# remineralise ro water is 0 kh ok with aquasoil?



## emilio246 (Feb 27, 2017)

hello, can you use seachem equilibrium on its own to remineralise ro water is it ok for plants etc, or do you need anything else
i don't keep specific fish or shrimp its mainly about the plants for me.
i heard that seachem equilibrium was better for plants then salty shrimp. i see no mention of kh on equilibrium, although using ADA AquaSoil should one even worry about kh?

also can i just switch from salty shrimp to seachem equilibrium with no problems to the plants?


----------



## en7jos (Jun 7, 2020)

Yes, remineralising with Equilibrium to increase GH (whilst keeping KH at zero) is the way to go. The main difference between Equilibrium and SS GH+ is that Equilibrium has LOTS of potassium in it whereas SS is almost pure GH with just a small amount of trace minerals. 

Any KH you add will be absorbed by aquasoil bringing KH back to zero (or thereabouts) and reducing the life of the soil in the process.

Yes you can switch to Equilibrium with no issues, just take into account that you will now be adding lots of potassium with water changes so you may need to tweak your fert dosing accordingly.


----------



## pyoinator (Aug 17, 2020)

en7jos said:


> Yes, remineralising with Equilibrium to increase GH (whilst keeping KH at zero) is the way to go. The main difference between Equilibrium and SS GH+ is that Equilibrium has LOTS of potassium in it whereas SS is almost pure GH with just a small amount of trace minerals.
> 
> Any KH you add will be absorbed by aquasoil bringing KH back to zero (or thereabouts) and reducing the life of the soil in the process.
> 
> Yes you can switch to Equilibrium with no issues, just take into account that you will now be adding lots of potassium with water changes so you may need to tweak your fert dosing accordingly.


That is really good to know. On my tank I remineralize RO water to a gh of 7 using equilibrium, and still dose EI levels of NPK using potassium compounds. Can elevated potassium levels inhibit other nutrient uptake?


----------



## emilio246 (Feb 27, 2017)

en7jos said:


> Yes, remineralising with Equilibrium to increase GH (whilst keeping KH at zero) is the way to go. The main difference between Equilibrium and SS GH+ is that Equilibrium has LOTS of potassium in it whereas SS is almost pure GH with just a small amount of trace minerals.
> 
> Any KH you add will be absorbed by aquasoil bringing KH back to zero (or thereabouts) and reducing the life of the soil in the process.
> 
> Yes you can switch to Equilibrium with no issues, just take into account that you will now be adding lots of potassium with water changes so you may need to tweak your fert dosing accordingly.


interesting as i had always thought (having read here) that kh was important and keeping a kh of 0 was bad and could lead to ph crashes 
and i dose with brighty k which already over doses on k and of which I'm aware infact raises kh


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

The soil buffers KH to 0, which should keep pH stable at just under 6.0.


----------



## emilio246 (Feb 27, 2017)

what about with co2 injection at 30ppm what affect can this have with 0kh water


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

I use CO2 in some tanks, and use aquasoil in some tanks, but unfortunately as of yet haven't done both. My understanding is that the CO2 is about the same, but more difficult to track via pH drop. @Greggz has a high tech soil tank, perhaps he could chime in.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I use CO2 in some tanks, and use aquasoil in some tanks, but unfortunately as of yet haven't done both. My understanding is that the CO2 is about the same, but more difficult to track via pH drop. @Greggz has a high tech soil tank, perhaps he could chime in.


No problem injecting CO2 into basically zero KH water. I do it every day.

With very low or no KH, tank KH/pH swing during the week is minimal. In fact, I still use my pH controller as my KH/pH remains stable. Right now I am dropping pH down to 4.90 during the lighting period. Degassed is about 6.3 pH. 

If KH was higher, soil would deplete that during the week and it would be more difficult to control CO2 injection. As KH goes down, so would pH. So relative pH drop would be difficult to measure properly. If that were the case, better to set a constant CO2 flow rate and not worry so much about where pH is. And yes, that is more difficult to control. 

As to GH boosters like Seachem Equilibrium mentioned above, you are much better off just getting some CaSO4 and MgSO4. All GH boosters are basically a mix of Ca, Mg, and K. You don't necessarily want or need the extra K. Too much can interfere with uptake of other nutrients. You can also fine tune the mix of Ca to Mg. I've had more success with higher Mg than most boosters provide. 

As to pH crashes due to low KH/pH, pretty much a myth. Here is a great article about it...............

https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/ph-kh-gh-tds/is-low-ph-in-tanks-due-to-aquasoils-softwater-a-concern?fbclid=IwAR0rqZ5z-6DSDYqeWRT-QB_2U3qFDt79A0U4oc7o21mUYjYIniT27bZ5CQg

As to Brighty K, it's basically KHCO3 mixed with water. If you knew how much KHCO3 you can buy for the cost of one bottle of Brighty K, you would never buy it again. You are pretty much paying for water in a bottle. 

Hope that helps, and good luck with the tank.


----------



## emilio246 (Feb 27, 2017)

Greggz said:


> No problem injecting CO2 into basically zero KH water. I do it every day.
> 
> With very low or no KH, tank KH/pH swing during the week is minimal. In fact, I still use my pH controller as my KH/pH remains stable. Right now I am dropping pH down to 4.90 during the lighting period. Degassed is about 6.3 pH.
> 
> ...


thank you, very informative.
i use these products because there just simple, I'm to lazy to mix my own salts :grin2:


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

emilio246 said:


> thank you, very informative.
> i use these products because there just simple, I'm to lazy to mix my own salts :grin2:


If you ever did so, you would laugh at yourself for not doing it before when you figured out how easy it is.:grin2:


----------



## hlca (Nov 13, 2020)

Greggz said:


> No problem injecting CO2 into basically zero KH water. I do it every day.
> 
> With very low or no KH, tank KH/pH swing during the week is minimal. In fact, I still use my pH controller as my KH/pH remains stable. Right now I am dropping pH down to 4.90 during the lighting period. Degassed is about 6.3 pH.
> 
> ...


