# The Custom Micro Mix Thread



## Greggz

As some of you may know, our resident mad scientist @burr740 has been forging a new frontier in micro dosing. He’s been “rolling his own” micro mix, and it’s been quite an interesting journey. Probably the most surprising thing is that he has gone from very, very low micro dosing, to seemingly larding it on.

Burr has been kind enough to provide a supply to myself and a few others, to see the effects on different tanks. And I know at least a few who are blending their own mix as well. @slipfinger and I have had a couple of conversations about this, and agreed it might be time to start a thread devoted this topic. The idea is to have a place to post tank parameters, dosing schedules, lighting, etc. to make it easier to learn what others are doing, and the effect it is having. And really, anyone who wants to share their parameters, regardless of micro dosing, is welcome.

So I will get things started, and I hope others will share as well.

For some time, like many others here, I was testing the lower limits of micro dosing with CSM+B. At one point I was down to .015 from Fe. To make a long story short, I am now dosing the Burr Micro Mix at .15 DAILY (yes seven days a week!). That’s almost 20 times as much!

In general, the tank has been doing better than ever (all relative of course, I’m still a piker compared to some here!). Makes me wonder if I have been starving them of some needed elements for a long time? I plan to follow up this post with pictures and descriptions of individual plants, as there have been noticeable changes to many.

So here are the general specs of my tank. I thought it would be interesting to share this information, and hope others will as well. If anyone would like to use this spreadsheet to keep track of their own dosing, here is a link where you can download it. I take a screenshot, then crop it for posting.

Hopefully we can get a few to participate, as personally I always like to see what others are doing, and then consider how I might apply it to my own tank.


----------



## Kubla

If that's the tank of a piker, I hate to imagine what I'm classed as! Subscribed.


----------



## Greggz

Kubla said:


> If that's the tank of a piker, I hate to imagine what I'm classed as! Subscribed.


Thanks.......but there are some here who really are a cut above. They just seem to be able to bring out the best in plants. I'm glad they are around as they give me and others something to aspire to, and provide a valuable source of information. I don't mind telling you I pretty much try to copy what they do...........demonstrating that imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery!:wink2::wink2:


----------



## Immortal1

This looks like a very good idea Gregg. I believe I am on the Burr 5.1 mix at 0.1ppm so the micro dosing numbers will likely be a bit different than what you have listed but I did update all the rest of the information.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I am really feeling rejected here. :crying:

Heck my biggest issue is macro dosing.
Even my new tank is NO3 deficient in a week with 4 doses KNO3!


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> I am really feeling rejected here. :crying:
> 
> Heck my biggest issue is macro dosing.
> Even my new tank is NO3 deficient in a week with 4 doses KNO3!


I for one would really like to see what your dosing is. Like I said, I just like seeing what others are doing, and you have been known to grow some stems like weeds. 

I think all the information available, the better.

Bump:


Immortal1 said:


> This looks like a very good idea Gregg. I believe I am on the Burr 5.1 mix at 0.1ppm so the micro dosing numbers will likely be a bit different than what you have listed but I did update all the rest of the information.


Linn thanks for contributing. And your FTS is looking great!


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> I for one would really like to see what your dosing is. Like I said, I just like seeing what others are doing, and you have been known to grow some stems like weeds.


I even trim and plant the Buce as if it were a stem.
It looks good too!

I would surely post my dosing schedule but with the capped soil it is quite different.
Macro dosing can be quite large, micro dosing not needed as much and can cloud water really quick.
You are all experimenting with micros and me not so much.


----------



## Greggz

I am now on my third week of much higher micro dosing. I haven’t made any other changes, so lighting, CO2, and macros have all been stable. I’ve kept them that way so that I can see what changes the new dosing might bring.

So I’ve been observing, and it’s funny how things just catch your eye sometimes. Every week during my regular water change, I take the opportunity to wipe the front glass. I can always find some green spots here and there that need cleaned up. So what caught my eye this week is that I had to really search to find any at all. The glass was cleaner than ever. I discussed this with Burr, and he said that is a good sign, and in his tank algae on his glass tells him that something is off. Well I guess I learned something has been “off” in my tank for years!!:grin2:

The next thing I noticed is a significant increase in late day global pearling. The tank has always been pearling, but lately about 7:00 or so the bubbles are just streaming up from everywhere. Upside down rain of bubbles. Once again, Burr said he thinks that is a good sign.

One of the plants that really seems to like the new dosing is my Helferi. I’ve had it for some time, and it been doing fine, but grew very, very slowly. It’s on a growth spurt right now, getting larger than ever, and throwing out lots of new crowns. Makes me think I was depriving it of something it needed. 

Interesting stuff indeed......and as usual learning something new all the time.


----------



## slipfinger

Thanks for spearheading this @Greggz.

Below you will see my current dosing. I am not too sure which version I am currently on as I mix my own based on @burr740 recommendations. I am currently dosing .325 DTPA Fe 4x a week. 

One big difference between my tank and that of @Greggz and @burr740 is I am using ADA Amazonia Aquasoil. The soil itself is about a year and a half old at this point.

I also dose .25ppm Urea 4x a week with my macro dosing. 

I added my Ca and Mg levels but it has been almost 3 weeks now with out adding any to the tank. 


For those interested below is a list of the individual elements and what I and I think most are using.

DTPA Fe
Mn as Manganese Sulphate = MgSO4.7H2O
Cu as Copper Sulphate = CuSO4.5H2O
Zn as Zinc Sulphate = ZnSO4.7H2O
Mo as Sodium Molybdate = Na2MoO4*2H2O
Bo as Borax = Na2B4O7·10H2O


----------



## Immortal1

Your discussion regarding the front glass is very interesting @Greggz. The wifes 40g seems to get a fare amount of thin dusty green algae on the glass. My tank has less of the dusty green algae and more of the harder green spots (takes a bit of scrubbing with the float). So, Burr thinks its a good sign when there is almost no algae on the glass. Heres hoping the increased lighting and micros makes a difference on my end. 

As for the pearling, have never really had much pearling in either tank. Maybe it's time I lower the cut off level on the ph controller.


----------



## Greggz

Immortal1 said:


> Y
> 
> As for the pearling, have never really had much pearling in either tank. Maybe it's time I lower the cut off level on the ph controller.


Keep a close eye on things. I think with the extra light you will be seeing some soon. 

I noticed a big difference in my tank when I increased my lighting a while back.


----------



## Axelrodi202

I'm too lazy to post my exact recipe. But from talking to Burr I know we are basing off ours the same ratio.

I will say several things:


Higher micro doses are safer with nonchelated forms. You will notice that all those who get away with extremely low doses are using chelates.
Something I do to increase safety is split the daily dose into multiple smaller doses throughout the day (via autodoser). This keeps the acute concentration at any one time low, while still delivering enough nutrients to meet plant demands.
If changing or increasing micros, watch your macros. Uptake may improve and your previous dose may become limiting.


----------



## slipfinger

Axelrodi202 said:


> I'm too lazy to post my exact recipe. But from talking to Burr I know we are basing off ours the same ratio.
> 
> I will say several things:
> 
> 
> Higher micro doses are safer with nonchelated forms. You will notice that all those who get away with extremely low doses are using chelates.
> Something I do to increase safety is split the daily dose into multiple smaller doses throughout the day (via autodoser). This keeps the acute concentration at any one time low, while still delivering enough nutrients to meet plant demands.
> If changing or increasing micros, watch your macros. Uptake may improve and your previous dose may become limiting.


The point of this thread is not only to find out what recipe you are using but just as important your tank parameters. Burr and Greggz are using BDBS, I'm using AS. Would be interesting to see if people using inert vs high cec soils see a difference. The more info we can gather the easier this will be. 

A comment on 'higher micros are safer with nonchelated forms.' The chelates are only part of the equation here. We also have to remember that commercially available CSM+B was designed for the agriculture industry where they mix lbs and lbs of this stuff in 1000gal sprayers and spraying it on field crops. We in the planted tank hobby take this same product and scoop out a couple of grams, throw it in our tanks and hope we are getting the right ratio of each ingredient in the mix. Hope being the key word here. By mixing our own we are sure we are getting the right ratios. 

Down the road it would be interesting for someone to 'cook' their own mix using the individual chelated ingredients and see what happens when they start dosing. By doing this we take the ratio issue out of the mix, leaving the chelate as the key issue to focus on. As we all know and what started all this was the fact @burr740 had to dose super low levels of CSM+B in his tank or he would see issues. If burr was to start dosing a homemade mixture using the individual chelated elements at his current micro dosing levels, he should see instant issues. If not then we have to go back to the drawing board on chelates being the issue and focus on ratios. For the record I am a believer that chelates are the major issue here. We have no clue what they are bonding with once they enter our water column. 

@burr740 you up to the challenge :grin2:

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Edward

Hi
Are the listed pH values with or without CO2?

Thanks


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Hi
> Are the listed pH values with or without CO2?
> 
> Thanks


Those would be degassed values, no C02. For instance, my degassed reading is a steady 7.3, and I drop the pH 1.35 to 5.95. That would be true of the others listed so far as well.


----------



## happi

Burr is doing a great thing for this hobby. i have few recipe as well but they are rather trial version and could be improved further, we have had a great success with Marchner Ratio, Non chelated recipe however did had better results just like in Burr's experiment. we have few member in this same field already trying this stuff, but they don't post as much. i will share something soon


----------



## slipfinger

happi said:


> Burr is doing a great thing for this hobby. i have few recipe as well but they are rather trial version and could be improved further, we have had a great success with Marchner Ratio, Non chelated recipe however did had better results just like in Burr's experiment. we have few member in this same field already trying this stuff, but they don't post as much. i will share something soon


Lets get them posting, again the more info the better. 

One thing that stands out so far and is becoming a common theme is the inert substrate bunch being able to dose a lot more micros without negative effects, along with improved plant health and growth.


----------



## happi

*Greggz *

Fe	1
Mn	0.5
B	0.27
Zn	0.19
Mo	0.0013
Cu	0.014

No3	32
Po4	15
K	65

are these really your weekly numbers? in my experiment we never had to use such a high dose of PO4. anyway the reason why this recipe works better is because of Non chelated are more available to plants than the chelated version. IMO there is always a room for error even if you feel like your plants are doing better now. i have worked with so many recipe, from non chelated to chelated, all kind of ratios that i could think of and we couldn't make a single recipe that is best for plants, but we came very close every time, non chleated recipe will precipitate and oxidize fairly quickly compare to chleated one, that mean you must dose it daily to keep it going well. like i said we have tried several recipes but there is always some kind of issue that occured after a while. the other reason people wont try such a recipe is due to the cost and hassle, they prefer premixed stuff, this stuff is only good for those who want to play around with the chemicals, like we do. the other reason i dont post much is due to the fear of people using the recipe to make money.


----------



## Greggz

happi said:


> *Greggz *
> 
> Fe	1
> Mn	0.5
> B	0.27
> Zn	0.19
> Mo	0.0013
> Cu	0.014
> 
> No3	32
> Po4	15
> K	65
> 
> are these really your weekly numbers?


Happi yes those are my real numbers. I know the P04 seems high, but it is what works better for me. I have a very highly stocked tank, which produces lots of N & P. I suspect it may have something to do with my measured N & P ratio. My tank seems to like about 10:1. I've tested it enough times to know that in my tank more P is better than less.

And I know that seemingly I shouldn't have to dose macros at all, as fish waste/food should supply plenty. But every single time I try low to no macro dosing, my plants rebel. I have mentioned this before, but I am beginning to believe that there is a difference between the uptake of N & P generated by fish waste and N & P dosed from ferts. I have no scientific reason to believe that, just based on the observations in my tank.

And FYI, my weekly K level is also quite high, mostly based on adding K2C03 to my RO water to raise KH. I don't worry about it too much, as I don't think there are any negative effects from those levels. 

And good to hear your thoughts on this topic, and look forward to hearing more from you.


----------



## happi

Greggz said:


> Happi yes those are my real numbers. I know the P04 seems high, but it is what works better for me. I have a very highly stocked tank, which produces lots of N & P. I suspect it may have something to do with my measured N & P ratio. My tank seems to like about 10:1. I've tested it enough times to know that in my tank more P is better than less.
> 
> And I know that seemingly I shouldn't have to dose macros at all, as fish waste/food should supply plenty. But every single time I try low to no macro dosing, my plants rebel. I have mentioned this before, but I am beginning to believe that there is a difference between the uptake of N & P generated by fish waste and N & P dosed from ferts. I have no scientific reason to believe that, just based on the observations in my tank.
> 
> And FYI, my weekly K level is also quite high, mostly based on adding K2C03 to my RO water to raise KH. I don't worry about it too much, as I don't think there are any negative effects from those levels.
> 
> And good to hear your thoughts on this topic, and look forward to hearing more from you.


we actually do have an answer to your question on why things works better when you dose N and P when your fish already provide lot of it, the answer is within Cations and anions. now lets get to my honest opinions, i normally don't like to make people feel bad about their tanks, but i have to judge the tank based on how the plant health looks, first thing i notice is certain plant leaves are twisted and burnt looking, i also notice the lack of colors on certain plants, please do share more close up pics if you are not offended by my post. now let me share few more things with you, in our experiment there was no need to add so Much Fe, po4, K+, people are actually overdosing it in such a high amount that they don't realize that they are just precipitating some of them. if you are really interested in this kind of topic, do let me know, maybe we can share more data with you.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

happi said:


> the other reason i dont post much is due to the fear of people using the recipe to make money.


Top Secret Recipe???

"I have this great recipe and look how great the plants look!"
What's in it?
"I'd have to kill you if I told you"

Even if you bottled it and put it up for sale doesn't mean it can't be analyzed and copied just the same.


----------



## slipfinger

happi said:


> if you are really interested in this kind of topic, do let me know, maybe we can share more data with you.


This is the point of the thread happi. 

Sounds like you have been experimenting with non chelated micro mixes as well. If you are finding issues with either the micro elements themselves or ratios being out of wack causing issues, I'm sure people would love to hear about it and see pictures of the issues you have observed.


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> we actually do have an answer to your question on why things works better when you dose N and P when your fish already provide lot of it, the answer is within Cations and anions. if you are really interested in this kind of topic, do let me know, maybe we can share more data with you.


I am very interested. Please let us know. NO3 is a negative ion (anion) no matter what form (fish waste or split from KNO3) ...correct? Are you saying there are two different forms of nitrate? Is it possible that 'better' performance is noted when dosing KNO3 because of the K+ contribution?

Some plants prefer different parts of the nitrogen process, e.g.; ammonia. could it be that the 'better' performance was a result of this differentiation?

Color me very curious.

PS: Good thread, @Greggz. I've been making my own non-chelated micros for about a year, but at much lower doses and somewhat different ratios. I'm going to give your crazy doses a try in my inert (Flourite) substrate setup.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> PS: Good thread, @Greggz. I've been making my own non-chelated micros for about a year, but at much lower doses and somewhat different ratios. I'm going to give your crazy doses a try in my inert (Flourite) substrate setup.


Deanna good to hear from you. Interesting you've been rolling your own micros. Would like to hear what you have been doing, and what observations you can share.

As to the ratio and crazy doses, I have nothing to do with that. Burr740 and a few others started experimenting with custom blends. Burr asked myself and a few others to give his a try. We've been steadily increasing the dosing, to see if there is an upper limit. So far so good for many. 

If I've learned on thing in the last two years, it's that the experimenting and learning never ends. You just hope to move another step forward now and then. To me that's what keeps it interesting.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> Would like to hear what you have been doing, and what observations you can share.
> 
> As to the ratio and crazy doses, I have nothing to do with that. Burr740 and a few others started experimenting with custom blends. Burr asked myself and a few others to give his a try. We've been steadily increasing the dosing, to see if there is an upper limit. So far so good for many.
> 
> If I've learned on thing in the last two years, it's that the experimenting and learning never ends. You just hope to move another step forward now and then. To me that's what keeps it interesting.


Yes, I've been following Burr740's good work in his journal, but I didn't see the heavy dosing that you're having success in trying. Agree 100% on the fun in constantly pushing on the edges. I'm always trying to get another inch on that mile with the thought always in the back of your mind that you should never make a decision from which you can't back away.

Similar to what Burr740 did, I looked at CSM+B and said: "Doesn't seem quite right for aquatic plants." So, I tried to subjectively interpolate between Flourish Comp and Tropica. Unlike Burr740, I gave heavier weight to Tropica than Flourish. Ratios were further altered by trying to collect the info all over the web about ratios of various traces to each other and potential toxicities. The toxicity issue does concern me a little with my plan to do the Burr740/Greggz dosing (nutrient accumulation concern even with 50% wc's). However, it's not a decision that I can't back away from if it starts going south.

My year-old formula is:



> ........PPM 3x / week..........Accumulates (50% wc - plant uptake ignored)
> Fe (gluc)....0.04.............................0.2-.3
> B..............0.008..........................0.03-.06
> Cu............0.0012.......................0.004-.008
> Mn............0.02............................0.08-.15
> Mo............0.0008.......................0.003-.005
> Zn............0.004...........................0.02-.03


I did see a noticeable improvement over my use of Tropica at the time, so I kept it but, again, always looking for that extra inch. I've actually kicked the gluc up to .2 in the last month, following some back-and-forth with Burr740, but can't definitively say I've seen a difference.


----------



## Axelrodi202

I have found Seachem trace products (Trace, Comprehensive) to be very unbalanced. This is what pushed me towards rolling my own.


----------



## Greggz

Axelrodi202 said:


> I have found Seachem trace products (Trace, Comprehensive) to be very unbalanced. This is what pushed me towards rolling my own.


Interesting. I really had no idea so many were experimenting with custom micros. Shows what a noob I am. 

Would be curious to hear and see what type of changes you have seen as you have gone down this path. And also what kind of dosing you have experimented with? Have you also tested both uber low and higher trace dosing?


----------



## Surf

Greggz, What compounds are you using for your micro dosing?

Greggz, Slipfinger, I would assume you are just posting your dosing levels. Have you been monitoring these levels with any test kits (if so which ones)? 

I also noticed that zinc levels are much higher than in CSM+B are you basing your dosing based on what Burr has done or is it just trial and error? Or did you base the dose on something you saw on the web?

Sorry for all of the questions but earlier this year I thought about making my own micro mix but family issues and another aquarium research project got in the way and I dropped the micro idea for later. I only started using CSM+B this year (was using flourish). I suspected there was an issue with it but I didn't think it was a toxicity issue of the EDTA. Given my history with multiple aquarium deficiency issues. I suspected it was a deficiency issue but wasn't sure which element was deficient. I just want to better understand how these levels and ingredients were chosen.

As luck would have it I have some zinc sulfate, I just put a little in based on what I am seeing above. One thing I noticed about a year ago some of the concentrations in fertilizers nutrient levels do not appear to be based on the amount plants actually need with Copper being one example. Many fertilizers drop it since it can be harmful to shrimp and fish. Very few fertilizers have calcium or chlorine, and sulfur in them even though all plants need these elements to grow.


----------



## acino

I am kind of new here, although I have been lurking these forums for quite a while now. I started rolling my own micros about 2 months ago, after months of struggling with tip stunting and Alternanthera mini doing very weird things. I use RO water and garden soil (1-3 cm) capped with plain quartz sand.

After several weeks for starting the tank, I noticed that I cannot dose more than 0.12 ppm Tensco Cocktail (based on Fe) weekly, or I would experience tip stunting and super twisted A. reineckii minii. Switching to a different micro mix (only available in this country) improved the situation slightly, but not much.

Having a PhD in chemistry, I dived into literature and found number of papers on toxicity and low biodegradability of EDTA, so I decided to use non-chelated metals, except for Fe which is difficult to keep in solution as it is. This has improved the situation considerably for me. Over the time, I came to ratios quite similar to Burr’s, except for Zn (which I increased now based on Burr’s observations to see what happens. 

