# Magnesium



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I have fairly hard water pH 7.6 12dgh in 80 gal low tech, and dose maybe 1/2 tsp Epsom salt after each weekly water change for my water's hardness is from mostly,, calcium.
Might try quarter tsp once a week in 55 gal after water change to see if this helps.
If it is magnesium deficiency the Epsom salt should produce near overnight greening for it is key nutrient for chlorophyll production.
If after a week there is no benefit,then try 1/2 tsp for another week.?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> I have fairly hard water pH 7.6 12dgh in 80 gal low tech, and dose maybe 1/2 tsp Epsom salt after each weekly water change for my water's hardness is from mostly,, calcium.
> Might try quarter tsp once a week in 55 gal after water change to see if this helps.
> If it is magnesium deficiency the Epsom salt should produce near overnight greening for it is key nutrient for chlorophyll production.
> If after a week there is no benefit,then try 1/2 tsp for another week.?


Thank you! I am glad to hear it shows improvement quickly too that's great news! I'll start with 1/4 teaspoon and go from there. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

I have one small 20 long that has one plant which I have spent far too much time trying to correct. But in running through what might be lacking, I have come to MG as a potential problem. I also have this tank in limestone country where it is assumed there is a ton of CA. But I am getting a change after adding Epsom salt. Adding 3/4 teaspoon with each macro dosing on alternate days is getting the leaves on Java fern straight but I'm still waiting to see what else it may change as that is a lot. 
The sick anubia that I meant to cure? Still doing the same silly thing! Not a lack of N,P, or K. Not CA and the other plants seem pretty happy so , maybe MG. 
At least it is an easy, cheap fert to get and use.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

It seems that Ca and Mg deficiencies are more common than I imagined. 

Rotala Butterfly recommends 3/8 teaspoon of Epsom Salt (MgSO4 + 7H2O) per 10 gallons 2X per week to achieve a recommended EI level of 5 ppm.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Hi, Roy. Glad you dropped in on this as you might be the one to know. Is there a preferred ratio of sorts for CA and MG? Seems I read about it but not sure.
My thought is that I am certain that I have tons of CA as water softeners are almost required for the area and limestone is the bedrock all around. Any type of spray dries on all the glass as a grainy white layer, so my thinking is that CA is the primary thing in my hard water. Both GH and KH are somewhat near off the charts on testing. In the 300PPM range? But the thought has come up in conversations that even though we have lots of Ca, we may not have MG in the correct proportion. 
I'm currently dosing extra Epsom salt and think I see some results but not declaring any victories, yet.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi PlantedRich,

You have tons of Ca in your water but is the water in your tank going through the water softener?

In answer to your question typically a Ca:Mg ratio or 3:1 to 4:1 is what I have found when researching but attaining that ratio may not be possible nor recommended. In your case, with that much Ca adding sufficient Mg to get to that ratio would likely mean adding 2.5 tablespoons of Epsom Salt per 10 gallons and that would increase your hardness by 23+ dGH. I don't worry to much about the ratio but rather do I have sufficient Mg, Ca or whatever nutrient in my tank to satisfy the needs of my plants. Adding Mg to your tank may be helping, and increasing if further may provide even more positive results but here is a caution.....it may not. Why?


> Necrosis occurs at tip and margin of leaves causing a definite hook at leaf tip.
> 
> Calcium is essential for the growth of shoot and root tips (meristems). Growing point dies. Margins of young leaves are scalloped and abnormally green and, due to inhibition of cell wall formation, the leaf tips may be "gelatinous" and stuck together inhibiting leaf unfolding. Stem structure is weak and peduncle collapse or shoot topple may occur. Roots are stunted. Downward curl of leaf tips (hooking) occurs near terminal bud. ammonium or magnesium excess may induce a calcium deficiency in plants... *calcium deficiency*


Notice what I highlighted in red? Sometimes a deficiency is not caused by a lack of a nutrient but too much of another. Looking at your Huntington Beach Water Quality Report shows a lot of Ca and also a fair amount of Mg. Unfortunately we do not know if those nutrients are in the most common forms - calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate both of which are very difficult for plants to uptake....even more so in alkaline conditions (PH>7.0). I have not yet found quantitative numbers as to what comprises "excess' levels for the nutrients but it does make me think. If it were me I would continue to dose Epsom Salt, slowing increasing the amount until improvement in the plants are no longer occurring.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Sorry, My posting may create as much confusion as anything else. When I move back and forth from Huntington to Texas to Tampa, I never know where to post as an address as the forum has a quirk of going back to change ALL my previous postings to that address, so I just stopped trying to keep it current. 
I'm currently working on the tanks in the Central Texas area where limestone is all around. I do use the raw water which has a hardness reading of 21 grains (300 PPM?) and mostly comes out of solid limestone. 
A ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 is good enough data for me to think over. Possible that it is too alkaline but I will continue on upping the MG for a while longer and look for changes. 
When it gets too simple or if it gets too hard, I'll look for a different place to bang my head on the wall! 

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi PlantedRich,

I hope my suggestions help. I have dealt with Mg, Ca, and Fe deficiency for several years. First learning to identify the issues, then researching possible causes, and finally finding ways to address them has been challenging but I think I may finally have a handle on many of my deficiency issues.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I'm super glad that you guys had the back and forth. Very helpful for me in my circumstances as well. I also went a round with iron after thinking I had things worked out in the beginning and although I don't think Ca will ever be in short supply getting Mg right may spur something else to come up short and I again should have but hadn't thought that far ahead. One more reason for me to get at least the 55 off the Seachem and into something that I have more control over. Hard water has been quite a learning curve for me, I thought the fish would give me more fits but instead it's the plants that seem to struggle more lol 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

I did not mean to try to get onto another subject as I was thinking there was most likely some one single item missing. What is the big question and that is what Roy has helped me so much on as he has a better understanding of what the chemical side is likely to do. 
I have run into much the same problem in outside plants at times. We have various plants which seem to show a lack of iron with yellow leaves, etc. But simply adding iron did not help, even when we felt we had added excess iron they still persisted with looking iron deficient. But when we added Epsom salt to get a better "balance" of MG for the almost solid layer of limestone (CA) that the plants are setting on, we got rid of the yellow. 
Bottom line on the outside plants was not that there was a lack of iron but that the plants were not able to take the iron in and use it. 
So when dealing with the tank plant, I started with making sure those which I could measure were there. Nitrate and phosphate are both test kits that I use but then for Potassium (K) I went with adding potassium sulfate to the mix until I was sure there was enough. Iron was next as it was on hand for other tanks. Calcium is almost a sure thing here so I next have moved on to making sure MG is high enough. 
Somewhat a shotgun approach but the only real way to sort through? Start with the charts and signs as they are from people who have studied this much longer/deeper than I will, but if those obvious things don't work out, I have to move on to sorting what DOES work. 
Many times, I have simply swapped out the problem plants and found those which did work as there are certainly plants growing in all kinds of water, if we just got better info on which fits best. 
I look at my hobby expenses as I do other expenses and I'm a real bear for holding down the excess spending but when I look at what it costs to do tanks versus some of the other habits and I find a bag of ferts for five dollars that lasts a year is pretty cheap entertainment! 
I guess we could say I prefer Epsom salts over Starbucks???
>


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Warm water and Epsom salt also work's well for tired aching feet.
Spent nearly fifteen year's as track laborer walking/working on loose ballast/gravel, and it took a toll that was not fully realized until recently.
That Epsom salt that I do not use in my aquarium's,I soak my feet in on occasion.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Haha yeah my green thumb in the garden is only capable of growing things since my move... So many deficiencies I've taken to this year compost, straw, mulch then ferts and as much black dirt as I can next spring... Nothing grows here lol

But I took some photos this morning from the 55 that has so many issues. Forgive the mess it's tank day but here's photos of my issues.

All Anubias new growth in this tank is like this, there's a variety of anubias plants. Nana, narrow leaf, coffeefoilia and bartoli. 
















Thin leaves on all my crypts, noticed much more hooked tips on them than before. I wasn't looking for it until the other day. 

















An example of what happens to my swords, this is just a spot starting on a new sword that's been in the tank about a week. It's starting to turn transparent. I am aware it's new and could be adjusting and that spot could have already been on it but it's very similar to what happens to the entire plant and over a few weeks I'll lose it. 










Is this not Mg? What's your opinions? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

My money is on magnesium.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Have you taken a look at some of the plant deficiency charts? 
Not to sidetrack but then it seems there is never to much info for us to decide to trust or not trust but I like to have multiple sources and compare. So here is one more if it has not come up to you yet. 
Plant Deficiencies - Aquatic Plant Central
Some info is old and no longer posted but lots of info at least? 
What I find is the written info seems to be quite certain but my plants often don't read the same info! Anyway it get to be a bit more muddled at times. So that does bring me back to doing some trial and error at times. That's where I get into throwing a bit of this and then some of that to see which my plant feels better about. 

But for the current situation, I would certainly try some Epsom salt as a very easy to find, cheap shot. But then different water with different plants does make for different things to look the same but act different so if the first doesn't work in a few weeks, move on to the next most logical item.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

@PlantedRich
Definitely different water different problems lol and I completely agree on muddled info, I've been throwing seachem stuff at my tanks for several months simply because it's easy, I know exactly what's in it and there's a TON of detailed info available for when I switch off it... 

This site http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2015/12/plant-nutrient-deficiency-leaf.html?m=1 is what actually started a completely different thought about a different problem not in my tanks which after jumping down the rabbit hole and reading a bunch all night I ended up coming out with my tank issue being a likely Mg issue and still more questions about my garden issues lol, but I learned a ton about why I wasn't showing this deficiency or that deficiency before I fixed this or that and about why an over abundance of one can look like a deficiency in another and why presentation is different.... Mg fit my bill in my perspective by a process of elimination. I have a variety of plants presenting differently with the only common factor I could find being Mg, though lots of other things are blamed too for the various presentations all can be attributed to Mg deficiency from one cause or another. And yes it's about the cheapest thing I can try for something. The more reading I do, the more sold I am it's my issue lol I'm going to be completely confused if it's not lol 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Wow! Minding blowing to see that much info in one place on something that we often look at as simple? 
Thanks for the post as I will now have lots more study materials. It does give me an almost unlimited supply of possible cures---as if I would run out. And then we get to throw in the idea that plants in water may not fully act the same as those in the field. 
Something about bumble and stumble and even the blind sow finds an acorn?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

PlantedRich said:


> Something about bumble and stumble and even the blind sow finds an acorn?


I like that! And yeah that site was super helpful I keep going back since I found it the other day lol 


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> In answer to your question typically a Ca:Mg ratio or 3:1 to 4:1 is what I have found when researching but attaining that ratio may not be possible nor recommended.


I have been looking into this and haveseen 3:1 averages ins some water quality reports from various rivers. For many GH booster a 4:1 Ratio of calcium sulfate to magnesium sulfate. However in a river some if not all the Ca or MG in the form of carbonate which is not soluble. GH boosters use sulfates or chlorides that easily resolve in water. If you make adjustments for the weight of the sulfate the weight mix ratio of 4:1 which results in CA:Mg ratio of about 3:1.


However when I looked for date for lakes and rivers I found information that indicated big swings in Ca:Mg ratio occur seasonally and they can be dramatically different than the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. Also if you look at the mineral content in the plant (not in the water) you will find a ratio of 2:1. Based on all of this I don't think the exact ratio is important as long as the plant can get what it needs when it needs it.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Surf,

You are absolutely correct on all counts.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> 'm super glad that you guys had the back and forth. Very helpful for me in my circumstances as well. I also went a round with iron after thinking I had things worked out in the beginning and although I don't think Ca will ever be in short supply getting Mg right may spur something else to come up short and I again should have but hadn't thought that far ahead. One more reason for me to get at least the 55 off the Seachem and into something that I have more control over. Hard water has been quite a learning curve for me, I thought the fish would give me more fits but instead it's the plants that seem to struggle more lol


If you are using Sachem comprehensive it is week on most of the macro nutrients. In my own experience with it I have nitrogen deficiency, magnesium deficiency, sulfur and chlorine deficiency. I recently gave up on it and got CSM+b. Now it doesn't have calcium or chlorine. But I already made my own GH booster containing Ca, Mg, S, + ordinary table salt for CL. Then I am using potassium nitrate and potassium phosphate to complete the fertilizer. I have been using RO water since the tank was setup so I don't have tap water issues with excess calcium. I am keeping my GH at about 2 to 3 degrees with a TDS of about 120. and I keep nitrogen at 10ppm and phosphate at 1ppm I am not using CO2 or very bright lighting.

I don't know what the details on your tank are but One possible problem is that with high light and or CO2 is that you can drive plant growth so fast that you might not be able to fertilizer often enough to keep up with nutrient demand. You could try reducing CO2 and or light levels to slow the growth down.


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

I'm new around here, but that really seems more like an iron deficiency more than magnesium. Especially since it's on the new growth rather than the old growth. Even if you dose with more iron you won't see much until the new growth comes in. If it is magnesium then you should make sure that you're not adding anything with potassium since plants preferentially take up potassium over magnesium.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @JusticeBeaver,

First, welcome to TPT!

You may be correct, dosing iron in this situation may provide positive results; you have very good observation skills. @sfsamm, based upon JusticeBeaver's suggestion try adding some Seachem Flourish Iron as an additional supplement.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @JusticeBeaver,
> 
> First, welcome to TPT!
> 
> You may be correct, dosing iron in this situation may provide positive results; you have very good observation skills. @sfsamm, based upon JusticeBeaver's suggestion try adding some Seachem Flourish Iron as an additional supplement.


