# Months of trial and error and still stunted plants.(chronological funk on page 2)



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I posted a while back about my Rotala rotundifolia(indica?) and Macranda growing tiny leaves, and in macrandas case the leaves curl downwards and corkscrew and do weird things.

Some people mentioned Calcium, Co2, N, iron.

Tap water is KH 5 GH 6, when I test with calcium test kit Calcium is 40-60 ppm kinda hard to tell.
I started dosing Calcium Chloride until my GH was 9...
Pretty sure that made it worse for Macranda but better for Rotundifolia.

Started to get BBA bad
I tore out all the rotundifolia and replaced with Nesaea Crasicularis because it was so thick and stunted I started thinking it was stealing all the co2 and flow nutrients etc. 
Cleaned the filter out too and bba has stopped spreading but hasn't retreat yet.


Rotala Bonsai still grows weird.
AR mini is crinkly
Fissidens fontanus will not get bright green at all, very dark.
Macranda is just like the tiniest most pathetic thing, DHG does not spread at all.

Ludwigia seems ok, crypts are fine.

People have mentioned too much K.. so I stopped dosing K separately and just get it in my KNO3 and Kh2Po4 now.
I'm on EI dosing schedule for 20-40 gal tank.

Tank is 33 gallon with eheim 2217 with impeller swapped for eheim 650 impeller so maybe 180 gph?

Co2 is from inline diffuser and my drop checker with 5dkh is borderline yellow.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,

How much light do you have on that tank? Photoperiod?

You indicate you are dosing EI; how much of each and how often?

Water changes?

Is the tank a 60 liter?

Do you happen to know the NO3 ppm?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> How much light do you have on that tank? Photoperiod?
> 
> ...



I have a current satellite pro on for 8 hours.
It's mounted 5 inches above the water and the tank is 18 inches deep

I followed standard ei for 20-40 gal aquarium which was 1/4 kno3 1/8th everything else 3x a week.
Just about a week ago I stopped dosing k2so4 incase I had too much K
50% week wc every Sunday
As per standard ei it fluctuates from around 5ppm on wc day up to like 30 or so.

I just recently bought another light and have them overlap for one hour because when I raised my light my fissidens fontanus lost its color.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

How old is the setup? 
What is your substrate?
Did you start the tank with 8 hours of light?
Two feet to substrate is a pretty good distance. Is the light equipped for that?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> I have a current satellite pro on for 8 hours.
> It's mounted 5 inches above the water and the tank is 18 inches deep
> 
> I followed standard ei for 20-40 gal aquarium which was 1/4 kno3 1/8th everything else 3x a week.
> ...


Hi Chlorophile,

PH, dKH, dGH?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> How old is the setup?
> What is your substrate?
> Did you start the tank with 8 hours of light?
> Two feet to substrate is a pretty good distance. Is the light equipped for that?





Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > I have a current satellite pro on for 8 hours.
> ...


pH 6.6, dkh 5 GH 6, calcium between 40-60 ppm

Tank is half sand half aquasoil with powersand special.
Has been set up since February

Everything was excellent at first, macranda was round big and red, Rotala was tall had color green thick and bushy.

I used to keep the light lower but raised it.

It's supposedly close to 90 par at 18 inches?
Not positive.
I have two of them now set to lower intensity.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

About the only thing I haven't tried is magnesium.
I have good calcium and even tried adding more.
That's why I'm trying less K now incase it was inhibiting uptake.... 
Here's a full tank shot if it helps.

Even s. Repens doesn't do so hot in here I don't get it.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,



> Everything was excellent at first, macranda was round big and red, Rotala was tall had color green thick and bushy.


First of all go back to the single light and place it where it was originally when you had good growth. Return to the dosing you were doing when you had good growth.

The small, stunted, deformed leaves is likely due to a calcium deficiency. The leaves are not forming properly. A hint that calcium is the issue is the hooked leaf tips (see smaller arrows). The tan discoloration (large arrow) can be a symptom of a shortage of manganese (if a newer leaf), nitrogen.












> I. Symptoms appearing first or most severely on new growth (root and shoot tips, new leaves)
> 
> A. Terminal bud usually dies. Symptoms on new growth.
> 
> ...


I suggest starting by adding 1 tablespoon (or 3 teaspoons) of Seachem Equilibrium to your tank; this should increase your tank hardness by about 2 dGH (it should not effect dKH). When you do water changes add 1-1/2 teaspoons of Equilibrium to the tank to replace what was removed with the old water. The purpose is not to incrase your tank hardness, but to add additional calcium and magnesium. Seachem Equilbirum contains calcium, magnesium, potassium, a little iron and manganese. Now the hard part.....make no other changes for two weeks. Watch your new growth (the existing leaves will change little if any) and see if it looks healthier, straighter, with better leaf width. 

Let me know how it goes! -Roy


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I really only had good growth while the tank was cycling..
The discoloration on that one leaf is cause the plant is transition from emersed.
How can I need calcium as I tried adding it for a month straight and with a GH of 6 how can I need magnesium?

Stuff got wonky when I started EI..
I wonder if I received a wrong chemical somehow


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Here's the new growth on my Nesaea.. some of it looks normal some of it is crooked.
Not sure about the veination because it's a red plant.

Only reason I'm skeptical on calcium is well you should be able to get rid of the symptoms by adding calcium and it didn't help and my full was almost at 9 at one point and still no dice.

Is there any reason why maybe having a 1:1 Cal mg ratio would screw with stuff?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chlorophile said:


> But I really only had good growth while the tank was cycling..
> The discoloration on that one leaf is cause the plant is transition from emersed.
> How can I need calcium as I tried adding it for a month straight and with a GH of 6 how can I need magnesium?
> 
> ...


It sounds like to me you got the bump from the Aquasoil as when you first start it's so loaded with nutrients the plants look like their on steroids.

If your KH, GH is 5,6 out of the tap, plus your getting Mg from your micro dosing I'm not sure how much more you would need in your situation. Plus the plants were growing without adding extra. What are your current NO3 numbers? These would be very high when you first started up the tank with AS. I dose all my AS tanks high, do 50% WC and I have soft water KH 2, GH 4. I've always dosed extra K above what I get from the KNO3.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > But I really only had good growth while the tank was cycling..
> ...


Current no3 (water change today) is some shade of orange, probably 10 ppm
Throughout the week I see it as high as 30ppm.
All three fertilizer I was using include K so I felt perhaps it was plenty.. 
I used powersand too idk what nutrients it has.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,

I can only offer an analysis based upon the symptoms the plants are displaying. I know that 'hooked leaf tips' on new leaves is a symptom of a Ca deficiency because I have experienced it and corrected it; same with the malformation of new leaves as they emerge. By the way, nice 'scalloped leaf margins' on the Nesaea. It might be worth noting that ADA Aquasoil contains no calcium.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> I can only offer an analysis based upon the symptoms the plants are displaying. I know that 'hooked leaf tips' on new leaves is a symptom of a Ca deficiency because I have experienced it and corrected it; same with the malformation of new leaves as they emerge. By the way, nice 'scalloped leaf margins' on the Nesaea. It might be worth noting that ADA Aquasoil contains no calcium.


Thank you I'm by no means not grateful but just hoping see if there are alternative conclusion we can come to?
Gh6 60ppm calcium and I added extra calcium in the form of calcium chloride without improvement.

I wasn't sure if the scalloped leaf margin was good or a sign of the same deficiency


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,

I have used calcium chloride in the past but my preferred source of calcium is calcium sulfate (CaSO4).

With 6.0 dGH your water is "soft". You say your Ca is 60 ppm with a hardness of 6.0 dGH? Did you actually measure your calcium level or are you assuming with 6 dGH you have 60 ppm of Ca? dGH measures the amount of Ca++, Mg++, Fe++, and Mn++ in our water so some of your 6.0 dGH is not Ca. For example my water is very soft, typically less than 2.0 dGH. Our most recent water quality report for Seattle says I have 21.1 ppm of Ca (as CaCO3) but only 6.9 ppm of Ca. If it were me I would add Equilibrium as suggested.



> Water hardness follows
> these guidelines:
> 
> 0 - 4 dH, 0 - 70 ppm : very soft
> ...


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> I have used calcium chloride in the past but my preferred source of calcium is calcium sulfate (CaSO4).
> 
> ...


40-60 ppm in the tap is based off the API calcium test kit.
When my tank GH was 9 it was 3 points above tap and all of those 3 points was due to added calcium


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

This is all my water report has unfortunately..
I'm about to send water and plant samples off to Logan Labs lol..


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,

I was not aware that API made a Calcium Test Kit for freshwater....just for saltwater.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> I was not aware that API made a Calcium Test Kit for freshwater....just for saltwater.


Call me crazy but it works.
If I test the RO water from my house one drop turns it blue.
If I test my tap 2 drops is purple and 3 is blue.
Not sure why the test wouldn't work they just don't market it to freshwater. The colors are different but most of the freshwater tests work fine on saltwater etc


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

When you had good growth were you dosing extra CA? 

Seattle and I are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to CA dosing. I mean how much CA do you need for aquatic plants? I'm just used to having soft water in New York and never having any need to add extra CA. Too much CA can be very damaging and will result in pale, small growth as it interferes with other uptake. 

Your GH, KH numbers without adding anything seem fine to me. Plants generally like soft water. Look at the recommended ranges in EI? You are obviously getting some CA based on tap and anything else your adding based on your numbers. It's not all Mg.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> When you had good growth were you dosing extra CA?
> 
> Seattle and I are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to CA dosing. I mean how much CA do you need for aquatic plants? I'm just used to having soft water in New York and never having any need to add extra CA. Too much CA can be very damaging and will result in pale, small growth as it interferes with other uptake.
> 
> Your GH, KH numbers without adding anything seem fine to me. Plants generally like soft water. Look at the recommended ranges in EI? You are obviously getting some CA based on tap and anything else your adding based on your numbers. It's not all Mg.


No when I had good growth I was just doing basic EI but without kno3 because the Aquasoil was still new. 
I started getting issues but they came on slowly until one week after trimming my Rotala Rotundifolia 
I noticed nothing was really growing back.. 
I'd always had issues with the Macrandra outside of the first week or so but assumed it was just a special plant. 
My issues are mostly all Lythraceae plants, Ammania, Rotala, AR. 
Rotala Green seems ok but not really excellent. 

I'm going to add 1 tsp per week magnesium just cause its the only thing I can think of, and also keep off the extra K2SO4


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Here are pictures of my Rotundifolia and Macrandra when things were doing well. 

Nice rosette shape to the new growth on rotundifolia, pinkish hues, just gorgeous!

















Then I did my first trim.. you can start to see Macrandra is already getting weird, and Rotundifolia loses its color and goes to green... 










Some more time goes by 
Rotundifolia is growing but really has none of the color it used to, and leaf shape is more like the low light-low co2 variety. 









More time goes by, now I'm getting genuine stunting. 
Leaf tips are tiny, people said that was lack of N for the Rotundifolia. 
Macrandra is doing some serious hooking. 

