One interesting thing I would like to share with you though: I was mixing a second batch of micros and I miscalculated the amount of copper sulfate, and I was suddenly adding about 3 times more than what Burr was adding (0.015 ppm per 0.5 ppm of Fe). After about 2 days, I saw severe necrosis and stunting of new growth on A. reineckii mini. I realized the copper must be the issue, so I went 2 more weeks without any micros, 2x 50% water changes and mixed a new recipe without any Cu at all. I am now adding twice as much micros as with the wrong Cu batch, yet A. reinickii mini is fine. 

Because of this, I now think Cu is part of the missing link in the micros (along with EDTA). There is a lot of copper tubing in the houses and because of this I think levels of copper vary greatly among people. It is difficult to measure and almost nobody does it (I plan to do analysis of Cu in my lab in near future). Also, Cu is much more toxic than I thought before. Usually acute toxic levels start at 0.1 ppm (even for plants such as L. minor), but in the paper below, they report [email protected] for Rasbora at 0.006 ppm and for P. reticulata at 0.038 ppm (a guppy fish(!)).

The issues with plants we are observing are not as dramatic as death, rather only deformations which in my opinion are very likely to occur at even lower levels of copper.

(The paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23302712)


----------



## burr740

Here's my current routine in the spreadsheet. Micros tend to get changed every couple of weeks but this has proven to be a pretty good default recipe. If I make a few tweaks and something doesnt work out I go back to something like this for a while (usually)










* In the spreadsheet for micros is says 7x a week, but that's not full doses. I add half a dose of micros on macro days. Started doing this a couple months ago, more or less on a whim as a result of a Fe deficiency, and Ive just kept on doing it. In the spreadsheet for micros is says 7x a week, but that's not full doses.

Other known tap water content, from both testing and water report

Ca - 40 
Mg - 4
SO4 - 7.65
Na - 1.79 
Cl - 9.14

As some of you know for the past few months Ive been experimenting with higher B and Zn levels, and having really good results.

Early on when I was starting out with lower levels, similar to whats in csmb and other edta based products, I saw some weird deficiency symptoms. A few stem species developed really short internodes, a couple of other things developed chlorotic white spots and/or holes in the general range of 3-4 sets of leaves down from the top. Increasing B and Zn eventually solved it.

*Interesting note on Seachem products* (of which we are using the exact same compounds except for Fe)

First keep in mind that Flourish comp isnt meant to be a stand alone source of micros, its designed to be used along with Flourish Trace. Despite the marketing hoopla it's basically just a source of Fe (gluconate)

Getting back to B and Zn, since we are using the same compounds as Seachem I think it is relevant to see what Trace provides:

At the recommended dose
B - .0016 ppm
Zn - .101 ppm

Helluva ratio, huh?

Dosed at .5 Mn adds almost 1 ppm of Zn

Ratio-wise you wont find anywhere close to that much Zn in any other commercial product, agricultural study, plant research, Hoaglands, nothing. At best you'll find something around a 1:1 B:Zn ratio.

Why does seachem use so much? @fablau posed the question on their forums and they said its based on their research of what plants need...yeah right. My theory is they use so much because unchelated Zn simply doesnt stick around very long.

Either way since we're using the same compounds I think its a good idea to follow in their same general footsteps. 

*On the EDTA chelate:* It is important to note that edta only breaks loose from Fe around 6.5 PH. To all the other micros it remains bound much higher.











So the problem here is edta Fe - IF your PH is much higher than 6.5 for any length of time. My tank for example is only under 6.5 during the photo period when the co2 is on. Overnight it degasses up to around 7.4. So for at least 14-15 hours every day it gets way above 6.5.

When edta breaks loose from the original compound there are a couple of potential issues:

One is all that edta is now free to bind with other stuff. In addition to other micro elements it has a high affinity for Ca, and other things too but Im not sure exactly what all else. This additional binding may or may not be a problem.

Edta is also not biodegradable. It just sticks around building up like the macros we add, only removed by water changes. 

The other potential issue, and perhaps the most significant, when the chelate breaks loose Fe is in whatever raw state it was in before. At the very least precipitating out, and almost certainly binding with P and who knows what else. Fe is very volatile, which is why it needs an appropriate chelate relative to PH. 

The other micros are not so critical. It's more important in agricultural use where you might fertilize the soil every few weeks. Everything needs to stick around as long as possible in an available state. It becomes less important dosing every day or two like we are. 

*Fun fact:* Csmb is 65% EDTA










Great thread @Greggz , I know @slipfinger had a hand in doing this too so thanks to you both. Im sure that collectively we can learn a lot as more folks share their anecdotal experiences. The more the better.

As far as the hobby goes thats really all we have when it comes to the whole micro debate. Still so many unknowns how various compounds behave and interact under various conditions. Anyone who pretends to know it all is either delusional or just plain full of crap.


----------



## burr740

Great post @acino Thanks for sharing!

That is very interesting what you observed from Cu. I wasnt adding any either when I first started doing this

I'd had the 75's tank water tested a couple years ago and it showed 17 ppb. At the time I was adding about 3 ppb per week from csmb. So it's probably safe to assume my tap has around 10 at least.

But then I figured to make sure all bases were covered might as well add a dash just in case. I may try going without it again and see what happens.


----------



## acino

burr740 said:


> Great post @*acino* Thanks for sharing!
> 
> That is very interesting what you observed from Cu. I wasnt adding any either when I first started doing this
> 
> I'd had the 75's tank water tested a couple years ago and it showed 17 ppb. At the time I was adding about 3 ppb per week from csmb. So it's probably safe to assume my tap has around 10 at least.
> 
> But then I figured to make sure all bases were covered might as well add a dash just in case. I may try going without it again and see what happens.


I would like to reproduce my observations somewhere along the way to make sure it was not just a coincidence. At the moment, I don't have to balls to do it though, since finally everything is growing okayish after a long time. Interesting thing is, Cu levels may also vary for cold and warm water too. At least here, Cu boilers are (or used to be?) sometimes used to heat up the water which results in elevated Cu levels. I intend to check that too.

I am also experiencing massive uptake of nitrogen (>50 ppm NO3/week, mediumish light and no super fast growers), which I suspect might be due to bacterial denitrification, but I have to figure out what is causing this. That is another story though.


----------



## happi

It would be nice if you guys share close up pics of certain plants under certain dosing, I found certain plant to show results differently when certain ratio were used, Rotala wallichi being very picky one. Far as my recipe goes I don't stick with just one as I change them for experimental reasons, but I do use similar to what TPN use, I further modify if anything needed to be changed. In our experiment it also shows that plant had better growth with urea/NH4,it would be wise to add little bit of Ni if one want to make a better mix and decided to use urea, somewhere between 0.000001-0.0001 Ni is a good start.


----------



## king kong

just so I understand please dosing methods you use with custom Micros.
Adding EI with measured dry by volume? 
Adding PPS-PRO measured by weight then added to dose bottles?
What is EDTA


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> It would be nice if you guys share close up pics of certain plants under certain dosing, I found certain plant to show results differently when certain ratio were used, Rotala wallichi being very picky one. Far as my recipe goes I don't stick with just one as I change them for experimental reasons, but I do use similar to what TPN use, I further modify if anything needed to be changed. In our experiment it also shows that plant had better growth with urea/NH4,it would be wise to add little bit of Ni if one want to make a better mix and decided to use urea, somewhere between 0.000001-0.0001 Ni is a good start.


Lots of close up pics in my journal. Id be interested to see some of yours.


----------



## burr740

king kong said:


> just so I understand please dosing methods you use with custom Micros.
> Adding EI with measured dry by volume?
> Adding PPS-PRO measured by weight then added to dose bottles?
> What is EDTA


Most in this thread are using a routine that is structurally similar to EI as far as dosing macros one day and micros the next, along with weekly 50% water changes. 

If you're doing PPS-P measuring by weight, then you're dosing PPS-P amounts of everything. It has its own structure as far as dosing frequency and water changes

These custom blends target specific ppms of everything. One of the points of the thread is determining how much of everything is best. Currently everyone is basing their mix on several things like available research, whats in commercial products or what somebody else is doing, and/or lots of trial and error.

EDTA is a chelator that is used in csmb and many other brand name fertilizers


----------



## king kong

Very good. So CSM+B Plantex mixes their product with measured dry ingredients to meet their analysis target. I then add 40g to 500 ml of H2O dosing bottle then 1ml/10 g
When one wants to mix a custom Micro mix, how are you measuring your ingredients 1? And in what form are you delivering the mix to the tank 2?
Thanks__


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> As far as the hobby goes thats really all we have when it comes to the whole micro debate. Still so many unknowns how various compounds behave and interact under various conditions. Anyone who pretends to know it all is either delusional or just plain full of crap.


Burr excellent post. Like usual, I needed to read it several times over to catch everything.

And well spoken true words above. As for me, much of this makes me realize how little I know, and to appreciate those who are willing to share. Very interesting stuff discussed here.


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> Lots of close up pics in my journal. Id be interested to see some of yours.


i hope you are not assuming that am targeting you or something, that's not what am trying to do, am actually very happy we have some members now who are doing these kind of experiments including you, this is great for our hobby. i like to see pictures as a results of certain changes that you make and most of them looks positive so far. the question is are other people able to obtain the same results as water parameter will play very important role as well. as i see you add Cl, Na etc as well, this also have positive results on plants as well, but most people might not be adding these elements, like i said they also play an important role and too much of them can be bad as well. i also notice you dose urea as well, is there is reason you have decided to use urea? if KNo3 is good enough? i have tons of picture but am not sure if i could fit them all here at once, but i have one of my old thread where i have shared some pictures: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1063889-plant-deficiency-toxicity-experiments.html

i have successfully used the TPN based recipe in all the test but there was still some room for improvement, B and Zn deficiency was quite common in my case. are you reading Marcel data as well? i have a feeling you might be.


----------



## Deanna

king kong said:


> Very good. So CSM+B Plantex mixes their product with measured dry ingredients to meet their analysis target. I then add 40g to 500 ml of H2O dosing bottle then 1ml/10 g
> When one wants to mix a custom Micro mix, how are you measuring your ingredients 1? And in what form are you delivering the mix to the tank 2?
> Thanks__


You might benefit from using this calculator: Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator.

It should help you in determining mixes and dosing.


----------



## king kong

Deanna said:


> You might benefit from using this calculator: Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator.
> 
> It should help you in determining mixes and dosing.




Very good. Just looking back to Greenleaf's site for info where I purchased Plantex. I see that they changed their dose of 500 ml Micro stock solution per 10 gallons...yikes
Now ....2 drops per 10 gallons
Then.....1 ml. per 10 gallons


Plus.... was 40g Plantex per 500 ml stock solution

Now 28.6g per 500 ml stock solution

can you say hand me the siphon tube? Good Heavens....


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> i hope you are not assuming that am targeting you or something, that's not what am trying to do, am actually very happy we have some members now who are doing these kind of experiments including you, this is great for our hobby. i like to see pictures as a results of certain changes that you make and most of them looks positive so far. the question is are other people able to obtain the same results as water parameter will play very important role as well. as i see you add Cl, Na etc as well, this also have positive results on plants as well, but most people might not be adding these elements, like i said they also play an important role and too much of them can be bad as well. i also notice you dose urea as well, is there is reason you have decided to use urea? if KNo3 is good enough? i have tons of picture but am not sure if i could fit them all here at once, but i have one of my old thread where i have shared some pictures: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1063889-plant-deficiency-toxicity-experiments.html


Not at all, I was expressing my genuine interest in seeing some of your pictures, good or bad, what you think caused something etc.

I know a few times specifically you've asked folks to show you close ups of the bottom parts of plants. My journal has quite a few and there's usually a fert routine somewhere in the neighborhood. 



happi said:


> are you reading Marcel data as well? i have a feeling you might be.


Marcels data doesnt transfer well when applied to a real world tank (neither does Marschner ratio) 

Besides that, unless he's recently changed sources, Marcel uses Tenso which is edta based. That is entirely irrelevant to what folks are doing here.

This thread is to compile data and experiences from people who are using non-chelated compounds and other sources of Fe.


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> Not at all, I was expressing my genuine interest in seeing some of your pictures, good or bad, what you think caused something etc.
> 
> I know a few times specifically you've asked folks to show you close ups of the bottom parts of plants. My journal has quite a few and there's usually a fert routine somewhere in the neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> Marcels data doesnt transfer well when applied to a real world tank (neither does Marschner ratio)
> 
> Besides that, unless he's recently changed sources, Marcel uses Tenso which is edta based. That is entirely irrelevant to what folks are doing here.
> 
> This thread is to compile data and experiences from people who are using non-chelated compounds and other sources of Fe.


yes i understand what this thread is about and appreciate your and others effort, my goals are slightly different than your but if we could come up with better mix that is useful for everyone, then we are on the good journey here. Marcel data is quite interesting as we work closely sometime, am not going to say that we got 100% results but we were not that far from obtaining good results. in my own observation like i said before it would be almost impossible to make exact ratio for everyone to use unless they use pure RO water, water with 30 ppm Ca vs 10 ppm Ca might have different results using the same recipe for example. edta/dtpa isnt bad as you guys think, i understand its availability is bit slow, but its much safer than non chleated, i was able to melt my Tonnina plant simply by adding Znso4 and Boric acid individually, certain plant that looked Zn and B deficient did not recover simply by adding these two, they only recovered once i used the decent ratio and added all the other elements as well, this is clearly shown that ratio plays an very important role. the only thing i fear is buildup of certain things such as Boron if plant use all the other elements and some will get oxidized, as far as i know Boron doesn't oxidized. the reason i asked to show lower part of plants is that people are good at hiding it and only focus on what looks good on the top, normal healthy plant should look good from top to bottom, bottom part becoming deficient indicate something is either not available to plants or toxicity if you believe in that one. 

i guess i can give your recipe a try, if it could help my rotala wallachi, then this will be considered very good recipe. is there anything you want to change to the current recipe that you think might be working even better? i could try that one instead. and i will try to post some pics for you guys when i have more time about my own experiments.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Here's my current routine in the spreadsheet. Micros tend to get changed every couple of weeks but this has proven to be a pretty good default recipe. If I make a few tweaks and something doesnt work out I go back to something like this for a while (usually)


Burr I am really enjoying this thread if nothing else just to see information like this. It's really, really interesting stuff.

So it looks like you are dosing a little less than EI for N, and a little more than EI for P. Then you add what appears to be a very small amount of Urea. 

So the N ratio for dosing EI is about 6:1, you are at about 3.5:1, and I am am closer to 2.5:1. You have given me food for thought. I have been dosing EI level of N, and elevated P, which seems to work best for me. I am going to try reducing both but keeping the same ratio and see if there is any difference. 

And I can already see we need to add a field for the username and date. I can see myself wanting to save these spreadsheets for reference.


----------



## dukydaf

Great to see that the majority of the experienced people in the hobby realized that micros are needed and not the devil. You still see questions pop up here and there of something having read the old posts. Just like they do with Ca deficiency, Ca:Mg ration, K toxicity, PO4=algae etc. 

But why did the whole thing happened. Well the need to blame something other than ourselves is one. The other is random observations, no matter how honest should not be regarded as strong evidence for anything. I hope that people that wasted a year or so in struggling with low micros will be able to learn from this. It is also good that we tried a new thing, and now we know better how micronutrient deficiency looks like.



burr740 said:


> Marcels data doesnt transfer well when applied to a real world tank (neither does Marschner ratio)


Maybe. The question is why? What other factors make the data not applicable ... see, now the fun stuff starts to happen.




happi said:


> the other reason people wont try such a recipe is due to the cost and hassle, they prefer premixed stuff, this stuff is only good for those who want to play around with the chemicals, like we do. the other reason i dont post much is due to the fear of people using the recipe to make money.


I have to say I am puzzled by your decision not to share due to fear of people making money, with all due respect to your knowledge and contribution. Knowledge is useless if not put into practice. It is great that you invest time and effort into developing a perfect nutritional plan. And I respect that you do not want to share that knowledge for some sort of monetary gain. This is after all capitalism. So make a bottle and sell it. I would like to test your formulas. Tropica did this, Aqua Rebell (Tobias) did this etc. 

Don't want to get commercial, that is also fine. Share it so the hobby can benefit just like it benefited from PMDD, PPS, EI etc. There are some like NilocG that sell the ready made mixed. People pay money for convenience and ease of use. I don't really find fault in that. 

What if Burr or countless others were to say, we do not post photos of our plants or journals because we are afraid people will learn from us , our experience and mistakes and make money or win competitions ahead of us. 

If people make money by growing healthy plants I think this hobby won something.


----------



## happi

dukydaf said:


> Great to see that the majority of the experienced people in the hobby realized that micros are needed and not the devil. You still see questions pop up here and there of something having read the old posts. Just like they do with Ca deficiency, Ca:Mg ration, K toxicity, PO4=algae etc.
> 
> But why did the whole thing happened. Well the need to blame something other than ourselves is one. The other is random observations, no matter how honest should not be regarded as strong evidence for anything. I hope that people that wasted a year or so in struggling with low micros will be able to learn from this. It is also good that we tried a new thing, and now we know better how micronutrient deficiency looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. The question is why? What other factors make the data not applicable ... see, now the fun stuff starts to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am puzzled by your decision not to share due to fear of people making money, with all due respect to your knowledge and contribution. Knowledge is useless if not put into practice. It is great that you invest time and effort into developing a perfect nutritional plan. And I respect that you do not want to share that knowledge for some sort of monetary gain. This is after all capitalism. So make a bottle and sell it. I would like to test your formulas. Tropica did this, Aqua Rebell (Tobias) did this etc.
> 
> Don't want to get commercial, that is also fine. Share it so the hobby can benefit just like it benefited from PMDD, PPS, EI etc. There are some like NilocG that sell the ready made mixed. People pay money for convenience and ease of use. I don't really find fault in that.
> 
> What if Burr or countless others were to say, we do not post photos of our plants or journals because we are afraid people will learn from us , our experience and mistakes and make money or win competitions ahead of us.
> 
> If people make money by growing healthy plants I think this hobby won something.


i guess people did not understand what i meant, but anyways i dont mind sharing everything that i know, i have even shared the thread where i have posted something, i will post more when i have time. but like i said the recipe i use are similar to TPN


----------



## dukydaf

happi said:


> i guess people did not understand what i meant, but anyways i dont mind sharing everything that i know, i have even shared the thread where i have posted something, i will post more when i have time. but like i said the recipe i use are similar to TPN


It can happen often with communication in written form unfortunately. I for one am glad to hear your clarification. I am looking forward to read your recent experience and see some more photos.

Until now I can only say that providing enough micros allowed unstunted growth of r. wallichii, whereas lack of micros in dosing resulted in the classical stunning. This is of course in high intensity aquariums. In low intensity ones what little comes with tap is enough. So quite the opposite behavior as reported by some.


----------



## slipfinger

Can you guys list which substrate you used during your testing/experiments? @dukydaf @happi


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> when edta breaks loose from the original compound there are a couple of potential issues:
> 
> One is all that edta is now free to bind with other stuff. In addition to other micro elements it has a high affinity for ca, and other things too but im not sure exactly what all else. This additional binding may or may not be a problem.
> 
> Edta is also not biodegradable. It just sticks around building up like the macros we add, only removed by water changes.
> 
> The other potential issue, and perhaps the most significant, when the chelate breaks loose fe is in whatever raw state it was in before. At the very least precipitating out, and almost certainly binding with p and who knows what else


Hi
Since you mentioned EDTA biodegradability and remobilization;

_“*Is EDTA biodegradable in the environment?*

Yes, but slowly. EDTA is eliminated from the environment by biological and non-biological pathways.
Furthermore, in biological tests it can be demonstrated that EDTA is slowly biodegradable under aerobic conditions. However, the rate of biodegradation may vary strongly with the bacterial population present in the particular ecosystem.
EDTA, especially in the form of the EDTA-iron-chelate, is readily decomposed on exposure to sunlight and yields biodegradable products.
Both biodegradation and non-biological degradation ensure that EDTA does not persist in the environment.”