I've been dosing iron four days a week, full dosage (1ml per 10 gallon). I'd actually begun to consider it may be too much iron causing the Mg issue, or appearance of an Mg issue (I don't test for it). Think I should increase dosage or try daily dosing before adding Mg? As yes it is all the new growth, but I do not have any yellowing of anything.... Hooked tips, thin leaves and the light leaves with veining. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

I double checked and I don't believe I saw a PH mentioned, with so much Ca is it possible your PH is alkaline? If so that can effect the uptake of iron. 



> Terminal bud remaining alive. Symptoms on new growth.
> 
> 1. Interveinal chlorosis on young leaves.
> 
> ...


I would try dosing additional iron as well, start with 1.5 times your current dosing level....watch those new leaves as they continue to emerge do they acquire more green? It is possible to have multiple deficiencies in a single tank since each plant species has different nutrient requirements; a level of iron, calcium, or magnesium that is adequate for one species may not be for another species in my tank.


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

sfsamm said:


> I've been dosing iron four days a week, full dosage (1ml per 10 gallon). I'd actually begun to consider it may be too much iron causing the Mg issue, or appearance of an Mg issue (I don't test for it). Think I should increase dosage or try daily dosing before adding Mg? As yes it is all the new growth, but I do not have any yellowing of anything.... Hooked tips, thin leaves and the light leaves with veining.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


I think your dosage is fine. I suspect that your tank pH is above 7 which reduces iron reduction and reduces leaf ability to uptake iron. You might have more success with root tabs since roots take up iron more readily in reduced and non-reduced forms.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

My pH is 8.0-8.2, I apologize for not mentioning it I should know better. And looking into your comments this evening I stumbled on a tidbit also likely coming into play... The only tank that clouds when I dose iron is this one, has a much higher flow rate and I dose over my output. I didn't think a whole lot of the clouding, I should have, but seems it's likely my iron precipitating straight out. I ordered some gla chelated iron and will move my dosing location to the other side of the tank out of the filter output until I get around to changing it up to something different.

I'm pretty sure you are right with the iron being the issue. I had it all lined out before but then upped the lighting and sincerely didn't think it was going to come back up even more severely than before so I stumbled on something else and ran with it....

Since the gla chelated is a bit different and should last longer I'll probably dose 3x weekly to start and see if it improves and possibly up it again if necessary. Hopefully I'll see some improvement sooner rather than later! I don't want to over do it for the plants that are "surviving" the current levels. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

JusticeBeaver said:


> I think your dosage is fine. I suspect that your tank pH is above 7 which reduces iron reduction and reduces leaf ability to uptake iron. You might have more success with root tabs since roots take up iron more readily in reduced and non-reduced forms.


I do have root tabs under or near anything that has roots, also have flourite original substrate through the entire tank as well as about a half a bag of some flourite black sand on the more heavily planted side. The sand on top in the tank is inert but I had to cap or my fish would make a mud mess of the tank.
My other tanks with lower lighting do fine at the current fe dose, they most definitely have lower lighting. Swords in this tank all have had two tabs apiece but just fail before getting anywhere. They seem to at least maintain in other tanks, even one that sits in inert gravel without even a root tab in my young sons tank hasn't died off in the several months it's been there, though it is slowly getting smaller which is expected lol. 

The sword I just picked up is already getting all sorts of transparent spots on it in addition to the original one I posted a photo of. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## JJ09 (Sep 11, 2014)

I had this issue with plants, too. My anubias in particular, and sometimes java fern, were showing the pale leaf with darker veins, and I had twisting leaves on other plants. I thought my safe-t-sorb substrate was stripping calcium from the water? or that my water source lacked Mg. I started conservatively dosing epsom salts 1/4tsp per 10 and I did it every other wc (twice a month) it seemed to help. Then I finally found my city's water report and got confused it showed there was well enough of Ca and Mg in my water source. I finally figured out I had been dosing micros and macros too close together the entire time, so some elements were interfering with others. 

It was tricky to figure out- I misunderstood some instructions I got when I first started dosing my tanks years ago- and I had been doing it wrong all along. Once I started dosing micros well apart from macros (several hours seems sufficient since I have low-light tanks and use small amounts of ferts) my problems with the plants looking pale and having deformities went away entirely.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

So although I'm pretty sure my current issues with most of the plants are Fe rather than my initial thought of Mg. I stopped considering my hooked tips on my crypts, they are fairly severely hooked and in the past few days have begun to get more pronounced. So I'm thinking that they are suffering from Mg rather than Fe. I got to poking around again and am hoping for some opinions on the Millers Microplex? I initially suffered Manganese then iron and now after adding more light I've got iron issues again and (I think) Magnesium. Maybe Millers might be a better route for me? It's still has the Fe DTPA which is better than the Fe EDTA in Seachem for high pH. I have DHTA chelate on the way to see if I can get by with it or if I really do need to add EDDHA and tolerate the pink water once a week. So if the DHTA works out maybe Millers Microplex would be an idea (I can supplement with EDDHA anyway of necessary too) what are your much more experienced thoughts? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,



> I stopped considering my hooked tips on my crypts, they are fairly severely hooked and in the past few days have begun to get more pronounced. So I'm thinking that they are suffering from Mg rather than Fe.


Hooking downward of leaf tips is a classic symptom of a calcium deficiency.


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


With the high PH in your tank I would suggest using ferrous gluconate as your source of Iron in that is much, much easier for plants to uptake than EDTA or DPTA chelated iron products. Seachem Flourish is one company that offers an iron supplement in gluconate form.

Tom Barr lives in the SF area. When he did his first talk for GSAS in Seattle we discussed water and he stated that our water in Seattle is a lot like the water he has in the Bay Area.....very soft (Seattle is 1.0 - 2.0 dGH). He further stated he added GH Booster to increase the hardness in his tanks to 4.0 - 5.0 dGH. Also, in a thread on The Barr Report he stated that no matter what the dGH of a tank he recommended adding GH Booster to increase the hardness by 1.0 - 2.0 dGH.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Quote: 
Also, in a thread on The Barr Report he stated that no matter what the dGH of a tank he recommended adding GH Booster to increase the hardness by 1.0 - 2.0 dGH.

I'm trying to set back and learn something here but this does bring up a question. I have to wonder about the advise Tom Barr has given. I totally respect his thinking so not trying to fault that but I wonder if he was actually thinking and saying what he meant and if he did , was he thinking of only low PH soft water or all water. I would totally agree with GH booster being a reasonable addition for soft water with little buffering but does that mean it is right for all water? I travel frequently from East and West coasts of the US and then I often settle in the center where hard alkaline water is the norm. I may just be reading more into this than needed, but does Tom recommend adding GH booster to water that has 300+ GH already? Or was he only speaking of the water in the area at that location? 
Actual information where I'm missing a big point or more a case of understating what he was thinking? 
This communication stuff is not as simple as we think, at times.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

So let me back up. My pH is 8.2, kH 170, gH 288, TDS per report 450+. I misread my new water report you may well be completely correct on calcium I somehow read the new report as 0 Mg and 16 Ca... Not so much now that I just looked again to be sure on numbers, I've had it backwards. I really should sleep more.... I've attached shots of our newest report. Calcium doesn't even appear, unless it's the PH CACO3 deal listed under pH and if that's the case I should b solid... With all the white grime I clean out weekly I'd be thinking it's Ca but maybe my plants are telling me other wise? 

Alright now, I'm exceptionally confused. I have three neocardinia tanks that are absolutely prolific almost a nuisance they are so prolific. I have no Ca and I'm not supplementing them, and none have any stone hardscape (just driftwood and plants/mosses), my 55 has lots of dragonstone which I understood to have potential to increase hardness. None of the shrimp tanks show any deficiency in anything either, I would think that they at least the two well lit tanks would have something showing especially the one that doesn't have anything but inert sands and root tabs. Not making this a shrimp question, just an observation after having reread my report.

SOOOooo, with the water report, reattached photos just so no one has to go back for them and the following ferts schedule, what is up?

55 gallon standard tank. 
Flourite original, capped with Cichlid sand.
Seachem Products weekly: Flourish 1x, Trace 2x, Iron 4x, Excel daily.
Finnex Stingray x2, on timers 4.5 hour siesta between a 4.5 & a 4 hour photo periods. The second light on only 1.5-2 hours in the middle of each period. I would definitely not call it a high light tank, moderate probably.


























































Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @PlantedRich,

What caught my eye was his comment: "I tend to add 1-2 degrees extra in most any tap water".

A couple of thoughts on your comments, I grew up in the Midwest and depending upon the water source it varied from very hard to soft. A 300 ppm (17.0 dGH) water source is not the norm and would probably be excluded from Tom's recommendation but I don't know.

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

When we measure dGH we measure the amount of Ca++ and Mg++ ions in the water. However most of these ions are attached to carbonate molecules (CO3) to form calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate the two most common forms of find Ca and Mg in nature. Carbonates, by their nature are difficult for plants to uptake and become more difficult for the plants to utilize and the PH increases. So when I measure my dGH I have an idea of how many Ca++ and Mg++ ions are in the water but no idea how much 'free' Ca and Mg there is that is not tied up as carbonates. So I may have 'hard water' with high dGH (ppm) but minimal Ca++ or Mg++ available to my plants. The Ca++ and Mg++ in GH Boosters is in the form of sulfates (SO4), which have a much weaker bond with the Ca++ and Mg++ ions are are much easier for my plants to uptake and utilize.

Plants aren't really that complicated. Aquatic plants are very similar to terrestrial plants (in fact may are both) and they have similar nutrient requirements and deficiencies. Aquatic plants display their deficiencies in similar manners as their terrestrial cousins such as chlorosis, necrosis, interveinal chlorosis, etc. We see this same conditions occur in our aquarium plants all of the time. Most of these symptoms have identified, defined, and resolved in terrestrial plants and the corrective action documented. For example, interveinal chlorosis in a new leaf can be just a couple of deficiencies; most of the time it is iron related. Now does that mean I need to dose more iron? Not necessarily because high PH or excess potassium, zinc or copper can effect the ability of a plant to uptake iron that may be available in a tank. However, when I see a new leaf emerging, and it shows interveinal chlorosis, I have a good idea that I need to check my iron levels and dose more if my Fe+++ is low (I like to use ferrous gluconate).

Getting back to Ca and Mg deficiencies. The symptoms, and what they look like are fairly well defined. For example, there is not another deficiency I have been able to locate that displays a "hooked" or curved downward leaf tip on new leaves beside a calcium deficiency. If a tank has a high dGH but displays the classic hooking downward of newer leaves the plant is not getting sufficient calcium. Now is that because there isn't sufficient Ca++ available in the tank or because the Ca++ is not in a form the plant can assimilate, or is there too much of another nutrient in the tank that is preventing my plant from up-taking the Ca that is available. That is what I try to determine when I find a plant displaying a deficiency. My experience has been that most commonly when I see a deficiency, and identify it correctly, the deficiency is due to the lack of the indicated nutrient rather than an excess or some other nutrient.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,



> 55 gallon standard tank.
> Flourite original, capped with Cichlid sand.
> Seachem Products weekly: Flourish 1x, Trace 2x, Iron 4x, Excel daily.
> Finnex Stingray x2, on timers 4.5 hour siesta between a 4.5 & a 4 hour photo periods. The second light on only 1.5-2 hours in the middle of each period. I would definitely not call it a high light tank, moderate probably.


That is a fairly large amount of light. With that much light the plants require a lot of nutrients (Macros, Micros, Ca, Mg, carbon). The good news is you look to be fairly well 'dialed in' with macros (with the possible exception of phosphates) but what I see the plants exhibiting are:

1st Picture: Anubias - new leaves show interveinal chlorosis typical of a iron deficiency
2nd Picture: Anubias - new leaves showing 'hooking downward' typical of a calcium deficiency and interveinal chlorosis (see above)
3rd Picture: Sword Plant - older leaf? showing 'downward hooking' of leaf; if this is an older leaf, then at the time it was forming/growing there was a calcium deficiency
4th Picture: Cryptocorynes - new leaves display red pigmentation. This one is a little tougher. If I disregard the red color and then I see new leaves with darker veins and lighter interveinal areas which would suggest an iron deficiency.
5th Picture: Aponogeton - older leaves have longitudinal margins curled downward (or upward sometimes) typical of a magnesium deficiency

You indicate that you are dosing Flourish Iron 4X per week; are you dosing per the directions?

Alright everyone....am I missing something?

Here are some of the most common deficiencies I have seen posted and their symptoms; remember not all species will display all symptoms described and what may be a deficiency for one species may be an adequate level of a nutrient for other.


> Interveinal chlorosis on young leaves.
> 
> a. Interveinal chlorosis on young leaves with larger veins only remaining green. Necrotic spots usually absent; however, with extreme deficiencies, young leaves are almost white and may have necrotic margins and tips; necrotic spots may extend inward. potassium, zinc or copper excess can inhibit uptake of iron. High pH may also induce iron deficiency....*iron deficiency*
> 
> Iron deficiency symptoms are similar to those of magnesium deficiency, but iron deficiencies occur in young leaves first: Iron accumulated in older leaves is relatively immobile in the phloem.





> Symptoms appearing first or most severely on new growth (root and shoot tips, new leaves)
> 
> 2. Necrosis occurs at tip and margin of leaves causing a definite hook at leaf tip.
> 
> ...





> Interveinal chlorosis. Interveinal chlorosis first appears on oldest leaves.
> 
> 1. Older leaves chlorotic, usually necrotic in late stages. Chlorosis along leaf margins extending between veins produces a "Christmas tree" pattern. Veins normal green. Leaf margins may curl downward or upward with puckering effect. Necrosis may suddenly occur between veins. Potassium or calcium excess can inhibit uptake of magnesium...*magnesium deficiency*


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> A couple of thoughts on your comments, I grew up in the Midwest and depending upon the water source it varied from very hard to soft. A 300 ppm (17.0 dGH) water source is not the norm and would probably be excluded from Tom's recommendation but I don't know.
> 
> Here are a couple of my thoughts:
> 
> ...


