up of Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon. The primary nutrients of a plant comprise about 4.0% of it's make-up.

Here is a good break down:
http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/...igation/uzifert/thumbnails4/images/slide1.jpg

The percentages are a bit different. Phosphorous is 0.2% and calcium 0.5% 

Does that mean we should use those ratios as the stand-by-me for what we keep our water levels at? No. Why would we call Ca a secondary nutrient and phosphorous a primary nutrient if there is more Ca than P?

I agree with you on the amount of NO3 and P, however, the amount of K must be higher. K as an element is much to reactive with other things, including the substrate to simply keep it at 4 ppm. 

Look at the ratio of calcium 0.5%. Do plants grow well with 1ppm of Ca in our water? No. Same for sulfur and magnesium.


----------



## Zorfox

Marcel G said:


> Keep in mind the ratio: there is about 2% of nitrogen in the plant tissue, and only 0.00006% of iron (so the ratio is 1 : 0.00003 of N : Fe, or 1 : 0.0001 of NO3 : Fe). So even if you are dosing 30 ppm NO3, you should not need more than 0.0003 ppm Fe. Plants can uptake more, but they are not able to use it for further biomass production (in other words, they can store the excess, but can't use it for growth). I can understand we may want to add a little more iron in case some of it precipitates (so let's say we can add 100-times more => 0.03 ppm). But why are we adding 1000-times more (0.3 ppm) or even more? And why are we adding more than 4 ppm K? Just think of it.


A direct correlation to nutrient levels in water and plant tissue is misleading. Plants can uptake nutrients to a point. If we study plants out of a lake we may see tissue analysis of say 4% nitrogen. This does not correlate to the necessary nutrient levels in water. The water is lakes isn't 4% nitrogen by any means. Many natural water sources have very low nutrient levels. However, the nutrient base is VERY large compared to our aquariums. So nutrients remain rather constant except for seasonal changes. Basically, as long as the nutrient is there plants will use it. Then the excess uptake plants don't need is considered luxury nutrients.

All that said I'm not entirely sure why plants respond differently to various nutrient levels. Such as your nutritional experiment. If plants didn't need more than 10 ppm in water then why did you see a change at higher levels? I realize the changes were small and the point of diminishing return was around 10 ppm. However, as long as nitrogen is present why do we not see the same growth patterns? What is the correlation to nutrient levels in water versus plant growth?

I think basing ratios off of one study is a bad idea. The same scientist did this study, TISSUE ANALYSIS AS A MEASURE OF NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY FOR THE GROWTH OF ANGIOSPERM AQUATIC PLANT!?, and has different results. In fact, he mentions that the nutrient mass contained in tissue varies greatly among different plant species.

The nutrient solution he used in this study was a modified Hoagland solution. At the time of the study this was the most effective modification for aquatic plant research. Note these studies are also quite old. 

Nutrient Levels,

N - 42 (NO3 - 186)
K - 47
Ca - 40
P - 6.2 (PO4 - 19)
S - 12.8
Mg - 9.6
Cl - 1.77
B - 0.27
Mn - 0.27
Zn - 0.13
Cu - 0.03
MO - 0.01
Fe - 0.40 

Obtained from,

KNO3
Ca(NO3)2.4H2O
MgSO4.7H2O
KH2PO4
KCl
H3BO3
MnS04.H2O
ZnSO4.7H2O
CuSO4.5H2O
(NH4)6Mo7024.4H2O
Fe EDTA

Obviously, the macro nutrients are much higher than our aquariums. However, the traces are close to what we would see. Researchers reported no trace toxicities using this solution. I wonder why it has been used in research without problems yet various hobbyists see toxicities with these relatively same ranges of trace elements. 

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply don't see how the correlation between tissue mass analysis and nutrient availability plays a role here. As long as we have sufficient nutrients the ratios really shouldn't make much difference beyond some crazy differences.


----------



## Positron

@Marcel G

Is this your post?

How can I avoid iron precipitation in a plant growth media? - ResearchGate


----------



## Kaen130

Positron said:


> @Kaen130
> 
> Yes this is the problem with csm +b, especially if you are dry dosing and not mixing atleast 1000mL at once. The problem still remains if people don't stir the csm +b like crazy before making the mixture.


Hi, I do mix them in 500ml bottle (I don't have 1000ml bottle). But the amount to mix still small in relative to the small tub I have, and is tiny compared to the whole pack. Therefore, my opinion, the content is still not possible to be uniform for every batch 500ml solution...



Positron said:


> Something that is just as cost effective of csm +B? I would go with plantex. It comes in tiny green balls like osmocote. They are completely uniform and will dissolve easily.
> 
> With the plantex, you will have to be careful with your dosing results. In my opinion there is no need to dose more than 0.1 ppm iron from something like plantex a week. If you need more iron after that, use DTPA iron and no more than an additional 0.1ppm and perhaps 0.2ppm (per week) in an extremely planted tank.


Understand you are recommending Miller's MicroPlex instead of "plantex".

How do you compares Miller's MicroPlex to Seachem Flourish or Flourish Trace?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001IJNJNW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_gPMxwb1B8HVR9

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006JLXBU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_4UMxwbQY73DW0

At where I'm located, there is this micro nutrient liquid fert from hydroponic company. Can any expert see if this is good? And how should I dose with it?
http://www.ecocityhydroponics.com/lushgro-micros-liquid.html
(Click "Product Description" for details if you are viewing on smartphone)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rhiro

@Kaen130, hope the following will help you in comparing trace nutrients. For the comparison of CSM+B, Miller Microplex and TNC Trace I used the same amount (grams) of each product and solution size to give you and idea of the ppm concentration. I have vetted the numbers but I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy.


----------



## 58417

Positron said:


> Does that mean we should use those ratios as the stand-by-me for what we keep our water levels at? No. ... I agree with you on the amount of NO3 and P, however, the amount of K must be higher. K as an element is much to reactive with other things, including the substrate to simply keep it at 4 ppm. Look at the ratio of calcium 0.5%. Do plants grow well with 1ppm of Ca in our water? No. Same for sulfur and magnesium.


Thank you for your comment! I'm always learning. Although I see a correlation between the nutrient content in plant tissue and external concentration of nutrients in water (or sediment), I know that this correlation is not always equal. As far as I know, aquatic plants can use more than one transport mechanism under different external concentration of nutrients => see HATS (high affinity transport system) & LATS (low affinity transport system). Also there may be different uptake rate for different nutrients, and different kinds of barriers (transmitters, enzymes, etc.). So it's definitely true that the correlation is not linear. But my point was to mainly show the extremely high ratio between macro vs. micro nutrients (especially between N and Fe). This is what we should think of, and give the things into the right perspective. Often hobbyist use such a high iron levels in their dosing regimes as if the iron belonged to the macro elements. But the difference between what is needed for N vs. Fe is quite stunning, don't you think? The difference is of several orders!


----------



## 58417

Zorfox said:


> A direct correlation to nutrient levels in water and plant tissue is misleading. Plants can uptake nutrients to a point. If we study plants out of a lake we may see tissue analysis of say 4% nitrogen. This does not correlate to the necessary nutrient levels in water. ... Basically, as long as the nutrient is there plants will use it. Then the excess uptake plants don't need is considered luxury nutrients.


I don't think the correlation is that misleading. Gerloff was trying to find out the minimum concentration of nutrients needed for maximum growth. If the concentration of nutrients is higher, the plants won't produce any more biomass, but will begin to store the excess nutrients in their tissue (the so-called "luxuriant uptake"), so the content of elements in their tissue will increase, while the biomass stays the same. So if you find a plant that has 4% N in its tissue (dry weight), it means that it has much more N available in the water (or sediment) than it needs for maximum growth. That said, I understand that although there is a direct correlation between the amount of nutrients in water/sediment and the content of these elements in the plant tissue, there may not be such a simple correlation between the ratio of the nutrients in water/sediment vs. in plant tissue.



Zorfox said:


> If plants didn't need more than 10 ppm in water then why did you see a change at higher levels? I realize the changes were small and the point of diminishing return was around 10 ppm. However, as long as nitrogen is present why do we not see the same growth patterns? What is the correlation to nutrient levels in water versus plant growth?


I think that this correlation is affected by the barriers that hinder the nutrient uptake. You have a diffusive layer around leaves, cuticle (albeit thin in submersed plants), different concentration of nutrients in the environment, different enzymes/transmitters, etc. So although plants may have quite a big amount of nutrients around them, they are probably not able to take them as freely as you may think. They have to get them through all these barriers first to be able to finally utilize them. That's (I think) the reason why plants don't suck up all the nutrients available around them in couple of hours. They just can't. They are trying hard, but only a small fraction is getting into them. So the higher the concentration of nutrients in the environment (water/sediment), the bigger fraction gets into them (the bigger overpressure is there, or the faster the trasfer/uptake rate).



Zorfox said:


> I think basing ratios off of one study is a bad idea. The same scientist did this study, TISSUE ANALYSIS AS A MEASURE OF NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY FOR THE GROWTH OF ANGIOSPERM AQUATIC PLANT!?, and has different results. In fact, he mentions that the nutrient mass contained in tissue varies greatly among different plant species.


This is a good objection, and I must admit that I have no valid argument to fight it. I know of this study. You may not know that the EI method is actually based on the wrong interpretation of this study, as the authors say that at 21 ppm N-NO3 the growth reached its maximum (2.32 g), and the tissue content of N was 1.33%. Under higher level of nutrients the growth did not get any further (2.29 g under 42 ppm N-NO3), or even a slightly declined (2.04 g under 84 ppm N-NO3). T.Barr took this 21 ppm N-NO3 as the unlimiting amount of nutrient for maximal growth rate, and began to recommend 20 ppm NO3 as the non-limiting amount. Unfortunately, he missed the fact that the authors used N-NO3 not NO3, so 20 ppm N-NO3 = 90 ppm NO3. But that's another story. Back to your objection. I can't explain this. The authors say that these values (i.e. ~20 ppm N = ~90 ppm NO3) apply not only for Vallisneria, but other aquatic species as well. So accroding to their research, the minimum external concentration for maximum growth is somewhere around 90 ppm NO3. This seems to me extremely high, and it does not correspond with my findings (nor the findings of D.Walstad in her book). I did an lab analysis of the nutrient content in plant tissue in my plants (and D.Walstad did this also several times). Under EI dosing regime I had 4.6% N, 0.59% P, 8.37% K, 0.85% Ca, 0.37% Mg in the tissue (dry weight). D.Walstad had 3.9% N, 0.56% P, 4.5% K, 0.91% Ca, 0.66% Mg in their samples => even if she did not used any artificial fertilizer. So we both (according to Gerloff data) should have luxurious uptake in our tanks, as we both have much more than 1.6% N, and 0.14% P in the plant tissue. Gerloff says that these numbers may differ in different plant species (which is true), but surely not by several times => Elodea 1.6% N, Ceratophyllum & Vallisneria 1.3% N, Myriophyllum 0.75% N, Lemna 0.90% N. This is the reason why 1.6% N is mostly used, as this is the highest N content so far.

This disproportion is in fact one of the reasons why I decided to make my own experiment with aquarium plants under conditions that are close to the ones in our planted tanks. I keep all the dried plant tissue from all my tanks, but the analysis of plant tissue content is quite expensive ($35), and problem is that they need at least 2 grams of dry weight for complete analysis, but I don't have that much from a single tank (as my tanks are too small for this amount). But it should be possible to do at least N and P content analysis (in case I spare enough money).



Zorfox said:


> Obviously, the macro nutrients are much higher than our aquariums. However, the traces are close to what we would see. Researchers reported no trace toxicities using this solution. I wonder why it has been used in research without problems yet various hobbyists see toxicities with these relatively same ranges of trace elements.


One of the reasons may be the fact, that in our tanks the trace elements may accumulate over time (mainly in the substrate), while in the research the scientists don't use any substrate media, so once they change the water, they may be quite sure there is no remnant.

_All of my thoughts are just my two cents into this discussion. I don't hold any patent on truth, so please take it easy._

Bump:


Positron said:


> @*Marcel G *Is this your post? How can I avoid iron precipitation in a plant growth media? - ResearchGate


Yes, it's my post.


----------



## 58417

*Seeking the minimal concentration of nutrients needed for maximal growth*



Zorfox said:


> A direct correlation to nutrient levels in water and plant tissue is misleading. Plants can uptake nutrients to a point. If we study plants out of a lake we may see tissue analysis of say 4% nitrogen. This does not correlate to the necessary nutrient levels in water. The water is lakes isn't 4% nitrogen by any means.


I just want to make clear that I did not want to say that 4% N in plant tissue corresponds to 4% N in water column. I wanted to say that, for example these 4% N in plant tissue corresponds to some unknown concentration of N in water column. So once we identify this unknown concentration in water that will result in 4% N in plant tissue, we will know what external concentration of N in water column is needed for producing 4% N in plant tissue. This was my point. Also, I don't know yet what is this minimal external concentration of N in water column that is sufficient for maximum growth. I'm doing some tests right now, but it's too early for any serious conclusions. If we would admit (or find experimentally) 30 ppm NO3 (7 ppm N) as the minimal concentration needed for maximum growth, and if we were to know the % N in the plant tissue of plants grown in this media, then we can estimate how much of other nutrients in water column may be needed for reaching the maximal growth (based on the known NO3 concentration = 30 ppm). This estimate won't be in any way precise, but can give us some hint as to how much is really needed.


----------



## Audionut

I think the biggest problem with N is that (most) people assume it must be in the form of NO3. My recent specific observations have shown a noticeable mass increase with the addition of N as NH4. Some fast growing stem plants literally exploded in growth. To be honest, it might not have even been (just) the NH4, since I reduced the level of nitrogen transforming bacteria in my filter, I also observed a spike in NO2. However, I believe NH4 to be the largest benefit to plant growth simply because it's a cation, rather then an anion.

Maintaining the availability of N as NH4 is rather difficult in an aquarium with critters though, since bacteria will also develop to consume NH4 for the eventual transformation to NO3, resulting in an exponential increase in NO3 to maintain NH4 concentration.

Whether I'm correct or incorrect (sighted bias), clearly plants have differing abilities to uptake differing ions, and N is available in various ionic forms. One of the reasons why I think equivalent concentrations should be somewhat abolished, because differing ions are only equivalent in atomic mass, not any of the other factors that affect availability, or ease of uptake.


I'm skeptical of using dried out plant mass analysis of nutrient content as a guideline for nutrient content in water. There are so many factors that control the availability of the various elements, an excess or limiting amount of an ion in the water may be having some affect on growth that isn't translated into the concentration of said element in the plant.

We also need to consider that plants can't just strip a cation from the water, and use that cation while doing nothing else. The water must maintain a cation/anion balance, and hence if the plant strips a cation, then it must replace a cation, or also strip an anion. And so a large concentration of, for instance K, might not increase plant growth _per se_, but instead, increase the availability of excess cations for the uptake of other cations.

So lets go back to NO3, an anion. If the sole availability of N is in the form of NO3, then to use that NO3, it must also uptake some other cation that may not be needed (excess), or replace an anion to the water. Since a large percentage of cations are available in elemental form, excess uptake of these cations can cause toxicity, or induced deficiencies, simply because the availability of the most needed nutrient (neglecting O, H and C) is N, and it's only available as an anion. 

It should be pointed out that my knowledge of the cation/anion uptake and deposit by plants is very limited.

I would also like to point out, that there is a buffer between the minimum concentration of a specific nutrient that a plant needs, and the minimum concentration that causes toxicity or induced deficiencies. And neglecting issues with other diversified species of life in our tanks, maintaining some concentration above the bounds of minimum concentration needed, allows some variability in the concentration of the element without harm to the speed of growth of plants. Being able to maintain the minimum concentration needed for a plant is all fine and dandy, until one of a vast number of possibilities occurs in our compressed eco systems that reduces the concentration below this level.

Anyway, this post is just a different opinion.

edit: Also, while the thread title is relevant to the vast majority of forum members here, my research seems to suggest, that of the available dry micro trace mixes, CSM+B is one of the better mixes with regards to Fe to other nutrient ratios. I use an Amgrow trace mix, that when matched to CSM+B using Fe as a proxy, gives these concentrations of other nutrients in the mix.

B 0.76x
Cu 2.90x
Mn 1.72x
Mo 3.48x
Zn 1.41x

That is to say, the boron content of the Amgrow trace mix is 0.76 times lower then CSM+B for the same concentration of Fe. The other nutrients however.............


----------



## Kaen130

@rhiro thanks for the numbers!


I managed to get a calculator for Lushgro Micro, which I'm thinking to replace CSM+B IF my plants growth improves after stopping CSM+B for a period.









The result of recommended dose is in green, which is way much lesser than CSM+B. I'm thinking of giving a slightly higher dose but 3x a week (result in orange). 

Can anyone share views and comment if this dosage is okay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dmachado

Regarding CSM+B lack of homogeneity, a way to address that would be to get say 100 teaspoons or 500g or what ever you require, and then mix that into 1000ml to get a concentrated solution, and dose from it the ml you require. This would eliminate that problem, of course not the toxicity problem in discussion.

Probably someone already mentioned that, but I didn't see it.


----------



## fablau

dmachado said:


> Regarding CSM+B lack of homogeneity, a way to address that would be to get say 100 teaspoons or 500g or what ever you require, and then mix that into 1000ml to get a concentrated solution, and dose from it the ml you require. This would eliminate that problem, of course not the toxicity problem in discussion.
> 
> Probably someone already mentioned that, but I didn't see it.


I already posted this above, but some vendors of CSM+B such as aquariumfertilizer.com, advise to mix 60 grams of CSM+B in 500ml of water, and dose 1 drop per gallon from there. That would actually avoid most of the unbalance issues of dosing CSM+B.

Bump: As a side note on this discussion, I have opened a new thread about toxicity and plant enzyme inhibition, and anyone is welcome to join the discussion on there:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/967097-trace-toxicity-%3D-plant-enzyme-inhibition.html

I think that's key to not only improve plants health, but to prevent stubborn algae infestations such as BBA and similar.


----------



## 58417

*Quite off-topic*



Audionut said:


> I'm skeptical of using dried out plant mass analysis of nutrient content as a guideline for nutrient content in water. There are so many factors that control the availability of the various elements, an excess or limiting amount of ion in the water may be having some affect on growth that isn't translated into the concentration of said element in the plant.


To end our off-topic discussion about nutrient content in dry mass as a guideline for nutrient content in water, I would like to add that after discussing this matter with one plant physiologist who study bladderworts (strict CO2 users), I'm now skeptical also. He told me that the result of the nutrient content in dry matter is always a ratio between the uptake rate and growth rate (i.e. rate of photosynthesis). In other words, plants with high level of nutrients (incl. CO2) in water that grow faster (primarily due to higher CO2 level) will have lower percentage of nutrients in their dry matter, than plants with lower or same nutrients level, but low CO2 that grow slower (due to this low CO2 level). Because under higher growth rates the nutrient content in plant tissue is being "diluted" in the new biomass, while under low growth rates the nutrients are more "concentrated" in the plant tissue. So the nutrient content in dry weight is not affected by the external concentration of nutrients in water only, but by the growth rate also (which is maybe much more important, and thus can substantially alter the results).

Thanks to all for their comments to this topic! I appreciate it a lot.


----------



## Zorfox

Marcel G said:


> One of the reasons may be the fact, that in our tanks the trace elements may accumulate over time (mainly in the substrate), while in the research the scientists don't use any substrate media, so once they change the water, they may be quite sure there is no remnant.
> 
> All of my thoughts are just my two cents into this discussion. I don't hold any patent on truth, so please take it easy.


I agree with this. A substrate with a high CEC could maintain nutrients over time. However, we are seeing reports of significant improvement after days to weeks. If trace elements are at levels such that it causes toxicity the improvements would be delayed much more than we are seeing. 

No need to justify your statements as far as I'm concerned. We aren't writing a thesis paper here. When I offer a differing idea it's never meant to be malevolent. Instead, to offer alternative points of view. That is after all what a debate or even a conversation is.



Marcel G said:


> I just want to make clear that I did not want to say that 4% N in plant tissue corresponds to 4% N in water column.


Thanks for clearing this up. That is what I thought you were eluding to.



Marcel G said:


> the result of the nutrient content in dry matter is always a ratio between the uptake rate and growth rate (i.e. rate of photosynthesis).


This is true. However, I don't think the dry content should be ignored as a result. Agriculture uses dry analysis for a reason. Instead make adjustments based on various systems? My prediction is that we will find that excess nutrients will be the standard for all systems, CO2 or not. How much and at what ratios? That's the question.



Marcel G said:


> To end our off-topic discussion about nutrient content in dry mass as a guideline for nutrient content in water...


I don't think this is off topic at all! Nutrient content in dry mass is a fantastic tool to use in regards to this discussion.



Audionut said:


> We also need to consider that plants can't just strip a cation from the water, and use that cation while doing nothing else. The water must maintain a cation/anion balance, and hence if the plant strips a cation, then it must replace a cation, or also strip an anion. And so a large concentration of, for instance K, might not increase plant growth per se, but instead, increase the availability of excess cations for the uptake of other cations.


When plants use NO3 as a N source they also release H+ to maintain electroneutrality.

Something I've not seen addressed in the Planted tank is balancing nutrient solutions (our tank water). In hydroponics this is a vital aspect of nutrient ratios. Basically, nutrient additions should be introduced so that electroneutrality is maintained. More importantly, to balance the nutrient uptake rates of each nutrient. If a nutrient has a rapid uptake it has to be balanced by another with a lower uptake. In hydroponics that's usually magnesium, calcium and sulfur. However, all nutrients play a role here. I think that's one reason we see such disproportionate ratios in nutrient solutions versus dry mass analysis. It's all about the balance. Similar to balancing light, CO2 and nutrients. 

Cation-Anion balancing is something I'm looking to add to the calculator.


----------



## plantbrain

Audionut said:


> There appears to be some misunderstanding (to put it mildly) regarding my intention in this thread. So allow me to make some things very clear, so that as we move forward, if further attempts are made to misrepresent my intentions in this thread, these attempts at misrepresentation will be seen for what they are.
> 
> My very first post in this thread, was an example situation showing how dosing of a substance leads to an accumulation of that substance. That is to say, you can dose 0.01ppm (trace amounts) of some substance, but over time, dependent on water changes and without consideration for plant uptake, CEC with substrate and whatever else I may not be considering, these substances can reach peak concentrations in the water some six times greater then what you are dosing into the water. I choose EI based dosing for the example, since that's what most people at these forums probably doses, but it should be clear that if you change less water then 50% once a week, or change the water less often, then the accumulation of the substance will be even greater.
> 
> My second post in this thread, was an example showing how the Hoagland solution (a well renowned hydroponic solution) has a concentration of micro nutrients that is below the accumulated concentration of what one may have in their aquariums when dosing full EI. It should be pointed out that Hoagland solution is the *maximum concentration of the nutrients in the water*. The Hoagland solution is the concentration of the nutrients that is in the water when first used, no other amount of nutrients is added to the water, there is no substrate for these nutrients to accumulate, and 100% of the water is changed at the end of a week for a fresh solution.
> 
> The Hoagland solution also clearly has a rather large amount of macro nutrients, with a large ratio of macro to micro nutrients. It should be pointed out that the macro concentration in the solution are of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulfur, not Nitrate, Phosphate and Sulfate as @Marcel G pointed out on the last page.
> 
> 
> 
> Marcel G didn't mention Sulfate, with the ratio of Sulfur (S) to Sulfate (SO4) being around 1:3, which puts the concentration of Sulfur in the Hoagland solution as a Sulfate equivalent around 190ppm. Clearly, in this solution only a very small amount of micro nutrients are needed for a rather large amount of macro nutrients.
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the Hoagland solution is not intended for fully submersed plants, and so a _direct_ correlation between that solution, and what is required for fully submersed plants cannot be made. However, to disregard the Hoagland solution on that basis, without any scientific reasoning is simply weak minded (obviously, that's just IMO).
> 
> My third post in this thread, was an example Pourbaix diagram which describes the state of the chemical species dependent on pH, and the waters oxidation/reduction potential (ORP). This shows that two different water bodies can have the same concentration of a nutrient, however, the toxicity of the nutrient in the water can be vastly different. So Joe Happy can have some concentration of some nutrient in his low pH aquarium, and happily grow very healthy plants, while poor old Joe Not So Happy can have the same concentration of the nutrient in his high pH aquarium and be suffering from a deficiency. And even Joe Not So Happy Jnr can have the same concentration in his even lower pH aquarium and suffer from toxicity.
> 
> 
> I fully believe based on _my current understanding_, that full EI dosing of micro nutrients is probably not needed in almost all cases, regardless of plant mass, but instead, needs at least some consideration for factors other then simply the level of plant mass in the aquarium. However, what @plantbrain did for nutrient dosing of planted aquariums was effectively take the hobby from Neanderthal status, apply sound scientific evidence and reasoning, and produced a set of regimes that by and large, works. Regardless of any outcome to this investigation (into CSM+B dosing), that should never be forgotten. And most importantly, if we simply allow empirical evidence to dictate an outcome, without the same level of care, accuracy, scientific evidence and reasoning, then effectively we are pushing the hobby back into Neanderthal status.
> 
> I apologize for the manner in which I defend myself, and for creating a set of circumstances that caused unrest. What I don't do, is hold grudges. So if the net outcome is otherwise an improvement in the quality of this thread, then hopefully I can be forgiven. I probably should have ended my debate in the same manner as @dukydaf
> 
> 
> 
> But alas, I have a bunch of flaws just as any other human being. I do have a set of big girl panties floating around here somewhere, so take that as an open invitation to comment further via PM if you feel the need.
> 
> Cheers.




Well put. 

As someone who's seen similar threads for quite some decades(yeowch) on PO4, NO3, NH4, CO2, K+, about every few years, after one groups gets enough experience and knowledge then moves on, a new cohort comes along and then this all starts once again. 

The older folks without such issues, but who have gone through all that in the past, generally move on. *So less institutional knowledge is handed down often times. *

A lot of the problem here is more social and not a plant related issue per se.

Forum moderators will ban folks for that(and have said as much), not for the on topic discussion about plants. Which is "not life or death" as they also stated.


----------



## 58417

*What controls the nutrient content in DW (CO2 or nutrients)?*



Zorfox said:


> I don't think the dry content should be ignored as a result. Agriculture uses dry analysis for a reason. ... My prediction is that we will find that excess nutrients will be the standard for all systems, CO2 or not. How much and at what ratios? That's the question.


Look at this table:









You can clearly see from the table that when you add CO2 (+CO2) and nutrients (+Prey) to the carnivorous bladderworts, the N and P content (as a percentage of dry weight) is noticeably changing. For example, with Utricularia reflexa you get 1.06% N and 0.127% P if you supply the plants with high CO2 and nutrients. When you remove nutrients (-Prey) but keep high CO2 you get even lower values: 0.759% N and 0.092% P. If you remove CO2 (-CO2), but keep adding nutrients, you get a really high nutrient content in plant tissue: 2.79% N and 0.383% P. And if you remove CO2 (-CO2) as well as nutrients (-Prey), you are left with 1.96% N and 0.327% P. From this you can see that the main role in the nutrient content in dry matter plays CO2 availability, not nutrients availability.

+CO2 = 13-26 ppm CO2
-CO2 = 10-15 times lower the CO2 concentration (i.e. 1 to 2.5 ppm)
Light intensity = 26-42% of full sun irradiance (i.e. 500-850 µmol/m2/s)

BTW, the terrestrial plants have the same CO2 level available all around the world, so CO2 doesn't play such a dramatic role as with the aquatic plants. In other words, CO2 level is approx. the same all around the world. I think that with terrestrial plants there is much stronger link between the external concentration of nutrients in the sediment, and the nutrient content in plant tissue.


----------



## Audionut

Zorfox said:


> However, we are seeing reports of significant improvement after days to weeks. If trace elements are at levels such that it causes toxicity the improvements would be delayed much more than we are seeing.


One of the issues with the reports in this thread is that they contain sighted bias. That is to say, even if the reduction of micro dosing had no affect, people can show results that speak otherwise, simply because they want to believe.

The first thought people have when reducing micro dosing is that it will have an improvement, and it is this very thought that biases the results.

We have unsighted ABX testing in the audio industry for a reason!

Of course, we do have the luxury here of being able to see images of various stages of growth, which does somewhat negate the issue with bias.



Zorfox said:


> It's all about the balance. Similar to balancing light, CO2 and nutrients.


I couldn't agree more.



plantbrain said:


> The older folks without such issues, but who have gone through all that in the past, generally move on. So less institutional knowledge is handed down often times.
> 
> A lot of the problem here is more social and not a plant related issue per se.


Agreed. Such a shame that all of the useless stuff seems to carry through passage of time, while the useful stuff gets by and large neglected.

I could add further to your social comment, but I've already derailed this thread once.


----------



## 58417

plantbrain said:


> As someone who's seen similar threads for quite some decades(yeowch) on PO4, NO3, NH4, CO2, K+, about every few years, after one groups gets enough experience and knowledge then moves on, a new cohort comes along and then this all starts once again.


If every few years there are the same threads out there, where is the resolution of this topic? Why are we not able to find out the answers for our questions elsewhere? Even if you were right about these "groups getting enough experience and knowledge", if they don't share their experience and knowledge with others, it's the same as if they don't have any experience and knowledge.


----------



## Zorfox

I do understand the differences the table show. My point was that we shouldn't ignore dry analysis based on this. Blabber worts are also a different animal in regards to most plants we keep. 

However, this does show the importance of CO2. Too many people focus on nutrients when they should be focusing on CO2. It still blows my mind why everyone thinks nutrients are the hard part.

Here is an article that shows the importance of CO2, CO2 and light stimulate the growth. The results are actually remarkable IMO.


----------



## kevmo911

Marcel G said:


> If every few years there are the same threads out there, where is the resolution of this topic? Why are we not able to find out the answers for our questions elsewhere? Even if you were right about these "groups getting enough experience and knowledge", if they don't share their experience and knowledge with others, it's the same as if they don't have any experience and knowledge.


He was referencing the same type of thread, not the same exact topic. He's saying there have been hypotheses about toxicity from each of the chems on the list he mentioned.


----------



## Audionut

Zorfox said:


> When plants use NO3 as a N source they also release H+ to maintain electroneutrality.


I don't believe plants can exchange a cation for an anion, since this would throw off the balance. I believe plants use H+ through cation exchange.


----------



## Zorfox

Audionut said:


> I don't believe plants can exchange a cation for an anion, since this would throw off the balance. I believe plants use H+ through cation exchange.


Actually, that was suppose to be NH4+ not NO3. When they use NH4+ they release H+. When they use NO3- they release HCO3-.

As far as I know this only occurs in the root system. Does it occur in the shoots of aquatic plants? I'm not sure. 

Sorry for the confusion


----------



## Audionut

Zorfox said:


> When they use NO3- they release HCO3-.


If that is the case, then in order to utilize the N atom from NO3, they must donate back a C atom.

Doesn't seem like the most productive trade. Possibly in tanks with one hundred gazillion ppm of CO2 it's not such a big deal, but in low tech tanks with sparse readily available C.................

All of the tests I've seen regarding CO2 concentration and it's effect on growth, don't specify the form of N used (or I haven't looked closely enough/paid enough attention). One could reasonably assume that it's from the readily available NO3, and thus, the effects of CO2 concentration towards growth may in part be due to the availability of excess Carbon atoms needed for the uptake of N from NO3.


----------



## 58417

kevmo911 said:


> He was referencing the same type of thread, not the same exact topic. He's saying there have been hypotheses about toxicity from each of the chems on the list he mentioned.


First, don't speak for others. (No offense! But the post was meant for T.Barr.)
Second, I see no resolution for PO4, NO3 ... CO2 elsewhere. I see full set of opinions (nor even hypotheses) or recommendations on PO4, NO3, K, CO2 levels (based on pseudo-science or subjective observations), but no solid/valid data (based on controlled experiments). Or can you give me some links for the results of what are the (real) nutrient demands of our plants?
_
PS: Please, don't link any anectodal opinions, but "the knowledge".
PPS: I don't say that subjective observations are bad! But by mere observing what happens in our planted tanks we can't be sure we know the real cause of our actions.
_


----------



## fablau

I am sorry to interrupt your chemistry discussion here, but back to the "practical" side of this thread, I wanted to share with you what's happening in my tank after stopping CSM for over 2 weeks. Have a look at the two pictures below, they show the same bunch of Anubias. The first picture is taken 3 weeks ago, before the traces "detox" cure, and the second one has been taken today after almost 3 weeks with very low traces.





















As you can notice, leaves still have some BBA but greatly reduced, and leaves look much healthier. Also, notice trumpet snails cleaning up what remains of the dead BBA... Isn't nature amazing?

Here are some more Anubia leaves after the detox cure:











They were pretty much all covered of fine BBA before.

I am doing the same experiment in a low-tech tank and I am taking pictures of the progress. I will share everything once finished.


----------



## kevmo911

Marcel G said:


> First, don't speak for others. (No offense! But the post was meant for T.Barr.)
> Second, I see no resolution for PO4, NO3 ... CO2 elsewhere. I see full set of opinions (nor even hypotheses) or recommendations on PO4, NO3, K, CO2 levels (based on pseudo-science or subjective observations), but no solid/valid data (based on controlled experiments). Or can you give me some links for the results of what are the (real) nutrient demands of our plants?
> _
> PS: Please, don't link any anectodal opinions, but "the knowledge".
> PPS: I don't say that subjective observations are bad! But by mere observing what happens in our planted tanks we can't be sure we know the real cause of our actions.
> _


I had, and have, no information I'd like to contribute to the discussion. I voiced no support for any position. I attempted to clarify what seemed like a miscommunication.


----------



## Positron

fablau said:


> I am sorry to interrupt your chemistry discussion here, but back to the "practical" side of this thread, I wanted to share with you what's happening in my tank after stopping CSM for over 2 weeks. Have a look at the two pictures below, they show the same bunch of Anubias. The first picture is taken 3 weeks ago, before the traces "detox" cure, and the second one has been taken today after almost 3 weeks with very low traces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can notice, leaves still have some BBA but greatly reduced, and leaves look much healthier. Also, notice trumpet snails cleaning up what remains of the dead BBA... Isn't nature amazing?
> 
> Here are some more Anubia leaves after the detox cure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were pretty much all covered of fine BBA before.
> 
> I am doing the same experiment in a low-tech tank and I am taking pictures of the progress. I will share everything once finished.


Looks really good Fab! Keep us updated. I wish I still had some pics of my plants before I did the detox, then a few weeks after, and then after changing substrate, and then reducing iron to acceptable levels (~0.1 ppm). 

Keep us updated!


----------



## 58417

*Valid arguments*



kevmo911 said:


> I had, and have, no information I'd like to contribute to the discussion. I voiced no support for any position. I attempted to clarify what seemed like a miscommunication.


That's OK. It's just funny that whenever some group of people tries to get to the core, there are other people who know everything better (and earlier) but when you ask them to explain it to you they are silent. For example, I never saw any valid arguments that clearly show no harm of using high concentrations of NO3, heavy metals or CO2 in tanks with critters (except many anecdotal stories about "critters not dying" or "critters happily multiplying"). Also I did not saw any valid arguments that clearly show no correlation between elevated levels of nutrients and algae growth (except many anectotal stories about "I add high level of nutrients and have no algae"). But what do I see are many solid studies about the opposite.
_
PS: No offense here! Just trying to describe the present (sad) state of things from my own perspective._


----------



## 58417

*Different perspective*



Zorfox said:


> However, this does show the importance of CO2. Too many people focus on nutrients when they should be focusing on CO2. It still blows my mind why everyone thinks nutrients are the hard part. Here is an article that shows the importance of CO2, CO2 and light stimulate the growth. The results are actually remarkable IMO.


I see it from a little different perspective. It's known for a decades that the most limiting nutrient (in plant growth) in most aquatic environments is CO2. But in some point in time some people (or companies?) began to recommend an unreasonably high CO2 levels for a good plant growth. At about the same time some people began to recommend an unreasonably high nutrient levels also based probably on hydroponics culture techniques. And no one really cares if it is really needed or if it is really safe. They just took what was used in hydroponics, modified it a little, and applied it to our planted tanks. But can I ask you a question? Is it really needed, and is it really safe? And did you find the answers (with convincing arguments) for these questions elsewhere?

_PS: Did you noticed the "big" difference in the biomass gain between 7 ppm vs. 35 ppm CO2 (in the article you cited)? I plotted the data to the chart for you as "a picture is worth a thousand words"._








_If the biomass gain under 35 ppm CO2 be considered 100%, then under 7 ppm CO2 you'll get about 75%!_
Is it not similar to the following chart?