I asked the Green Aqua guys about this on a YouTube comment and they suggested using RO water, not RODI. They said they never had luck with RODI. Any thoughts or insights as to whether it ever makes sense to not deionize the water to remove KH?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

hlca said:


> I asked the Green Aqua guys about this on a YouTube comment and they suggested using RO water, not RODI. They said they never had luck with RODI. Any thoughts or insights as to whether it ever makes sense to not deionize the water to remove KH?


Never tried DI but have heard the same thing. 

And RO water comes out at zero KH, so no worries there.

Keep in mind planted tanks are different than reefs. We remineralize, and really anything close to RO is fine. Just saying coming out at 10 TDS or so would not be good for reef, but fine for us.


----------



## hlca (Nov 13, 2020)

Greggz said:


> Never tried DI but have heard the same thing.
> 
> And RO water comes out at zero KH, so no worries there.
> 
> Keep in mind planted tanks are different than reefs. We remineralize, and really anything close to RO is fine. Just saying coming out at 10 TDS or so would not be good for reef, but fine for us.


Oh ok -- that makes more sense now. I had it in my head that the DI removed KH. Thanks!


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

I use RO/DI because I bought my unit when I was into reef tanks. I've never heard not to use DI and am very curious as to any reason in the world they might have. I could see it being problematic if people were using it straight, but after remineralizing, I can't fathom there being much difference between two samples. But if there is science (or even compelling anecdotal evidence) I'd be happy to see if I could bypass my DI part of the unit. Just fewer cartridges to buy.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

emilio246 said:


> hello, can you use seachem equilibrium on its own to remineralise ro water is it ok for plants etc, or do you need anything else
> i don't keep specific fish or shrimp its mainly about the plants for me.
> i heard that seachem equilibrium was better for plants then salty shrimp. i see no mention of kh on equilibrium, although using ADA AquaSoil should one even worry about kh?
> 
> also can i just switch from salty shrimp to seachem equilibrium with no problems to the plants?


Salty shrimp gh/kh+ is excellent for planted tanks. I use it in all my nano tanks and my plants grow faster than I can give them away. I use tropica specialized Fert in conjunction , perfect match.

Bump:


emilio246 said:


> what about with co2 injection at 30ppm what affect can this have with 0kh water


0kh plus co2 is bad news. IF soil is going to eat your buffer down to zero you need more kh.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Here is some diy water stuff for you.

Diy Remineralizers
I use these for my non shrimp planted tanks as this is way cheaper than salty shrimp and works perfectly.


diy kh booster
1.12 grams baking soda
10 gallon tank by 1dkh
1tsp =4.5 grams
1 tsp raises 10G by 4.5 dkh

diy gh booster
This maintains the golden 3/1 mag/calcium ratio.
CaCl 6 grams
MgSo4 7 grams
1 gram of this mix raises gh of 10G water by 1dGH.


You will Need need a 0 to 200 g scale.
You can get Calcium chloride from marine aquarium stores
Magnesium sulfate (plain unscented epsom salts) from any pharmacy.
I bought a cheap coffee mill for grinding it up fine to dissolve easy for 10$.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> 0kh plus co2 is bad news. IF soil is going to eat your buffer down to zero you need more kh.


I think that has been disproven at this point, with all the gorgeous tanks high tech using soils. @Greggz rainbow tank is getting better results with soil than when he was running some KH. His tank journal is really informative about switching over, and the plants are downright ridiculous.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I think that has been disproven at this point, with all the gorgeous tanks high tech using soils. @Greggz rainbow tank is getting better results with soil than when he was running some KH. His tank journal is really informative about switching over, and the plants are downright ridiculous.


Yep problems with zero KH is pretty much an old wives tale at this point. As are pH crashes.

Excellent article about it here on Dennis Wong's site..........................https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/ph-kh-gh-tds/is-low-ph-in-tanks-due-to-aquasoils-softwater-a-concern?fbclid=IwAR0rqZ5z-6DSDYqeWRT-QB_2U3qFDt79A0U4oc7o21mUYjYIniT27bZ5CQg


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I use RO/DI because I bought my unit when I was into reef tanks. I've never heard not to use DI and am very curious as to any reason in the world they might have. I could see it being problematic if people were using it straight, but after remineralizing, I can't fathom there being much difference between two samples. But if there is science (or even compelling anecdotal evidence) I'd be happy to see if I could bypass my DI part of the unit. Just fewer cartridges to buy.


 Using DI for planted aquariums is unnecessary. Organic impurities are removed by RO carbon pre-filter and minerals are 90 – 95% removed by the RO membrane. The remaining 5 – 10% of minerals is insignificant. However, when DI is used then these remaining minerals are exchanged with acids and bases, buffering each other to 7 pH when the DI cartridge is in perfect condition. But when it is not then it can shift pH to either side and that is not good at almost zero KH. 

Aside from that, I’ve been promoting growing plants in zero KH water since year 2000. It wasn’t easy to accept for most because people were horrified and scared of “pH crash”. Today, after 20 years of explaining it, it slowly gains in popularity.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

Edward said:


> Using DI for planted aquariums is unnecessary. Organic impurities are removed by RO carbon pre-filter and minerals are 90 – 95% removed by the RO membrane. The remaining 5 – 10% of minerals is insignificant.


I realize it's not necessary, my curiosity is more to know if there's any evidence of it making in any way inferior water to plain RO (for our purposes).


Edward said:


> However, when DI is used then these remaining minerals are exchanged with acids and bases, buffering each other to 7 pH when the DI cartridge is in perfect condition. But when it is not then it can shift pH to either side and that is not good at almost zero KH.


Even after remineralizing? Just trying to wrap my head around this.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I realize it's not necessary, my curiosity is more to know if there's any evidence of it making in any way inferior water to plain RO (for our purposes).


 High quality ion exchangers have separate containers for cation and anion resins. DI that comes with usual RO unit has them mixed into one container. This mix doesn’t guarantee high purity product like for laboratory use. However, when we talk planted aquariums then the impact is negligible when there is some kind of pH buffering such as substrate or added KH. But with inert substrate and low KH one might start wondering what is going on. 

Carbon added to aquarium filters perform well at the beginning but later start releasing captured impurities back to water. Similar to DI, they perform well at the beginning but later can start swinging pH. And because DI is mostly not needed for planted aquarium then why bother using it at all. Though there might be some critical applications like high copper, lead or arsenic well water, then yes, DI is worth it. 