Hi Roy, 

I find your rationalization is based on a false assumption. Unless my chemistry let me down and I am missing something, please correct me if this is the case. 

You will not find bound calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in water. Once a ionic molecule like [Ca]2+[CO3]2- is dissolved in water you will have separate [CO3]2- and [Ca]2+. From this point forward the anion and cation are able to interact with other molecules present in water or be taken up without influence of the original molecule. CO3 may continue to interact with water molecules and form HCO3- depending on the pH of the solution. With most aquariums (ph 6.5-8) bicarbonate, not carbonate is the major form. 

In other words once dissolved Ca2+ from CaCO3 is the same as Ca2+ from CaSO4 or Ca2+ from CaCl2. Same goes for magnesium and pretty much every salt we add to the aquarium. So all Ca and Mg that are in water and measured by the GH test are free, and none are in carbonates. Of course if conditions change ( major pH increase, temp drop , evaporation) some of the substances may form precipitates. Ions in the precipitate are not in solution and therefore unavailable. Do not let yourself be fooled by the fact that there are some reporting KH or GH as *equivalent * mg/L CaCO3. This is mainly for legal/historic reasons. If questions arise you can read up on carbonate chemistry as the topic is very well covered in chemistry books. 

EDTA can also bind weakly 1:1 (mol) to Ca2+ and Mg2+ in a pH dependent manner. However given the small amounts of EDTA we dose to the aquarium this is unlikely to be a major problem.

I agree with you that aquatic and terrestrial plants are similar, however the chemistry of the growing medium is very different, soil chemistry vs water chemistry. By and large(yes there are exceptions), terrestrial plants will use transpiration to move the nutrients from the roots to the leaves and other parts. As such you might have deficiencies that are induced by water scarcity and not soil conc. With aquatic plants, transpiration is not a possibility. Nutrients are surrounding all the tissue and the primary method is presumably foliar uptake. In my mind this is a big difference between terrestrial and aquatic plants when we talk about nutrient availability and nutrient interactions.

All this being said, adding a few grams of MgSO4*7H2O, enough to get above 3mg/L Mg will not even increase the GH by 1°dGH and will be enough for most plants.

Regards, 
duky


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi dukydaf,

I am not disputing you however everything I have read is that CaCO3 is insoluble in water. Let me clarify:



> This is a strongly unfavorable Reaction. I would say NR [no reaction] but if you must write a equation:
> 
> CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) <<<---> CO2(g) + Ca(OH)2(aq)


Now, if we introduce some acid in the equation, let's say carbonic acid from the introduction of CO2 into the water, then our chemical reaction becomes: CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2. In other words some of the CaCO3 is broken down into the soluble molecule calcium bicarbonate but only to the degree that there is available carbonic acid.....the rest of the CaCO3 remains locked away from our plants in an insoluble form. If plants absorb the Ca++ from the calcium bicarbonate the PH of the solution is increased by the free carbonate molecule. Calcium bicarbonate is not stable, if the source of acidity is removed it reverts back to CaCO3. Although calcium bicarbonate is water soluble it is not a preferred source of calcium by plants. Calcium sulfate on the other hand does not require an acidic environment to become soluble and make the Ca++ available to our plants along with the secondary nutrient sulfur.


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

dukydaf said:


> Hi Roy,
> 
> I find your rationalization is based on a false assumption. Unless my chemistry let me down and I am missing something, please correct me if this is the case.
> 
> ...


Your chemistry is correct. The part you're missing is the role of pH in ionization. If your tank is basic, then your primary species will be Ca2+(OH)2. If it's acidic then the primary species is Ca2+ free ion. Dropping the pH a bit might help with all the issues in the tank since it would allow for more free Ca and Mg ions.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi sfsamm,
> That is a fairly large amount of light. With that much light the plants require a lot of nutrients (Macros, Micros, Ca, Mg, carbon). The good news is you look to be fairly well 'dialed in' with macros (with the possible exception of phosphates) but what I see the plants exhibiting are:


It is a larger amount of light, because of the depth of the tank and my intentions on adding co2. I do anticipate phosphate becoming necessary at some point but for now the removal of phosguard has resolved phosphate issues. Phosguard was utilized for a diatoms issue, diatoms finally resolved when adding the second light a couple hours a day and GSA appeared... Phosguard was removed GSA disappeared. 



> 1st Picture: Anubias - new leaves show interveinal chlorosis typical of a iron deficiency


Seachem iron just clouds the tank, I have GLA chelated on the way to try. 


> 2nd Picture: Anubias - new leaves showing 'hooking downward' typical of a calcium deficiency and interveinal chlorosis (see above)


So, CaSO4 is what I'm looking for since the Ca at my water source is going to be unavailable at my higher pH levels correct? 


> 3rd Picture: Sword Plant - older leaf? showing 'downward hooking' of leaf; if this is an older leaf, then at the time it was forming/growing there was a calcium deficiency


Actually its a fairly new plant the photo is to display the thin spots that eventually take over and decimate all swords in this tank. It had been a week or so in this tank prior to the photo and already was developing those thin spots. 


> 4th Picture: Cryptocorynes - new leaves display red pigmentation. This one is a little tougher. If I disregard the red color and then I see new leaves with darker veins and lighter interveinal areas which would suggest an iron deficiency.


This crypt was split and added to three separate tanks, one of which is low light and it grows green. It still has spots and darker veins, I think some of the appearance is actually the plant rather than a deficiency. The thinness of the leaves and mild hooking at the ends is my concern. It may also have a higher iron requirement than my other crypts though which would also cause what you discussed and you could well be correct. Just pointing out the other issues that I was most concerned about as they are recent. 


> 5th Picture: Aponogeton - older leaves have longitudinal margins curled downward (or upward sometimes) typical of a magnesium deficiency


Thank you, that was a throw in at setup time and it rooted and hasn't died lol I've been ignoring it but I imagine if I paid it attention it would also grow larger and not be such a disappointment to me lol



> You indicate that you are dosing Flourish Iron 4X per week; are you dosing per the directions?


Yes, to the letter and have been for a couple months. Like I should buy stock in seachem with the amount of their water I pour in my tanks lol. The iron clouds up immediately, which led me down the path to discover its precipitating out and becoming unavailable due to my high pH... Leading me to the chelated from GLA which is somewhere in the mail. 


Now it seems my Ca is also insoluble and also unavailable to my plants. So the solution is CASO4, which brings me back around to the question of whether or not Miller's Microplex may help resolve some of these issues? Includes I believe everything I've struggled with so far... 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

Regrettably Miller's Microplex has no calcium. I believe the Iron Chelate from GLA is DTPA which should provide some (about 30%) iron even in your PH 8.0 - 8.2 environment.











> So, CaSO4 is what I'm looking for since the Ca at my water source is going to be unavailable at my higher pH levels correct?


Maybe I shouldn't say the calcium is 'unavailable' but rather there seems to be insufficient calcium available at your high PH for healthy plant growth.

When the iron comes in start dosing and lets see what the new leaves look like as they emerge.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi sfsamm,
> 
> Regrettably Miller's Microplex has no calcium. I believe the Iron Chelate from GLA is DTPA which should provide some (about 30%) iron even in your PH 8.0 - 8.2 environment.
> 
> ...


I guess I wasn't quite specific lol yes I know Miller's doesn't have Ca, I would be looking for the CASO4 in addition to Miller's. 

The GLA is in fact DTPA and I opted to try it before going to the EDDHA with pink water and a higher price tag.

I received a package from GLA today as I left this evening headed to work, I imagine I'll be able to start dosing the GLA Fe chelate tomorrow.

I'll take some photos tomorrow of the plants as they are noticeably more progressed now than last week, so I can have an accurate comparison of before and after the new iron.

How long do you imagine it will take to see results? Am I going to be waiting for new growth or will I see recovery in the current growth conditions? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

sfsamm said:


> I guess I wasn't quite specific lol yes I know Miller's doesn't have Ca, I would be looking for the CASO4 in addition to Miller's.
> 
> The GLA is in fact DTPA and I opted to try it before going to the EDDHA with pink water and a higher price tag.
> 
> ...


Hi sfsamm,

You may see some improvement in leaves that have not yet matured but you should see the most improvement in leaves that form after you start dosing. Fully mature leaves will likely show no change at all.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Now, if we introduce some acid in the equation, let's say carbonic acid from the introduction of CO2 into the water, then our chemical reaction becomes: CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2. In other words some of the CaCO3 is broken down into the soluble molecule calcium bicarbonate but only to the degree that there is available carbonic acid.....the rest of the CaCO3 remains locked away from our plants in an insoluble form. If plants absorb the Ca++ from the calcium bicarbonate the PH of the solution is increased by the free carbonate molecule. Calcium bicarbonate is not stable, if the source of acidity is removed it reverts back to CaCO3. Although calcium bicarbonate is water soluble it is not a preferred source of calcium by plants. Calcium sulfate on the other hand does not require an acidic environment to become soluble and make the Ca++ available to our plants along with the secondary nutrient sulfur.


You are starting on the right path, keep going. 

CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2

Now add a lot more water molecules, because even for high GH water there will be a lot of H2O molecules for every Ca(HCO3)2. Water being a polar solvent it will tear apart the calcium bicarbonate molecule into... Ca2+ and HCO3-. The HCO3- will than go into the carbonate chemistry and change into other carbonate species depending on pH, etc. Depending on the concentrations, pH and acids present there is the possibility to reversibly form other ions ( CaHCO3+, CaOH+) but these will most likely be below 1% of the Ca2+ conc. under aquarium conditions.* This is not a reaction with water. It is how molecules are dissolved in water.* So again you have the Ca2+ cation staying alone, being available for plants even if coming from carbonates or bicarbonates, just like it comes from CaSO4 or CaCl2 or Ca(NO3)2.

For a better explanation of what it means water is a polar solvent : https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ydrogen-bonding-in-water/a/water-as-a-solvent

Now again, if you can detect the Ca and Mg from the water sample (as GH) it did not precipitate, ie was not taken out of the solution.

I agree with you, it is more sensible to use CaSO4 as a Ca source in the aquarium. However, most tap already has plenty Ca and carbonates in it. The issue I was pointing out is that Ca availability for plants is not greatly influenced by carbonate or bicarbonate in tap. 



JusticeBeaver said:


> Your chemistry is correct. The part you're missing is the role of pH in ionization. If your tank is basic, then your primary species will be Ca2+(OH)2. If it's acidic then the primary species is Ca2+ free ion. Dropping the pH a bit might help with all the issues in the tank since it would allow for more free Ca and Mg ions.


Interesting point, the abundance of -OH ions at high pH will try and bind Ca2+. However, I think you mean CaOH+ not Ca(OH)2 ( Portlandite - calcium hydroxide - different stable molecule). I think CaOH+ would be more abundant at a pH above 10. In pH of 6-8, and taking into account atmospheric CO2 availability it would be about 0.000001 of Ca2+ concentration. Now in aquariums we are working at concentrations far from saturation and in a many variable system.


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

dukydaf said:


> Interesting point, the abundance of -OH ions at high pH will try and bind Ca2+. However, I think you mean CaOH+ not Ca(OH)2 ( Portlandite - calcium hydroxide - different stable molecule). I think CaOH+ would be more abundant at a pH above 10. In pH of 6-8, and taking into account atmospheric CO2 availability it would be about 0.000001 of Ca2+ concentration. Now in aquariums we are working at concentrations far from saturation and in a many variable system.


That was a poor example on my part since it's too basic of a system and I didn't really take pH into account. The general idea is that strong anions can prevent cation uptake by plants, especially in a basic solution with more -OH. It's a bit of an old habit to not leave unbalanced chemical equations so I added the second hydroxide which you correctly pointed out would make a different chemical. Your point that aquariums are complex systems is 100% correct and we're not working near saturation for almost anything. From a chemistry prospective, the presence of strong anions like chloride or sulfates could also cause nutrient deficiencies of both magnesium, iron, and calcium, so looking to treat the root cause rather than manage the symptoms might be better for tanks in the long run.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

So when I eventually get my co2 system and set it up is that going to be enough of a drop? Being I only intend to run a minimal amount of co2 and not a full 30ppm in the tank I will likely be lucky to get to 7.6 based on some charts. Changing the parameters using a RODI system and remineralizing doesn't make sense for me and my budget.

If it will significantly reduce the issues I'm having I may go ahead and stop trying to line out the deficiencies prior to adding the co2. But I've been trying to line it all out now, add co2 and not end up with a tank full of nutrient deficient plants that can't take advantage of the addition due to other underlying issues.

That or... Go back to the single light at all times and bag the entire idea of getting myself some monster swords with a nice floor display of crypts and anubias on the final hardscape? 

It just floors me since I have 7 other tanks that do not suffer like this... I have some early demise in some random super fast bulbs in a back room tank and a bit of BBA that I don't mind that grows on some hardscape in a shrimp tank. So the only real difference is size and light levels and I really only have 2 truly low light tanks and they are both for the bettas. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I take a different route to the iron/GH problems. I dose iron gluconate daily (no chelate issues) and re-mineralize RODI with aquavitro Mineralize, which is Ca and Mg - only - and in the proper ratios. It could also be added to your water, if needed. If I suspect a Mg or Ca deficiency, I first test for them using a freshwater Mg test kit that I've calibrated and found accurate (for our hobby).


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

Adding CO2, and the resulting lowing of PH, will likely reduce the amount of iron (ml) that needs to be dosed.

Adding CO2 will not effect the need for additional Ca or Mg to offset deficiencies in that area.