“*Does EDTA remobilize heavy metals in the environment?*

No scientific evidence has been presented to date that the actual levels of EDTA in aqueous environment cause remobilization of heavy metals. Latest findings show that remobilization of heavy metals (zinc, nickel, copper) out of the sediments of river does not occur as long as the equivalent concentration of EDTA is below that of the heavy metals in solution. If we consider the usual concentrations of heavy metals in river waters, no remobilization would be expected to occur at the currently observed EDTA levels.”_

Reference
http://www.cefic.org/Documents/Other/EAC_broch_EDTA_03.pdf
EDTA: the chelating agent under environmental scrutiny


----------



## Immortal1

@Greggz - "And I can already see we need to add a field for the username and date. I can see myself wanting to save these spreadsheets for reference. "

Was thinking the same thing. Just printed Burr's out and realized I needed to hand write his name on it


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> yes i understand what this thread is about and appreciate your and others effort, my goals are slightly different than your but if we could come up with better mix that is useful for everyone, then we are on the good journey here. Marcel data is quite interesting as we work closely sometime, am not going to say that we got 100% results but we were not that far from obtaining good results. in my own observation like i said before it would be almost impossible to make exact ratio for everyone to use unless they use pure RO water, water with 30 ppm Ca vs 10 ppm Ca might have different results using the same recipe for example. edta/dtpa isnt bad as you guys think, i understand its availability is bit slow, but its much safer than non chleated, i was able to melt my Tonnina plant simply by adding Znso4 and Boric acid individually, certain plant that looked Zn and B deficient did not recover simply by adding these two, they only recovered once i used the decent ratio and added all the other elements as well, this is clearly shown that ratio plays an very important role. the only thing i fear is buildup of certain things such as Boron if plant use all the other elements and some will get oxidized, as far as i know Boron doesn't oxidized. the reason i asked to show lower part of plants is that people are good at hiding it and only focus on what looks good on the top, normal healthy plant should look good from top to bottom, bottom part becoming deficient indicate something is either not available to plants or toxicity if you believe in that one.


The thing about ratios is it depends entirely on whats available to the plants, not what the mix contains.

For example using an edta based product in a high PH. Fe may quickly become unavailable while everything else stays intact. So much for the ratio...

Or with non-chelated compounds say the Zn is gone in a couple hours and some other stuff lasts a whole day. Whats the ratio now? 

I suspect this is why Seachenm uses so much Zn (see my first post itt). Not because 10:1 Zn:B or 2:1 Zn:Mn is some magical ratio, but to compensate for the fact that Zn doesnt stick around very long.

In my opinion this is the problem when you derive optimum ratios based on tissue analysis of what inside the plants, which Marschner did, and what Marcel's latest is based on. It assumes everything is/remains available at the same concentrations being added in the first place, which as far as aquariums go is rarely is the case. Marcel is probably pulling it off with 247 CO2 and meticulously reconstituted RO water. But the avg aquarium just doesnt work like that.




happi said:


> i guess i can give your recipe a try, if it could help my rotala wallachi, then this will be considered very good recipe. is there anything you want to change to the current recipe that you think might be working even better? i could try that one instead. and i will try to post some pics for you guys when i have more time about my own experiments.


Ideally I'd say Fe could probably be dropped to 200 ppb, B down around 25-30 (if you're using H3BO3, Borax can stand a little higher) add 10 or 20 ppb more Zn. Ive gone as high as 120 ppb every two days with no ill effects. Speculation obviously, call it an educated hunch these amounts might work a little better.

Also if you've been using EDTA based Fe, be sure to do a couple large back to back water changed before starting the non-chelated stuff. You'll want to get as much EDTA out of the system as possible first. Otherwise the initial results will be skewed, could take a few weeks to see what's really going to happen 

Walichii in the 50gal taken just now. Not perfect but doing fairly well using the current recipe


----------



## acino

burr740 said:


> In my opinion this is the problem when you derive optimum ratios based on tissue analysis of what inside the plants, which Marschner did, and what Marcel's latest is based on. It assumes everything is/remains available at the same concentrations being added, which as far as aquariums go is rarely is the case.


Another problem is, I have seen several papers in which you could see the content of the elements in the dry plant mass varied with the composition of the water from which it was harvested. Taking this into consideration, it's nearly impossible to use dry plant mass contents for developing a magical ratio.



Edward said:


> Since you mentioned EDTA biodegradability and remobilization;
> http://www.cefic.org/Documents/Other/EAC_broch_EDTA_03.pdf
> EDTA: the chelating agent under environmental scrutiny


"These studies show that the formation of the chelate-metal coordination compound, achieves a decrease in the toxicity of free heavy metals. *On the contrary Guilhermino et al. found that Cd(II)-EDTA and Cu(II)-EDTA complexes were more toxic than their respective free metals in acute toxicity test in Daphnia magna.*"


----------



## Axelrodi202

@burr740: What spurred you to increase your Fe dose in subsequent versions, and to use DTPA form vs something like gluconate? Do you not have similar concerns with DTPA as you do with EDTA?


I will not post my full recipe, but I will say I do have tangerine tiger shrimp breeding with the following levels dosed daily (though split into 8 doses via autodoser over the photoperiod). 

.015 ppm B
0.004 ppm Cu
0.013 ppm Zn 

0.004 ppm Cu approaches toxic ranges for inverts based on papers studying Daphnia, but by splitting the dose so much during the day the acute concentration at any one time is limited.

I would love to hear from others breeding shrimp in tanks with higher micro doses. Shrimp toxicity, not plant toxicity, is what has me wary of using higher levels.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Burr I am really enjoying this thread if nothing else just to see information like this. It's really, really interesting stuff.
> 
> So it looks like you are dosing a little less than EI for N, and a little more than EI for P. Then you add what appears to be a very small amount of Urea.
> 
> So the N ratio for dosing EI is about 6:1, you are at about 3.5:1, and I am am closer to 2.5:1. You have giving me food for thought. I have been dosing EI level of N, and elevated P, which seems to work best for me. I am going to try reducing both but keeping the same ratio and see if there is any difference.
> 
> And I can already see we need to add a field for the username and date. I can see myself wanting to save these spreadsheets for reference.


I was actually dosing 2 ppm of P for a while. I dropped it a little when I started adding gluc to the mix. It probably didnt make much difference but you really dont want a lot of excess P along with precipitating Fe 

NO3 is actually close to EI (7.5) counting the urea. .3 ppm from urea is roughly equal to 1.3 ppm NO3 (I'd have to look up the exact formula, the multiplier is 4.1 or 4.4 something I believe) So an additional 1.3 ppm daily, or 9 ppm per week.

I add the urea to both macros and micros to eliminate having a third bottle to fool with.

Yeah a couple more fields would be handy. Maybe something at the bottom to list other known compounds in the water for folks using tap, Ca, Mg, S, Na and Cl, or anything else that might be relevant.



Edward said:


> Hi
> Since you mentioned EDTA biodegradability and remobilization;
> 
> “Is EDTA biodegradable in the environment?
> 
> Yes, but slowly. EDTA is eliminated from the environment by biological and non-biological pathways.
> Furthermore, in biological tests it can be demonstrated that EDTA is slowly biodegradable under aerobic conditions. However, the rate of biodegradation may vary strongly with the bacterial population present in the particular ecosystem.
> EDTA, especially in the form of the EDTA-iron-chelate, is readily decomposed on exposure to sunlight and yields biodegradable products.
> Both biodegradation and non-biological degradation ensure that EDTA does not persist in the environment.”
> 
> “Does EDTA remobilize heavy metals in the environment?
> 
> No scientific evidence has been presented to date that the actual levels of EDTA in aqueous environment cause remobilization of heavy metals. Latest findings show that remobilization of heavy metals (zinc, nickel, copper) out of the sediments of river does not occur as long as the equivalent concentration of EDTA is below that of the heavy metals in solution. If we consider the usual concentrations of heavy metals in river waters, no remobilization would be expected to occur at the currently observed EDTA levels.”
> 
> Reference
> http://www.cefic.org/Documents/Other/EAC_broch_EDTA_03.pdf
> EDTA: the chelating agent under environmental scrutiny


Yep. I didnt want to get into all that but it's one more reason why csmb might be utter garbage.

I wonder if free edta would be more toxic than if its bound to something?



Axelrodi202 said:


> @burr740: What spurred you to increase your Fe dose in subsequent versions, and to use DTPA form vs something like gluconate? Do you not have similar concerns with DTPA as you do with EDTA?
> .


Because more Fe seemed to be needed. And I have given gluconate several tries, both by itself and with dtpa. It doesnt work very well in my parameters. There's some further discussion about this in the last couple pages of my journal if anyone cares to look, and more in the journal on Barr Report https://barrreport.com/threads/120-gal-dutchy-freestyle-now-with-50-more-dutch.14072/page-33


----------



## Chlorophile

I'm also on Burr's mix, have noticed some nice improvements in Rotala Green, its very bushy and lovely now. My AR Mini is also improving in texture and leaf size.









Glad this topic is coming up cause I was wondering how one might go about increasing the dosing if its needed?
I believe my mix was... 8.1? I forgot unfortunately. 
But my new growth on Blyxa is very pale and my Ludwigia(not sure what kind) Is staying kinda yellowy and I can't get it back to the copper/red I had before.









Also of note, my water has been cloudy ever since I made the switch, I wonder if my Iron is precipitating out heavily?


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Also of note, my water has been cloudy ever since I made the switch, I wonder if my Iron is precipitating out heavily?


We made yours with some added gluconate, right? if your PH is much over 6.5 or say mid to upper 7s, the gluconate could be clouding the water as it precipitates (doesnt happen for everyone). It will be a distinct milky white cloudiness, not a green tint or dirty looking.

You could also be having a mild bacterial bloom if you disturbed the substrate much without doing a water change right after.


----------



## Axelrodi202

@burr740 : 

Thanks for sharing that Barr report link. Very interesting experience! Of course Fe and Mn are always hard to tease apart. But it does seem the 2:1 ratio is very common in various methods, from Marschner to Hoagland to NASA's recipe for growing plants in space.

A couple more questions:

1. What are your thoughts on using DTPA? As problematic as EDTA? Less so? Entirely benign?
2. Have you tested your water column PO4 levels?


In the past I noticed my plants did well with 0.5-1 ppm PO4 in the water, as tested by the Salifert kit. Lately I have not been able to get it above 0.3 or 0.4 ppm, despite dosing ~2 ppm daily. I space it 2 hours away from Fe dosing. ADA had a chart showing Fe2+ was mostly taken up within two hours. So I question if my plants are uptaking super high amounts, if my ADA Amazonia (1.5 years old) is suddenly binding it all despite having had higher water column levels in the past, or if it is precipitating metals.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> We made yours with some added gluconate, right? if your PH is much over 6.5 or say mid to upper 7s, the gluconate could be clouding the water as it precipitates (doesnt happen for everyone). It will be a distinct milky white cloudiness, not a green tint or dirty looking.
> 
> You could also be having a mild bacterial bloom if you disturbed the substrate much without doing a water change right after.



Hmm not sure if it had extra. 
"Fe DTPA - .2 ppm
Fe Gluc - .1 ppm
Mn - .09 ppm
B - .035 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm
Mo - .0019 ppm
Cu - .0023 ppm"

Its definitely a white cloudiness, if you stare into the outflow with it right under the light you can kind of see like microscopic glitter like particles swirling around in the water with a white tint. 

I've been having my co2 come on at 9AM and Lights at 1PM and by the time the light comes on my drop checker is yellow-amber... The Rummynose Tetras actually all swim at the substrate for a little bit, Cardinals apparently don't care about co2 at all because they dont ever act different or even seem to be short of breath (Maybe since they're used to lower o2 from being from warm waters) So I would assume my pH is low.


----------



## happi

@burr740 maybe i did not explain it correctly, ratio does matter especially while using EDTA/DTPA, with non chleated there will be precipitation and oxidization which can definitely result in lack of something, so adding little more Zn, B, Mn wont hurt much, i personally do believe in ratio to be important, otherwise we could just add 1 ppm of Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu etc and call it good and repeat the same. what you are doing today with Non cheleated nutrinets, i have already done it few years back and i have said that non cheleated will always produce a better results no matter what. but my main focus was exactly try to find the balanced ratio that plant use while eliminating many water changes to reset the nutrients again, for example if plant will only use 1 ppm, my goal was to provide 1.1 ppm, not 2 ppm. since non chleated produced better results, i moved forward to focus based on edta/dtpa chleated just to see if i could recreate the same results and i always got different results with different ratios, sometime good and sometime bad, but it was way more challenging working with edta trace vs non cheleated one. that link i posted to my thread, used TPN based ratio but i used Fedtpa and rest so4 based traces and results looks good on certain plants and tank looks clear as well, but there were still some flaws as you can see in the pics, but i did not dose very often, maybe thats where the problem was. i will now try your recipe, i hope i did not say too much and i hope tpt will allow me to post many pics as possible, because i have tons. i dont want to hijack the thread either, so i will save some pics to post it on new thread. 

water paramaeter: 100% RO water, Old Aqua soil, ATI 6x 39w
pic #1, used TPN ratio, Fe DTPA, Traces from so4 based chemicals
pic #2 Marchner ratio, no soil/substrate, 100% RO water used, EDTA/DTPA Based Trace/Fe, Used high amount of NH4, resulting in green algae.
pic #3 results one week later after dosing one dose of Marchner ratio
pic #4 Tonnina Lotus, EDTA/DTPA Fe/Trace, additional Zn dose was added through ZnSo4, resulting in damage to lower part of the plant and eventually killing the plant further.
Pic #5 Microplex Miller was used, 0.05-0.1 ppm Fe proxy daily, only HC look decent, other plant grew weired. Urea was main source of N.
Pic #6 EDTA/DTPA based Fe/trace, this plant would grow normal and sometime grew weired
pic #7 same plant look decent with same dose which was TPN based
Pic #8 Rotala plant lower leaves damaged, half of upper growth appeared to look very good after 80% water change and eventually decline after day or 2 with or without dosing anything. No its not Co2 from changed water
Pic #9 single dose of 2 N resulted in following leaves on same day of dosing, these sympthoms also appeared from time to time on other similar rotola sp. as well.
Pic #10 rotala walachii, dtpa/edta based fe/traces and this plant wouldnt recover no matter if i dose more traces/fe
Pic #11 excess NH4 damage to leaves, at 2 ppm NH4 in single dose
pic #12 rotala wallachii sudently grew normal leaves on the very next day after 80% water change and eventually decline just like the other rotala. again its not due to co2 from changed water.

Bump:

Bump:


----------



## burr740

Axelrodi202 said:


> @*burr740* :
> 
> Thanks for sharing that Barr report link. Very interesting experience! Of course Fe and Mn are always hard to tease apart. But it does seem the 2:1 ratio is very common in various methods, from Marschner to Hoagland to NASA's recipe for growing plants in space.
> 
> A couple more questions:
> 
> 1. What are your thoughts on using DTPA? As problematic as EDTA? Less so? Entirely benign?
> 2. Have you tested your water column PO4 levels?


1. DTPA has a higher PH tolerance than EDTA, 7.5 vs 6.5. That is the benefit for PH levels much over 6.5, you dont get all that raw and free chelate. I believe it is also somewhat more biodegradable than EDTA

2. Stays in the 5-10 ppm range. No idea why macros disappear in your tanks like that. 



Chlorophile said:


> Hmm not sure if it had extra.
> "Fe DTPA - .2 ppm
> Fe Gluc - .1 ppm
> Mn - .09 ppm
> B - .035 ppm
> Zn - .05 ppm
> Mo - .0019 ppm
> Cu - .0023 ppm"
> 
> Its definitely a white cloudiness, if you stare into the outflow with it right under the light you can kind of see like microscopic glitter like particles swirling around in the water with a white tint.
> 
> I've been having my co2 come on at 9AM and Lights at 1PM and by the time the light comes on my drop checker is yellow-amber... The Rummynose Tetras actually all swim at the substrate for a little bit, Cardinals apparently don't care about co2 at all because they dont ever act different or even seem to be short of breath (Maybe since they're used to lower o2 from being from warm waters) So I would assume my pH is low.


Yeah by "added" I meant any. That mix would be better off with no gluc at all.

See if you can find our PM convo with all the back story and send it to me. It's buried several pages back in mine by now.



dukydaf said:


> Maybe. The question is why? What other factors make the data not applicable ... see, now the fun stuff starts to happen.


Put in context the question was why Marcel's dosing may not translate well. (it doesnt from my own experience and also user Pikez on BR)

If I had to guess, possibly for a couple of reasons.

1. What I said earlier about the difference between the ratios we mix up and what's actually available to plants due to various reasons. He's running 247/co2 with a nice low PH that never changes. He uses RO water that is meticulously reconstituted including precise levels of things like Na, Cl, S etc.

Hard for the average aquarist to pull that off. 

2. Concentration affecting absorption? His tanks are small with just a handful of stems growing in each one. 5-10 ppm NO3 per week might be enough for that.

But take my 120 for example. In reality it may only consume 2-3 ppm NO3 per day. But that doesnt mean it can operate with only that much in the water column. Not even close, it needs more like 30-40 or things go south in a hurry. Apparently, having 30-40 makes it easier for plants to get their 2-3.

Speculation obviously.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> 2. Concentration affecting absorption? His tanks are small with just a handful of stems growing in each one. 5-10 ppm NO3 per week might be enough for that.
> 
> But take my 120 for example. In reality it may only consume 2-3 ppm NO3 per day. But that doesnt mean it can operate with only that much in the water column. Not even close, it needs more like 30-40 or things go south in a hurry. Apparently, having 30-40 makes it easier for plants to get their 2-3.
> 
> Speculation obviously.


Of course, when we say ppm it is meant quite literally. 
100 liter tank is 100 million parts... and we're going to dose 3 ppm? so there are 300 Parts per Tank(lol... weird measurement) 
Now you have a plant that has to absorb certain molecules through its surface where its also doing all sorts of other processes. I may be over simplifying things but its kind of like missing a turn when you're in a really heavy traffic area cause the turn lane is full. 
o2 co2 and whatever else all have to use different ways to get through the surface of the leaf, so the odds of finding that 300 parts per tank is difficult even if thats all it can use for the day.


----------



## Surf

> Of course, when we say ppm it is meant quite literally.
> 100 liter tank is 100 million parts... and we're going to dose 3 ppm? so there are 300 Parts per Tank(lol... weird measurement)


1ppm is defined as 1miligram per liter. 1mg is 1/1000 of a gram. 1 liter of water is 1kg or 1000grams. putting it together 1ppm is 1mg/1000000mg or 1 part per million. 

to dose 1 liter of water with phosphate to 1ppm requires 1mg of phosphate. For a 100 liter tank a 1ppm dose would require 100mg of phosphate. Same concentration but two different tank sizes. 

So if someone told you he doses his tank with 100mg of phosphate that information is not helpful to you since you don't know the size of the tank. However if he says 1ppm of phosphate you instantly know the concentration he is using which is much more helpful. That is why ppm dominates discussions like this.


----------



## Chlorophile

Surf said:


> Of course, when we say ppm it is meant quite literally.
> 100 liter tank is 100 million parts... and we're going to dose 3 ppm? so there are 300 Parts per Tank(lol... weird measurement)
> 
> 
> 
> 1ppm is defined as 1miligram per liter. 1mg is 1/1000 of a gram. 1 liter of water is 1kg or 1000grams. putting it together 1ppm is 1mg/1000000mg or 1 part per million.
> 
> to dose 1 liter of water with phosphate to 1ppm requires 1mg of phosphate. For a 100 liter tank a 1ppm dose would require 100mg of phosphate. Same concentration but two different tank sizes.
> 
> So if someone told you he doses his tank with 100mg of phosphate that information is not helpful to you since you don't know the size of the tank. However if he says 1ppm of phosphate you instantly know the concentration he is using which is much more helpful. That is why ppm dominates discussions like this.
Click to expand...