Its after this point when I started dosing Calcium Chloride from Fluval Sea.. Starting with 5ml a week I went all the way to 20ml a week and saw no change.
I also started cranking the co2, I lost a lot of neons and rummynose tetras in the process. Only the strongest survived. 
The results... 









I started getting impatient and tried extra kno3... extra traces, no traces.. but didn't get much results. 
Rotundifolia managed to produce half healthy growth and half retarded growth.. I also added Rotala Green at this point which seemed to not care at all. 









And finally here we are a few weeks before the redo.. 










Moss grew great, but Fissidens got quite dark and not bright like it was in the beginning. 
Rotundifolia was just really haphazard with its growth so I couldn't shape it or get it to do much...


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Seattle and I are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to CA dosing. I mean how much CA do you need for aquatic plants? I'm just used to having soft water in New York and never having any need to add extra CA. Too much CA can be very damaging and will result in pale, small growth as it interferes with other uptake.


Colorado river water has a GH of 200 to 300 and 90% of that is calcium. People have successfully grown plants in this water. New York city water has a GH of about 3 if I recall correctly. Calcium is not toxic to plants. However There is so little calcium and magnesium is New York city water that if you add NPK and Micros and enough bight light your plants can consume most of the magnesium resulting in magnesium deficiency. This has happened to others using new york city water. Seattle's water has a similarly Low or possibly even lower GH. He has found that he consistently gets better growth with a good GH booster such as Equilibrium. I use RO water and also have to use a GH booster. 

chlorophile, You have tried calcium chloride didn't work, You have tired potassium sulfate didn't work. Now you are jumping to magnesium. All in about 2 months. My advise is to stop jumping around with only one nutrient at a time. For proper plant growth you need to have all nutrient available at the same time. Plants clearly need Ca, Mg,S, and CL and these are typically not in fertilizers. 

I would try adding all at the same time. Try mixing 3 parts calcium chloride, with one part magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt). Do one very large 70% or more water change or several 50% water changes in a row to fully reset your water to tap water conditions, Then with your water as clean as it can be Add the Ca, Mg, Cl, S mixture to increase the GH to 3 degrees above what you currently have and then add our regular NPK and trace dose. Now you should have a tank with everything your plants need. Do your regular weekly water changes and keep the GH stable with the mix above. Then wait a month to allow the plants time to adjust to the new mix. They have been struggling for months due to deficiencies and may need weeks to recover.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Surf said:


> > Seattle and I are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to CA dosing. I mean how much CA do you need for aquatic plants? I'm just used to having soft water in New York and never having any need to add extra CA. Too much CA can be very damaging and will result in pale, small growth as it interferes with other uptake.
> 
> 
> Colorado river water has a GH of 200 to 300 and 90% of that is calcium. People have successfully grown plants in this water. New York city water has a GH of about 3 if I recall correctly. Calcium is not toxic to plants. However There is so little calcium and magnesium is New York city water that if you add NPK and Micros and enough bight light your plants can consume most of the magnesium resulting in magnesium deficiency. This has happened to others using new york city water. Seattle's water has a similarly Low or possibly even lower GH. He has found that he consistently gets better growth with a good GH booster such as Equilibrium. I use RO water and also have to use a GH booster.
> ...


Tank water still reads an 8gh 2 water changes later (diluting a 9 gh, which I got by adding Ca, with a 6 gh isn't causing and drastic calcium reduction, and nor is plant growth) which lends me to believe the calcium is just NOT being absorbed.
I boosted GH by 1 with Epsom salts and still have loads of calcium in the water.

If I don't see any changes I'm going to just have to get RO water and reconstitute it.
My plants that suffer are known offenders but all my research all over the internet has no clear answer for what makes lythraceae stunt in seemingly good tanks


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Hmm the only other thing that I changed when things started to get weird was I switched from 5 gallon buckets to using a python..
I now use a capful of prime in the tank instead of 1ml per bucket.
Can too much prime hurt plants?
We have very low chlorine and no chloramine in our water, and I wonder if prime is turning my traces into a salt when I add the 7.6 ph tap and then they are accumulating when my pH drops


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

@Chlorophile are you in New York? Why is @Surf talking about NY water and Mg deficiencies? BTW your micros, aquasoil and tap have MG in it. How much do you need? it doesn't make any sense that you need to add more.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> @Chlorophile are you in New York? Why is @Surf talking about NY water and Mg deficiencies? BTW your micros, aquasoil and tap have MG in it. How much do you need? it doesn't make any sense that you need to add more.


No I'm in Murfreesboro TN, we get our water from the stones river.
I'm in agreement with you on this.
Having tried calcium and having a GH of 6 which I tested is about half calcium, I must have magnesium.
What else can I possibly need?

This has to be something preventing the uptake.
More isn't doing anything.
I don't know what to do though.
All week and my GH doesn't drop so clearly I don't even use 1 degree Cal/mag in a week.. explains why the plants look funny


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Is anything growing healthy? How about the DHG?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Is anything growing healthy? How about the DHG?


Dhg is still quite new so not doing a lot but there are a few runners here and there. My anubias puts out new leaves every day. 
Rotala green grows slowly, not like you'd expect.
My ludwigia is growing but can't tell if it's normal or not.
ammania crassicaulis growth the leaves are small and round but very pink..


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Just a thought for you. Your problem could be none of the above. The first thing I would suspect is not enough light, and I would rule that out first.

Here's some info I found on the Satellite Pro.










If the light is about 20" from the substrate, you may only be at about 60 par at full strength. And that's directly under the light, as the PAR tapers off the further you are from the center. You also said you are not running them at full power, so it could be even less. A PAR meter is really the only way to tell for sure.

I'm just saying a lot of what I see there looks like plants that aren't getting enough light. The pink in rotundifolia is usually more pronounced the closer it gets to the light (PAR), and Macranda in general likes a lot of light. Carpet plants not doing well can also be light related. I would crank it up a bit higher for awhile, and see how the plants respond.

And of course there is the possibility I could be completely wrong, but in my experience, if you don't have enough light for those plants, messing with ferts and hardness, etc. won't do much.

Good luck and I hope you get it solved. And by the way, I like the general look/scape of the tank. Nice work.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)




----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Greggz said:


> Just a thought for you. Your problem could be none of the above. The first thing I would suspect is not enough light, and I would rule that out first.
> 
> Here's some info I found on the Satellite Pro.
> 
> ...


I thought the same thing which is why I bought the second light, the plants were okay at first with just one and then I raised the light slightly and now I have two lights at 85 percent power.
I'll set them to 100% and just see what happens. 
I do worry I'll drive Nutrient demand but maybe they need the light to absorb the nutrients and therefore are looking stunted?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> I thought the same thing which is why I bought the second light, the plants were okay at first with just one and then I raised the light slightly and now I have two lights at 85 percent power.
> I'll set them to 100% and just see what happens.
> I do worry I'll drive Nutrient demand but maybe they need the light to absorb the nutrients and therefore are looking stunted?


It might be worth a try. And if it's the problem, you should see pretty quick results.

One thing I noticed is that earlier in the thread you said you just run both lights overlapping only an hour a day? Maybe I misunderstood that. 

But if so, let's say you are running the front light only. Since LED's are so directional, the back of the tank is probably VERY low PAR at that point, and you may to run them both for a longer period.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

This is a classic example of poisoning by micros. You have Aquasoil which has certain capacity (CEC) to bind to positively charged ions (in our case mostly metals). After a while, this binding capacity is saturated and the poisoning is observed by all the free micros floating in the water. In case of CEC substrates (such as Aquasoil), this takes longer to achieve than when you use plain sand (since sand has no CEC capacity). For sand users, the poisoning usually appears when dosing >0.15 mg/L CSM+B weekly (based on Fe), so generally only EI users are affected. It first manifests on Lythraceae family and Althernanthera plants as these are by far the most sensitive when it comes to micros. At first, only stunted growth is observed, eventually when it gets really bad the growth halts completely. It is currently unknown which micro specifically is responsible for this, with copper and zinc being the prime suspects. This has been observed by many people, but perhaps the most helpful and well documented cases can be found in these threads:

https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/
https://barrreport.com/threads/going-dutch-with-aquasoil.13105/
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-gal-dutchy-freestyle-now-50%-more-dutch.html
https://barrreport.com/threads/fablau-75-gallon-tank.14097/

Our of curiosity, how much Fe have you been dosing?

If plants do not have enough light, they simply die. They do not produce stunted growth, with twisted and crinkled leaves. That's the difference and this is why it's not a light issue.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Greggz said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the same thing which is why I bought the second light, the plants were okay at first with just one and then I raised the light slightly and now I have two lights at 85 percent power.
> ...


That was true of when I first got the light but when I looked into par data I saw aquarium co op test them at 75 par at 12 inches so now they come on and off just 15 minutes apart to make the sunrise and sunset feature 30 minutes long instead of 15.

These lights have really good spread though, probably why the par is low.

Not to mention my plant mass is all in the back and I have the lights more towards the back.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I was also suspect of the lights as well if you look at post #4. Aren't they actually 24" from the substrate? Plants like Rotala Green and DHG (I know it' new) but these should take off in AS with co2 and good light. They don't need much else at that point. Someone else on the forum had the same light and a deep tank and was also having issues, but I don't know if it turned out to be the light. . I just don't get the CA and MG focus when your getting these from multiple sources.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> I was also suspect of the lights as well if you look at post #4. Aren't they actually 24" from the substrate? Plants like Rotala Green and DHG (I know it' new) but these should take off in AS with co2 and good light. They don't need much else at that point. Someone else on the forum had the same light and a deep tank and was also having issues, but I don't know if it turned out to be the light. . I just don't get the CA and MG focus when your getting these from multiple sources.


the DHG is actually in inert sand in the foreground, this was an after the fact swap because the sand got so covered in aquasoil from fish and current. 
But yes the Rotala should be taking off for sure!

I just looked again and the light is actually more like 3 inches or so from the top. 
I have them cranked up now and running at the same time so hopefully that will help. 

My real worry, and I've read through probably 100 pages of these "toxicity" threads, is that that is whats going on. 
And I've always really appreciated Tom Barr's posts but he always completely rules that out as a possibility and claims that since he doses 6x a week traces that its impossible. 

Co2 is definitely about as high as I think I can take it without killing more critters. 
At 12 inches I should have 150 par, not sure about at 18 or 20 though. 
I'm going to start adding a very small dose of urea to the tank as well with my other kno3.. 

I know I'm changing so many things at once so its not going to be a good experiment and I won't prove anything, but this is my show tank in the living room and I have already struggled with 6 months of it not looking the way I want so I can't really be slow and methodical any more.. =[


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I feel for ya, it's frustrating especially when it seems like your doing everything right. Tall tanks are defiintely more challenging, especially in terms of light delivery. I dose all my tanks hi-end EI and make sure I do the water changes and I don't have too many problems, but some plants are more challenging then others. Good Luck with the changes.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> @Chlorophile are you in New York? Why is @Surf talking about NY water and Mg deficiencies? BTW your micros, aquasoil and tap have MG in it. How much do you need? it doesn't make any sense that you need to add more.