> Even after remineralizing? Just trying to wrap my head around this.


 It’s a matter of pH so if remineralization includes KH addition then the DI issue has negligible effect.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

In my case, it's aqua soil tanks and remineralizing with GH only (for Caridina shrimp). There is one variant in particular I'm having poor luck with and if this could even possibly be contributing, I'm all about bypassing the DI cartridge.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

I should add that DI have two resins, cation and anion. When cation is exhausted first then water just passes through. But when anion is exhausted first then small amount of acid is produced. When both are exhausted then it has no effect on water parameters. So in essence, partly exhausted DI can slightly acidify water.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Edward said:


> Aside from that, I’ve been promoting growing plants in zero KH water since year 2000. It wasn’t easy to accept for most because people were horrified and scared of “pH crash”. Today, after 20 years of explaining it, it slowly gains in popularity.


Sorry but the reason there are more aquarists running zero KH is because of the popularity of aquasoils started mainly by ADA.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Sorry but the reason there are more aquarists running zero KH is because of the popularity of aquasoils started mainly by ADA.


LOL yeah you know who had 0.00% influence when it comes to going to soil.

For me, it was seeing Burr set up some tanks with it. I tend to give credence to those who demonstrate success.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> LOL yeah you know who had 0.00% influence when it comes to going to soil.
> 
> For me, it was seeing Burr set up some tanks with it. I tend to give credence to those who demonstrate success.


Yep, generally something you can "touch or feel" or at least See has the greatest impact. There are thousands of tanks now with active granular soils that you can follow online and one can see what can be accomplished.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Greggz said:


> Yep problems with zero KH is pretty much an old wives tale at this point. As are pH crashes.
> 
> Excellent article about it here on Dennis Wong's site..........................https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/ph-kh-gh-tds/is-low-ph-in-tanks-due-to-aquasoils-softwater-a-concern?fbclid=IwAR0rqZ5z-6DSDYqeWRT-QB_2U3qFDt79A0U4oc7o21mUYjYIniT27bZ5CQg


Respectfully Greggs Ph Crashes are not old wives tales. I've seen it and at one point lost a lot of $$ worth of livestock. Obviously aqua soil have some magic going on...

Bump:


Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I think that has been disproven at this point, with all the gorgeous tanks high tech using soils. @Greggz rainbow tank is getting better results with soil than when he was running some KH. His tank journal is really informative about switching over, and the plants are downright ridiculous.


Disproven ??? Chemistry is chemistry . If you add an acid to water with no KH ph drops period , there is no way to argue that. Aquasoil may do some strange things , I don't use it. There has to be trapped KH in the soil so it is not measurable in the water column. However PH crashes are real and can be caused by digging up anoxic pockets in substrate , dead fish , too much feeding etc. Unless aqua soil can fix all that..


----------



## Roboto (Mar 24, 2020)

I'm happy I stumbled on this thread.
I have one tank (out of three) that always has me nervous as kh is always less than 1, but the fish are doing better in this tank than any of my others.
I used RO water and equilibrium brought up to 6gh with ecocomplete substrate with a ph that's around 6.6-6.8.
I've been nervous about the reported "ph crashes" but the success of the bolivian rams, wild caught neon tetras and otocinclus have prevented me from changing any of my routine up.

My other two tanks must have substrate that's leaching something in the water as my ph on both of those tanks is 7.6-7.9 with a kh of 4+. My fish don't thrive nearly as well as those tanks and the plants do about the same in all of the tanks. It had been puzzling me with a slight bit of worry about the PH crashes, but after reading this I'm going to redo my other two tanks so that I can get more similar parameters across them all.

A buffering substrate like aquasoil is interesting, but it sounds like you would need to replace the substrate every so often (every 1-2 years) if you notice your PH starting to raise and that doesn't sound fun to me. 
I'm pretty new to this stuff (only one year in) so am happy to read any corrections to my assumptions.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> Disproven ??? Chemistry is chemistry . If you add an acid to water with no KH ph drops period , there is no way to argue that. Aquasoil may do some strange things , I don't use it. There has to be trapped KH in the soil so it is not measurable in the water column. However PH crashes are real and can be caused by digging up anoxic pockets in substrate , dead fish , too much feeding etc. Unless aqua soil can fix all that..


If you have anoxic pockets in substrate, dead fish, too much feeding then you have other problems. It's not the low KH, it's everything else. Talking about two entirely different things there.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Greggz said:


> If you have anoxic pockets in substrate, dead fish, too much feeding then you have other problems. It's not the low KH, it's everything else. Talking about two entirely different things there.


Kinda reminds me of many things in the hobby where a certain measurement or level is not the problem. The real problem is what got it there. If no active soil then more likely a water quality issue that lowered PH and released toxins. Similar to NO3, where it's not the level but how it got there.

To me there, are too many well kept tanks with extremely low PH/no kh that are healthy long-term for fish/plants.


----------



## nicepoeci (Sep 23, 2020)

I always use *Pure* Baking Soda ( no caking agents or anything else ) to buffer PH and add KH to my remineralized RO water. Equilibrium doesn't have everything in it - and there are other all in one options like "SaltyShrimp Shrimp Mineral GH/KH+" But I like to have them separate - just depends on how much patience and fun you want to have  Also good to have an occasional Fertilizer if you see obvious signs of mineral deficiencies.
Its important to Buffer your RO water like this to avoid PH Spikes and wake up to everything dead except the plants. Please look online for proper doses for Pure Baking Soda - Ive been doing it so long I kind of eye ball it at this point XD


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Greggz said:


> If you have anoxic pockets in substrate, dead fish, too much feeding then you have other problems. It's not the low KH, it's everything else. Talking about two entirely different things there.