Yes. Mg/l is fine too but to make my example of availability I thought describing 100l as 100m parts for which the plant needs to find 300 parts of N was a good analogy to explain why we can't simply target uptake levels.
Of course 300/100m is the same as 3ppm. Just sounds less dramatic to me


----------



## roadmaster

dukydaf said:


> It can happen often with communication in written form unfortunately. I for one am glad to hear your clarification. I am looking forward to read your recent experience and see some more photos.
> 
> Until now I can only say that providing enough micros allowed unstunted growth of r. wallichii, whereas lack of micros in dosing resulted in the classical stunning. This is of course in high intensity aquariums. In low intensity ones what little comes with tap is enough. So quite the opposite behavior as reported by some.


IMHO you have hit upon a Key factor regarding growth,plant uptake along with those such as water parameter's, and that is the factor that drives everything.
Light energy as you mention will vary nearly as much as water parameters and drives demand for CO2/nutrient's.
One member or perhaps a few,are pushing PAR at 100 or more near the substrate and CO2 at levels to accommodate such light.
Nutrient's in high demand.
Sans fishes?
I like to see these thread's to help me determine what high energy tank's need/use, which gives me comfort in low energy tanks that I care for.:laugh2:
Fishes and shrimps would prevent me from trying more water column dosing than I already use with respect to urea.or much of an increase in mineral's that would increase Gh but I DO use CSM+B along with Fe from DTPA.
I also have soil mix substrate that other's might not employ but I like very much to see what other's are doing in high energy tanks which I might try in a few month's when I retire to man cave for good, and get my pension check in the mail.
I am subscribed to this and other mentioned thread's in my thirst for anything plant related in the hobby which is a happy place to be ,after battling algae for an embarrassingly long time.
Thanks for these thread's where ain't nobody choppin nobody else off at the knee's yet and all variables independent .


----------



## dukydaf

Sure @slipfinger I use 2 year old aquasoil. I will try with sand to see what happens. 



Chlorophile said:


> Yes. Mg/l is fine too but to make my example of availability I thought describing 100l as 100m parts for which the plant needs to find 300 parts of N was a good analogy to explain why we can't simply target uptake levels.
> Of course 300/100m is the same as 3ppm. Just sounds less dramatic to me


And we all know it's all about the drama[emoji16]

I agree with you @Chlorophile when plants have enough non-mineral nutrients (Co2 , light) they seem to like that either flow or mineral conc is higher or both. Makes sense, easier to uptake and to avoid conc. Gradients starting from 0. @roadmaster is right, low light aquariums are lucky in some respects. Also basing your fertilization on what is found in dry matter analysis never made much sense. Plants have a metabolism and will excrete side products or spent chemicals, however they might need them to survive. Think about it this way. What if somebody were to give you a gas with just the % of o2 found in your body. [emoji879]️

This ppm discussion is like a comercial break in the middle of this super thread. I will join. We will resume our programm shortly... 

You are right 300mg/L is the same as 300ppm in considered the same in the aquarium hobby. I know you know what I am about to say but maybe some will benefit. However 300ppm is actually a ratio not a unit of concentration. 

Now plants don't really care about mg/L, we care as it is easy to calculate weight substance dissolve in volume of water and dose. Looking from the plants point of view,(how would plants have a point of view?), they care about the number of molecules. They want to take up a certain number of No3, fe and other ions to have enough for a chemical reaction. So plants would be more interested in the molar concentration not the mass concentration. 

To make things even harder, when we decide if some. Ions are in reach or not, we are mostly looking at a volume concentration. Big ions will take more volume than smaller ones, making it harder to reach for the small ion. And so on...


----------



## Chlorophile

dukydaf said:


> Sure @slipfinger I use 2 year old aquasoil. I will try with sand to see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Mg/l is fine too but to make my example of availability I thought describing 100l as 100m parts for which the plant needs to find 300 parts of N was a good analogy to explain why we can't simply target uptake levels.
> Of course 300/100m is the same as 3ppm. Just sounds less dramatic to me
> 
> 
> 
> And we all know it's all about the drama[emoji16]
> 
> I agree with you @Chlorophile when plants have enough non-mineral nutrients (Co2 , light) they seem to like that either flow or mineral conc is higher or both. Makes sense, easier to uptake and to avoid conc. Gradients starting from 0. @roadmaster is right, low light aquariums are lucky in some respects. Also basing your fertilization on what is found in dry matter analysis never made much sense. Plants have a metabolism and will excrete side products or spent chemicals, however they might need them to survive. Think about it this way. What if somebody were to give you a gas with just the % of o2 found in your body. [emoji879]?
> 
> This ppm discussion is like a comercial break in the middle of this super thread. I will join. We will resume our programm shortly...
> 
> You are right 300mg/L is the same as 300ppm in considered the same in the aquarium hobby. I know you know what I am about to say but maybe some will benefit. However 300ppm is actually a ratio not a unit of concentration.
> 
> Now plants don't really care about mg/L, we care as it is easy to calculate weight substance dissolve in volume of water and dose. Looking from the plants point of view,(how would plants have a point of view?), they care about the number of molecules. They want to take up a certain number of No3, fe and other ions to have enough for a chemical reaction. So plants would be more interested in the molar concentration not the mass concentration.
> 
> To make things even harder, when we decide if some. Ions are in reach or not, we are mostly looking at a volume concentration. Big ions will take more volume than smaller ones, making it harder to reach for the small ion. And so on...
Click to expand...

Exactly! A ratio, which is why I laughed and converted it to 300 parts per tank and said funny measurement, but in a 100l tank it's the same as 3ppm.

I'm not sure how all the different ions and molecules are taken up by the plant but it's all happening on a nearly 2d surface.
To assume just because something is evenly distributed or dissolved in the tank water that each molecule of water will have that nutrient attached or near it somehow is preposterous.

Maybe like you mention, some things are so much easier to take up, and so whatever is causing the stunting has weakened the plants ability to be preferential for what it needs and so it accumulates the easier ones and becomes even weaker through malnutrition.

Perhaps chelators can make this worse. 

Too early haven't had coffee yet forgive my rambling


----------



## Chlorophile

Burr if you don't mind my asking, why is the mix better off without the gluconate? Is that just in my specific use case or something you've recently concluded?


----------



## happi

i thought i share few more pics when i used Dtpa Fe, So4 Traces at TPN ratio few years ago. i also posted a pic of some of my chemicals just in case you guys think am not a chemist :laugh2:


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> i thought i share few more pics when i used Dtpa Fe, So4 Traces at TPN ratio few years ago. i also posted a pic of some of my chemicals just in case you guys think am not a chemist


I see you have kelp 4 less fulvic and humic acid.

I use something similar on my lawn weekly.. however it is just 90% humic acid..
What's your experience with the product and would you say it has merit in the aquarium? If so what kind of levels have you tried


----------



## happi

Chlorophile said:


> I see you have kelp 4 less fulvic and humic acid.
> 
> I use something similar on my lawn weekly.. however it is just 90% humic acid..
> What's your experience with the product and would you say it has merit in the aquarium? If so what kind of levels have you tried


i have used about 1/8 tsp of it in my mixes of 500ml solution, am not 100% sure on the results but i have a feeling it helped with the precipitation and fungus in a long term.

Bump: this one is not related to Non chleated, but i thought i share it anyways, this one is TPN based EDTA/DTPA


----------



## roadmaster

For those interested,dosing for low tech Metricide enhanced(15 ml a day) 80 U.S, gal.
Lighting Fluval 2.0 and Finnex planted plus (not 24/7) 8 hour photo period
Water change 50 % on Fridays followed by..
3/4 tsp KNO3
3/4 tsp KH2PO4
1/2 tsp K2 SO4
Saturday..
1/4 tsp CSM+B
1/4 tsp DTPA

Tuesday..
1/2 tsp KNO3
1/2 tsp KH2PO4
1/4 tsp K2SO4
1/4 tsp Mg 

Friday 50 % water change.
Substrate a year and a half old = plain topsoil mixed with Azomite 1/2 cup,Green sand,1/2 cup ,and capped with Safe=T-Sorb
Plants are ..
Crypt balansae,Crypt Blassi,Crypt parva,Echinodorus Red flame,Echinodorus Kliener Bar,Water sprite,Bucephalandra, Alternanthera Reinckii,anubia
Fauna = Turquoise Rainbows,Celebs Rainbow's,Swordtail's,Hi fin Platy's,corydoras,cherry shrimp's that escape predation.

Crypt balansae has grown to drape across the surface,water sprite on back glass,, ditto.
Crypt parva crawling across the substrate slowly.
Sword plants near the surface send out/up stalk twice a month.
Anubia bunches multiplied three fold.
Buce (arrogant blue) planted along front glass in substrate ,send out flower each month.
A renckii only in tank for two weeks from small package(pet smart) but doing well.
Giant crypt Blassi nearly to the surface.
Overall pleased.


----------



## Edward

Hi burr740
In your post #30 is the chart where is Urea (daily) dose N-.3. Is this 0.3ppm as Urea CO(NH2)2 or Urea as 0.3ppm N?

Thanks


----------



## burr740

edward said:


> hi burr740
> in your post #30 is the chart where is urea (daily) dose n-.3. Is this 0.3ppm as urea co(nh2)2 or urea as 0.3ppm n?
> 
> Thanks


Its (NH2)2CO


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Its (NH2)2CO


Burr740

I've watched your use of urea in your journal. I've considered it because I think it has some merit (based upon other references as well, such as @happi 's work some years ago and UKAPS stuff). I removed the biomedia from my filter last spring in an attempt to increase access to NH3 by the plants (rather than losing most of it to the filter biomedia) and noticed a sharp expansion of my dwarf sag. May be coincidence, but no other inputs were changed. So, I think NH3 has some value. Haven't used biomedia since then.

Have you tried several cycles of withdrawing the urea, then adding it back, to test efficacy? If so, what did you find?


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> Burr740
> 
> I've watched your use of urea in your journal. I've considered it because I think it has some merit (based upon other references as well, such as @*happi* 's work some years ago and UKAPS stuff). I removed the biomedia from my filter last spring in an attempt to increase access to NH3 by the plants (rather than losing most of it to the filter biomedia) and noticed a sharp expansion of my dwarf sag. May be coincidence, but no other inputs were changed. So, I think NH3 has some value. Haven't used biomedia since then.
> 
> Have you tried several cycles of withdrawing the urea, then adding it back, to test efficacy? If so, what did you find?


Ive started and stopped it once before, this is my second time using it. After maybe 3 months on, off, and back on a gain, cant really say Ive noticed much difference.

My intention has been to get it up to around .5 or .6 and back off NO3 a little bit. But as long as these micro tweaks are center stage Im trying not to change much else.

One thing I noticed both times right after starting it, a mild GDA bloom, mostly on the glass. Both times it went away after just a couple of weeks. I think because the bacteria population has to catch up a little bit.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Ive started and stopped it once before, this is my second time using it. After maybe 3 months on, off, and back on a gain, cant really say Ive noticed much difference.
> 
> My intention has been to get it up to around .5 or .6 and back off NO3 a little bit. But as long as these micro tweaks are center stage Im trying not to change much else.
> 
> One thing I noticed both times right after starting it, a mild GDA bloom, mostly on the glass. Both times it went away in about a week. I because think the bacteria population has to catch up a little bit.


Thanks. Sounds like the algae spores get an ammonia treat, upon re-start, until either the plants expand to take it up or, as you said, the BB expand to take it up. Since you don't see any noticeable plant response, it may be that plants aren't getting any benefit from it and you're just building a larger BB colony to support it.

Urea is a little off topic, but I don't see any nickel in your trace spreadsheet. Isn't a certain ratio of it, to urea, needed to allow plant uptake of the urea?


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> . Since you don't see any noticeable plant response, it may be that plants aren't getting any benefit from it and you're just building a larger BB colony to support it.


That could very well be the case!




Deanna said:


> Urea is a little off topic, but I don't see any nickel in your trace spreadsheet. Isn't a certain ratio of it, to urea, needed to allow plant uptake of the urea?


From what I understand it is required to metabolize urea, plants still take it in but it can build up and become toxic if nickel is totally absent from the equation.

Im just assuming there's a dash in my tap water, but maybe not. Great something new to worry about, urea toxicity! 

That's a good point though, and you know what they say about assumptions...

After giving this latest micro brew a trial couple of weeks I may stop it see what happens - or just add a dash of nickel to the trace mix


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> That could very well be the case!
> 
> After giving this latest micro brew a trial couple of weeks I may stop it see what happens - or just add a dash of nickel to the trace mix


Thanks. Keep us updated on that ...whichever way you go with it. @Greggz 's great approach (establishing a common spreadsheet approach for comparisons) may result in a little broader purview than just traces as we try things, individually, but note inputs in a standardized format.

In a couple months, if you want to fly without a parachute, try reducing your filter biomedia gradually until you have none. You'll be surprised at how your tank (substrate, biofilm, etc) is fully capable of stepping up. However, since the tank components don't strip the NH3 as efficiently as filter biomedia, I suspect that our plants have much greater access to the NH3 and all it's benefits, which is what we want the urea to supply. We did this successfully, without realizing it, before we understood the nitrogen cycle, albeit in low-tech setups. As I mentioned, I did notice a difference in my dwarf sag once my biomedia was gone and I have a high-tech setup with a heavy fish load (NO3 sits in the 20-30 ppm area w/o any supplement).


----------



## Chlorophile

Regarding Urea... 
I use lb's of it per week on my lawn so I have tons of it available. 

I also use Ammonium Sulfate on my lawn. 

Ferrous Sulfate.. many many chemicals for the lawn.. 

What merit does Urea have and if so does anything apply to Ammonium Sulfate? 

I'd always heard ammonia/um is the most easily absorbed N form for plants, and that makes sense based on how fast my plants grew during the cycling stage with aquasoil. 

Urea converts to ammonia does it not? Is it preferential because it can be absorbed as Urea before conversion to ammonia, at which point the filter would convert it. 
Or is it only used once it is in the Ammonia stage? 

Does the Conversion to Ammonia from Urea yield any other compounds that are beneficial or is it oxygen depleting or anything? 

Sorry just curious. 
If this is off topic from traces then forgive me but I kind if imagine this as the "alternative dosing thread" and not just traces alone!

edit: In my own interests I did some research and I may have a conclusion? 
We see and read many experts mention that peak plant growth doesn't occur until very high Nitrate levels, 80-120ppm. 
We can also determine that 3g of Ammonium has similar levels of N to 10g of Nitrate, Lets just call it 3x more N. 
So Urea and Ammonium might not be more easily absorbed, but just capable of producing higher concentrations of actual Nitrogen. 
Now the conflicting evidence would point to the fact that to achieve a comparable N level, you'd need 1/3rd the ppm of Nitrate as Ammonium, so assuming 80ppm of Nitrate produces optimal growth that would be a toxic level of Ammonium. 

But why does 3g of NH4 have the same N as 10g no3? 
Molar mass. So technically there are far more Nh4 molecules for a given mass, more chances of said molecule to be bonded(ionic bond?) to the water molecule that happens to brush over the correct portion of stomata where the plant intends to find an nh4 molecule..
Which Takes you back to what we were talking about earlier in that PPM has to be taken literally. Just cause a plant only needs 3ppm per day doesn't mean it can actually find them. 

There has to be a reason certain forms are use preferentially


----------



## DMtankd

Following this thread with interest. A few questions:

1) If it's covered elsewhere, could someone point me to the current method of mixing these? I think I've seen all of the compounds used, but how are they mixed (i.e. all micro compounds mixed in a single solution, using RO, any kind of preservative?)

2) Burr - not sure I followed your micro dosing in the sheet. So, for example would your total weekly Fe dosing be 1.125ppm? (.25 full doses three times a week, and .125 half-does three times a week)

3) Not sure how you'd quantify it, but how does biomass factor in? Not sure exactly, but it seems that Burr's success with the really high levels of micros started around the time he added the moss wall. Is that still in the tank? Wonder what would happen if the dosing stayed the same and moss wall came out?

I've been trying to follow the overall routine from the journal, but kept seeing what I thought were signs of overdosing when I increased the micro dosing (mainly disintegrating leaves on the tops of AR and AR mini). I'm only at ~.25 ppm Fe WEEKLY. Reading here, it sounds like I may need to increase my Zn and/or B relative to other micros and then try pushing the rest higher.

My dosing attached.


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> Following this thread with interest. A few questions:
> 
> 1) If it's covered elsewhere, could someone point me to the current method of mixing these? I think I've seen all of the compounds used, but how are they mixed (i.e. all micro compounds mixed in a single solution, using RO, any kind of preservative?)
> 
> 2) Burr - not sure I followed your micro dosing in the sheet. So, for example would your total weekly Fe dosing be 1.125ppm? (.25 full doses three times a week, and .125 half-does three times a week)
> 
> 3) Not sure how you'd quantify it, but how does biomass factor in? Not sure exactly, but it seems that Burr's success with the really high levels of micros started around the time he added the moss wall. Is that still in the tank? Wonder what would happen if the dosing stayed the same and moss wall came out?
> 
> I've been trying to follow the overall routine from the journal, but kept seeing what I thought were signs of overdosing when I increased the micro dosing (mainly disintegrating leaves on the tops of AR and AR mini). I'm only at ~.25 ppm Fe WEEKLY. Reading here, it sounds like I may need to increase my Zn and/or B relative to other micros and then try pushing the rest higher.
> 
> My dosing attached.


1) Not sure what others do, I use distilled water and add 5 ml of vinegar per 500 ml. Measure each compound according to Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator

all in the same container.

2) Yes that's right. It's not really by design just something I started doing and kept on with it. just made a new blend at .2 which Im going to try dosing daily.

3) Good question, but I dont think the moss in the 120 is a factor. Because I also have a 50 and 75 gallon tanks, all set up the same way as far as light, filters, reactors, substrate, and dosing. They dont have moss walls and react basically the same as the 120.

4) All those non-Fe micros are not chelated, right? Then yeah a bit more of everything would probably work better.

The ratios look close enough except for Zn, could try just doubling everything else and get Zn up around .02 to start with. Cu is plenty Id leave that where it is now.

Also macros seem pretty low, especially for 100 PAR. Id do at least 3 ppm for NO3 and K, get P up around .5 daily. Dont worry about keeping the 10:1 N ratio


----------



## DMtankd

Thanks so much. I start with Flourish Trace and add MnSO4, Sod. Moly., and Boric Acid. That way I know I have some Ni in the tank and don't have to buy/add CuSO4 and ZnSO4 either. My tap has what I thought were relatively high amounts of both (0.04ppm Cu and 0.05ppm Zn).

I was mixing the Boric Acid and Sod Moly into my macro mix, but will just try adding all into the Trace.

Oops, missed a 0 - I'm adding .0003 pm Cu daily, not .003! Edited. 

I'm sort of lost on how I get away with the low macro dosing as well, but lab tests have shown ~20ppm NO3 and ~0.5ppm PO4 in the tank, so not completely starved.Will try increasing the macros particularly PO4, Zn relative to other micros, and doubling up the micros overall. My Pantanal does exactly what yours used to, with dead tops at every replant and, eventually, healthy new shoots - so my goal is to increase micros, but the disintegrating AR had me scared until I found this thread. Thanks!


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Burr740
> 
> I've watched your use of urea in your journal. I've considered it because I think it has some merit (based upon other references as well, such as @happi 's work some years ago and UKAPS stuff). I removed the biomedia from my filter last spring in an attempt to increase access to NH3 by the plants (rather than losing most of it to the filter biomedia) and noticed a sharp expansion of my dwarf sag. May be coincidence, but no other inputs were changed. So, I think NH3 has some value. Haven't used biomedia since then.
> 
> Have you tried several cycles of withdrawing the urea, then adding it back, to test efficacy? If so, what did you find?


when you remove media, you will have more NH4 availability to the plant from Fish, waste etc, this is the main reason i removed all the media from my tank to begin with. i have played with all kinds of N Sources, i have all kind of chemicals, too many to list so i wont bother listing them, but Urea has one of the highest N and you only need little bit to see big results, IMO urea is very safe vs Other NH4 sources. if you add urea in the solution and test it on your NH4 test kit, it will read 0 and slowly start to show up as NH4 on the reading as days go by, so adding 1 ppm Urea into the tank wont show up at all and plant will keep on using it if all other nutrients are available, if your plant cannot keep up with it then you might register some NH4 on the test kit or eventually convert into NO3.