I mentioned New York because the location of Housecards is listed as New York. Since I know what the water is like over there and in Seattle the experience of Housecards would be consistent with deficiency not toxicity. In fact research has shown that plants need more calcium than phosphorous and increasing calcium levels tend to reduce Magnesium and sulfur levels. So excess calcium does frequently reduce magnesium levels and high levels of magnesium can reduce calcium levels.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Surf said:


> I mentioned New York because the location of Housecards is listed as New York. Since I know what the water is like over there and in Seattle the experience of Housecards would be consistent with deficiency not toxicity. In fact research has shown that plants need more calcium than phosphorous and increasing calcium levels tend to reduce Magnesium and sulfur levels and the . So excess calcium does frequently reduce magnesium levels and high levels of magnesium can reduce calcium levels.


What about in my case where I can test my tap at 60ppm Ca
Gh 6, that should put me at right around 1:1 Ca:Mg assuming things like Iron aren't making up massive amounts of my GH.. 
P.S. What else can make up a GH reading? Maybe my water report from the city will show something. 
I do have Barium in my water, w/e that means. lol

Bump: Barium: 14 ppb
Copper: 117 ppb
Lead: 7.24 pbb
Sodium: 9.41 ppM
Nitrate: 892 ppb
Flouride: 707 ppb
Chlorate: ppb 132.5
Chromium: 117.5 ppT
Strontium: 93 ppb
Vanadium: 292.2 ppt


----------



## elusive77 (Sep 27, 2016)

Chlorophile said:


> My real worry, and I've read through probably 100 pages of these "toxicity" threads, is that that is whats going on.
> And I've always really appreciated Tom Barr's posts but he always completely rules that out as a possibility and claims that since he doses 6x a week traces that its impossible.


What are you dosing for Micros? I'm not an expert by any means, but for what it's worth I had some similar issues when I was using CSM+B. When I switched to Flourish for a few weeks most of it cleared up. I'm not going to take a stance on either side of the toxicity argument, but it made a difference for me. I think it was more along the lines of what @burr740 found and documented in his journal. He has switched to mixing his own Micro's after issues using CSM+B. I'm considering doing the same. I"m not saying CSM+B is bad either. But I think there may be certain situations where people have issues with it. Read his journal if you haven't already and see what you think. It's an excellent read for many reasons.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

elusive77 said:


> What are you dosing for Micros? I'm not an expert by any means, but for what it's worth I had some similar issues when I was using CSM+B. When I switched to Flourish for a few weeks most of it cleared up. I'm not going to take a stance on either side of the toxicity argument, but it made a difference for me. I think it was more along the lines of what @burr740 found and documented in his journal. He has switched to mixing his own Micro's after issues using CSM+B. I'm considering doing the same. I"m not saying CSM+B is bad either. But I think there may be certain situations where people have issues with it. Read his journal if you haven't already and see what you think. It's an excellent read for many reasons.


I am using CSM+B
I am going to stop dosing for a few weeks or until my non-stunted plans show some sort of deficiency and then start again. 
I've followed Burr, Zapin, and several others very long threads and so I feel there is enough evidence to atleast give it a shot. 

I made the mistake early on of doubling my traces to try and get better color out of R Macranda and then saw CA deficiency and chased that tail but Ca didn't fix it.
I also just now mixed up a solution of CSM+B because scooping 1/16th of the stuff and I can visibly see large white clumps(boron?) and other stuff not mixed... i think its just better to have it in a liquid.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Maybe my water report from the city will show something.
> I do have Barium in my water, w/e that means. lol
> 
> Bump: Barium: 14 ppb
> ...


I looked at the water report you posted earlier but it is hard to read the small print on my screen Frankly it is not a very detailed report. I didn't see strontium and Barium earlier and yes the GH test will detect these. But those two are only amount to about 1 degree. 
As to CO2 and lighting everyone says try more. But increasing them also increases demand for Ca, Mg, Cl, and S. So assuming on of these is short supply right now the problem might get worse with more light and more CO2. Reduced light and CO2 would slow nutrient demand which might be helpful since the nutrients provided by a water change would last longer. Sometimes more is not always better.

Bump:


> Maybe my water report from the city will show something.
> I do have Barium in my water, w/e that means. lol
> 
> Bump: Barium: 14 ppb
> ...


I looked at the water report you posted earlier but it is hard to read the small print on my screen Frankly it is not a very detailed report. I didn't see strontium and Barium earlier and yes the GH test will detect these. But those two are only amount to about 1 degree. 
As to CO2 and lighting everyone says try more. But increasing them also increases demand for Ca, Mg, Cl, and S. So assuming on of these is short supply right now the problem might get worse with more light and more CO2. Reduced light and CO2 would slow nutrient demand which might be helpful since the nutrients provided by a water change would last longer. Sometimes more is not always better.

Bump:


> Maybe my water report from the city will show something.
> I do have Barium in my water, w/e that means. lol
> 
> Bump: Barium: 14 ppb
> ...


I looked at the water report you posted earlier but it is hard to read the small print on my screen Frankly it is not a very detailed report. I didn't see strontium and Barium earlier and yes the GH test will detect these. But those two are only amount to about 1 degree. 
As to CO2 and lighting everyone says try more. But increasing them also increases demand for Ca, Mg, Cl, and S. So assuming on of these is short supply right now the problem might get worse with more light and more CO2. Reduced light and CO2 would slow nutrient demand which might be helpful since the nutrients provided by a water change would last longer. Sometimes more is not always better.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> Copper: 117 ppb


This may not seem like a lot, but it's actually 0.117 ppm of Cu in your tap water. People usually have that much Fe in their tank water. Acute toxicity of Cu starts somewhere at 1 ppm, but chronic toxicity and possibly stunting is probably much lower. That combined with your massive EI dosing of CSM+B probably means your Cu levels are obscenely high. It would be interesting to test the water for that.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

acino said:


> This may not seem like a lot, but it's actually 0.117 ppm of Cu in your tap water. People usually have that much Fe in their tank water. Acute toxicity of Cu starts somewhere at 1 ppm, but chronic toxicity and possibly stunting is probably much lower. That combined with your massive EI dosing of CSM+B probably means your Cu levels are obscenely high. It would be interesting to test the water for that.


Hmm, are there reliable Cu test kits that would actually give me an accurate reading? 

I did add several shrimps to the tank and they all died within a few weeks, except the amano's which climbed out.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> Hmm, are there reliable Cu test kits that would actually give me an accurate reading?
> 
> I did add several shrimps to the tank and they all died within a few weeks, except the amano's which climbed out.


Both JBL and SERA make Cu test kits. Not sure how accurate they are though. Also, no idea what test kit brands you guys have in the US.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I think there is only a tiny amount of CU in CSM+B.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> I am using CSM+B
> I am going to stop dosing for a few weeks or until my non-stunted plans show some sort of deficiency and then start again.
> I've followed Burr, Zapin, and several others very long threads and so I feel there is enough evidence to atleast give it a shot.
> 
> ...


Instead of stopping CSM+B, why didn't you try the Equilibrium like several people suggested earlier in this thread?

Also, is it possible you mixed the EI wrong or are dosing it incorrectly for your tank? I know you said 30ppm Nitrates at end of week..but its worth double checking. I found that EI formulas differ from website to website.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisX said:


> Instead of stopping CSM+B, why didn't you try the Equilibrium like several people suggested earlier in this thread?
> 
> Also, is it possible you mixed the EI wrong or are dosing it incorrectly for your tank? I know you said 30ppm Nitrates at end of week..but its worth double checking. I found that EI formulas differ from website to website.


Cross referenced EI values several times, everything is up to snuff. Is there a specific nutrient that in excess or lack of might cause my symptoms? 

I dont have pin holes or loss of color or anything in older leaves, even 3 month old leaves on my very slow growing Macrandra.

I fail to see the value in Equilibrium when I can test my water and see I don't lack anything it provides? 
I can test my tank and see my GH hasn't moved over the course of a week
I provided plenty of Calcium, I show no signs of Magnesium deficiency but I will add it for laughs. 
I feel like I'll see more results from doing the opposite, lowering GH and KH. 
Dosing Urea or Ammonium Sulfate

Bump:









This is a stem of Rotundifolia, you can see the stunting in the middle, looks exactly like what I experienced. 
At the bottom of the stem he was dosing low kno3 and urea, then he upped kno3 and stopped the urea and it stunted, then he went back to low kno3 and urea and it returned to normal growth. 

Argh the possibilities


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> I fail to see the value in Equilibrium when I can test my water and see I don't lack anything it provides?


Your method has potentially more points of failure. What if one of those tests is wrong? Would you bet your life on their accuracy? Can you *really* test for all the individual ingredients in Equilibrium?

The whole point of EI is to overdose all necessary ingredients so you don't have to test like crazy, and the 50% wc keeps everything in check and CONSTANT. I am making a similar suggestion for Equilibrium, to dose it (in case) you are missing one or more of those.

Most people realize CSM+B doesnt have all the micros, so they suggest Equilibrium or mix your own (advanced). Its possible the Aquasoil had these in the beginning and they were depleted.

Trying to diagnose specific deficiencies also has problems, as there may be more than one deficiency, and variances between species may manifest differently.

You are going off on many tangents and disregarding the kind of (exhaustive) "problem solving" that EI provides. 

The decision to halt CSM+B makes no sense if you are doing 50% water changes.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisX said:


> Your method has potentially more points of failure. What if one of those tests is wrong? Would you bet your life on their accuracy? Can you *really* test for all the individual ingredients in Equilibrium?
> 
> The whole point of EI is to overdose all necessary ingredients so you don't have to test like crazy, and the 50% wc keeps everything in check and CONSTANT. I am making a similar suggestion for Equilibrium, to dose it (in case) you are missing one or more of those.
> 
> ...


My decision to halt CSM+B is based on a slew of other info and stems from the fact that I never had any issues until I started EI, and I don't see how NPK would hurt my plants. 

I don't have symptoms of anything but Ca deficiency, I don't think its even possible to get a Cl or S deficiency with 50% water changes from tap water. 
I've added over 60ppm weekly of Calcium and nothing happened. 
What would Equilibrium do that I haven't already tried? 
People grow plants well in a GH 2.... 

My plants show more signs of Calcium deficiency after I added Ca than before I started a few months ago. 
Magnesium is mobile I have no signs of lacking it. 
And while I don't trust my Ca test down to a specific PPM, I know I'm between 40-60 ppm since I can test RO water and get a 0-10 reading, and I can test 5 gal of tap with 10mg/l per gallon added and get a reading of around 100 mg/l

Why is it only Lythraceae plants that have issues? 
Why is there countless pages of threads where people have the same "Ca deficiency" on Lythraceae and they cut back on Micro's and see results? 