Not really , bad things happen sometime like when away on a weekend etc .. 
Having no buffer is not optimal in any of those situations . I like to plan for the worst.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

nicepoeci said:


> I always use *Pure* Baking Soda ( no caking agents or anything else ) to buffer PH and add KH to my remineralized RO water. Equilibrium doesn't have everything in it - and there are other all in one options like "SaltyShrimp Shrimp Mineral GH/KH+" But I like to have them separate - just depends on how much patience and fun you want to have  Also good to have an occasional Fertilizer if you see obvious signs of mineral deficiencies.
> Its important to Buffer your RO water like this to avoid PH Spikes and wake up to everything dead except the plants. Please look online for proper doses for Pure Baking Soda - Ive been doing it so long I kind of eye ball it at this point XD



I love the salty shrimp gh/kh+ product. 
My tap water is only 12TDS "RO like" (best water in canada)
I use salty shrimp product in my nano tanks , but use bss as baking soda and my own diy gh booster in my bigger tanks .
diy gh booster
This maintains the golden 3/1 mag/calcium ratio.
CaCl 6 grams
MgSo4 7 grams
1 gram of this mix raises gh of 10G water by 1dGH.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> Not really , bad things happen sometime like when away on a weekend etc ..
> Having no buffer is not optimal in any of those situations . I like to plan for the worst.


Those things don't happen in a healthy tank. 

It would take weeks....even months........not a weekend.

Did this actually happen to you? Or something you read?

Just saying there are loads of successful planted tankers from around the world who run very little or no KH. If you want me to to point them out, I would be happy to. It's not that difficult. Just good regular maintenance. I have KH at about 1.0, and and have been transitioning to zero KH. 

And I would stand by my statement. If you have problems like you described, you have bigger problems, and probably really need to change your tank maintenance. Just being honest.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Greggs you've seen my tanks I don't have problems other than growing plants faster than i can give them away..


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> Greggs you've seen my tanks I don't have problems other than growing plants faster than i can give them away..


Hey nice to see your tank.

It looks great!

But that brings up an earlier question.

Did you yourself experience pH crash? If so, can you describe it?

Or is it something you read about?

I am asking as I have never know anyone who actually had it happen. I've only seen people refer to web sites that have been saying that low KH is dangerous for decades. 

My guess has always been that those who experience anything like a pH crash have underlying problems that bring it on. But just a guess. Would be curious to hear your experience if you had one.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Greggz said:


> Hey nice to see your tank.
> 
> It looks great!
> 
> ...



Yes I have seen PH Crashes on other peoples tanks . Our local water supply has 0KH and only about 10 TDS coming out of the tap. In Vancouver BC area PH Crashes with new members and come up from time people on our club fb site Always due to another mitigating circumstance Like an unfound dead fish etc , ie new aquarists not being on top of things . 

Using Inert substrates combined with our tap water means it needs to be remineralized just like RO.
I know lots of people do KH0 tanks not denying that.
Personally I prefer to be safe than sorry.


----------



## Shrimpz (Jan 11, 2011)

I use RO/DI for the same reason Blue Ridge Reef does, left over from when I used to keep reef tanks. 

I've been remineralizing with GH Booster and using potassium bicarbonate to bump up to 1 dKH or so (6g to 30 gallons of water). I use aquasoil. 

Now I'm wondering if I should cut out the potassium bicarbonate. I was worried about having too low of a pH (it was below 6), but I'm keeping tetras and corys so thinking I should be fine with a pH in the 5's.

I'm also concerned about the issues with using DI (mixed bed cartridges) and potential pH swings as filter starts to get exhausted. My system has goes sediment cartridges ->carbon block -> RO membrane -> first DI cart -> second DI cart -> final product. 

Should I figure out how to reroute the flow of the RO and replace the DI carts with additional sediment and carbon blocks, or just remove the DI carts? Is it worth the effort or should I just continue with RO/DI?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> Yes I have seen PH Crashes on other peoples tanks .


That was my point.

You have not experienced it yourself. 

Every single time someone mentions it, it is in someone else's tank. Someone they know only on the internet.

My guess is you don't personally know these tanks. You have only read about them. And if someone has dead fish in their tank they don't know about, they likely have little clue as to what they are doing.

I have still never known a person who reasonably knows what they are doing have a pH crash. 

But we can agree to disagree. Just saying that IMO low KH probably had nothing to do with it, and a complete lack of knowledge/experience did.


----------



## happi (Dec 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> Using DI for planted aquariums is unnecessary. Organic impurities are removed by RO carbon pre-filter and minerals are 90 – 95% removed by the RO membrane. The remaining 5 – 10% of minerals is insignificant. However, when DI is used then these remaining minerals are exchanged with acids and bases, buffering each other to 7 pH when the DI cartridge is in perfect condition. But when it is not then it can shift pH to either side and that is not good at almost zero KH.
> 
> Aside from that, I’ve been promoting growing plants in zero KH water since year 2000. It wasn’t easy to accept for most because people were horrified and scared of “pH crash”. Today, after 20 years of explaining it, it slowly gains in popularity.


Agreed, I have been saying the same for quite some time now, but people still feel the need to add baking soda in their tanks, they don't realize that baking soda is also adding Na in there which could be a bad thing and eventually will buildup over time. plus most soil now days are design to eat away the KH to maintain low PH anyway. plant and fish really don't care about the KH at least IME. 

someone mentioned something about the Brighty K, its common sense and easy to clone it when you know the chemical, even rotala butterfly calculator can calculate it for you. not just Brighty K, but you can easily clone anything that's in the market, long as they reveal the chemical list on their bottles. 

look how easy it is to clone Brighty K

To reach your target of 0.21ppm dKH you will need to add 35.4492 grams (equivalent to 2 tbsp + 0 tsp + 1/4 tsp + 1/8 tsp + 1/16 tsp ) of KHCO3 to your 500mL dosing container. Add 20mL of that mix to your 50gal aquarium to yield:

Element	ppm/degree
K	2.9258
HCO3	4.5660
dKH	0.2100


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Edward said:


> > Aside from that, I’ve been promoting growing plants in zero KH water since year 2000. It wasn’t easy to accept for most because people were horrified and scared of “pH crash”. Today, after 20 years of explaining it, it slowly gains in popularity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your observation. 
When I look at ADA fertilizer Brighty K instruction sheet, it says, “*Brighty K has an effect of enhancing the buffering capacity of water and prevents decline in pH of aquarium water. Cation: Brighty K is strongly alkaline.*” This means very high KH.