Bump: based on my Previous Experiment, i will be testing the following ratio and Nutrinets


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> when you remove media, you will have more NH4 availability to the plant from Fish, waste etc, this is the main reason i removed all the media from my tank to begin with. i have played with all kinds of N Sources, i have all kind of chemicals, too many to list so i wont bother listing them, but Urea has one of the highest N and you only need little bit to see big results, IMO urea is very safe vs Other NH4 sources. if you add urea in the solution and test it on your NH4 test kit, it will read 0 and slowly start to show up as NH4 on the reading as days go by, so adding 1 ppm Urea into the tank wont show up at all and plant will keep on using it if all other nutrients are available, if your plant cannot keep up with it then you might register some NH4 on the test kit or eventually convert into NO3.
> 
> 
> Bump: based on my Previous Experiment, i will be testing the following ratio and Nutrinets


So, you are adding urea CO(NH2)2 at the rate of 1 ppm of N? How often do you add it and how often and what % are the w/c's? I see Ni on your trace list at .0001 ppm. Is that 10,000:1 ratio of N (from urea) to Ni based upon the urea usage? How often do you intend adding the Ni (and other traces)?


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> So, you are adding urea CO(NH2)2 at the rate of 1 ppm of N? How often do you add it and how often and what % are the w/c's? I see Ni on your trace list at .0001 ppm. Is that 10,000:1 ratio of N (from urea) to Ni based upon the urea usage? How often do you intend adding the Ni (and other traces)?


no am adding 1 ppm Urea daily, which is = 2 ppm No3, i dont think ratio is important for Ni, long as we are not adding so much of it, like i said i would run these numbers, you could even go lower if you want, this will be my daily dose in the pic i posted.


----------



## DennisSingh

happi said:


> no am adding 1 ppm Urea daily, which is = 2 ppm No3, i dont think ratio is important for Ni, long as we are not adding so much of it, like i said i would run these numbers, you could even go lower if you want, this will be my daily dose in the pic i posted.


Happy G, what do you think is the safest GH booster for syn type plants? I personally don't think i should use any at all. For my type plants, i've seen ultra sensitivity


----------



## Axelrodi202

StrungOut said:


> Happy G, what do you think is the safest GH booster for syn type plants? I personally don't think i should use any at all. For my type plants, i've seen ultra sensitivity


I use Softwater Mineral GH+ and grow 9 species of Syngonanthus (some submersed, some emersed) with no problems. This contains no carbonates.


----------



## DennisSingh

Axelrodi202 said:


> I use Softwater Mineral GH+ and grow 9 species of Syngonanthus (some submersed, some emersed) with no problems. This contains no carbonates.


Thank you but i was asking happy
impressive though.


----------



## happi

StrungOut said:


> Happy G, what do you think is the safest GH booster for syn type plants? I personally don't think i should use any at all. For my type plants, i've seen ultra sensitivity


Dennis, you should stick with Caso4, Cacl and Mgso4 for those Sp. i have witness these sp to melt some leaves when Camgco3 or Caco3 was used, usually anything that shift the Ph/Kh will melt some of these plants, but normally they will recover once the parameter is stable again.


----------



## Chlorophile

I have a hair algae outbreak! 
I think maybe my plants are healthier now and growing so fast, time to take the N levels up a bit. 
I'm testing 20ppm nitrates the day after dosing. 

On the plus side, my Ammania seems to be done stunting. All the new growth has been straight and smooth, now just AR and R. Macrandra still growing wrong.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

@Greggz is this thread what you wanted it to be? Just curious?


----------



## Surf

> From what I understand it is required to metabolize urea, plants still take it in but it can build up and become toxic if nickel is totally absent from the equation.
> 
> Im just assuming there's a dash in my tap water, but maybe not. Great something new to worry about, urea toxicity!
> 
> That's a good point though, and you know what they say about assumptions...
> 
> After giving this latest micro brew a trial couple of weeks I may stop it see what happens - or just add a dash of nickel to the trace mix


I was looking into nickel earlier this year and yes it is typically in tap water Also many water fixtures have some nickel in the metal parts. Also some water utilities do test for nickel and generally they always find it at about 1ppb or a little lower. Scientific studies of plants and people involved in hydroponics often assume it is in the water.

Yes plants do use it to process ammonia but it is also possible that it is used for other things. I do recall see a study in which a plant was grown without any nickel in the water or inert potting mix. The leaf was deformed but not significantly. I have not been successful in relocating this study in my searches. My guess is that in most cases plants can grow normally without nickel but just cannot process ammonia. When they have nickel they can process ammonia and can still grow normally.



> Does the Conversion to Ammonia from Urea yield any other compounds that are beneficial or is it oxygen depleting or anything?


When urea reacts with water due to heat UV or the nickel protean in plants it is converted to 2 ammonia molecules and one molecule of CO2. So unlike most other fertilizer ingredients it doesn't leave any solid residues behind in the water it is either 100% absorbed by the plant or it just evaporates from the water. 

If you use KNO3 and KH2 PO4 you are often left with excess potassium that plants cannot use. Which is one reason why we do water changes. 
It should be possible to use a mix of urea, KNO3, KH2PO4 that would reduce the amount of excess potassium in the water.


I have used it in the past but you have to be careful if you add too much too fast you can get an ammonia spike. The amount you can add will depend on how fast bacteria and plants can process it.


----------



## burr740

Surf said:


> Yes plants do use it to process ammonia but it is also possible that it is used for other things. I do recall see a study in which a plant was grown without any nickel in the water or inert potting mix. The leaf was deformed but not significantly. I have not been successful in relocating this study in my searches. My guess is that in most cases plants can grow normally without nickel but just cannot process ammonia. When they have nickel they can process ammonia and can still grow normally.


Not exactly to process ammonia. Plants need nickel to create the enzyme that converts urea into usable ammonia. Otherwise they cant process urea

https://www.pthorticulture.com/en/training-center/role-of-nickel-in-plant-culture/

The point here is be sure there's some nickel in the system if you're supplementing with urea specifically.

Aquasoil type subs plus tap water - dont need it
Inert subs plus tap water (my case) - probably dont need it
Inert subs plus RO - could be an issue


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> @Greggz is this thread what you wanted it to be? Just curious?


In general I would say yes. There have been people out there testing different theories on micros, and I think it’s valuable to gather those thoughts together. And I’m very pleased with those willing to share for the collective good. If it can help further the hobby, I think it’s worth pursuing.

And the thing is, I’m not under any illusion that you can ever come up with a “magic” powder that is all things to all people. There are simply too many variables from tank to tank. Each has different light intensity/duration/spectrum, C02 levels, substrate type/age, temperature, source water parameters, filtration and flow, general and carbonate hardness, Ph, fish stocking, general tank maintenance, plant pruning/mass/placement in tank, etc. etc. etc. 

But I do believe the general cumulative knowledge does provide enough clues to help many. I know in my tank, I have seen some very positive changes since switching over from CSM+B. I am dosing 20 times more micros, and my tank is better than ever. Things aren’t perfect, and I still have a lot to improve on, but I finally feel like I am getting somewhere. 

And in the end, there are 20 other things you need to be doing right to notice any effect from tweaking micros. My guess is that if you sent a perfect micro mix to someone who is struggling, it’s not going to solve many problems. However, for those enjoying some success, and trying to get better, I think this discussion is very worthwhile.


----------



## Chlorophile

I know I'm appreciative of the entire group of people who've figured out that there is potential for CSM B (or something in it) to cause issues.

I had spent SIX OR SEVEN months trying to figure things out. I killed shrimp and Otto's putting co2 to the limits. Must have done more water changes than I can think of, dumped calcium and magnesium and everything else in the tank.

I switched micro mixes and in 3 weeks I saw improvement.

Some people might just quit the hobby assuming they can't grow plants for some reason. 

Pictured: Ammania I almost gave up on.
40dkh solution with high range pH solution.. it's not my co2!


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> Its (NH2)2CO



i think Edward was asking if you used 0.3 ppm Urea as N or NO3. can you screenshot your dose of 0.3 ppm Urea for us.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> i think Edward was asking if you used 0.3 ppm Urea as N or NO3. can you screenshot your dose of 0.3 ppm Urea for us.


Its calculated for N


----------



## Ben Belton

Just adding something I found. The Seachem Flourish Trace page also says Ni is needed for iron adsorption.

Seachem - Flourish Trace

Back to lurking :smile2:


----------



## happi

Not the clearest picture, but i thought i share, not really related to the topic either, but these results are shown based on EDTA/DTPA cheleated being used here


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> when you remove media, you will have more NH4 availability to the plant from Fish, waste etc, this is the main reason i removed all the media from my tank to begin with. i have played with all kinds of N Sources, i have all kind of chemicals, too many to list so i wont bother listing them, but Urea has one of the highest N and you only need little bit to see big results, IMO urea is very safe vs Other NH4 sources. if you add urea in the solution and test it on your NH4 test kit, it will read 0 and slowly start to show up as NH4 on the reading as days go by, so adding 1 ppm Urea into the tank wont show up at all and plant will keep on using it if all other nutrients are available, if your plant cannot keep up with it then you might register some NH4 on the test kit or eventually convert into NO3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bump: based on my Previous Experiment, i will be testing the following ratio and Nutrinets




Happi, I see you also include Cobalt... Any specific reason?


----------



## Edward

Hi happi
On 2016-04-06 your recommended daily Ni dose was 0.00001 – 0.0001 ppm (10 - 100 ng/L). Since then, have you experienced any need to change it? 



happi said:


> yeh i use Nickel in my Urea solution, i dose anywhere between 0.00001 to 0.0001 ppm Ni daily, not sure what are the safe doses for Ni.


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1026985-urea-co-nh2-2-a.html

Thanks


----------



## Deanna

Might be useful for us to consider this old thread as we go about trace discussions. I used it when developing my own mix a year or so ago. It speaks to the nickel and cobalt issues and also supports what @burr740 is trying to hone in on in his iron chelate approach in his journal.

The nickel study might cause us to reconsider the high levels of zinc we are now testing.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...ential-nutrients-cobalt-nickel-not-csm-b.html


----------



## happi

Edward said:


> Hi happi
> On 2016-04-06 your recommended daily Ni dose was 0.00001 – 0.0001 ppm (10 - 100 ng/L). Since then, have you experienced any need to change it?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1026985-urea-co-nh2-2-a.html
> 
> Thanks


Hi Edward, Ni is quite hard to determine at which levels are correct for our needs or plant needs, but i used seachem Ni dose as a good start and kind of modified it further while assuming that 0.00001-0.0001 ppm should be a decent levels, if you are asking me if these are optimal or correct dose for plants, then the answer is am not sure, as i went based on assumption and hope that this would be a decent dose while not overdosing it, otherwise i could have gone 0.001 ppm dose, which i have never tested and am not sure either if Ni is toxic at certain levels, but those 0.00001 – 0.0001 ppm levels have worked out fine in my mixes as the results speak for themselves.


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> Happi, I see you also include Cobalt... Any specific reason?


my friend Andrew told me to give it a shot, because he read somewhere that Co is beneficial to plants, but i kind of disagreed with him, because Co kind of act like Mo, if i was already using Mo to convert NO3 to NH4 for plants to use, then why do i need to add Co, IME we really dont need Co at all in our mix, Mo is enough for Nitrogen fixation, Urea on the other hand is little different as we already discussed about it. in other word lets say i add Co just for Fun, if there was any improvement from it, i wouldn't be able to notice it anyway, because plant did good while just using Mo.

if you are trying to make good mix, try the following for example: NH4NO3,K2SO4,PO4,MGSO4,FeDTPA,Mn,Zn,B,Mo,Cu
if you are trying to make a better mix, try the following: NH4NO3,Urea,K2SO4,PO4,MGSO4,FeDTPA,Mn,Zn,B,Mo,Cu,Ni
if you are trying to make a bad mix, try the following: KNO3,K2SO4,PO4,MGSO4,FeDTPA,Mn,Zn,B,Ni,Cu
if you are trying to make a bad mix, try the following: Urea,K2SO4,PO4,MGSO4,FeDTPA,Mn,Zn,B,Mo,Cu

Bump:


Deanna said:


> Might be useful for us to consider this old thread as we go about trace discussions. I used it when developing my own mix a year or so ago. It speaks to the nickel and cobalt issues and also supports what @burr740 is trying to hone in on in his iron chelate approach in his journal.
> 
> The nickel study might cause us to reconsider the high levels of zinc we are now testing.
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...ential-nutrients-cobalt-nickel-not-csm-b.html


there is a reason i did not play with high levels of Zn like burr is doing, IMO honestly, i think he has been playing with quite very high levels of micro, but good thing is they are only available in water for not too long, long as its working for him, i wont argue at this moment. :smile2:


----------



## Surf

In regards to Cobalt and nickel I found this genetic study:

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-10-78

Its a long document so I will only summarize it here. Also note Eukaryotes is the family of life that includes all animals and plants.


They found in there analysis that nickel is required for iron and urea processing in bacteria, algae and plants. Animals appear to have lost the ability to to utilize Nickel. However when it came to Cobalt they found the following:



> In eukaryotes, only 9 species were identified that appeared to use both metals and most of them were unicellular organisms. Most Ni-utilizing organisms were fungi which did not utilize B12, whereas most B12-utilizing organisms were animals which lost the ability to use Ni. In addition, green algae utilized both metals, whereas land plants only possessed the Ni utilization trait. These data show that the two utilization traits have different evolutionary histories in eukaryotes, and that the acquisition or loss of each trait occurred independently in various eukaryotic phyla.


Plants appear tot have lost the ability to utilize cobalt. Animals need cobalt in the form of vitamin B12 but only bacteria and algae have the genetic information needed to make it. Right now my understanding is that cobalt is specific to algae and bacteria. I would not recommend adding cobalt to fertilizer. Fish food does have cobalt which the fish need and that should be sufficient for a tank.

I looked further into Cobalt further and Cobalt was listed as an essential element for plants back in the 1930's. Farmers found one particular type of plant (Legumes) didn't do well in some soils. researchers found adding Cobalt solve the problem and it was added to the essential list. 

Legumes are nitrogen fixing plants. They add nitrate to the soil. Without cobalt they show symptom of nitrogen deficiency which can be resolved by adding a nitrate fertilizer or by adding cobalt. Legumes don't actually use cobalt, Instead they concentrate it in the roots to attract nitrogen fixing bacteria to the roots. Basically Legumes feed cobalt and other nutrients to bacteria and then utilize the waste nitrate they create.

Bump:


----------



## burr740

My nickel arrived earlier this week. Ive added .5 ppb to the trace mix. From what I can gather nickel has a pretty low potential for toxicity, far lower than Cu. So hopefully this amount will be both plenty, and safe.

Its been three doses, and the night before I pulsed 1 ppb just for the hell of it. The next day was water change and thus began .5 ppb daily.

It's been now 2 weeks using the following recipe daily, with nickel added to the mix a few days ago -

Fe - 200 ppb
Mn - 90 ppb
B - 32 ppb
Zn - 60 ppb
Mo - 1.3 ppb
Cu - None, there's a little in my tap, otherwise I'd add around 2 ppb
Ni - .5 ppb

These amounts are doing well so far, early days yet on the nickel.

I did skip urea for the first couple of days adding nickel, to give it time to soak in a little bit maybe. Then an interesting thing happened in all three tanks. I wont go into it all because this post is already a wall of text, anyone interested can read what happened HERE. Halfway down the page beginning with post #706



happi said:


> there is a reason i did not play with high levels of Zn like burr is doing, IMO honestly, i think he has been playing with quite very high levels of micro, but good thing is they are only available in water for not too long, long as its working for him, i wont argue at this moment. :smile2:


The current levels arent high based on a whim, or because I thought it'd be a cool experiment.

Several months ago when I first started doing this, I began with a csm-b clone at .015 ppm Fe, 3x per week. Yes, that zero is correct. This was the same dose I'd been using with csmb plus some additional dtpa Fe.

The result of that was rapid and severe deficiency symptoms of one kind or another. So I began raising the levels gradually and having much better success.

In those early months there was often a case of curing one deficiency only to have another, distinctly different one show up.

An example is Fe symptoms going away then extreme shortened internodes appearing on certain species. More B and Zn fixed this, then not long after Fe appeared to be short again. 

I believe what was happening, why Fe symptoms so often repeated in those early months, goes along with Leigig's Law where the nutrient in shortest supply is the one showing the main symptoms.

When that nutrient is supplied then the next shortest one becomes the main nutrient lacking. And on and on it goes until all nutrients are unlimited, or at least adequate. 

At one point saw these weird white chlorotic spots break out on Ludwigia brevipes, only appearing on the 2nd-4th set of leaves down. At the same time some Crypts and Barclaya developed holes in the 2nd and 3rd set of leaves. Not K looking holes, larger ones that looked like snail damage. And it probably was snail damage because the leaf tissue was weakened, otherwise small pond snails and mini-ramshorn cant inflict that kind of damage.

Higher Zn levels finally fixed all that. In retrospect it makes sense because depending on where you look, Zn is listed as either immobile, or a semi-mobile nutrient. If it's semi-mobile for some plants, they could possibly get it from young leaves near the top, but not the older ones on down the line. Which is why symptoms appeared only in the leaves near the top. This is obviously speculation, but the fact remains more Zn fixed it.

Long story short, the more I dose the better things get. And I plan to continue raising the levels until the improvement stops, or negative signs appear. 

So that is what got me here, playing with quite high levels as you put it.


----------



## DMtankd

I suspect the extra pearling when not dosing urea is not a result of increased oxygen output of the plants, but instead a decreased ability of the water to dissolve oxygen. Quick google search seems to indicate urea has a "high biological demand for oxygen as it degrades". Could be the plants are outputting the same (or likely less) oxygen, but the water - now depleted of urea - has a higher dissolved oxygen content due to less oxygen being pulled out as your biofilter consumes the Urea.


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> I suspect the extra pearling when not dosing urea is not a result of increased oxygen output of the plants, but instead a decreased ability of the water to dissolve oxygen. Quick google search seems to indicate urea has a "high biological demand for oxygen as it degrades". Could be the plants are outputting the same (or likely less) oxygen, but the water - now depleted of urea - has a higher dissolved oxygen content due to less oxygen being pulled out as your biofilter consumes the Urea.


Excellent observation! That would certainly explain it.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> It's been now 2 weeks using the following recipe daily, with nickel added to the mix a few days ago -
> 
> Fe - 200 ppb
> Mn - 90 ppb
> B - 32 ppb
> Zn - 60 ppb
> Mo - 1.3 ppb
> Cu - None, there's a little in my tap, otherwise I'd add around 2 ppb
> Ni - .5 ppb
> 
> These amounts are doing well so far, early days yet on the nickel.



Burr, are you dosing the amount above daily (full dose) now? Previously you said you were dosing half dose on macro days... Please, confirm us. Thanks!


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Excellent observation! That would certainly explain it.




Burr, when you described increasing pearling, it looked to me you. noticed an increase in "bubbling" from the plants (what I call "streaming")... Was that indeed, or simply the appearance of O2 around the leaves? Because if that was really "streaming," that explanation shouldn't apply. Just to clarify....


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Burr, are you dosing the amount above daily (full dose) now? Previously you said you were dosing half dose on macro days... Please, confirm us. Thanks!


Yes for about two weeks now, full dose every day. 

For a couple months prior I'd been doing like you said, half dose on macro days. That was a stronger recipe though - .225 ppm Fe. 

Now it's .2, which is still a significant increase but not as much as it sounds like. I left all the other traces the same, only Fe is reduced a little. 

I suspect daily .15 would be adequate but I havent tried it. Like I said Im going to keep increasing until improvements stop or something negative happens. Then go back down from there to see where the sweet spots is.



fablau said:


> Burr, when you described increasing pearling, it looked to me you. noticed an increase in "bubbling" from the plants (what I call "streaming")... Was that indeed, or simply the appearance of O2 around the leaves? Because if that was really "streaming," that explanation shouldn't apply. Just to clarify....