I made the second thread because the prior suggestions of low N or low Ca were put to the test and no cigar. 
I don't need Ca, my tank GH is 9 now from added Ca... I'll add Mg each week and see. 
Chloride? Well I doses Calcium Chloride so no.
Sulfur? Well maybe, but is it not in most of the fertilizers and in dechlorinator? I don't have symptoms of it either, and its mobile so old leaves should be suffering. 

Now Fe can block the uptake of Sulfur, so maybe adding more would help but that isn't really solving my issue if its excess Traces.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> I don't have symptoms of anything but Ca deficiency, I don't think its even possible to get a Cl or S deficiency with 50% water changes from tap water.
> I've added over 60ppm weekly of Calcium and nothing happened.
> What would Equilibrium do that I haven't already tried?
> People grow plants well in a GH 2....


Challenge your assumptions. You think they are symptoms of calcium deficiency, you added calcium, but it didn't fix the problem. Obviously, not a calcium deficiency.

All your problems started with EI? Only thing that could happen dosing normal (too much) EI is potential algae. Did you get extra algae? Another explanation, aquasoil ran out of trace elements around the time you started EI. 

You seem to be making conclusions that haven't worked, so the assumptions they are based on must be wrong.

You attribute the problems to EI, when that is likely not the problem; its something else unless there is toxin in ferts, or they are mixed wrong. Where did you get your EI ferts?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisX said:


> Challenge your assumptions. You think they are symptoms of calcium deficiency, you added calcium, but it didn't fix the problem. Obviously, not a calcium deficiency.


Exactly my point, thank you
Nor is it Magnesium
Nor is it Chloride
My gH is already higher than most of my plants like, so why add equilibrium? 

Sulfur?

Bump:


ChrisX said:


> Challenge your assumptions. You think they are symptoms of calcium deficiency, you added calcium, but it didn't fix the problem. Obviously, not a calcium deficiency.
> 
> All your problems started with EI? Only thing that could happen dosing normal (too much) EI is potential algae. Did you get extra algae? Another explanation, aquasoil ran out of trace elements around the time you started EI.
> 
> ...


I got hair algae briefly, it subsided quickly, I got BBA when my filter became clogged, it hasn't gone away but is not spreading or growing even on java fern or Anubias leaves. 

When my Macrandra started doing weird things I did 2X traces, so I don't see how traces missing from Aquasoil at 4-6 weeks into the life of the soil is possible. 

I got the ferts from GLA, and I had at one point wondered if they were in the wrong containers somehow.

Edit: 
Thread is long and rambling so I'll provide the history again for those who may have missed it
I started the tank in February
Started EI about 4-6 weeks after i set the tank up, basically when it was done cycling. 
I read that Macrandra likes traces and low N so I took N from 1/4 tsp to 1/8 tsp and traces from 1/16th to 1/8th, 3x a week each. 
Things got way worse and thats when I returned to bone-standard Ei but with Calcium Chloride added.

double edit: 
This is not at all my first time with EI either, I've had high tech tanks in some form for 9 years now, I always use EI. 
I've had a variety of issues but nothing out of the ordinary, algae killing HC carpets, etc.
So I'm not anti EI, but unless my ADA Hornwood is toxic or my Yamaya Stone has veins of toxic metals hidden in it then nothing sets this tank apart and it shouldn't be doing worse than any of my old tanks.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well according to Tom Barr your water hardness is ideal:

"any plant can be grown at a KH of 5 and a GH of 5-10, or less. This would not be considered "soft" water, actually it would be ideal." - Tom Barr

The thing that throws me is that your saying all your plants other than the Anubias are not growing well. That to me points to a very fundamental thing, not a tweak of something like Ca, Mg, Cl, S.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Well according to Tom Barr your water hardness is ideal:
> 
> "any plant can be grown at a KH of 5 and a GH of 5-10, or less. This would not be considered "soft" water, actually it would be ideal." - Tom Barr
> 
> The thing that throws me is that your saying all your plants other than the Anubias are not growing well. That to me points to a very fundamental thing, not a tweak of something like Ca, Mg, Cl, S.


I wish I knew what kind of Ludwigia this is because it might be growing normally.. 
I got it very recently so the older growth is probably emersed, but its turning coppery and the leaves are getting smaller. 










Ammania has weird weird new growth









I don't really have any plants in a different genus other than the DHG and the Ludwigia and Anubias.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

I got mine from GLA too.

Using these directions: Planted Tank Fertilizer: ?Estimative Index (EI) Fertilization Method - Green Leaf Aquariums

The only potential gotcha is overdosing based on tank size. When I first mixed ferts it was for the 40-60 gallon tank (I have a 50 gallon tank).

I probably only have 40-45 ish actual gallons of water, and the dosage for a 40 gallon (20-40) is HALF of the dosage for the next column.

I just halved my dose (im dosing from the 20-40 column for my 50g tank), and everything has been great.

The point is that based on that table, you can get a wide range of actual doses depending on how you interpret the chart.

Also, I ran out of Equilibrium a couple weeks ago and there was a big uptick in algae. I've gone back to my previous EI dosing and .5 tbsp of Equilibrium into each 10g of tank change water. (For me, it only takes about a HALF dose of equilibrium to get a +2 GH.)

OTH, I have MGOC soil and 30ppm CO2 24/7, so I've been living the charmed life.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisX said:


> I got mine from GLA too.
> 
> Using these directions: Planted Tank Fertilizer: ?Estimative Index (EI) Fertilization Method - Green Leaf Aquariums
> 
> ...


my MGOC tanks were amazing, I could grow Baby Tears and it pearled in a low light no co2 tank. 

I'm on the 20-40 gal area with 33 gallons and followed that, but I've also checked on rotala butterfly and aquariumcalculator.com (both give me slightly different dosing) but they're similar for everything except one tells me 3/8 tsp vs 1/4 tsp Kno3. 

I'm really interested to try Ammonium Sulfate, which I have 5 lbs of.. 
Assuming my ph stays low it should be safe. 
Alas I need to figure out these issues first. 
I miss the way my plants used to look.. 








So pink and bushy, I don't even see other peoples rotala have so many dense leaves at the tip.

Bump: https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/

This guy has the same issues, and devoted an entire tank to just the plants that get stunted.. 
A few paragraphs down he says "In my tanks, these plants do better with high light, high CO2, rich substrate, EI level macros and low micros. By 'low micros,' I mean 20-30% of typical EI levels"

I DEMAND ANSWERS =[


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Hmmm.. is there any such thing as too much co2? 
I wonder if my pH is just disgustingly low, its certainly as low as I can read on the API test kit, atleast if I test at the end of the day..


----------



## guvmarley (Oct 3, 2015)

This might not be useful at all (and that's fine) but I found that macranda grows better for me when I place a root tab nearby. Dosing EI as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

guvmarley said:


> This might not be useful at all (and that's fine) but I found that macranda grows better for me when I place a root tab nearby. Dosing EI as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you! I'm sure that helps but mine isn't really struggling so much as its deformed so I need to figure that out first!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

If accurate, that _is_ an awful lot of Cu. Certainly enough to stunt species which are prone to stunting. And probably why the Amano shrimp headed for high ground. This might be the elephant in the room

To the guy who said EI cant possible cause issues, it most certainly can and does for many folks. 

Now, it's probably not the micros themselves, so Tom Barr is partially right. It's likely more to do with an individual's redox values and PH levels in relation to the edta Fe chelate in csmb. KH also plays a role. That's why some folks have issues and some dont.

Chlorophile have you tried dosing 1/2 or even 1/4 EI levels for micros using csmb? That'd be my next step. Might have to add some dtpa Fe along with it to have enough iron.

The edta chelate used in csmb stays bound to the non-Fe micros at much higher PH levels than it does to Fe. It starts to break loose from Fe around 6.5.

When the chelate breaks from Fe you have a few potential problems. First there's all that extra chelate thats now free to bind with other stuff. Edta isnt biodegradable, so it stays around building up like some of the nutrients we add, only removed by water changes.

The second and likely biggest problem is the now-raw Fe in whatever state its in, at the very least binding with P and who knows what else creating a whole new compound.

Lots of unknowns here. But just because some folks including Tom Barr have never seen toxic responses from csmb, doesnt mean it cant exist. If EI worked for everyone we'd all be growing plants like Tom instead of trying to solve problems.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

burr740 said:


> If accurate, that _is_ an awful lot of Cu. Certainly enough to stunt species which are prone to stunting. And probably why the Amano shrimp headed for high ground. This might be the elephant in the room
> 
> To the guy who said EI cant possible cause issues, it most certainly can and does for many folks.
> 
> ...


Thank you Burr, your posts come up a lot and are part of my inspiration to try things other than tweaking Ca/Mg.

I have not tried cutting traces yet, but I did order Thrive+ and I was going to try that for a little, and I was folling Pikez on the barr report and wanted to try what he said was your micro recipe of 1tsp in 500ml. 
I only have a 375ml bottle to spare so I need to do some math on that but I'd be happy to try it. 
I don't think dry dosing is consistent enough!

So .117ppm Cu could be an issue to?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Im confused by this part, 1 tsp of what exactly?



Chlorophile said:


> I was folling Pikez on the barr report and wanted to try what he said was your micro recipe of 1tsp in 500ml.


If you mean csmb in 500 ml of water, 1 tsp sounds like a bunch. Vin has big tanks and likes to use only 5 ml doses, so unless he explained it further that could really mean anything.

Best to use the calculator at Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator to figure out how much to add.

More fields will appear as you fill in the blanks. Enter your tank volume and select DIY.

Compound is Plantex csmb

Using -> Solution

Container/dose should be self explanatory, you have a 375 ml bottle or whatever

Hit the drop down arrow beside "Calculating for" and select "dose to reach a target." Then enter whatever ppm Fe you want to dose.

You are most likely dosing .5 ppm now, even though full EI is .2 on this particular calculator. Just depends where you got the recipe.

Either way I'd probably try between .05 and .1 ppm 3x per week to begin with.

Thrive+ also uses edta Fe. So if that happens to be the problem now with csmb I doubt anything changes. Of course it will be blended more accurately and all that, these issues may have nothing to do with edta Fe.

Csmb is really made for agricultural and hydroponic use, to be added to hundreds or thousands of gallons at a time. The chances of getting the right amount of everything in a small fraction of a teaspoon is slim to none imo....and Slim just left the building.

So yeah definitely make solutions with it. Also use smaller doses in order to add as much csmb as possible. For example using 5 ml doses instead of 20 ml doses requires a lot more csmb, which increases the odds of having everything in the right ratio. 

Im not sure what level of Cu can become an issue but that's definitely enough to be a red flag when it comes to Lythracae stunting, almost certainly too much for shrimp


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

burr740 said:


> Im confused by this part, 1 tsp of what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He said he put 1.67 gram or 1 tsp of CSM+B in a 500ml container and dosed his 50 gal Rotala Kill tank with it, and that it would last him 100 days or something. 
Pretty sure he said it was a 10 mil dose, I put it on rotala butterfly and it was like .03 ppm iron per dose? Not sure if that sounds right but I've read sooo many pages on this by now.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

.03 sounds about right. Still, best to let the calculator tell you exactly how much

Also keep in mind those kill tanks have been low micro experiments for the most part. I dont believe he's ever been able to maintain the Dutch at those levels.