I have found that as I increase the amount of light (PAR and/or photoperiod) the more difficult it is to 'tune in' my tank and achieve a reasonable balance. Sometimes it is easier from me to start with reduced light levels and then gradually increase the PAR or photoperiod over time adjusting the level of nutrients as problems appear. Helantium species (prev. Echinodorus / Sword Plants) do like light but most of the species do fine with 'medium' light levels. Sword plants do appreciate a 'rich' substrate, sometimes I will take a plant, add some organic potting mix in the bottom of a shallow container, add a sword plant or crypt, top the potting mix with an inch or two of tank substrate and provide a rich substrate that way (I just have to remember to remove the entire container and not just pull out the sword plant or I end up with a tank full of potting mix) . Sometimes I just put a Flourish Tab by the roots and provide extra nutrients in that manner.


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

sfsamm said:


> So when I eventually get my co2 system and set it up is that going to be enough of a drop? Being I only intend to run a minimal amount of co2 and not a full 30ppm in the tank I will likely be lucky to get to 7.6 based on some charts. Changing the parameters using a RODI system and remineralizing doesn't make sense for me and my budget.
> 
> If it will significantly reduce the issues I'm having I may go ahead and stop trying to line out the deficiencies prior to adding the co2. But I've been trying to line it all out now, add co2 and not end up with a tank full of nutrient deficient plants that can't take advantage of the addition due to other underlying issues.
> 
> ...


Is there something particularly different between this tank and your other tanks? Maybe a scaping item or something else in the tank is causing issues by leeching something into the water or some rocks can pull nutrients out.


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Adding CO2 will not effect the need for additional Ca or Mg to offset deficiencies in that area.


Maybe I missed something, but I thought the earlier exchanges suggested that elevated pH *does *negatively affect Ca uptake. Why would adding CO2 (and lowering the pH) not help with a potential Ca deficiency? Is there a certain pH at which Ca uptake begins to become a problem?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi sfsamm,
> 
> Adding CO2, and the resulting lowing of PH, will likely reduce the amount of iron (ml) that needs to be dosed.
> 
> ...


I wanted to be sure I understood the Ca and Mg issues, based on my actual parameters I thought that the co2 addition may not actually affect the uptake (at least of the Ca) because of the form available at my tap. 
I have been slowly introducing the additional light hence why it's on currently for 1.5 and 2 hours respectively during the photo periods rather than full on the entire duration. So now I've moved into the same deficiencies as prior without being able to resolve them.... And tabs have always been my go to before for situations like this but my swords die off so quickly in this tank I I'm not sure they are getting a chance to benefit from them at all. 

But this thread has been immensely helpful in actually identifying why I'm having such difficulty and in giving me a solid scientific explanation rather than random suggestions. I am now keen to the fact that with my pH I'll have additional difficulty with uptake particularly of the nutrients I'm having issues with. Less common forms of these nutrients maybe my only method of combating this issue since I'm not going to RODI for it. Without this (sometimes over my comprehension and requiring research that is sometimes still beyond my understanding) I've learned an ENORMOUS amount of information that I extremely useful and I can already tell will be helpful in diagnosing my gardening issues as well. 




JusticeBeaver said:


> Is there something particularly different between this tank and your other tanks? Maybe a scaping item or something else in the tank is causing issues by leeching something into the water or some rocks can pull nutrients out.


The only thing in this tank that is not in any other tank is the flourite original substrate. I have either flourite black sand, fluval stratum or a combination of them along with inert sands or the same Cichlid sand I capped with in this tank. Lights being on timers was done when I increased the amount of light and I actually reduced the photo period from 10-10.5 hours daily to 8.5, I could tune back a bit more but was under the belief that a minimum 4 hour period is required for plants to be effective at photosynthesis and the siesta introduced for four hours also allows an appropriate rest period before another cycle begins. I'm not a plant guru in any fashion and that thought on photosynthesis maybe from gardening and getting seeds sprouted or something. 



TheBaconater said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I thought the earlier exchanges suggested that elevated pH *does *negatively affect Ca uptake. Why would adding CO2 (and lowering the pH) not help with a potential Ca deficiency? Is there a certain pH at which Ca uptake begins to become a problem?


Because of the form available at my tap being difficult for the plants to take up in thy first place. Although I do have a large amount of a Ca available it's not exactly in a form that the plants can utilize effectively.... At least that's the basics of what I've drawn from the conversation so far. CaSO4 is likely to be a useful supplement in my situation.... To be tested after my more available iron supplement I just received if still necessary. 



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

TheBaconater said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I thought the earlier exchanges suggested that elevated pH *does *negatively affect Ca uptake. Why would adding CO2 (and lowering the pH) not help with a potential Ca deficiency? Is there a certain pH at which Ca uptake begins to become a problem?


Hi @TheBaconater,

The only conditions I am aware of that could effect the uptake of Ca are excesses of ammonium or magnesium. I am not aware of a correlation of PH and the Ca uptake of plant species. The availability iron for uptake by our plants are certainly effected by PH depending upon the chelates used with the iron.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

TheBaconater said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I thought the earlier exchanges suggested that elevated pH *does *negatively affect Ca uptake. Why would adding CO2 (and lowering the pH) not help with a potential Ca deficiency? Is there a certain pH at which Ca uptake begins to become a problem?


Here in Europe I always had to deal with hard water with high KH (upwards of 11) and high GH (>11). This of course resulted in high pH from the tap with locations going as high as a pH of 8. For several years I had started with RO water and keeping some tanks around a pH of 6 with low KH(2-3) , Gh(6) and good CO2. Plants grow in both types of water without any type of Ca deficiencies. You will have problems with other elements long before Ca is an issue. Within "normal" aquarium ranges pH 6-8, you should not worry about pH, for pretty much anything. PH is not a constant, not in our aquariums not in natural bodies of water. The choice of chelators might be the exception but even so if you dose every other day at least, this will also have a minimal impact. Now away from theory...



sfsamm said:


> Because of the form available at my tap being difficult for the plants to take up in thy first place. Although I do have a large amount of a Ca available it's not exactly in a form that the plants can utilize effectively.... At least that's the basics of what I've drawn from the conversation so far. CaSO4 is likely to be a useful supplement in my situation.... To be tested after my more available iron supplement I just received if still necessary.





sfsamm said:


> So let me back up. My pH is 8.2, kH 170, gH 288, TDS per report 450+.
> 
> 55 gallon standard tank.
> Flourite original, capped with Cichlid sand.
> ...





sfsamm said:


> So when I eventually get my co2 system and set it up is that going to be enough of a drop? Being I only intend to run a minimal amount of co2 and not a full 30ppm in the tank I will likely be lucky to get to 7.6 based on some charts. If it will significantly reduce the issues I'm having I may go ahead and stop trying to line out the deficiencies prior to adding the co2. But I've been trying to line it all out now, add co2 and not end up with a tank full of nutrient deficient plants that can't take advantage of the addition due to other underlying issues.
> 
> That or... Go back to the single light at all times and bag the entire idea of getting myself some monster swords with a nice floor display of crypts and anubias on the final hardscape?
> 
> It just floors me since I have 7 other tanks that do not suffer like this... I have some early demise in some random super fast bulbs in a back room tank and a bit of BBA that I don't mind that grows on some hardscape in a shrimp tank. So the only real difference is size and light levels and I really only have 2 truly low light tanks and they are both for the bettas.


 @sfsamm how often do you do water changes ? I must have missed it. Do you have anything sensitive in there ?

I would approach this issue a from the other point. Rather than identify the molecule that harms your plants, provide plenty of everything. Do a big water change. Add a little more than need of everything needed for plants growth. Start reducing the dose and see if you get into trouble, then bump up to the last good dosing. Then you can select one nutrient at a time and single out what was/is wrong. 

The seachem line of fertilizers is very dilute. Especially in terms of 2 macro nutrients ( N P ), it would be the equivalent of going to fertilize a corn crop with a 0.5g spray bottle. I asume by 1x you mean about 5ml once a week of Flourish? That is like 0.07 mg/L NO3 and 0.003 mg/L PO4. My plants would be dead in a month if I only fed them that. 

If you want those nice amazon swords and CO2 you will need to beef up your nutrient dosing. Look into Thrive from nilocg, that would be the easiest way. You can use the Seachem like for micronutrients going forward. 

After the water change, you can add 3mg/L Mg(from MgSO4*7H2O) and 12mg/L (from CaSO4*1/2H2O) to cover all the basses ( a little more than needed). Then you will know you have enough. Also add all the nutrients from Thrive in the suggested concentration. 

I would hold off on the CO2 until you cover all the nutrient needs of the plants. 
It goes like this: 

Low light, low nutrients, low CO2 - plants suffer from low nutrients
low light, good nutrients, low CO2 - plants look good but grow slow and somewhat smaller. Shaded growth might die
low light, good nutrients, good CO2 - plants look good, grow well , algae is limited but the plant selection,density and growth rate is limited.
Higher light, low nutrients, low CO2 - plants suffer a lot from low nutrients
higher light, low nutrients, good CO2- plants will show you one nutrient deficiency after the other. Old tissue will be dead, new grow will look very bad, plant dead
higher light, good nutrients, low CO2 - growth is slow and small, algae take advantage

hope this helps


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

dukydaf said:


> how often do you do water changes ? I must have missed it. Do you have anything sensitive in there ?


This tank gets about a 70% water change every week. It holds 4 Synodontis Eupterus (5-7"), 2 Ctenopoma Acutirostre (2"-2.5"), and 3 juvi Albino Congo Tetras, waiting for weather or a trip to Portland to pick up 3-6 more. None of which I would consider sensitive in most regards, synodontis being scaleless can have some sensitivities but generally only becomes an issue with some meds and potentially some fert levels. I imagine a full EI dosing may be around their max range for certain elements. Not that I don't have options to handle the situation if it arises, it a very large display tank for my current house and very prominent fish that hide but I like vs eye appeal of the entire tank... Easy choice, the fish move to a different tank. 



> The seachem line of fertilizers is very dilute. Especially in terms of 2 macro nutrients ( N P ), it would be the equivalent of going to fertilize a corn crop with a 0.5g spray bottle. I asume by 1x you mean about 5ml once a week of Flourish? That is like 0.07 mg/L NO3 and 0.003 mg/L PO4. My plants would be dead in a month if I only fed them that.


Nitrogen is in no fashion something I want to add lol I am nearing a two water changes a week as by week end I'm around 60ppm Nitrogen. Phosphorus by association is not in short supply... Low light I had to keep phosguard to keep them down, upped the light and GSA appeared within a couple days and I immediately removed phosguard to allow the additional phosphates and so far so good. 

Seachem is great in lower tech tanks, I have known I'd need to switch over to dry and mix when I set up the tank. 



> If you want those nice amazon swords and CO2 you will need to beef up your nutrient dosing. Look into Thrive from nilocg, that would be the easiest way. You can use the Seachem like for micronutrients going forward.
> 
> After the water change, you can add 3mg/L Mg(from MgSO4*7H2O) and 12mg/L (from CaSO4*1/2H2O) to cover all the basses ( a little more than needed). Then you will know you have enough. Also add all the nutrients from Thrive in the suggested concentration.


Why not the MgSO4 or CaSO4? (I'm no chemistry genius so maybe it's the same?) 
I steered away from Thrive due to not wanting to add the extra Nitrogen. I actually (due to current issues) dosed Flourish twice this week and had no ill effects at all which indicates to me that yes you're in all likelihood correct on my macros still being low. We will know for sure this week as I intend to do it again and change up the iron to the chelate I received that isn't gluconate and hopefully won't be precipitating out immediately. If algae shows up then I'll know I'm overkill, but I think you're right. Algae would be an easy fix comparatively and a good indicator of what was likely in excess even. 


Maybe I should just make the jump to CSM+B now, or wait for results in the Fe swap? 
Nilocg has MgSO4, CaSO4, and MnSO4 available separately. If making another order and going to CSM+B I figure I may as well get all three of them on hand also, probably P & K as well. That way I've got my bases covered and don't pay 4 shipping fees. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

Yep if you are planning to go to ei like I would get all the salts individually. I see where you are coming from and it may be that N and P are enough in your tank. However I would still do the whole EI and see if problem stops, then reduce nutrient by nutrient to see which one triggers the problems.

Some photos do indeed look like Fe and Mg deficiency. Hope the new Fe helps. Would be interesting to see how the others get solved. 

As to MgSO4 vs MgSO4*7H2O and the CaSO4 thing, they have the same substance. The *7H2O refers to the hydration state of the salt. Think of it like the kitchen salt pulling water from the atmosphere. Most of the MgSo4 avaliable for buying will be in the mgSO4*7h20, same for the CaSO4*1/2H2O. Having the right hydration is important when trying to figure out how much to add to get X mg/L.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Iron gluconate shouldn't be causing a dramatic cloud, as in a precipitate from binding to PO4. It may be that the additional iron is pushing the Ca and Mg carbonate beyond saturation and that it is actually Ca and Mg carbonates you see precipitating, especially since your GH and KH are so high. Do you ever see a whitish film on the surface?

Agree on the Flourish for your tank. The macros in it are inconsequentially low, but it has a good breadth of traces. So, regarding EI, I would only focus upon potassium needs (since your fish are providing nitrates and phosphates a-plenty) and simply follow Seachems' directions for the Flourish. Be sure to refrigerate the Flourish within 3 months after opening or it can deteriorate and/or grow mold and fungus.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Deanna said:


> Iron gluconate shouldn't be causing a dramatic cloud, as in a precipitate from binding to PO4. It may be that the additional iron is pushing the Ca and Mg carbonate beyond saturation and that it is actually Ca and Mg carbonates you see precipitating, especially since your GH and KH are so high. Do you ever see a whitish film on the surface?


The Seachem Iron (iron gluconate) is absolutely 100% at fault for the clouding of the tank. It occurs within minutes, escalates over maybe an hour then stays a while before slowly clearing up over the course of 6-8 hours. I figured out long before I knew it was indicating an issue that the iron caused the cloud. 