My definition of streaming is when you cut a stem and gas escapes in a trail of visible bubbles. That's not "pearling", which is plants releasing O2 as a result of photosynthesis. If more O2 is being released than can be absorbed in the water column, it appears as bubbles visible to the human eye. 

The plants were definitely pearling. O2 bubbles originating from the underside of leaves(mostly) and rising to the surface. This would certainly increase if the water column was more saturated with O2


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Yes for about two weeks now, full dose every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For a couple months prior I'd been doing like you said, half dose on macro days. That was a stronger recipe though - .225 ppm Fe.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's .2, which is still a significant increase but not as much as it sounds like. I left all the other traces the same, only Fe is reduced a little.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect daily .15 would be adequate but I havent tried it. Like I said Im going to keep increasing until improvements stop or something negative happens. Then go back down from there to see where the sweet spots is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of streaming is when you cut a stem and gas escapes in a trail of visible bubbles. That's not "pearling", which is plants releasing O2 as a result of photosynthesis. If more O2 is being released than can be absorbed in the water column, it appears as bubbles visible to the human eye.
> 
> 
> 
> The plants were definitely pearling. O2 bubbles originating from the underside of leaves(mostly) and rising to the surface. This would certainly increase if the water column was more saturated with O2




Glad to know no adverse effects have caused this new dosing regime. I still see problems in my big tank, I am dosing daily now... We'll see the results in a couple of weeks.

About the definition of "streaming" it looks like that's exactly what I also mean. Even though streaming is clearly visible from cut plant tissue, that's still due to photosynthesis. It is still O2 produced and escaping from plants (unless it is other kind of gas, which I doubt). In fact, I cannot see it if lights are off. Similarly, I have noticed reduced streaming from cut plants when they are not healthy or something is wrong in the tank, and vice versa. Do you agree on this, or am I wrong?


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> About the definition of "streaming" it looks like that's exactly what I also mean. Even though streaming is clearly visible from cut plant tissue, that's still due to photosynthesis. It is still O2 produced and escaping from plants (unless it is other kind of gas, which I doubt). In fact, I cannot see it if lights are off. Similarly, I have noticed reduced streaming from cut plants when they are not healthy or something is wrong in the tank, and vice versa. Do you agree on this, or am I wrong?


Not sure but I dont think bubbles escaping from damage has anything to do with photosynthesis. Also no idea how much of that would be O2, I think it's other stuff too (mostly?).

Maybe somebody around here knows exactly.


----------



## acino

I am loving the fact you are trying the mix without Cu now. Any specific reason that led you to this?


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> My nickel arrived earlier this week. Ive added .5 ppb to the trace mix. From what I can gather nickel has a pretty low potential for toxicity, far lower than Cu. So hopefully this amount will be both plenty, and safe.
> 
> Its been three doses, and the night before I pulsed 1 ppb just for the hell of it. The next day was water change and thus began .5 ppb daily.
> 
> It's been now 2 weeks using the following recipe daily, with nickel added to the mix a few days ago -
> 
> Fe - 200 ppb
> Mn - 90 ppb
> B - 32 ppb
> Zn - 60 ppb
> Mo - 1.3 ppb
> Cu - None, there's a little in my tap, otherwise I'd add around 2 ppb
> Ni - .5 ppb
> 
> These amounts are doing well so far, early days yet on the nickel.
> 
> I did skip urea for the first couple of days adding nickel, to give it time to soak in a little bit maybe. Then an interesting thing happened in all three tanks. I wont go into it all because this post is already a wall of text, anyone interested can read what happened HERE. Halfway down the page beginning with post #706
> 
> 
> The current levels arent high based on a whim, or because I thought it'd be a cool experiment.
> 
> Several months ago when I first started doing this, I began with a csm-b clone at .015 ppm Fe, 3x per week. Yes, that zero is correct. This was the same dose I'd been using with csmb plus some additional dtpa Fe.
> 
> The result of that was rapid and severe deficiency symptoms of one kind or another. So I began raising the levels gradually and having much better success.
> 
> In those early months there was often a case of curing one deficiency only to have another, distinctly different one show up.
> 
> An example is Fe symptoms going away then extreme shortened internodes appearing on certain species. More B and Zn fixed this, then not long after Fe appeared to be short again.
> 
> I believe what was happening, why Fe symptoms so often repeated in those early months, goes along with Leigig's Law where the nutrient in shortest supply is the one showing the main symptoms.
> 
> When that nutrient is supplied then the next shortest one becomes the main nutrient lacking. And on and on it goes until all nutrients are unlimited, or at least adequate.
> 
> At one point saw these weird white chlorotic spots break out on Ludwigia brevipes, only appearing on the 2nd-4th set of leaves down. At the same time some Crypts and Barclaya developed holes in the 2nd and 3rd set of leaves. Not K looking holes, larger ones that looked like snail damage. And it probably was snail damage because the leaf tissue was weakened, otherwise small pond snails and mini-ramshorn cant inflict that kind of damage.
> 
> Higher Zn levels finally fixed all that. In retrospect it makes sense because depending on where you look, Zn is listed as either immobile, or a semi-mobile nutrient. If it's semi-mobile for some plants, they could possibly get it from young leaves near the top, but not the older ones on down the line. Which is why symptoms appeared only in the leaves near the top. This is obviously speculation, but the fact remains more Zn fixed it.
> 
> Long story short, the more I dose the better things get. And I plan to continue raising the levels until the improvement stops, or negative signs appear.
> 
> So that is what got me here, playing with quite high levels as you put it.


Burr, do you have a pictures of all these changes that occurred during these experiment, especially this one you just talked about. i want to see if the symptoms you had looks anything like what i had.


----------



## king kong

burr740 said:


> Not sure but I dont think bubbles escaping from damage has anything to do with photosynthesis. Also no idea how much of that would be O2, I think it's other stuff too (mostly?).
> 
> Maybe somebody around here knows exactly.


Aerenchyma gas pressure is higher with active photosynthesis occurring.


----------



## fablau

Well, if it is "plant activity" that we are looking for, that should be included as well in my opinion. As I said, I haven't noticed streaming without light, therefore photosynthesis must be involved in it.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> Burr, do you have a pictures of all these changes that occurred during these experiment, especially this one you just talked about. i want to see if the symptoms you had looks anything like what i had.


There are a few scattered across the last few pages of my journal, mostly of Fe symptoms coming and going, and general written updates on the status of things. But no I havent been documenting every little change and response with pictures



fablau said:


> Well, if it is "plant activity" that we are looking for, that should be included as well in my opinion. As I said, I haven't noticed streaming without light, therefore photosynthesis must be involved in it.


Yeah I really have no idea how all that works.

I think the point was that dosing urea lowers the O2 content of the water column to some degree. Stopping the urea caused the O2 levels to be higher, which caused the pearling effect to be more visible. In other words what I saw didnt necessarily mean the plants were growing faster all of a sudden, which is how I interpreted it to begin with.


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> There are a few scattered across the last few pages of my journal, mostly of Fe symptoms coming and going, and general written updates on the status of things. But no I havent been documenting every little change and response with pictures


 all right i will read it though carefully, honestly i havent read your whole thread yet, but mostly looked at the pics.


----------



## Edward

Just the way we dose Ni to support Urea catalytic reaction in plants, one day, in the future, we will be dosing Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) to support trace element bioavailability. This applies to unused oxidized trace elements in the water column and in the substrate protecting it from becoming toxic. 

I can see this operating combo: 
- Trace Elements dosed daily
- Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) dosed daily
- UV light for photodegradation of Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)

Reference:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijce/2011/939161
*5.5. Addition of Chelating Agent*
_The increase of the uptake of heavy metals by the energy crops can be influenced by increasing the bioavailability of heavy metals through addition of biodegradable physicochemical factors such as chelating agents, and micronutrients, and also by stimulating the heavy-metal-uptake capacity of the microbial community in and around the plant. This faster uptake of heavy metals will result in shorter and, therefore, less expensive remediation periods. However, with the use of synthetic chelating agents, the risk of increased leaching must be taken into account [34]. The use of chelating agents in heavy-metal-contaminated soils could promote leaching of the contaminants into the soil. Since the bioavailability of heavy metals in soils decreases above pH 5.5–6, the use of a chelating agent is warranted, and may be required, in alkaline soils. It was found that exposing plants to EDTA for a longer period (2 weeks) could improve metal translocation in plant tissue as well as the overall phytoextraction performance. The application of a synthetic chelating agent (EDTA) at 5 mmol/kg yielded positive results [8]. Plant roots exude organic acids such as citrate and oxalate, which affect the bioavailability of metals. In chelate-assisted phytoremediation, synthetic chelating agents such as NTA and EDTA are added to enhance the phytoextraction of soil-polluting heavy metals. The presence of a ligand affects the biouptake of heavy metals through the formation of metal-ligand complexes and changes the potential to leach metals below the root zone [48]._


----------



## Chlorophile

You mentioned extreme short internodes..
I've got that on my ludwigia right now, not sure if it's normal short cause I just switched lighting and maybe it's brighter.
Pic is attached.

Also, what sort of biomass and lighting levels do you think warrant going up to a daily trace dose?
I'm doing every other day, not incredibly dense planting but I have some massive balls of blyxa I wouldn't be surprised if they took up half of everything that goes in the tank.


----------



## burr740

Dont really see a problem. Its normal for the newest couple sets of leaves to be closer than the rest. If anything the old growth looks abnormally long. That's probably due to being starved for light. Give it a couple weeks under the new light and see


----------



## acino

Chlorophile said:


> Also, what sort of biomass and lighting levels do you think warrant going up to a daily trace dose?
> I'm doing every other day, not incredibly dense planting but I have some massive balls of blyxa I wouldn't be surprised if they took up half of everything that goes in the tank.


I remember your thread full of struggles. How's the tank under Burr's trace regime?


----------



## Chlorophile

@acino

It's doing much better!
I did remove a lot of the struggling species but I still have AR mini and Rotala green and an ammania which have shown improvement.
It's not perfect yet, not sure what else could be wrong but I just got new lighting so maybe I'll see more improvement.

I've got hair algae kinda everywhere now though, it's been a few weeks now. It doesn't really grow or get out of control but it's on everything lol.
Not sure if it's cladophora or something cause it seems to do better the more co2 I use lmao.

Im Dosing 8.35ppm NO3
6.86 ppm K
3.91 ppm po4
Possibly too rich I'm not sure.


----------



## Chlorophile

@burr740

I have a hypothesis for your pearling after ceasing Urea and it might be kinda boring..

Your beneficial bacteria!
We know how much o2 is consumed by the filter, when you reduced their load by stopping the urea there was a surplus of oxygen..
Maybe lol.


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> @*burr740*
> 
> I have a hypothesis for your pearling after ceasing Urea and it might be kinda boring..
> 
> Your beneficial bacteria!
> We know how much o2 is consumed by the filter, when you reduced their load by stopping the urea there was a surplus of oxygen..
> Maybe lol.


That's logical but it happened the very first part of the very first day, which wouldnt be time for the bacteria to take a hit. Im pretty sure DMtank nailed it


----------



## rs1

I've been using CSM+B I don't know if I should keep using this any more??
So, are you guys saying that I should get each mic nutrient separately and make my own mix.

If that's the case. Can someone tell me how much of each fert to mix into a 500 mil bottle.

Also, how much ppm would be in say a 10mil dose?

Is there a target ppm for each fert?? We're using?

It seems every body has different totals from the charts that are on this thread.


----------



## acino

rs1 said:


> I've been using CSM+B I don't know if I should keep using this any more??
> So, are you guys saying that I should get each mic nutrient separately and make my own mix.
> 
> If that's the case. Can someone tell me how much of each fert to mix into a 500 mil bottle.
> 
> Also, how much ppm would be in say a 10mil dose?
> 
> Is there a target ppm for each fert?? We're using?
> 
> It seems every body has different totals from the charts that are on this thread.


This thing can calculate everything for you:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...culator-fertilizing-routine-water-change.html


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*burr740*
> 
> I have a hypothesis for your pearling after ceasing Urea and it might be kinda boring..
> 
> Your beneficial bacteria!
> We know how much o2 is consumed by the filter, when you reduced their load by stopping the urea there was a surplus of oxygen..
> Maybe lol.
> 
> 
> 
> That's logical but it happened the very first part of the very first day, which wouldnt be time for the bacteria to take a hit. Im pretty sure DMtank nailed it
Click to expand...

I don't mean they took a hit but rather weren't respirating since they weren't metabolising anything, I'll have to see what DMTank wrote though I must have missed it.

Edit: oh derp he said exactly what I was trying to say "has a higher dissolved oxygen content due to less oxygen being pulled out as your biofilter consumes the Urea."


----------



## rs1

Are you suggesting that we buy each Micro fert separately and make our own mix? I've been using CSM+B
If so, can you provide the mixing info. ie, how much of each fert to be mixed in a 500 mil bottle.
How many ppm in say, a 10 mil dose?
What is the target ppm for each dose?

This info would be used in a 60 gal tank. 

From the charts I've looked at every body seems to have different totals.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> It's been now 2 weeks using the following recipe daily, with nickel added to the mix a few days ago -
> 
> Fe - 200 ppb
> Mn - 90 ppb
> B - 32 ppb
> Zn - 60 ppb
> Mo - 1.3 ppb
> Cu - None, there's a little in my tap, otherwise I'd add around 2 ppb
> Ni - .5 ppb


Interesting as always Burr. Tonight I'm mixing up the latest batch you sent which is measured out at .15 Fe, and will start with it next week. As you know I have been steadily upping the dosage for quite a while, and have been dosing it daily for the past month or so.

As I've mentioned, so far no negatives. If global pearling is any indication, then things are going very well. I can definitely say more pearling in my tank than ever before. 

So what do you think, should I up it even further? I don't mind experimenting if you want someone else to be pushing these upper limits. Really just amazing the amounts you are dosing compared to where you were really not that long ago (and me too!).

And on a side note, everything recovered from whatever happened when I dosed that Gluc. Still can't figure that one out for sure, but I am pretty sure it had something to do with it.


----------



## fablau

Greg, keep us posted with the new batch. I have been dosing daily for the past 5 days, but so far no improvement... Actually some plants got worse. I will keep doing it and post some pics on my journal soon. Glad to know it has been working for you so far, but in my case, I had probably better success with less dosing (or less Zn?)


----------



## fablau

rs1 said:


> Are you suggesting that we buy each Micro fert separately and make our own mix? I've been using CSM+B
> 
> If so, can you provide the mixing info. ie, how much of each fert to be mixed in a 500 mil bottle.
> 
> How many ppm in say, a 10 mil dose?
> 
> What is the target ppm for each dose?
> 
> 
> 
> This info would be used in a 60 gal tank.
> 
> 
> 
> From the charts I've looked at every body seems to have different totals.




Take Burr's ppms, then use this calculator to find the compounds and calculate the amounts:

http://Rotalabutterfly.com


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Interesting as always Burr. Tonight I'm mixing up the latest batch you sent which is measured out at .15 Fe, and will start with it next week. As you know I have been steadily upping the dosage for quite a while, and have been dosing it daily for the past month or so.
> 
> As I've mentioned, so far no negatives. If global pearling is any indication, then things are going very well. I can definitely say more pearling in my tank than ever before.
> 
> So what do you think, should I up it even further? I don't mind experimenting if you want someone else to be pushing these upper limits. Really just amazing the amounts you are dosing compared to where you were really not that long ago (and me too!).
> 
> And on a side note, everything recovered from whatever happened when I dosed that Gluc. Still can't figure that one out for sure, but I am pretty sure it had something to do with it.


The new blend has a little more Zn, 50 ppb compared to 30 something in the old. Maybe try it at the same daily .15 ppm Fe dose you're doing now for a couple of weeks and see if you notice a change.

Then if you're feeling frisky you can always try dosing more and see what happens.


----------



## Chlorophile

Finally filled out that Spreadsheet.










Any advice/input? 
Should I up dosing on Traces from 3x a week? 
How would I know if I should be adding K via K2SO4?

edit: I was using Equilibrium for a few weeks but never saw any changes so I've been off if for two weeks, my tap presumably has enough of that stuff.


----------



## Deanna

@burr740

Another angle on the pearling: since it appeared the day you added the Ni, is it possible that the urea had been absorbed by the plants, or was still in the water, and the addition of the Ni caused a nearly instantaneous conversion to N within the plants? Rhetorical question.

BTW: how much urea are you dosing, now?


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Finally filled out that Spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advice/input?
> Should I up dosing on Traces from 3x a week?
> How would I know if I should be adding K via K2SO4?
> 
> edit: I was using Equilibrium for a few weeks but never saw any changes so I've been off if for two weeks, my tap presumably has enough of that stuff.


First of all, thanks for filling out the spreadsheet. It's always interesting to me to see all of the different specs from different people. 

I don't think more micros will hurt. I would start with an extra half dose on macro days, and see where that goes. And as for extra K, a little more can't hurt. I've never seen anything negative from too much, but have seen problems with too little.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> @*burr740*
> 
> Another angle on the pearling: since it appeared the day you added the Ni, is it possible that the urea had been absorbed by the plants, or was still in the water, and the addition of the Ni caused a nearly instantaneous conversion to N within the plants? Rhetorical question.
> 
> BTW: how much urea are you dosing, now?


I thought about that too as a matter of fact. Also remember I'd dosed 1 ppb Ni the night before....

Currently back to .3 ppm urea daily, same as before


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> First of all, thanks for filling out the spreadsheet. It's always interesting to me to see all of the different specs from different people.
> 
> I don't think more micros will hurt. I would start with an extra half dose on macro days, and see where that goes. And as for extra K, a little more can't hurt. I've never seen anything negative from too much, but have seen problems with too little.


Okay, I'll try adding an extra 5ppm K 4x per week and dosing 5ml instead of 10ml on my Macro days. 

Thanks!


----------



## Deanna

Based upon several users of urea, here, I think I’m going to try it. However, to start, I’m going to treat it as a macro nitrogen regimen and mix it with nickel for dosing on macro days, even though it might be considered as a macro and a trace. My fish already generate enough NO3 to maintain 20 ppm of the NO3, which should give me the plentiful supply of NH4NO3 when combined. Also, going to start with only the addition of Ni and then gradually add .1 ppm as compared to @burr740’s .5 ppm (biomass surely factors in here) and ramp up to see if a difference is noted. My concern is that I have a heavily stocked tank, so the fish are already providing urea. Whether I’m on the edge of ammonia problems is the issue I want to approach slowly. It may be that the addition of Ni to my 100% RODI water will ‘activate’ the urea already being provided by the fish and no additional urea will provide benefits.

So, questions to @burr740 and @happi:

- How do you add urea? Do you make up a solution in RODI/distilled water (which will gather acidity from CO2) that will last a year, for example, or dry dose it (more of a pain)? If you don’t make a solution, is there a reason? If you make a solution, do you add any inhibitors, such as ascorbic acid?


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> gradually add .1 ppm as compared to @*burr740*’s .5 ppm (biomass surely factors in here)


*ppb if you're talking about Ni


I mix the urea with distilled water adding about 5 ml vinegar per 500 ml water first. Same way I do everything else. 

Not sure if the vinegar (or other acidic) helps in the case of urea, its just what I do. Maybe someone else can chime in on the specifics of that


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> *ppb if you're talking about Ni
> 
> 
> I mix the urea with distilled water adding about 5 ml vinegar per 500 ml water first. Same way I do everything else.
> 
> Not sure if the vinegar (or other acidic) helps in the case of urea, its just what I do. Maybe someone else can chime in on the specifics of that


Thanks. No, it's not the Ni The .1 ppm I mentioned was the urea starting point.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> Thanks. No, it's not the Ni The .1 ppm I mentioned was the urea starting point.


Oh I see. In that case just so you know Im dosing .3 ppm not .5


----------



## acino

burr740 said:


> *ppb if you're talking about Ni
> 
> 
> I mix the urea with distilled water adding about 5 ml vinegar per 500 ml water first. Same way I do everything else.
> 
> Not sure if the vinegar (or other acidic) helps in the case of urea, its just what I do. Maybe someone else can chime in on the specifics of that


Ni2+ is pretty stable in solution, it can't really oxidize further under normal conditions. It does not form really insoluble compounds except for nickel carbonate and nickel phosphate. On the other, the addition of vinegar should not pose a problem, so if it makes you feel more comfortable or if it helps maintaining the habit, then by all means keep doing it.