Compare the "big" difference in biomass gain (Y axis) between 7-10 ppm vs. 32 ppm NO3 (X axis). The difference in biomass gain is 65-75% (7-10 ppm) vs. 100% (32 ppm).

Now let me ask again: *Is the ~30 ppm NO3, CO2 (or whatever) really needed, and is it really safe (or even desirable)?*
Is there anyone who can explain to me what's the advantage of using such a high concentrations vs. several times lower concentrations that give me nearly the same growth rate (75%) + bonus of safer environment for my critters + bonus of less trimming? Is there anyone who wants to trim and throw his plants each week (because of such a high growth rates)? Does anyone here thinks that under lower levels of nutrients (incl. CO2) our plants won't grow well? Does the 75% growth rate means our plants are not growing well (or fast enough)? Or does it mean that they are prone to any deficiencies under lower levels of nutrients? Did I registered any kind of defficiencies under 2 ppm NO3, 0.2 ppm PO4, 0.02 ppm Fe, and 1.25 ppm K in my test tank?


----------



## Audionut

That graph indicates an increasing upward trend for the higher concentration of CO2 as opposed to the lower concentration. So while at 30 days you may get 75% of the growth with the lower concentration of CO2, without further data to indicate the results of this upward trend, the results after 60 days could indicate the lower concentration of CO2 has only delivered 50% of growth, or less.

That report also indicates that CO2 concentration to plant mass is directly related to light intensity.




















Anecdotal evidence.
I currently have a pH of 5.22 with an KH test kit reading of 12ppm (PO4 concentration approx 4ppm, some humic substances). The fish don't die, nor do they appear to be struggling. Given the color and behavior of the fish, I have no doubt they are in better health then when I purchased them.

While I fully understand that the effects of my high CO2 concentration may only play a role in the (shortening of the) life span of the animals, and thus will not be readily apparent, it seems clear, anecdotal or not, that if my fish appear healthy at my otherwise extreme CO2 concentration, then less extreme (still extreme by some reasoning) CO2 concentrations will have even less of an effect of fish health.

Again, it's Anecdotal, but frankly @Marcel G, you keep talking about these studies that show otherwise, and yet, you've never made these studies available for this forums consumption. You're falling into the same trap you accuse others of. Would it kill you to share a link once in a while. Discussions about discussion with plant experts is anecdotal in itself, since we have no way to verify.

edit: Full disclosure. My current (just measured) pH drop is 1.35 (lower then I expected). I've been slowly working my way down from a 1.7pH drop, but with changing KH I wasn't exactly sure what the pH drop was until just now. Not as high as expected, but still pretty high. Some portion of the pH drop being related to H2CO3 <> CO2 + H2O. I've agreed previously that such large CO2 concentrations are not needed and hence the continued reduction of CO2 concentration. I also have anecdotal evidence to suggest that the extreme CO2 concentrations (at a 1.7 pH drop) were retarding growth. I will probably settle at a 1.2 pH drop, since I'm 1400 feet above sea level, and hence my equilibrium concentration with the atmosphere will be below the general recommendation of 3ppm.


----------



## 58417

Audionut said:


> That graph indicates an increasing upward trend for the higher concentration of CO2 as opposed to the lower concentration. So while at 30 days you may get 75% of the growth with the lower concentration of CO2, without further data to indicate the results of this upward trend, the results after 60 days could indicate the lower concentration of CO2 has only delivered 50% of growth, or less.


I admit that comparing these two graphs was probably not so good idea. Not because I'm afraid that it turns against me, but because each chart present the data from a different perspective. I think that the second (my) chart is better for us to see the difference, but unfortunately we are not able to plot the articles' data into similar chart as they were comparing just two CO2 concentrations (and that's just not enough for plotting this kind of chart). Still I think you'll get very similar results if you were comparing the growth rate (biomass gain) under several CO2 concentrations (keeping the other nutrients and light at the same level => say high nutrient level + high light level).
PS: If you see such a difference between the 7 ppm vs. 35 ppm CO2 due to the upward trend, then you'll see the same difference (finally) even if the difference in gain was just 1%. After one year, the difference in biomass would be stunning. But don't we trim our plants every couple of weeks? And is our goal to have the biggest possible biomass production?



Audionut said:


> Again, it's Anecdotal, but frankly @*Marcel G*, you keep talking about these studies that show otherwise, and yet, you've never made these studies available for this forums consumption. You're falling into the same trap you accuse others of.


I won't give you any link with a purpose (intentionally), and I don't care if you consider me a bad guy due to this. I think I did presented here a great deal of good arguments and questions. Still you want more. Again: Why the hell don't you have the same measurements for others?! We have some topic here. I presented a couple of good arguments backed up by experimental data. Did anyone do the same here? Why don't you ask others also for showing us some studies about harmlessness of elevated nutrient levels, or about no correlation between elevated nutrient levels and algae? Why am I always asked to show you more proofs? Is it because I ask questions that may show our common believes may be wrong? Or because I ask the wrong (taboo) questions? Frankly, I don't understand it. It's you (or EI users) who say that elevated levels are in any way harmfull for critters, and that they don't correlate to algae growth, or that we need high CO2 levels to combat algae or to have a good growth, etc. I just react to these claims, ask questions, and express my opinions. By no means I want to persuade you. Thus, by no means I need to present any studies. (And even if I did, it's pointless. _You can't fill_ a _cup that is already full._)


----------



## Audionut

Well, you really don't like EI, or those who show any sort of correlation towards the support of any aspect of it.

I'm done. Thanks again for your time and effort in your testing, I'll still follow along, but commenting would be pointless.


----------



## roadmaster

If no one is trying to persuade anybody off or away from their position as Marcel stated, then what we have,, are measured opinion's which is a good thing.
Truth is .. there are several method's of growing the aquatic weed's.
There are those who run their tank's on lean nutrient dosing successfully, and those who adopt EI method with good success.
Some gas their fishes with excess CO2,and other's do not .
Some use uber lighting,some do not.
The tipping point in my view between useful information for consideration, and measured opinion's, Is when you must be right,,and everyone else is just too ignorant to grasp your theory.
Is true ,you cannot fill a cup that is already full ,but is does not mean we can't get another cup and try a different method if we are so inclined.
Just don't get your panties in a twist if we choose not to, and instead decide to defend our position for in the grand scheme of thing's,,we are all expierimenting.
We just ain't all got pointy head's,pocket protector's,black horn rimmed glasses,and or the desire to dial in our expieriment's down to the gnat'[email protected]#$.
Supposed to be a hobby.


----------



## 58417

Audionut said:


> Well, you really don't like EI, or those who show any sort of correlation towards the support of any aspect of it.
> 
> I'm done. Thanks again for your time and effort in your testing, I'll still follow along, but commenting would be pointless.


I think you misjudge me. I would really respect EI method, if it presents itself in the right light. Personally I think it's a great method for growing aquatic plants (simple, easy, comfortable, little room to make any mistakes, good amount of nutrients for plants). But I don't like the way it's presented (that most EI preachers ignore the risks, are not able to withstand a different opinions, use pseudo-scientific arguments to back up their claims or even myths, despise science). Gerloff and Krombholz used much higher nutrient concentrations for growing aquatic plants (5-times diluted Hoagland's solution), and I greatly respect them and their work. Krombholz even used this solution for growing aquarium plants with a great results (before EI method). So it's not about EI. It's about the ignorance, double standard, pseudo-science ...

_I'm better to retreat as I feel that my way of presenting arguments or asking questions is not right (in one way or another). This way you can feel free to comment anything without the fear of my hatred. I'm sorry for derailing this thread._



roadmaster said:


> The tipping point in my view between useful information for consideration, and measured opinion's, Is when you must be right,,and everyone else is just too ignorant to grasp your theory.


As you may noticed many times in my posts I'm able to admit I was wrong in light of convincing arguments. But I just can't see this same ability with the EI preachers.


----------



## burr740

I would just like to know the x-factor between those who experience clear toxicity effects and those who do not.

I dont need a scientific document to see Tom Barr results, and countless others who dose full csmb with no issues. Nor do I need any such thing to clearly see that csmb is the root of many other people's problems, whether directly or indirectly. I have first hand experience with the latter.

The proof is in the pudding...on both sides of this fence. The main question I have is why it's OK for some but not for others.


----------



## Yo-han

Perhaps the X factor is that in aquaria without problems the traces are used faster and don't tend to build up.


----------



## burr740

Perhaps, but I dont believe it's that simple.

My heavily planted 75 gal with 120 PAR at the sub and high CO2 should use traces as fast as anyone's, or be in the ballpark. 

Diligent water changes, inert substrate, rarely any algae to speak of beyond minor nuisances. I can totally reset the ferts with a couple of back to back 80% water changes. Then after only one dose of .5 and certain plants are obviously not happy the next day. Two or three doses they'll begin to fry. This is not an exaggeration. It happens that fast to a couple species. Specifically Red ludwigia, Proserpinaca palustris, Ammania gracilis

.1 seems to be working pretty well these last few months, although I suspect it may be better with even less. 

Point is, I find it very hard to believe it's that many tanks out there processing 5 times more csmb than mine.


----------



## roadmaster

Could be there ain't no right or wrong.
What might be Just enough CSM+B for your tank, does not equate to that being the standard that everyone else should adopt for they may not experience the same result's.
I do not question anyone's success, but take issues with those that suggest to myself and newbies that we are doing it all wrong,and that we just ain't bright enough to know it.
Proof as you say IS in the pudding.(I'm happy with my effort)
Some get by with more or less with their expierimenting ,and to pop off to a newbie and declare that they are absolutely causing harm to their plant's and or fishes with a particular method based only on theory or expieriment serves only to confuse them.
This I know to be a fact for I was among the confused for an embarrassingly long time.
I suspect if we could see a today photo of your tank that many would aspire to create one like it,while other's might wonder what's the problem?

P.S. Was not referring to any one in particular,the guilty know who they are.


----------



## Zorfox

I could care less if a hobbyist proves their methods through standard scientific methods. The FDA isn't looking for safety and efficacy trials. There's no board reviewing dissertations. We're suppose to be enjoying ourselves. If Billybob wants to raise large mouth bass and feed them chicken lips and angel wings more power to him. If others follow suit and enjoy, even better!

I personally enjoy reading scientific literature to gain a better understanding of how things work. I'm not looking to prove or disprove anything. In this case, I do it to look for potential causes for a real problem other hobbyists are experiencing. Most could care less about ionic contributions, graphs and studies.

I don't ever remember plantbrain requesting EI to be the new standard that everyone should follow. In fact, to the contrary. He's always said there are multiple ways to enjoy the hobby. 

_"CO2 is a bit like a drug addiction that hobbyists get hooked on. That's fine, but this non CO2 approach will give an excuse to have another tank that needs less attention and is cheap.
I suggest folks coming from either the non CO2 or the CO2 enrichment approaches to give the other method a try and see what benefits it has.
CO2 and non CO2 tanks work for all the same reasons, but........
They grow at different rates."

Tom Barr , Non CO2 methods - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report_

Having the ability to discuss our successes and failures with so many people around the world is great! I think we all need to remember this is a hobby. Something to be enjoyed. Part of group discussions are to help others.

I think we've wondered to far from the basics. If CSM seems to be the problem then it would be nice for those having issues to try an alternative trace mix. Maybe NilOCG could help out with a few chemicals to make a "liquid CSM" to eliminate the possibility that this is related to the mix of the dry CSM we use.


----------



## fablau

Audionut said:


> That graph indicates an increasing upward trend for the higher concentration of CO2 as opposed to the lower concentration. So while at 30 days you may get 75% of the growth with the lower concentration of CO2, without further data to indicate the results of this upward trend, the results after 60 days could indicate the lower concentration of CO2 has only delivered 50% of growth, or less.
> 
> That report also indicates that CO2 concentration to plant mass is directly related to light intensity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence.
> I currently have a pH of 5.22 with an KH test kit reading of 12ppm (PO4 concentration approx 4ppm, some humic substances). The fish don't die, nor do they appear to be struggling. Given the color and behavior of the fish, I have no doubt they are in better health then when I purchased them.
> 
> While I fully understand that the effects of my high CO2 concentration may only play a role in the (shortening of the) life span of the animals, and thus will not be readily apparent, it seems clear, anecdotal or not, that if my fish appear healthy at my otherwise extreme CO2 concentration, then less extreme (still extreme by some reasoning) CO2 concentrations will have even less of an effect of fish health.
> 
> Again, it's Anecdotal, but frankly @*Marcel G*, you keep talking about these studies that show otherwise, and yet, you've never made these studies available for this forums consumption. You're falling into the same trap you accuse others of. Would it kill you to share a link once in a while. Discussions about discussion with plant experts is anecdotal in itself, since we have no way to verify.
> 
> edit: Full disclosure. My current (just measured) pH drop is 1.35 (lower then I expected). I've been slowly working my way down from a 1.7pH drop, but with changing KH I wasn't exactly sure what the pH drop was until just now. Not as high as expected, but still pretty high. Some portion of the pH drop being related to H2CO3 <> CO2 + H2O. I've agreed previously that such large CO2 concentrations are not needed and hence the continued reduction of CO2 concentration. I also have anecdotal evidence to suggest that the extreme CO2 concentrations (at a 1.7 pH drop) were retarding growth. I will probably settle at a 1.2 pH drop, since I'm 1400 feet above sea level, and hence my equilibrium concentration with the atmosphere will be below the general recommendation of 3ppm.


In the above graph and description there isn't any absolute value defining "high" or "low" Co2. What's considered "high" Co2? 100ppm? 35ppm? 20ppm? That may be misleading otherwise... we need absolute values.

Bump:


Yo-han said:


> Perhaps the X factor is that in aquaria without problems the traces are used faster and don't tend to build up.



Maybe... or maybe used water is different (tap, RO, mixed, etc), different values from the beginning... or you simply perform more WC than me, then less accumulation, etc.

In my case, I cannot perform more than 2 water changes a month (WC every 2 weeks) due to my limited time, therefore my tank is more prone to ferts accumulation. Just an example how situations can be different. Only by knowing absolute values of all variables (and they are so many!) it is possible to compare apples with apples.


----------



## kevmo911

burr740 said:


> I would just like to know the x-factor between those who experience clear toxicity effects and those who do not.
> 
> I dont need a scientific document to see Tom Barr results, and countless others who dose full csmb with no issues. Nor do I need any such thing to clearly see that csmb is the root of many other people's problems, whether directly or indirectly. I have first hand experience with the latter.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding...on both sides of this fence. The main question I have is why it's OK for some but not for others.



You have to figure that of all the people that complain of micro toxicity, some don't mention that they don't actually follow EI to the letter, some are overdosing or doing something else that's really not helping things and don't realize it, and some are seeing a solution that's easy, rather than trying to figure out what's really wrong.

But, going back through the threads about this stuff, it's very common to find people who have GH (and similar KH) of maybe 4 or less.

That may mean something, or nothing at all. But you asked for commonality.


----------



## 58417

*Apologies*



roadmaster said:


> the guilty know ...


I'm sorry for this off-topic post, but I feel it would be better to write it here than to send a personal message to so many people who have an "ideological clash" with me. I hope it's OK.

I'm aware of this tendency of mine to favor/lord my own opinions over another than real dialogue. I just want to say sorry to all who were affected by it.

I can make an extreme effort to search for the information. I have a huge desire to understand things, to grasp it, to find a deeper meaning. But once I find something interesting I am prone to consider my opinions, knowledge and experiences better than that of others. I'll make it the "absolute truth" in my eyes, which then I try to preach to others (in good faith I'm preaching the gospel).

I do not feel like all my opinions are fundamentally bad, and that some people out there are not speaking nonsenses, but such a tendency can ruin an otherwise good discussion.

I'm able to admit my fault later on when I look at it with a cool head, or when someone bears with me and explains me patiently in what am I biased.

Still I feel "incompatible" for a balanced discussion on similar forums as I am not able to fully control this tendency, especially when I meet some pseudo-scientific baloney.

So, please accept my apology.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I stopped following this thread for the most part. While its cool to talk about all the science behind this, it has become a never ending circle. For me, its simple. I use 100% RO water and can get a little lazy with the GH booster while dosing EI level micros, making me vulnerable to issues with toxicities. If you have seen any of my threads talking about my star repens and constant melting it has been perplexing to say the least. After a YEAR of trying a ton of things I finally can GROW them again. I reduced my CSM+B dosing to slightly lower than PPS amounts. This evidence sounds trivial, but if you follow any of my threads on my experience with this plant this is pretty significant. 

Anyways, If you guys want to keep talking science in a never ending circle go for it. The majority of people who acknowledge this exists or are reading this thread are enjoying better growth and may not really care about the detailed science. Remember we are all doing this HOBBY for FUN, no academic paper is being reviewed as a result of this.

TL/DR: If you are dosing EI with lower GH and seeing poor growth: check your CO2 levels first, then if adequate try lowering your traces it could help.


----------



## burr740

kevmo911 said:


> But, going back through the threads about this stuff, it's very common to find people who have GH (and similar KH) of maybe 4 or less.


I wondered about this myself, only I thought it may be the opposite. This was before toxicity became the hot topic and I thought it was just me.

My KH is around 7, GH 8-9. I believe Barr's is around 3. Then you have all these people using aquasoil, or RO blends, and growing soft water species in low KH...apparently dosing "EI" without issues, made me wonder if the problem was my higher KH.

Now it appears that isnt the case, so idk....


----------



## Zorfox

Marcel G said:


> I'm aware of this tendency of mine to favor/lord my own opinions over another than real dialogue. I just want to say sorry to all who were affected by it.


I personally find your input valuable. I to can get to focused on the numbers and scientific jargon. Your'e not the only one that actually enjoys reading research papers. I quite enjoy debating more complex issues like that. 

My previous post was not meant to stifle intelligent conversations. Instead, it was to voice my opinion on the need to prove or disprove every aspect of the hobby. Experimentation leads to many new things. Besides, it's pretty fun IMO. However, this is a hobby and everything shouldn't need be studied and proven in a scientific way. Prove or disprove through experimentation and discussion? Heck yes! Sorry if I came off sounding like I was criticizing your input. It was never meant as such. Ya got no problems with me. Let the charts, science and chemistry fly as far as I'm concerned. Yet then again, it's not my thread.:wink2:


----------



## Positron

roadmaster said:


> .
> I suspect if we could see a today photo of your tank that many would aspire to create one like it,while other's might wonder what's the problem?


This is a good point. Most people that come over to visit my house are stunned by my tank. Even when my plants were frying because of my dosing. 

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

EDIT: It makes me wonder if my past successes when I first began high tech tanks where simply me having a different view of what was considered good. I had a lot of fun back then and enjoyed watching my plants grow immensly. Then after about 6 months, with constant dosing, care and love to the tank it still went downhill. In my frenzy to figure out what happened I think some of the ignorant magic that came with growing plants disappeared. 

I look at photo's of those early days and I'm still happy with the growth, but now I have made many strides. I can grow HC and Monte Carlo now. I can grow rotala macandra, pogostemon, H. Pinntafida, erios, various red ludwigia species. Now im trying to work on getting AR to grow correctly.

I have made strides, but in my early days certain things just did better. I even tried to emulate what I did back then to no avail. 

I'm happier now with the hobby than I have been in months, and some of that magic of watching a florescent green tank coming alive is returning.


----------



## roadmaster

Marcel G said:


> I'm sorry for this off-topic post, but I feel it would be better to write it here than to send a personal message to so many people who have an "ideological clash" with me. I hope it's OK.
> 
> I'm aware of this tendency of mine to favor/lord my own opinions over another than real dialogue. I just want to say sorry to all who were affected by it.
> 
> I can make an extreme effort to search for the information. I have a huge desire to understand things, to grasp it, to find a deeper meaning. But once I find something interesting I am prone to consider my opinions, knowledge and experiences better than that of others. I'll make it the "absolute truth" in my eyes, which then I try to preach to others (in good faith I'm preaching the gospel).
> 
> I do not feel like all my opinions are fundamentally bad, and that some people out there are not speaking nonsenses, but such a tendency can ruin an otherwise good discussion.
> 
> I'm able to admit my fault later on when I look at it with a cool head, or when someone bears with me and explains me patiently in what am I biased.
> 
> Still I feel "incompatible" for a balanced discussion on similar forums as I am not able to fully control this tendency, especially when I meet some pseudo-scientific baloney.
> 
> So, please accept my apology.


 No worrie's.
I once responded in a thread.."Don't shoot the messenger" and was advised that it was not the message so much as it's delivery.
I am as guilty as the next at times.:|


----------



## RedDelPaPa

In regard to this topic, many of you folks claim to be struggling with BBA along with your CSM+B tox. I absolutely cannot grow even a single thread of BBA no matter what I do. I'm beginning to think my problem is different. And I'd bet my life savings that the problems I'm having and the inability to grow BBA are closely linked.


----------



## fablau

RedDelPaPa said:


> In regard to this topic, many of you folks claim to be struggling with BBA along with your CSM+B tox. I absolutely cannot grow even a single thread of BBA no matter what I do. I'm beginning to think my problem is different. And I'd bet my life savings that the problems I'm having and the inability to grow BBA are closely linked.


What kind of problems do you have? Not having BBA is great!


----------



## hbosman

I can send you some!! ;-)


----------



## hbosman

I think you guys/girls have pointed out my issue. I used to be able to grow glosso, and HC without any issue. I've used csm+b for years. About a year or two ago, there were threads talking of adding additional manganese so I started doing that. Also added dtpa because my tap water is kind of hard, gh of 10 - kh of 6. About 6 months ago, I tried those two plants again and it just wouldn't work. So, I got an RO unit and started mixing water to a gh of 4 and a kh of 3. Things got worse. Now I can't grow crypts (keeps losing leaves) and very recently I started getting BBA on my Java ferns. WTH, RO is supposed to make things easier. I hadn't had BBA for years. This also coincided with a *new* batch of csm+B. As usual, kept checking CO2. I get a ph drop of more than a point. Hmmm, started CO2 earlier and turned it off later. Still no go. Anyway, I did a water change and added just the DTPA and macros. I ordered a bottle of flourish, hadn't done that in years. Below was my micro dosing recipe. I make it in solution in a one liter bottle. I will dose flourish according to their instructions and add DTPA. No additional manganese. I'm hoping my substrate isn't toxic, I'd really hate restart the tank and deal with green water again. I will update here my results. Thanks everyone for this thread.

7	Doses per wk One liter bottle, dose is 30 ml.

CSM+B 19 grams 
0.2	ppm fe 
0.06	ppm Mn 
0.04	ppm Mg 

DTPA (11 %) 4 grams 
0.06	ppm fe 

Manganese .5 grams 
0.03	ppm 

Magnesium 16 grams 
0.25 ppm 

Daily fe	0.26	fe per wk	1.82	ppm
Daily Mn	0.09	Mn Per Wk	0.63	ppm
Daily Mg	0.29	Mg Per Wk	2.03	ppm


----------



## happi

hbosman said:


> I think you guys/girls have pointed out my issue. I used to be able to grow glosso, and HC without any issue. I've used csm+b for years. About a year or two ago, there were threads talking of adding additional manganese so I started doing that. Also added dtpa because my tap water is kind of hard, gh of 10 - kh of 6. About 6 months ago, I tried those two plants again and it just wouldn't work. So, I got an RO unit and started mixing water to a gh of 4 and a kh of 3. Things got worse. Now I can't grow crypts (keeps losing leaves) and very recently I started getting BBA on my Java ferns. WTH, RO is supposed to make things easier. I hadn't had BBA for years. This also coincided with a *new* batch of csm+B. As usual, kept checking CO2. I get a ph drop of more than a point. Hmmm, started CO2 earlier and turned it off later. Still no go. Anyway, I did a water change and added just the DTPA and macros. I ordered a bottle of flourish, hadn't done that in years. Below was my micro dosing recipe. I make it in solution in a one liter bottle. I will dose flourish according to their instructions and add DTPA. No additional manganese. I'm hoping my substrate isn't toxic, I'd really hate restart the tank and deal with green water again. I will update here my results. Thanks everyone for this thread.
> 
> 7	Doses per wk One liter bottle, dose is 30 ml.
> 
> CSM+B 19 grams
> 0.2	ppm fe
> 0.06	ppm Mn
> 0.04	ppm Mg
> 
> DTPA (11 %) 4 grams
> 0.06	ppm fe
> 
> Manganese .5 grams
> 0.03	ppm
> 
> Magnesium 16 grams
> 0.25 ppm
> 
> Daily fe	0.26	fe per wk	1.82	ppm
> Daily Mn	0.09	Mn Per Wk	0.63	ppm
> Daily Mg	0.29	Mg Per Wk	2.03	ppm


so you are saying that these listed numbers did not work for you and you had issue with growing plants? 0.2 Fe daily from csm+b is more than enough even in super high light tank with fastest growing plants. Mn isn't that much toxic if used in small amount


----------



## hbosman

Im hoping its toxicity issue! If not, I'm stumped. Discontinuing csm and trying Flourish comprehensive to see if there's a difference. Hoping the substrate doesnt have to be replaced.


----------



## bsantucci

I'm making the switch to Miller's since I have it on hand anyway. I like that I will know I'm getting the specific amounts I plan for. I am just finishing this week as my second week w/o any trace to be sure I have the water column cleared out. Plants are all responding favorably. And I'm positive my tank was at toxic levels thanks to Ry testing my water with his high end testing unit.

We'll see how a reduced dose of Miller's works out in my tank. I'm guessing I won't have to add much at all from it, maybe I'll do 0.1 Fe twice a week from it and use DPTA Fe at .1 also to add a bit more.


----------



## fablau

Yes guys, please, post your results here in 2-3 weeks. I noticed improvements after just 5-6 days of stopping CSM.


----------



## happi

i use to dose 0.05ppm Fe from csm+b, 0.10ppm Fe Gluconate daily. i also dose this tank with 1 ppm NO3, 0.7 ppm Urea/NH4, 1 ppm Potassium and 0.3ppm Po4 daily when i had those plants, this is a few month old picture when i was testing some stuff, BBA was always a main issue in this tank. it was never a CO2 issue but more of a issue with organic build up due to lower PH where beneficial bacteria is less effective at breaking down the organics, these bacteria are very active at higher ph and you should see less BBA in those tanks. i thought i share this with people

Next time if someone tell you not to dose with urea or NH4 you can direct them to my picture. i hope my above information help those who want to test this method, Fe gluconate have tendency to cause BBA and Green algae as well, so dont dose too much of it.


----------



## Positron

happi said:


> so you are saying that these listed numbers did not work for you and you had issue with growing plants? 0.2 Fe daily from csm+b is more than enough even in super high light tank with fastest growing plants. Mn isn't that much toxic if used in small amount


I've been doing some reading on the Fe:Mn ratio and it's quite interesting. For terrestrial plant soybeans, an Fe:Mn ratio of 1.5 to 2.5 proved to be optimal. A few pages of interesting reading:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438002/pdf/plntphys00288-0167.pdf

CSM+b has a ratio of 1 : 0.286, or simply, CSM+B consists, on average 3.5x the amount of iron than Mn. 

Is excess iron causing a deficiency of Mn?...who knows. Burried deap within the CSM+B mixture are a few grains of chelated Mn. Hopefully you get enough, or not too much. I have some MnSO4 and i'll dose 0.005 ppm with my micro's to see what's up.


----------



## RedDelPaPa

fablau said:


> What kind of problems do you have? Not having BBA is great!


Pretty much the same problems others here are reporting. Stunted, twisted, deformed growth with what looks like light to moderate iron deficiency. But increased dosing solves nothing. But again, my tanks cannot and will not grow even a single thread of BBA. But they used to. Back when my plants grew gangbusters, BBA would make an appearance if I got lazy with my maintenance.

Is there any chemical that a city water supply might be adding that it detrimental to plants that also can't be removed via an RO unit?

I'm virtually certain my problem is some kind of toxicity and not a deficiency.


----------



## roadmaster

happi said:


> i use to dose 0.05ppm Fe from csm+b, 0.10ppm Fe Gluconate daily. i also dose this tank with 1 ppm NO3, 0.7 ppm Urea/NH4, 1 ppm Potassium and 0.3ppm Po4 daily when i had those plants, this is a few month old picture when i was testing some stuff, BBA was always a main issue in this tank. it was never a CO2 issue but more of a issue with organic build up due to lower PH where beneficial bacteria is less effective at breaking down the organics, these bacteria are very active at higher ph and you should see less BBA in those tanks. i thought i share this with people
> 
> Next time if someone tell you not to dose with urea or NH4 you can direct them to my picture. i hope my above information help those who want to test this method, Fe gluconate have tendency to cause BBA and Green algae as well, so dont dose too much of it.


 
Would be far more comfortable adding a few more fish to increase urea and NH4 in tank holding fishes.
Would achieve the same effect NO?


----------



## Yo-han

After finding out, ADA and Tropica use NH4 in their ferts I read up about this and some people noticed some plants (especially Alternanthera) doing much better with NH4 compared with NO3. I now use 0.1ppm NH4 and 0.3ppm urea daily and my Pogostemon and Blyxa suddenly grow much better. Except for some BBA and GSA which were also present before these ferts I see no difference in algae. My other low light tank is algae free with half that dose.


----------



## hbosman

Yo-han, why both Urea and NH4?


----------



## Yo-han

hbosman said:


> Yo-han, why both Urea and NH4?


Different plants might preferer different forms. Just like I add 3 different forms of iron. 
And I didn't wanted a high NH4 concentration and this wat urea gets broken down into NH4 slowly and NH4 is available longer. Not sure whether this is true in practice, but it did sound good in theory


----------



## roadmaster

Will only be NH4 (ammonium) at pH lower than 7.0
At pH above 7.0 it would be ammonia = toxic for fish and invert's.
Is why as mentioned I would simply add a few more fish to get a little more urea or ammonium/ammonia that they create.(urine,fish poop)
Would not matter much what we dose if no fish or invert's in the tank.


----------



## Positron

roadmaster said:


> Will only be NH4 (ammonium) at pH lower than 7.0
> At pH above 7.0 it would be ammonia = toxic for fish and invert's.
> Is why as mentioned I would simply add a few more fish to get a little more urea or ammonium/ammonia that they create.(urine,fish poop)
> Would not matter much what we dose if no fish or invert's in the tank.


Because Urea can be broken down by some plants using the Urease enzyme to produce 2NH4 and CO2. 

Having some nickle in the trace mix (a very small amount) will help facilitate the break down of Urea. Seachem Trace has a bit of nickle in it for this reason. 
Nickel as a micronutrient element for plants. - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## happi

roadmaster said:


> Would be far more comfortable adding a few more fish to increase urea and NH4 in tank holding fishes.
> Would achieve the same effect NO?


its not the same, because it will quickly convert into NO3 by bacteria, dosing little more urea give plants a chance to use it quickly. am working on a trace mix which works along with NH4/urea which have Nickel in it to increase uptake of Urea.


----------



## Jeff5614

Seachem's Aquavitro Synthesis also includes nitrogen in 3 forms - ammoniacal, urea and nitrate.


----------



## Positron

It's also worth noting that fish don't excrete urea like higher animals do. They excrete ammonia directly into the water b


----------



## max88

Positron said:


> Having some nickle in the trace mix (a very small amount) will help facilitate the break down of Urea. Seachem Trace has a bit of nickle in it for this reason.
> Nickel as a micronutrient element for plants. - PubMed - NCBI


Wouldn't CSM+B's lack of nickle lead to deficiency, and combining the excess of other traces further lead to imbalance? My local water analysis report shows 0.0005ppm average in 2014, and I don't dose extra that I am aware of.


----------



## happi

max88 said:


> Wouldn't CSM+B's lack of nickle lead to deficiency, and combining the excess of other traces further lead to imbalance? My local water analysis report shows 0.0005ppm average in 2014, and I don't dose extra that I am aware of.



if that amount is correct then that is good amount for plant to use, csm doesn't have nickel in it. cobalt and nickel are normally present in our tap water and they are not required when making trace solution, but i have added it to mine just to benefit of using Urea. you can dose Urea at higher ppm but cannot do the same with NH4NO3, always get GDA when dosing higher NH4NO3, GDA doesnt occur while using Urea even at 1ppm daily.


----------



## Positron

max88 said:


> Wouldn't CSM+B's lack of nickle lead to deficiency, and combining the excess of other traces further lead to imbalance? My local water analysis report shows 0.0005ppm average in 2014, and I don't dose extra that I am aware of.



No, it would not lead to a deficiency. Nickle isn't required by plants to live. If there is plenty of nitrates or NH3, then plants are just fine. However, especially in terrestrial plants with more mammals and stuff around, it would make sense that after some time plants would develop a method to use Urea as a nitrogen source. 

Plants use nickle to break down Urea, and that's it (at least that's what the current research shows).


----------



## happi

Jeff5614 said:


> Seachem's Aquavitro Synthesis also includes nitrogen in 3 forms - ammoniacal, urea and nitrate.


yeh its something like 25% No3 25% NH4 and 50% Urea


----------



## roadmaster

Positron said:


> It's also worth noting that fish don't excrete urea like higher animals do. They excrete ammonia directly into the water b


 
Some paper's suggest otherwise.

Ammonia and urea transporter's in gill's of fish "Journal of expierimental biology"
"Nitrogen excretion in fresh and salt water fishes" is interesting read, along with" Excretion of ammonia and urea by gill's of fish" (Can google these)
I understand the premise of dosing urea,NH4, but believe the same thing can be realized by just adding a few more fish.(more nitrogenous waste) Plant's seem to make do?
Much safer than dosing urea or NH4 in my view for anything other than very soft water, and truly less of a concern from toxicity issue for fauna.Plant's would indeed take it right up.
If no fish or invert's ,then no worrie's for me.
Have killed off whole colonies of shrimp using root spikes with urea so I am gun shy I fear.
My two cent's.
Everyone is free to do as they wish.


----------



## Yo-han

roadmaster said:


> I understand the premise of dosing urea,NH4, but believe the same thing can be realized by just adding a few more fish.(more nitrogenous waste) Plant's seem to make do?


Even if more fish adds more urea, it also adds more food, and thus more proteins and lipids and everything. I don't want too much of that in my tank.


----------



## roadmaster

Yo-han said:


> Even if more fish adds more urea, it also adds more food, and thus more proteins and lipids and everything. I don't want too much of that in my tank.


 Nor would I.
Me think's many exclude fish food's and their mineral content, along with ammonia/ammonium from breakdown of animal protein's contained therein.
Would be easy I should think to control how much food is entering glass box of water ,but maybe not so easy to establish how fast a particular plant or group of plant's could uptake added urea/ammonium.(on top of that already being produced)
That process I should think, would hinge largely on light energy hitting the plant's, and temperature as already mentioned above somewhere.
I believe a large plant mass might take up more urea ,CO2,nutrient's etc than smaller plant mass,but light energy/temp would maybe limit how slow/ fast it might happen.
Anyhow, that is my thinking.


----------



## roadmaster

Zinc,Iron,copper,manganese,phosphates,mentioned in this thread are often found in fish food's ,just need to grab up your's to see what mineral's it hold's.
Fishes eat the food ,and due to rather quick digestive system(Cept maybe large cichlid's), where food's pass through fairly quickly,they retain maybe smaller portion's % than some consider.(some feed lot's of food's)
They excrete the rest back into the tank in the form of solid's or dissolved solid's.
Some readily available to plant's/soil's.some maybe not.
This is what in my mind makes trying to identify deficiencies or toxicities a bit difficult for those attempting to come up with some ideal amount of this or that nutrient suitable for anything other than their particular system.
Differing light intensity,differing temp's,differing plant species,and afore mentioned mineral's being excluded/ introduced through food's offered,and or source water GH,KH, pH, could easily be different across a wide number of tank's.
Is why I think many people adopt method such as EI which often work's across wide range of tanks and less testing, adjusting, in very fluid situation where many variables come into play. 
I respect those that have the patience to test and tweak only as needed,just sayin..it ain't what I signed on for.


----------



## Christophe

Four weeks in on reduced iron/micros:
This last week I reintroduced CSM+B at a low level, iron at 0.4ppm for the week, 85% of it coming from DPTA, 15% from CSM+B. All other dosing/maintenance done per my first post  here.

Everything has continued showing growth in a way that was not happening before. Staurogyne in particular is throwing side shoots that develop 3/4”-1” long leaves for the first time since about March. Before, they were limited to maybe 3/8”. Also, the older leaves are remaining healthy and staying on the plant — no more ‘little palm trees’. I am starting to be able to prune and replant, rather than prune and throw away.

A. Reineckii is also growing larger leaves than I’ve seen in a while. They tend to be a bit undulating, but there are some new sprouts at the bottom of some plants with flatter leaves.