Although I dosed lower than .03 3x week for a very long time in several tanks with pretty good results.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Alright, well so would you recommend going straight to the low .05 dosing and keeping on regular schedule or should I give it a week and a water change before i resume?

Bump: Also, If I'm using a pump container that doses 2ml per pump, should I reduce the target to 1/3rd so that it takes 3 pumps? 
Or would that make the concentration too weak and therefor less likely that I've mixed it well.
I'm also considering making the dose 5ml so I can just pump into a API test vial and then pour it in since I'm not convinced the pumps are all that accurate.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

I'd just do a big water change like 80% and start at .1, give it a couple weeks and see what happens. But you could start back with .05 too. You'll just have to try one and then watch the plants for a little while to see which way to go. 

Mixing for a 2 ml dose will take more csmb than mixing for a 5 ml dose. So that would theoretically be better, assuming you can accurately dispense 2 ml. But either way is probably fine. Id go with whichever dose you can most easily measure correctly. If that's 5 ml then go with that.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I'll definitely be watching this. Would be interesting if this is a Cu issue since it seem more related to your plumbing/water supply then actual EI Dosing? I don't think the Cu in most CSM+B amounts to much.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> I'll definitely be watching this. Would be interesting if this is a Cu issue since it seem more related to your plumbing/water supply then actual EI Dosing? I don't think the Cu in most CSM+B amounts to much.


There is not that much Cu in CSM+B, but if you dose a lot, like double EI dose, you can easily get up to 0.020 ppm of Cu per week. Plants definitely don't need that much. Over a month or two, that adds up to nearly 0.100 ppm.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

acino said:


> There is not that much Cu in CSM+B, but if you dose a lot, like double EI dose, you can easily get up to 0.020 ppm of Cu per week. Plants definitely don't need that much. Over a month or two, that adds up to nearly 0.100 ppm.


Why would it add up to 0.100ppm over a month. if your doing 50%+ water changes plus plant uptake? If your dosing at those levels and not doing larg WCs then yes, I can't account for what issues might develop.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> Why would it add up to 0.100ppm over a month. if your doing 50%+ water changes plus plant uptake? If your dosing at those levels and not doing larg WCs then yes, I can't account for what issues might develop.


Because 50% water changes don't remove all the excess. It's basic math. They remove 50% of what is in the water:

Week 1 - 0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.010 ppm
Week 2 - 0.010+0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.015 ppm
Week 3 - 0.015+0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.018 ppm
Week 4 - 0.018+0.020 ppm ---> *0.038 ppm

*Alright, month was an exaggaration, but over few months, the levels can get pretty high. Especially when you use tap water which *already has 0.117 ppm* of Cu in there. Then the water changes are not really helping that much.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

acino said:


> Because 50% water changes don't remove all the excess. It's basic math. They remove 50% of what is in the water:
> 
> Week 1 - 0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.010 ppm
> Week 2 - 0.010+0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.015 ppm
> ...


The problem with your "Basic Math" it assumes no uptake. so basically why would I be adding all those EI Ferts into an empty container that has no uptake. It's not black and white like "Basic Math." When you come back with a calculation that takes into account uptake in everyone's setups then your "Basic Math" might actually calculate.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

acino said:


> Because 50% water changes don't remove all the excess. It's basic math. They remove 50% of what is in the water:
> 
> Week 1 - 0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.010 ppm
> Week 2 - 0.010+0.020 ppm - 50% Water change results in 0.015 ppm
> ...


Nope, keep going with your calculations ... You can do water changes for 100 weeks and with 50% wc you will never exceed double the dosed conc. What comes from tap can still be considered as part of the weekly dose.

Taking your example you will get 0.039999999....

Keep in mind this assumes that plants have 0 uptake in this time. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> The problem with your "Basic Math" it assumes no uptake. so basically why would I be adding all those EI Ferts into an empty container that has no uptake. It's not black and white like "Basic Math." When you come back with a calculation that takes into account uptake in everyone's setups then your "Basic Math" might actually calculate.


I think you grossly overestimate the uptake of Cu by plants.

For instance, if you look at Hoagland's solution and scale it down to general conditions in a tank (~ 20 ppm NO3), you get a required Cu level of ~0.0005 ppm. (probably already excess anyway)
If you look at commercial fertilizers such as Flourish or ProFito, the levels of Cu introduced with their recommended doses in the order of ppt.

I am not saying this definitely is a Cu issue, what I am saying is that plants don't need nowhere close to the level of micros EI suggests.

EDIT: Dukydaf, you are right, the cummulation caps at double the weekly dose, my bad. Still quite a lot.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

acino said:


> I think you grossly overestimate the uptake of Cu by plants.


OK so there's no uptake. I should setup a hi-tech tank, dose CSM+B one time and since there's no uptake I don't need to dose again - ever according to your math.

I don't claim to know exactly how much the uptake is but there's uptake, so your math is wrong. It's that simple.

Plus as indicated by @dukydaf your math was wrong anyway. Move on...


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> OK so there's no uptake. I should setup a hi-tech tank, dose CSM+B one time and since there's no uptake I don't need to dose again - ever according to your math.
> 
> I don't claim to know exactly how much the uptake is but there's uptake, so your math is wrong. It's that simple.
> 
> Plus as indicated by @*dukydaf* your math was wrong anyway. Move on...


Approximation. If your plants uptake minimal fraction of what you introduce (let's on order of single %s), you can say uptake is negligible.

I did not say you don't have to dose micros ever again. People are routinely dosing PPS levels of micros and don't experience copper deficiences. I am providing you with comparison data in other cases (commercial fertilizers, Hoagland's solution) and try to provide some arguments why I think EI uptake is extremely overestimated (when it comes to micros). What you do in return is mocking me, instead of engaging in a constructive discussion. I apologize for challenging your EI perspective.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

acino said:


> Approximation. If your plants uptake minimal fraction of what you introduce (let's on order of single %s), you can say uptake is negligible.
> 
> I did not say you don't have to dose micros ever again. People are routinely dosing PPS levels of micros and don't experience copper deficiences. I am providing you with comparison data in other cases (commercial fertilizers, Hoagland's solution) and try to provide some arguments why I think EI uptake is extremely overestimated. What you do in return is mocking me, instead of engaging in a constructive discussion. I apologize for challenging your EI perspective.


I'm not mocking you. You tried to show the build-up over time and your math is not only wrong it didn't take into account any uptake which is the entire reason we dose. A tank is not a sterile lab container. Now your pivoting into different areas. Please stop and move on - thank you! Let the OP continue his discussion.


----------



## acino (Nov 14, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> I'm not mocking you. You tried to show the build-up over time and your math is not only wrong it didn't take into account any uptake which is the entire reason we dose. A tank is not a sterile lab container. Now your pivoting into different areas. Please stop and move on - thank you! Let the OP continue his discussion.


You are right, I was wrong with the initial calculation. It caps at double the weekly dose, which is still quite a lot. I provided a reason why I neglected the uptake of plants - because *it is negligible* compared to the obscenely high doses of ~2x EI. The possibility of overdosing with micros is something that should be considered more often, closing eyes before this issue will achieve nothing. Sometimes it is not a problem, but there is countless evidence all over the internet *it can be* a problem, especially with more sensitive plants of Lythraceae family.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Got contact with the water treatment plant and this is what he sent me, it's a weekly test result.

We post our 8:00 a.m. results laboratory results for chlorine, hardness, pH, alkalinity, turbidity and fluoride Monday ? Friday (except on holidays) on the Department?s Facebook page. I have attached a copy of yesterday?s posting. Our calcium hardness will run between 60 ? 80 mg/L. Our total hardness runs between 80 ? 105 mg/L. We treat the water to obtain 90 ? 100 mg/L, however, it will occasionally drop below the 90 mg/L when we have a lot of rain. The treatment plant is a lime softening plant so we are able to keep our hardness pretty stable as the raw (river) hardness typically runs between 150 mg/L ? 300 mg/L. We do not test for magnesium hardness either as it is not really necessary in our operations. I hope this helps. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to ask."

So they are softening the water from between 150-300mg/l down to these levels...

Anyone know what that means


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

Lime softening involves adding calcium hydroxide to the water being treated. This causes the precipitation of Calcium and Magnesium ions due to exceeding the solubility of the solution. The precipitate is removed from the treated water lowering the hardness and TDS. Interestingly, this process can apparently also remove iron and manganese.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

TheBaconater said:


> Lime softening involves adding calcium hydroxide to the water being treated. This causes the precipitation of Calcium and Magnesium ions due to exceeding the solubility of the solution. The precipitate is removed from the treated water lowering the hardness and TDS. Interestingly, this process can apparently also remove iron and manganese.


Interesting!
I looked into it and I guess one grain per gallon is equivalent to 17 or so parts per million KH.
Basically if I do the math my API test kits are rounding to the nearest whole number of drops for GH and KH so that makes me feel good about the tests at least.
And he said he likes to maintain 60 to 80% calcium which also corroborates my near 60 parts per million calcium test although it's probably reading on the low side.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Okay, so thrive+ is .4 ppm per 10 gal per dose..
Notably higher than what I was wanting to try..

Maybe a good test though because I'll be able to see if it's the iron specifically or the quantity of csm b dosed to reach that iron level...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chlorophile said:


> Okay, so thrive+ is .4 ppm per 10 gal per dose..
> Notably higher than what I was wanting to try..
> 
> Maybe a good test though because I'll be able to see if it's the iron specifically or the quantity of csm b dosed to reach that iron level...


Sorry I got distracted :wink2: What exactly are you trying to eliminate or add as a solution to the problem. Are you saying you don't tink you have enough FE and don' want to dose more CSM to acheive it?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so thrive+ is .4 ppm per 10 gal per dose..
> ...


No not really, I ordered thrive originally because I was just going to try a different fertilizer schedule all together but I'm going to try the ranges Burr and Pikez have experimented with first.

Now the part that I'm confused about and it's probably still a mystery, is if the issue is how much CSMb is dosed, or if it's the iron specifically, or the type of iron.

If it's the CSMB then thrive may work because it has a separate source of iron.
If it's the iron specifically it will not work.
If it's the type of iron, thrive will not work because it still uses the same as csmb.

Wish I'd known what I know now 3 days ago when I ordered thrive lol.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

What kind of Iron is in Thrive+


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

^Colin told somebody one time it was edta iinm

What is the PH before and after CO2? 

If it's around or below 6.5 - most of the time, edta Fe is not the problem. If its up in the 7s for a good period of time then it might be

High micros/Fe in and of itself I dont think is the problem either. But it's certainly not going to hurt anything to try lower levels because it does solve issues like this in many cases, for whatever reason.