Thus ADA is still afraid of pH crashes and is still recommending adding KH to the water column. Because I wanted to be sure I checked data of 24 published ADA show aquariums. Their KH was ranging from 0.6 to 2.8 and up to 4.0 dKH. With average of 1.8 dKH. None was even close to zero KH.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Edward said:


> ...
> 
> Thus ADA is still afraid of pH crashes and is still recommending adding KH to the water column. Because I wanted to be sure I checked data of 24 published ADA show aquariums. Their KH was ranging from 0.6 to 2.8 and up to 4.0 dKH. With average of 1.8 dKH. None was even close to zero KH.


That's strange, cause it doesn't sound like there too worried about PH crashes due to no KH. According to you anyway:



Edward said:


> ...Notice that there is no mentioning of any KH values. ADA doesn’t even have a KH test kit. The KH and pH buffering is controlled by the substrate. When minerals are adsorbed by the substrate they are not locked up, they are going to be released when needed.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Asteroid said:


> That's strange, cause it doesn't sound like there too worried about PH crashes due to no KH. According to you anyway:


 Very well, you didn’t take the bait. What I posted was not dKH but dGH. Still, the matter of fact is that ADA wants us to dose KH even though their substrate does the pH buffering. Injection of CO2 creates carbonic acid which is relatively mild acid, we drink fully saturated CO2 enriched beverages, don’t we? 

Carbonic acid from CO2 injection can theoretically push pH as low as 3.6 but usually about 4. But ADA substrate won’t allow it. It will stabilize it somewhere around 5.5 – 6.0 pH. This still should not be alarming, in contrary, this is natural and preferred by most plants and soft water fish. 

I don’t want to scare any low pH sceptics but here we go:

2.0 pH lemon
2.8 pH grapes
2.8 pH plums
3.0 pH strawberries
3.1 pH blueberries
3.2 pH apple
3.2 pH cherries
3.2 pH pickles
3.3 pH apricot
3.4 pH mango
3.8 pH blackberries
4.3 pH beets
4.5 pH bananas

As you can see low pH is natural and nothing to worry about.


----------



## BOTIA (Dec 23, 2003)

Greggz said:


> That was my point.
> 
> You have not experienced it yourself.
> 
> ...


Sorry Greggs , you are incorrect I have had a ph crash, it was a long time ago before I started treating my tap water like RO water and while I was working 80hr weeks in the film industry. I have more tanks now that I don't do that and watch my tanks like a hawk since then.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

BOTIA said:


> Sorry Greggs , you are incorrect I have had a ph crash, it was a long time ago before I started treating my tap water like RO water and while I was working 80hr weeks in the film industry. I have more tanks now that I don't do that and watch my tanks like a hawk since then.


If my zero KH tank ever has a pH crash, you will be the first to know.

I would not be expecting that news any time in the near future......or ever!:grin2:

Like I said, many of the best tanks in the world that I follow have very, very low to no KH. Stunning displays and some of the best plant growers I know of. 

But to each his own. I have nothing against any method that works and makes people comfortable.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

BOTIA said:


> Sorry Greggs , you are incorrect I have had a ph crash, it was a long time ago before I started treating my tap water like RO water and while I was working 80hr weeks in the film industry. I have more tanks now that I don't do that and watch my tanks like a hawk since then.


Can you give us more details? What did the PH start and end up at? How fast did this occur? What was the end result?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Extending on the pH discussion, I have results of a research about soil and water analysis of vegetation areas in Ethiopia. It describes the amount of areas divided by pH to 

4.5 – 5.5 strongly acidic
5.6 – 6.5 moderately acidic
6.6 – 7.3 neutral
7.4 – 8.4 moderately alkaline

I made a chart showing the three districts and also their combined averages. It demonstrates the scarcity of alkaline and neutral pH. Most of the areas, about 95%, are acidic in nature. 










*Potassium (K)-to-magnesium (Mg) ratio, its spatial variability and implications to potential Mg-induced K deficiency in Nitisols of Southern Ethiopia*
*Soil pH-H2O in the study areas ranged from 4.5 to 8.0 where acidic soil reaction was prevalent. About 3.3, 60, 31.3 and 5.3% of the soil samples in the Damot Gale district are categorized as strongly acidic (pH < 5.5), moderately acidic (5.6–6.5), neutral (6.6–7.3) and moderately alkaline (7.4–8.4), respectively, as per the ratings of EthioSIS [13]. In Damot Sore district, about 33, 42, 22 and 3% of the soil samples are rated as strongly acidic, moderately acidic, neutral and moderately alkaline soils, respectively, whereas in Sodo Zuria district, the soil pH was under strongly acidic (26.7%), moderately alkaline (58.0%), neutral (14.5%) and moderately alkaline (0.9%) ranges.*

And if you are at it, you can read about K deficiency due to antagonistic effect of Mg. This research explains why it is more difficult to grow plants in higher Mg.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Edward said:


> Extending on the pH discussion, I have results of a research about soil and water analysis of vegetation areas in Ethiopia. It describes the amount of areas divided by pH to
> 
> 4.5 – 5.5 strongly acidic
> 5.6 – 6.5 moderately acidic
> ...


Wait, wait - the idea that Mg can cause a K-deficiency is not settled science. It's an interesting idea people are looking into, but I'm not sure it's applicable to planted tanks. At minimum it deals with how concentrations of different cations adsorb differently to the soil, so if you have a substrate with low CEC the proposed mechanisms don't apply. It would also apply to calcium, not just magnesium. 

I support your larger point that acidic soil conditions are common though.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

ElleDee said:


> Wait, wait - the idea that Mg can cause a K-deficiency is not settled science. … It would also apply to calcium, not just magnesium.


 Antagonism and synergism of minerals as nutrients is not a myth but rather a well researched and documented phenomenon. It exists with plants and human physiology as well, any search engine can help.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Edward said:


> Antagonism and synergism of minerals as nutrients is not a myth but rather a well researched and documented phenomenon. It exists with plants and human physiology as well, any search engine can help.


I did not say that that the entire concept of antagonistic and synergistic relationship between plant nutrients was a myth, but it's not nearly as straightforward and replicable as that Mulder chart that gets reposted occasionally implies. For instance, the very first result in that google searched you linked is a review of such interactions and Figure 1 shows that for K and Mg they found 1 study where their relationship is synergistic, one antagonistic, and three where there was no interaction found. 