Now that's not to say it's not forcing the Ca or Mg out and they are the actual contents of the cloud. I just know iron goes in, tank clouds then tank clears by the end of the day. But I don't understand how dosing iron is going to be forcing my Mg or Ca to precipitate. I know I know Fe and P can interact, but I have not ever heard of Fe interacting as you described with Mg or Ca. Though I know excesses of one can mimick deficiency in another. Could you please explain or reference me to an explanation so I look into it? 

Whitish film on the surface of the water? As in something like a biofilm caused by excessive organics but whitish rather than oily in appearance, no nothing like that. If you're speaking about whitish residue left at the water line on the tank, then yes of course I have fairly hard water and get the same chalky build up anywhere in my house that has water. That buildup on the tank wipes off if I do it weekly. If you are talking of a whitish film in the tank? To be completely honest I have not but with the stock I have not much settles anywhere, ever. 

That is probably not very useful info on my part but I wanted to be sure to answer and address it in case it is!  

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

That 'chalk' may be indicating that the Ca (and Mg) is over-saturated. My PO4 sits at 90 ppm day in and day out and I add about .25 ppm of iron gluconate daily. I have never seen the cloudiness develop. It's not that the iron reacts with the Ca and Mg carbonates. It's that it will push them out of solution.

So my notes tell me. I'll see if I can locate an independent source. Perhaps others, here, can comment on this.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

Have you been using any PH Buffers' to try the lower the PH of your water recently or in the past? The reason I ask is many of the PH lowering treatments use sodium biphosphate. If sodium biphosphate is in the water the iron could be precipitating with the phosphate in the PH Buffer. You didn't mention using a PH Buffer and I did not ask. Continue dosing the Iron per the directions and lets see how the plants respond.

Per Seachem


> Precipitation occurs when you have an abundance of either a cation or an anion and then the other is introduced. This usually occurs if you have used a phosphate based buffer and then dose Iron.
> 
> I would test your phosphates to see where they are. If they are high you will need to do water changes to bring them down to a more acceptable level. If you have used a phosphate based buffer this can take a few changes. Phosphate should be maintained between 0.15-1.0 mg/L.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

sfsamm said:


> The Seachem Iron (iron gluconate) is absolutely 100% at fault for the clouding of the tank. It occurs within minutes, escalates over maybe an hour then stays a while before slowly clearing up over the course of 6-8 hours. I figured out long before I knew it was indicating an issue that the iron caused the cloud.
> 
> Now that's not to say it's not forcing the Ca or Mg out and they are the actual contents of the cloud. I just know iron goes in, tank clouds then tank clears by the end of the day. But I don't understand how dosing iron is going to be forcing my Mg or Ca to precipitate. I know I know Fe and P can interact, but I have not ever heard of Fe interacting as you described with Mg or Ca. Though I know excesses of one can mimick deficiency in another. Could you please explain or reference me to an explanation so I look into it?
> 
> ...


This is where past experience from the coasts often gets confusing. What is described here is pretty much expected when I deal with the hard water areas where I have tanks. It is "assumed" that we have plenty of calcium in the tank as it winds up as a gritty grimy film any place water dries. Even a splashing fish that runs water down the tank side can leave a streak if it left to dry. The better car wash will use softened water as a rinse or it leaves a white film on the car. 
So with that amount of "liquid cement" we have questions when folks advise a GH booster of any type. It can be hard to actually picture when one has not lived in those areas and it is hard to define the area as it doesn't fit state lines but follows the general area that was all underwater in the middle of what is now the US. And it is not at all a uniform thing as the geology varies so much. Austin, Tx has super hard water while College Station, tx is just over the hill and has soft water in places as it sets on a salt dome.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

@Seattle_Aquarist
No chemical pH buffers for me lol I have had fish for 25 years those have proven in much less challenging water to be a dangerous gamble with fish. I don't go near them. And other methods like peat would be too bulky and requires more maintenance than I have the desire to commit to here lol so I've just been trying to embrace this liquid rock and just sort through issues as they arise. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

sfsamm said:


> @Seattle_Aquarist
> No chemical pH buffers for me lol I have had fish for 25 years those have proven in much less challenging water to be a dangerous gamble with fish. I don't go near them. And other methods like peat would be too bulky and requires more maintenance than I have the desire to commit to here lol so I've just been trying to embrace this liquid rock and just sort through issues as they arise.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Hi sfsamm,

I agree, other than a little baking soda to increase my dKH (comes out of the tap @<1.0 dKH) so I don't have to worry about PH crash with my CO2 I don't use them either. Just wanted to ask.
-Roy


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

PlantedRich said:


> This is where past experience from the coasts often gets confusing. What is described here is pretty much expected when I deal with the hard water areas where I have tanks. It is "assumed" that we have plenty of calcium in the tank as it winds up as a gritty grimy film any place water dries. Even a splashing fish that runs water down the tank side can leave a streak if it left to dry. The better car wash will use softened water as a rinse or it leaves a white film on the car.
> So with that amount of "liquid cement" we have questions when folks advise a GH booster of any type. It can be hard to actually picture when one has not lived in those areas and it is hard to define the area as it doesn't fit state lines but follows the general area that was all underwater in the middle of what is now the US. And it is not at all a uniform thing as the geology varies so much. Austin, Tx has super hard water while College Station, tx is just over the hill and has soft water in places as it sets on a salt dome.


So being that where I am is surrounded by "pliya" (that's probably spelled wrong) from having spent a few millenia at the bottom of an inland sea (I've never really looked into this but makes sense when you can find seashells in the desert lol) once I get all my supplies for reduced EI dosing would it be in my best to dose iron on wc day and the salts the following day and give an extra day between before adding another dose of iron?

Or is a large planted tank just a lost cause in this water, time to switch to some Mbuna Cichlid style decor maybe? Lol 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

I don't consider it a lost cause as I do a 125 planted cichlid tank which I enjoy a lot. But I do admit to not being terribly concerned with changing out plants and fish when they don't want to respond to what I give them. I spend a lot of time in Texas as that is where the grandkids are but the water is hard and alkaline. So my choices seem to be work with what I find and adapt the tank to fit or work too hard at changing the water and not enjoy it. My major "complaint" at the time is a 20 gallon that has some nice, well behaved plants that I enjoy but one anubia that seems to just not want to go my way. Being a small tank, it is much easier to see changes so I decided to do the work/study of finding the cause. 
So I have been on this hunt for several months now and I'm almost back to where I started, only with a deeper understanding of what I'm working on doing. Not a solution, you understand but a clearer picture of what I am doing. I find that if I look at plants outside, they all look pretty good but not if I get down to a few inches away like I do a tank and stare at each leaf and ask if it is all okay. None of the outside plants are totally great, end to end, so I'm thinking my best plan is to ignore the one plant or rip it out if it doesn't shape up by the next time I get in the mood to study the issue!


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

Deanna said:


> Iron gluconate shouldn't be causing a dramatic cloud, as in a precipitate from binding to PO4. It may be that the additional iron is pushing the Ca and Mg carbonate beyond saturation and that it is actually Ca and Mg carbonates you see precipitating, especially since your GH and KH are so high. Do you ever see a whitish film on the surface?


I have to second this experience with the iron gluconate. I have noticed a large amount of clouding immediately following dosage that lasts for at least several hours. My GH and KH are not quite as high at KH of 8 and GH of 9. My plants have many of the same symptoms as the OP so I've been following this thread with interest.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Well I haven't dosed iron as I haven't gotten it mixed nor completed wc everywhere even yet. Big mining accident here and family in town has me running. After dinner I plan to get the 55 dosed up though so I'll know if the chelate is clouding or not. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Too bad you guys are all having to do battle with your water. I guess RO/DI is not something you want to get involved in? When I switched from tap, I found it so much easier to control all parameters.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Deanna said:


> Too bad you guys are all having to do battle with your water. I guess RO/DI is not something you want to get involved in? When I switched from tap, I found it so much easier to control all parameters.


It all gets back to how we each want to take our poison! 
For me having easy, quick access to a barrel of water saves me a great deal of trouble. I fill the barrel, dechlor and let it come to temp. But then if I have somebody come by and they want fish from a tank that I had not expected, I have no qualms about lowering the tank to ease catching the fish or if there is a sudden crisis that requires lots more water, I have it. Using RO or DI would totally change that picture. Buying water in jugs or making it with RO seems far more trouble so I like to go the easy way for me. Hauling jugs from any point to another is just not in my plan. I've had a job of maintaining softeners and RO systems and that is also not going into my hobby plans. I just have far too many crisis to not have lots of water handy. If I used RO/DI something as simple as leaving the siphon running too long so that it ran me out of water would turn from irritating to a hazard.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I agree that hauling jugs around (and heating them) is a pain - which I've done. However, now I put the RO/DI water in a 15-gal plastic barrel (from Amazon), with a tank heater and on a dolly (from Amazon), and just roll it from the utility room to the tank whenever it's needed. I guess it's more a matter of how you're setup to change/add water.


----------



## mbkemp (Dec 15, 2016)

The dolly is a good call. I keep breaking the “handles” on my 30 gallon cans. Work smarter right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

For me, having moved to where I am now I don't have the room nor the time and even installing a small RODI system would very likely take up too much of what little storage space I have lol. I'm not opposed to it by any means it just doesn't suit my circumstance.  

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## mbkemp (Dec 15, 2016)

I’m in the same boat at the moment. Moving soon..... basement is required! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

mbkemp said:


> I’m in the same boat at the moment. Moving soon..... basement is required!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've been hunting for a basement! Year and a half to buy what I have and I'm still looking for that basement! It'll turn up eventually, but I'm definitely waiting for the bigger projects until I have adequate space to do a proper setup and design a permanent build lol 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## mbkemp (Dec 15, 2016)

No basements in oklahoma. Good thing due to earthquakes we have had. Moving to northern kansas soon. Basements are everywhere. I show my wife tornado maps[emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Forgot to mention... Dosed with the DTPA iron chelate and although after mixing it didn't sit but a few hours before dosing there was no clouding today. Which is a good sign I think. We shall see if it clouds in a couple days after I'm sure it's completely dissolved for the next dose. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

sfsamm said:


> Forgot to mention... Dosed with the DTPA iron chelate and although after mixing it didn't sit but a few hours before dosing there was no clouding today. Which is a good sign I think. We shall see if it clouds in a couple days after I'm sure it's completely dissolved for the next dose.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Can you try adding the Fourish Iron, once you're sure the iron has been freed from the DTPA, to see if you get clouding?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Deanna said:


> Can you try adding the Fourish Iron, once you're sure the iron has been freed from the DTPA, to see if you get clouding?


I'll dose the flourish iron tomorrow see if it clouds. It would actually be the ONLY thing tomorrow other than excel being dosed so there won't be any chance of any interactions. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Wondering if the magnesium made any improvement? with respect to plant's.
would have thought in the time it has taken for this thread to grow leg's, that if indeed it was Mg deficiency some improvement would have been noticed.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Wondering if the magnesium made any improvement? with respect to plant's.
> would have thought in the time it has taken for this thread to grow leg's, that if indeed it was Mg deficiency some improvement would have been noticed.


I actually never dosed it yet. Changed iron instead and am moving to a reduced ei dosing so I can dose things individually until I figure out exactly what my deficiency is. Is less expensive and gives me the control and accuracy I apparently need in this tank. I expect Mg, Ca, and Mn along with everything else to arrive early this week. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

I've been doing some self research to better understand the chemistry and biology behind why and how to dose these fertilizers and understand the deficiencies and I found a few interesting things.

Ferrous Gluconate 
- May be common knowledge but this website specifically states that iron compounds should be dosed separately from all other fertilizers to avoid clouding of the water. It also recommends adding some vinegar to add with bio-availability (due to pH?). Anyone know if the Seachem Iron contains any acidic additives? Didn't find anything on the label. 

This is a nice website
that details the symptoms of both deficiency and toxicity of most of the common compounds in our fertilizers.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

TheBaconater said:


> I've been doing some self research to better understand the chemistry and biology behind why and how to dose these fertilizers and understand the deficiencies and I found a few interesting things.
> 
> Ferrous Gluconate
> - May be common knowledge but this website specifically states that iron compounds should be dosed separately from all other fertilizers to avoid clouding of the water. It also recommends adding some vinegar to add with bio-availability (due to pH?). Anyone know if the Seachem Iron contains any acidic additives? Didn't find anything on the label.
> ...


The vinegar is usually meant for the liquid mixture that is stored, to prevent mold from growing. As long as the OP has the chelator (DTPA in his case) matched to the pH, he'll be ok. The gluconated versions are immediately bio-available and are sucked-up within hours of dosing.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I have doubt's as to Iron being the issue considering it is micro nutrient needed in small amount, and root tabs OP mentioned early on in this thread.( most root tabs largely iron)
I dose Iron found in CSM+B along with iron from DTPA for I have fairly hard water.No root tabs other than half a miracle grow plant food spike once a month under two large sword plants that send out flowering stalks about twice a month.
I dose both CSM+B and DTPA one day after macro nutrient's and spoon them in and water immediately clouds up for maybe an hour or two.(also add afore mentioned Epsom salt at 1/4 tsp)
Is slippery slope trying to add fertilizer's individually to determine what may be lacking.
Better to add a little of ALL nutrient's in excess and scale back a little at a time till issues present themselves and then go back to previous dose and note any improvement or further decline.IMHO


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Is slippery slope trying to add fertilizer's individually to determine what may be lacking.
> Better to add a little of ALL nutrient's in excess and scale back a little at a time till issues present themselves and then go back to previous dose and note any improvement or further decline.IMHO


That's my plan and it may have been your mention of this process before that set me in motion doing the whole reduced EI dosing now rather than continuing to put it off. I know I don't need full EI so I plan to start the full dose but twice weekly rather than three times and reduce from there based on results. Full EI may well be necessary once I get co2 but that isn't part of the plan until likely after the holidays. I have the entire CSM+B, as well as P, MgSO4. MnSO4, and CaSO4 coming and already have K and Fe in hand. It will be all mixed and ready for the WC and dosing on Wednesday/Thursday and I'm back out of town a few days till Sunday. 
I plan to refrain from additional Mn, Mg or Ca to start and see if new growth is still presenting with issues. I'm confident that Ca or Mg will end up necessary as well based on the hooked crypts but would rather start that when I'll be around a bit more since I'll be gone 5 days home two and gone 4 more with an entirely insane work schedule the days I'm home. 