In my opinion the number one suspect here is having 110 ppb of Cu


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Thanks @burr740. Well the .117 Cu is from the tap. This is much more than he is getting through the micros. So many different opinions on this. I know I read Barr saying not a problem till at least 1.0 ppm or something like that, not withstanding sensitive shrimp.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

burr740 said:


> ^Colin told somebody one time it was edta iinm
> 
> What is the PH before and after CO2?
> 
> ...


Water company claims it is 7.9

I test at 7.5-7.6

In the tank off gassed it's like a 6.6-6.8 from aquasoil
With co2 it's below a 6 but idk how below.
The entire tank is freaking carbonated from my atomizer lol.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Is there a product that might remove copper from the water and I could try no water changes for 2 weeks and see if anything improves?

Prime supposedly detoxes heavy metals but I wonder if its temporary and then the copper is binding to the chelator from the iron and accumulating somehow.
Right after a water change my pH will be in the 7s


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

So your number from the water company is 0.117 ppm? Did you confirm that when you spoke with them? That's definitely not ug/l right? In comparison according to my water report my number for Cu is 0.000344 ppm and if it exceeds 0.0013 it would be considered "action" level whatever that means.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Wow sorry for all the posts...
But I just had another Revelation that could indicate it is the copper..
Right around the time I started EI is also the first time I cleaned my filter.
And when I did I removed the activated carbon pad from the filter.
Could that pad have been absorbing the copper?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> So your number from the water company is 0.117 ppm? Did you confirm that when you spoke with them? That's definitely not ug/l right? In comparison according to my water report my number for Cu is 0.000344 ppm and if it exceeds 0.0013 it would be considered "action" level whatever that means.


It's 117ppb, acceptable levels is 1300ppb?
According to my report.
Probably can't read it cause it keeps compressing and it's too hard to do imgur uploads from my phone
You sure yours isn't in PPT?
If my action level is 1300 and yours is .0013 then that seems like the same but in a different magnitude


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Yeah, this can't be apples to apples this is what my report says:

"...132 total samples were collected from the water
systems shown above and the 90th percentile values ranged from
0.308 to 0.697 ug/l for copper. For my area i was 0.344.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

@Chlorophile,

Is the city water report anything to base your fert decisions on? Really? Just like any of your tests, it introduces another variable (ie. the water likely changes over time, what the water tested at six months ago is probably not what is getting to your house.)

While trying to understand the chemistry and make reasoned decisions about how to fix your problem has value, experimentation is a better tool. Experimentation discovers what actually works as opposed to what (you think) *should* work.

Experimentation will overcome any mistakes made in measuring ferts, any inaccuracies in your testing, any incorrect assumptions about what exactly is the problem.

And quite frankly until you have done the basic experimentation, trying to pinpoint esoteric causes is putting the cart before horse.

I started out with EI with DIY lights that I have no idea of their par, so I started with what I thought was full EI dosing based on GLA charts. I was using Equilibrium from the start which was a big boon. (Only found out later what it does when I ran out.)

Then realized there was no consensus on actual dosing amounts so instead of trying to reason out my problems, I adjusted dosing to see what would happen.

Equilibrium contains traces that you aren't going to get in CSM+B, so unless you are mixing your own traces, you probably aren't getting all of these. You seem to be operating under the assumption you are, but again there are alot of potential points of failure in your reasoning.

It just seems to me like you haven't tried the simple things like adjusting EI downward, Equilibrium, height of lights, CO2 levels and are searching for an abstruse explanation.

I know youre going to say you experimented with those things, but you haven't used Equilibrium and haven't mentioned how you are covering traces beyond... your city water report and what you assume is in your CSM+B.

Honestly, I'm not interested in those things. I'm more interested in the results of your testing and how you were able to rule out taking certain steps.

Heres an example of an experiement I'd run: I'd plant some stems of the problem plants in submersed soil pots to see if that makes a difference, then go from there. If the plant in MGOC was failing, then I might assume an excess as opposed to a deficiency. etc etc etc


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Ok some fascinating news! The difference in @Chlorophile copper readings and mine didn't make any sense and was driving me crazy. So I spoke to the lab for my water supply and guess what? 

There was a typo on my report. They had ug/l instead of mg/l. Now the number I had of 0.000344 is actually 0.344 ppm which is around three times worse then Chlorophile, but it's not that simple. That number is from the the most suspect areas since cooper concentration is all man induced through plumbing so they go the oldest areas and put up those numbers as a "worst case" scenario. 

He was able to zero in on a more specific area near my home and told me the reading is 0.06 ppm about half that have Chlrophile. Chlrophile how old is the house your in. Is that number from your specific area. The age of the structure will greatly change this number.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisX said:


> @Chlorophile,
> 
> Is the city water report anything to base your fert decisions on? Really? Just like any of your tests, it introduces another variable (ie. the water likely changes over time, what the water tested at six months ago is probably not what is getting to your house.)
> 
> ...


I don't want to just throw GH booster at my problem, I want to determine the actual issue.
I've done basic experimentation and I don't see how you imply I haven't just because I haven't used your preferred product, but have proof that the tank is receiving gobs of the things in it.

I feel like there is some hostility here.. I've done experiments not based on what I think will work but based on what has worked for others.
I've ruled out variables and I've done tests and corroborated them with public data.

If you honestly believe it's the chloride and sulfur and iron in equilibrium, idk what to say. Theres practically no chance I'm deficient in those given my fertilizer schedule and tap water.
Not csm B but specifically half my fertilizers have contain sulfur so does my water conditioner.

I'm not interested in going down the same rabbit holes I've already gone down chasing calcium and magnesium, it's been 6 months of trial and error I'm just NOW getting to the impulsive part of this "experiment" which it isn't. This is my show tank.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Ok some fascinating news! The difference in @Chlorophile copper readings and mine didn't make any sense and was driving me crazy. So I spoke to the lab for my water supply and guess what?
> 
> There was a typo on my report. They had ug/l instead of mg/l. Now the number I had of 0.000344 is actually 0.344 ppm which is around three times worse then Chlorophile, but it's not that simple. That number is from the the most suspect areas since cooper concentration is all man induced through plumbing so they go the oldest areas and put up those numbers as a "worst case" scenario.
> 
> He was able to zero in on a more specific area near my home and told me the reading is 0.06 ppm about half that have Chlrophile


Makes sense since your action level had exactly a few decimal places different reading than what It says on mine but still the same numbers.

I'm curious about how my copper levels are tested if it's the same way or if it's at the plant... I have a new home and no copper pipes.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chlorophile said:


> Makes sense since your action level had exactly a few decimal places different reading than what It says on mine but still the same numbers.
> 
> I'm curious about how my copper levels are tested if it's the same way or if it's at the plant... I have a new home and no copper pipes.


I'm betting those numbers are not representative of your home....


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

What do you think this red coloration is on my rocks? Lots of them have these large rusty spots.... 
I'm about to take them out and hit em with some acid and see if they fizz


----------



## Syris (Jul 10, 2008)

Dying or dead BBA? While you have it out testing acid on it, hit the BBA with peroxide.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Got some purigen I'm going to put in the filter, interesting to see that the bag mentions boosting redox.
I'm also going to set up a 5 gallon tank with fluval stratum and I'll move many of the same plants over and see how they do. Not sure what dosing or co2 levels I'll use yet. 

I'm worried that by not using co2 I might mask the issues with lower growth rate.. but then if that works maybe I lower the growth rate in the main tank lol.

So many variables here..


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Why are you looking at adding Purigen. Because of the BBA? Is anything growing close to normal other than the Anubias?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Why are you looking at adding Purigen. Because of the BBA? Is anything growing close to normal other than the Anubias?


Really no reason other than what Burr mentioned regarding "it might be different redox values" that determines why excess traces stunt plants for some people but not others. 
It doesn't remove the phosphates we need for plants just organic I think so shouldn't be an issue. 

I'm not sure if anything is really growing normal.. Java Fern and Anubias seem fine but they're so fool proof. 

Rotala Green and Reinekii look a bit more normal. 
New growth on my Ludwigia has gone green and curly instead of round and copper. 
Freaking mystery..

One thing I find really interesting is I bought Yamaya stone from AFA. 
Some of it is dark black, some of it is kinda blue with veins and streaks of red and grey... 
I tested them with acid and they insta-fizz. 
Not sure what the deposits are though. 
Reaallly tempted to pull them all out and just leave the driftwood but it will not even be the same scape anymore. Might as well redo the entire tank =[

Here is a link to the gallery with the photos if you want to see them fullsize
https://imgur.com/a/Tz0NB

Here are the photos themselves


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Set up a Mini M for some of these plants with Fluval Stratum..

So far just one stem of the Ludwigia and 2 stems of Rotala Green, some Crypts and Cyper Helfiri. 
I'll grab some more stems from the other tank tomorrow...


























I'll dose Thrive weekly... gonna use some Urea to cycle it.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Put the purigen in yesterday and today my rummy nose Tetras have gone super super dark! Like wicked dark it looks great.
Idk what purigen does but they seem to like it.

Lowered both lights to 80% because I was getting some serious hair algae...


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Chlorophile,

Purigen removes dissolved organic matter such as tannins, nitrogenous fish waste, dissolved plant detritus. I does not remove chemicals such as the nitrates in the potassium nitrate that we dose for the plants....just the organics.


----------



## benstatic (Oct 15, 2017)

Chlorophile - I think you should know by now, that this group here is giving you suggestions, but not able to agree on your cause. You are going to have to start doing more experimentation to cure your issues, and start ruling things out by trying it. My suggestion here - 

You are nutrient locked somehow.
This isn't to say you are deficient in a nutrient, or toxic in a nutrient, but your plant is unable to take up something (I might agree your plant is CA deficient). You have obviously tested your water, and there is no lack available CA in your water, but I think your plant is CA locked due to a nutrition imbalance in the plant itself. Something in your plant is preventing it from absorbing CA as efficiently as it should. 

In terrestrial plants, you deal with this by using rainwater, or something very low TDS to flush excess nutrients out of the root system.
I would try to nutrient starve your plant - get it to slow its growth and correct its imbalance by stripping nutrients from the water column.

How I would attempt this:
A 20% water change using pure RO (or RODI) water, and then use 1/2 RO 1/2 tap during water changes for a few weeks.
Switch from 2X EI dosing, and ramp back to 1/2 EI dosing (or even no dosing). 
Stop the CMS+B all together. 
Reduce your lighting while you do this.
Let the plants use this level of nutrition for 2 - 3 weeks and measure the reaction in your plants, and water chemistry.
I might even repeat this until I started seeing obvious signs of more common nutrient deficiencies - Iron, Nitrogen, and then start treating for those.

Worst case with this method is that your plant growth slows down.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

benstatic said:


> Chlorophile - I think you should know by now, that this group here is giving you suggestions, but not able to agree on your cause. You are going to have to start doing more experimentation to cure your issues, and start ruling things out by trying it. My suggestion here -
> 
> You are nutrient locked somehow.
> This isn't to say you are deficient in a nutrient, or toxic in a nutrient, but your plant is unable to take up something (I might agree your plant is CA deficient). You have obviously tested your water, and there is no lack available CA in your water, but I think your plant is CA locked due to a nutrition imbalance in the plant itself. Something in your plant is preventing it from absorbing CA as efficiently as it should.
> ...