The first paper you linked evoked the base-cation saturation ratio concept (the idea that soils need to have a specific ratio of different cations rather than just a sufficient amount of each) is definitely not settled science. There has been a lot of research into various proportions of K/Ca/Mg and while there have been differences shown in different studies, there's not a consistent universal takeaway.

Let's just say that the situation is complex even in well studied field crops. I am not sure how applicable field crop studies are to planted tanks! I think about this a lot, actually - my background is in horticulture and trying to understand the rule-breaking plants we grow underwater is a big part of what makes it interesting. 

That said, I apologize to @Edward - I've been trying to translate the way fertilization is dealt with in the hobby with my land-plant knowledge and it's been frustrating and has spilled out here for some reason that doesn't have anything to do with you or this thread. I appreciate your contributions and mean no offense.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

ElleDee
No problem at all. 
Back to topic, some antagonistic and synergistic relationships do exist and the whole area is too complex to have anything certain. Just like you suggested. Still we like the discussion because it stimulates new ideas and creates progress. We are happy to have you here because most of us are only hobbyists unlike you professional horticulturist who has the knowledge to help us understand the topic better.

I think aquatic plants can’t be that different than terrestrial plants because most of the plants we grow in our aquariums also grow seasonally emersed just like terrestrial plants do. So for this reason the studies could also help our plants.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

I wish I had more expertise in plant nutrition specifically, but the hobby has definitely inspired me to deepen my understanding of that topic. 

I agree we have to glean what we can from agricultural studies because our sources of other reliable information is so limited. We have those and we have research done from the ecological side that give us knowledge about aquatic ecosystems, bit about how our plants grow in nature, and some information on their unique physiology. Neither area of research is really sufficient, but hey - look where the hobby was 20 years ago! I think we have more big advances in the years to come too.

I suspect that a big chunk of the handwringing about fertilizer in the hobby is misplaced. Now, I don't know that to be true and might have a totally different opinion with more experience, but the degree that people wrestle over small differences is way out of line with horticulture in most other contexts. I don't think tissue culture is even this bad! Like, didn't y'all have a whole civil war about micro toxicities? Madness! 

But it's not like I have the answers either. In the meantime I'm learning a lot and having fun and maybe I'll be able to contribute some actual value to the community eventually.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ElleDee said:


> Like, didn't y'all have a whole civil war about micro toxicities? Madness!


LOL the Microtox wars. 

It was brutal warfare. Many are still scarred.:grin2:

Just dropped in to say I have been enjoying the conversation. Whether knowing the absolute interactions between compounds/elements is a game changer with planted tanks is debatable. '

Of all the things that make a tank successful, dosing is not at the top of the list. I spend a good deal of time interacting with what I consider to be the best in the hobby, and this topic is not something that is brought up often at all.

The other issue with any debate like this is how it might affect different species. Too many create "experiments" that only indicate how one plant reacts in one environment. Different species of aquatic plants have different preferred parameters. The trickiest part of this hobby is keeping a wide group of species happy at one time. The reality is that many times one might change parameters to bring out peak health in a certain plant, and the unintended consequence is that others suffer.

But all that being said listening with great interest.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Greggz said:


> LOL the Microtox wars.
> 
> It was brutal warfare. Many are still scarred.:grin2:


I don't know all the ins and outs of this particular internet conflict, but I've seen some of the aftermath searching through old posts. When you come across a forum where there are more than a couple members with thousands of posts who are banned you know some stuff went down.



Greggz said:


> The other issue with any debate like this is how it might affect different species. Too many create "experiments" that only indicate how one plant reacts in one environment. Different species of aquatic plants have different preferred parameters. The trickiest part of this hobby is keeping a wide group of species happy at one time. The reality is that many times one might change parameters to bring out peak health in a certain plant, and the unintended consequence is that others suffer.


I think you've absolutely hit on what is going on with very experienced/skilled folks. You can't please everybody all the time (the plants, I mean). Also I think you guys have especially high expectations of your plants and are sensitive minor imperfections. This is not a criticism - I have a lot of respect for that attention to detail! The other unavoidable issue is that it's too difficult to completely parse which parts of a successful system are contributing what. This is what replicated trials are for, though they are understandably beyond the scope of individual hobbyists. This is why we all have to talk together and try to piece together what seems to be true across all of our tanks, and to try and figure out why x thing seems great in one tank and wrecking havoc in another.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ElleDee said:


> IThe other unavoidable issue is that it's too difficult to completely parse which parts of a successful system are contributing what.


I've said this before.

The only thing I know for sure is what I see in my own tank. And even then, my conclusions are probably wrong half the time.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ElleDee said:


> The other unavoidable issue is that it's too difficult to completely parse which parts of a successful system are contributing what. This is what replicated trials are for, though they are understandably beyond the scope of individual hobbyists.


It's beyond the scope or I should say beyond the interest of most widely successful influencers in the hobby. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of all these scientific principals, but if it was necessary for the typical hobbyist to need the answers almost no one would be in this hobby. In fact, I think it's a turn off for many newbies that try to enter and stay in it. 

Influencers like Amano, Farmer, Knott are more Artist then Scientist and they seemed to grow plants pretty well. I have found most who talk science all the time, don't really maintain hobbyist type tanks and for the most part they enjoy the science and not really looking to improve their own tanks. It is a hobby and hobbyists like to share the results by showing their own tanks.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Asteroid said:


> It's beyond the scope or I should say beyond the interest of most widely successful influencers in the hobby. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of all these scientific principals, but if it was necessary for the typical hobbyist to need the answers almost no one would be in this hobby. In fact, I think it's a turn off for many newbies that try to enter and stay in it.
> 
> Influencers like Amano, Farmer, Knott are more Artist then Scientist and they seemed to grow plants pretty well. I have found most who talk science all the time, don't really maintain hobbyist type tanks and for the most part they enjoy the science and not really looking to improve their own tanks. It is a hobby and hobbyists like to share the results by showing their own tanks.