I’ve not included pictures because of the pruning that I’m doing — we wouldn’t be looking at the same plants anyway, I’m gradually throwing away the worst-looking plants twice a week. Now that things are growing, I can do that aggressively with confidence.

I’ve given it some more thought and am switching to Seachem Flourish Comprehensive for micros going forward this next week. My particular sample of CSM+B was particularly clump-ridden. Was my pound scraped from the bottom of the barrel? Did they get a phone call while amending it, and add more stuff because they forgot? I just don’t trust it anymore. 500ml of Flourish will last me 6 months using it as directed, that’s not too bad as things go. I’ll be dosing it at the higher end of their recommendations for starters, and adding Fe-DPTA.


----------



## bsantucci

It would be Flourish Trace we'd need to use, correct? Regular Flourish has phosphate and nitrate in it, which would add to our already macro dosing.


----------



## Christophe

The amount of macros in Flourish Comprehensive are negligible, no real impact on macro dosing. The difference between Trace and Comprehensive is that Trace has very small amounts of additional elements (nickel, vanadium,etc. ), while Comprehensive contains some iron.


----------



## bsantucci

Christophe said:


> The amount of macros in Flourish Comprehensive are negligible, no real impact on macro dosing. The difference between Trace and Comprehensive is that Trace has very small amounts of additional elements (nickel, vanadium,etc. ), while Comprehensive contains some iron.


In that case trace seems they way to go for the extra elements, no? 

Just trying to decide which I am going to go with. 

*Edit*

Looks like regular Flourish has a bit more, seems the way to go.


----------



## RisingSun

Happi, do you see any problem with using Wet's fake TPN formula?
Formula here . It's roughly 6:3:1 CSM+B:FeDTPA:MnSO4 by mass

Wet's Stuff vs Tropica Plant Nutrition
Fe 0.07%	0.07%
Mn 0.04%	0.04%
B 0.007%	0.004%
Cu 0.0005%	0.006%
Mo 0.0003%	0.002%
Zn 0.002%	0.002%

I'm worried about Molybdenum deficiency - it's 10x less than Tropica's mix.


----------



## happi

RisingSun said:


> Happi, do you see any problem with using Wet's fake TPN formula?
> Formula here . It's roughly 6:3:1 CSM+B:FeDTPA:MnSO4 by mass
> 
> Wet's Stuff vs Tropica Plant Nutrition
> Fe 0.07%	0.07%
> Mn 0.04%	0.04%
> B 0.007%	0.004%
> Cu 0.0005%	0.006%
> Mo 0.0003%	0.002%
> Zn 0.002%	0.002%
> 
> I'm worried about Molybdenum deficiency - it's 10x less than Tropica's mix.



i have mentioned before its almost impossible to clone TPN if we use csm+b or miller, its only possible if you make a trace from scratch. yes Molybdenum is present in very small amount in csm+b, this is why i said its not well balanced trace for our needs, you can only get the Molybdenum similar to tpn is by slightly overdosing the csm and this is where your other trace elements goes high as well.


----------



## fablau

Christophe said:


> The amount of macros in Flourish Comprehensive are negligible, no real impact on macro dosing. The difference between Trace and Comprehensive is that Trace has very small amounts of additional elements (nickel, vanadium,etc. ), while Comprehensive contains some iron.



According to Zorfox's calculator, Flourish Traces has much more Zn than Comprehensive, and it looks like more than CSM. Am I correct?


----------



## Positron

Is this what you two are talking about? @happi

https://www.bigalspets.com/plant-growth-premium-fertiliser-300-ml.html

Just curious. What are the dosing recommendations on the bottle?


----------



## Christophe

fablau said:


> According to Zorfox's calculator, Flourish Traces has much more Zn than Comprehensive, and it looks like more than CSM. Am I correct?


Looks like it has more than Flourish Comp based on the composition percentages from the Seachem website, and their suggested dosing. I'm not running Zorfox's calculator, can't comment further on what it tells us about Trace.

Strangely, Seachem's own online calculator doesn't deal with either Comprehensive or Trace.


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> Is this what you two are talking about? @happi
> 
> https://www.bigalspets.com/plant-growth-premium-fertiliser-300-ml.html
> 
> Just curious. What are the dosing recommendations on the bottle?


i never used the tropica, but this one seems like a Trace and Fe solution, if anyone is trying seachem, i would give tropica a go. they have some other type as well, such as: https://www.bigalspets.com/specialised-fertiliser-300-ml.html
i think this one is all in one solution, i believe you dose 5ml per 50L tank far as i remember.


----------



## RedDelPaPa

So can anyone confirm that overdosing CSM+B for an extended period of time can and will contaminate a substrate to the point that a tank will no longer grow plants well until the substrate is replaced?


----------



## kevmo911

RedDelPaPa said:


> So can anyone confirm that overdosing CSM+B for an extended period of time can and will contaminate a substrate to the point that a tank will no longer grow plants well until the substrate is replaced?


No. Absolutely not. Not yet, anyway. It's a possibility, and there is evidence to support it, but since the vast marjority of EI users have never had this problem, micronutrient toxicity levels when using EI is incredibly difficult to prove.

But that doesn't answer your question. The specific answer to that question will only exist *after* the proof that microtox exists in the first place is produced.

Is it possible? Of course! And if the evidence exists in your tank, *and* if your GH is in the very low range that is common to most of those who have claimed to experience microtox, *and* if you've already considered and tested for the several, far more likely causes of plant disorders, *and* your substrate has a high CEC and is capable of storing these micronutrients in the first place, then you should definitely consider microtox and your substrate being linked.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Like kevmo said, while we can't scientifically prove it, it still is possible. I will share my personal observation. 

After removing micros in my tanks, the plants grown in dirt improved immediately. The tank that has eco complete showed some improvement but nothing to crazy compared to the dirt (the substrate has been exposed to above EI traces+osmocote). I changed my tanks around and moved the plants that were doing great in the dirt to the tank with ecocomplete (light moved to this tank as well to maintain higher light levels). The plants are once again showing signs of toxicity, my GH was a little too low about 3. After increasing it to 5 the plants are doing slightly better. While I cannot claim this is 100% due to traces coming from the substrate its in the relm of possibilities. 

I have not been able to grow star repens under *ANY* light level for a year. I am now able to grow it in a small aquarium with new substrate and half pps pro traces. Once I trim it again, I would like to put a stem or two in the eco complete to see if the melt occurs like it has in the past, that might shed some light on the substrate hypothesis


----------



## Positron

bcarl_10gal said:


> Like kevmo said, while we can't scientifically prove it, it still is possible. I will share my personal observation.
> 
> After removing micros in my tanks, the plants grown in dirt improved immediately. The tank that has eco complete showed some improvement but nothing to crazy compared to the dirt (the substrate has been exposed to above EI traces+osmocote). I changed my tanks around and moved the plants that were doing great in the dirt to the tank with ecocomplete (light moved to this tank as well to maintain higher light levels). The plants are once again showing signs of toxicity, my GH was a little too low about 3. After increasing it to 5 the plants are doing slightly better. While I cannot claim this is 100% due to traces coming from the substrate its in the relm of possibilities.
> 
> I have not been able to grow star repens under *ANY* light level for a year. I am now able to grow it in a small aquarium with new substrate and half pps pro traces. Once I trim it again, I would like to put a stem or two in the eco complete to see if the melt occurs like it has in the past, that might shed some light on the substrate hypothesis


Have you tried giving the substrate a heck of a gravel vacuuming? Take out all the plants and hardscape, and vacuum the substrate extremely well; getting all the O+ and mulm out of there. If the water level wasn't already at 10% when done, change as much water as you can suck out. Replace plants and hardscape.

This kind of maintenance should happen once a year, IMO, anyway if you don't have a dirt bottom. Churns the gravel around and helps displace any toxic areas.


----------



## happi

i would like to add that even EI isn't scientifically proven, its just a observation just like we are doing with these experiments right now. in the end plants never lie, if someone who been struggling to grow plants with EI or high trace dose and suddenly they stop using EI or Traces and see better plant growth, this is enough evidence to prove what was the cause, there is no need to scientifically test it with tests or whatever.


----------



## rhiro

fablau said:


> According to Zorfox's calculator, Flourish Traces has much more Zn than Comprehensive, and it looks like more than CSM. Am I correct?


Per my calculations for Zn based on recommended dose:

Comprehensive 0.0007% ~ 0 ppm
Trace 0.0169 % ~ 0.011 ppm
Tropica 0.002% ~ 0.002 ppm
CSM+B EI ~ 0.0283 ppm
CSM+B PPS ~ 0.0078 ppm


----------



## fablau

rhiro said:


> Per my calculations for Zn based on recommended dose:
> 
> Comprehensive 0.0007% ~ 0 ppm
> Trace 0.0169 % ~ 0.011 ppm
> Tropica 0.002% ~ 0.002 ppm
> CSM+B EI ~ 0.0283 ppm
> CSM+B PPS ~ 0.0078 ppm



How did you perform those calculations? Thanks.


----------



## fablau

rhiro said:


> Per my calculations for Zn based on recommended dose:
> 
> Comprehensive 0.0007% ~ 0 ppm
> Trace 0.0169 % ~ 0.011 ppm
> Tropica 0.002% ~ 0.002 ppm
> CSM+B EI ~ 0.0283 ppm
> CSM+B PPS ~ 0.0078 ppm



How did you perform those calculations? Thanks.


----------



## 58417

*Toxicity of Zn*



rhiro said:


> Per my calculations for Zn based on recommended dose ... CSM+B EI ~ 0.0283 ppm


According to this article [McKimJM. 1985. Early life stage toxicity texts. In: Rand GM and Petrocelli SM (Eds.), Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing Corp. (Washington, D.C.), pp. 58-95.] the maximum acceptable concentration that does not have a negative effect on the growth of _Jordanella floridae_ is 0.026 to 1.2 ppm Zn. So such a concentration may be toxic even for some sensitive fish.


----------



## Audionut

That's a single dose also (0.0283ppm), not the accumulated concentration.


----------



## fablau

Audionut said:


> That's a single dose also (0.0283ppm), not the accumulated concentration.


Do you mean a single dose according to the standard EI method of reaching 0.5ppm Fe per dose? (which is insanely high to me!)


----------



## rhiro

fablau said:


> Do you mean a single dose according to the standard EI method of reaching 0.5ppm Fe per dose? (which is insanely high to me!)


Yes, that is correct. I based my calculations on the following concentrations for CSM+B.

Nutrient Concentration (%) 
Fe 6.53
Mg 1.4
B 0.81 
Cu 0.09 
Mn 1.87 
Mo 0.05 
Zn 0.37


----------



## fablau

rhiro said:


> Yes, that is correct. I based my calculations on the following concentrations for CSM+B.
> 
> Nutrient Concentration (%)
> Fe 6.53
> Mg 1.4
> B 0.81
> Cu 0.09
> Mn 1.87
> Mo 0.05
> Zn 0.37


Ok, so... you are comparing the recommended dose of CSM for the EI dosing, to the other commercial solutions own recommended doses or always based on EI? Sorry for insisting on this, but I don't understand the comparison in your previous post above. Thanks!


----------



## rhiro

fablau said:


> Ok, so... you are comparing the recommended dose of CSM for the EI dosing, to the other commercial solutions own recommended doses or always based on EI? Sorry for insisting on this, but I don't understand the comparison in your previous post above. Thanks!


Based on commercial solutions own recommended dose.

I thought your question asked how (mathematically) I derived the ppm concentrations for EI thus I provided the % concentration of each nutrient in the dry form for CSM+B.


----------



## RisingSun

The recommended iron dose for TPN is ridiculously low - only .01 ppm FE daily. Even Seachem and PPS Pro, which are usually lean, recommend 10x that daily dose...


----------



## rhiro

RisingSun said:


> The recommended iron dose for TPN is ridiculously low - only .01 ppm FE daily. Even Seachem and PPS Pro, which are usually lean, recommend 10x that daily dose...


For Fe I had Flourish Comprehensive at .07 ppm dosed once or twice per week which is similar to TPN. Correct me if I calculated incorrectly.


----------



## fablau

rhiro said:


> Based on commercial solutions own recommended dose.
> 
> I thought your question asked how (mathematically) I derived the ppm concentrations for EI thus I provided the % concentration of each nutrient in the dry form for CSM+B.



Thank you for clarifying, I am sorry for the confusion, my fault, I wasn't clear enough. Your analysis is very interesting because it is from the "recommended dose", I have never analyzed and compared those solutions in this way. Good job, and thank you again!


----------



## fablau

rhiro said:


> For Fe I had Flourish Comprehensive at .07 ppm dosed once or twice per week which is similar to TPN. Correct me if I calculated incorrectly.



I think you are right Rhiro, but I need to check.


----------



## Christophe

rhiro said:


> For Fe I had Flourish Comprehensive at .07 ppm dosed once or twice per week which is similar to TPN. Correct me if I calculated incorrectly.


I'll agree -- For the calculators I've seen, if you dose Flourish Comprehensive twice a week per Seachem recommendation, you'll get a total of 0.15ppm iron for the week.

They of course suggest additional separate source of iron as needed.


----------



## happi

RisingSun said:


> The recommended iron dose for TPN is ridiculously low - only .01 ppm FE daily. Even Seachem and PPS Pro, which are usually lean, recommend 10x that daily dose...


TPN use HEEDTA Fe which is one of the strongest chelate, doesn't break down easily, while rest of them break down easily and can be dosed in excess without much issue.

the order goes something like this from strongest to weakest Fe:

1. HEEDTA
2. DTPA
3. EDTA
4. Fe Gluconate

that is an example that you could dose more Fe when using weaker Fe, if you decide to do the same with stronger Fe then you might have issue, try dosing 0.4ppm DTPA vs 0.4ppm Fe gluconate and you will see the results on same day under high lights, the results would be one will make your plant look yellow and one will color them up.



rhiro said:


> For Fe I had Flourish Comprehensive at .07 ppm dosed once or twice per week which is similar to TPN. Correct me if I calculated incorrectly.


Flourish Comprehensive Vs TPN, they both use different Chelate when it comes to Fe, not only that but there is a difference between Traces and their ratios.


----------



## hbosman

Does the strength of the chelators cause any difference to the plants ability to use the iron? Asking because I am using Gluconate from Flourish comprehensive and 11 % DTPA right now. Later I might go back to CSM+B and I am wondering if I have to consider the differences for uptake. I prefer to dose daily so, longevity wouldn't be a concern.


----------



## Positron

This is what I have observed using three different types of iron chelation:

1) DTPA 11% iron
I can't dose more than 0.02 ppm of this a WEEK. My water is very soft naturally, and the pH is 5.95-6.0 with the CO2 on (and during the night it goes up to about 6.8). If i dose too much my hydrocotyl japan's roots turn brown, and the leaf edges of many plants turn brown. It's just too much and stays in the water far to long. I once tested adding 0.1ppm DTPA iron to my tank, and 10 days later it still read 0.1 ppm without other type of iron added.

2) EDTA iron
This works pretty well for me. It stays in the water for about 4 days and when dosed at 0.02 three times weekly keeps things green. Dosing at more than 0.1ppm 3x a week causes brown roots and brown leaf edges.

3) Flourish Iron (Iron Gluc)
Dosing this full strength has never caused any issues with brown roots or leaves. The effects are quick and I can tell within a few hours on my red plants. The iron typically stays in my water for about a day.

When choosing a type of iron to use, one must seriously consider what type of water they have. Hard water with higher pH and kH DTPA iron I would guess can be used just fine. For me a bit of EDTA and a half dose of flourish iron gluc works just fine for me.


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> This is what I have observed using three different types of iron chelation:
> 
> 1) DTPA 11% iron
> I can't dose more than 0.02 ppm of this a WEEK. My water is very soft naturally, and the pH is 5.95-6.0 with the CO2 on (and during the night it goes up to about 6.8). If i dose too much my hydrocotyl japan's roots turn brown, and the leaf edges of many plants turn brown. It's just too much and stays in the water far to long. I once tested adding 0.1ppm DTPA iron to my tank, and 10 days later it still read 0.1 ppm without other type of iron added.
> 
> 2) EDTA iron
> This works pretty well for me. It stays in the water for about 4 days and when dosed at 0.02 three times weekly keeps things green. Dosing at more than 0.1ppm 3x a week causes brown roots and brown leaf edges.
> 
> 3) Flourish Iron (Iron Gluc)
> Dosing this full strength has never caused any issues with brown roots or leaves. The effects are quick and I can tell within a few hours on my red plants. The iron typically stays in my water for about a day.
> 
> When choosing a type of iron to use, one must seriously consider what type of water they have. Hard water with higher pH and kH DTPA iron I would guess can be used just fine. For me a bit of EDTA and a half dose of flourish iron gluc works just fine for me.


some good observation there man, the one i notice when using DTPA iron is that my plant look yellow instead of green and some plant have brown/red tint to there leaves instead of reds, i haven't really seen much of the brown roots and brown leaf edges, maybe this has something to do with the soil and how it react with it. i agree EDTA and Fe gluconate is best used when using in soft water and DTPA is better for hard water.

here is my observation in one day of doing 0.1 ppm Fe from DTPA, the plant looked yellow, some plant did not care, water also did not look clear as it should. plant looked very nice when i was using gluconate Fe.

here's my water parameter:

Ca 15 ppm
Mg 6 ppm
K+ 10 ppm
KH 0-1 ppm

dosing N and P from NH4, Urea and NO3


----------



## max88

Positron said:


> 1) DTPA 11% iron
> ... I once tested adding 0.1ppm DTPA iron to my tank, and 10 days later it still read 0.1 ppm without other type of iron added.
> ...


In other words, there was very little, if any, uptake of FeDTPA by the plants in the tank with low pH/kH?


----------



## Audionut

I have sufficiently flushed the water column of excess traces. I started reducing trace dosing around the 10th of last month and have had some good water changes since then.

0.05 ppm Fe per day from a combination of DTPA and EDTA chelated sources wasn't enough to keep my stem plants green. My trace mix was this at a 24ml dose.



Code:


Fe ppm=	0.1564642857
Mn ppm=	0.001004285714
B ppm=	0.006669461173
Zn ppm=	0.0001628571429
Cu ppm=	0.00008142857143
Mo ppm=	0.00005428571429

I started increasing this to 10ml per day dose earlier this month as the sole source of Fe, and this alone wasn't enough to keep the tips of stem plants green. I was having to dose 0.1ppm DTPA Fe daily to keep them nice an lush. I was a little light on Mn, and have since purchased some to add to the trace mix. My current trace dosing is this (per day). I dose to target an accumulated concentration.



Code:


Fe ppm=	0.1041785714
Mn ppm=	0.004208857143
B ppm=	0.004459139659
Zn ppm=	0.000108
Cu ppm=	0.000054
Mo ppm=	0.000036

I've read that Mn and Fe deficiency's are similar, and there's probably some interaction between the two. So it's possible that the high Fe needed was in some part affected by the low Mn. I'm also very light on Cu, Zn and Mo. I'll get some more water to make another solution today and target these dosages per day. I've run out of DTPA Fe, so the Fe will be all EDTA.



Code:


Fe ppm=	0.05257142857
Mn ppm=	0.004062857143
B ppm=	0.00404469691
Zn ppm=	0.0003428571429
Cu ppm=	0.0001714285714
Mo ppm=	0.0001142857143

A reduction in Fe, and an increase in Cu, Zn and Mo.

Tank parameters for December.

























Approx other parameters.
Ca++ 10ppm
Mg++ 2ppm
PO4 3ppm
NO3 25ppm
K 8ppm
HCO3 12ppm CaCO3 equivalent (0.6 dKH)

I've been dosing 1.66ppm N from Urea and 0.5ppm NO3. I plan on stopping all NO3 dosing and relying on Urea only. Since the only NO3 sources from then will be from Urea dosing and fish piss, I should be able to control NO3 very accurately between plant uptake and bacteria conversion.

I've setup a rain water water change system. Basically, when it rains I get free water changes. The dips in pH at the start of the graph are from the rain water water changing. The dip in pH near the middle of the graph was the addition of 1 gram (into 350 liters) of Citric Acid (I'm always playing with stuff). The large drops in TDS are from these rain periods. The second drop in TDS (from about 66ppm to 58ppm was a calibration of the TDS meter since it was previously calibrated at 250ppm). The large reduction in ORP at the end of the graph is green tea trial at ORP reduction. I want to push ORP down to further push the heavy metals into soluble species, but it doesn't look like green tea bags are going to be a cost viable method.

I plan on making a massive update to my take journal detailing these and other changes including photos. I just need more time to compile all of the information. Just thought I'd share this since the conversation moved to Fe.

You wouldn't think stuff would grow well at a TDS of 37-50ppm, but it does.

Here's the accumulated concentrations for my dosing and different EI methods (daily, standard and weekly).









I'm doing around 70% water changes a week, hence why my accumulation is lower then the total dosed each week. I dose hourly with an auto doser and drip water change.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> I have sufficiently flushed the water column of excess traces. I started reducing trace dosing around the 10th of last month and have had some good water changes since then.
> 
> 0.05 ppm Fe per day from a combination of DTPA and EDTA chelated sources wasn't enough to keep my stem plants green. My trace mix was this at a 24ml dose.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.1564642857
> Mn ppm=	0.001004285714
> B ppm=	0.006669461173
> Zn ppm=	0.0001628571429
> Cu ppm=	0.00008142857143
> Mo ppm=	0.00005428571429
> 
> I started increasing this to 10ml per day dose earlier this month, and this alone wasn't enough to keep the tips of stem plants green. I was having to dose 0.1ppm DTPA Fe daily to keep them nice an lush. I was a little light on Mn, and have since purchased some to add to the trace mix. My current trace dosing is this (per day). I dose to target an accumulated concentration.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.1041785714
> Mn ppm=	0.004208857143
> B ppm=	0.004459139659
> Zn ppm=	0.000108
> Cu ppm=	0.000054
> Mo ppm=	0.000036
> 
> I've read that Mn and Fe deficiency's are similar, and there's probably some interaction between the two. So it's possible that the high Fe needed was in some part affected by the low Mn. I'm also very light on Cu, Zn and Mo. I'll get some more water to make another solution today and target these dosages per day.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.05257142857
> Mn ppm=	0.004062857143
> B ppm=	0.00404469691
> Zn ppm=	0.0003428571429
> Cu ppm=	0.0001714285714
> Mo ppm=	0.0001142857143
> 
> A reduction in Fe, and an increase in Cu, Zn and Mo.
> 
> Tank parameters for December.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approx other parameters.
> Ca++ 10ppm
> Mg++ 2ppm
> PO4 3ppm
> NO3 25ppm
> K 8ppm
> HCO3 12ppm CaCO3 equivalent (0.6 dKH)
> 
> I've been dosing 1.66ppm from Urea and 0.5ppm NO3. I plan on stopping all NO3 dosing and relying on Urea only. Since the only NO3 sources from then will be from Urea dosing and fish piss, I should be able to control NO3 very accurately between plant uptake and bacteria conversion.
> 
> I've setup a rain water water change system. Basically, when it rains I get free water changes. The large drops in TDS are from these rain periods. The second drop in TDS (from about 66ppm to 58ppm was a calibration of the TDS meter since it was previously calibrated at 250ppm). The large reduction in ORP at the end of the graph is green tea trial at ORP reduction. I want to push ORP down to further push the heavy metals into soluble species, but it doesn't look like green tea bags are going to be a cost viable method.
> 
> I plan in making a massive update to my take journal detailing these and other changes including photos. I just need more time to compile all of the information. Just thought I'd share this since the conversation moved to Fe.
> 
> You wouldn't think stuff would grow well at a TDS of 37ppm, but it does.
> 
> Here's the accumulated concentrations for my dosing and different EI methods (daily, standard and weekly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing around 70% water changes a week, hence why my accumulation is lower then the total dosed each week. I dose hourly with an auto doser and drip water change.


Looking over your dosages:

Mn and Mo are too low.
Zn is slightly too low.
B and Cu are pretty spot on.

Here is a comparison to what each dose does to my tank (3x weekly, 15mL adds this to a 75 gallon tank):

Fe 0.08 (all from gluconate)
Mn 0.0148
Zn 0.00956
B 0.00456
Cu 0.001811
Mo 0.001698
Ni 0.0000017

If I had it my way, Zn would be lower...about 0.0010 and Cu would be lower...about 0.0001. I've found that since increase Mo by a factor of 15 has increased nitrate usage by my plants, and there has been increased pearling and inter node length. There are a few commercial plant formulas that add even more Mo, but are dosed only once or twice weekly. Also, there is research supporting these effects on Mo availability and/or usage by plants:

1)Sulfate reduces Mo uptake
2)Cu competes directly with Mo uptake
3)Mo becomes much less available as the pH goes DOWN. This is the opposite of all the other heavy metals

Overview of Molybdenum Poisoning: Molybdenum Poisoning: Merck Veterinary Manual (this is about animals, but there is some interesting similarities with plants)

Molybdenum Basics
---> Of particular note about deficiency; "fired margin and deformation of leaves due to excess NO3"

Also, that ORP is RIDICULOUSLY high! It's like your injecting O3 into that water. How do you keep it this high? Are you adding oxidizing agents along with huge amounts of surface agitation and/or air stone? 

I don't have a redox meter yet, but I hear normal is about 300 for freshwater and things start dying at 400? Hmm I'd have to do more research on that. 

I'm also rather surprised you get away with such high doses of DTPA, but given your insanely high ORP this could be expected. 

Interested in reading further about your experiences and experiments!


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> I have sufficiently flushed the water column of excess traces. I started reducing trace dosing around the 10th of last month and have had some good water changes since then.
> 
> 0.05 ppm Fe per day from a combination of DTPA and EDTA chelated sources wasn't enough to keep my stem plants green. My trace mix was this at a 24ml dose.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.1564642857
> Mn ppm=	0.001004285714
> B ppm=	0.006669461173
> Zn ppm=	0.0001628571429
> Cu ppm=	0.00008142857143
> Mo ppm=	0.00005428571429
> 
> I started increasing this to 10ml per day dose earlier this month as the sole source of Fe, and this alone wasn't enough to keep the tips of stem plants green. I was having to dose 0.1ppm DTPA Fe daily to keep them nice an lush. I was a little light on Mn, and have since purchased some to add to the trace mix. My current trace dosing is this (per day). I dose to target an accumulated concentration.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.1041785714
> Mn ppm=	0.004208857143
> B ppm=	0.004459139659
> Zn ppm=	0.000108
> Cu ppm=	0.000054
> Mo ppm=	0.000036
> 
> I've read that Mn and Fe deficiency's are similar, and there's probably some interaction between the two. So it's possible that the high Fe needed was in some part affected by the low Mn. I'm also very light on Cu, Zn and Mo. I'll get some more water to make another solution today and target these dosages per day. I've run out of DTPA Fe, so the Fe will be all EDTA.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe ppm=	0.05257142857
> Mn ppm=	0.004062857143
> B ppm=	0.00404469691
> Zn ppm=	0.0003428571429
> Cu ppm=	0.0001714285714
> Mo ppm=	0.0001142857143
> 
> A reduction in Fe, and an increase in Cu, Zn and Mo.
> 
> Tank parameters for December.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approx other parameters.
> Ca++ 10ppm
> Mg++ 2ppm
> PO4 3ppm
> NO3 25ppm
> K 8ppm
> HCO3 12ppm CaCO3 equivalent (0.6 dKH)
> 
> I've been dosing 1.66ppm N from Urea and 0.5ppm NO3. I plan on stopping all NO3 dosing and relying on Urea only. Since the only NO3 sources from then will be from Urea dosing and fish piss, I should be able to control NO3 very accurately between plant uptake and bacteria conversion.
> 
> I've setup a rain water water change system. Basically, when it rains I get free water changes. The dips in pH at the start of the graph are from the rain water water changing. The dip in pH near the middle of the graph was the addition of 1 gram (into 350 liters) of Citric Acid (I'm always playing with stuff). The large drops in TDS are from these rain periods. The second drop in TDS (from about 66ppm to 58ppm was a calibration of the TDS meter since it was previously calibrated at 250ppm). The large reduction in ORP at the end of the graph is green tea trial at ORP reduction. I want to push ORP down to further push the heavy metals into soluble species, but it doesn't look like green tea bags are going to be a cost viable method.
> 
> I plan on making a massive update to my take journal detailing these and other changes including photos. I just need more time to compile all of the information. Just thought I'd share this since the conversation moved to Fe.
> 
> You wouldn't think stuff would grow well at a TDS of 37-50ppm, but it does.
> 
> Here's the accumulated concentrations for my dosing and different EI methods (daily, standard and weekly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing around 70% water changes a week, hence why my accumulation is lower then the total dosed each week. I dose hourly with an auto doser and drip water change.



i would increase the Mn before you start increasing the dose, Mn and Fe is most important trace compare to rest of them, i would also use Gluconate based Fe if you have soft water. there is no need to dose that much Urea either, it will not kill anything even at that dose of your long as the water is acidic, but it will just convert to NO3 and you might start to see spike in NO3 overtime.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> Mn and Mo are too low.
> Zn is slightly too low.
> B and Cu are pretty spot on.



No offense, but I'm not interested in statements like these without sufficient supporting evidence.

The last code snippet of trace dosing will bring my accumulated concentrations (neglecting plant uptake) of trace mixes in line with 1/20th Hoagland solution.



Code:


N    10.5
K    11.75
Ca    10
P    1.55
S    3.2
Mg    2.4
B    0.025
Fe    0.05-0.25
Mn    0.025
Zn    0.0025
Cu    0.001
Mo    0.0005

I've been slowly making my macro concentrations 1/20th for some time. Since about the start of this month, they have been very close. The only issue at the moment in N, since the bacteria uptake some amount of this also. Hence why I want to reduce all NO3 dosing, so I can increase accuracy of N dosing.

I'm not seeing any obvious signs of deficiency that aren't fixed with increased Fe dosing, so I'm not keen on boosting things. I'm increasing Cu, Zn and Mo just to hit 1/20th Hoagland, since it's likely that if I don't they will become deficient at some stage in the future and cause problems with diagnosis.

Thanks for your recent research and comments regarding Ni. I need to find some and start dosing it.




Positron said:


> I've found that since increase Mo by a factor of 15 has increased nitrate usage by my plants, and there has been increased pearling and inter node length. There are a few commercial plant formulas that add even more Mo, but are dosed only once or twice weekly. Also, there is research supporting these effects on Mo availability and/or usage by plants:
> 
> 1)Sulfate reduces Mo uptake
> 2)Cu competes directly with Mo uptake
> 3)Mo becomes much less available as the pH goes DOWN. This is the opposite of all the other heavy metals
> 
> Overview of Molybdenum Poisoning: Molybdenum Poisoning: Merck Veterinary Manual (this is about animals, but there is some interesting similarities with plants)
> 
> Molybdenum Basics
> ---> Of particular note about deficiency; "fired margin and deformation of leaves due to excess NO3"


I'll read through these link later, but cheers. Looks like I need to add Mo to my shopping list. 

I've made a point of reducing S, and my only S source is MgSO4 which maintains the correct Mg:S ratio as per Hoagland. Looks like it has the added benefit of increasing Mo uptake.

As per my above, I'm not really interested in NO3 uptake. I plan on keeping NO3 at minimal levels and relying on other N sources.




Positron said:


> Also, that ORP is RIDICULOUSLY high! It's like your injecting O3 into that water. How do you keep it this high? Are you adding oxidizing agents along with huge amounts of surface agitation and/or air stone?
> 
> I don't have a redox meter yet, but I hear normal is about 300 for freshwater and things start dying at 400? Hmm I'd have to do more research on that.


My sump setup provides a high level of surface agitation. The overflow in the tank provides skimming, the output of which agitates the surface of sump A. There is then skimming of this sump, the output of which provides surface agitation of sump B. The pump returns don't do any agitation of the waters surface.

My understanding of ORP is that it is generally higher with decreasing pH. CO2 injection also increases ORP, but this is probably inline with the first statement regarding pH and ORP.

I can assure you that nothing is dead or dying. Although I agree that it is rather oxidized in there, hence the green tea trial. To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure a reasonably fast flowing stream with ripples and low pH has similar ORP, so I'm not overly concerned with the current ORP level _per se_. My main priority in reducing ORP is to push the chemical species further into soluble predominance, and hence, being able to reduce their concentrations even further, since it's all soluble with nothing being precipitated. 


edit: Added this info @Positron

https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm
There's three interesting statements with regards to metal predominance.


reducing the total concentration of Fe3+ will reduce the driving force of the precipitation
reducing the total iron concentration from 1 M to 10-6 M (more realistic concentrations for geochemists and corrosion engineers) shifts the boundary from pH 1.7 to pH 4.2
In general, in more dilute solutions, the soluble species have larger predominance areas

Basically, the less you have of a metal in the water, the more likely it is to be in a soluble state. 



Positron said:


> I'm also rather surprised you get away with such high doses of DTPA, but given your insanely high ORP this could be expected.


From the Pourbaix diagrams I have seen, the low pH ensures I maintain heavy metals close to soluble predominance (even with high ORP). I would be looking at other reasons for my large Fe usage other then ORP.

I should also add, that since I'm pushing everything into soluble predominance, I've been adding lots of natural chelators (hence the citric acid trial). I have quite a large amount of wood in my tank and sumps, and I add a healthy supply of fresh leaf litter and other fresh wood substances regularly. This will be helping to stop precipitation.

Come to think of it, it may be this large supply of chelating substances that requires a larger supply of the elements. Since as far as I know, when it's chelated it's not available for immediate plant uptake. And so by maintaining a large supply of chelating substances, I need a larger supply of elements that are only slowly released as the chelate breaks down. But it's just a guess.



Positron said:


> Interested in reading further about your experiences and experiments!


Thanks. I'll do my best to detail where I've been, where I'm at, and where I'm going soon. I detail my water parameters and what I do to change this very well, but I've been very slack on detailing plant growth. I should probably add a comment section to my spreadsheet just for plant growth to encourage commentating. My biggest problem is that I allow what little knowledge I have to influence my commentating, rather then just sticking to detailing observational changes, without considering what I've been doing to the water.

I like where this thread has been going,a good balance of various views.


edit: add reply to @happi



happi said:


> there is no need to dose that much Urea either, it will not kill anything even at that dose of your long as the water is acidic, but it will just convert to NO3 and you might start to see spike in NO3 overtime.


If I only dose N from Urea, then my only NO3 sources are the conversion of this Urea and fish waste by bacteria to NO3.

The plants will uptake some of the N directly from Urea and fish waste (NH4), maybe some of the NO2 that's produced by bacteria, and some of the NO3 that's produced.

So it's very easy really.

If NO3 increases, reduce N dosing.
If NO3 decreases, increase N dosing.

I should be able to balance NO3 concentration based on the level of Urea dosing quite easily. Remember, with consistent water changes the concentration levels will peak at some point. So even if the plants uptake none of the Urea, NO3 will only ever get so high.

Oh, and even if I could maintain 10ppm N from Urea, this would be an equivalent NO3 concentration of 44.2ppm.


----------



## Positron

@Audionut

I won't quote the entire previous post in attempts to try to keep things less cluttered. 

"No offense, but I'm not interested in statements like these without sufficient supporting evidence"

None taken. I should have prefaced that statement with, "In my opinion."

"I'll read through these link later, but cheers. Looks like I need to add Mo to my shopping list. "

The idea of increasing Mo concentration came from reading through mounds of pages of people detailing their experiences with certain plant species and increased NO3 dosing. Some have observed that with AR and a few others, that increasing NO3 caused various stunting and malformations in growth. If NO3 was accumulating in the plant without being processed, this could explain a great many things as to why some hobbiests have an insanely hard time keeping some species, while others do not. 

I'm still in the testing phases of increased Mo, but what I've seen so far is encouraging. 

I've also upped my Mn slightly in relation to my Fe dosing, and Rotala Indica, Hygrophilia Compacta, and Rotala Macandra all have increased green coloration (R. Mac is slightly more orange). They seem to be absorbing iron better.

"I've made a point of reducing S, and my only S source is MgSO4 which maintains the correct Mg:S ratio as per Hoagland. Looks like it has the added benefit of increasing Mo uptake."

I wish I had a decent way of decreasing SO4. I'm using 10 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to reconstitute my ultra soft water. I use a enough KHCO3 to increase KH by 0.25 during water changes. I don't dose any SO4 during the week, but from the Ca and Mg alone, I would suspect my SO4 to be twice yours. Hence I wanted to increase Mo to compensate.