...or you could just sell your house and try a different water source. :grin2:


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

benstatic said:


> Chlorophile - I think you should know by now, that this group here is giving you suggestions, but not able to agree on your cause. You are going to have to start doing more experimentation to cure your issues, and start ruling things out by trying it. My suggestion here -
> 
> You are nutrient locked somehow.
> This isn't to say you are deficient in a nutrient, or toxic in a nutrient, but your plant is unable to take up something (I might agree your plant is CA deficient). You have obviously tested your water, and there is no lack available CA in your water, but I think your plant is CA locked due to a nutrition imbalance in the plant itself. Something in your plant is preventing it from absorbing CA as efficiently as it should.
> ...


Thank you very much, this is actually similar to what I've been thinking.

I did an 80% water change two days ago and a 25% today but just with tap.

I also removed 90% of the stones that had minerals and were fizzing when I put acid on them.

Currently I'm on standard ei for npk and around 1/4th the regular dose of csm b.

Lowered the light intensity.

Poured some fluval stratum in the back of the tank.

Im going to keep the regular npk dosing for a week and keep on extra water changes and see what happens before I cut out npk all together, but that's a good idea.

I've kept planted tanks in this town before but not this house.

It has a water softener but only on the hot water and I haven't put any salt in the thing for like 8 months.
Newer home has no old metal pipes..

But yeah I totally agree, I have signs of CA deficiency but not because there's a lack of it, and I never see the levels go down in the tank so the plants are just not using it for some reason.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Here is how crazy dark they've gotten. 


Also my Ludwigia is doing god knows what. Leaves drooping and green. 









I cut this piece off and put it in the Mini M next to the piece of Ludwigia that I put in the Mini M last night.. 
This is where it gets weird. 
Last night both of these stems were in the same tank, both were yellowy green. 
The one in the back got put in the Mini M last night, the one in the front got moved over earlier today. 
Look how one has already gotten its russet color back already. 










Also Moved some S. Repens and the Ammania and more Rotala Green over and two stems of Rotundifolia. 

















Its the same tap water, different soil, same driftwood, and SOME of the rock from the other tank but not nearly as much. If the rock is leeching and thats the issue I assume it will take some time for the soil to be maxed out on adsorption before it becomes plentiful in the water supply. 
Solar Mini M for the lighting no Co2 no dosing yet... 
If the plants recover in here then I'll start dosing I guess and see if they stunt.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Have you had setup before at your current location?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Have you had setup before at your current location?


No, same municipal supply, my old house was from the 50's this one was built in the early 2000's... 
Maybe the Water Softener the old owners had has left some mega funk in the pipes?

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> Have you had setup before at your current location?


No, same municipal supply, my old house was from the 50's this one was built in the early 2000's... 
Maybe the Water Softener the old owners had has left some mega funk in the pipes?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well if the mini m doesn’t develop the same issues then that would eliminate the water supply issues. The Mini M light is older right it’s CF bulbs. How many total watts?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Well if the mini m doesn’t develop the same issues then that would eliminate the water supply issues. The Mini M light is older right it’s CF bulbs. How many total watts?


27w CF with a pretty good reflector.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> But I just had another Revelation that could indicate it is the copper..
> Right around the time I started EI is also the first time I cleaned my filter.
> And when I did I removed the activated carbon pad from the filter.
> Could that pad have been absorbing the copper?


Opinion # 114:

I think that you should explore this. AC certainly removes organics and chelated products and can also leach PO4 when fully absorbed. As you can see in the following link, CSM uses mainly chelated metals: Activated Carbon and Aquatic Nutrients - I.

Another interesting data point (assuming it's credible): http://web.archive.org/web/20041015060806/http://www.drhelm.com:80/aquarium/carbon.html

So, you may be right about toxicities IF the AC was formerly reducing your normal CSM+B dosing, i.e.; the AC may have been preventing you from over-dosing. Without the AC, your plants are getting the full dose. Thus, reducing micros might offset this former loss of some traces. Whether or not this is meaningful will depend upon how often you changed the AC as it is pretty much done after 3-5 days.

I think the best experiment you could do would be to go back to doing everything you were doing, including the AC, and the AC change frequency, and see if acceptable plant performance returns. Then, one-be-one, change things and wait two weeks after each change to see what happens, starting with AC.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Deanna said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > But I just had another Revelation that could indicate it is the copper..
> ...


I only ever used the original ac pad from the eheim 2217.
I might be over thinking things but thought it was worth naming everything that changed.

As a side, I built a co2 reactor today to replace my atomizer.
I was very tired of endless bubbles in the tank making it look like soda water.









Really getting down on this tank, 6 months of poor growth and things are just feeling so messy and forced, nothing meshing the way I want.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Have we dismissed the Cu number since your in a newer home and the number on your water report is probably not representative. If same as my report it's a worst-case scenario.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> Have we dismissed the Cu number since your in a newer home and the number on your water report is probably not representative. If same as my report it's a worst-case scenario.


I haven't completely ruled it out since I did have about 15 shrimp die or crawl out within a week of buying them.
I need to get more info on how my Cu is tested.

Also noticed my heater was set to 82 instead of 78 but that's probably no issue.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You should find out, because if I went by my county my Cu number is .334 which is 3x higher than yours. 

Just a quick observation, some of those plants look very leggy and the Blyxa is very green. Usually an indication of lower light levels. I've seen two separate par reading reports that say the par is 70 directly under the light at 10". So that would probably put you in the 30s at your depth.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Chlorophile said:


> I haven't completely ruled it out since I did have about 15 shrimp die or crawl out within a week of buying them.
> I need to get more info on how my Cu is tested.
> 
> Also noticed my heater was set to 82 instead of 78 but that's probably no issue.


Well, if you want to test by just sucking it all out: Seachem CupriSorb will do it.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> You should find out, because if I went by my county my Cu number is .334 which is 3x higher than yours.
> 
> Just a quick observation, some of those plants look very leggy and the Blyxa is very green. Usually an indication of lower light levels. I've seen two separate par reading reports that say the par is 70 directly under the light at 10". So that would probably put you in the 30s at your depth.


But with two lights?
I saw 75 at 12 inches in a video, but then double it for two lights, and then idk how much it tapers off over 18 inches of water... 
I had good growth with just one though at the beginning..

Some of the plants are very leggy because they've not been in for very long, did a big rescape before making this post, the bluxa is pretty green but the new growth has darker reddish tiger stripe looking patterns on the leaves.

Anyway I had to back off the light for now, growth is so poor I was getting hair algae galore...


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

The ludwigia in the mini M is coloring up..
But still a bit yellow.
If things grow in it but not the well kept 33 Gal I'll probably have to tear the entire thing down lol

Also the Rummy-Nose Tetra definitely eat the tips of the hairgrass.. if it was grown in this would be cool but I think they're stunting it's growth lol


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Might actually be seeing some deficiency at this point... Not sure. https://imgur.com/gallery/NFyQp

Coloration leaving older leaves and they've gotten splotchy and weird.
No fertilizer of any kind for 5 days and these are inches from the lights. Several water changes.

I want to add things back to the water one at a time and see what happens.
I'll keep a log here.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> You should find out, because if I went by my county my Cu number is .334 which is 3x higher than yours.


Wait you literally have .334 ppm of Cu in your tap?? Or at least it has been tested that much? Wow

For the record Im not saying that that much, or even OPs apparent .111 is enough to cause issues in most of the plants we keep. Obviously Ive ran no Cu specific tests or anything, and dont plan to! 

Just that its a red flag to me as far as Lythracae stunting, Rotalas, Ammanias and the like, for which stunting is common when the plant isnt happy for one reason or another.

But it might be totally unrelated


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

burr740 said:


> Wait you literally have .334 ppm of Cu in your tap?? Or at least it has been tested that much? Wow
> 
> For the record Im not saying that that much, or even OPs apparent .111 is enough to cause issues in most of the plants we keep. Obviously Ive ran no Cu specific tests or anything, and dont plan to!
> 
> ...


Well for his specific region they test old homes with copper pipes to come up with that number!

I looked into my area, and it says "we test 50 randomly chosen sites" and then they average those together to get the .111ppm cu
Which is kind of stupid because... A. I wan't to know what the source water is. 
B. averaging different homes doesn't tell me anything about my home, if you have copper pipes or not it will change your numbers!


I'm getting a lot of different symptoms in my plants now so I feel like its safe to try and re-institute dosing methods one by one until I get back to the point where I only have what appears to be a Ca deficit

right now I have a few symptoms. 
if you compare my Ammania from 4 days ago 









With my ammania from today








You can clearly see some changes, still that twisted oddness but the color etc is all gone and its splotchy and weird. 
Yes some of that is my white balance on my phone, but its apparent to the naked eye too and the reason the white balance has gone weird is because of the inherent color shift!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Hit the tank with 3 pumps of Thrive+ today... 
The crypts I put in a week or two ago are melting bad.
Ammania is super distorted and weird.
Struggling to get my drop checker lime green with this co2 reactor.
I'm dumping co2 in like a mad man and the reactor is bubbling a good bit and it cut flow in the tank a fair bit too :8

Just trimmed the plants as well, noticed some side shoots on the ammania and they look normal, pointed tips and blush in color but not twisted.
Hypothesis A: being lower in the tank means they need less nutrients so some deficiency isn't manifesting.
Hypothesis B: being lower in the tank means they're growing slower/absorbing less of all things and can thus metabolise whatever is causing the stunting


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Your Griggs reactor has an unnecessary kink that's cutting back flow. Why are you 90'ing into another 90? In addition, that second 90 elbow is so big that I'm suspecting it's robbing you of all important fast flow to add pressure to churn the CO2 in. I'd tell you to add a ball valve after the reactor to create pressure, but you don't have enough flow already so that'd be moot. I think it was @PlantedRich who always argued about keeping the griggs design simpler .. 

https://rotalabutterfly.com/rex-grigg/diy-reactor.htm

Arguably the original design also has a 90 elbow at the top, but it goes straight down into a smaller hole to create that jet for pressure and turbulence that I suspect would help the mixing. If you can see into your reactor, water is probably just lazily flowing through doing nothing and there must be a huge bubble of CO2 gathering up at the second 90 degree bend if not going even beyond that. 

Alternately, the reason why I suspect this "modified" griggs design works on other people's tanks is that they have enough flow to overcome the built in shortcomings. OR, they build a smaller reactor. Yours look way too big for your filter. In addition, definitely they don't have that first 90 elbow.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> Your Griggs reactor has an unnecessary kink that's cutting back flow. Why are you 90'ing into another 90? In addition, that second 90 elbow is so big that I'm suspecting it's robbing you of all important fast flow to add pressure to churn the CO2 in. I'd tell you to add a ball valve after the reactor to create pressure, but you don't have enough flow already so that'd be moot. I think it was @PlantedRich who always argued about keeping the griggs design simpler ..
> 
> https://rotalabutterfly.com/rex-grigg/diy-reactor.htm
> 
> ...