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

I believe someone suggested this already, but reducing your lighting (reducing nutrient demands) may eliminate the deficiency or make it easier to diagnose. Most of the recommendations I've been able to find suggest that a Ca deficiency is very unlikely. I found *this* thread to be quite interesting as Tom Barr suggests that most deficiencies are probably related to CO2 mismanagement as opposed to actual nutrient problems. 



plantbrain said:


> I've never seen one confirmed case of Ca++ deficiency in an aquatic plant. Not saying it cannot happen, just that even with the super soft tap in my area and around CA, NYC, a few other places, no one seems to ever have had this issue.
> 
> I have seen plenty of CO2 issues, pretty much every day.
> 
> Given this, It's exceedingly rare and unlikely it's Ca++, a nutrient that is very simple and easy to measure......versus a nutrient like CO2 which is much more difficult, and the ppm's move around several orders of magnitude faster/more variable than Ca++.


 To me, it makes sense to attempt to eliminate CO2 as an issue and then use the "shotgun" technique you're using now to cover all your bases and dial in to a more specific fertilization plan. I believe you mentioned that you do want to incorporate CO2 into your setup...how far away are you from getting that going? @burr740 has reported fairly good success with a simple DIY CO2 system before upgrading to a pressurized system. 

My experience is limited, but just figured I'd toss in my observations.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I've been through co2 deficiency before moving here. And I'm going through several symptoms but none of which mimic co2 deficiency, at least not based on my previous experience or research. In general long term it seems to dwarf a plant and although they do suffer some other deteriorations as well it is another old growth issue as the new growth is stunted by the lack of co2. Way back that's why I started always dosing excel in any planted tank. Tanks though can still experience co2 deficiency with Excel especially in harder water. I have no doubt that my current issues are not yet related to co2.

Going backwards on my lighting would set me back from my goals as well. I'm looking to ramps up the tank essentially until the co2 becomes my issue and then scale back a bit if I'm not yet ready to install the co2. When I get the co2 going I am hoping to be able to start slowly and then ramp it up along with the full lighting and dosing so that I can get my plants to full potential.

Just dropping co2 (even low injection rates) when I get it is going to, at least in my opinion, cause the same deficiencies I'm experiencing now with an extra variable to deal with. I want to conquer the lower light nutrient issues before going into a formal high tech tank for my first time. Co2 is quite the intimidating issue for me, nutrient demands are something I understand at least the basics of and have at least some experience in conquering lol 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

It seems like you have a plan that just hasn’t been implemented yet. Will be interesting to see the results. There has been so much going on in this thread that it’s hard to gather it all together (and I’m still curious about what happens if you now add the iron gluconate). However, like many other posters have indicated, I think you’ll find that it is, ultimately, a CO2 issue. 

Take a look at this chart on CO2 deficiency symptoms and also add white deposits on leaves (did I see such deposits in your pictures?): http://infographics.myaquacalc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/plant-deficiency-labeled2.jpg

Don’t be intimidated by pressurized CO2. It makes life easier. Nutrients are easily handled under it.

Backing up:

Light: you have two Finnex Stingrays, right? That’s about 60 PAR combined, which is high light. You have your own photoperiod goals and I understand that. I used to have low-tech with very high light and dealt with the issues. I found doubling the lowest recommended Excel dose and dosing alternate days kept plants healthy and algae fairly controlled.

Nutrients: I suggest (if it hasn’t already been suggested) a ½ EI plan as a starting point and then measuring levels (NO3, PO4, GH) to check progress. 50% wc every week.

Flow: I forget; do you have good circulation? Minimum ten times tank size in gph? I’d double that number. It’s critical that you get the little CO2 and all the nutrients in constant contact with all leaves. They should be swaying in the wind.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Deanna said:


> It seems like you have a plan that just hasn’t been implemented yet. Will be interesting to see the results. There has been so much going on in this thread that it’s hard to gather it all together (and I’m still curious about what happens if you now add the iron gluconate). However, like many other posters have indicated, I think you’ll find that it is, ultimately, a CO2 issue.
> 
> Take a look at this chart on CO2 deficiency symptoms and also add white deposits on leaves (did I see such deposits in your pictures?): http://infographics.myaquacalc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/plant-deficiency-labeled2.jpg
> 
> ...


The iron gluconate clouded the water per usual standard, I apologize for failing to mention that earlier.

I don't have any deposits, no stunted growth and no twisting. It's not co2 deficiency, that is one deficiency that I've had experience with. Lol

I didn't realize that the two stingrays were at 60 par, that's good to know. I do have the light still filtered a bit and on timers so only one light is on the majority of the time and the second for peak periods. I do dose additional excel since I set up the second light, rather than 5.5ml it get about 7.25 daily. I don't have algae issues at all in this tank except GSA when I had phosguard still running after increasing the light.

Ei, Yup on it, got the rest of everything yesterday and will start after my next wc, but had planned to do a full dose twice weekly rather than three times weekly. I am not dosing NO3 as my nitrAte levels are already nearing 60ppm from stocking alone by the end of the week. WC are around 70% weekly, and once a month this tank gets two three days apart to be sure everything stays at acceptable levels.

Flow is good, but can be improved, most of my plants are actually on one side due to a large hardscape for some brat fish on the other. Slow growers such as anubias and Java ferns are in the hardscape side which although I know there's no dead spots there are areas that experience less flow due to the hardscape. The side the plants are on has good flow, and do "sway in the wind." Tank has an eheim 2217 and a hob I use mostly to cycle media for other tanks, increase flow behind the hardscape, and any additives I may need like carbon or phosguard. But you have a good point and my flow can be improved and a powerhead on the hardscape side could be a good idea, especially with how often I have to change up the hardscape. But no I won't be putting 1100 gph flow through my tank, or 20 times size in any tank with fish... 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I think you're at the wait and see after a few weeks of modified EI.

I have 1100 gph flow in my 29 gal and the fish seem to love it. I wouldn't use a powerhead, though. The propeller type pumps (like a Hydor Koralia) give a very dispersed, wave-like, flow that is gentle, but still pushes the water at the rated gph.

I don't have your Stingray, just found some data that claims it is 30 PAR, then double it for your two, You may want to verify that those are 30 PAR.


----------



## TheBaconater (Jul 26, 2017)

Deanna said:


> I don't have your Stingray, just found some data that claims it is 30 PAR, then double it for your two, You may want to verify that those are 30 PAR.


I think this may be an overestimation of the PAR for the Stingray. Most data I've seen puts it somewhere in the high teens to low 20s in the 15 - 20 inch range. Not sure of the accuracy of the data here: Stingray PAR

Surprisingly the only PAR data for the stingray I was able to find on this forum was for the 30 inch model. 



grizzly_a said:


> 30" Finnex Stingray:
> Center------ 6” off center
> 2” 166 ----- 10
> 6” 72 ----- 37
> ...


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

TheBaconater said:


> I think this may be an overestimation of the PAR for the Stingray. Most data I've seen puts it somewhere in the high teens to low 20s in the 15 - 20 inch range. Not sure of the accuracy of the data here: Stingray PAR
> 
> Surprisingly the only PAR data for the stingray I was able to find on this forum was for the 30 inch model.


So, if your data is correct, OP is probably getting no more than 50 par at substrate, which may keep him in the medium light category. Upper levels would see high light but, since he hasn't had any hair algae issues, that's not a concern. 

If it's 50 or less at the substrate, and no algae, he may even be ok to extend his photoperiod once he gets nutrients dialed in (and I still think more flow would be beneficial).


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Just got back from an out and about and trying to catch up on some forum posts. Looks like the interesting question is still of interest, huh? 
So just to throw in how much we each need to think of what our water has and go from there, I ran across this chart showing the "normal" hardness which might be expected across the US. What's normal? But the chart is from the US geological survey so I would consider it accurate and reliable even in this internet area. But the chart does point up one of the things I often find when reading on water and tanks. The info is often coming from the angle of low hardness while much of the country deals with a far different level than the info. 
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/images/graphics/usahardenss.jpg
When I look at this chart, I see that the East coast from Maine clear down to about the Texas /LA. border are all dealing with softer water except for Florida which is a plug of 120-180 sticking out and looking out of place. You might get the idea that Florida is setting on a pile of seashells? Then looking at the West coast we see soft water all the way from Seattle down to near southern Ca. dealing with less than 180PPM hardness! 
I suspect the disconnect between what is written and what most of the country finds is due to where much of the info is published! That leaves much of the written advice speaking of what they find in their high population areas on each coast while the true story for a good 50% of the country is that we all are very likely to have hardness in the 180-300 range! 
These are not numbers to parse too hard but just looking at "normal" for a wide area where many of us do live. I don't think it matters much why it is that way but I do like to keep in mind that things are often not quite what we read as the writer is often in some of the soft water areas. A writer in New York may have a totally different line of experience than somebody in Dallas, Tucson, Denver or Chicago? 
I read the info but then find I need to adapt it to what I actually have in my tank, rather than what the writer found in their tank.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

PlantedRich said:


> Just got back from an out and about and trying to catch up on some forum posts. Looks like the interesting question is still of interest, huh?
> So just to throw in how much we each need to think of what our water has and go from there, I ran across this chart showing the "normal" hardness which might be expected across the US. What's normal? But the chart is from the US geological survey so I would consider it accurate and reliable even in this internet area. But the chart does point up one of the things I often find when reading on water and tanks. The info is often coming from the angle of low hardness while much of the country deals with a far different level than the info.
> http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/images/graphics/usahardenss.jpg
> When I look at this chart, I see that the East coast from Maine clear down to about the Texas /LA. border are all dealing with softer water except for Florida which is a plug of 120-180 sticking out and looking out of place. You might get the idea that Florida is setting on a pile of seashells? Then looking at the West coast we see soft water all the way from Seattle down to near southern Ca. dealing with less than 180PPM hardness!
> ...


All of which points to the need to always ask what the GH is for any given OP.

I assume that is surface water only. Well water can be very different.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Deanna said:


> All of which points to the need to always ask what the GH is for any given OP.
> 
> I assume that is surface water only. Well water can be very different.


Good point on which it is charting. Surface water will often be different. And I have no idea which the survey charts. And that point alone is another thing that can drive us crazy as the water we get out of the normal tap may change from time to time as the various sources are switched. And that can be done at times when we never really get much indication that a switch is made. The major cities along rivers are one where the source may change overnight and without warning. One case is the St. Louis area which can be drawing water from the Missouri River one day but than a flood comes along and the intake is closed and underground water may be used. When we are dealing with nature, there are always going to be changes involved so we need to be aware of the potential and not get too fixed on the idea we are all set and our water won't change.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I just wanted to drop an update. It's been a couple weeks with the iron chelate and a bit over a week with EI. The sword is still adjusting to the tank but stopped its meltdown after starting EI plus Mg and the Fe chelate, I also noticed this morning it looks like it may be sending out one new shoot so I shall see soon for sure. A couple plants have shown a hint at recovery in existing growth (newer growth at the time I started) which I think is great. And new growth on the anubias is coming in properly colored and not obviously deficient. 

Several of my crypts are having an utter meltdown but some that were basically standing still for the past couple months have taken off. Crypts do that, that I know I'll probably do a big trim this week in them and get rid of the worst of things and the melt from them. I can see a few new shoots starting on most of them so I'll assume even those that are in complete meltdown at the moment are going to come back wonderfully as they seem to do that fir me once I make them happy here.

My crinum which had done next to nothing since the move to this tank in July has also started sending up shoots too.

I went ahead and started dosing full EI as closely as I could with my out of town stints and haven't seen any algae at all so I'll continue until it becomes a problem. The only thing I'm not dosing is nitrogen as I have that in abundance. I even went ahead with phosphorus as after the second dose I'd CSM+B the wonderful GSA decided to pop up again on the glass. GSA hasn't spread to any plants yet and seems to have stopped the spread on the glass after I added the P.

Mg is being dosed at 1/4 teaspoon per week until I can see effects on new growth and I'll increase if necessary from there. No additional Ca of Mn has been added at this point. 

Thank you all for amazing information and guidance to figure out what was my best course of action. I've learned a lot through this thread and found a ton of resources that I wasn't finding with my limited knowledge before. Again Thank you, you're all absolutely amazing! 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

:grin2:
Sounds like progress. I guess the old blind sow CAN find an acorn if they keep trying? I'm still looking for a couple points on my anubia but it may be a totally different question. I've about run out of options that sound right so I'm still doing the blind sow dance!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi sfsamm,

Glad to hear about the positive progress! I agree, crypts are not fond of changes in water conditions but typically recover. Keep us posted!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @sfsamm,

How is the tank doing these days?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @sfsamm,
> 
> How is the tank doing these days?


I was hunting for this post last night! I've lost my bookmark so great timing thank you! I was looking for this post again as I'm still questioning the addition of Ca and why I decided not to dose it and only add Mg to start. My crypts are still curling on old growth, they are still improving overall but leaves are definitely not surviving as long as they should. Compared to my lower light tanks which never curl and grow larger and faster I'm stumped and keep thinking back to why I decided to do Mg and not Ca. Going to read back through today hopefully get an answer lol.
I ended up removing the anubias as it wasn't doing well in the higher light, it basically stopped doing anything at all, though it very much likes its new low light tank and immediately started new growth again once moved.