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> If I only dose N from Urea, then my only NO3 sources are the conversion of this Urea and fish waste by bacteria to NO3.
> 
> The plants will uptake some of the N directly from Urea and fish waste (NH4), maybe some of the NO2 that's produced by bacteria, and some of the NO3 that's produced.
> 
> So it's very easy really.
> 
> If NO3 increases, reduce N dosing.
> If NO3 decreases, increase N dosing.
> 
> I should be able to balance NO3 concentration based on the level of Urea dosing quite easily. Remember, with consistent water changes the concentration levels will peak at some point. So even if the plants uptake none of the Urea, NO3 will only ever get so high.
> 
> Oh, and even if I could maintain 10ppm N from Urea, this would be an equivalent NO3 concentration of 44.2ppm.



in that case there is no issue with dosing Urea like that, i just wanted to mention there was no need to add so much if you just wanted plants to use most of it daily, which is 0.7 ppm Urea daily dose in high light tank.

Bump:


Positron said:


> @Audionut
> 
> I won't quote the entire previous post in attempts to try to keep things less cluttered.
> 
> "No offense, but I'm not interested in statements like these without sufficient supporting evidence"
> 
> None taken. I should have prefaced that statement with, "In my opinion."
> 
> "I'll read through these link later, but cheers. Looks like I need to add Mo to my shopping list. "
> 
> The idea of increasing Mo concentration came from reading through mounds of pages of people detailing their experiences with certain plant species and increased NO3 dosing. Some have observed that with AR and a few others, that increasing NO3 caused various stunting and malformations in growth. If NO3 was accumulating in the plant without being processed, this could explain a great many things as to why some hobbiests have an insanely hard time keeping some species, while others do not.
> 
> I'm still in the testing phases of increased Mo, but what I've seen so far is encouraging.
> 
> I've also upped my Mn slightly in relation to my Fe dosing, and Rotala Indica, Hygrophilia Compacta, and Rotala Macandra all have increased green coloration (R. Mac is slightly more orange). They seem to be absorbing iron better.
> 
> "I've made a point of reducing S, and my only S source is MgSO4 which maintains the correct Mg:S ratio as per Hoagland. Looks like it has the added benefit of increasing Mo uptake."
> 
> I wish I had a decent way of decreasing SO4. I'm using 10 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to reconstitute my ultra soft water. I use a enough KHCO3 to increase KH by 0.25 during water changes. I don't dose any SO4 during the week, but from the Ca and Mg alone, I would suspect my SO4 to be twice yours. Hence I wanted to increase Mo to compensate.


you can try some CaCl, aqua vitro line use CA and Mg chloride based GH booster


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> The idea of increasing Mo concentration came from reading through mounds of pages of people detailing their experiences with certain plant species and increased NO3 dosing. Some have observed that with AR and a few others, that increasing NO3 caused various stunting and malformations in growth. If NO3 was accumulating in the plant without being processed, this could explain a great many things as to why some hobbiests have an insanely hard time keeping some species, while others do not.


If I increase Mo, which in turn increases NO3 uptake, and I'm maintaining low NO3 anyway since I'm using other N sources, then Mo should help, since I'll be able to dose more N for the same net NO3. 



Positron said:


> I wish I had a decent way of decreasing SO4. I'm using 10 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to reconstitute my ultra soft water. I use a enough KHCO3 to increase KH by 0.25 during water changes. I don't dose any SO4 during the week, but from the Ca and Mg alone, I would suspect my SO4 to be twice yours. Hence I wanted to increase Mo to compensate.


Ca(NO3)2. 
I got a 25kg bag for AU$25 from an agricultural store here. I've since stopped dosing it since I can maintain Ca with CaCO3. But it became my Ca supply of choice since it came with NO3 which at the time I also wanted.

@happi
I've tried maintaining a decent Ca supply with CaCl2. It burnt the edges of leaves. I didn't like it at all. Although they say a little Cl helps.

My understanding is that the level of Cl in water is related to the distance from the ocean. So the further you move from the ocean, the less Cl is in the rain water, and hence, the less Cl in the water stream. I stopped dosing Cl even in trace amounts since I'm using rain water as my water source. I figure what's in my rain water here is what it's getting. I'm about 120klms away from the ocean here.


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> @happi
> I've tried maintaining a decent Ca supply with CaCl2. It burnt the edges of leaves. I didn't like it at all. Although they say a little Cl helps.
> 
> My understanding is that the level of Cl in water is related to the distance from the ocean. So the further you move from the ocean, the less Cl is in the rain water, and hence, the less Cl in the water stream. I stopped dosing Cl even in trace amounts since I'm using rain water as my water source. I figure what's in my rain water here is what it's getting. I'm about 120klms away from the ocean here.


yes you are right about Cl burning plants, this is very true, but am not sure how aquavitro does it, this product is meant for plants, but i think they use it with this another product that remove Cl i believe.


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> I've made a point of reducing S, and my only S source is MgSO4 which maintains the correct Mg:S ratio as per Hoagland. Looks like it has the added benefit of increasing Mo uptake.



i have heard of So4 being toxic at some point but not sure about the exact numbers, any idea how much so4 we should have in our aquariums? how much so4 plants really use??


----------



## Positron

happi said:


> i have heard of So4 being toxic at some point but not sure about the exact numbers, any idea how much so4 we should have in our aquariums? how much so4 plants really use??


I don't know, and I'd like to find out more about SO4, but for the longest time I just thought of it as a non issue. I know dosing 15 ppm of Ca from CaSO4 raises S by 12ppm. In terms of SO4 It would be alot more.

SO4: 94 g/mol 
S: 32 g/mol

Sulfer is 34% of SO4 so 12ppm sulfer from sulfate would equal about 21 ppm SO4 from dosing 15 ppm of Ca from CaSO4. Dosing Mg from MgSO4 would only be worse because Mg is lighter than Ca. 

So I probably have like 40-60 ppm of SO4 in my tank  Oh well. Increase Mo lol


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> I don't know, and I'd like to find out more about SO4, but for the longest time I just thought of it as a non issue. I know dosing 15 ppm of Ca from CaSO4 raises S by 12ppm. In terms of SO4 It would be alot more.
> 
> SO4: 94 g/mol
> S: 32 g/mol
> 
> Sulfer is 34% of SO4 so 12ppm sulfer from sulfate would equal about 21 ppm SO4 from dosing 15 ppm of Ca from CaSO4. Dosing Mg from MgSO4 would only be worse because Mg is lighter than Ca.
> 
> So I probably have like 40-60 ppm of SO4 in my tank  Oh well. Increase Mo lol



damm that would add tons of so4, not only that but it will also buildup to extreme levels because its not used much by plants. i been dosing potassium carbonate and Ca/Mg chloride. i wish if there was a better way to raise GH for those who use pure RO water.


----------



## Audionut

S to SO4 is 2.99. 10ppm S equals 29.9ppm SO4. Not sure on the toxicity of SO4, I guess it's pretty tolerable. I think the biggest issue is that it will bind with heavy metals forming precipitates.


Make a calcium reactor. Use CO2 to dissolve CaCO3. Net result is Ca++ and HCO3. All of the alkalinity in some amount of CO3 will convert to half, as it transforms to HCO3. So if you dissolve one gram of CaCO3 into one liter, 400ppm Ca++ and 500ppm KH. Add this one liter to ninety nine liters, 4ppm Ca++ and 5ppm KH. So you can net around 14ppm Ca++ for each 1dKH.


----------



## happi

Audionut said:


> S to SO4 is 2.99. 10ppm S equals 29.9ppm SO4. Not sure on the toxicity of SO4, I guess it's pretty tolerable. I think the biggest issue is that it will bind with heavy metals forming precipitates.
> 
> 
> Make a calcium reactor. Use CO2 to dissolve CaCO3. Net result is Ca++ and HCO3. All of the alkalinity in some amount of CO3 will convert to half, as it transforms to HCO3. So if you dissolve one gram of CaCO3 into one liter, 400ppm Ca++ and 500ppm KH. Add this one liter to ninety nine liters, 4ppm Ca++ and 5ppm KH. So you can net around 14ppm Ca++ for each 1dKH.


any idea how long caco3 will take to dissolve with water if we add say 1 tsp in 40 gallon container and just run powehead in it to mix it.


----------



## Audionut

Not sure, but don't expect it to be quick. The maximum solubility is listed as 15mg/L which equates to 1.5 grams per 100 liters. That's maximum solubility. 

Add H+ to form calcium bicarbonate and solubility increases immensely. I wouldn't even bother trying to dissolve CaCO3 without H+.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> 3)Mo becomes much less available as the pH goes DOWN. This is the opposite of all the other heavy metals


Indeed, but the equal concentration point between available Mo species is around 4.8pH.

Revista de biología marina y oceanografía - Comportamiento geoquímico del molibdeno y sus isótopos en el ambiente sedimentario: Un resumen bibliográfico









Unless you have extremely low pH, Mo will be in the available form.



Positron said:


> Molybdenum Basics
> ---> Of particular note about deficiency; "fired margin and deformation of leaves due to excess NO3"



Some interesting things there.



*NH4:NO3* *Balance:* Plants can often grow well in low Mo soils when fertilized with NH4 fertilizers, as opposed to NO3 fertilizers.
And here: Sulfur Basics


*SO4:NH4 Applications:* Added NH4 has been shown to appreciably enhance the uptake of SO4.
Although the contradictory statements cause some concern.


Manganese Basics


> *Mn:Anion Balance: *Heavy fertilization with materials containing Cl-, NO3-, SO4--, can also enhance Mn uptake (termed the anion effect).



Sulfur Basics


> *Other Anions:* Anions tend to compete with other anions in terms of availability and plant uptake. Therefore excess sulfate-S (SO4--) can reduce the uptake of some anions such as nitrates (NO3-) and the available form of molybdenum (MoO4-). Excessive amounts of nitrates can also reduce the uptake of sulfate-S



Chloride Basics


> Chloride, nitrate, sulfate, boron, and molybdenum are all anions in their available forms, and in that form they are antagonistic to each other. Therefore, an excess of one can decrease the availability of another.


----------



## happi

*Audionut*

Some interesting things there.


•	NH4:NO3 Balance: Plants can often grow well in low Mo soils when fertilized with NH4 fertilizers, as opposed to NO3 fertilizers.

This is why it’s beneficial to use NH4/Urea when you have acidic water

•	SO4:NH4 Applications: Added NH4 has been shown to appreciably enhance the uptake of SO4.

Possible true 


Manganese Basics
Quote:
Mn:Anion Balance: Heavy fertilization with materials containing Cl-, NO3-, SO4--, can also enhance Mn uptake (termed the anion effect).

I use to dose heavy on so4 and Mn and this is also true

Sulfur Basics
Quote:
Other Anions: Anions tend to compete with other anions in terms of availability and plant uptake. Therefore excess sulfate-S (SO4--) can reduce the uptake of some anions such as nitrates (NO3-) and the available form of molybdenum (MoO4-). Excessive amounts of nitrates can also reduce the uptake of sulfate-S

This could be very well true, because I had problem growing certain plants when I was dosing heavy No3 and additional K2so4, well as SO4 based GH booster, on top of that my water is super soft and acidic.


Chloride Basics
Quote:
Chloride, nitrate, sulfate, boron, and molybdenum are all anions in their available forms, and in that form they are antagonistic to each other. Therefore, an excess of one can decrease the availability of another.

Now we need to know what exactly is the balance of these and which one is extremely bad when it’s excess, it would be nice if we could come up with all balance of all the nutrients including both traces and NPK, Cl, Ca, mg etc

In my recent test after doing 90% water chance I added 25 ppm of Ca from CAso4, 5ppm from Cacl and 10 ppm of Mg from MgSo4, plant did not look too good the next day. I will do another water change to reset it today, if you guys want me to test that balance mentioned above, let me know the numbers, I will throw it on my tank.


----------



## hbosman

Reading through this thread, it seems my problems may have been caused by going from tap water (KH6 GH11) to mixed RO water (KH3 GH4). I was dosing .2 ppm (fe) CSM+B and additional dtpa fe. I have since gone to Flourish Comprhensive .1 ppm fe with the RO mix and growth is improving in ludwigia and Crypt green gecko.


----------



## Positron

Some very interesting stuff there. I'm currently testing with adding Mo from Na2MoO4 @ 0.001 PPM three times a week. I added this to my stock micro mix that already contained 0.00015 ppm. So total Mo added 3x a week is 0.0015ppm. 

Because there is so much SO4 from reconstituting my water, I'm curious if More MoO4 will help nitrate uptake, and help nitrate breakdown in the plant.

So far so good, but for the first time in a very long while I checked my phosphate last night. It looked to be 0.0 ppm. Whoops! My tap water contains no phosphate, and the colors matched perfectly with tank water. I added 2.0ppm of phosphate just to make sure it's non limiting. 

Typically 0.2 ppm of PO4 3x a week showed about 0.5 ppm by the end of the week. This is with heavy fish feeding. I wonder since my plants are using more nitrate, phosphate is being used faster as well?
@happi
*"In my recent test after doing 90% water chance I added 25 ppm of Ca from CAso4, 5ppm from Cacl and 10 ppm of Mg from MgSo4, plant did not look too good the next day. I will do another water change to reset it today, if you guys want me to test that balance mentioned above, let me know the numbers, I will throw it on my tank."*

How do you usually add GH to your water after each water change?


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> @happi
> *"In my recent test after doing 90% water chance I added 25 ppm of Ca from CAso4, 5ppm from Cacl and 10 ppm of Mg from MgSo4, plant did not look too good the next day. I will do another water change to reset it today, if you guys want me to test that balance mentioned above, let me know the numbers, I will throw it on my tank."*
> 
> How do you usually add GH to your water after each water change?


sometime i mix it directly in my RO container day or few hours ahead before changing the water, sometime i just add it in the cup of water, mix it and then add it to my tank directly, i never had any issue with plants before while doing this. 

am thinking about adding some Cacl and Mgcl to my Fe mix and see how plant respond to it, am thinking about cutting out any other GH booster and simply rely on daily dose of Ca and Mg coming from Cano3, Mgno3, Cacl and Mgcl.

i might replace the Mgno3 with Mgso4 to get some so4 in my mix, this will help me to increase the Cano3. i also use potassium carbonate. the only issue i might face is reaction from So4 and Cl if there is too much being added in the solution, i will try it with some extra vinegar added to the solution.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> Typically 0.2 ppm of PO4 3x a week showed about 0.5 ppm by the end of the week. This is with heavy fish feeding. I wonder since my plants are using more nitrate, phosphate is being used faster as well?



Nitrogen(N) Basics


> NH4 and P Perhaps the best documented interaction of N with other nutrients is the relationship between ammonium-N and P uptake. Early research showed that when NH4-N was closely associated with P in a fertilizer source, the plants took up more P. When NO3-N was used, or when the NH4-N was separated from the P source, the P uptake was reduced.


And this, which is also stated on the other nutrient pages.


> Other than the previously mentioned NH4-P interaction, N does not have other similar close interactions with other nutrients. However, N shortages can dramatically reduce the uptake of most other elements. This appears to be the simple result of a plants loss of vigor, and perhaps lower demand for other nutrients with an N shortage. From our many years of doing plant analysis interpretations, it appears that an N shortage most dramatically reduces the uptake of Mg and Cu. However, our experience supports the previous statement that all other nutrients are typically affected as well.


I'm dosing 0.312ppm P (0.95ppm PO4) daily against 1.66ppm N and 0.5ppm NO3 (7.8ppm total NO3 equivalent) and am seeing concentration levels rise pretty close to expectations. Neglecting plant uptake, I expect accumulated concentrations to reach 1.8ppm P (5.6ppm PO4) and 10.44ppm N (45.9ppm NO3 equivalent).

I don't want 45ppm of NO3 though, so after I'm confident that my current dosing regime fully matches expectations and I can somewhat gauge plant uptake, I'll work on stripping nitrification bacteria to keep N as NH4 rather then NO3.

Constantly stripping bacteria doesn't sound like fun though, so perhaps there just needs to be a better balance.


> The primary concern of growers in this area should be to avoid excess N in relation to other nutrients. Many times we hear that "high" N rates are detrimental to crop quality (not to mention the environment). In many of these cases, the supposedly high N rate would not have been detrimental if it was balanced with proportionately strong amounts of other nutrients, especially K. Plants having high N uptake without proportional amounts of at least a few other nutrients can be more subject to disease infection and greater physical damage from insects or environmental factors. Crops that receive high rates of N fertilizer, which also have a shortage of one or more other nutrients, are not likely to properly utilize all of the applied N. This can lead to excess N in the soil or water, or excess nitrates in forage or other crops.


I have no way to test K concentration. I'm currently targeting N:K ratio of 1:1. My current K sources are KH2PO4 and KNO3. I have some KHCO3 on it's way so I can ditch KNO3. This will push the balance slightly further in favor of K and I should be able to balance Ca:HCO3:K as per my current ratios with the switch to KHCO3. From here, I should then be able to see if more K is better without a large increase of other stuff, especially N, since the idea is to push N:K ratio further towards K.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> Nitrogen(N) Basics
> 
> 
> And this, which is also stated on the other nutrient pages.
> 
> 
> I'm dosing 0.312ppm P (0.95ppm PO4) daily against 1.66ppm N and 0.5ppm NO3 (7.8ppm total NO3 equivalent) and am seeing concentration levels rise pretty close to expectations. Neglecting plant uptake, I expect accumulated concentrations to reach 1.8ppm P (5.6ppm PO4) and 10.44ppm N (45.9ppm NO3 equivalent).
> 
> I don't want 45ppm of NO3 though, so after I'm confident that my current dosing regime fully matches expectations and I can somewhat gauge plant uptake, I'll work on stripping nitrification bacteria to keep N as NH4 rather then NO3.
> 
> Constantly stripping bacteria doesn't sound like fun though, so perhaps there just needs to be a better balance.
> 
> 
> I have no way to test K concentration. I'm currently targeting N:K ratio of 1:1. My current K sources are KH2PO4 and KNO3. I have some KHCO3 on it's way so I can ditch KNO3. This will push the balance slightly further in favor of K and I should be able to balance Ca:HCO3:K as per my current ratios with the switch to KHCO3. From here, I should then be able to see if more K is better without a large increase of other stuff, especially N, since the idea is to push N:K ratio further towards K.


Excellent investigations here, and my observations so far have been closely matching these findings.

Since I've been dosing Urea, P uptake has more than tripled by the looks of it...unless PO4 is combining with other things in the substrate or water column. I added 2.0ppm last night of PO4 and this afternoon it was less than 0.5 ppm. I've never observed PO4 uptake like this ever before. 

It might also have to do with increased Mo dosing as it would facilitate nitrate uptake, which has been linked with increased P uptake (although by the looks of it not as much as increasing NH4). 

Here's a picture of some AR I cut back a few days ago after it achieved it's submersed form. I've never been able to keep the old leaves from getting ragged with holes, and yellow growth-infested algae:


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> Excellent investigations here, and my observations so far have been closely matching these findings.
> 
> Since I've been dosing Urea, P uptake has more than tripled by the looks of it...unless PO4 is combining with other things in the substrate or water column. I added 2.0ppm last night of PO4 and this afternoon it was less than 0.5 ppm. I've never observed PO4 uptake like this ever before.
> 
> It might also have to do with increased Mo dosing as it would facilitate nitrate uptake, which has been linked with increased P uptake (although by the looks of it not as much as increasing NH4).
> 
> Here's a picture of some AR I cut back a few days ago after it achieved it's submersed form. I've never been able to keep the old leaves from getting ragged with holes, and yellow growth-infested algae:


No3 is taken by plants very slowly, NH4 is uptaken very fast, if uptake of NH4 is increased that mean all the other nutrients will be uptaken at much faster rate as well. i have estimated 0.5-0.7 ppm of Urea and 0.3-0.4 ppm PO4 uptaken daily in my high light tank, i have tested po4 several times with test kits.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> Since I've been dosing Urea, P uptake has more than tripled by the looks of it...unless PO4 is combining with other things in the substrate or water column. I added 2.0ppm last night of PO4 and this afternoon it was less than 0.5 ppm. I've never observed PO4 uptake like this ever before.


It's probably safe to assume with a decent sized dose, that at least some of it precipitated. It might be best to try some more regular smaller doses and seeing what happens.

How are you guys observing your tests? I have my kits calibrated so I have a good idea on what the concentrations are, but I also take photos of each test with the same lighting. This way I can see quite clearly if concentrations are increasing or decreasing, even by small amounts.




Positron said:


> Here's a picture of some AR I cut back a few days ago after it achieved it's submersed form. I've never been able to keep the old leaves from getting ragged with holes, and yellow growth-infested algae:


I have some stem plants that always seem to have brown older leaves. Since I've reduced the concentrations of everything and maintained much better consistency day to day, they do appear to be better, although there is still some browning happening.

Some interesting observations though. 

By and large it appears to be precipitate. These stems plants are the first to receive the dosing due to the flow arrangement. The plants bend over with the flow, and it's the bottom of the leaves that are most affected. So it's the bottom of the leaves that go brown first, and then the front of the leaves start taking on a brown appearance. I finally stuck my hand in there, and indeed, I could rub most of it off.

However, the bottoms of the leaves will go a coppery white and when this happens, the health of that leaf node diminishes. It could just be the precipitation buildup causing toxicity as it dissolves again. Because I've seen similar results on another plant when I dropped some shell grit on a leaf and left it there thinking it wouldn't hurt.

It seems to be directly related to my trace mix. When I stopped dosing trace mix, and was only adding 2ml or so every now and then, these leaves appeared to maintain nice green appearance for much longer. It's to early to make a call since as usual I'm doing to many things at one, but the evidence suggests something in my trace mix is the issue. I have some ideas and some stuff I can try to pin point the cause, and I'll update as needed.

As I sit here and look at the tank, I can see the other stem plants that are in lower flow areas also showing similar results, and this is coinciding with my recent increased trace dosing. When I say increase, I'm still well below EI.

Daily dose.


Code:


Fe 0.05257
Mn 0.00406
B  0.00404
Zn 0.00034
Cu 0.00017
Mo 0.00011

It's only these stem plants that are showing obvious signs. The other plants look as good as they've ever been, not perfect, just better.


----------



## Positron

*Stunted, again.*

You would think I would have taken some lessons from what I've learned the past two years. In my 75g I've upped the dosing of lesser micro's to aprox 1/2 EI. Nothing is really growing. The only time I get some growth is when I dose Urea 1 ppm per day. Nitrate is reading at least 40 ppm on calibrated kit.

Increasing Mo dosing has made no improvement. Current dosing 3x weekly:

Fe 0.08 (Fe gluc)
B 0.0195
Mn 0.011
Mo 0.0016
Zn 0.00956
Cu 0.00181

Urea 1ppm 3x a week
NO3 5 ppm 1x a week after water change
K 3 ppm 3x weekly (a bit more on water change)
PO4 been dosing this 2ppm 3x a week roughly to bring it up

On water change:
11 ppm Ca from CaSO4
4 ppm Mg from MgSO4
All macro's

Current parmameters:
40+ ppm NO3
1.5 ppm PO4
2 dKH
5 dGH
TDS 147
CO2 30+ ppm (drop checker almost yellow)

PH a picture says a thousand words:









It's odd that my pH caps out about 6.7 every night. In my tanks with CO2 injection and no ADA aquasoil it caps out at 7.2.

Even so brining the pH down to 6.10 is a yellow drop checker. KH pH chart says I have 50+ ppm at that level. 


When I first re-setup this tank approx 4 weeks ago with ADA aquasoil I was only dosing K and a bit of PO4. I was doing 3x a week water changes. High NH4 / NO2....the typical ADA start. For about two weeks things did well. M. monte carlo quickly shed it's immersed growth and began to carpet with nice green submersed growth. Tissue cultures of Ludwigia guinea (senegalensis) and Ludwigia inclinata var "crystal" transformed fast into viable submersed growth. Both of these grew about 4 inches.

When I started dosing Micro's (and a small amount of N from NO3, and a larger amount of N from urea), Things just stopped growing. Everything in the tank. 

I don't understand this. Now after a water change today I'm going to completely stop dosing micro's...maybe one 1/4th dose the day after a water change simply to replenish anything. Clearly the 3x a week dosing isn't working. 

It's not like things are outright dying. The Monte Carlo hasn't spread in 2 weeks, but most of it's newest growth remains healthy and pearls. 

Earlier this week I discovered 0 Phosphate in the water. I've been running with 2ppm of PO4 since then and have seen no improvement in growth rate. 

At this point I'm ready to take water samples from my tank and tap and have them analyzed.


----------



## bsantucci

Positron said:


> You would think I would have taken some lessons from what I've learned the past two years. In my 75g I've upped the dosing of lesser micro's to aprox 1/2 EI. Nothing is really growing. The only time I get some growth is when I dose Urea 1 ppm per day. Nitrate is reading at least 40 ppm on calibrated kit.
> 
> Increasing Mo dosing has made no improvement. Current dosing 3x weekly:
> 
> Fe 0.08 (Fe gluc)
> B 0.0195
> Mn 0.011
> Mo 0.0016
> Zn 0.00956
> Cu 0.00181
> 
> Urea 1ppm 3x a week
> NO3 5 ppm 1x a week after water change
> K 3 ppm 3x weekly (a bit more on water change)
> PO4 been dosing this 2ppm 3x a week roughly to bring it up
> 
> On water change:
> 11 ppm Ca from CaSO4
> 4 ppm Mg from MgSO4
> All macro's
> 
> Current parmameters:
> 40+ ppm NO3
> 1.5 ppm PO4
> 2 dKH
> 5 dGH
> TDS 147
> CO2 30+ ppm (drop checker almost yellow)
> 
> PH a picture says a thousand words:
> 
> View attachment 560833
> 
> 
> It's odd that my pH caps out about 6.7 every night. In my tanks with CO2 injection and no ADA aquasoil it caps out at 7.2.
> 
> Even so brining the pH down to 6.10 is a yellow drop checker. KH pH chart says I have 50+ ppm at that level.
> 
> 
> When I first re-setup this tank approx 4 weeks ago with ADA aquasoil I was only dosing K and a bit of PO4. I was doing 3x a week water changes. High NH4 / NO2....the typical ADA start. For about two weeks things did well. M. monte carlo quickly shed it's immersed growth and began to carpet with nice green submersed growth. Tissue cultures of Ludwigia guinea (senegalensis) and Ludwigia inclinata var "crystal" transformed fast into viable submersed growth. Both of these grew about 4 inches.
> 
> When I started dosing Micro's (and a small amount of N from NO3, and a larger amount of N from urea), Things just stopped growing. Everything in the tank.
> 
> I don't understand this. Now after a water change today I'm going to completely stop dosing micro's...maybe one 1/4th dose the day after a water change simply to replenish anything. Clearly the 3x a week dosing isn't working.
> 
> It's not like things are outright dying. The Monte Carlo hasn't spread in 2 weeks, but most of it's newest growth remains healthy and pearls.
> 
> Earlier this week I discovered 0 Phosphate in the water. I've been running with 2ppm of PO4 since then and have seen no improvement in growth rate.
> 
> At this point I'm ready to take water samples from my tank and tap and have them analyzed.


Same issue here with trying to switch to Miller's at a much lower dose. I was dosing Miller's to .1ppm of Fe.

All plants that stunted before did so again. 

I'm going to reset this weekend and start again dosing only Flourish to see how that works out.


----------



## fablau

All this sounds like toxicity to me. Please, keep us posted!


----------



## Positron

Also, there is no sign of real algae growth in my 75 gallon. The only algae growth that exists is some GSA on the glass. Probably because my PO4 was zero.

Now in my other 37 gallon tall tank:

Standard early algae growth. Mostly green hair algae near the top on the driftwood. Brown slime and diatoms also present. The fish are feasting on this stuff currently. 

I set it up about 2.5 weeks ago. Completed cycle with seeded media this monday. I have only been dosing K (from KHCO3), GH minerals and PO4. And a bit of iron. About 0.1 ppm once a week.

Everything is growing like mad in this tank. A good indicator for growth has always been R. Indica for me. It has been growing almost an inch a day. 

Here's a pic of them about 12 inches tall. I just cut them back to 2 inches on sunday.









There's even less CO2 in this tank then there is in my 75 gallon, and probably about the same amount of light.

Here's a pic from the front: 

For about 2 weeks of growth I'm happy. Don't mind the blue drop checker. I just changed out the liquid about 30 mins ago. 









EDIT:

I was thinking of chelating my trace mix with EDTA. This is what I would use: 




Does anyone know how much EDTA would be required chelate all the metals in a 1700mL container at the above added concentrations? I know it's hard to overdose it, but I'm not sure what would be enough to completely chelate everything.


----------



## Audionut

Well Fe is like 13% with EDTA, and I've seen Mn at 5% with Glucoheptonate chelate.

One part stuff to 20 parts chelate should cover it.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> Well Fe is like 13% with EDTA, and I've seen Mn at 5% with Glucoheptonate chelate.
> 
> One part stuff to 20 parts chelate should cover it.


Huh so if there is roughly 1g of Mn in there I would have to use 20g of EDTA?


----------



## Audionut

That's what the maths says.

http://www.growthproducts.com/pdfs/Turf_Manganese_Chelate.pdf

It actually has 2% S. So that's 7% stuff and 93% chelate. That's brings it down to one part stuff and 13.3 parts chelate.


----------



## Positron

Audionut said:


> That's what the maths says.
> 
> http://www.growthproducts.com/pdfs/Turf_Manganese_Chelate.pdf
> 
> It actually has 2% S. So that's 7% stuff and 93% chelate. That's brings it down to one part stuff and 13.3 parts chelate.


Thanks for that. Looked at the percentages for Mn EDTA. Looks to be 12.30% range from a few different sources.


----------



## happi

Positron said:


> On water change:
> 11 ppm Ca from CaSO4
> 4 ppm Mg from MgSO4
> All macro's
> 
> Current parmameters:
> 40+ ppm NO3
> 1.5 ppm PO4
> 2 dKH
> 5 dGH
> TDS 147
> CO2 30+ ppm (drop checker almost yellow)


5 dgh?? why are you adding more caso4??? Mgso4 is good to add


----------



## Positron

happi said:


> 5 dgh?? why are you adding more caso4??? Mgso4 is good to add


Sorry, I'll clarify:

I have GH 5 because I'm adding those in.

My tap is:

Less than 1 dGH
1-1.5 dKH

After a few weeks of adding the above amounts and with 50% water changes, I have reached a pretty stable 5 dGH


----------



## Christophe

Here's my situation six weeks in on reduced iron / micros:

I've switched over to using Flourish Comprehensive as directed (5ml 3x per week, Fe 0.15ppm total) along with additional 0.3ppm iron from Fe-DPTA. Everything else I'm doing is unchanged, as described in my original post on this thread.

Growth of plants is slowing from what it was doing after 2-3 weeks in. Leaf size continues to be larger than it was before across the species of plants I have -- plants generally still look better, but are clearly slowing down. Additionally, some staurogyne repens is showing older leaf yellowing, deterioration, and loss -- like nitrogen deficiency, but there is no macro deficiency in the water. NO3 level ranges 20-40ppm through the week, PO4 2-4ppm, K not measured, but dosed at 32ppm for the whole week.

I am also getting a small strip of cyanobacteria appearing in the substrate right up against the glass. Seems odd with the ongoing water changes, maintenance, CO2, and ferts.

One very definite conclusion I will draw right now is that my invertebrates are much better off at lower dosing levels. RCS have gone from being almost invisible to being much more active, feeding, and running around. From two weeks in, I began finding amphipods in my filter sock -- I had never seen them before, not even one.

I have been following the discussion here of the various micros and their interactions with each other. I'm getting some Flourish Trace along with the Comprehensive. I can replicate some of the mixes discussed over the last several posts using Trace and Comp together. I'm going to use that to raise the Mo level a touch to see if that will address what looks like nitrogen-fixing issues.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Christophe,

In your original post, you listed the following plant status - I'm curious how they are doing after the 6 weeks:

_"Staurogyne repens — Very slow, stunted growth, severe deterioration & loss of old leaves, BBA infestation. No plants anywhere in the entire carpet looked like healthy stauro.
Blyxa Japonica — Slow growth, weak, damaged, holy leaves, BBA infestation
Alternathera reineckii — Slow growth, twisted leaves, BBA on leaves, some older leaf deterioration
Didiplis diandra — completely stalled growth, stem decay and melt. Two small segments remaining
Taxophyllium sp. moss — Slow growth, BBA infestation
Fissidens Fontanus — Extremely slow growth, BBA infestation"_

Can you compare status *THEN* and *NOW*, please? 





Christophe said:


> Here's my situation six weeks in on reduced iron / micros:
> 
> I've switched over to using Flourish Comprehensive as directed (5ml 3x per week, Fe 0.15ppm total) along with additional 0.3ppm iron from Fe-DPTA. Everything else I'm doing is unchanged, as described in my original post on this thread.
> 
> Growth of plants is slowing from what it was doing after 2-3 weeks in. Leaf size continues to be larger than it was before across the species of plants I have -- plants generally still look better, but are clearly slowing down. Additionally, some staurogyne repens is showing older leaf yellowing, deterioration, and loss -- like nitrogen deficiency, but there is no macro deficiency in the water. NO3 level ranges 20-40ppm through the week, PO4 2-4ppm, K not measured, but dosed at 32ppm for the whole week.
> 
> I am also getting a small strip of cyanobacteria appearing in the substrate right up against the glass. Seems odd with the ongoing water changes, maintenance, CO2, and ferts.
> 
> One very definite conclusion I will draw right now is that my invertebrates are much better off at lower dosing levels. RCS have gone from being almost invisible to being much more active, feeding, and running around. From two weeks in, I began finding amphipods in my filter sock -- I had never seen them before, not even one.
> 
> I have been following the discussion here of the various micros and their interactions with each other. I'm getting some Flourish Trace along with the Comprehensive. I can replicate some of the mixes discussed over the last several posts using Trace and Comp together. I'm going to use that to raise the Mo level a touch to see if that will address what looks like nitrogen-fixing issues.


----------



## Christophe

Saxa Tilly said:


> Christophe,
> 
> In your original post, you listed the following plant status - I'm curious how they are doing after the 6 weeks:
> 
> _"Staurogyne repens — Very slow, stunted growth, severe deterioration & loss of old leaves, BBA infestation. No plants anywhere in the entire carpet looked like healthy staro.
> Blyxa Japonica — Slow growth, weak, damaged, holy leaves, BBA infestation
> Alternathera reineckii — Slow growth, twisted leaves, BBA on leaves, some older leaf deterioration
> Didiplis diandra — completely stalled growth, stem decay and melt. Two small segments remaining
> Taxophyllium sp. moss — Slow growth, BBA infestation
> Fissidens Fontanus — Extremely slow growth, BBA infestation"_
> 
> Can you compare status *THEN* and *NOW*, please?


*THEN* is described pretty well above.

*NOW:*
Staurogyne repens — Largely free of BBA. Newer growth has larger leaves. Generally greener than before. The greenest growth is in lower-lit areas, but it's also slower there. The bit of older leaf loss that's starting to occur is limited -- before, it occurred everywhere in the tank.

Blyxa Japonica — Largely free of BBA. Stronger leaves, very few showing holes now. More sideshoots, more rapidly than I was getting before.. 

Alternathera reineckii — BBA much reduced, still occurs on older damaged leaves. Leaves are tending to get larger than they were, still kinda ruffled, not really flat. I'm cutting older stems to the ground & letting new ones grow in. 

Didiplis diandra — Two remaining old stems growing slowly now, ~10cm long each, 1.5cm leaf diameter. I found another rather sad, beat-up bunch at the LFS and bought it. That is sprouting & growing out well, diameter is better than 2cm.

Taxophyllium sp. moss — Less BBA. I've been picking over the worst areas, the moss seems to respond well to that, growing back in better and cleaner.

Fissidens Fontanus — Responding more slowly than the taxophyllium, but generally looking better, less BBA. A lot of it had been overwhelmed before.


----------



## happi

for those who are trying Urea and Kno3 mix, please try urea only, for low light i would suggest 0.1-0.2ppm urea, medium light 0.4-0.5 ppm, high light 0.7-1ppm urea daily, if you are adding additional KNO3 while doing urea, you might see less benefits from urea and you will start to see NO3 buildup. i have done a few tests showing that NO3 will keep on rising while Urea is used very rapidly. 

there was a member name *Kekon * who have provided with very good experiments and knowledge, i have no idea where he disappeared, but his posts always helped me allot. if you get a chance you should look him up and read some of his posts, it might be useful for you guys. 

here is one of the post regarding Urea: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/22407-urea-vs-kno3.html

you can ignore post #16, it will try to discourage you from trying Urea.