The nice thing about scientific principles are you don't have to understand them at all for them to be true. You don't have to understand gravity to keep your feet on the ground, and I agree it's not necessary for the typical hobbyist to get too deep into the science to be good and and enjoy what they are doing. That's fine! 

But it's not like we don't have any scientist influencers in our ranks - Tom Barr and Diana Walstad spring to mind. And improved scientific understanding drives innovation in all fields, even if the details of the science never makes it to the end user.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

ElleDee said:


> But it's not like we don't have any scientist influencers in our ranks - Tom Barr and Diana Walstad spring to mind. And improved scientific understanding drives innovation in all fields, even if the details of the science never makes it to the end user.


It’s funny you bring up Tom Barr. I’ve had lots of conversations with Tom, and very rarely does it revolve around dosing. Tom has said many times, when people see a really great tank, the first thing they ask about is dosing, when it should be the last. 

Same goes for Dennis Wong. He often talks about what he calls “nutrient tunnel vision”. 

When you really get to know what makes their tanks great, it’s always CO2, light, and plant husbandry/tank maintenance. What most don’t understand is if you get those right, you can get by on a wide range of dosing.

Right now Tom is exploring the upper limits of light. He’s putting 14 x T5O over a 30” wide 180G tank. Now that is interesting. In the spirit of exploration, I am going to be doing a similar thing with my tank. Tom calls it “the final frontier” and one that has not been tested much.

So while I really do enjoy these types of discussion, most would improve their tanks by concentrating on everything else.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

ElleDee said:


> ...
> 
> But it's not like we don't have any scientist influencers in our ranks - Tom Barr and Diana Walstad spring to mind. And improved scientific understanding drives innovation in all fields, even if the details of the science never makes it to the end user.


Of course, I'm not saying the science doesn't help, but sometimes you can end up putting too much detail and emphasis on something that in reality is a minor concern in running a planted tank. Barr by the way is a scientist but he also shared his personal tanks all the time. That's what a hobbyist forum is about. Just talking scientific conjecture and/or facts from nature that might not be relatable to home aquaria holds little value to me. Barr used the term "elbow grease" quite often when he talked about keeping his aquariums thriving.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Asteroid said:


> Barr used the term "elbow grease" quite often when he talked about keeping his aquariums thriving.


LOL and he still hammers that home today! But that's not what people hear, as let's face it it's not as interesting as discussing dosing in minutiae.


----------



## Capsaicin_MFK (Nov 15, 2009)

Greggz said:


> LOL and he still hammers that home today! But that's not what people hear, as let's face it it's not as interesting as discussing dosing in minutiae.


My elbow grease is taming runners from plants that invade the spaces allocated for other species, and wiping down glass to remove green dust algae. I dip my co2 diffuser in 10% bleach for 10 min every 2 weeks. I wipe down my glass tops and plastic trim every week to avoid any "aquarium buildup" that might occur. I truly don't understand how people let things get out of hand, like when I see a tank completely covered in algae. The tank didn't get like that overnight, it took weeks of neglect before they took a picture and asked for help. By far the easiest thing to do is trim plants and add nutrients.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

@Capsaicin_MFK I think that's true if your tank is more or less balanced, but when something's way out of whack algae can get out of control pretty quickly. I know I have had an algae situation that took more than cleanliness to fix, and I feel for people who are new to the hobby, have a tank they just set up, a bunch of emersed plants they have no experience with, and maybe an active substrate or driftwood dumping organics.


----------



## FischAutoTechGarten (Jul 11, 2003)

Decades ago George Booth was often criticized for his tight adherence to Dupla methods and materials. His defense was that you cannot just take the parts you like from one system and combine them with parts from another system and expect the good results of either system. It is difficult to determine what individual element of a process is contributing to plant/fish health without taking into consideration all the components of a system.

And lets me honest... when we pick and chose elements from different systems and combine them into our own.... it is usually a cost-avoidance strategy... you take this cheap component/element from this system, combine it with cheap elements/components/processess from this system..... etc...

So, I appreciate it immensely when folks like Greggz (here on PlantedTank.net), George Booth, Tom Barr detail their entire systems for us... showing us the interactions and effects of everything they've employed to make their system a success.

Thank you all for taking the time to make such contributions... I'll continue reading and learning....


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

FischAutoTechGarten said:


> Decades ago George Booth was often criticized for his tight adherence to Dupla methods and materials.


I have to admit I had heard of George Booth but never really did much research about him. When you mentioned him I did some searching and ran across some great pics from many years ago. He had some beautiful tanks back in the day. Bonus was he had Rainbow Fish in many of them!

That let to me an article he wrote about injecting CO2, and that led to learning more about the Dupla'a "The Optimum Aquarium". And so on and so forth and a hour later I had a really good time going back in time. 

Interesting that while some of the equipment and techniques are well dated, there are also some that held up very well. 

So thanks for the reference. I enjoyed learning more about them.


----------



## FischAutoTechGarten (Jul 11, 2003)

Greggz said:


> I have to admit I had heard of George Booth but never really did much research about him....
> and that led to learning more about the Dupla'a "The Optimum Aquarium".
> 
> And so on and so forth and a hour later I had a really good time going back in time.
> ...


I still have my Optimum Aquarium Book!! 










Here you can see some notes, as I was trying to determine if fluorescent lighting would work on my 120. (It did, I enjoyed that planted Discus tank).










And here I am... Nearly 30 years later... Mixing laterite and using Low Wattage undergravel heating cables in my new setup a few weeks ago. There's a technique that is well dated. I found 5 of them as brand-new old stock and just had to have them. Of course Dupla recommended 42v (that's what they sold), later that was reduced to 24v. Me, I'm not at all shy about using the the 110v Hydor versions. (I'm documenting the build in another thread... so showing this picture is jumping ahead of that thread... .but honestly, I've shown the whole system fully running.... so no big deal).


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

FischAutoTechGarten said:


> And here I am... Nearly 30 years later... Mixing laterite and using Low Wattage undergravel heating cables in my new setup a few weeks ago. There's a technique that is well dated. I found 5 of them as brand-new old stock and just had to have them.


Well this should be interesting. Very old school.

I look forward to following along.


----------



## xxBlink (Dec 21, 2012)

Well, I'm glad to see this is the top post on this section cause I came here looking for this.