Amazon Sword is growing, albeit slowly and my other two small sword starts are starting to go rather than barely sustain. This whole tank over all just seems to do everything very very slowly. My other tanks have exploded with growth and this one just plods along like Eyore. Makes me think something is still out of whack. Lighting is the same and I never had an algae bloom of any sort. One Cichlid stone got a smidge of BBA, and I had a little GSA outbreak a while back on the glass. Funny thing, I had been dosing about 70-75% phosphate, when GSA came up I upped it to the full EI, GSA stopped and receded as expected and oddly enough my prolific diatoms dialed back a bit at the same time. Diatoms sticks primarily to the hardscape anymore and aren't getting into the plants as much. 

Here are a couple photos though of the improvements I've seen so far! Only new addition was a moss that volunteered in a shrimp tank off some old driftwood, decided i didn't want it in the shrimp tank and instead of tossing it all I gave it a go here. I think Java moss, but it failed so wonderfully fast when I moved it I wonder if it was a stringy peacock moss since it volunteered in such low light... I'm no moss expert lol I think there's a corner shown of what's left in one of the photos if any moss geniuses know for sure.

And I went ahead on a 865 gph circulation pump, and added a bubble wall to help improve circulation in the tank. And I probably owe an apology to whomever I got a bit defensive to about having that much flow in this tank, I could honestly probably add more. Bubble wall will likely leave, it's putting algae and mess on my covers and rims and BBA showed up after the addition. And when I add the co2, I understand they would be somewhat contradictory. Bubbles were more of an thought experiment for this tank.























Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @sfsamm,

Definite improvements, very impressive!

How is it doing now after another 3 weeks?

I was giving your comment about calcium (Ca) some thought. Calcium is a known growth regulator for plants and it could be causing the slower growth you commented on in your post. Do you have access to some gypsum (CaSO4) or calcium chloride (CaCl2 / Dri-Z-Air used as dehumidifier try hardware stores for both)? You want a product that is pure gypsum (no additives) or Dri-Z-Air (91% CaCl; 2.5% KCl; 5% H2O; 1.5% NaCl). If not, PM me and I will mail you some for the cost of postage. That way you can continue your dosing exactly has you have been and just add some calcium to the mix and see how the plants respond. Just a thought - Roy


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I have CaSo4 and have dosed it on wc day since that post, all my hooks have lined out it was actually a fairly quick change by one week there was dramatic improvement! Now if anything is hooked it's exceptionally minor as I don't notice it at all! 

I'd take photos but I returned the CAE and am back to my diatoms issue... Diatoms is pervasive in my tanks, all of them silicates in the water thanks to lots of Diatomite where I live. I'm still working out control for this tank the rest of my tanks have shrimp, or pest snails that keep them under control I can't do shrimp here and don't want pest snails in this tank lol. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @sfsamm,

Thank you for providing this information about the 'hooking' correcting with the addition of calcium (Ca). How much did you have to add? Did the slow growth rate improve as well with the addition of Ca?

Yes, diatoms are a pain. Seattle has about 8.7ppm of reactive silica (SiO2) in our water as well and diatoms thrive in my tanks; Otocinclus are my best friends!
'


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

It seems if you live on the West coast and have soft water you're bound to have dissolved silicates. I live on the edge of two Oregon dunes state parks, and our soils are a mix of sand and clay. Having soft water is a blessing and a problem.

Seattle Aquarist said that his best friends are Otos, I'm discovering that in our outdoor water trough ponds the Rosy Barbs have taken over that role and have been really great at nibbling down the diatoms.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I started and so far haven't changed CaSo4 at 1 slightly rounded teaspoon weekly, I may bump it a bit as after I posted that I checked and I still have a bit of a curve on some leaves... Might be old ones though as diatoms make judging that a bit more difficult  regardless it's hugely improved!

Here's a hook photo. I'm cringing about sharing with my diatoms issue but that ones in good flow so it doesn't look as bad lol I have 5-6 like this or smaller so I'm sold that Ca resolved the issue.

I'm trying to keep this tank West African (stocking), but otos have been on my radar since setting it up and I've seen a few tanks with similar stocking (namely the ctenopomas whom eat anything they think will fit in their mouth) that keep otos at least mostly successfully. 

I'm trying to crash course on West African fish that eat or at least snack on algae... Everyone is to big or eats plants so far lol maybe Iodotropheus Sprengerae... But I'm not sold they won't eat my tender soft plants and I'm not interested in anything going into a murderous rampage in my tank, aka most cichlids. Semi aggressive aka when breeding or con-specific maaaaaybe... If they are good solo and appropriately sized (5" or less max). Any West African gurus feel free to speak up or msg me lol









Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

Sounds like this species is similar in it's habiat interactions to the Borneo Hillstream loaches and other stream loving sucker fish.

Euchilichthys guentheri ? Seriously Fish










They demand fast flowing water and high oxygen levels, which aren't going to mesh well with your plant requirements.

Extremely rare and probably expensive.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @sfsamm,

Did the growth rate improve with the addition of Ca?


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @sfsamm,
> 
> Did the growth rate improve with the addition of Ca?


I can't honestly say, a couple of fish I had decided to start gnawing stems off at the base... I should see in the coming weeks. I would tentatively say yes but by how much I'm unsure. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

GrampsGrunge said:


> Sounds like this species is similar in it's habiat interactions to the Borneo Hillstream loaches and other stream loving sucker fish.
> 
> Euchilichthys guentheri ? Seriously Fish
> 
> ...


Those a beautiful fish! But I'm most definitely a Pleco killer, have never had one live longer than several weeks.... I wouldn't dare chance it with such a beauty even if it wasn't extremely rare. But thank you for sharing they truly are gorgeous! 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## miktrebor (May 23, 2017)

I am following this thread with interest. Mostly because my anubias and crypts look similar to the initial photos posted here. I recently noticed some sign of chlorosis in the anubia and the crypts have always looked a little pale. See photos. I do a slim PPS-pro dosing and use CO2. I add about a half teaspoon of CaCl and 1/4 tsp Mg once a week with water change to my 20L to harden up the water which is under 2 dGH otherwise. Also have a little cuttlebone in there to keep shrimp and snails going. In terms of lighting, I am back to using a single Finnex planted plus strip. For a while I had replaced that with two stingray strips, which is definitely lower light. Decided to go back to the higher light in the back for the swords, which didn't pearl w stingray, while keeping the crypt and anubia in the darker foreground.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @miktrebor,

Yes you do need more Mg in that tank, notice how the leaves of the crypts show dark veins and yellow interveinal areas along with downward (or upward) cupping of the leaves...both symptoms of Mg deficiency. The anubias leaf in the picture also shows the dark veins and lighter interveinal areas associated with a need for addition Mg and if that leaf tip of the anubias facing the camera is 'hooking downward' at the tip possibly a little more Ca as well. I would consider increasing the Mg dosing to 1/2 teaspoon and the CaCl2 to 1-1/4 teaspoon.


----------



## miktrebor (May 23, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @miktrebor,
> 
> Yes you do need more Mg in that tank, notice how the leaves of the crypts show dark veins and yellow interveinal areas along with downward (or upward) cupping of the leaves...both symptoms of Mg deficiency. The anubias leaf in the picture also shows the dark veins and lighter interveinal areas associated with a need for addition Mg and if that leaf tip of the anubias facing the camera is 'hooking downward' at the tip possibly a little more Ca as well. I would consider increasing the Mg dosing to 1/2 teaspoon and the CaCl2 to 1-1/4 teaspoon.


Thank you. Before I do that I just wanted to check whether you think I should first try to increase my dry ferts dosage, which contains MgSO4 among the following:

Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) 
Mono Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4) 
Potassium Sulfate (K2SO4) 
Magnesium Sulfate (MgSO4) 
Plantex CSM + B (Micros)

Should I bump up the MgSO4 percentage within the dry ferts dosing? I had been giving only a half dosage of the above because my tank is not fully stocked with plants (and I had lowered the light - although I have recently been increasing the light again - hmmm). Or just bump up CaCl and Mg separately, as you suggest? I had been adding the CaCl/Mg separately only to raise the dGH, not address nutrient deficiencies... Thanks.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

miktrebor said:


> Thank you. Before I do that I just wanted to check whether you think I should first try to increase my dry ferts dosage, which contains MgSO4 among the following:
> 
> Potassium Nitrate (KNO3)
> Mono Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4)
> ...


Hi @miktrebor,

If the growth rate of the plants is good (considering crypts and anubias are slow growers to begin with) then I would probably just increase the Ca and Mg and leave the rest alone. If you were under-dosing nitrogen we would typically see yellowing (chlorosis) of new and older leaves and stunting of new leaves as they emerge.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

I just wanted to drop back in on this thread for an update for anyone interested... I found my sweet spot and then pushed it and tipped the tank back to disaster lol

So ultimately I ended up dropping 30 minutes off my second set of lights both before and after the 4 hour siesta as I kept getting spots of GSA on the glass right after water changes. They'd go away be the end of the week but it was annoying. Otherwise I basically stuck with my dosing regime developed here, full EI with a tweak away from the most commonly used stuff and Mg and Ca added.

So first I misread my mix for K and overdosed for I believe 2-3 weeks then I went and added some stone for some new fish that ended up being tuffa and skyrocketed my TDS and gH... It's actually how I realized my mistake on the K before I realized it was the stone. I have it in another tank without issues, different source and they are now at the bottom of a hole dug by my dog near the fence lol. THEN I did myself a huge favor and added some new fish right before lights came on from siesta and flipped the timer switch so they'd come on early.... And left my tank lit for three days straight (I work 12 hour shifts at night, if your wondering how I didn't notice, lights are on usually when I come home and go off a bit after I leave)... With those mistakes I obviously saw a return of my diatoms followed by BHA everywhere. I suffered a major disaster with my shrimp tanks at the same time I was realizing I had a problem in this tank so it got pretty out of hand before I got a chance to really sort it all out.

Fast forward to this last weekend and I finally did what I think is going to be nearing the last of major trimmings to remove the BHA. Diatoms are retreating (need a big canister cleaning and that should get it back in order) and other than looking sparce and small with very few leaves the tank is doing great. Last week and this week has been the one light only and 2x dosings rather than 3x weekly in ferts just to keep from further encouraging the BHA. Plus 150% doses of Excel daily.

But the point? That sweet spot I'd found, I can get back to it soon and I'll be getting that co2 system I've been promising myself once I balanced this monstrosity. I'll finally be able to take that dive into the high tech arena, dip my toes into that part of this wonderful world of tanks! Maybe sometime, six or so more months down the line after I add it I'll be able to sit back and simply admire my creation. And I'd never have gotten this tank to that sweet spot to begin with if it wasn't for you all and your patience with my issues and chatter and frustration. I seriously appreciate all the back and forth in this thread that occurred even all that was over my head at the time because after hours of reading this thread and researching everything I didn't understand I can't say I get it all but I can say that I have a tremendously improved understanding of what my particular situation is and for that I have to say THANK YOU!

And just for giggles at the whack job I performed and the extra caves I had to add over it on Sunday here's what my tank looked like afterwards.... Plants are definitely stronger and healthier (what's left after the trim job anyway) and the growth was quite impressive had I not gone and pulled a trio of stupids I could be showing what that sweet spot looks like. Again thank you everyone you're awesome and I so completely appreciate everything I learned from you all.























Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @sfsamm,

Planted tanks have definitely been a learning experience for me, glad you are happy with your progress!

-Roy


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

sfsamm said:


> GH runs 15-16 but is high Ca and adding the ferts Mg can't keep up at the tap. Symptoms affect various plants to various severities over several tanks. Wavy leaves, white with green veins, transparent leaves and the tell tale hook which has only occurred in a few fast growers.
> 
> What is the best way to increase the Mg without adding Ca? My 55 is the most affected for some reason and is the tank I'm specifically looking to correct the issue first.





sfsamm said:


> I have CaSo4 and have dosed it on wc day since that post, all my hooks have lined out it was actually a fairly quick change by one week there was dramatic improvement! Now if anything is hooked it's exceptionally minor as I don't notice it at all!





sfsamm said:


> I started and so far haven't changed CaSo4 at 1 slightly rounded teaspoon weekly, I may bump it a bit as after I posted that I checked and I still have a bit of a curve on some leaves... Might be old ones though as diatoms make judging that a bit more difficult  regardless it's hugely improved!
> 
> Here's a hook photo. I'm cringing about sharing with my diatoms issue but that ones in good flow so it doesn't look as bad lol I have 5-6 like this or smaller so I'm sold that Ca resolved the issue.


 @dukydaf 
Can you please explain why plants start growing faster and healthier when 4 ppm of Ca is added in form of CaSO4 even though there is already 100 ppm of Ca from CaCO3? Once CaCO3 and CaSO4 molecules dissolve then Ca cations dissociate from CO3 and SO4 anions and the Ca cations become equal so why do we see plant improvement.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

@sfsamm sorry to hear about the setback but glad you are still working at it. Looking forward to see how the tank looks once you get everything back up and running. 
I hope you do not mind us having this discussion here. If you do, let me know and I will stop. What is below is an answer to Edward, and not targeted at you specifically. What you did is pretty much what everybody does when they encounter problems in their aquarium. Keep at it.

Hi @Edward glad to see you are interested in the science behind CaCO3/ CaSO4. Before I start let’s start with the actual parameters from what was reported. 



Edward said:


> Can you please explain why plants start growing faster and healthier when 4 ppm of Ca is added in form of CaSO4 even though there is already 100 ppm of Ca from CaCO3?


The 100ppm is wrong in my opinion. @sfsamm says his GH is 288ppm and KH 170ppm. I assume these are given as ppm CaCO3 equivalents. The water report he posted also says his Mg concentration is 16ppm. 

16ppm Mg is equivalent to 65.33ppm CaCO3 in terms of GH. That means
288-65.33=222.67ppm CaCO3

So, a GH of 222.67ppm CaCO3 is coming from Ca, meaning about 89.16ppm Ca. This would be the actual Ca concentration from what was presented. 