----------



## Audionut

From that thread.



kekon said:


> The strange thing is that after lowering NO3 i noticed much higher demand for iron (chlorosis appeared on many plants on their new leaves).


I'm seeing the same as this. Lowering NO3 but maintaining N seems to increase Fe demand.

All my testing and results are on hold. My rainwater source developed an algae bloom. Good news is that it expedited the purchase of an RO/DI unit that I hope to have within 48hours. The minister for finance enjoys the visual aspect of the tank, and so the sudden poor visual appearance swayed the vote in my favor.

I stopped dosing altogether (and had already significantly reduced trace dosing), so combined with a pure water source, I'll be much better positioned to run tests.


----------



## fablau

Ok, here is an update of my situation after 6 weeks of detox: I am currently still trying to keep detoxing my tank. I tried to dose about 0.1ppm Fe from CSM per dose every other day for the past week, but still my plants didn't get well, so I thought that I might still be in the toxicity realm for some specific nutrient (maybe Zinc?) whereas some other could have bottomed out (maybe Mo or B?). I have done an additional 70% WC last Saturday (6 large water changes so far since I started Detox, not that much maybe?), and I am now currently dosing just Flourish Comprehensive and Trace at their recommended dosage, and my plant situation is different for each plant. Some plants are still exactly like before, whereas others got worse and others got better. In the overall, plants slowed growth which is of course not a good sign. Sure thing is: all critters seem much more happier, I see shrimp around all the time, and never stopping crawling (before the detox they were always hidden).


So... to give you an idea of what's going on right now and what happened in the past few weeks:

1. Some plants are exactly in the same shape as before, despite slowed growth (Ambulias, Cabomba Furcata, Mirophillum, Hygros)

2. Some plants have changed: Anubias, got much better right away after detox, BBA almost disappeared completely, but after 10 days BBA came back a little but at the same time leaf size got much bigger (almost double the size as before)... so now, I like the bigger leaf size but I don't like BBA being still around.

3. Some plants got worse BBA side: microswords are getting more BBA, AR And A Mini are getting BBA now as well (!!)

4. Some plants got reduced growth at the tips: Rotala Rotundifolia and Rotala Nanjenshan.

5. Some plants got better than before, and are still better now with low micros: Lobelia Cardinalis is growing very well and no BBA or other algae at all, Ludwigia Puerensis is growing better than before (!!)

6. Some plants got much worse in the past week: some A Mini and AR has got holes in leaves, not only in old leaves but also in new leaves which makes me think a deficiency of Mo. What do you think? Star Grass almost stopped growing and get black very easily in the old leaves.


I am willing to continue to dose just Flourish Comprehensive and Trace until the end of the week when I'll perform an additional 70% WC, but if I don't see any overall positive change in the plants, I'll resume reduced CSM dosage (0.1ppm Fe from CSM).

It is weird though that some plants got better and other worse, and that the only algae I have around is BBA, nothing else.

I am eager to know your thoughts on these issues. Thanks!


----------



## burr740

@fablau what is the logic behind dosing both Comp and Trace? Why not one or the other?


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> @*fablau* what is the logic behind dosing both Comp and Trace? Why not one or the other?


Good question! Well... it looks to me that the combination of both would be better, they should complement with each other.

Fact is: I see there is some deficiency going on in my tank, but I want to hold on getting back to CSM to see how far I can go. I guess I am completely detoxed now from micros, but I am not 100% sure. I could still have some specific nutrient in the "tox" realm (smoking gun: Zn), whereas I have bottomed out others. By giving the Flourish stuff instead than CSM, I could be able to overcome possible worst issues until the next WC (i.e. having too strong deficiencies without "intoxicating" again the tank... and the addition of Traces could give me some more support. What do you guys think?


----------



## aclaar877

I've been doing my detox at roughly the same time as Fablau, Solcielo and others on this thread. I did weekly water changes of 50, 50, 60 and 70 percent over the course of a month along with a thorough vacuum of half the tank in order to suck up as much O+ granules as I could. I'm the original poster who fried his plants with big CSM+B doses on top of O+ tabs. I'm now dosing a little over 0.1 ppm Fe three times a week with half that coming from CSM+B.

Overall I like the results - A Reineckii has never looked better - big, mostly flat leaves, consistent growth and the lower leaves not looking too bad. They used to get holes, become ratty, full of GDA and be brittle and fall apart. They looked like this for the better part of two years as I kept chasing higher and higher CO2, O2, flow, different placement, full EI, modified EI, and different lighting levels: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15124516759/in/datetaken/
I'll take new pics of AR when I get a chance. AR seemed to defy the laws of science in my tank, as I had plenty of ferts, CO2 and enough light and I couldn't figure out what the problem could be. Lowering traces made a big, big difference. CO2 may not have been the problem after all, as I thought for a long time. Ludwigia Repens is also making a nice comeback after being rather dormant for a while.

I also get less GDA overall on lower leaves and glass. Plants aren't shedding lower leaves like they were before, which Solcielo predicted if I'm remembering correctly. If plants aren't healthy, GDA will attack those lower leaves. I had no BBA either before of after the detox.

I also have some plants growing less quickly than before, which is not a big problem and could be due to the fact that one heater went out and I had temps of 72-73 for a while. Only corkscrew vals are not growing well-they have stopped runners and are losing some leaves. I have seen similar behavior with that plant before, when I had super-high PO4 readings (10+ ppm). So, I am reducing PO4 to the 2-4 ppm range and also NO3 which also read very high this weekend when I tested it. My conclusion is that my tank just doesn't have as fast a nutrient uptake as I thought. I've deliberately kept macros high during the trace detox, but I will bring PO4 and NO3 down to reasonable levels. Ludwigia Ovalis, Hygro Augustifolia and Ludwigia Narrow Leaf are growing slower than before, but I'm not sure if that's due to the lower temps, reduced traces, or very high levels of macros. Last week I got another heater to bring temps up to 76-77.


----------



## fablau

Good to know that Andy! Please, keep us posted. I am really trying to see how far I can go with this detox cure, so I am currently dosing just Flourish Comprehensive and traces as recommended, every 2 days. I know I have some deficiency issue with my plants, but I also know I can still wait to get back to CSM. I'll have another big WC this coming Saturday, and then I'll decide what to do. If I see my plants in too bad shape, I'll resume CSM.

Just to remind me, could you please tell me how often do you perform your WC? And from what you wrote, you are currently dosing about 0.05ppm of Fe coming from CSM, right?


----------



## aclaar877

fablau said:


> Just to remind me, could you please tell me how often do you perform your WC? And from what you wrote, you are currently dosing about 0.05ppm of Fe coming from CSM, right?


Fab, I do weekly water changes. And the CSM+B dosing is 0.05 ppm per dose. I'll also add that L. Ovalis has lost some of it's red color compared to what it used to be, to go along with its slower growth. And yesterday I came home to see one of my nice AR stems with a curled tip, though the others are growing fine. Hard to figure this stuff out sometimes. I'll probably be moving this spring so I'll have a do-over of the whole tank. This time I'll stay away from O+!!


----------



## fablau

aclaar877 said:


> Fab, I do weekly water changes. And the CSM+B dosing is 0.05 ppm per dose. I'll also add that L. Ovalis has lost some of it's red color compared to what it used to be, to go along with its slower growth. And yesterday I came home to see one of my nice AR stems with a curled tip, though the others are growing fine. Hard to figure this stuff out sometimes. I'll probably be moving this spring so I'll have a do-over of the whole tank. This time I'll stay away from O+!!


I see... hmmm... watch out for possible deficiencies, I have already bottomed out on some micro nutrients, and I think to resume a minimum dosing of 0.1ppm Fe via CSM the next week.

Yes, I have read bad stories about O+. To start over from scratch is a good idea that I am thinking too! My current tank is 8 years old... is maybe time to start over?


----------



## burr740

I used to blame my problems on having used a ton of O+, back when I thought it was just me having issues. But now a year later nothing has changed as far as how much csmb does well. So Im not sure the O+ had anything to do with it in the first place. At the very least, it was not as major of a factor as I first assumed.


----------



## Jeff5614

Mostly because this thread has lost some steam and I'm tired of not having new posts to read everyday I thought I would give a link to ADA's analysis of their ferts.

http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/pdf/AJ236/SUIKEI_RESEARCH.pdf


----------



## fablau

Thank you Jeff, wonderful PDF!

Here is an updated after 5 weeks after the detox started in my tank: having probably bottomed out with traces about 10 days ago, some of my plants begun having problems such as increased BBA, some leaves broken down, other plants stopped growing, etc. I resumed CSM+B in the past 4 days to target 0.1 ppm of Fe, and added a little bit of Mo from sodium molybdate to target about 0.002 ppm of Mo (from my calculations, that's the trace where most likely I bottomed out) and I am already seeing great improvements. Hopefully I have finally balanced the tank in a way to both get rid of toxicities for some elements and covered deficiencies for others. My Rotala tips are getting back, Ambulias and Cabomba are growing again, etc.

It's amazing how my Ludwigia Peruensis has grown in the past few days, I have never seen such large and healthy leaves:






At the end, I am pleased to have begun this detox procedure because I see some plants got much better and healthy than before. My Anubias have much larger leaves now:




As you can see from the pic above, some BBA is still around, but I think to be able to get rid of it in the coming weeks by keeping up with ferts without going into the toxic realm again.


Thanks and talk you soon!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 58417

*Detailed research data*



Jeff5614 said:


> Mostly because this thread has lost some steam and I'm tired of not having new posts to read everyday I thought I would give a link to ADA's analysis of their ferts.
> http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/pdf/AJ236/SUIKEI_RESEARCH.pdf


Do you really think the article is that good?

_*This article introduces the detailed research data ...
*_
The light distribution of pendant-style (HQI) lighting is biased, because it shows the light distribution outside the water, on the air, not inside the water, under real conditions. If you would measure the light distribution in the real tank, under water, you will find out that near the glass (due to the reflections) the light intensity is up to 3-times higher than in the middle of the tank (right under the light source). This disadvantage is not mentioned in the "detailed research data".

Another objection is that while it's fine to show us the Lux units in the distance of 10 cm from water surface, it would be much better to show us the charts of the light levels on the tank's bottom also.

_*The growth comparison of Wabi-Kusa with and without CO2 supply ...*_

What's really interesting to me is the fact that the plants in this comparison clearly show some positive growth even without the CO2 supply, although their growth may be somewhat slower. What's missing is more detailed comparison and description of what CO2 levels (and other conditions) were used in this test. So while it may be true that aquatic plants grow faster with CO2 supply, the question is if the lush growth is really desirable for an average hobbyist.

Still, from the above charts of CO2 levels, it seems that ADA uses quite low CO2 concentration in Nature Aquarium tanks, which is (again) really interesting. In the charts the average CO2 level is somewhere around 8 to 12 ppm. I must say that (if the charts are based on real data) I really appreciate this approach. In the chart of "CO2 supply in 60cm tank" there's just about 3 hours peak of 20 ppm, so it seems that for most of the photoperiod the CO2 level is somewhere around 6 to 15 ppm. For me it's another proof that there is no need to have "flat, constant, uniform" CO2 level during the whole photoperiod.

_*Substrate system ...*_

I don't understand what "Company B", "Company D", or "Soil made in China" means in the charts. I we don't know what these companies are, the data is just meaningless. Furthermore, in the D chart (Comparison of N and P levels) it's not clear when and under what conditions the measurements were done (whether immediately after the substrate being floded or after couple of days). Also, I would like to see the data for total N levels vs. available N levels in the substrate.

The "Growth difference of foreground plants by substrate material" is also misleading, because it's not clear if the test was done emersed or submersed. If the test was done underwater, then it's more than clear that in the plain sand there are no nutrients, so the plants can't grow as well as in the nutrient-rich substrate. If the test was done underwater, then again, I suppose there were no nutrients in the water column to stress the importance of the nutrient-rich substrate. If they add enough nutrients into the water column, the growth would be probably similar.

_*Fertilizers comparison ...*_

Why don't they compare ADA fertilizers with other companies' fertilizers? They do this with substrate, so why don't they do it here?

As for the comparison of the nutrient consumption rate with or without the application of extra potassium, I suppose that even these numbers are 100-times higher than normal (as is stated above), meaning that the plants were in reality uptaken 0.09 ppm N (= 0.4 ppm NO3), 0.07 ppm P (= 0.21 ppm PO4), and 0.13 ppm K per day, and not 9 ppm N (= 40 ppm NO3) per day (from water column) => 21 ppm N on the first day minus 12 ppm N on the second day = 9 ppm N difference (= uptake rate per 1 day). And if this is the consumption of nutrients from water column, how do they know the plants were not uptaking nutrients from the nutrient rich substrate => or were there no substrate during this test? It's not clear here.

In brief, this "detailed research data" are not that detailed I would like them to be. Actually, I don't know for what good is such a shallow information to us?


----------



## Audionut

A quick little update from me.

Since switching to RODI water (previous source had CaCO3), it's really amazing just how quickly my system is transforming (H)CO3 to H2CO3. I'm using a combination of CaCO3 and KHCO3 and it appears like I've just found the amount needed to maintain pH. I prefer to have my Ca source solely from CaCO3, with an accumulated concentration of 10ppm Ca++, which limits the amount of CO3. My best guess is that I'm injecting 4.28ppm (CaCO3 equivalent) of alkalinity from CaCO3, and I'm injecting 2.31ppm (CaCO3 equivalent) of alkalinity from primarily KHCO3 with a small amount from NaHCO3. Amazing stuff. I've actually stopped CO2 injection and am relying solely on HCO3 > H2CO3 + CO2 + H2O for my CO2.

I was reading some stuff regarding K and Mg, and decided to minimize K dosing to 0.31 ppm/day (Mg dosing was 0.47ppm/day). I appeared to successfully hit K deficiency, and just as well, since I needed HCO3. This requires further investigation though.

My trace dosing has been very scarce. When my source water went cloudy I decided to stop dosing for 3 days hoping the lack of nutrients would help. RODI water drip started 5 days ago, I did 50% water change during the first 24hours and have been doing 15%/day since then. My dosing is as follows.










My tank likes lots of Fe, but otherwise, I'm dosing very small amounts of the other trace elements. I've seen no deficiency symptoms that haven't been cured with Fe.

My trace dosing was this on the 15th of December from my trace mix (extra DTPA Fe not included).



Code:


Fe ppm=	0.05257
Mn ppm=	0.00406
B ppm=	0.00404
Zn ppm=	0.00034
Cu ppm=	0.00017
Mo ppm=	0.00011

And I was still seeing precipitation type issues even with this minimal dosing. The next day (16th) I cut trace dosing to 1/3rd of the above (except DTPA Fe). And then the following day (17th) cut trace dosing even further to the above image.

Clearly, my tank needs very little trace elements.

Some interesting notes.

At my tank pH (around 5.0 but looking to increase to 5.5) and ORP (around 690mv) all of the trace elements bar Fe and perhaps Mn, will predominantly be in their pure elemental form. That is, no precipitation issues and immediately available for plant uptake (A good reason why I need very little trace elements).

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pi21e7da1v5x85e/AACnNOirBb16M75aa45XZQgua?dl=0

Since I clearly see precipitation issues when using higher doses of my trace mix (all EDTA chelated), and since Mn is a very small concentration even when dosed at higher rates, it must be related to EDTA Fe. EDTA should be stable at my pH, but perhaps ORP plays a role here also (on the chelate). This needs more investigation also. I do have some EDTA Fe on hand, so I should start dosing it and observe.

It's a little early to make judgement calls, but my NO3 levels seem to be sitting around 25ppm, which is around half of the expected accumulated concentration of NO3 if all of the Urea was being converted to NO3 (from bacteria). Which pegs my N uptake from Urea at around 1ppm/day. PO4 and Ca seem to be reaching the expected accumulated concentration. Again, it's a little early to be making judgement calls. I haven't bothered to measure Fe concentration for a while, but if I don't dose 0.2ppm/day DTPA Fe I see clear deficiency symptoms.

Things are still balancing again since the source water problem, so in a month or so I should have a clearer idea of what the uptake rates are for various elements.

Java moss has responded really well to reduced trace dosing. I could keep the tips of it nice and green, but the old bushy growth always had a brown tinge to it. It's now virtually all nice and green. The old growth on the stem plants also seems to be remaining nice and green. I know that some of the stem plant problems are precipitation issues, and perhaps the Java moss was having the same problems.

Unrelated to trace dosing, but since switching to hourly dosing of nutrients (around current ratios) and water dip changing, I haven't seen any algae at all. I was previously having to clean the glass every other week, and some of the old algae in the plants has been disappearing. Reduced trace dosing might have helped, but far to many other things have happened that have likely lead to the change. I've just recently finished the slow progression to 12hours photoperiod.



Positron said:


> Also, that ORP is RIDICULOUSLY high! It's like your injecting O3 into that water. How do you keep it this high? Are you adding oxidizing agents along with huge amounts of surface agitation and/or air stone?
> 
> I don't have a redox meter yet, but I hear normal is about 300 for freshwater and things start dying at 400? Hmm I'd have to do more research on that.


I actually stopped with the green tea test at reducing ORP since I thought it might have been the cause of the cloudy water initially. I just started trialing green tea again today. But in any case I'm probably just wasting my time.

https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm


> For a clean lake, the surface waters are well aerated and the dissolved oxygen concentrations are high enough to make the potential reasonably close to the Eo for oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> Conditions may approach anaerobic (actively reducing)approaching the lower boundary of the reduction of water to hydrogen for
> 
> a lake highly polluted with organic reducing agents
> the bottom layer of a thermally stratified lake
> for a swamp












I've seen that image in another source that described in more detail, but can't remember what source it was.


----------



## Jeff5614

Marcel G said:


> Do you really think the article is that good?


Not really, it's pretty vague, but it served it's purpose which was to get some discussion going again.


----------



## 58417

Audionut said:


> A quick little update from me (rephrased by Marcel G):
> _Weekly dosing:_
> 14 ppm N from urea (= 62 ppm NO3) => 25 ppm NO3 (measured) => 1 ppm N/day = 30 ppm NO3/week uptake rate (?)
> 6.7 ppm PO4 (2.2 ppm P)
> 14.5 ppm K
> 12 ppm Ca
> 3 ppm Mg
> 12 ppm SO4 (4 ppm S)
> 1.5 ppm Fe
> 23 ppm HCO3 = 1.05°dKH
> _Other water parameters:_
> pH 5.0
> CO2 = ?
> ORP = 690 mV


I really appreciate your data, but have some doubts about their credibility.
The uptake rate of 1 ppm N/day seem unrealistic to me. I myself did couple of growth experiments where I calculated the nutrient uptake based on the plant biomass weight. Under the most extreme conditions (extra high light + extra high nutrient levels) I had 11 ppm NO3/week uptake rate (that's about 2.5 ppm N/week or 0.35 ppm N/day). I can't imagine how your planted tank looks like to have 3-times higher uptake rate.

As to the Fe concentration, it seems unnecessarily high to me, but I can imagine you may have to use it if you experience some precipitation issues. I myself have very good results with as low Fe level as 0.02 ppm (Fe-DTPA), although the plants seem to do a little better with 0.04 ppm Fe-DTPA (under high light and high CO2 levels).

According to the calculations you may theoreticaly have up to 370 ppm CO2 under pH 5.0 and 23 ppm HCO3, which is of course a nonsense. Can you estimate how much CO2 you may have in your tank?

ORP of +690 mV is extremely high. I doubt it is compatible with life, but I did not do any practical tests with such a high values. But according to some hobbyists the ORP over +575 mV can lead to serious damage in fish within 10 minutes. So I doubt that under +690 mV your critters will be doing well long term. That being said, I saw a couple of tanks where the ORP was as high as +500 mV, and all the critters seemed to be doing well (as far as judged by visible symptoms). I have noticed also that in tanks with big plant biomass + minimum fish and very low COD (chemical oxygen demand => low organics pollution), the ORP was constantly increasing between the water changes => from the initial +250 mV up to +450 mV at the end of the week. Also I had one test tank, where I did not changed water, and have more than 160 ppm NO3 in the water column. The algae infestation was just extreme. But after two weeks nearly all the algae species (except diatoms) just died off. The ORP was constantly increasing in this tank over +500 mV. Even my anubiases begin to die off.


----------



## Yo-han

I own a ORP meter and have maintained reef tanks with O3 and 450 mV ORP. Higher and snails started to have trouble. I never managed to get over 400 in my freshwater tanks, but a low pH gives a higher ORP. I too can't imagine it really being that high, but than again, I never had such a low pH, so I'm not sure if this would or wouldn't be possible. 

The NO3 is most likely adsorbed by something. Do you use aquasoil, or anything like clay?


----------



## Audionut

Marcel G said:


> I myself did couple of growth experiments where I calculated the nutrient uptake based on the plant biomass weight. Under the most extreme conditions (extra high light + extra high nutrient levels) I had 11 ppm NO3/week uptake rate (that's about 2.5 ppm N/week or 0.35 ppm N/day). I can't imagine how your planted tank looks like to have 3-times higher uptake rate.


You performed these tests under completely different circumstances, with differing plant species, differing concentrations of other ions, with a completely different form of N.

Equivalent atomic mass of elements is fine when you want to determine the equivalent mass of various forms of the same element, but in this instance, you're comparing the uptake rate of an anion against a cation. One of those forms of N can be used directly by plants, the other requires energy expenditure by the plants for transformation. Is it really that hard to imagine a difference in uptake rates of 3x? However, I did mentioned it's to early to make judgement calls for a reason.

If you have the time an inclination, you could use your far more controlled conditions to make more informed opinions regarding uptake rates of various forms of N. I for one would appreciate if your performed these types of tests.

While NH4 may _not_ be toxic to critters at reasonable concentrations, I'm not sure the same can be said of NO2 (regardless of pH). Those of you who may decide to use N forms that result in an increase of NH4 should consider that nitrogen fixing bacteria will convert some of this NH4 to NO2, and then NO3. I advise against dosing large concentrations of NH4 before the NO2 > NO3 bacteria have fully developed to cope with the increased load.



Marcel G said:


> As to the Fe concentration, it seems unnecessarily high to me,


My plants have a different opinion Sir. Although I will admit that there may be other circumstances affecting this determination that I don't fully understand. The plants this morning don't have the same tell-tale signs of Fe deficiency (last 0.1ppm dose was 23 hours ago). It could be because the Fe concentration has been sufficiently increased in the water column. Or perhaps even some relationship not understood with K, since I've significantly increased K concentration yesterday. I've also reduced ORP with green tea since yesterday morning. I lowered it to a minimum of 590mv, and it's currently hovering around 633mv.



Marcel G said:


> According to the calculations you may theoreticaly have up to 370 ppm CO2 under pH 5.0 and 23 ppm HCO3, which is of course a nonsense. Can you estimate how much CO2 you may have in your tank?


22ppm HCO3 is the expected accumulated concentration if all of the HCO3 remains as HCO3. ie: Neglecting HCO3 > H2CO3 + CO2 + H2O.
The measured HCO3 concentration was 9 ppm as CaCO3 equivalent (0.5 dKH). I also guestimate that the test kit reads 14% high. Stable pH at this alkalinity was 5.15 pH. pH reacts faster then CO2. The CO2/pH/KH relationship pegs this to around 100 ppm. IIRC, the pH drop from degassed water at equilibrium with the atmosphere was around 1.25 pH. I'm around 440 meters above sea level in a country area, however, a coal fired power station is located around 30 klms away. I add this information for full disclosure, I have NFI how it affects CO2 concentration.

I have currently increased pH to 5.35-5.40 with a measured alkalinity of 7.4 ppm CaCO3 equivalent. This is with no external CO2 injection. CO2 concentration is entirely controlled by the process of life and chemical transformation.




Marcel G said:


> But according to some hobbyists the ORP over +575 mV can lead to serious damage in fish within 10 minutes.


My fish have a different opinion Sir.


There's so much nonsense perpetrated in this industry, with very little factual information. I don't care what he said, she said, or anyone else really. Fish dying = problems..............fish thriving with good growth, good coloration, healthy appetite and reproducing = not problem. Plants withering, browning, dying = problems............plants growing well with good coloration = no problems.

Aquatic life doesn't have ulterior motives that need to be considered.


----------



## Positron

I can say with experience that aquasoil adsorbs vast amounts of both NO3 and PO4. My aquasoil tanks take out about 1.0 ppm a day of PO3. I'm not joking here. I need to add 2 ppm a day of PO4 from KH2PO4 to keep levels acceptable. I'd like to get further information on aquasoil's AEC because we all know of it's CEC ability. The AEC seems to heavily favor PO3--- compared to NO3-. I'm not sure how much SO4-- is being adsorbed, but if I could guess, it would be higher than NO3.

NO3 stays pretty consistant in my aquasoil tank now after being setup for about 6 weeks. At first it did go down, but I was only dosing 0.2ppm PO4 3x a week as was my previous routine. However, I think PO4's higher Coulomb charge might be displacing both NO3 and SO4 on it's AEC sites. This would make sense with the statistical findings of late T. Amano's tanks. In japan, most tap water has about 0.5ppm of PO4 in it. However, ADA tanks run with as low as 0.02 ppm of PO4. 

I think more than anything, since I've upped my dosing of PO4 drastically, and made changes to increase K dosing that my stems have popped out of their recluse. I was gone 5 days over holiday, and within this time both my hard to grow ludwigia species have grown about two inches, and most importantly, leaf size is increasing.

I've also made changes to how I dose my micro's. I'm using a premixed micro solution with no Fe in it at all. My previous findings on DTPA iron where false. I can dose upwards of 0.1ppm if i dose the DTPA alone, and without mixed iron gluc in it. 

I take the premixed micro and add 4mL of it to about 0.22g (0.1 ppm in a 75g tank) of DTPA in a small cup. I stir it around. Fe has a higher affinity for DTPA and will bind to it first, but any remaining DTPA will find it's way to the Mn, Cu and Zn. This seems to be working very well. No brown aerial roots, and my plants are glowing with green. I'll need a few more weeks with this to know for sure. 

I have been noticing a huge increase in GSA. It's relentless on my glass, but isn't infesting my plants yet. I'm trying to keep my PO4 level up, but it's impossible to do it without an auto doser. If I'm here everyday it's fine, but going away I come back to the front of my tank plastered with GSA. It's very annoying. 

What I thought was some kind of deficiency on s. repens and crypt wentii was not a deficiency. My pleco was chowing on these plants when i couldn't feed for many days. There are little holes all over ALL of my repens...like someone took a large guage needle and poked holes in the leaves. No yellowing or chlorosis around the holes. I caught the pleco red handed doing this. Seems like I'll need to get some algae tabs.
@Audionut

In response to your determined values for CO2 levels:

I'd like to know more about your methodology behind this. I do understand that putting any HCO3 into a tank with low inherent pH will cause the formation of H2CO3 and CO2. In practice, however, I find the connection between HCO3 and rising pH to offset any gains in actual CO2 from these sources. Do you have a 4 dkh drop checker in your tank? With no CO2 on, using your methodology, the checker should be yellow under any circumstances.

Re ORP:

My understanding of ORP closely resembles Marcel's statements. +690mV ORP could be used to sanitize medical instruments (I joke). I'm not even sure tannic acid can exist at that ORP. It would be immediately destroyed and oxidized. The cellular membranes of animals would be highly agitated, and a plant's cell wall would begin to undergo oxidation. Oxygen would start to rip off protein and ligind components of the wall. 

Is there a method to calibrate your ORP sensor? 

I see that graph detailing typical ORP values for different types of bodies. The dotted line, which I think is stream water reaches a max of ~800mV at a pH of 3. It's hard to tell exactly by the graph, but I find it hard to believe that such an environment exists with robust life in it. I could be wrong on this, though. I know some amazon streams can get down to a pH resembling acetic acid.


----------



## Audionut

Positron said:


> I'd like to know more about your methodology behind this. I do understand that putting any HCO3 into a tank with low inherent pH will cause the formation of H2CO3 and CO2. In practice, however, I find the connection between HCO3 and rising pH to offset any gains in actual CO2 from these sources.


Lets forget about H2CO3 <> CO2 + H2O, and simply understand that an increase of H2CO3 directly increases CO2 + H2O.

So to transform HCO3 to H2CO3 we simply need H+.

Thus, an increase in HCO3 will cause an immediate increase in pH, because pH reacts faster then the chemical transformations. If the rate of H+ doesn't also increase with increasing HCO3, then pH will only very slowly decline as the free H+ ions bond with HCO3 to form H2CO3 (this reaction is somewhat slow).

The chemical species will reach equilibrium. These species being HCO3, H2CO3 + CO2 + H2O, plus the rate of off-gassing of CO2 to atmosphere.

We can see clearly, that since my previous pH was around 5.1, alkalinity was around 9 ppm CaCO3 equivalent, and my current pH is around 5.35, alkalinity around 7.5 ppm CaCO3 equivalent, clearly, CO2 concentration in the water has been reduced. Less alkalinity and higher pH = less CO2. Note: I call it alkalinity since that is what the test kit measures, however, I'm confident that the reading is entirely carbonate hardness.

If carbonate hardness increases for the same pH, CO2 concentration must have increased, and vice-versa.

If pH lowers for the same carbonate hardness, CO2 concentrations have increased, and vice-versa.

If pH was to rise with an increase in carbonate hardness, CO2 concentration has remained unchanged, and vice-versa.

So consider my tank. Daily addition of HCO3 with unchanging pH and alkalinity. Since pH and carbonate hardness does not change, CO2 concentration does not change. Thus I have reached and *equilibrium point* between HCO3 > H2CO3 + CO2 + H2O > off-gasing of CO2 with atmosphere.

If I increase or decrease surface agitation (rate of off-gas to atmosphere), I can directly influence CO2 + pH without changes to carbonate hardness.

If I increased the injection rate of HCO3, I can directly influence carbonate hardness + pH without changes to CO2.

If I decreased the injection rate of HCO3, I can also directly influence carbonate hardness + pH without changing CO2, however, at some point carbonate hardness reaches 0 and funky stuff happens.

In all the above circumstances, they are also balanced with H+. More acid, more H+, faster transformation from HCO3 > H2CO3, and vice-versa.

Balance.




Positron said:


> Re ORP:


People should forget about all of the wives tales they've been told.
Observe the following data.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/22w3rcjrjvla7e9/AABFdJowm8x7tuq8jPodAO2Xa?dl=0

Note: In the earlier months I was controlling CO2 with a pH controller and stopping CO2 injection overnight. Hence the jumps in pH and ORP. In the later months I just kept CO2 injection somewhat consistent.

I see a _very strong_ correlation between ORP and pH. ORP is almost a direct inverse of pH.

Is my ORP level really as bad as it's being made out to be after observing the correlation with pH? The only reason I wanted to reduce ORP was to push Fe into pure elemental predominance, not because of oxidative stress.

If I was to dump a significant amount of organic matter into the water, ORP would likely reduce from the addition of reduction elements + reduction of O2 from increased micro organisms consuming this organic matter. I think one way of looking at high ORP values is the determination of low BOD. Without doubt, I can say that my water is very clean and well oxygenated. What role oxidative stress is playing I am unsure. My best guess would be little while life is healthy.

I am not aware of any easy method to calibrate ORP sensor. I'd be happy if someone was aware and could share the method.

edit: Note the large reduction in ORP during October. That's 2 green tea bags added to 350L.

Another edit:


Positron said:


> Do you have a 4 dkh drop checker in your tank? With no CO2 on, using your methodology, the checker should be yellow under any circumstances.


Haven't bothered with a drop checker in a long time, always used the pH drop method. The drop checker will only be yellow at CO2 > 30ppm. But the CO2/pH/KH relationship says I should be in excess of 30ppm CO2.

Anyway, just made a fresh 4dKH solution and added a drop checker. Results tomorrow. Will also measure pH drop from degassed tank water.

And another edit:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/fw456/lecture/pdf/redox_potential.pdf


> Effect of pH on Redox Potential
> 
> A decrease of one pH unit is accompanied by an increase in Eh of 58 mV
> 
> Eh is frequently adjusted for pH by adding 58 mV for every pH unit on the basic side of neutrality and subtracting 58 mV for every pH unit on the acid side of neutrality ---- or E7


----------



## 58417

*Hco3- => co2*



Audionut said:


> If you have the time an inclination, you could use your far more controlled conditions to make more informed opinions regarding uptake rates of various forms of N. I for one would appreciate if your performed these types of tests.


I can do these tests after I finish my recent growth experiment.

As to the extremely high Fe demands of your aquarium, I'm not convinced that your plants really need it. You may need to add such a high Fe amounts into your tank, but I doubt that this amount is what your plants need. The system may need it, but not so the plants. In other words, the Fe in your tank may undergo some kind of reaction so that there is nearly no iron available to your plants, so to keep the iron level at some minimum "for-plants-available" level you may need to add more of it into your tank. But that does not mean that all the iron you add ends up in your plants. That's my point here. If I were you, then I would investigate why I need to add so much iron into my tank => what happens with it, why it becomes unavailable to my plants? Maybe I would invest into lab analyses of the plant matter to find out the Fe concentration in plant tissue. From it you can easily calculate how much biomass your Fe supply should produce, and if it corresponds to reality.

As to the ORP electrode calibration, there are calibration solutions agaist which you can (and should) calibrate your electrode. Each solution has the mV value deviation (against the hydrogen electrode standard) stated on the package. There is a difference between ORPm and ORPh values measured by ORP electrodes. The values you see on your ORP meter are ORPm values. But if you want to compare your results with some other results, you should convert your ORPm values to universal ORPh values. This conversion is done by adding the value stated on the calibration package to your ORPm. On my calibration package I have +207 mV. So the value of +500 mV ORPm corresponds to +707 mV ORPh value. The only comparable data are the ORPh (not ORPm)! But most hobbyists don't botter with this procedure.



Audionut said:


> There's so much nonsense perpetrated in this industry, with very little factual information. I don't care what he said, she said, or anyone else really. Fish dying = problems..............fish thriving with good growth, good coloration, healthy appetite and reproducing = not problem. Plants withering, browning, dying = problems............plants growing well with good coloration = no problems.


While I agree that there is so much myths in our hobby, I don't like such a simplified statement like "fish dying = problems" or "fish thriving with good growth etc. = no problem". This is just black and white vision of the world which I can't identify with. For example, there are many studies on the toxicity of elevated CO2 levels for juvenile fish. The upper limit is stated around 10 to 20 ppm for some sensitive species. You can have fish in your tank which will be perfectly OK with 50 or 100 ppm, but at the same time someone else can have juvenile fish (or shrimps) that can suffer a lot even under 20 ppm. The same logic here applies to other nutrients like NO3 or Fe. We should not reduce this problems to "fish dying = problem, fish don't dying = OK". The statement "high PO4 ≠ algae" is similar nonsense. But back to the high ORP values. It may be that there are some other factors that can play a significant role at the harmfulness vs. harmlessness of such a high ORP. There is an interesting article about ORP in reef tanks here: ORP and the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com (if you are interested). The inverse relationship of ORP and pH is described there also. I'm afraid that the ORP topic is quite complicated for us to fully understand. BTW, Twinstar is substantially decreasing ORP (up to a negative values! => I did test it).



Audionut said:


> Thus, an increase in HCO3 will cause an immediate increase in pH ... So consider my tank. Daily addition of HCO3 with unchanging pH and alkalinity.


As I understand it, after you add NaHCO3 into your tank, it dissociates first into Na+ and HCO3- ions. The HCO3- ions increase alkalinity (as alkalinity consists mainly from HCO3 ions). In the second phase, the HCO3- ions reacts with water (H2O) forming H2CO3 + OH-. Due to the increase of OH- ions, the pH goes up (up to 8.3). At the same time, due to the increase of H2CO3, the CO2 concentration increases. With KHCO3 the reaction should be very similar (KHCO3 will dissociate into K+ and HCO3-).

At pH 5.15, nearly all of your inorganic carbon will be in the form of a free CO2. Under 0.5°dKH and 25°C, you'll have 135 ppm CO2 (94%), 12 ppm HCO3- (6%), and 0 ppm CO3-- (0%), with total inorganic carbon of 147 ppm TIC. I'm not sure if such a high free CO2 concentration is possible in reality. Most of it should degas prety quickly, but I may be wrong. I think that the drop checker test may shed some light on it.

My understanding is that when you add more HCO3- (whether in the form of NaHCO3 or KHCO3) into your water, it should increase the pH ... by the increase of the OH- ions (HCO3- + H2O => H2CO3 + OH-). Most hobbyists use NaHCO3 for this reason to increase alkalinity and pH. How then is it possible that the addition of HCO3- does not cause pH increase in your case? Please, can you elaborate more on the ongoing reactions?