----------



## burr740

I have a question; We all know many of these micros become less available as the PH climbs into the 7s and above.

The ranges can vary slightly depending on where you look but this gives the general idea










What happens the next day when the PH drops again from CO2. Do they become available again, or have they permanently morphed into something else??


----------



## Deanna

acino said:


> Ni2+ is pretty stable in solution, it can't really oxidize further under normal conditions. It does not form really insoluble compounds except for nickel carbonate and nickel phosphate. On the other, the addition of vinegar should not pose a problem, so if it makes you feel more comfortable or if it helps maintaining the habit, then by all means keep doing it.


These last few posts bring up the entire issue of oxidation and mold growth with traces. Over the years, I've seen some that add C6H8O6 (ascorbic acid - vit C) to inhibit oxidation of various traces although, as you say @acino, Ni wouldn't be one of those that oxidize. Do we know if our mixes have a shelf life and would it be beneficial to add such inhibitors? I'd include urea in this category for concern as well. I add glut to my mixes, but that is just to prevent mold growth.

@burr740
Thinking about your pearling and your high B dosing. My notes (which may be wrong) tell me that pearling stops and plant growth slows markedly when B reaches .04-.05 ppm. If you're dosing .032 daily and assuming 50% weekly wc, accumulation in a few weeks would be in the .3-.4 area or about 10 times the toxic response level! So, it must be that your plants are consuming close to the full amount of B you are dosing. Now that you have good pearling, it might be interesting to push one of your tanks beyond .04 daily to see if pearling and growth stops. For that matter, i wonder if your pearling stopped recently due to B drifting over the threshold. Might be a way to find that point where we can each find max B level for our tanks. Notice how willing I am to put one of your tanks at risk?


----------



## acino

Deanna said:


> These last few posts bring up the entire issue of oxidation and mold growth with traces. Over the years, I've seen some that add C6H8O6 (ascorbic acid - vit C) to inhibit oxidation of various traces although, as you say @*acino*, Ni wouldn't be one of those that oxidize. Do we know if our mixes have a shelf life and would it be beneficial to add such inhibitors? I'd include urea in this category for concern as well. I add glut to my mixes, but that is just to prevent mold growth.


Yes, ascorbic acid will slow down the oxidation. Out of the micros that we use, only Mn and Fe are a concern when it comes to oxidation. All the other micros are pretty much in the most favorable oxidation state. Urea is a very stable compound so I would not worry about it either. The real question is, how much sense it makes to try to stabilize the micros for storage purpose when we throw them into very aggressive environment afterwards. High O2 content, lots of light etc etc. In my opinion, they are oxidized very quickly in the tank and plants do not seem to mind.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> @*burr740*
> Thinking about your pearling and your high B dosing. My notes (which may be wrong) tell me that pearling stops and plant growth slows markedly when B reaches .04-.05 ppm. If you're dosing .032 daily and assuming 50% weekly wc, accumulation in a few weeks would be in the .3-.4 area or about 10 times the toxic response level! So, it must be that your plants are consuming close to the full amount of B you are dosing. Now that you have good pearling, it might be interesting to push one of your tanks beyond .04 daily to see if pearling and growth stops. For that matter, i wonder if your pearling stopped recently due to B drifting over the threshold. Might be a way to find that point where we can each find max B level for our tanks. Notice how willing I am to put one of your tanks at risk?


Thats OK, dumping stuff in my tanks and watching what happens is one of my favorite parts of the hobby! 

I have personally experienced a few specific things get better up around 30-40 ppb than they were at say 15-20. 

One that stands out using lower doses, Lud mini red tips had a tendency to gnarl up and turn abnormally dark, moderate stunting I guess you'd call it. Not always and not to all of them, but it was common. I remember specifically going from 20 to 30 ppb, within days the tips relaxed and size increased dramatically. Since then along with higher Zn levels have grown some of the best L red ever. 

Not sure what the notes that you mention refer to, personal exp or research, but consider that a .2 ppm Fe dose of CSMB adds .025 ppm B, a .5 dose adds .062. EI folks have been dosing that 3x week for years...


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Thinking about your pearling and your high B dosing. My notes (which may be wrong) tell me that pearling stops and plant growth slows markedly when B reaches .04-.05 ppm. If you're dosing .032 daily and assuming 50% weekly wc, accumulation in a few weeks would be in the .3-.4 area or about 10 times the toxic response level! So, it must be that your plants are consuming close to the full amount of B you are dosing. Now that you have good pearling, it might be interesting to push one of your tanks beyond .04 daily to see if pearling and growth stops. For that matter, i wonder if your pearling stopped recently due to B drifting over the threshold.





burr740 said:


> Not sure what the notes that you mention refer to, personal exp or research, but consider that a .2 ppm Fe dose of CSMB adds .025 ppm B, a .5 dose adds .062. EI folks have been dosing that 3x week for years...


I don’t know about B but I was dosing 0.1 ppm TE(Fe) daily for very long time (many months) without water changes, so no reset. Adding 3 ppm TE(Fe) every month multiply by several months is a lot of trace elements and the plants did not slow down growth.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> I have personally experienced a few specific things get better up around 30-40 ppb than they were at say 15-20.
> 
> Not sure what the notes that you mention refer to, personal exp or research, but consider that a .2 ppm Fe dose of CSMB adds .025 ppm B, a .5 dose adds .062. EI folks have been dosing that 3x week for years...


Not sure where I found that info, but I would not have retained it if I hadn't been able to confirm it from three different independent sources (not necessarily scientific sources). A quick Google found this thread and it does look familiar:

How my own micro & macro ferts work - General Aquarium Plants Discussions - Aquatic Plant Central

I wouldn't want you to hold back because of this. I still like the approach being taken on this thread. While there are plenty of [maybe-pseudo] scientific explanations for each case, the point is that many of you are pushing everything to see how far we can go and I say ....'keep going'! I'm trying some of it as well. The problem is that there are so many permutations on the variables (interactions, biomass, individual plant response, water params and on and on) that we will never know if we are on a sweet spot. 

We are stuck with so much anecdotal evidence that it becomes frustrating when it doesn't happen to work in our particular tanks. However, I do think that we will find a robust area of trace variables that is forgiving enough to be broadly applied with success ...and I think it's going to be at much higher levels than we have been doing in recent years.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> I have a question; We all know many of these micros become less available as the PH climbs into the 7s and above.
> 
> The ranges can vary slightly depending on where you look but this gives the general idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens the next day when the PH drops again from CO2. Do they become available again, or have they permanently morphed into something else??


I don't think that availability chart is quite as important for aquatics, it's more of a solubility chart and that impacts soils a lot.

Just quoting a book here, but idk if it's a constant flux where the nutrients lose aluminum and take Fe instead and visa versa as the pH changes. That sounds hard to believe but my chemistry is poor!

"At alkaline pH values, greater than pH 7.5 for example, the HPO4 2- phosphate ions tend to react quickly with calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) to form less soluble compounds. At acidic pH values, the H2PO4- phosphate ions react with aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) to again form less soluble compounds. Most of the other nutrients (micronutrients especially) tend to be less available when soil pH is above 7.5, and in fact are optimally available at a slightly acidic pH, e.g. 6.5 to 6.8. The exception is molybdenum (Mo), which appears to be less available under acidic pH and more available at moderately alkaline pH values."


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Based upon several users of urea, here, I think I’m going to try it. However, to start, I’m going to treat it as a macro nitrogen regimen and mix it with nickel for dosing on macro days, even though it might be considered as a macro and a trace. My fish already generate enough NO3 to maintain 20 ppm of the NO3, which should give me the plentiful supply of NH4NO3 when combined. Also, going to start with only the addition of Ni and then gradually add .1 ppm as compared to @burr740’s .5 ppm (biomass surely factors in here) and ramp up to see if a difference is noted. My concern is that I have a heavily stocked tank, so the fish are already providing urea. Whether I’m on the edge of ammonia problems is the issue I want to approach slowly. It may be that the addition of Ni to my 100% RODI water will ‘activate’ the urea already being provided by the fish and no additional urea will provide benefits.
> 
> So, questions to @burr740 and @happi:
> 
> - How do you add urea? Do you make up a solution in RODI/distilled water (which will gather acidity from CO2) that will last a year, for example, or dry dose it (more of a pain)? If you don’t make a solution, is there a reason? If you make a solution, do you add any inhibitors, such as ascorbic acid?


yes i add Ascorbic acid to all my mixes including the Macro, i use Distilled water only just to make sure there are no other nutrients which can react or interfere. there are possibility that Urea can convert into NH4 and NO3 even in the solution, am not sure why this occurs sometime when based on Seachem logic it should not do that. one can confirm this by testing for NH4 on the next day after adding urea into distill water solution and then test for NO3 few days later. anyways, it is wiser to keep Ni in the micro solution.

i recommend the following as a daily dose for those who want to try Urea:

Add 4.582817708 gm of Urea to your 500 ML container. Each dose of 20 ML will raise NO3 to 2 ppm in your 50 gallon tank

N 0.45177321
NO3 2

Add 1.695014147 gm of KH2PO4 to your 500 ML container. Each dose of 20 ML will raise PO4 to 0.25 ppm in your 50 gallon tank.

K 0.102915891
P 0.081532096
PO4 0.25

Add 3.690656693 gm of K2SO4 to your 500 ML container. Each dose of 20 ML will raise K 0.35 ppm in your 50 gallon tank tank.

K 0.35
S 0.143522026

Bump:


Deanna said:


> Not sure where I found that info, but I would not have retained it if I hadn't been able to confirm it from three different independent sources (not necessarily scientific sources). A quick Google found this thread and it does look familiar:
> 
> How my own micro & macro ferts work - General Aquarium Plants Discussions - Aquatic Plant Central
> 
> I wouldn't want you to hold back because of this. I still like the approach being taken on this thread. While there are plenty of [maybe-pseudo] scientific explanations for each case, the point is that many of you are pushing everything to see how far we can go and I say ....'keep going'! I'm trying some of it as well. The problem is that there are so many permutations on the variables (interactions, biomass, individual plant response, water params and on and on) that we will never know if we are on a sweet spot.
> 
> We are stuck with so much anecdotal evidence that it becomes frustrating when it doesn't happen to work in our particular tanks. However, I do think that we will find a robust area of trace variables that is forgiving enough to be broadly applied with success ...and I think it's going to be at much higher levels than we have been doing in recent years.


or it could be Lower than what people have been dosing


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> or it could be Lower than what people have been dosing


I think that many hi-tech tanks will (and are) showing benefit from higher trace levels than we are trained to use by fertilizer assemblers, such as Seachem, Tropica, etc., but they are trying to satisfy a broad market. I also think that, as you said, some hi-tech will need to stay lower. Low-tech certainly will be much lower. Ultimately, it’s all about optimal uptake by the biomass and the biomass varies in so many ways. However, I suspect that there is some relatively fixed interdependent ratio of traces that will work for all high-tech setups and I’m seeing glimmers of hope for much different and successful individual trace dosings here as well as in my own tank. Low-tech, I think will need different ratios. 

Ideally, we would find a proxy nutrient where we could measure its’ uptake rate by a given biomass and then, with all other traces tied to that, simply adjust the dosing level of the optimized package to our specific tanks. PO4 seems more stable than NO3 (regarding things we can measure) so, maybe that might serve as the proxy. Good luck with that!!

Thanks for the tips on urea. I will start there, but at lower levels and ramp-up gradually.


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> I think that many hi-tech tanks will (and are) showing benefit from higher trace levels than we are trained to use by fertilizer assemblers, such as Seachem, Tropica, etc., but they are trying to satisfy a broad market. I also think that, as you said, some hi-tech will need to stay lower. Low-tech certainly will be much lower. Ultimately, it’s all about optimal uptake by the biomass and the biomass varies in so many ways. However, I suspect that there is some relatively fixed interdependent ratio of traces that will work for all high-tech setups and I’m seeing glimmers of hope for much different and successful individual trace dosings here as well as in my own tank. Low-tech, I think will need different ratios.
> 
> Ideally, we would find a proxy nutrient where we could measure its’ uptake rate by a given biomass and then, with all other traces tied to that, simply adjust the dosing level of the optimized package to our specific tanks. PO4 seems more stable than NO3 (regarding things we can measure) so, maybe that might serve as the proxy. Good luck with that!!
> 
> Thanks for the tips on urea. I will start there, but at lower levels and ramp-up gradually.


few years back when i started these experiment, i struggled with many things but once i learned more, i couldn't deny the results i achieved. i wont post much about it in this thread as we are focused on different thing in this thread. But i can ensure you that the amount of Trace/fe we need to dose is much lower than what you or anyone think, weather its in high tech or low tech tank. the main reason people are assuming they need to dose more is based on the type of Trace/Fe being used, the ratio etc. for example: one might dose 0.1 PPM boron just to raise 0.2 ppm Fe from their premixed Trace/Fe solution, when plant will only Use lets say 0.05 ppm Boron and 0.1 ppm fe, same apply to other nutrients, another example: they will add 0.1 ppm Fe and 0.1 ppm Mg, they notice Fe deficiency and decided to 3x the same dose end up adding 0.3 ppm fe, 0.3 ppm Mg, now color improved, they assumed they were low on Fe, when actually they were low on Mg and that additional 0.2 ppm Mg solve the color issue, not 0.3 ppm Fe. i tested this kind of experiment several times and it holds the experiment to be true every time.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> or it could be Lower than what people have been dosing


Cant be lower than what I just spent the better part of two years dosing - csmb in the .01-.015-.02 range. Some plants did fine, many did not like it. Some notoriously hard species like Rotala sunset did well, other easy plants like S repens often crapped out.

And for whatever strange reason I could never increase csmb without catastrophic results somewhere. Nor could the issues I was having be fixed with additional dtpa or gluc.

Anyone who's followed my last two journals knows this and has seen it happen repeatedly over and over.

Now with dosing higher levels, the vast majority of plants are happier than ever, including several species Ive never been able to grow before.

So in my case, more is definitely better. Just how much more remains to be seen. Personally I think Im a little high on Fe right now and still low on Zn.

Also understand that Im not saying my results or the optimum levels for me apply to everyone else. Just in my particular parameters, substrate, whatever, this is what happens.


----------



## Chlorophile

Since it has been shown higher levels clearly work, then we must assume that for anyone who is achieving good results with low levels then they are limiting the plants need for nutrients in some way or another. 

I was having huge issues but I do relate that to the Chelate and my pH as more did not help (more is what I assumed I needed and high dosing of CSM+B made things worse very quickly and took a long time to recover from) 

But in general, if you are doing well on lean traces we should believe that something is limiting your growth, preventing issues. 

Excluding co2 and lighting there is likely something in the trace mix itself that tends to be the limiting factor that prevents more of other traces from showing any changes. 


This will be my first week of 1x and .5x trace doses alternating. 
Interested to see if I notice anything. 


One thing that amazed me btw, regarding switching off the EDTA chelate. While some of my plants took some time to adapt, my Dwarf Hairgrass blew up practically overnight. 
It probably was not the chelate itself but a result of me switching from very lean plantex to the burr mix. 








DHG on December 19...








DHG on December 25








DHG on December 28..

For the first month I had the DHG in i barely saw any growth at all. Late December I switched to Burr's Micro Mix and within 5 days I saw 10x more growth than I'd seen in a month.


----------



## acino

Chlorophile said:


> Since it has been shown higher levels clearly work, then we must assume that for anyone who is achieving good results with low levels then they are limiting the plants need for nutrients in some way or another.
> 
> I was having huge issues but I do relate that to the Chelate and my pH as more did not help (more is what I assumed I needed and high dosing of CSM+B made things worse very quickly and took a long time to recover from)
> 
> But in general, if you are doing well on lean traces we should believe that something is limiting your growth, preventing issues.
> 
> Excluding co2 and lighting there is likely something in the trace mix itself that tends to be the limiting factor that prevents more of other traces from showing any changes.
> 
> This will be my first week of 1x and .5x trace doses alternating.
> Interested to see if I notice anything.
> 
> One thing that amazed me btw, regarding switching off the EDTA chelate. While some of my plants took some time to adapt, my Dwarf Hairgrass blew up practically overnight.
> It probably was not the chelate itself but a result of me switching from very lean plantex to the burr mix.
> 
> For the first month I had the DHG in i barely saw any growth at all. Late December I switched to Burr's Micro Mix and within 5 days I saw 10x more growth than I'd seen in a month.


Great job, I remember the tank being in shambles few weeks ago. Now it's looking 100x better. :bounce:


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> Cant be lower than what I just spent the better part of two years dosing - csmb in the .01-.015-.02 range. Some plants did fine, many did not like it. Some notoriously hard species like Rotala sunset did well, other easy plants like S repens often crapped out.
> 
> And for whatever strange reason I could never increase csmb without catastrophic results somewhere. Nor could the issues I was having be fixed with additional dtpa or gluc.
> 
> Anyone who's followed my last two journals knows this and has seen it happen repeatedly over and over.
> 
> Now with dosing higher levels, the vast majority of plants are happier than ever, including several species Ive never been able to grow before.
> 
> So in my case, more is definitely better. Just how much more remains to be seen. Personally I think Im a little high on Fe right now and still low on Zn.
> 
> Also understand that Im not saying my results or the optimum levels for me apply to everyone else. Just in my particular parameters, substrate, whatever, this is what happens.


Yes Burr, this might be working for you in your tank and it might not work equally in someone's else tank. far as i could understand you use tap water for your tests correct? i used pure RO to ensure the TDS is 0 to begin with and went from there, the previous pic i posted with those very red looking plants only got 0.1 ppm Fe DTPA weekly and rest of the traces were low as well, csm+b maybe did not work well due to its ratio and something being low or something being too high, this is what you are currently seeing in your plants now where higher dose seems to work because whatever was low in csm might have been replaced with your current dosing, i don't think you are considering other things either, such as your GH/KH/PH which will play an important role on reaction of chemicals, precipitation etc, in my case participation are less likely to occur due to lower parameter, i stunt my plant soon as i dose 0.1 ppm ZNso4, results occur on the very same day, but it doesn't mean its going to happen to everyone, but in my case that what happen. in the end i do agree that something is needed higher than the other nutrients but not all nutrients needed to be high. i hope you don't mind sharing my thoughts


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> Yes Burr, this might be working for you in your tank and it might not work equally in someone's else tank. far as i could understand you use tap water for your tests correct? i used pure RO to ensure the TDS is 0 to begin with and went from there, the previous pic i posted with those very red looking plants only got 0.1 ppm Fe DTPA weekly and rest of the traces were low as well, csm+b maybe did not work well due to its ratio and something being low or something being too high, this is what you are currently seeing in your plants now where higher dose seems to work because whatever was low in csm might have been replaced with your current dosing, i don't think you are considering other things either, such as your GH/KH/PH which will play an important role on reaction of chemicals, precipitation etc, in my case participation are less likely to occur due to lower parameter, i stunt my plant soon as i dose 0.1 ppm ZNso4, results occur on the very same day, but it doesn't mean its going to happen to everyone, but in my case that what happen. in the end i do agree that something is needed higher than the other nutrients but not all nutrients needed to be high. i hope you don't mind sharing my thoughts




Happy, you say that your plants stunt as soon as you dose 0.1 ppm Zn... Which makes me assume that is too much for your plants, in your specific tank, etc... right? So, in your case, what is the safe level of Zn you can dose in your tank without issues? Just curious... Thanks.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> Yes Burr, this might be working for you in your tank and it might not work equally in someone's else tank.


Yes, thats exactly what I said. When someone speaks in absolutes claiming that x amount is good or bad for everyone, that is a clear sign they dont know what they are talking about. There are too many variables in play with tank parameters, most of which we dont understand yet, to make such blanket statements.