Good points all around, they were all out of straight 3/4 to 1/2 Barb fittings so I grabbed these like a dork, knew it was a bad idea but wanted it built.

In that picture he has a 90 hose Barb coming out of the side? Not sure why?

Mines about 2 ft long but no bubbles escape which I like!

Part of my earlier observation about the drop checker was just my surprise at how much co2 I'm putting in the tank, makes my realize my reading was probably very false from the bubbles getting in the tank


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> Good points all around, they were all out of straight 3/4 to 1/2 Barb fittings so I grabbed these like a dork, knew it was a bad idea but wanted it built.
> 
> In that picture he has a 90 hose Barb coming out of the side? Not sure why?
> 
> ...


When I meant too big, I was more referring to the width. Makes the water flow lazy. There's two considerations here with flow

1) overall flow back to the tank. For some, they don't want any loss. This is a commendable goal, but sometimes not practical if too much flow through a reactor starts blowing CO2 bubbles into your tank. You already don't have this problem as you may have the reverse, where there's not enough to help dissolution.. which brings us to 
2) flow that's necessary to assist in dissolution of CO2 . Between turbulence and more so, pressure, CO2 gets dissolved into the water. This is where people start putting valves, elbows, height, etc. behind the reactor to create some extra back pressure. If you have neither, the CO2 will just create a big air pocket in your reactor. Since you can't see this, maybe it'll present itself audibly. If you don't have this problem, then forget everything I said and crank away! I'd still be surprised that a reactor requires more CO2 than a diffuser though. pfft. unless your root problem all along for this thread was lack of CO2 because your drop checker was lying to you like you suspected! Plantbrain usually claimed this whenever everyone gets too tied up in nutrients and dosing. His point was that CO2 is terribly hard to get right for a lot of people because there's just so many ways to muck it up, but I digress...

Here's some other discussions that may help illustrate what I was talking about.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1084010-co2-reactor-excess-gas.html
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1107410-why-doesnt-my-griggs-work.html
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/100236-noisy-co2-reactor.html



So in your case, too much length is probably not an issue and it's probably helping you like you said. And the 90 afterwards is ok because if it creates extra back pressure there, it is a good thing to aid in dissolution. In front is where it robs the flow that's helpful for dissolution.



a lot of my observations came from my cerges reactor research and implementation, but the principles of flow still applies here to your griggs one. there's some pretty nice arguments on the page and a few afterwards in the thread below 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/20-diy/110100-cerges-reactor-diy-inline-co2-reactor-46.html


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> > Good points all around, they were all out of straight 3/4 to 1/2 Barb fittings so I grabbed these like a dork, knew it was a bad idea but wanted it built.
> ...


The reactor is 2 inch PVC, should I have maid it smaller?

I feel like I'm losing flow from the hose barbs, u wish there was a better way to connect the houses..
1/2 inch barbs are so small and I don't think my tubing will fit over a 5/8ths Barb

I doubt low co2 was my issue since that should not distort plants, low tech tanks don't have distorted plants.
Plus the micro bubbles touching the leaves should help

Reactor probably has less pressure restrictions to the needle valve so the bubbles coming out are under less pressure and therefore the higher bubble count is probably cosmetic only

I'm going to make another reactor without the elbows like the one you linked.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

New reactor built, flow is MUCH better with all straight fittings. 

Also noticed some dark spots and melting leaves so I must have got hit with a phosphate deficiency pretty hard during my detox week!
Might have seen manganese deficiency too. 

I don't know why I used thrive since I'm trying to cut back on traces and see if that fixes anything.

Cuprisorb will be coming in the mail tomorrow. 

I did a 50% water change when I swapped my reactors out and dosed 3/8tsp kno3 and 1/16tsp Monopotassium phosphate 

Before bed I'll dose my .75 Fe of CSM+B while the pH is still low from the co2


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> The reactor is 2 inch PVC, should I have maid it smaller?


Ehh, on second thought, maybe it's okay as long as you have good flow coming in and beating against the co2 bubbles. The whole point is to cut down on areas where the bubbles can accumulate in a little eddy and not get water pushing on them.



> I doubt low co2 was my issue since that should not distort plants, low tech tanks don't have distorted plants.
> Plus the micro bubbles touching the leaves should help


Yea, but low tech tanks usually have shaded setups so their plants aren't so stressed to grow. while your lights aren't high, they're not exactly that low either. So if things start working out for the better, thank your reactor. 



Chlorophile said:


> New reactor built, flow is MUCH better with all straight fittings.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

ipkiss said:


> Ehh, on second thought, maybe it's okay as long as you have good flow coming in and beating against the co2 bubbles. The whole point is to cut down on areas where the bubbles can accumulate in a little eddy and not get water pushing on them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't working out with the curved fittings, they were slowing out down big time, I don't think it was the 2 inch elbows really but rather the 90 degree barbs. 
I have all straight barbs now which should help. 

If my problem improves it's going to be hard to say it was the co2 cause I've changed about 10 things lol!

The one plus to my old reactor is NO co2 bubbles made it in the tank, they accumulated at the top and go dissolved rather slowly but with a touch of noise. 

I have a feeling I'll get co2 in the tank now but it's okay since the flow is better.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Yesterday my plants were pearling quite a good bit..
Today not so much.
I dosed csm b
Last night so I'm wondering if my mix is super off and it could be messing with the plants that quick..

New reactor has more flow but also gurgles even more... Very strange.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

New reactor is horrible. Takes alllll day to get to a yellow drop checker.
I already have my co2 come on 3 hours before the lights I'm gonna have to have it on 5 hours before.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I've pretty much exclusively switched to Thrive+ right now..
Plants pearl much more when I use it. 
Algae sucks. everything in this tank SUCKS. 
I feel like I need to switch to a sump and a big pump cause this reactor has killed my flow so much and now I'm getting hair algae and BBA again but the BBA is turning green..


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Had to take out the Co2 Reactor..
Too much flow loss and too noisy. 
BBA was getting WORSE from the lack of flow and I COULD NOT get co2 to dissolve. 

Just running a regular glass in-tank diffuser right now right next to my skimmer so it sucks some of the bubbles down.

It's about to be week 2 of Thrive and I'm not seeing much change so I'm gonna have to make some custom trace mix. 

Something interesting to note: 
Rotala Rotundifolia in the Mini M seems to grow better than in the main tank.
AR still growing weird, Ludwigia growing fine but its BRIGHT green vs the Yellow/Bronze of the other tank.
macrandra won't grow at all in here though without co2... 

My Ammania seems okay but today I noticed a new unique kind of leaf curling, this tank is getting 1 pump a week of Thrive








Any idea what this sort of "cupping" leaf is from? 
Never saw it in the other tank so I'm assuming this is from not enough fertilizer over the course of the week. 


















here it is in the main tank... Nasty.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Alright, about to start using a totally different source of Traces... hopefully this works!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Little update.. 

Blyxa is growing very fast, new growth comes out almost white and then transitions to an almost brown









SOME of the Nessaea seems to be growing normally, but some of it is also still very stunted. 









My ludwigia, I'm assuming is Ludwigia Repens, not got great color but it grows fine. 









the AR mini seems to be growing a tiny bit more normal... 





















The mosses seem to be growing well.. but the GREEN BEARD ALGAE is INSAAAAAANE
I have NO idea what to do, I'm gonna start with 15ml of H202 per day and see if that does anything. 

Plus side is something about my dosing has COMPLETELY eradicated Green Spot Algae.. 
I now get hair algae on the glass everywhere and I am constantly scrubbing it off, cant tell if its hair algae or pre-Green beard.

Oh and my bright yellow dropchecker... got algae on it too.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> Little update..
> 
> Blyxa is growing very fast, new growth comes out almost white and then transitions to an almost brown


Hi Chlorophile,

New growth 'whitish' is typically an iron deficiency; watch your other species for interveinal chlorosis on the new growth. The 'brown' areas could be necrosis.



> Symptoms appearing first or most severely on new growth (root and shoot tips, new leaves)
> 
> B. Terminal bud remaining alive. Symptoms on new growth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Chlorophile,
> 
> New growth 'whitish' is typically an iron deficiency; watch your other species for interveinal chlorosis on the new growth. The 'brown' areas could be necrosis.


I'm definitely on the low end of iron but nothing crazy, I wasn't dosing CSMB at all for a while, and now I'm on DTPA Iron and Ferrous Gluconate. 
It starts white and then goes kinda brown-red like in the picture and then eventually a mix of green-red
I think its just growing faster than it can move the chlorophyll! I wouldn't say Nitrogen deficient but everything else is kicking in the plant. 
Definitely no necrosis on the plant, it goes white to reddish brown to greenish red and then stays healthy.

My suspect species that I've always had issues with do continue to show a variety of symptoms including red veins and paler leaf tissue, hooking, curling, twisting, stunting. 
But things are improving slowly, I started with cutting back the CSM+B and now I am on a new trace mix with no EDTP chelate.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Took a lot of the ammania graccilis out, it's just doing so bad and the leaves are so long I kinda hate it.

Blyxa getting very reddish now I've started adding the ferous gluconate and dtpa iron.


Going to try and make the tank a bit more Dutch somehow. Adding bacopa caroliniana and lobelia cardonalis and rearranged some stuff to make "plant streets" but it's not great. 
The plants were tissue culture so very short still
Gotta get more plants.
GH 6 kh 5 still but I'm adding 3 gal of reverse osmosis every water change.

If only my hairgrass would grow in!
It must be the super dwarf variety Belem I guess cause it grow up then curls over softly.

Wow attaching photos is pointless they look so bad haha.


----------



## nilocg (Jul 12, 2010)

What trace mix are you using currently?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

nilocg said:


> What trace mix are you using currently?


It's Burr's Recipe, "DTPA Fe 10%, Ferrous gluconate 12.46%, MnSO4.H2O, H3BO3, ZnSO4.H2O, Na2MoO4*2H2O, CuSO4.5H2O "

It's been about a week, probably too soon to tell if anything has changed. 
Super hard to tell whats going on because HALF the plants seem fine, and half dont. 
Rotala Bonsai, some have correct leaf shape others are super pointy and thin, Ammania sometimes seems normal and then randomly just gets stunted, and stunted ones randomly straighten out. 

Ludwigia and Blyxa and Staurogyne, Anubias and Java Fern, all growing fine. 

Rotala Green seems the least effected of the Lythraeceae but still NOT right, and sometimes the new growth is almost corkscrew-esque

Bump: https://imgur.com/a/sqNKL 
Here is my most recent pictures 12/11



























You can see more at the link, you can see the Rotala Bonsai... hit or miss on growth... AR Mini still quite crinkly but improving slightly. 

Also In General my BBA is just NEVER ENDING awful awful awful. 
Feels like it wasn't this bad before I started adding Calcium, maybe I should go back to not.


----------