3 g of NaHCO3 per 100L of water => +0.36 mmol/l HCO3- (+1°dKH) => 0.00036 mol/l OH- => pH 8.3
You say that you add HCO3- into your tank without the change in pH or alkalinity. I just don't understand how is this possible.

BTW, the solubility of CaCO3 is 0.02 g per 1 liter of water. So only this small amount will dissolve in water into Ca++ and CO3-- (the rest will remain in solid CaCO3).


----------



## Audionut

For some reason the quote function isn't working again @Marcel G



> You say that you add HCO3- into your tank without the change in pH or alkalinity. I just don't understand how is this possible.


Consider a system that has a fixed concentration of bicarbonate with no added sources. With the addition of H+, bicarbonate concentration reduces as the HCO3 species is transformed to H2CO3. Correct?

So what happens with the injection of HCO3 that matches the reduction of HCO3 concentration from the transformation to H2CO3?

Since I'm injecting approximately 6.6 ppm of KH per day and alkalinity doesn't change, then we can conclude that the production of H+ in my system is consuming the same amount of alkalinity. 

Think of it this way. If I wasn't adding constant HCO3, then my alkalinity would eventually reach 0 ppm. Remember, some of the alkalinity is from the dissolution of CaCO3, and the rest is from hourly dosing of HCO3 sources. If I was to dose 6.6 ppm of KH per day as one dose of 6.6 ppm of KH, then we can expect alkalinity and pH to fluctuate, but since the dosing is in very small amounts spread over a day, the concentration of HCO3 and pH remains very consistent.



> BTW, the solubility of CaCO3 is 0.02 g per 1 liter of water. So only this small amount will dissolve in water into Ca++ and CO3-- (the rest will remain in solid CaCO3).


We've been over this before.

CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 <> Ca + 2HCO3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_bicarbonate

The solubility of Ca(HCO3)2 is around 170 g per 1 liter of water at 25 degrees Celsius, so we can dissolve quite a large amount of CaCO3 when the water contains CO2, don't you think?

In fact, we must first reach the solubility limit of Ca(HCO3)2 before worrying about the solubility limit of CaCO3. Since only when CaCO3 can no longer be converted to Ca(HCO3)2, does the solubility of CaCO3 become a factor.

Agreed mostly with your other points (fully agree on Fe), and thanks for taking the time for such a lengthy and detailed reply. Some more things to research.


----------



## 58417

*Source of the additional H+*



Audionut said:


> With the addition of H+, bicarbonate concentration reduces as the HCO3 species is transformed to H2CO3.


Yes, that's correct, but I still don't know where's your additional H+ comming from? Are you adding some kind of acid into your system (like HCl) on regular basis? Maybe I missed that information, so I'm sorry if you already mentioned it. In that case it's all clear to me. Otherwise I'm still confused.



Audionut said:


> We've been over this before.
> CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 <> Ca + 2HCO3.


I missed that. Sorry!


----------



## Audionut

Marcel G said:


> Yes, that's correct, but I still don't know where's your additional H+ comming from?


A combination of RO/DI water that contains only dissolved atmospheric gases and predominantly H+ (15% per day via drip method that takes 5 hours to accomplish at a rate of 280 liters per day), tannic acid, and life. The aquatic ecosystem produces H+.

If I had a large concentration of alkalinity that produced a pH > 7.0, then there would be significantly less concentration of H+ ions, and thus, the consumption of alkalinity would be significantly less. But since alkalinity concentration is low, and hence pH is low, and hence H+ concentration is high, things work smoothly.

Balance!!

edit: To add on the solubility of CaCO3. The transformation between chemical species is rather slow. Hence, you can't just throw some CaCO3 in water that contains CO2 and expect it to dissolve at some fast rate.

It is rather interesting watching CaCO3 dissolve in a solution of Citric acid though. It is the same reaction as citric acid and NaHCO3 that the DIY guys use for CO2 generation.  And @Positron has mentioned some fun happens when adding HCl to CaCO3. An abundance of H+ speeds the transformation.


----------



## 58417

Audionut said:


> A combination of RO/DI water that contains only dissolved atmospheric gases and predominantly H+ (15% per day via drip method that takes 5 hours to accomplish at a rate of 280 liters per day), tannic acid, and life. The aquatic ecosystem produces H+.


Thanks for the explanation!

Just to be sure I understand it in the right way, let me summarize it:

You are using automated system that changes 15% of your tank's water for a new acidic RO/DI water with low pH and high H+ ions concentration. This high concentration of H+ ions will react with HCO3- ions, thus decreasing the alkalinity and increasing the free CO2 concentration (H+ + HCO3- => H2CO3). In this reaction both H+ ions as well as HCO3- ions are being depleted (consumed) => thus pH will be increasing and alkalinity decreasing (if no other action was taken). To prevent the pH and alkalinity changes, you constantly add new acidic water + adequate amount of HCO3- into the system (in the form of NaHCO3, KHCO3, and CaCO3). As this supply is continuous (each hour you add a small supplementary dose), the pH nor alkalinity is fluctuating, but with supplying the right amount of acidic (RO/DI) water and of HCO3- an equilibrium (target) CO2 concentration establishes in the tank. So for this to work it is needed to find out how much of the acidic water (H+) and bicarbonates (HCO3-) is to be used. In your case you add (change) 15% of new acidic water + 3.3 ppm HCO3- each day.

Is this correct?


----------



## Audionut

Marcel G said:


> You are using automated system that changes 15% of your tank's water for a new acidic RO/DI water with low pH and high H+ ions concentration.


Well I'm not sure if the water contains high H+ concentration. The pH of the RO/DI water is somewhere below 6.0 pH that API pH test kit measures (I haven't bothered to measure pH with electronic device). Aerating the sample doesn't produce a color change, so CO2 concentration should be very low. The water contains no other ions, so the slightest addition of alkalinity would change pH considerably.

I only mention it since it does provide _some_ contribution. I was trying to be accurate in considering all H+ sources to answer your question.

My previous water source had an alkalinity of 13ppm CaCO3 equivalent, and combined with my preference to have Ca++ contribution from CaCO3 required CO2 injection. Higher pH, less H+, less H2CO3 production, less CO2 production.




Marcel G said:


> This high concentration of H+ ions will react with HCO3- ions, thus decreasing the alkalinity and increasing the free CO2 concentration (H+ + HCO3- => H2CO3). In this reaction both H+ ions as well as HCO3- ions are being depleted (consumed) => thus pH will be increasing and alkalinity decreasing (if no other action was taken).


Correct, except for pH. H2CO3 buffers at pH < 5.0. So while free H+ ions are being consumed, the predominant bicarbonate species moves towards H2CO3.




Marcel G said:


> To prevent the pH and alkalinity changes, you constantly add new acidic water + adequate amount of HCO3- into the system (in the form of NaHCO3, KHCO3, and CaCO3). As this supply is continuous (each hour you add a small supplementary dose), the pH nor alkalinity is fluctuating, but with supplying the right amount of acidic (RO/DI) water and of HCO3- an equilibrium (target) CO2 concentration establishes in the tank. So for this to work it is needed to find out how much of the acidic water (H+) and bicarbonates (HCO3-) is to be used. In your case you add (change) 15% of new acidic water + 3.3 ppm HCO3- each day.


If I have my maths right, that sounds about right. Remember that there is some undetermined amount of H+ being produced by tannis and life.

If you like maths, I suggest to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_aqueous_solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot#Bjerrum_plot_equations_for_carbonate_system

pK1 (equilibrium) for H2CO3 <> HCO3 is somewhere near 5.9 pH. So since my pH is 5.3, I can be certain that my predominant species is H2CO3, and thus CO2 concentration should be well above equilibrium with the atmosphere.

CO2 = 3 × KH × 10(7-pH)

If we consider this as accurate, then CO2 = 3 * 0.29 * 10(7-5.3) = 43.6ppm CO2.

Note: I increase the resolution of my KH test kit by using a 60ml water sample and dividing the number of drops needed to change color by 12. This should increase the resolution of the KH test kit from 17.8ppm to 1.48ppm. I've also measured the test kit as reading 14% high.

Alkalinity is dropping slowly. Will need to increase KH dosing.

Not sure what's going on with my drop checker, it's staying very blue. This cannot be correct, and I've obviously have a problem with the solution I made. Will measure pH drop later tonight.

edit: @Marcel G, I suspect this maths leads to the most accurate CO2 concentration of my water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate_buffering_system



> As calculated by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, in order to maintain a normal pH of 7.4 in the blood (whereby the pKa of carbonic acid is 6.1 at physiological temperature), a 20:1 bicarbonate to carbonic acid must constantly be maintained;


The difference between 6.1 and 7.4 being 1.3. 10 to the power of 1.3 = 19.95. Looks about right. So.

The difference between 6.1 and 5.3 being 0.8. 10 to the power of 0.8 = 6.309.

To find the mmol/L of bicarbonate, we can take the ppm of the ion and divide by the molar mass. So 5.14 ppm (CaCO3 equivalent bicarbonate concentration) / 100.0869 (molar mass of CaCO3) * 2 (bicarbonate contribution to alkalinity is half CO3) = 0.1027388904 mmol/L bicarbonate.

To find the concentration of CO2, 0.1027388904 mmol/L * 44.0095 (molar mass of CO2) = 4.521487197 ppm CO2. That is to say, with an CaCO3 equivalent alkalinity of 5.14 ppm @ 6.1 pH, the CO2 concentration in the water should equal 4.52 ppm.

From the maths earlier, the ratio between pH 6.1 and pH 5.3 being 6.309. So 4.52 ppm CO2 * 6.309 = 28.51668 ppm CO2.

edit again. Blood temp is higher then water temp.

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/boo...-v1.0/s31-appendix-c-dissociation-consta.html



> Carbonic acid Pka1 = 6.35 @ 25 degrees C


6.35 - 5.3 = 1.05. 
10 to the power of 1.05 = 11.22. 
11.22 * 4.52 ppm = 50.7144 ppm (1.152351197 mmol/L) CO2.


----------



## 58417

I think that for the sake of this forum it's pointless to publish here all the math as probably no one will ever bother to check if it's correct. I use another (much more precise) method for CO2 calculation in freshwater, and my result is 56.0 ppm for your input data. But we are far away here from the original topic of toxicity issues. Did you ever think of publishing some datasheets and pictures of your automated system in a separate thread?


----------



## Audionut

Marcel G said:


> I use another (much more precise) method for CO2 calculation in freshwater


Heh. 



> 1) The calculator is not adapted to calculations outside this range, providing accurate results only in the range of 6.33 - 10.33


Although I do note that these values are apparent pKa values for Carbonic acid.

As for the maths, my response to that is to read my sig.

My thread is long overdue for an update.
Here's an updated image, click for bigger.


But yes, we've been off-topic for some time.


----------



## 58417

*Theory vs. reality*



Audionut said:


> Heh ... Although I do note that these values are apparent pKa values for Carbonic acid ... As for the maths, my response to that is to read my sig.


The reason I stated that _"my calculator is not adapted to calculations outside this range, providing accurate results only in the range of 6.33 - 10.33"_ is that I highly doubt that the results for pH outside the above range give you any realistic values (especially below pH 6.33). For example, it's highly improbable to have more than 100 ppm CO2 in our tanks in reality. Even T.Barr once said that he measured only about 180 ppm CO2 by CO2 meter right inside the CO2 reactor, and about 100 ppm at the output (if I remember it correctly). But if you are only after the theory, then my calculator should provide much more precise data. I just wanted to be realistic.


----------



## Positron

@Audionut
*
"Not sure what's going on with my drop checker, it's staying very blue. This cannot be correct, and I've obviously have a problem with the solution I made. Will measure pH drop later tonight."*

I'm interested in the pH drop. If you made the 4 dKH solution properly (approx 72 ppm carbonate hardness), then it should change color. It doesn't matter to the drop checker if the CO2(g) is coming from injected gas or the separation of HCO3-

I remain skeptical it's possible to have that much CO2 even with a low pH, without injection. Although skeptical, I'm very interested in more testing on your part about this considering CO2 is the most important nutrient to plant growth besides from hydrogen (water).


----------



## Audionut

pH drop is 0.75. Probably about time I calibrated the probe. :redface:

On a positive note, my drop checker solution probably was accurate lol.

Reduced surface agitation and netted another 0.15, bringing total pH drop to 0.9 pH.


----------



## 58417

*What about this?*



Audionut said:


> On a positive note, my drop checker solution probably was accurate lol.


I probably figured out where the problem can be hidden.
You say that you add about 22 ppm HCO3 (0.358 mmol/l = 1.0°dKH) into your tank per week. I don't know how much HCO3 do you have in your source water, but according to your journal you measured it as 1.25°dKH (27.5 ppm HCO3 = 0.4475 mmol/l). This information should be verified, because based on this you can estimate the total inorganic carbon (TIC) concentration in your water. I don't know how much CO2 can be in the rain water, but if the water is in equilibrium with air, then its concentration should be rather low (0.5 ppm = 0.01 mmol/l). If the water is acidic or neutral, then the concentration of CO3 is in practice zero (0 mmol/l). So, when you count up all these carbon forms, you get the total inorganic carbon content of 0.815 mmol/l at most. Under pH of 5.36 about 90.75% (0.74 mmol/l = 32 ppm) is made by CO2, and the rest (9.25% = 0.076 mmol/l = 4.6 ppm) is HCO3. I suspect that in reality the TIC will be even lower, thus the real CO2 concentration will be much lower also. The important thing we forgot to take into account is that the actual CO2 concentration can not exceed the initial TIC concentration (as with the CO2 supply by which you actually increase the TIC). To verify your results the best way would be to check the TIC concentration (if you have any way to measure it). In other words, if you add 0.358 mmol/l HCO3 (22 ppm) into your water, then even if all of it would convert to CO2 (under low enough pH), no more than 0.358 mmol/l CO2 (15.75 ppm) can be created.


----------



## tanksalot

I have a 90-gal. tank that I'm CONVINCED has had a CSM+B problem. This tank has been set up for a couple of years. It has a built-in overflow that goes to a wet-dry w/CO2. CO2 is controlled by a pH controller. Lighting is Finnex LED. I had set up an automatic water-change system (3.5 gals./day) and an automatic PPS pro dosing system.
The problem is that the tank looks horrible. Brown slime, looks like diatoms. Very, very poor growth. Bright green new growth that then turns brown-algae covered. Also green slime algae on decorative wood. pH was gradually lowered to 6.0 to try and control the algae. 
My question is the following: Assuming I'm correct with the CSM+B issue, what do I do to resolve the issue? How bad would the buildup be in the soil and the ceramic in the wet/dry? What should I change, and what should I leave alone?


----------



## aclaar877

tanksalot said:


> I have a 90-gal. tank that I'm CONVINCED has had a CSM+B problem. This tank has been set up for a couple of years. It has a built-in overflow that goes to a wet-dry w/CO2. CO2 is controlled by a pH controller. Lighting is Finnex LED. I had set up an automatic water-change system (3.5 gals./day) and an automatic PPS pro dosing system.
> The problem is that the tank looks horrible. Brown slime, looks like diatoms. Very, very poor growth. Bright green new growth that then turns brown-algae covered. Also green slime algae on decorative wood. pH was gradually lowered to 6.0 to try and control the algae.
> My question is the following: Assuming I'm correct with the CSM+B issue, what do I do to resolve the issue? How bad would the buildup be in the soil and the ceramic in the wet/dry? What should I change, and what should I leave alone?


3.5 gallons a day on a 90 gallon plus wet/dry is a pretty small water change (cumulatively speaking), so you very well could have a bad buildup. How much CSM+B and macros were you dosing? I would vacuum the gravel thoroughly, and do large water changes as frequently as you can to reset nutrient levels. Then you can see how plants respond. I did large weekly water changes on my tank with a big vacuum but if you have the time you could do those every day or two. I wouldn't worry about the ceramic myself, but maybe others would know how much ceramic would hold and then leach out as the water concentrations get lower.


----------



## tanksalot

Thanks for the prompt reply!! 
Right now I'm in the process of taking out the Turface substrate and replacing it. One aspect that I recently thought of is the relationship between the trace metals and pH. As the plant growth slowed down and I had algae problems, I kept lowering the pH to solve them. This possibly resulted in more trace elements leaching out, causing poorer plant growth, causing me to lower pH. A vicious circle.
My plan right now is to take all the fish and gravel out, clean the wet-dry, refill the system and lower the pH of the empty system to about 6 or 5.8 w/CO2. This, I'm hoping will take out excess trace elements. 
Then a 100% water change and a fresh start, with new Turface.

I kept having a diatom problem as well, which I suspect is resistant to the high trace levels. Thus, to fix the diatom issue, I'd lower the pH and cause more trace element problems.

I'm leaving on a trip in 9 days and will be gone for over a month. Hope to straighten things out before I leave.

Thanks again for the feedback.


----------



## keymastr

With automatic water change systems you eventually get a buildup of both nutrients/fish waste and minerals. The system automatically replaces evaporation and because the minerals and pollutants do not evaporate they become more concentrated over time. With a planted tank there really is no substitute for large water changes. Do a couple 50 percent changes this week and then do one weekly for a month and see if things improve. 

If the green slime algae is blueish green in color it is a bacterial infection and requires Erythromycin to eliminate. Dissapears in less than 2 days with treatment.


----------



## tanksalot

The water changed removed 3.5 gals./day. The automatic level control in the wet/dry replaced that with fresh.

Before I understood what I was dealing with, I'd do a large (50%) water change and see a diatom bloom. When I stopped the CSM+B dosing (2 days ago), the green slime on my driftwood got very flaky and looked like it was dying. Today it's all apart and I scrubbed the driftwood.

I kept believing it was exclusively a diatom problem until just very recently. I know it didn't make sense since the tank is fairly old, but that's what it looked like.


----------



## tanksalot

I just found a photo of the SAME AQUARIUM from 1 year ago while putting together a travel slide show. It looked MAGNIFICENT!! Bright green plants, no algae and no signs of problems. The ONLY difference was my attempt to dose a PPS pro system during the ensuing year. Same lighting, same water flow, same wet-dry, same media in wet-dry, same gravel. I had not been doing regular water changes back then due to my traveling schedule, although I agree that it would be a good idea. 
I've changed the gravel, washed the ceramic media and cleaned the wet-dry. I'll be doing large water changes for the next few days to clear up anything that leaches out from the media.
The first photo is the tank a year ago; the second is of the tank a few days ago, before I did the cleaning described above.


----------



## keymastr

It looks to me like you have a general lack of nutrients that have made plants suffer and algae can exploit. PPS pro is fine if you know how to adjust properly for each nutrient as each tank will have different needs for each. Problems can occur when one or more of these nutrients are lacking because the plants will be stunted but the algae will not.

A year ago your plants were living off the stored nutrients in the soil/substrate and what PPS was providing but as they used the reserves PPS was not keeping up with demand. At least that is what it looks like to me. I would figure out your phosphate and nitrate levels along with GH and KH and either adjust accordingly or switch to EI dosing which guarantees enough of each nutrient. It does require large weekly water changes which I gather you are trying to avoid.

Adding co2 will only help if you have an abundance of nutrients and will hurt if you are lacking any because the plants will have an even larger demand for nutrients. 

Leave the PH where your tap water is, nothing good comes from messing with PH.

Also, your general hardness will definitely be much higher in the tank than your tap water because the minerals do not evaporate. Therefore unless you are replacing the evaporation with distilled or RO water you are slowly adding more minerals to the tank through your top offs. Maybe not much at a time but significant over the course of a year. Lack of large regular water changes to reset this adds to the problem.


----------



## bsantucci

So I didn't dose any trace for almost 3 weeks and followed with 3 water changes this week of about 80 percent. I've resumed dosing now but am using flourish at .1 fe and also an additional .1 dpta fe. My AR mini definitely began growing better with less deformed and stunted leaves. A few remain still. My Ludwigia Cuba isn't looking so hot though with leaves curling down and one plant stunted. Lobelia cardinalis mini is growing but has cupped leaves and is not throwing side shoots which it used to a lot. Mermaid weed looks better with less downward leaves. Ludwigia glandulosa looks a little better but still many deformed leaves. It's been dropping lower leaves too. 

From the pics below can you all tell if this looks like deficiency or toxicity still? 


















































Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## tanksalot

I would LOVE to have plants that look like yours. Just curious, why did you restart dosing Fe; And, what did you notice that informed you that you were over-dosing?


----------



## bsantucci

tanksalot said:


> I would LOVE to have plants that look like yours. Just curious, why did you restart dosing Fe; And, what did you notice that informed you that you were over-dosing?


Well the plants need iron. Just not in the levels from EI is what I think. I had my water tested and my micros were through the roof. I had random plants with stunted tips and or twisted leaves. AR mini was the worst. Rotala colorata would grow terribly. They are all bouncing back somewhat now. Flourish is much lower in traces so I don't think i can get a toxicity from that. I'm only dosing another .1 of iron so not too much more. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## max88

bsantucci said:


> ..... I had my water tested and my micros were through the roof......


 What are the micros' numbers, if you don't mind? I've been trying to figure out that's toxic, or not, (with specific parameters). Actually everyone on this thread...


----------



## bsantucci

max88 said:


> What are the micros' numbers, if you don't mind? I've been trying to figure out that's toxic, or not, (with specific parameters). Actually everyone on this thread...


Here are the results of my water test. Water was taken from the tank about mid week into dosing. Micros were affecting macro uptake. 










Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han

Calcium is quite low as well compared to magnesium...


----------



## bsantucci

Yo-han said:


> Calcium is quite low as well compared to magnesium...


Yeah this was a few months ago. I was dosing extra mg kinda blind fishing for a fix. 

I dose 1 tbsp of gh booster now with water changes to make sure I have enough and the right ratios. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Audionut

Ca/Mg isn't the only issue IMO. The difference is between your concentrations and the maximum concentrations following strict full EI.


----------



## bsantucci

Audionut said:


> Ca/Mg isn't the only issue IMO. The difference is between your concentrations and the maximum concentrations following strict full EI.


Thanks for that chart. Pretty informative to see side by side. 

I suspect I'm in much better shape now but I'm still getting random stunting. Few problems before were I never took account water displacement from substrate and rocks. So I was dosing for a 48g volume but only have about 38g. I dose lower now. 

Also turns out my tap has a fair amount of copper leeching from the pipes. So dosing csm+b was putting me into toxic levels. I think my issue was volume of dose plus toxicity. 

I since switched to flourish + additional iron. Going to stick with that for a while to see how things go. Figure 3 weeks should be enough to know if it is working. 

I'm actually doing a complete tear down and rescape today so once completed I'll leave things alone for while to take root. Once I have all plants out too I'm going to suck as much mulm from the substrate as I can. Did a full filter cleaning yesterday too so I'm starting with a clean slate as much as possible. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## philipraposo1982

I haven't read this thread entirely but I will of there still isn't some form of consensus.

What i would like to know is if there is a safe level of csm+b that we can dose and avoid toxicity. Or is it not worth even dosing this stuff anymore based on the findings and to resort to another means of micro fertilization?

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Short of spending $900 to get one of these gizmos, is there a lab that can do these tests for me? 



bsantucci said:


> Here are the results of my water test. Water was taken from the tank about mid week into dosing. Micros were affecting macro uptake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## max88

Thanks for the nutrient info.


bsantucci said:


> I'm actually doing a complete tear down and rescape today so once completed I'll leave things alone for while to take root. Once I have all plants out too I'm going to suck as much mulm from the substrate as I can. Did a full filter cleaning yesterday too so I'm starting with a clean slate as much as possible.


If bio load is low, a step further would be removing gravel from tank for rinsing. That will be as clean as a slate can get. I did that, but keeping 90% filter media, and still got a mini cycle with less than 0.25ppm ammonia.


----------



## kevmo911

philipraposo1982 said:


> I haven't read this thread entirely but I will of there still isn't some form of consensus.
> 
> What i would like to know is if there is a safe level of csm+b that we can dose and avoid toxicity. Or is it not worth even dosing this stuff anymore based on the findings and to resort to another means of micro fertilization?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


You really need to read through the whole thread. There's definitely not a consensus on much of anything.

The people who reported issues, for the most part, had very soft water. There may have been other parameters in common. That's not clear, either, especially since the relationships between certain elements under certain conditions is still being explored (here, in this thread).

And while it's becoming increasingly accepted that given certain conditions, you may experience toxicity from micros, there's no consensus regarding *which* micros may be the issue. I subscribe to this thread, reading every post as it comes, and off the top of my head, I've seen claims of Zn, Mo, B, Cu, Mn, and Fe as possible culprits. Just from this thread, mind you.

Some people seem to have switched back to Flourish at minimal doses, with some increased Fe in one of several forms. You can read through and find those dosing regimes.

But, seriously, read through the thread.


----------



## Audionut

Turns out my Fe deficiency was actually S deficiency. Large doses of Fe (0.2+ ppm/day) seemed to be making an improvement. But as soon as this dose was reduced, the symptoms reappeared.

The stem plants would be white in the morning, and gain color throughout the day.

Based on @Marcel G comments, on the 27th December I reduced Fe dosing to +/- 0.1 ppm per day. On the 29th of December I reduced Fe dosing further to +/- 0.05 ppm per day.

On the 31st December the symptoms (loss of chlorophyll) were very pronounced. The new growth on the stem plants was very white. I dosed 0.1 ppm Fe, and sometime after that figured I was probably light on S, since my only S source was MgSO4, and I had been reducing Mg dosing (and hence S) dosing. 

I increased S dosing significantly by adding a little K2SO4 to my solution mix, and switching the predominant N source from urea to (NH4)2SO4. To further make sure it wasn't an Fe issue, on the 1st of January I reduced my trace mix even further, to try and reach something close to flourish comprehensive, using Cu as a proxy.

My weekly trace dosing being.



Code:


Fe		0.012
Mn		0.00592
B		0.00112
Zn		0.00096
Cu		0.00048
Mo		0.00032

That's the concentration of trace elements dosed in a week, being dosed on the hour 24 times per day. So each dose at the hour is very lean.

Since my CO2 appears to be lean, I also increased H+ sources by adding a significant amount of Citric acid (C6H8O7) to my PO4 solution mix, and a small amount in the new trace solution.

Here is an image from last night (2nd January). Click for bigger.



I've successfully stopped browning of the old leaves on the stem plants. I'm pretty sure it was a precipitation issue rather then a toxicity issue. The Citric acid will be further helping there. In either case, I've been dosing very lean on trace elements for some time now, so clearly, my tank doesn't seem to need anything even close to full EI with CSM+B. Heck, the concentrations are significantly less then EI weekly dosing.

My photoperiod is 12 hours and 20 minutes, and I've recently added two 2ft T8's. My CO2 appears to be less then 30ppm, but I need to wait until pH calibration solution arrives (hopefully tomorrow) before commentating further. In either case, I don't think I need massive amounts of CO2 because my lighting is still probably only around the medium mark, and algae isn't an issue because I have very good balance. By that I mean, I may only have 15ppm of CO2, but it is very consistent, the concentration doesn't bounce up and down during the day, and from day to day.

I'll try and enjoy the growth for a while, and let things settle, then look at increasing trace dosing to see affect on growth, and I guess to reach toxicity symptoms (to put a number on things for my water). The only remaining issue I have now is the twisting/curling of leaves. Pretty sure that's Ca/Mg/K, but that's something for another thread.

edit: 24 hours since the last image. Pretty happy with growth now.


----------



## bsantucci

Saxa Tilly said:


> Short of spending $900 to get one of these gizmos, is there a lab that can do these tests for me?


This was done by a member here. I know my area has water testing companies. I'd check locally. No idea what they charge though. 


max88 said:


> Thanks for the nutrient info.
> 
> If bio load is low, a step further would be removing gravel from tank for rinsing. That will be as clean as a slate can get. I did that, but keeping 90% filter media, and still got a mini cycle with less than 0.25ppm ammonia.


Too many fish I'd had to remove unfortunately. I don't think what is in the substrate is an issue. I cleaned some mulm with my rescape but removed a lot of root tab pellets. Still have some rearranging to do and star repens to plant in the open space. Below is the tank as it stands last night. Once I move things today I'll leave it be for a month with my new dosing. 


















Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Christophe

I’m eight weeks in on a successful reduction of micro / iron dosing.

Original post here

Later summary here,  and here.

I had started to see nitrate deficiency symptoms a few weeks ago — stauro and AR were showing deteriorating lower leaves, ultimately shedding a lot of them. This came after an initial greening up and growth spurt. Actual deficiency of macros was definitely not the problem.

Since I was six weeks into a severe cutback in iron & micros, I tried doubling Flourish Comprehensive from a weekly total of 0.15ppm iron to 0.32ppm, with only very little Fe-DPTA added, an additional 0.06ppm Fe per week. It worked nicely. Everything is now greener (or redder, for the AR) than it was on just the recommended Flourish dose, and leaves are being retained well and healthy.

I'm currently dosing a 3:1 blend of Flourish Comprehensive and Flourish Trace with just that little extra Fe-DPTA for longevity. I'm dosing daily, as the Fe in Flourish Comp is from gluconate and my water is a bit harder/higher pH.

I suspect it was one of the lesser micros in Flourish that had become deficient. Growth of all plant species is continuing well at this point. Of all my plants, only Fissidens moss in high light areas still has any algae growing on it — I suspect I’ll be able to wipe that out by giving it a few ‘haircuts’ over the next few weeks. Everything else is growing well and clean.

The only odd thing I have is a small strip of cyanobacteria appearing on the substrate up against the glass in one place. I maintain NO3 in the range of 20-40ppm, PO4 3-5ppm, CO2 30ppm by lights on, topping out at no less than 50ppm. 5-6x turnover through the filter with strong surface ripple. 55% water change weekly. Unsure where the cyanobacteria came from, but it started popping up about three weeks into the micro reduction. I spot treat it with H2O2, that wipes it out for a week or two, but it comes back, only in that one spot.

I’m unsure exactly what my initial toxicity problem specifically was. My supply of CSM+B was especially clumpy and separated, with white clods of who-knows-what. My house plumbing is vintage 1949 copper sweat pipe, maybe that contributes to my micro load. I think the only way to really get a handle on what happened is to have my water tested in detail, might be worth the money.


----------



## fablau

Good to know about your improvement and progress Chrisophe. You said you are dosing Flourish Comprehensive daily. Are you also dosing Trace daily? And when do you dose macros? Thanks.


----------



## Christophe

fablau said:


> Good to know about your improvement and progress Chrisophe. You said you are dosing Flourish Comprehensive daily. Are you also dosing Trace daily? And when do you dose macros? Thanks.


I blended them together, three parts Comp and one part Trace, and stirred in about a gram of FeDPTA. Here's the resultant concentrations:



Code:


	Fl Trace	Fl Comp	    My blend
B	0.002800%	0.0090%	    0.007450%
Co	0.000030%	0.0004%	    0.000308%
Cu	0.003200%	0.0001%	    0.000875%
Fe	0.000000%	0.3200%	    0.282570%
Mg	0.000000%	0.1100%	    0.082500%
Mn	0.008500%	0.0118%	    0.010975%
Mo	0.000300%	0.0009%	    0.000750%
Zn	0.016900%	0.0007%	    0.004750%
Rb	0.000008%	0.0000%	    0.000002%
Ni	0.000003%	0.0000%	    0.000001%
V	0.000002%	0.0000%	    0.000001%

I dose micros daily in the evening. I dose macros 3x per week, early in the morning.


----------



## Audionut

Audionut said:


> My weekly trace dosing being.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fe        0.012
> Mn        0.00592
> B        0.00112
> Zn        0.00096
> Cu        0.00048
> Mo        0.00032


I was seeing signs of loss of chlorophyll yesterday. Gave it a dose of 0.1 ppm Fe which seems to have helped. Since I'm running light on traces, figured it was a good time to give them a boost also. 



Code:


Fe    0.2
Mn    0.01184
B     0.00224
Zn    0.00192
Cu    0.00096
Mo    0.00064


----------



## fablau

Christophe said:


> I blended them together, three parts Comp and one part Trace, and stirred in about a gram of FeDPTA. Here's the resultant concentrations:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fl TraceFl Comp    My blend
> B0.002800%0.0090%    0.007450%
> Co0.000030%0.0004%    0.000308%
> Cu0.003200%0.0001%    0.000875%
> Fe0.000000%0.3200%    0.282570%
> Mg0.000000%0.1100%    0.082500%
> Mn0.008500%0.0118%    0.010975%
> Mo0.000300%0.0009%    0.000750%
> Zn0.016900%0.0007%    0.004750%
> Rb0.000008%0.0000%    0.000002%
> Ni0.000003%0.0000%    0.000001%
> V0.000002%0.0000%    0.000001%
> 
> I dose micros daily in the evening. I dose macros 3x per week, early in the morning.



Thank you for the info Christophe! So, basically, you are dosing about 5ml of comprehensive daily? Is that correct? And sorry to ask you, maybe you already posted it somewhere, but how much macros do you dose a week? And d you perform weekly water changes?

Thank you very much.


----------



## Christophe

fablau said:


> Thank you for the info Christophe! So, basically, you are dosing about 5ml of comprehensive daily? Is that correct? And sorry to ask you, maybe you already posted it somewhere, but how much macros do you dose a week? And d you perform weekly water changes?
> 
> Thank you very much.


Yes, the micro/iron blend at 5-6ml/dose, daily. Macros are 3 times a week per the basic EI recommendations.


Code:


	Dose	Weekly
NO3	7.46	22.39
PO4	1.52	4.57
K+	5.33	16.00

Water changes are done faithfully, _at least_ weekly, about 55% of system volume.


----------



## Audionut

I got bored.



Code:


		TNC complete			Flourish Comprehensive		Flourish Trace		Easy Life ProFito		CSM+B		Amgrow		APF-UK Trace	Millers MicroPlex	Rexolin APN
Fe		0.24		0.15		0.128		0.15					0.24		0.15		0.15		0.15		0.15		0.15			0.15
Mn		0.054		0.03375		0.00472		0.0055		0.010625		0.04		0.025		0.04295		0.074		0.0333		0.15			0.06
B		0.03		0.01875		0.0036		0.0042		0.0035			0.008		0.005		0.01837		0.014		0.0192		0.01875			0.0275
Zn		0.03		0.01875		0.00028		0.0003		0.021125		0.002		0.00125		0.00849		0.012		0.0212		0.0525			0.0325
Cu		0.006		0.00375		0.00004		0.000046	0.004			0.0002		0.00012		0.00206		0.006		0.0042		0.05625			0.00625
Mo		0.003		0.00187		0.00036		0.00042		0.000375		0.002		0.00125		0.00114		0.004		0.0027		0.00375			0.00625

For the first four trace mixes, I used the manufacturers weekly dose recommendation. Those mixes with dual results is where I scaled the results to 0.15 ppm Fe.

For the dry powders, I scaled all to 0.15 ppm Fe.

For the below, I did a simple average by removing the highest and lowest outliers, then adding the remaining results and dividing by the number of results. I used the 0.15 ppm Fe scaled results for the wet doses.



Code:


Fe		0.15
Mn		0.0399
B 		0.0140
Zn		0.0164
Cu		0.0037
Mo		0.0021

edit: If the manufacturer stated once or twice a week or whatever, I used the maximum.


----------



## happi

can we get some update from those who were testing? i will share my results later on tonight.


----------



## aclaar877

happi said:


> can we get some update from those who were testing? i will share my results later on tonight.


I wouldn't say I'm "testing," since I am not really measuring anything. I wrote the original post on this thread after frying plants with lots of O+ and CSM+B. At that time water changes and reduced dosing helped the swordplant recover but I still had AR and L Glandulosa which would barely grow. They had O+ tabs under them, moderate light and CO2 mist blowing right on them. I lost all the Glandulosa. When this thread got more activity after being dormant for a while, I did multiple water changes (all > 50%), removed some O+ and didn't dose CSM+B for a month. Plant leaves smoothed out and got bigger. I even had several stems of AR which I was able to sell. Since then, I thought I saw some vallisneria leaves looking pale, so I resumed iron/trace dosing, 0.1 ppm iron every other day with half that from CSM+B. Some new AR shoots have curled and stunted again while others are fine, but all are growing pretty slow. 

I also noticed vals not growing tall or spreading like they were a year ago, when I dosed traces more liberally. Lately they just sit there and don't do anything. Bacopa, Java Fern and other Ludwigias grow like crazy though.

I've been following other experienced people on Barr Report who still struggle with BBA, BGA and cladophora. I don't have any of these - not a trace, but I get GDA on plant leaves and driftwood fairly easily. Could this fact point to anything that could be off in my tank?

I'll be moving in March, and doing a complete teardown of the tank. Looking forward to starting over from scratch. If I have decent AR growing at the time I tear down, I can do some large doses of CSM+B to try to quickly induce the stunting again.