I do not know where the 4ppm Ca added came up. He says 1 slightly rounded teaspoon weekly in a 55g tank. How one can get from 0.0182teaspoons/gallon to actual ppm is beyond any scientific method I know of, save from actually weighing the salt present in that specific teaspoon.



Edward said:


> 100 ppm of Ca from CaCO3?


If all of this would come from CaCO3 we would have 133.51ppm CO3 in water(222.67-89.16).Instead we have a reported KH of 170ppm CaCO3 equiv, meaning 101.93ppm CO3. The difference between the 2 leaves you with about 21ppm Ca for which there is no CO3 counterpart in water. Where does it come from (CaCl2, CaSO4 etc)? Does it matter ? No, because once in water Ca cations become equal, as we said. 



Edward said:


> Ca cations dissociate from CO3 and SO4 anions and the Ca cations become equal


The fact that they are equal (ie a Ca++ is a Ca++ no matter where it comes from) is a basic chemistry principle which does not require debate, just like you do not need to debate why water stays in the aquarium instead of forming a floating bubble in the room. There are plenty of 6th grade text books describing the process. Ion formation in water has been proven and is routinely quantified, if you like to see more, some keywords to look for are: IR-spectroscopy, UV-spectroscopy, Inductive coupled plasma -Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, ICP-OES, ICP-AES, … . Using these methods it is not only possible to detect ions and molecules but the actual atoms and if molecules are cis/trans or even o-m-p- isomers. Many of our test kits are also based on ion detection but with a more rudimentary method of precipitation+color shift. 



Edward said:


> Can you please explain why plants start growing faster and healthier when 4 ppm of Ca is added in form of CaSO4 even though there is already 100 ppm of Ca from CaCO3?


Before even an attempt is being made to explain something, it must be certain that the phenomenon is indeed happening and the strength of association and consistency is adequately established. The steps to establish a cause-effect relationship should cover all the Hill’s Criteria of Causation. 

If I understand you correctly, you are currently asking me to provide information for Criterion 6: Biological plausibility and 7: Coherence. In other words: Is there a biological mechanism explaining how adding more Ca, even when it is more than enough in the water column, produces significant improvements in plant growth and plant health? -and- Is there existing information explaining how absent this added Ca, such symptoms develop in high GH water?

Again, nothing against sfsamm, he did what many do and added things and changed things in an attempt to make his aquarium great. His purpose was not to prove anything nor find a cause-effect relationship. To me the previous posts from him do not offer enough evidence to suggest a significant, objective effect of CaSO4 addition. Please consider the following: 

1.	The following symptoms: hooked tips, curved leaves, white with green veins, transparent leaves have not been established as effects of a Ca deficiency in aquatic plants. No matter what a well-drawn graph tell you, the scientific proof is not there for aquatic plants. All we have is still mostly from terrestrial plants, where Ca behaves quite differently due to the different water dynamics in the plant.

2.	The added CaSO4 would increase the conc. of Ca by 4.5%. Do we really expect such dramatic effects from such a small increase? If that were the case it would mean that it was right at the threshold level.

3.	Yet, myself and many others grow / have grown similar plants in lower Ca concentrations without observing such symptoms. The member himself reports that 7 other tanks do not do this. For myself, total GH 6 or GH12 works well for many plant species including amazon swords, crypts and anubias ( Crit2: Consistency – fails)

4.	No control was used to check what would have happened if Ca wasn’t added. (Crit.8) That’s to be expected, after all this is not a research tank. At the same time it cannot be trusted to derive proof of anything.

5.	No randomization, blinding or predetermined protocol were used resulting in biased subjective observations with no quantitative data and insufficient documentation. Once a member gets stressed enough to post a question they are bound to become more actively involved in tank observation / maintenance. More often than not, it is this increased maintenance and adherence to routine and fertilization which makes the improvement (Crit.1,8). Also, no dose-response was established. (Crit.5)

6.	Many things have changed in the recent history of the tank 4.Nov -started dosing DTPA Fe, 6.Nov- started reduced Ei, 15.Nov – added the amazon sword and started full EI – N, 19. Jan – added 165gph circulation pump and bubble wall, 6.Feb – added CaSO4 with great improvement reported, 7.Feb – fish gnawing at the plants etc. Who is to say these changes aren’t responsible for the improvement more than Ca ? Maybe the plants got over the lag phase , maybe something else happened to the tank that is not reported here. Without control tanks it is hard to isolate one single candidate. Or are we also suggesting that additional Ca makes plants more edible by fish ? (Crit.3,4,8) 


In the light of all of the above and the vague descriptions I find it hard to bring educated guesses to sustain Crit.6 and 7, ergo to answer the above questions. I applied the same criteria when the discussion was about micronutrients toxicity. People insisted there was no need for scientific method, that they were able to tell the truth from random observations and traces were toxic at minimal levels. They came up with all sorts of imagined biological explanations and when one was debunked they squirmed to an even more elaborate, fantastical one until 3 forums got sick of hearing pipe dreams. I insisted there was simply not enough evidence to sustain the claims, but for some it took 2-3 years and many plants melted to realize the same.

I can come up with many woo-woo scientific-sounding explanations as to why the change took place ranging from magical equilibrium, synergistic uptake and protective role to molecular signaling. Truth is, we do not know if it happened in the first place and we do not the conditions it happened under because of the design of the data gathering. BUT WHAT IF ALLIENS DID BUILD THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS ???

Hope this clarifies why I do not venture to discuss more about Ca roles in this case. It will make me very happy indeed to look at the data from well designed, objective and documented experiments and try to understand how and why things happen. Unfortunately, this is out of the boundaries of this forum or the interests of its members so we have to help the members here how we know best without such data at hand.


----------



## sfsamm (Apr 3, 2017)

Absolutely carry on your conversation! 

I appreciate any of the science or explanations behind all of anything related to aquariums. Especially plants as anything said helps me to know how to approach further issues, figuring out what is solid what is anecdotal and what is commonly associated with specific circumstances. All of it helps me grow in my knowledge whether it specifically pertains to me or not and there is always something I find useful specifically to me behind all the science even if I have to go out and read up on terms or examples used. I'm always looking for ways to increase my knowledge and have found tremendous use in the vast majority of information provided here. Some led me down more pertinent paths and others I found information on my own while searching for more info on what was said.

Such as your ability to breakdown my gH! That'll be my next night shift project is learning more about how and pulling a couple water reports from areas I used to live just to see differences between here and there. It's all good for me! [emoji5]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

@dukydaf Nobody is rejecting the chemistry science laws. 
I thing plants on the other hand when hearing statements such as “calcium is calcium no matter what” is making them scream. When surrounding ion concentrations and ratios change, plants first analyze it and then chose the best utilization method available to them. They decide how to proceed, either use elements as usual or substitute some for example Na for K or many other complexities. 

For example calcium can float on its own or can be bond chelated to numerous acids such as fulvic acid and others or bond to freed trace element mix chelators. Plants have to have number of mechanisms available to them in order to use it up. Calcium is not calcium no matter what.

There are posts where adding KNO3 resolved plant problems even though there was enough N on tap, K2SO4 didn’t help. The same is for Mg and MgSO4, also P and KH2PO4 and so on.

Fertilizers constructed with different compounds grow different size and shape plants. For example, CaCO3 and CaSO4 and CaCl2 and CaNO3 do not produce the same size and shape plants. Significant variations are also produced by different N sources. Urea, NH4SO4, KNO3, NH4NO3 and CaNO3 all have different impact on plants. Why when nitrogen is nitrogen.


dukydaf said:


> BUT WHAT IF ALLIENS DID BUILD THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS ???


This is easy to test by telling the locals to build one more.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

sfsamm said:


> Absolutely carry on your conversation!
> 
> I appreciate any of the science or explanations behind all of anything related to aquariums. Especially plants as anything said helps me to know how to approach further issues, … I found information on my own while searching for more info on what was said.


Glad to see you have an open mind and want to learn as much as possible. Send me a PM any time, if you have questions about the GH breakdown or anything else. 


Edward said:


> @dukydaf Nobody is rejecting the chemistry science laws.
> I thing plants on the other hand when hearing statements such as “calcium is calcium no matter what” is making them scream. When surrounding ion concentrations and ratios change, plants first analyze it and then chose the best utilization method available to them. They decide how to proceed, either use elements as usual or substitute some for example Na for K or many other complexities.


 @Edward, I don’t think anthropomorphizing plants helps any rational argument. It’s easy to create a nice story where plants behave like the Starship Enterprise scanning the nebula ( hearing, scream, analyze, chose, decide ). Trying to actually describe how plants work and take up nutrients is a lot harder and takes book length text for one nutrient. You may find that plants are not as rational as you think and do not posses a spectrophotometer for all ions, nor do they have selectivity for all ions. Uptake of non-essential heavy metals is a good example here.
I never heard my plants scream, but I can say that I grow more plants weekly than I can sell. I also count repeated flowering as a good sign that what is in the water gets to the plants. And yes, for them Ca2+ is Ca2+ in water no matter where it came from. Once in solution, there is no difference if once came from Ca(NO3)2 and the other from CaCl2, both have the same chances to react or be taken up, but hey this is European water and plants. Different rules here, plants stay quiet.

Let’s come back to your original question:


Edward said:


> @dukydaf
> Can you please explain why plants start growing faster and healthier when 4 ppm of Ca is added in form of CaSO4 even though there is already 100 ppm of Ca from CaCO3? Once CaCO3 and CaSO4 molecules dissolve then Ca cations dissociate from CO3 and SO4 anions and the Ca cations become equal so why do we see plant improvement.


The way I understood your question was: why a positive change was observed after adding additional Ca if Ca is Ca, regardless if it comes from CO3 or SO4 ?
I went on to show that it is not possible that all Ca in this case came from CO3 as the KH was not high enough. In addition, with the data available we cannot say that the increase in plant growth rate/health is directly linked to the increase of Ca concentration.


Edward said:


> For example calcium can float on its own or can be bond chelated to numerous acids such as fulvic acid and others or bond to freed trace element mix chelators. Plants have to have number of mechanisms available to them in order to use it up. Calcium is not calcium no matter what.


I think you are confused, the examples above are about molecules in solution containing Ca not the ionic form anymore. Once the ionic molecules are dissolved in water Ca2+ from CaCO3, CaSO4, CaCl2 etc. has equal changes to be bound say by a chelate or be taken up by a plant, why ? Because there is no more CaCl2 or CaCO3 molecule, just Ca2+ and Ca2+. The equality of these ions has nothing to do with what they will bind once in solution.
You mention Ca bound to chelators, like EDTA. Unlike salts which dissociate into anions and cations in water, we know X-EDTA is soluble as is, meaning that the EDTA hold on X is too strong for water to brake it easily. Ca-EDTA can be taken up by plants(in general) so… But say this weren’t true : 
Say we have a 5GH(90ppm CaCO3 equiv) solution from Ca only. Do you know how much Fe-EDTA you would need to add to the aquarium to bind all Ca assuming there is nothing else to bind to (which there is )…??? 5omg/L Fe …It will take a long time without any water changes to add that much Fe and use it so the EDTA is free to bind to Ca. This is a non-problem, only scorned up by microtox apologists to get an out after they were proven false. Let’s be realistic. 


Edward said:


> There are posts where adding KNO3 resolved plant problems even though there was enough N on tap, K2SO4 didn’t help. The same is for Mg and MgSO4, also P and KH2PO4 and so on.


There were also tales of dragons, unicorns and plenty of anecdotal evidence for a flat earth. Closer to home we heard about traces being the devil at a proxy 0.5ppm Fe, PO4 causes algae, K stunts all etc. Of course, there are posts like this, see my post above when such issues are worth an explanation as to why it is happening. No matter the imagination and pattern matching we do, ions dissociate in solution. 



Edward said:


> Fertilizers constructed with different compounds grow different size and shape plants. For example, CaCO3 and CaSO4 and CaCl2 and CaNO3 do not produce the same size and shape plants.


I think you are polluting the problem we want to answer. This is a totally different issue that has nothing to do with the OP’s problem. We are talking if Ca from CaCO3 is the same as the Ca from CaSO4. What you are saying is that Ca is no the same because SO4 is not CO3. This is not an argument. Ca is the same, the other ions are not and of course they have the potential to interact differently with plants and other molecules. Never said that CaCO3 is equal to CaCl2. However, the GH test does not care where the Ca comes from. 
But to show that different compounds can create the same ions in solution…
1)	CaNO3, K2SO4, NaHCO3, CaCL2
2)	KNO3, CaSO4, CaCO3, NaCl
Once the 2 are dissolved, the cation and aninons will separate and you will have the same ions in solution coming from 8 different compounds



Edward said:


> Significant variations are also produced by different N sources. Urea, NH4SO4, KNO3, NH4NO3 and CaNO3 all have different impact on plants. Why when nitrogen is nitrogen. This is easy to test by telling the locals to build one more.


You are saying that Ca2+ from CaCl2 is not like Ca2+ from CaSO4 because NH4 is not like NO3 not like NH2CONH2(urea). You are not adding the same ions to the water. If you were to compare KNO3 to Ca(NO3)2, that would be a more adequate parallel. But here again NO3 would be NO3. 
By this rationale we would expect humans to extract oxygen from CO2 because it has O2 in it. I am not talking about the Ca or N atom. I am not talking about the whole substance. I am talking about the ions, Ca2+ vs Ca2+, this is what the GH test kits measures, this is what is in solution, this is what the OP had plenty of 



Edward said:


> This is easy to test by telling the locals to build one more.


The population of ancient Egypt is no more. Like many other native populations, they were killed by invaders or driven of their land. You should know what I’m talking about, something similar happened closer to home in more recent “civilized” times.


----------