I've been out of the hobby for awhile and finally came back and set up a planted tank, low tech and slowly started adding tech as I went. Use 5/2 ratio RODI to purified water because of the crap in my tap water. Had a great aquarium going, added CO2, was adjusting the levels for a few days and all of my invertebrates died in one day. Not thinking to test, I just did a fast water change and tried to figure out was going and then a few days later I had massive die off in one day again. I had a small ammonia spike which I gathered because of all the death, so I did several small water changes and then everyone else died but one. My tank completely cycled. So I moved my last fish to my hospital tank and finally measured my kH and stuff and I had 0 kH, 180 gH and pH of 6.0. I can only figure that I was having major pH swing from the addition of CO2 was ordered alkaline booster to buffer the kH but now I'm reading that shouldn't shift my pH?


----------



## rzn7z7 (Aug 17, 2013)

FischAutoTechGarten said:


> I still have my Optimum Aquarium Book!!



Oh man, what an influential book that was!

It led me to purchase a wet/dry filter, a CO2 set up, and those darn Dupla under-gravel heating cables; the wet/dry is gone and the cables are in storage somewhere


You must be enjoying success if you're still mixing up laterite and using cables in your substrates...congrats!


----------



## FischAutoTechGarten (Jul 11, 2003)

rzn7z7 said:


> Oh man, what an influential book that was!
> You must be enjoying success if you're still mixing up laterite and using cables in your substrates...congrats!


The system has just been put on-line a few weeks ago, so I have no idea.... JAJA. I think it indicates a cowardliness on my part, a reluctance to try the newer active substrates from ADA and such... Falling back to old school methods that imploy an inert substrate... and of course doing it across the board because I have a common system... 

Regarding Dosing... for the next month I'm just employing two liquid fertilizers from BrightwellAquatics for the system (FishNook is roughly 95-100gallons for all display tanks, sumps, uvfilter)... Florin-K (potassium supplement) 10ml twice a week and then FlorinMulti (iron/iodine) 10ml once a week for the system. All part of the break-in... As I learn I will mix my own solutions from dry ferts.. and employ my Dosers (2 x EZO-PMP from Atlas-Scientific) to adhere to a steady regimen (of course regimen never replaces observation and adjustment).

I really only want one set of variables to manage for chemistry..... The only variability I want in each of the tanks is the personality of the fauna...

I've had this book forever, and have lent it out serveral times. I recall one person was shocked that I shipped it across country for them to read/use for an entire month... when they sent it back to me the packaged contained a $25 gift certificate to a restaurant chain for my wife and I to express their gratitude. (yeah, you could eat out for $25 in the nineties) Fun stuff.

I'm running about 95% RO, 5% Tap. Seriously. 
pH is 6.8-7.0 (some movement)
Temp is 27degC
KH is 1dKH (about 20ppm)
GH is 20 mg/L
Ammonia < .1 (barely registers)
Nitrite undetectable
Nitrate undectable

my test kit is not extensive enough to measure elements.
I have pH, ORP, Conductivity and DissolvedOxygen sensors.... but I need to rebuild the DissolvedOxygen Probe and the ORP got accidently fully submerged (slipped out of it's cradle)... So, I'll learn to use that instrumenation to help me at the very least identify when I relative shifts in the chemistry/conditions (aka something is changing)... even if I don't understand the significance of the absolute values...


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

ElleDee said:


> Like, didn't y'all have a whole civil war about micro toxicities? Madness!


 I was not involved, I waited for natural selection to take its course. And it did. Years later, history books will describe it as:


_*"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." *_
Arthur Schopenhauer 1800's


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> I was not involved, I waited for natural selection to take its course. And it did. Years later, history books will describe it as:
> 
> 
> _*"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." *_
> Arthur Schopenhauer 1800's


If you are suggesting that the folks who were permanently banned were banned because of their beliefs, you are trying to rewrite history and don't have any grasp of what took place. 

They were banned primarily for their repeated vile comments. One of them compared EI dosing and Tom Barr to the AID's virus. He also threatened to physically harm Tom Barr and only lived a couple of hours away from him. These same folks have been banned from other sites as well. Now they hang out in their own little cocoon, as no one else will have them.

At the peak they were jumping into 15 threads a day claiming every single person had Microtox. It was ridiculous. The funny thing is half of them weren't even dosing micros. But that didn't seem to matter or slow them down.

Defending them and what took place should be beneath you Edward. Just because you have a history with Tom Barr is no excuse. And for what it's worth, IMO Tom is right about what he says about PPS.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Greggz said:


> Defending them and what took place should be beneath you Edward.


 *I was talking about people finally ending the era of adding dry CSM+B by the spoon directly into their aquariums.* Not about your personal hatred issues. 



Greggz said:


> They were banned primarily for their repeated vile comments. One of them compared EI dosing and Tom Barr to the AID's virus. He also threatened to physically harm Tom Barr and only lived a couple of hours away from him.


 Can you finally point us to some evidence? Until then it’s just your usual clown talk.


Full rant:
_


Greggz said:



If you are suggesting that the folks who were permanently banned were banned because of their beliefs, you are trying to rewrite history and don't have any grasp of what took place. 

They were banned primarily for their repeated vile comments. One of them compared EI dosing and Tom Barr to the AID's virus. He also threatened to physically harm Tom Barr and only lived a couple of hours away from him. These same folks have been banned from other sites as well. Now they hang out in their own little cocoon, as no one else will have them.

At the peak they were jumping into 15 threads a day claiming every single person had Microtox. It was ridiculous. The funny thing is half of them weren't even dosing micros. But that didn't seem to matter or slow them down.

Defending them and what took place should be beneath you Edward. Just because you have a history with Tom Barr is no excuse. And for what it's worth, IMO Tom is right about what he says about PPS.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> Can you finally point us to some evidence? Until then it’s just your usual clown talk.


Edward I was there. I understand your ignorance of everything that took place, as a large number of the worst posts were permanently deleted. 

I stand by every single thing I said.

I've also talked to Tom Barr, and he shared with me some of what he was receiving via PM. Let's just say these guys were way, way out of control.

And c'mon now.....clown talk? You're better than that.


----------