----------



## Yo-han

Not controlled experiment here either. But I reduced trace elements (Csm+B) till 0,02 ppm iron daily and did 2 x 70% WC . After two weeks my Pogostemon stellatus and Bolbitis heudelotti new leaves started to become yellow and small. So I increased to 0,02 ppm iron 2 times a day. Bolbitis did better. Pogostemon still problems. BBA (small 1mm form) on my rocks and Anubias stopped growing. I increased to 3x 0,02 ppm iron and now everything is growing great and Anubias and rocks have never looked better!


----------



## happi

Yo-han said:


> Not controlled experiment here either. But I reduced trace elements (Csm+B) till 0,02 ppm iron daily and did 2 x 70% WC . After two weeks my Pogostemon stellatus and Bolbitis heudelotti new leaves started to become yellow and small. So I increased to 0,02 ppm iron 2 times a day. Bolbitis did better. Pogostemon still problems. BBA (small 1mm form) on my rocks and Anubias stopped growing. I increased to 3x 0,02 ppm iron and now everything is growing great and Anubias and rocks have never looked better!


so 0.06 ppm fe daily from csm+b?


----------



## Yo-han

Yes, works really well for last few weeks. Perhaps I can lower it a bit because of lag time. But this works for now. Before I used 0,2 ppm daily


----------



## happi

Yo-han said:


> Yes, works really well for last few weeks. Perhaps I can lower it a bit because of lag time. But this works for now. Before I used 0,2 ppm daily


yo -han i was wondering if this will work for a while before you run into toxicity again? i was also wondering maybe you did not see positive results when you were dosing 0.02 due to lack of one or few nutrients which were required in higher amount and you saw positive results once you increased the dose, even though you did not need to increase some of the nutrients which could be any of them. 

not sure how accurate this calc is, but this is what it shows:

*Before*
Element	ppm/degree
Fe	0.02
Mn	0.0057
Cu	0.0003
Mg	0.0043
Zn	0.0011
Mo	0.0002
B	0.0025
dGH	0.001

*After*
Element	ppm/degree
Fe	0.06
Mn	0.0172
Cu	0.0008
Mg	0.0129
Zn	0.0034
Mo	0.0005
B	0.0074
dGH	0.0029

positive results, could it be from increased B and Mn?? i have gone very low with Zn and noticed plant did quite well even at very low Zn levels. i wonder what kind of issue you had before you increased the dose, my best guess would be twisted leaves and pale colors. looking forward to hear from you.


----------



## Audionut

The precipitation type issues I described back when appears to be B. Some further details are in my thread, http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8856489-post12.html

If we take what I call wet ferts (those designed for aquarium use), being TNC complete, Flourish Comprehensive, Flourish Trace, Easy Life ProFito, Tropica Specialized Fertilizer and VIMI Micro, find the concentrations of the elements for each of these nutrients based on manufacturer recommended dosing, take the highest value and the lowest value for each element (Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu, Mo) and discard it, and then average the remaining values for each element, we arrive at.



Code:


Fe	0.1171	
Mn	0.0288	
B	0.0045	
Zn	0.0047	
Cu	0.0027	
Mo	0.0012

Taking CSM+B and using Fe as the proxy (0.1171 ppm), we arrive at.



Code:


Fe	0.1171	
Mn	0.0335
B	0.0143	
Zn	0.0066
Cu	0.0016	
Mo	0.0009

And a pretty graph with CSM+B in red.


----------



## happi

as i promised to post some update tonight, well here they are:

1. one thing i observed is whenever i dosed traces and Fe on day 1 after water change, plant would still look pale and even on 2nd day with repeated dose, still pale, sometime slightly better than day 1.

2. if i skip the dose of Fe/Trace on day 3, plant looked greener and red plant looked red for day 3 and 4. am planning on skipping few more days till plant loose there colors.


this is the only little update i had for now, i hope to test more and report back


----------



## Christophe

Here’s my update — It’s not an ‘experiment’ any more, it’s just how I’m going to run my tank.

Original post here

Later summary  here and  here

My tank continues quite well on a blended solution of Flourish Comprehensive & Flourish Trace (Seachem intends them to be used together, Trace boosts copper & zinc particularly), with a little additional iron from Fe-DPTA. I add the Fe-DPTA because my water is moderately hard, 8 dGH, 5.5 dKH, pH 7.8 out of the tap. I’m blending 170ml Comprehensive with 80ml Trace, and adding 1 gram of 11% Fe-DPTA. This yields the following concentrations when dosed 6ml per day:


Code:


	Dose ppm	Weekly ppm
B	0.0014        	0.0096
Co	0.0001        	0.0004
Cu	0.0002        	0.0015
Fe	0.0510        	0.3571
Mg	0.0146        	0.1021
Mn	0.0021        	0.0147
Mo	0.0001        	0.0010
Zn	0.0011        	0.0080
Rb	0.0000005	0.000003
Ni	0.0000002	0.000001
V	0.0000001	0.000001

Because most of my iron comes from Flourish Comprehensive (which uses ferrous gluconate) I dose micros daily (after lights on, or in the evening during the work week) now instead of every other day. Macros I dose 3x per week, early in the morning.

Plants are all free of BBA. My invertebrates remain far more active than they were with higher levels of micros. Since the reduction I've lost no fish out of 46, and I've only found two dead shrimp in that time period -- it used to be a three times a week occurrence. Meanwhile the shrimp have been multiplying rapidly, and it's easy to spot shrimp in all stages of development. Now that I have a surviving cleanup crew, algae is reducing everywhere.

Pics from about 10 days ago -- grown in better now, and I've added more plants in the last week:



















I have changed nothing else in any other aspects of managing the tank. Not the dosing of macros. Not the CO2 level or timing. I have not changed my lighting. I have not changed my water change, maintenance, or cleaning routines at all. The only thing I’ve changed is about a 75% reduction in iron, and about 85% reduction of most of the other micro fertilizers.

I'll look into reductions of other things (CO2, macros) in the coming weeks. I'm pretty convinced now that less is more.


----------



## fablau

Very cool Christophe, very nice tank. Could you please confirm that you are still dosing 7.5ppm Kno3 and 1.5ppm Po4 3x a week with weekly 50% water change? Also: is your substrate Aquasoil? Thanks!


----------



## Christophe

fablau said:


> Very cool Christophe, very nice tank. Could you please confirm that you are still dosing 7.5ppm Kno3 and 1.5ppm Po4 3x a week with weekly 50% water change? Also: is your substrate Aquasoil? Thanks!


Yes, yes, and yes. The Aquasoil is over a year old now.


----------



## fablau

Christophe said:


> Yes, yes, and yes. The Aquasoil is over a year old now.


Thank you Cristophe for your reported info. I am glad to know you have reached a good point by using just the Flourish line of traces. And I am probably going to try as well even though my tank is more planted than yours (probably 40% more?)

In my case, after having expressed my extreme good result after 10 days with the de-toxon this posting:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...csm-b-toxicity-experiment-27.html#post8634993

Unfortunately that didn't last long... after 20 days the situation deteriorated to the point that I begun getting even more BBA as well as GDA on my front glass, very similar to what Pikez reported on the barrreport:

Going Dutch with Aquasoil - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report


Then, I resumed CSM+B dosing at lower doses, targeting 0.1ppm Fe via CSM every 2 days, but no avail! Then I tried to increase that even more, but no improvements. After so many weeks I am still at lost, BBA is still rampant, plants don't grow well, and I have no idea what to do if not waiting until the tank stabilizes in some way, otherwise I will start over again and think of a different approach.

What I have noticed is that some plants enjoyed the detox and are still enjoying the lower traces environment (i.e. Ludwigia Puerensis and Lobelia Cardinalis) but all other plants have taken a big hit and now I need to find a way to recover from that.

Anyone else had similar issues with the de-tox method?


----------



## bcarl_10gal

I wish I had an update to share, unfortunately I went out of town for 2 weeks in December and was doing tank maintenance before leaving and I forgot to switch the timer back off. My light was on for 2 weeks straight and pretty much fried all of the plants. I will say my small low light shrimp tank has been doing great with .05 CSM+B and .05 of Iron dosed two times a week. I can finally grow s.repens again without melting.... 

Did anyone have positive results with flourish trace + DPTA?


----------



## burr740

bcarl_10gal said:


> I wish I had an update to share, unfortunately I went out of town for 2 weeks in December and was doing tank maintenance before leaving and I forgot to switch the timer back off. My light was on for 2 weeks straight and pretty much fried all of the plants. I will say my small low light shrimp tank has been doing great with .05 CSM+B and .05 of Iron dosed two times a week. I can finally grow s.repens again without melting....
> 
> Did anyone have positive results with flourish trace + DPTA?


Holy crap, That's terrible

Ive been using Comp on my main tank for a couple of months. Continue to use csmb on a couple grow out tanks. Not much difference that I can tell.

My problems are not extreme, but there seems to be a fine line between too much and not enough. Finding the sweet spot is proving to be a challenge.

I have a strong suspicion Fe or Mn in the tap may be the issue. Water report shows "< .5 ppm" for each one, which could literally mean anything. User @PortalMasterRy is currently testing my waters.

Last couple post in my journal talks about it some, got a few pictures, etc if you want to check it out.

Here's the last page - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/592313-75-gallon-journey-16.html


----------



## The Coffee

It's interesting the problem are having with O+ tabs when combined with CSM+B. I've used both for a long time now and haven't had any problems. This thread has convinced me to dose a bit less CSM+B however, just to be safe.

I get the feeling that maybe some people are using O+ tabs with an EI "add way more than the plants need" mentality. 
They really are not meant to be used like this. Only add AS MUCH as you need for certain heavy root feeders, no more. It's not the same as adding ferts to the water column because there's no easy fix to prevent accumulation. And release continues for many months.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> My problems are not extreme, but there seems to be a fine line between too much and not enough. Finding the sweet spot is proving to be a challenge.



I think you are right. I used to dose the crazy amount of CSM+B of 0.4ppm per dose, with WC just every 2 weeks! Plants used to grow, some very well, some less, other (a few) just stuck (Java Moss, AR) and BBA always around... Then I stopped CSM and tried the detox method, and it worked great for the first 10-14 days: all plants "woke up" and begun to grow better, BBA disappeared in a matter of days! Then, after 10 days, seeing some bad signs around such as BBA coming back, even stronger than before, I resumed dosing of CSM at just 0.1ppm per dose, but the situation begun getting even worse: some plants got completely stuck, other melted, and BBA got back stronger than ever... Then, I thought 0.1ppm was too low... The. I increased CSM to 0.2ppm a dose and I am still doing it, despite everything is still stuck and I got GDA and even more BBA! So? What the heck should I do? I can't believe I need more CSM of that, but I am afraid to dose less seeing previous outcome! What would you suggest doing?


----------



## bsantucci

fablau said:


> I think you are right. I used to dose the crazy amount of CSM+B of 0.4ppm per dose, with WC just every 2 weeks! Plants used to grow, some very well, some less, other (a few) just stuck (Java Moss, AR) and BBA always around... Then I stopped CSM and tried the detox method, and it worked great for the first 10-14 days: all plants "woke up" and begun to grow better, BBA disappeared in a matter of days! Then, after 10 days, seeing some bad signs around such as BBA coming back, even stronger than before, I resumed dosing of CSM at just 0.1ppm per dose, but the situation begun getting even worse: some plants got completely stuck, other melted, and BBA got back stronger than ever... Then, I thought 0.1ppm was too low... The. I increased CSM to 0.2ppm a dose and I am still doing it, despite everything is still stuck and I got GDA and even more BBA! So? What the heck should I do? I can't believe I need more CSM of that, but I am afraid to dose less seeing previous outcome! What would you suggest doing?


Have you tested other levels since the detox and subsequent dosing? Maybe the plants waking up have them taking in more of other macros and you don't have enough? Just AJ idea. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

The Coffee said:


> It's interesting the problem are having with O+ tabs when combined with CSM+B. I've used both for a long time now and haven't had any problems. This thread has convinced me to dose a bit less CSM+B however, just to be safe.
> 
> I get the feeling that maybe some people are using O+ tabs with an EI "add way more than the plants need" mentality.
> They really are not meant to be used like this. Only add AS MUCH as you need for certain heavy root feeders, no more. It's not the same as adding ferts to the water column because there's no easy fix to prevent accumulation. And release continues for many months.


Sound hypothesis, and I used to think that was my problem. In the beginning I used a hefty dose of O+. That was two years ago. Since then Ive barely used any, only individual balls underneath certain plants.

It is my opinion now that O+ has very little to do with anything, at least in my case.



fablau said:


> I think you are right. I used to dose the crazy amount of CSM+B of 0.4ppm per dose, with WC just every 2 weeks! Plants used to grow, some very well, some less, other (a few) just stuck (Java Moss, AR) and BBA always around... Then I stopped CSM and tried the detox method, and it worked great for the first 10-14 days: all plants "woke up" and begun to grow better, BBA disappeared in a matter of days! Then, after 10 days, seeing some bad signs around such as BBA coming back, even stronger than before, I resumed dosing of CSM at just 0.1ppm per dose, but the situation begun getting even worse: some plants got completely stuck, other melted, and BBA got back stronger than ever... Then, I thought 0.1ppm was too low... The. I increased CSM to 0.2ppm a dose and I am still doing it, despite everything is still stuck and I got GDA and even more BBA! So? What the heck should I do? I can't believe I need more CSM of that, but I am afraid to dose less seeing previous outcome! What would you suggest doing?


Im just not sure what to tell you tbh

What Ive done over the past year or so is back to back 80% WCs, wait a few days, start back slow. Rinse and repeat if things start looking bad again.

But Ive never had big algae problems, only plant problems with certain species.

I know you only change water every 2 weeks if I remember correctly. Frequent water changes is the best defense against algae, all types, regardless of what else is going on. Algae doesnt like water changes.


----------



## Audionut

@fablau

I would reduce light. Photoperiod and intensity if you have the capability. Knocking the photoperiod back to around 6-7 hours, and reduce intensity to around 75%. This will reduce the amount of energy being dumped into the tank significantly, and will also reduce uptake significantly. Make the photoperiod in the middle of you wanted photoperiod. So if your currently doing lights on 12pm to 12am period, make it 3pm to 9pm.

This will virtually eliminate any problems associated with excess uptake (toxicity), due to the demands of uptake being significantly reduced. Any deficiencies will also be significantly reduced since there is less demand for nutrients (need less stuff in the water).

Check flow. Diana made a good point of using a little bit of wooden rod or something with some pieces of string tied at various lengths. Put this in the water and you can see the flow at various depths of the tank in one go.

If you want to do some scaping, do it now. The idea is going to be not to touch anything for some time. Tidy things up, remove old dead growth and growth infested with algae. If you can trim the tops, replant those and remove the old growth completely then better.

Water changes. At least 100% within 4 or 5 days. Two * 50% or ten * 10% or whatever best suits you. This will reduce the concentration of all the nutrients which will help when light begins ramping up again. Don't dose anything during this period. Remove as much algae as possible before doing water changes.

If CO2 injection is greater then a 1.0 pH drop, this is probably a good time to reduce the CO2 to a 1.0 pH drop. Otherwise leave it alone. Don't bother reducing the time that CO2 is injected. If the fish matter that much to you that you consider reducing the CO2 hours, better just to reduce the concentration instead. Make sure you have good surface agitation. Life will survive fine at reduced CO2 concentrations, but will not with reduced O2 concentrations. Sacrifice CO2 concentration before sacrificing O2.

The next day after the water changes have finished, then I would start dosing some stuff again.
*Daily doses.*


Code:


NO3	1 ppm
PO4	0.2 ppm
K	From KNO3 and KH2PO4
Fe	0.01 ppm from CSM+B

The further apart you can dose PO4 and Fe the better. But given the low dosage amounts it's not likely to matter that much. 50% water change on day 7 with nutrient dosing after water change. If you use tap water, check the water report. You're looking for the S (SO4) concentration. It should be at least 0.3 ppm S (0.9 ppm SO4). Otherwise target a daily dose of 1 ppm SO4 with a 50:50 combination of CaSO4 and MgSO4.

If bio-load is high, consider skipping NO3 dosing altogether during this time. In this case, target 0.5 ppm from K2SO4.

Given the low energy input into the tank, this is the time to be triple checking manual procedures. Check that flow. Check CO2. Check all procedures regarding nutrient dosing. The maths for the concentrations, the amounts being dosed. Make sure there are no mistakes being made on your part.

Give this reduced light period at least two weeks, a month would be better. After this time, begin ramping up the light period. 10mins per day max. 5mins early and 5 mins later. So if your doing 3pm to 9pm, make it 2:55pm to 9:05 pm. Give that a rest every now and then. Say once a week don't adjust light period for a day or two. Or just skip a day every now and then. Look to increase light period to 12 hours. Once you've hit 12 hours, slowly ramp intensity if it was reduced, and if you desire.

During the increase in light period is where you brush up on your deficiency finding skills. Spend the time doing some reading and research. You don't need to become a biologist, just gain some basic understanding on the differences between mobile and immobile nutrients, and how those differences affect plant deficiencies. Have patience and don't jump to conclusions. You're adding daily doses of everything a plant needs, they're not going to perish in the time it takes you to be sure of the changes you're making. Any deficiencies will be classic, not toxic induced or any of that other nonsense that's being perpetrated here lately. This will make it easier to diagnose, but multiple nutrients can give similar deficiency symptoms.

The manual stuff like dosing, increase light period or whatever should only take a few minutes. Spend the rest of the time enjoying the tank. Small algae growth is not the end of the world, it's just life. Don't panic if you see algae, there's likely to be some small increases in algae mass as your tank adjusts to the changes you are making to it. I wouldn't even bother removing small growths of algae. These are growing via excess nutrients and will be helping to remove this excess from the water column. With a little patience, the growth is likely to remain small. If the growth of algae is in excess of want you consider appropriate, then manually clean as needed. It certainly doesn't hurt to give it a clean once a week or so either. Just don't panic and make a bunch of changes, you'll only make things worse.

Always make small changes, _always_. If it looks like you're suffering a deficiency, don't increase the dose of a nutrient by more then 50%. 50% is probably a good starting point for any increase. Remember, you can't _just_ boost N, or _just_ boost K, or _just_ boost P, or _just_ boost Fe, some other nutrient always comes along for the ride. Always consider this too. If you think you're N deficient and start increasing KNO3 dosing, and the symptoms don't disappear, then it's likely not a K deficiency either. Give things a week or so before jumping to conclusions. If the change didn't work, reduce the the thing you increased to the original dose, and try something else.

Resist the urge to trim. Only trim as absolutely necessary. Once you are sure that things are well balanced, growth of plants is good, growth of algae is poor, then consider trimming the plants as desired. But I still recommend only doing trimming in small batches also.

Enjoy the experience. You and the tank will be better for it. If you can't enjoy the experience, and EI doesn't work for you, you might consider a new hobby. :tongue:

This doesn't need to be followed to the letter, but it does rely on a significantly reduced photoperiod. Feel free to ask questions.


----------



## 58417

*What about trying to replace a small part of the substrate?*



fablau said:


> What the heck should I do? I can't believe I need more CSM of that, but I am afraid to dose less seeing previous outcome! What would you suggest doing?


 @*fablau*, what about trying to replace a small part of the substrate? I would try to replace 8x8" of substrate somewhere in the corner, and use some new substrate (ADA or some other soil-based substrate). Then I would plant one or two plants (that you have problems with) into this small area, and at the same time I would replant the same plants (plant tops) somewhere into your recent substrate.

If these plants in the new substrate will grow just fine but the other in the old substrate will suffer, it can indicate some serious problem with your old substrate.
If the plants on both places suffer then it can indicate some problem with your water column.

_PS: Alternatively, you can use some small plastic flower pots with new substrate (instead of replacing part of your old substrate)._

Just an idea.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Fablau already realizes his substrate, Ecocomplete, is toxic. My substrate is also toxic from all of that dosing. Limnophila aromatica in my tank grows with an induced iron deficiency due to the excess of something. Dosing extra Fe does little to alleviate it, and the results are not permanent, lasting less than a day. I'm currently running a experiment using sand, acid-cleaned Floramax (Ecocomplete), and Controsoil. Interestingly, the stem that is rooted in the old Floramax grows the best except for the induced iron deficiency. The others haven't rooted well yet so it relies solely on the water column for nutrients.


----------



## fablau

Wow, thank you so much guys for your in-depth replies! I am overwhelmed by your valuable advice! 

I'll try to answer to anyone in my following postings... thank you!

Bump:


bsantucci said:


> Have you tested other levels since the detox and subsequent dosing? Maybe the plants waking up have them taking in more of other macros and you don't have enough? Just AJ idea.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Thank you for your reply. That's something I also thought since at the same time I reduced CSM I also reduced macros 1/2, but still giving 2.81ppm KNO3, 0.86ppm PO4 and 0.63ppm K. Now I am trying a couple of weeks getting back to double macros and see if that makes any difference. Thanks again.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Im just not sure what to tell you tbh
> 
> What Ive done over the past year or so is back to back 80% WCs, wait a few days, start back slow. Rinse and repeat if things start looking bad again.
> 
> But Ive never had big algae problems, only plant problems with certain species.
> 
> I know you only change water every 2 weeks if I remember correctly. Frequent water changes is the best defense against algae, all types, regardless of what else is going on. Algae doesnt like water changes.


Thank you for your reply burr740, I can certainly try to perform more water changes just for this period of time, but my biggest concern is what the heck to dose?!Thanks again...


----------



## fablau

Audionut said:


> @*fablau*
> 
> I would reduce light. Photoperiod and intensity if you have the capability. Knocking the photoperiod back to around 6-7 hours, and reduce intensity to around 75%. This will reduce the amount of energy being dumped into the tank significantly, and will also reduce uptake significantly. Make the photoperiod in the middle of you wanted photoperiod. So if your currently doing lights on 12pm to 12am period, make it 3pm to 9pm.
> 
> This will virtually eliminate any problems associated with excess uptake (toxicity), due to the demands of uptake being significantly reduced. Any deficiencies will also be significantly reduced since there is less demand for nutrients (need less stuff in the water).
> 
> Check flow. Diana made a good point of using a little bit of wooden rod or something with some pieces of string tied at various lengths. Put this in the water and you can see the flow at various depths of the tank in one go.
> 
> If you want to do some scaping, do it now. The idea is going to be not to touch anything for some time. Tidy things up, remove old dead growth and growth infested with algae. If you can trim the tops, replant those and remove the old growth completely then better.
> 
> Water changes. At least 100% within 4 or 5 days. Two * 50% or ten * 10% or whatever best suits you. This will reduce the concentration of all the nutrients which will help when light begins ramping up again. Don't dose anything during this period. Remove as much algae as possible before doing water changes.
> 
> If CO2 injection is greater then a 1.0 pH drop, this is probably a good time to reduce the CO2 to a 1.0 pH drop. Otherwise leave it alone. Don't bother reducing the time that CO2 is injected. If the fish matter that much to you that you consider reducing the CO2 hours, better just to reduce the concentration instead. Make sure you have good surface agitation. Life will survive fine at reduced CO2 concentrations, but will not with reduced O2 concentrations. Sacrifice CO2 concentration before sacrificing O2.
> 
> The next day after the water changes have finished, then I would start dosing some stuff again.
> *Daily doses.*
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> NO3    1 ppm
> PO4    0.2 ppm
> K    From KNO3 and KH2PO4
> Fe    0.01 ppm from CSM+B
> 
> The further apart you can dose PO4 and Fe the better. But given the low dosage amounts it's not likely to matter that much. 50% water change on day 7 with nutrient dosing after water change. If you use tap water, check the water report. You're looking for the S (SO4) concentration. It should be at least 0.3 ppm S (0.9 ppm SO4). Otherwise target a daily dose of 1 ppm SO4 with a 50:50 combination of CaSO4 and MgSO4.
> 
> If bio-load is high, consider skipping NO3 dosing altogether during this time. In this case, target 0.5 ppm from K2SO4.
> 
> Given the low energy input into the tank, this is the time to be triple checking manual procedures. Check that flow. Check CO2. Check all procedures regarding nutrient dosing. The maths for the concentrations, the amounts being dosed. Make sure there are no mistakes being made on your part.
> 
> Give this reduced light period at least two weeks, a month would be better. After this time, begin ramping up the light period. 10mins per day max. 5mins early and 5 mins later. So if your doing 3pm to 9pm, make it 2:55pm to 9:05 pm. Give that a rest every now and then. Say once a week don't adjust light period for a day or two. Or just skip a day every now and then. Look to increase light period to 12 hours. Once you've hit 12 hours, slowly ramp intensity if it was reduced, and if you desire.
> 
> During the increase in light period is where you brush up on your deficiency finding skills. Spend the time doing some reading and research. You don't need to become a biologist, just gain some basic understanding on the differences between mobile and immobile nutrients, and how those differences affect plant deficiencies. Have patience and don't jump to conclusions. You're adding daily doses of everything a plant needs, they're not going to perish in the time it takes you to be sure of the changes you're making. Any deficiencies will be classic, not toxic induced or any of that other nonsense that's being perpetrated here lately. This will make it easier to diagnose, but multiple nutrients can give similar deficiency symptoms.
> 
> The manual stuff like dosing, increase light period or whatever should only take a few minutes. Spend the rest of the time enjoying the tank. Small algae growth is not the end of the world, it's just life. Don't panic if you see algae, there's likely to be some small increases in algae mass as your tank adjusts to the changes you are making to it. I wouldn't even bother removing small growths of algae. These are growing via excess nutrients and will be helping to remove this excess from the water column. With a little patience, the growth is likely to remain small. If the growth of algae is in excess of want you consider appropriate, then manually clean as needed. It certainly doesn't hurt to give it a clean once a week or so either. Just don't panic and make a bunch of changes, you'll only make things worse.
> 
> Always make small changes, _always_. If it looks like you're suffering a deficiency, don't increase the dose of a nutrient by more then 50%. 50% is probably a good starting point for any increase. Remember, you can't _just_ boost N, or _just_ boost K, or _just_ boost P, or _just_ boost Fe, some other nutrient always comes along for the ride. Always consider this too. If you think you're N deficient and start increasing KNO3 dosing, and the symptoms don't disappear, then it's likely not a K deficiency either. Give things a week or so before jumping to conclusions. If the change didn't work, reduce the the thing you increased to the original dose, and try something else.
> 
> Resist the urge to trim. Only trim as absolutely necessary. Once you are sure that things are well balanced, growth of plants is good, growth of algae is poor, then consider trimming the plants as desired. But I still recommend only doing trimming in small batches also.
> 
> Enjoy the experience. You and the tank will be better for it. If you can't enjoy the experience, and EI doesn't work for you, you might consider a new hobby. :tongue:
> 
> This doesn't need to be followed to the letter, but it does rely on a significantly reduced photoperiod. Feel free to ask questions.


Thank you so much Audionut for your extensive reply and in-depth advice, very appreciated!

I must say that despite I consider myself a pretty experienced planted-tank enthusiast, after 30 years playing with this stuff, but still sometime I can easily panic when I find myself do decide what way to take while not knowing which one is the best!

So... many of your suggestions have been already addressed (flow, light, etc) and what remains is actually dosing and Co2. Certainly I can still reduce light (currently giving me 40-50 PAR at the substrate, 7 hours a day), but what concerns me the most is what to do with dosing. I have also "reset" my tank 4 weeks ago, by completely "flushing" out all water and replacing it with new one. I measured No3 and P and they were zero, so I assumed to have reset it completely. Then I started regular dosing again, but the situation got worse (!!) and then I panicked. Exactly as you said 

Maybe I just need to give it time, but I wanna try to take the steps you have suggested, one-by-one. I am currently just trying to keep macros higher than before to see if that makes any difference, but if after this I see no improvements, I'll try what you are suggesting.

One thing of what you wrote is not clear to me: why would you suggesting to lower Co2? Shouldn't higher Co2 stimulate plants growth better? I am very curious to know more on this. My goal would actually be to lower it a big deal! My PH drop is currently about 1.3. O2 should be ok since I have a wet/dry filter and surface agitation (despite the tank is covered).

Thank you again!

Bump:


Marcel G said:


> @*fablau*, what about trying to replace a small part of the substrate? I would try to replace 8x8" of substrate somewhere in the corner, and use some new substrate (ADA or some other soil-based substrate). Then I would plant one or two plants (that you have problems with) into this small area, and at the same time I would replant the same plants (plant tops) somewhere into your recent substrate.
> 
> If these plants in the new substrate will grow just fine but the other in the old substrate will suffer, it can indicate some serious problem with your old substrate.
> If the plants on both places suffer then it can indicate some problem with your water column.
> 
> _PS: Alternatively, you can use some small plastic flower pots with new substrate (instead of replacing part of your old substrate)._
> 
> Just an idea.


This is a great idea Marcel, and I'll try it with small pots. I am curious to find that out myself.

One question: I have noticed lately some plants are actually "getting out" from the substrate (!!) and I have discussed on this thread on the Barrreport:

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/general-plant-topics/233192-why-some-plants-want-to-get-out-of-substrate

Mostly Microsowrds and Valisnerias. Do you think that could be a sign of issues with the substrate?

Bump:


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Fablau already realizes his substrate, Ecocomplete, is toxic.


Solcielo, are you suggesting that my substrate has become toxic because of accumulated toxicity from the water column dosing?

Thanks.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Fablau,
Weren't you the one who said your terrestrial plants die when planted in old Ecocomplete? Did you get my email about washing the Ecocomplete with acid? Anyway, yes, the high CEC substrate became toxic from the accumulated metals. Instead of using an acid like vinegar, citric acid, or HCl, etc., CO2 can also be used to desorb the metals since carbonic acid is formed. And one way to limit its toxic effects is to keep pH high, so that the metals aren't desorbed as quickly. Otherwise, it's probably best to remove the old EC, dump it in a bucket with acid and hot water (to accelerate chemical reactions). I'd also add a sheet of aluminum foil into the bucket so that the desorbed metals have a new substrate to adsorb onto.


----------



## happi

one thing i noticed is my tank is, that i still have the osmocote full of ferts even after 8 months, i found some after i was moving around the substrate yesterday. its almost impossible to suck them out of aqua soil.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Fablau,
> 
> Weren't you the one who said your terrestrial plants die when planted in old Ecocomplete? Did you get my email about washing the Ecocomplete with acid? Anyway, yes, the high CEC substrate became toxic from the accumulated metals. Instead of using an acid like vinegar, citric acid, or HCl, etc., CO2 can also be used to desorb the metals since carbonic acid is formed. And one way to limit its toxic effects is to keep pH high, so that the metals aren't desorbed as quickly. Otherwise, it's probably best to remove the old EC, dump it in a bucket with acid and hot water (to accelerate chemical reactions). I'd also add a sheet of aluminum foil into the bucket so that the desorbed metals have a new substrate to adsorb onto.



No, really, I have never tried to plant terrestrial plants in Eco Complete... Was someone else?

And I didn't receive your email about washing Eco complete either! Actually I never received a reply to my last email I sent you a couple of months ago. Did I lose your reply? If so, please, send it again. Thanks!

I can try to do what you are suggesting, but I'd need to completely tear down the tank. I am probably going to do it anyway this Summer if I am unable to restore the tank as I like. But please, if you still have that email, send it again, I never received it!


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

fablau said:


> No, really, I have never tried to plant terrestrial plants in Eco Complete... Was someone else?
> 
> And I didn't receive your email about washing Eco complete either! Actually I never received a reply to my last email I sent you a couple of months ago. Did I lose your reply? If so, please, send it again. Thanks!
> 
> I can try to do what you are suggesting, but I'd need to completely tear down the tank. I am probably going to do it anyway this Summer if I am unable to restore the tank as I like. But please, if you still have that email, send it again, I never received it!


Maybe it was someone else who put terrestrial plants in toxic EC and the results were disastrous...

I've replied to all emails but never received a response. Did it get put to the junk mail? I sent two emails in December.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Maybe it was someone else who put terrestrial plants in toxic EC and the results were disastrous...
> 
> 
> 
> I've replied to all emails but never received a response. Did it get put to the junk mail? I sent two emails in December.



I am afraid they got stuck in my spam folder somewhere... I will check on my mail server and let you know. So sorry...


----------



## Audionut

fablau said:


> One thing of what you wrote is not clear to me: why would you suggesting to lower Co2? Shouldn't higher Co2 stimulate plants growth better?


This question had me doing quite some research yesterday. Thanks.

It seems to me that everything supports the energy obtained by light. This seems very clear. Have some solution with whatever nutrient levels you want, with as much CO2 as you want, and it ain't going to grow shi* (photosynthesizing life) without light.

Simply, photosynthesis is the use of light to power the conversion of CO2 and H2O to sugar (C6H12O6) and O2. H2O is in abundance in our aquariums, so we don't need to apply much consideration to that part of the equation. 

But what is an abundant state of CO2? And do the plants need an abundant state of CO2, or do they simply need enough CO2 to support the rate of photosynthesis with a _fixed amount_ of energy from light. If there were absolutely no negative affects to CO2, then we could simply dump massive amounts of CO2 into a solution and call it a day. But, nevermind fish, microbes, bacteria and such, there is some research to suggest that excess CO2 has negative affects on plant life. I have some anecdotal evidence to suggest that high CO2 concentrations had a negative affect on the plants in my tank, but it's just that, anecdotal.

In either case, from a pure photosynthesis efficiency standpoint, some amount of CO2 supports the energy available from light, with concentrations either side having no positive benefit. If I had to guess, I would say that there is some amount of plant cells that photosynthesize, and thus you need some amount of CO2 to supply these plants cells. The interesting point about this guess, is that it implies you don't need some excess concentration of CO2, but rather, some supply rate that meets (or slightly exceeds) the demand.

In a fast flowing river for instance, the CO2 concentration might be what we would otherwise consider low, but nonetheless, the supply rate available to the plants from this fast flow of water provides a sufficient supply of CO2 molecules. So for maximum efficiency, what the plants need is some concentration of CO2 to ensure that each plant cell can strip a CO2 molecule simultaneously, and some supply rate to ensure that this concentration is maintained. 

But anyway, I'd like to think it's a logical and somewhat educated guess, but it's still just a guess.

The thing about CO2 though, is that it's not simply some concentration of CO2 molecules in the solution, but rather it also has a direct effect on the water chemistry. Specifically, the carbonate species.

CO2 + H2O <> H2CO3 <> HCO3- + H+ <> CO3-- + H+

Some of the CO2 molecules that are injected into the solution bond with H2O to form H2CO3. The increase in H2CO3 concentration shifts the balance of the carbonate species and affects pH. If you've been following my discussions regarding pourbaix diagrams, you can see that this affect on pH, affects the species of all of the other ions also, driving some of these species to higher rates of precipitation, and others to a more predominantly soluble state.

Another interesting effect of CO2 injection is that it increases H2CO3 concentration in the water without significantly affecting HCO3 or CO3 concentration. I'm not entirely sure of the effects of this process, but I suspect it's not an entirely positive process.

So.......anyway, to answer your question, yes, increased CO2 will help support the increased growth rate of plants, but even without any negative effects, this is still not probably want you want to be doing at this current point in time. The plants are clearly struggling to grow, and forcing the rate of growth even faster with increased CO2 concentration probably isn't helping the situation.

I would be looking at reducing the rate of growth as significantly as possible (within limits), as this reduces the demands of the plants. Once the factors affecting the current growth of the plants have been addressed, then would be the time to increase energy input into the tank, and hence increase plant growth rate.

While we're on the subject of CO2, the other issue I have with CO2 injection is the process whereby CO2 is injected at some significantly increased rate during photosynthesis, and then stopped during dark hours. 

pH down > pH up > pH down. Or in other words, soluble predominance of chemical species increased > decreased > increased. Active transport in plants is a constant process, and reducing the concentration of soluble species via the reduction of CO2 concentration during the dark hours just doesn't make sense to me. Especially when you consider that the only reason to reduce CO2 concentration during the dark hours is for creature comfort.

Maybe it's just me, but why not simply run CO2 at a reasonable level with regards to creature health, so that this level of CO2 can be maintained 24/7, without all of the issues associated with constantly increasing and decreasing CO2 concentration and pH. I also suspect that most people inject CO2 at a far greater concentration than can be used via photosynthesis, and as such, they gain all of the negative aspects of the issues I have descried, without any net positive gain. More is always better........right!




fablau said:


> So... many of your suggestions have been already addressed (flow, light, etc) and what remains is actually dosing and Co2. Certainly I can still reduce light (currently giving me 40-50 PAR at the substrate, 7 hours a day), but what concerns me the most is what to do with dosing. I have also "reset" my tank 4 weeks ago, by completely "flushing" out all water and replacing it with new one. I measured No3 and P and they were zero, so I assumed to have reset it completely. Then I started regular dosing again, but the situation got worse (!!) and then I panicked. Exactly as you said



Well, I speak from experience in things relating to panicking. :hihi:

Given the above, my suggestion would be to reduce CO2 to around 0.8 pH drop. Completely stop all trace dosing. The good thing about trace elements is that they are almost all immobile within the plant, with an effect on Chlorophyll. In other words, if new growth has sufficient Chlorophyll then it's highly unlikely to be a trace element deficiency. The only mobile trace elements that I am aware of are Molybdenum and Nickel, both of which you are likely to have in reasonable supply even without the dosing of said for quite some time (months).

The dosage of almost any amount of P, especially given reduced light + CO2 is likely to also be sufficient.

Your tap water contains sufficient GH. I assume you've checked Ca++ and Mg++ concentrations? Given the GH you have described, you are likely to have sufficient Mg++ in either case.

This leaves N and K. The good thing about K is that it has a very wide tolerance, and comes prepackaged with N (KNO3). So this really only leaves N. In my experience, N deficiency starts with the oldest leaves first, moving towards the new leaves with increasing deficiency. If the old leaves on stem plants especially are reducing in size, it's very likely N. If your N light, might as well dose it with K (KNO3).

@Marcel G' idea of the plant pot is a great one. With no (or very little) trace dosing, plants doing great in the pot but not in the substrate is almost certainly trace toxicity. I suggest a fast growing stem, since it will show symptoms at a faster rate. Fast growing stems are an excellent method for diagnosing issues before they largely affect other plant species.


----------



## DennisSingh

> While we're on the subject of CO2, the other issue I have with CO2 injection is the process whereby CO2 is injected at some significantly increased rate during photosynthesis, and then stopped during dark hours.
> 
> pH down > pH up > pH down. Or in other words, soluble predominance of chemical species increased > decreased > increased. Active transport in plants is a constant process, and reducing the concentration of soluble species via the reduction of CO2 concentration during the dark hours just doesn't make sense to me. Especially when you consider that the only reason to reduce CO2 concentration during the dark hours is for creature comfort.
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but why not simply run CO2 at a reasonable level with regards to creature health, so that this level of CO2 can be maintained 24/7, without all of the issues associated with constantly increasing and decreasing CO2 concentration and pH. I also suspect that most people inject CO2 at a far greater concentration than can be used via photosynthesis, and as such, they gain all of the negative aspects of the issues I have descried, without any net positive gain. More is always better........right!


I have a question for you if you wanna answer it. Does co2 hinder growth of plants at night due to their need for oxygen for respiration?


----------



## fablau

Thank you Audionut for your extensive explanation, I share your thoughts and I will try what you have suggested in a couple of weeks if I see no improvement. Appreciated!

Ps: Zn is actually an immobile nutrient. The only micro mobile nutrient, in my knowledge is Mo.


----------



## Audionut

fablau said:


> Ps: Zn is actually an immobile nutrient. The only micro mobile nutrient, in my knowledge is Mo.


Oops. That was supposed to be Nickel, not Zinc. Fixed. Cheers.



StrungOut said:


> I have a question for you if you wanna answer it. Does co2 hinder growth of plants at night due to their need for oxygen for respiration?


The only thing I can advise is that the concentration of O2 and CO2 are unrelated in the sense that, increased CO2 does not reduce O2 concentration, and vice-versa.

I can't think of any reason why it would off the top of my head, but this is one area where I have little research.


----------



## chad320

Forgive me, can someone link the age of the EC?


----------



## fablau

I wish to give you guys an update of my CSM+B toxicity experiment that I have conducted from the past 3 months, and I think to have figured it out (at least for me!)

As you guys may recall, after struggling with BBA for a long time, I started the detox experiment back in November, and the results were amazing after 1 week into the detox:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...csm-b-toxicity-experiment-27.html#post8634993


Fact is, after 10-15 days, situation got worse, etc... exactly like other people experienced.

I kept testing with the detox, and after 3 months of testing, I am now confident to say that there is not absolute correct trace dosing, working for everyone, but there is a very narrow, relative range within you may achieve the perfect growth (and no algae whatsoever!)... and everything starts from your water hardness.


Let me explain why I reached this conclusion, and it is very simple as you may guess... there is not scientific data, just testing and observation. Here is some history about my own experiments performed in the past 3 months:


1. Before trying the detox, started back in November 15, I used to dose 0.4ppm of Fe via CSM+B every other day, with water change EVERY 2 WEEKS. Sounds crazy, isn't it? Yes, but most of my plants used to grow well, despite BBA was always around. Some plants were a little (not completely) stuck though: AR, Ludwigia Puerensis, Java Moss. My fish life span was pretty short (neons lasting 2-3 mohths max, Amano shrimp dying after 1-2 weeks, etc). Of course my tank was toxic in some way, and I could confirm that from what happened to my tank and plants after 1 week stopping dosing traces...

2. I stopped dosing traces for 10 days, with big water changes, and here is what happened: in just 5 days, BBA began to disappear from my Anubia leaves as documented here:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...csm-b-toxicity-experiment-27.html#post8634993

And some plants such as AR began putting out new leaves, and roots everywhere. Ludwigia Puerensis got a similar development, with new and much larger leaves. My tank was clearly detoxing, and plants showed me clearly that. My critters also showed me that: those few shrimp, appeared to be around during the day after months hiding under rocks and woods, some fish began breeding soon, after months of no babies around...

3. After 10-12 days into detox, and NOT dosing any traces, I began seeing some little BBA back on some Anubia leaves... well, I thought: ok, maybe is time to begin dosing some traces again. I began dosing just Flourish comprehensive for a couple of weeks, together with Flourish Trace, as recommended by Seachem. Well, situation kept getting worse. I decided to keep 50% water change weekly to stabilize the tank.

4. After 1 month after detox, by reading that some other folks had similar results, and got their good growth back by resuming CSM+B dosing at 0.2ppm Fe every other day or 0.1ppm Fe daily, I decided to do the same: 0.2ppm Fe every other day. Well, after 2 weeks of such a routine, nothing changed. Plants were still in bad shape.

5. In mid January, almost panicking because most of my plants were completely stuck, and BBA was rampant, I decided to completely "reset" the tank by changing completely its water to reach zero levels for any detectable nutrient (macros included), so I thought to start from a clean slate.

6. So, I began the same exact routine of other people having success, with weekly 50% water changes, and I thought: well, if other people can do it, I can do it too, right? Instead... nothing changed! My plants kept being stuck, BBA didn't go away, nada! Why is that? Why for some folks worked dosing just 0.1ppm Fe from CSM+B and not for me??!! Was I cursed??!!

7. 1 Week ago, desperate, I resumed my 0.4ppm Fe dosing via CSM+B and guess what??!!! My plants woke up! BBA disappeared from Anubias again in a matter of days, plants started growing again! And now I am enjoying a much better tank and I guess BBA will disappear completely in a few days, again, exactly how it disappeared 7 days into the detox back in November.

So... what does this teach us? Why do I need to dose more traces than other folks? I think it is just because of different water hardness. My water has GH 19 and KH 7, I use just tap water. Other people had half that, or even softer water. It is my understanding that water hardness matters a lot in trace precipitation and consequent amount to dose. And, more compelling, traces appear to have a much narrower "sweep spot" than everyone thought. You can go from deficiency to toxicity very easily, and from toxicity to deficiency very easily as well.

So, the lesson learned after months of experiments is to increase or decrease your traces dosing according to your plants response, and at the end it is the usual, classic paradigm, right? Yes, of course, but the great lesson here is that if you have BBA or struggling plants and you can't find a reason for, one of the reasons beside the "classic" belief of wrong Co2, wrong flow or too much organic matter around, may be simply be "too much" or "too low" traces level. Their correct range is very narrow and can screw a tank very easily. In my case that has been the proven case, and I think may also be the case of other folks having similar issues.

So... why everyone has different results with traces dosing? I strongly believe "because everyone has different water hardness".

I'll keep dosing 0.4 Fe from CSM+B for a while, with weekly 50% WC, then I'll try to reduce that to 0.3 Fe and see what happens. But the lesson is learned now, at least, I know my optimal range, not less than 0.2 Fe per dose for sure!


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

My conclusion is inconclusive due to the following confounding variables. I discovered that:

1. High CEC substrate became toxic which results in toxicities.
2. Adsorbed metals desorb back into the water column.
3. Plants can retain nutrients in their stems for later use.

1: If the substrate is high CEC, then it will have built up a layer of heavy metals. Just like the hard-water deposits that build up on shower doors and tubs over time, the substrate also builds up heavy metals. This can be toxic if roots grow in it. E.g. H. pinnatifida grew really well, but once it developed roots that touched the substrate, toxicity occurred: roots brown, pinholes and necrosis of older leaves, stems die and rot.

2: The metals that adsorbed onto the substrate will desorb into the water column. This will occur much faster if there's a concentration differential, like when you ceased dosing traces. It will also occur much faster if the water is acidic, either through natural acids or by CO2 injection. The lower the pH, the faster the rate of desorption. When it desorbs, the water column will have a higher concentration of metals which may result in excess metals that cause plant issues. This is partly the reason why no amount of water changes can eliminate toxicity because the metals will easily desorb into the new water.

3: Since plants can retain nutrients for a few days or weeks, it's unlikely the health problems observed 1-2 weeks after ceasing traces is due to lack of dosing but actually due to the nutrient imbalance within stems. If one depletes more rapidly than another, then toxicity of the excess can result.

**********************************************
Food for thought

Tom Barr actually doses 4.5x less traces than a 0.5ppm of Fe CSM+B dose, using copper as the proxy. And if following the suggested dosage for tank volume, which results in ~0.2ppm of Fe from CSM+B, he's still dosing 2-3x less. According to him, the amount he doses is the upper limit for all tanks, stating that no tank should ever need to be dosed more than that. And yet, there are many people who are following the 0.5ppm of Fe dose 3x per week, which results in dosing in excess of 7x more than Barr. This isn't to say that Barr's plants don't suffer from toxicity; they clearly do. So even at his suggested maximum, it's still too much for even his plants.

So how is Barr dosing so much less? Because he's not dosing CSM+B alone. His micro mix is 3:1:1 of CSM+B:FeDTPA:Fe gluconate. This allows him to dose 0.2ppm of Fe while the remaining micronutrients are 2-3x less than if CSM+B were the sole provider of the same amount of iron. The copper concentration of this one dose is 1.4ppb (above the toxic threshold of 1ppb), while it's 6.9ppb using CSM+B alone (7x the toxic threshold).


----------



## fablau

Tom Barr has stated he doses 0.1ppm daily from CSM+B plus 0.1 from DTPA and Gluconate


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Barr has stated many things over the years. The thread that I linked is his most recent stated dosing routine, not to mention the twice weekly WCs.


----------



## fablau

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Barr has stated many things over the years. The thread that I linked is his most recent stated dosing routine, not to mention the twice weekly WCs.


I am talking about his statement dated December 11, 2015:

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/mem...tom-barr/230989-depicting-barr-s-system/page5


----------



## Hoppy

fablau said:


> I am talking about his statement dated December 11, 2015:
> 
> http://www.barrreport.com/forum/mem...tom-barr/230989-depicting-barr-s-system/page5


Tom does have various tanks with different types of planting, so they get different dosing and different water changes. And, that can change from year to year as he tries different setups, different lighting and plants. It should be getting clear that fertilizing is not optimum when you do "one size fits all". The EI dosages were always intended as what a high light, densely planted with average plants, needs. We were supposed to adjust for other setups.


----------



## bcarl_10gal

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the appeal to EI was it was a method that didn't need tweaking. If you had a high light, densely planted tank just plug in your tank size you are good to go(one size fits all). The downside of PPS was the testing of water params more frequently and measuring smaller doses to fit the needs of each aquarium to adjust each nutrient as needed. The past 42 pages proves that there is no true one size fits all and that's where EI (micros) falls into trouble.


----------



## fablau

bcarl_10gal said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the appeal to EI was it was a method that didn't need tweaking. If you had a high light, densely planted tank just plug in your tank size you are good to go(one size fits all). The downside of PPS was the testing of water params more frequently and measuring smaller doses to fit the needs of each aquarium to adjust each nutrient as needed. The past 42 pages proves that there is no true one size fits all and that's where EI (micros) falls into trouble.



Bingo! You got it right  EI for sure has a much wider range of success and a smaller margin of error than other methods, but still has its limits, and we all should be aware of that. It make sense to think that you cannot dump "unlimited nutrients" and expecting always good results. Nature just doesn't work that way... Otherwise we all had perfect tanks


----------



## roadmaster

What is high light ? Is this not subjective ?
What is densely planted ? Is this not also subjective ?
Would not fast grower's take up nutrient's faster, and maybe need more than slow grower's?
EI was/is not carved in stone,can be tweaked as needed. Even Tom has stated as much many times.Example..Tom's NON CO2 method EI dosing.
Is good place to start,(from plant's perspective) and then reduce dosing if you like until poor health is observed and then return to previous dosing.
Is dosing for newbie's/dummies like me,and requires no testing.
Is NOT a method of dumping UNLIMITED fertz into the tank, but a way provide non limiting fertz for plant's to draw from, or close to it for most application's.


----------



## PerfectDepth

bcarl_10gal said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the appeal to EI was it was a method that didn't need tweaking. If you had a high light, densely planted tank just plug in your tank size you are good to go(one size fits all). The downside of PPS was the testing of water params more frequently and measuring smaller doses to fit the needs of each aquarium to adjust each nutrient as needed. The past 42 pages proves that there is no true one size fits all and that's where EI (micros) falls into trouble.


Generally, yes the idea was always to give people a simplified fert regimen that requires very little testing. "Estimative" meaning nutrient concentrations are not meant to be exact, just within a certain range of concentration- not too low, not too high. Obviously all tanks will not have the same rate of uptake, so testing no3 and/or po4 may be necessary to make sure the concentrations are not exceeding the upper end of the recommended range, at least until you get a feel for the requirements of a specific tank. 

However, the EI guidelines for adding your micro-mix are a bit different. The EI instructions that I have always followed specifically say to start with a very low dosage, and only increase this dosage until no more improvement is noticed. It's been my understanding that a mix such as CSM+B was never intended to provide sufficient iron for all tanks, which is a good approach because it allows you to supplement with another iron source as needed, rather than dumping in a larger amount of CSM+B mix.

Edited to add: A CSM+B dosage that is equal to the KH2PO4 dosage seems to be a good starting point in my experience. I suspect that I would never have had toxicity issues at this dosage if I hadn't also added osmocote+ to a high-CEC substrate (floramax).


----------



## klibs

fablau said:


> ...........


This is basically what I am going through right now and your conclusions are exactly what I am assuming to occur in my tank.

Thank you for this writeup


----------



## PortalMasteryRy

@Solcielo lawrencia: I don't think 1.4 ppb is the toxic threshold for copper. It is much higher IMHO. My tanks average from 18-30+ ppb. I have one of my grow tanks at 50+ ppb and the plants are growing. It did run a UV for 2 weeks which I know has an effect on Fe. Don't know if it affected any of the other micros. 

Also copper exists in the tap. The limit by EPA is around 1 mg/L which is 1 ppm which is 1000 ppb.

Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals | Drinking Water Contaminants ? Standards and Regulations | US EPA


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

PortalMasteryRy said:


> @Solcielo lawrencia: I don't think 1.4 ppb is the toxic threshold for copper. It is much higher IMHO. My tanks average from 18-30+ ppb. I have one of my grow tanks at 50+ ppb and the plants are growing. It did run a UV for 2 weeks which I know has an effect on Fe. Don't know if it affected any of the other micros.
> 
> Also copper exists in the tap. The limit by EPA is around 1 mg/L which is 1 ppm which is 1000 ppb.
> 
> Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals | Drinking Water Contaminants ? Standards and Regulations | US EPA


1ppb is the upper threshold for sensitive animals. My tap contains much more than this and I cannot culture daphnia in tap water. They all eventually die over the course of a few weeks.

1ppm of Cu will kill shrimp and snails, as well as most aquatic plants and algae, and damage fish organs, but is still safe for human consumption.


----------



## Zapins

Copper toxicity is well documented. I wrote a summary after reading several resources on it. The toxicity starts to show up around 0.1 ppm copper. Below that level is fairly safe.

Toxicity / Deficiency Literature Research - Plant Deficiencies - Aquatic Plant Central


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zapins said:


> Copper toxicity is well documented. I wrote a summary after reading several resources on it. The toxicity starts to show up around 0.1 ppm copper. Below that level is fairly safe.
> 
> Toxicity / Deficiency Literature Research - Plant Deficiencies - Aquatic Plant Central


The problem with stating an absolute concentration of toxicity in plants is that it ignores nutrient ratios, which matter greatly. In very soft water, 0.1ppm of Cu is toxic and can kill plants (and definitely harm and kill shrimp and sensitive fish) while in hard water, it's safe (but not necessarily safe for shrimp or sensitive fish.) So in those studies, all other nutrients are held static while the concentration of Cu is varied to determine plant response. The studies of toxicity in fish and invertebrates indicate that the threshold for toxicity is in the ppb, 100x less than 0.1ppm. And even then, the length of most of these studies are short-term and do not assess long-term impacts.


----------



## Zapins

Solcielo nutrients do not need to have fertilizers administered in a specific ratio for plants to do well (environmental concentrations and ratios can be anything as long as it isn't toxic or too little and plants will grow healthily). Plants use transporters that take up nutrients in certain ratios, which means the plant takes up what it needs in the correct ratio for the plant's needs no matter what the environmental conditions are. As long as neither of the nutrients run out then the plant will keep taking up both. It doesn't matter if you have 100 or 1 million of each nutrient in the environmental "ratio," it is all the same to plants. 

0.1 ppm is a ball park estimate of where copper definitely becomes visibly toxic to plants in the short term. There is no evidence that it will become toxic to plants in the ppb range. Furthermore, I highly doubt it can be toxic to anything relevant to the aquarium hobby at the ppb concentration. If you have a particular study in mind please share it I would be interested in reading through it.

There are problems with every study ever done, but they provide a decent ballpark estimate of where toxicities start to happen in aquatic plants.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

If what you say is true, then it doesn't matter how much nutrients are dosed since plants will always uptake the right amount and toxicity would never occur. But it does occur. Why? Because plants do not have dedicated uptake mechanisms for every single nutrient. Many nutrients are acquired passively and others by non-specific uptake mechanisms. This is why providing nutrient in appropriate ratios are very important, because plants have limited ability to adapt to varying ratios. If the ratio were skewed, then uptake of specific nutrients can reach toxic levels. This is why making a statement that 0.1ppm of Cu is safe is incorrect unless the levels of other nutrients are also stated. Toxicity is not absolute.

For further evidence, crop plants use far higher concentrations of nutrients and copper levels can be many times higher, 5ppm. Yet, they do not suffer from copper toxicity because the ratio of Cu to the other nutrients are proportionately low.


----------



## HiNtZ

Christophe said:


> Ok, I’ll add my anecdotal ‘evidence’ to the pile also. Since none of us are doing genuine controlled experimentation, I think it’s very premature to go around saying “Aha! It’s manganese toxicity!”, but I think it’s fair to say that something might going on here for some of our systems.
> 
> My system has been up for just over a year now. Things had been going pretty well, but growth seemed to stall out in late April. I had solidly been dosing basic suggested EI levels (micros mixed Fe-DPTA & CSM+B such that 60% of the iron was from DPTA), CO2 injection to drop pH by 1.1 by lights on, 1.3 peak, 55% water changes weekly with 50/50 tap/DI water with some added Mg. Light at about 65 umol at substrate level, 7 hour photoperiod. Filtration via wet/dry sump, 5.5x turnover with pronounced surface rippling. Substrate is ADA Aquasoil Amazonia.
> 
> As growth stalled, everything became rimmed in BBA. Small new leaves, old leaves overwhelmed or simply shed. My staurogyne carpet all looked like tiny little palm trees, not a single plant of any of them looks right. Blyxa Japonica thin, fragile, patched with holes, algae-ridden. A. Reineckii stunted, twisted.
> 
> I boosted micros, went to twice a week 55% water changes. Nope, no change.
> 
> I ran up the CO2 to drop pH a max of 1.4 for a several weeks. Stressed fish & shrimp, but no other change.
> 
> I continued twice a week changes throughout the summer, slowly migrating to straight tap water — thought maybe more calcium? My tap has 49ppm Ca per the city water report. Nope, no change.


Absolutely uncanny - was like reading my own diary entry. I tried everything you did, same plants, same symptoms.

I've suspected for the past year I had this problem that it was a toxicity.... I'm stopping tomorrow with the trace. Big water changes.... I want what you've got!

Bump:


Zorfox said:


> Food for thought.
> 
> Take a look at your bag of Plantex. Notice any color variations? I do. It looks like salt and pepper.
> 
> I recently helped someone with individual trace doses. The amounts were so low it was difficult to measure on a standard scale (+-1 mg). Now imagine throwing everything a a single bag. Is one scoop equal to the next? I can visually see the differences. At the very least we should be suggesting that Trace mixes be mixed well before measuring.
> 
> I seriously doubt that percentages are accurate when using a few teaspoons at a time. Some of these chemicals are in VERY small amounts. Do you really expect to get the same ratios in every scoop? Sorry, it's just not going to happen with dry fertilizers IMO.



I thought this same thing. It's hardly a "perfect mix, every time!" - this would probably explain why I had really good weeks and then terrible months after. It's like a lucky dip!

The only way to be sure you have the intended mix with the right amounts would be to mix up the whole bag in one giant solution that would last a lifetime. Then again, are all the ingredients added to each individual bag or are they mixed in a vat at a factory prior to bagging? If the latter then that could be why some people have problems with recommended doses, and others don't?

Also - gave my friend some necrotic cuttings of hygrophila corymbosa, pale leaves, veiny, just hanging on. A week later in his tank (low tec, medium light, dosing tropica) and it looks mint. Velvety green leaves, no veins, new growth....


----------



## Caliban07

I just wondered if glutaradehyde had any effect on heavy metals.

Here it is combined with chitosan to remove heavy metal ions from solution.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_and_heavy_metal_ions_from_aqueous_solutions

I'm not a scientist but just wondered.


----------



## JJ09

It has been very interesting reading through this thread. A lot of the science of it goes over my head. But I will add my little two cents. Months ago I read another similar thread somewhere here about micro toxicity and I wondered if this was happening to my plants- I had ludwigia with leaves growing out twisted, crypts with twisting tips, rotalas bending downwards from the tops. Just to see what happened I cut my micro dose. 

I'm using dry ferts for macros- 1/3 of EI, once a week (low light, low tech tanks). I have been using Seachem Flourish Comprehensive for micros, just because that's what I had on hand when I started using ferts. At first I was doing 40ml on my 38gal tank and 10ml on my ten gallon. After reading the idea of micro toxicity I tried reducing my micro dose. Twisting leaves have gone away. I kept cutting it back, at 15ml I thought I saw the plants struggling, so increased it again a bit to find what worked. Now I'm dosing 25ml on the 38gal tank and 3-4ml on the tenner once a week. 

However I've also noticed pale leaves with dark veins, which I thought was Mg deficiency so I dose Mg once a month (epsom salts)- have hard tapwater here but I think my substrate (safe-t-sorb) is sucking up the Ca and Mg? I just dosed Mg again last friday and my rotalas have straightened up right away. When I see the leaves starting to be paler it reminds me to dose the Mg and then new ones don't have that symptom.

After nearly two years of using the dry maco powders it's almost run out and I was thinking of getting CSM+B just because I thought I should be using dry ferts for the micros like I do for macros. I held off doing that because concerned how to get the right dose to match what I was doing with flourish comp. One thing I take from this thread is not to do that. Even though people tell me I'm "paying for water" buying the bottle of flourish comp, I use so little of it now it lasts me 6mo or more. So I'm going to stick with what's working and keep using comprehensive.

Also of interest to me was some comments on here about how terrestrial plants respond to the ferts. I regularly water my houseplants with the tank wastewater. I noticed once when my plants in the tank were showing this symptom








my avocado plant showed the same thing a few days after getting watered from the tank, on its youngest leaves only.








After I dosed the Mg this symptom went away, in the avocado plant too. Just thought this was interesting.


----------



## Fissure

JJ09 said:


> It has been very interesting reading through this thread. A lot of the science of it goes over my head. But I will add my little two cents. Months ago I read another similar thread somewhere here about micro toxicity and I wondered if this was happening to my plants- I had ludwigia with leaves growing out twisted, crypts with twisting tips, rotalas bending downwards from the tops. Just to see what happened I cut my micro dose.
> 
> I'm using dry ferts for macros- 1/3 of EI, once a week (low light, low tech tanks). I have been using Seachem Flourish Comprehensive for micros, just because that's what I had on hand when I started using ferts. At first I was doing 40ml on my 38gal tank and 10ml on my ten gallon. After reading the idea of micro toxicity I tried reducing my micro dose. Twisting leaves have gone away. I kept cutting it back, at 15ml I thought I saw the plants struggling, so increased it again a bit to find what worked. Now I'm dosing 25ml on the 38gal tank and 3-4ml on the tenner once a week.
> 
> However I've also noticed pale leaves with dark veins, which I thought was Mg deficiency so I dose Mg once a month (epsom salts)- have hard tapwater here but I think my substrate (safe-t-sorb) is sucking up the Ca and Mg? I just dosed Mg again last friday and my rotalas have straightened up right away. When I see the leaves starting to be paler it reminds me to dose the Mg and then new ones don't have that symptom.
> 
> After nearly two years of using the dry maco powders it's almost run out and I was thinking of getting CSM+B just because I thought I should be using dry ferts for the micros like I do for macros. I held off doing that because concerned how to get the right dose to match what I was doing with flourish comp. One thing I take from this thread is not to do that. Even though people tell me I'm "paying for water" buying the bottle of flourish comp, I use so little of it now it lasts me 6mo or more. So I'm going to stick with what's working and keep using comprehensive.
> 
> Also of interest to me was some comments on here about how terrestrial plants respond to the ferts. I regularly water my houseplants with the tank wastewater. I noticed once when my plants in the tank were showing this symptom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my avocado plant showed the same thing a few days after getting watered from the tank, on its youngest leaves only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I dosed the Mg this symptom went away, in the avocado plant too. Just thought this was interesting.


Interesting indeed


----------



## fablau

Yes, interesting JJ09... Another possibility is that despite you have hard water, maybe you have a lot of Ca but not enough Mg, that may happen... Where do you live? Can you access your water district reports?


----------



## JJ09

I tried reading the water reports once- it was confusing. I could not find Mg on the list... I always assumed we have hard water, there's white water deposits left on edges of everything, but puzzled for a long time why my snails seem to have eroded shells regardless. I did put cuttlebone in the tank as a first attempt to remedy. Later got gh/kh test kit- general hardness is 10, kh tested at 5. I did it twice to check. I admit I don't really understand what these numbers mean for my tank, does it indicate low Mg?

It's been a few more days since I dosed Mg in my betta tank, I see that java/windelov ferns are standing up straighter now too, and newer bacopa leaves straighter- not drooping down. So it seems to help, but I was leery to keep dosing it because I read lots of warnings that shouldn't dose Mg w/out dosing Ca as well- any advice?


----------



## Fissure

You have hard water bordering on very hard. It's unlikely that you would lack Mg but it is possible. Only way to know for sure would be send away a test to a lab. Guess you might be able to calculate your Mg content if you know your Ca content as well. 
water-hardness


----------



## Yo-han

JBL has a freshwater Mg test if you want 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn E6653 met Tapatalk


----------



## JJ09

Fissure said:


> You have hard water bordering on very hard. It's unlikely that you would lack Mg but it is possible. Only way to know for sure would be send away a test to a lab. Guess you might be able to calculate your Mg content if you know your Ca content as well.
> water-hardness


This is what has always baffled me- since I have such hard water, why do the snails suffer shell erosion and the plants seem to need Mg? they certainly show a positive response when I dose Mg (very little- I put less than 1/32 tsp of dissolved epsom salt in the 10 gallon tank). I've read some other threads suggesting that safe-t-sorb is absorbing so much of the Ca and Mg it is making deficiencies in those for the snails and plants... so I tried dosing some Mg it seemed to help I just don't know if I should dose Ca as well and how to figure out how much.


----------



## Fissure

I was to suggest that you add like Tom Barrs GH booster or something similar to be on the safe side but maybe not a great idea considering your already high hardness.
Would be better to skip the CaSO4 and K2SO4 and just add the MgSO4 like you are doing. You could dose like this (from rotala butterfly)

*To reach your target of 5ppm Mg you will need to add 1.92 grams (equivalent to 1/4 tsp + 1/8 tsp ) MgSO4.7H2O to your 10gal aquarium to yield: Mg 5ppm*

Not sure how you dose your tank otherwise when it comes to nutrients. But you could take the above amount and multiply it with 3 and dose that once a week or something like that. Adding 15 ppm weekly should be enough, if you do not do WCs very often keep track of your GH as well so it doesn't increase to much. If it does you can reduce the MgSO4 dose again.


----------



## JJ09

Hm- ok. I usually dose lower on KN03 and more w/K2S04 and KH2P04 than the EI chart. Why should I drop the K2S04 if I keep dosing MG?


----------



## JJ09

Well, I am getting into the habit of adjusting my dosing according to what the nitrate levels are before water change. I do 50%wc weekly. I could write it all out for you- the dose I use when nitrates are low vs when they are high, for each tank- it's based off some suggestions I got here back when I started- but I feel like I talking too much about my own tank on this thread... 

Suffice to say today I dosed a small amount of Mg again and wow, I think I am doing something right by it! It's either this use of epsom salts, or the fact that I added some plant mass this week (maybe that finally balanced everything out in favor of plants over algae) because both my tanks were pearling today. Significantly more than I've ever seen in my tenner- and it lasted longer too- and I don't remember ever seeing it happen in my main tank.


----------



## Fissure

JJ09 said:


> Hm- ok. I usually dose lower on KN03 and more w/K2S04 and KH2P04 than the EI chart. Why should I drop the K2S04 if I keep dosing MG?


Did not mean you should stop with K2SO4, just that you don't need it as a part of the T.Barr GH booster.


----------



## fablau

JJ09, how much Mg do you need to dose to see improvements?


----------



## JJ09

less than 1/32 tsp in my ten gallon
1/8 tsp in my thirty-eight


----------



## fablau

JJ09 said:


> less than 1/32 tsp in my ten gallon
> 1/8 tsp in my thirty-eight




Thank you for the info. And do you dose that just once after water change? Once a week?


----------



## JJ09

fablau said:


> And do you dose that just once after water change? Once a week?


Well I am still experimenting with it. When I did dose Mg regularly before, it was after the water change, once a month (I do wc once weekly but didn't dose Mg each time) this was because I read somewhere that Mg lingers in the tank a long time- and I was pretty much only dosing when I started to see the paleness between leaf veins.

However after seeing how the plants were pearling last friday- and some of them were still pearling two days later, so I don't think it was just superoxygenated water due to the wc- I think I ought to do it more frequently, gong to start w/once every other week. Also I am now seeing some leaves with a bit of warped shapes and hooked down leaf tips so I am going to try dosing Ca just haven't figured out yet which way to do it- gypsum powder, or CaS04 fert... ?


----------



## Caliban07

Hi everybody. Read this thread lots of times thanks.

I had some toxicity issues after setting up my 85l tank eco complete substrate. I currently have some of the more sensitive species of plants such as AR,AR mini, rotala rotundifolia, rotala macrandra, Rotala wallichii, P. Helfer, erectus and stellatus.

Things are still not great despite my last dose of micros (7ml profito) at the beginning of April. Before then I was using a dry trace mix. I haven't dosed it nearly as much as most of you guys in the thread but my water is very soft. In an attempt to supply micros in another way I put a soil soil under the eco complete. Do you think that this was a bad move and I should get rid of the eco complete all together? 

I've been doing that many water changes lately that I don't know if I'm experiencing deficiency or toxicity as new growth is now very pale. I put extra red clay in my soil so it's hard to believe there is an iron deficiency but addition of half EI macros doesn't seem to do anything.

I know I can grow plants without micros (except soil) and without adding calcium or magnesium (soil) with high light and co2 because I have done it before with successful results.

Only problem is now that I don't know how the soil is interacting with the eco and if the eco is part of the problem. Granted the plants In my older tank were not what you would call sensitive species but I was using soil capped with gravel. 

I have about 120 par currently and only recently experimenting with lower co2 levels as my shrimp have become less active. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Cal


----------



## aclaar877

Caliban07 said:


> Hi everybody. Read this thread lots of times thanks.
> 
> I had some toxicity issues after setting up my 85l tank eco complete substrate. I currently have some of the more sensitive species of plants such as AR,AR mini, rotala rotundifolia, rotala macrandra, Rotala wallichii, P. Helfer, erectus and stellatus.
> 
> Things are still not great despite my last dose of micros (7ml profito) at the beginning of April. Before then I was using a dry trace mix. I haven't dosed it nearly as much as most of you guys in the thread but my water is very soft. In an attempt to supply micros in another way I put a soil soil under the eco complete. Do you think that this was a bad move and I should get rid of the eco complete all together?
> 
> I've been doing that many water changes lately that I don't know if I'm experiencing deficiency or toxicity as new growth is now very pale. I put extra red clay in my soil so it's hard to believe there is an iron deficiency but addition of half EI macros doesn't seem to do anything.
> 
> I know I can grow plants without micros (except soil) and without adding calcium or magnesium (soil) with high light and co2 because I have done it before with successful results.
> 
> Only problem is now that I don't know how the soil is interacting with the eco and if the eco is part of the problem. Granted the plants In my older tank were not what you would call sensitive species but I was using soil capped with gravel.
> 
> I have about 120 par currently and only recently experimenting with lower co2 levels as my shrimp have become less active. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Cal


While its possible the Eco Complete absorbed a lot of trace metals, I would only look to change that as a last resort. I don't think putting some soil underneath it would be problematic either. That being said, some of us have been using black diamond blasting sand as an option for inexpensive black substrate. It's inert and has next to no CEC, so you have more control over everything you put into the tank. If I were in charge of your tank right now, I would lower light - 120 par is pretty high, especially as you said you have dropped CO2 levels a bit. You can try reducing micro dosing to about 0.01 to 0.02 ppm of Fe per dose and see how things respond. I also noticed improvement with my AR after dosing some calcium, so you could add CaSO4 to have around 25 ppm Ca. Since you have pale growth, you can add some extra Fe separate from your traces and eliminate that possible deficiency.


----------



## Caliban07

aclaar877 said:


> While its possible the Eco Complete absorbed a lot of trace metals, I would only look to change that as a last resort. I don't think putting some soil underneath it would be problematic either. That being said, some of us have been using black diamond blasting sand as an option for inexpensive black substrate. It's inert and has next to no CEC, so you have more control over everything you put into the tank. If I were in charge of your tank right now, I would lower light - 120 par is pretty high, especially as you said you have dropped CO2 levels a bit. You can try reducing micro dosing to about 0.01 to 0.02 ppm of Fe per dose and see how things respond. I also noticed improvement with my AR after dosing some calcium, so you could add CaSO4 to have around 25 ppm Ca. Since you have pale growth, you can add some extra Fe separate from your traces and eliminate that possible deficiency.


Thanks for the reply. I agree that I am doing things a little unorthodox re the lighting levels and low co2. I have just fisnished replacing what I could of the eco complete with the black sand. As it happens, growth looked ok today after one half EI dose the night before. I want to go down the lean dosing route, high light and low co2 as I have heard people can have success with this method? Marcel G and solcielo lawrencia have both been advocates and I'd like to follow in their footsteps. 

I've replaced all the damaged plants and will let you know how I get on. I won't be dosing micros and only dosing macros if I feel it's necessary. 

Is it possible to upload a picture file via the mobile phone? 

Thanks 

Cal


----------



## fablau

Be careful with high light and low Co2, I would do the opposite until your plants get better. Once the situation is good and stable, you could try that different approach. Make things simpler...


----------



## jmoran92

nitrates are used in fertilizers for agriculture. Nitrates were converted to ammonium, sodium, potassium and calcium salts that are commonly used in fertilizers. Excessive fertilization can also lead to eutrophication.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

And this relates to a micro-toxicity issue?

I was so hoping this thread was "Dead"

Eutrophication, is this not typically involved with a high concentration of phosphates.
A macro over abundance?

RIP for 17 months! >


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> I was so hoping this thread was "Dead"


Me too!

First thing when I saw it pop up was "oh no, here we go again!!!".

Many were scarred by that battle!:grin2:


----------