At best all anyone can say is Ive never seen that happen, or this is what happens in my tanks.



happi said:


> csm+b maybe did not work well due to its ratio and something being low or something being too high, this is what you are currently seeing in your plants now where higher dose seems to work because whatever was low in csm might have been replaced with your current dosing,


I believe csmb didnt work for me because is my PH levels are too high for the edta Fe to play nice. While I agree the ratios in csmb are not the best, too many folks have good success with it for it to be that simple.



happi said:


> i stunt my plant soon as i dose 0.1 ppm ZNso4, results occur on the very same day, but it doesn't mean its going to happen to everyone, but in my case that what happen.


How do you know it was the Zn specifically? Just curious



happi said:


> i hope you don't mind sharing my thoughts


Why would I? We're all just sharing thoughts here as far as I know. 

======

In other news I gave the 75 nearly a double dose of micros today by mistake. I use the same mix for all 3 tanks. The 50 gets 10 ml, 75 gets 15 ml, the 120 gets 25. 

Id just woke up from a mid morning nap still half asleep. Dosed the 120, shuffled into the back room where the other tanks are and gave the 75 the same dose. About the time it hit the water I realized what I'd done.

So instead of a .2 dose of micros it got .32. I guess it'll be interesting to see if anything happens....


----------



## Chlorophile

3 days in a row of traces as of today, then I did a water change, pearling like crazy!
I usually see a little extra pearling from the water change but not a crazy amount like this.

Are the plants relieved to have a bit of dilution or did my tap bring something in(Cal mag maybe?) that the plants were waiting on to kick things off..


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Yes, thats exactly what I said. When someone speaks in absolutes claiming that x amount is good or bad for everyone, that is a clear sign they dont know what they are talking about. There are too many variables in play with tank parameters, most of which we dont understand yet, to make such blanket statements.
> 
> At best all anyone can say is Ive never seen that happen, or this is what happens in my tanks.


Burr I couldn’t agree with you more. One thing I have always tried to do is qualify just about everything I say with “in my tank”. This goes for plants, and also for Rainbows, which I have kept for decades. I always try to be aware that others may have a different experience, and the only thing I know for sure is what I see in my tank.

As to this current micro experimentation, I can say that in my tank, I have not changed any other parameters. Same lighting, CO2, maintenance, water changes, etc. etc. etc. Only difference has been the micros.

And for me, in my tank, I have seen many positive changes. The first thing I noticed is that my front glass gets virtually no algae. It was never a big problem, but I did have to clean the glass each week. It’s like it just disappeared. 

Next was a big increase in global pearling. Really caught my attention the first few times. The tank just awash in bubbles late in the day. 

I could go into a lengthy post with minute details, but let’s just say my tank is healthier, plants are more colorful, and in general everything is doing better than ever. Flower heads like L. Cuba are huge. Pantanal & Rotala Mac Var. are better than ever. The same with some problem species for me, like Helferi & AR mini. 

Now are they perfect? No, I know for a fact they all look better in your tank. And if someone wants to blow up pictures from my tank, and point out everything that is wrong, so be it. But for me, a hobbyist who enjoys creating a colorful undersea garden, it’s pretty darn good. In fact, I have mentioned to you in a PM that after two years, I finally feel like I am getting somewhere. 

Just the other day, my wife called me over to the tank, and says “Wow the tank is just looking extra great, so colorful, I just love what you have been doing” ……well, let’s just say that’s all I need.

And what exactly is taking place? We may never know with any degree of certainty. What I do know is that for the time being anyway, I am enjoying my tank more than ever. And isn’t that the point, and what most of us are trying to do?

And I have to add, I am actually very pleased with this thread in that it seems there is more open-mindedness than previously seen. I was a little nervous even starting it, as many of us remember the great micro tox wars. 

In the end, if some of this can be used to help further the hobby, and it helps some like me enjoy their tank even more, then I think it is all for a good purpose, and well worth the efforts.


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> How do you know it was the Zn specifically? Just curious


because i added the additional dose of Zn about 0.017 ppm and some plant looked stunted, also looked white indicating Fe deficiency, my Gh is very low also, less than 1 DGH, so i bumped it little bit just to see what will happen next, one main factor is since my GH/KH is very low, Zn is actually known for its toxicity under these conditions, but i wont go there for now.


----------



## dukydaf

happi said:


> because i added the additional dose of Zn about 0.017 ppm and some plant looked stunted, also looked white indicating Fe deficiency, my Gh is very low also, less than 1 DGH, so i bumped it little bit just to see what will happen next, one main factor is since my GH/KH is very low, Zn is actually known for its toxicity under these conditions, but i wont go there for now.


Hi happi, thanks for sharing your experience. I am genuinely curious, how can you tell in this case that the plants were not limited by Zn and once a certain amount was added they showed symptoms of another deficiency ?


----------



## happi

Chlorophile said:


> Since it has been shown higher levels clearly work, then we must assume that for anyone who is achieving good results with low levels then they are limiting the plants need for nutrients in some way or another.
> 
> I was having huge issues but I do relate that to the Chelate and my pH as more did not help (more is what I assumed I needed and high dosing of CSM+B made things worse very quickly and took a long time to recover from)
> 
> But in general, if you are doing well on lean traces we should believe that something is limiting your growth, preventing issues.
> 
> Excluding co2 and lighting there is likely something in the trace mix itself that tends to be the limiting factor that prevents more of other traces from showing any changes.
> 
> 
> This will be my first week of 1x and .5x trace doses alternating.
> Interested to see if I notice anything.
> 
> 
> One thing that amazed me btw, regarding switching off the EDTA chelate. While some of my plants took some time to adapt, my Dwarf Hairgrass blew up practically overnight.
> It probably was not the chelate itself but a result of me switching from very lean plantex to the burr mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DHG on December 19...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DHG on December 25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DHG on December 28..
> 
> For the first month I had the DHG in i barely saw any growth at all. Late December I switched to Burr's Micro Mix and within 5 days I saw 10x more growth than I'd seen in a month.


i also noticed you have switched to different lights in the pictures

Bump:


dukydaf said:


> Hi happi, thanks for sharing your experience. I am genuinely curious, how can you tell in this case that the plants were not limited by Zn and once a certain amount was added they showed symptoms of another deficiency ?


because the only variable i changed was Zn, i started out with 0.006 ppm and bumped it to 0.017, i also tried little Higher Boron day before dosing extra Zn, neither one improved the growth but rather made certain plant look worse, Fe Deficiency also appeared under this condition, even though there was enough Fe in the water. here the interesting thing that always occurred, this actually occurred multiple time and every time, whenever i changed the water with my 100% RO water, without dosing anything in it, certain plant grew very well just for that one day without any stunting, deformation etc, then decline day later weather i dose or not dose anything. many people are told this is from CO2, i can ensure you that it has nothing to do with co2. if anyone is reading this, they should try this and report back on what you see.


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> i also noticed you have switched to different lights in the pictures
> 
> Bump:
> 
> because the only variable i changed was Zn, i started out with 0.006 ppm and bumped it to 0.017, i also tried little Higher Boron day before dosing extra Zn, neither one improved the growth but rather made certain plant look worse, Fe Deficiency also appeared under this condition, even though there was enough Fe in the water. here the interesting thing that always occurred, this actually occurred multiple time and every time, whenever i changed the water with my 100% RO water, without dosing anything in it, certain plant grew very well just for that one day without any stunting, deformation etc, then decline day later weather i dose or not dose anything. many people are told this is from CO2, i can ensure you that it has nothing to do with co2. if anyone is reading this, they should try this and report back on what you see.




Thank you for all the details about this issue. I am following Burr ‘s dosing, and I am also experiencing similar issues since I have increased Zn. Could you please give us more details such as:

1. Did you dose unchelated Zn?
2. What’s your tank substrate?
3. What’s your tank GH and Kh
3. Do you consider to have high O2 in your tank or not? (I.e. open/closed tank, wet/dry filter, aeration, etc)

Thank you so much and Happy 2018 to everyone


----------



## dukydaf

happi said:


> because the only variable i changed was Zn, i started out with 0.006 ppm and bumped it to 0.017,
> i also tried little Higher Boron day before dosing extra Zn, neither one* improved the growth but rather made certain plant look worse*, Fe Deficiency also appeared under this condition, even though there was enough Fe in the water.


Thanks for your answer happi. Ouch just a 3x increase and you noticed such an acute effect ? So 0.006ppm Zn must already be very near the bad level. I think I understand what you are saying but I still do not see the answer to my question. I will try to give more details maybe I get across better this time. 

Suppose we have the following scenario. In order to produce a new normal leaf, plant Weed needs 5X molecules, 10 Y, for every 4 Z. Let us also say this amount of Z is needed for starting the new leaf sequence. In other words if this conc. is not reached no new leaf will be created and for some plants, deficiencies will not be noticeable, except lack of growth.

Scenario 1:
Nutrient: X | Y | Z
____________________
Molecules start: 15 | 20 |* 6*
Molecules finish: 10 | 10 | 2 -> one new leaf created, Z is not enough to start a new leaf -> plant grows no new leaves

Scenario 2: 
Nutrient: X | Y | Z
____________________
Molecules start: 15 | 20 | *17*
Molecules finish: 5 |_ 0_ | 9 -> two new leaves created, Z is still enough, Y has run out -> plant tries to grow 2 new leaves -> 1st leaf shows signs of Y deficiency, 2nd leaf shows sign of both X and Y deficiency

And my question was, how can one confidently conclude that the plants are suffering from a toxic effect of Zn and they were not in scenario 1 and by just adding Zn they progressed in scenario 2? Notice just by increasing one molecule you may be able to induce one or more molecules to become limiting. Or is this impossible?

I guess the fact that these plants were part of a serialized increase dosing of various micronutrients complicates the situation, but let us ignore the side effects from the previous experiment and possibly lag effects found in any biological system.


PS. I am not arguing about ratios in water, but rather how many molecules in the cell/plant you need for each reaction to occur.


----------



## burr740

Zn has a pretty low potential for toxicity unless PH is ridiculously low, say 5.5 or below

High levels out competing another nutrient is the greater concern, aka induced deficiency


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Zn has a pretty low potential for toxicity unless PH is ridiculously low, say 5.5 or below
> 
> High levels out competing another nutrient is the greater concern, aka induced deficiency


I agree with that, but fact is, in my 75gl tank, I still don't see an improvement, actually the situation got worse with the increase of dosing in the past week... either something is causing issues or something else has become deficient... what the heck can that be if I am providing anything necessary??!! Maybe Nickel?!


----------



## Edward

dukydaf said:


> Or is this impossible?


This would work if plants didn’t have Luxury Uptake phenomenon.


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> I agree with that, but fact is, in my 75gl tank, I still don't see an improvement, actually the situation got worse with the increase of dosing in the past week... either something is causing issues or something else has become deficient... what the heck can that be if I am providing anything necessary??!! Maybe Nickel?!


Not sure Fabbro. I know for a while it seemed like the more I dosed the more things needed. See this post.

That happened early on when I was still inching up lower levels. My theory was that curing one deficiency revealed another

Did both tanks get worse or just the 75? Any specific symptoms?


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Not sure Fabbro. I know for a while it seemed like the more I dosed the more things needed. See this post.
> 
> That happened early on when I was still inching up lower levels. My theory was that curing one deficiency revealed another
> 
> Did both tanks get worse or just the 75? Any specific symptoms?




I am talking about the 75, the 20 is still ok with current dosing, I haven't increased that much. But in the 75 I have been dosing daily for the past 10 days, with the following:

Fe DTPA 10% 0.17 ppm 
Mn 0.0625 ppm
B 0.0255 ppm
Zn 0.045 ppm
Mo 0.00145 ppm
Cu 0.00165 ppm

But some plants got worse such as

1. Ambulia is even worse than before, no germination and stunted tips
2. Cabomba Furcata began having similar issues a few days ago
3. Stauro keeps having necrotic/yellow leaves
4. Rotala Nehnjasan got stuck completely
5. Moss is having similar germination issues and it is not growing much (similar issues I use to have with CSM)
6. Montecarlo has reduced leaf size in the new growth

Other plants have some more deformations than before: AR new deformed leaves, Limno as well, and Ludwigia Mini Red got some pink new leaves that look pretty bad. Something is off.

I will post some pics soon on my journal, but my biggest suspects are (excluding high Zn)

1. Too high Boron (my tap is plenty of it, maybe I shouldn't dose it?)
2. Something else is lacking such as Ni or what else?
3. Maybe in that tank I could need different ratios?

If you have any thoughts, let me know! Thanks Joe


----------



## happi

dukydaf said:


> Thanks for your answer happi. Ouch just a 3x increase and you noticed such an acute effect ? So 0.006ppm Zn must already be very near the bad level. I think I understand what you are saying but I still do not see the answer to my question. I will try to give more details maybe I get across better this time.
> 
> Suppose we have the following scenario. In order to produce a new normal leaf, plant Weed needs 5X molecules, 10 Y, for every 4 Z. Let us also say this amount of Z is needed for starting the new leaf sequence. In other words if this conc. is not reached no new leaf will be created and for some plants, deficiencies will not be noticeable, except lack of growth.
> 
> Scenario 1:
> Nutrient: X | Y | Z
> ____________________
> Molecules start: 15 | 20 |* 6*
> Molecules finish: 10 | 10 | 2 -> one new leaf created, Z is not enough to start a new leaf -> plant grows no new leaves
> 
> Scenario 2:
> Nutrient: X | Y | Z
> ____________________
> Molecules start: 15 | 20 | *17*
> Molecules finish: 5 |_ 0_ | 9 -> two new leaves created, Z is still enough, Y has run out -> plant tries to grow 2 new leaves -> 1st leaf shows signs of Y deficiency, 2nd leaf shows sign of both X and Y deficiency
> 
> And my question was, how can one confidently conclude that the plants are suffering from a toxic effect of Zn and they were not in scenario 1 and by just adding Zn they progressed in scenario 2? Notice just by increasing one molecule you may be able to induce one or more molecules to become limiting. Or is this impossible?
> 
> I guess the fact that these plants were part of a serialized increase dosing of various micronutrients complicates the situation, but let us ignore the side effects from the previous experiment and possibly lag effects found in any biological system.
> 
> 
> PS. I am not arguing about ratios in water, but rather how many molecules in the cell/plant you need for each reaction to occur.


i thought i kind of knew what you were saying, i am also aware of when you increase one nutrient, the other one need to be increased too, this was the whole idea behind my experiment actually, let me try to answer with best of my knowledge and i do apologize if this is not the answer you are looking for.

let say plant grew one healthy leaf at N 1, P 0.1, K 0.5
plant become deficient at N 0.1, P 0.1, K 0.5
plant become deficient at N 1, P 0, K 0.5
plant become deficient at N 1, P 0.1, K 0
plant grew one healthy leaf at N 1, P 1, K 1

Plant grew healthy leaf at Zn 0.1, B 0.1, Mn 0.1
plant become deficient at Zn 0.001, B 0.1, Mn 0.1
Plant not doing well at all at Zn 1, B 1, Mn 1

Plant did well at N 1, P 0.1, K 0.5, Zn 0.006, B 0.004, Mn 001
Plant did well but at N 2, P 0.2, K 1, Zn 0.006, B 0.004, Mn 001 (deficiency of Micro appeared)
Plant did worse at N 1, P 1, K 1, Zn 1, B 1, Mn 1 (everything unlimited, but plant did worse due to toxicity or bad ratio)
in my case, example: one leaf did well at N 1, P 0.1, K 0.5, Zn 0.006, B 0.004, Mn 001 
in my case, example: one same leaf did worse at N 1, P 0.1, K 0.5, Zn 0.1, B 0.1, Mn 001 (simply by changing B and Zn. in the previous dose they did well, but they failed in this one)
might works, but not for too long: N 1, P 1, K 1, Zn 1, B 1, Mn 1 (this will work for some in the start but it will eventually get worse)


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> But some plants got worse such as
> 
> 1. Ambulia is even worse than before, no germination and stunted tips
> 2. Cabomba Furcata began having similar issues a few days ago
> 3. Stauro keeps having necrotic/yellow leaves
> 4. Rotala Nehnjasan got stuck completely
> 5. Moss is having similar germination issues and it is not growing much (similar issues I use to have with CSM)
> 6. Montecarlo has reduced leaf size in the new growth
> 
> Other plants have some more deformations than before: AR new deformed leaves, Limno as well, and Ludwigia Mini Red got some pink new leaves that look pretty bad. Something is off.


Interesting Fablau. Just goes to show that every eco system is unique.

I have been dosing .15 Fe daily, and I have a few of the same species. My Ambulia is bigger than ever, no stunting at all. L. Mini red is growing faster than ever, and color is brighter red than ever. New AR leaves are straight, and Limno Aromatica is it's usual happy self.

And I'm guessing Burr's results are similar. We both use BDBS, similar PAR, pH drop, KH, GH. Biggest difference is my large fish stocking.

Your tank always seems to have been very sensitive to traces. Will be interesting to see if this can be sorted out.


----------



## burr740

@fablau I remember your tap having high levels of B, not exactly how much but if there's already 10-15, 25 ppb then you probably dont need to be adding so much, if any. Or you may need to raise something else/everything else for a more balanced ratio. 

I dont think ratios are that important really, unless you have a very high level of one or more things, those nutrients will out compete certain other nutrients. Most nutrients have a tendency to compete with a few specific others. Which can cause an induced deficiency of something else. 

*2.* Could be that something is short now since you've raised so many other things. Only way to know if it's Ni is to add some and see. It does sound to me like something's missing. I say that because you've had these same or similar issues dosing extremely low levels in the past...right?

Is there more co2 or light in the 75 than in the 20? Either one of those would cause the big tank to need more, also plant mass.

Got any moss in the 20? I know you've frequently had problems with moss in the big tank. No idea what that's about, though it seems unlikely to be a nickel thing imo. Might be as simple as OD'ing on B from the high level in the tap + ferts. 

Idk man, those are just some thoughts off the top of my head. Could be way off....


----------



## dukydaf

Edward said:


> This would work if plants didn’t have Luxury Uptake phenomenon.


Could you please elaborate ? I understand that luxury uptake can play tricks when figuring out exactly how much to dose, but if you do not dose (or dose less than needed) nutrients X, Y, Z while dosing the others, sooner or later one of them will become limiting and the plants will be in scenario 1 described above. I think I may be missing something.



happi said:


> Plant did well at N 1, P 0.1, K 0.5, Zn 0.006, B 0.004, Mn 001
> Plant did well but at N 2, P 0.2, K 1, Zn 0.006, B 0.004, Mn 001 (deficiency of Micro appeared)
> Plant did worse at N 1, P 1, K 1, Zn 1, B 1, Mn 1 (everything unlimited, but plant did worse due to toxicity or bad ratio)


Thank you happi for the detailed reply. I think the answer is detailed enough to provide better insight for the answer. So you start at a place where the plants grow well. Increase macros and you notice a deficiency. Increase micros and you notice a toxicity or bad ratio. I am waiting for summer to come, maybe I can benefit from sunlight and some more energy and run some of the experiements to see the exact effects with my eyes and get the experience you have. 

A follow up question if you will, did you ever try something like N 100, P 10, K 50, Zn 0.6, B 0.4, Mn 1 (100x scenario 1) ? Or increasing both micros and macros together ?


----------



## happi

dukydaf said:


> A follow up question if you will, did you ever try something like N 100, P 10, K 50, Zn 0.6, B 0.4, Mn 1 (100x scenario 1) ? Or increasing both micros and macros together ?


Yes, i think we call it EI, But maybe Not High N like 100, unless you meant to say 100 NO3. i wont go much further in detail ON EI Subject just to avoid any conflict here on the forum. anyway, in my signature, you see my old dosing, which is similar to dosing quite excess, but it worked great for certain plants as main source of N was Urea, so plant grew very quickly, but some did not grow at all, now my only conclusion was that they hate something excess that is preventing them to grow further. 


regarding your previous question, let me add few more words to it. if you are in well balanced ratio, your plant will equally use those needed nutrients and immediately stop growing once any of those nutrients runs out, but they will not grow much unless same repeated dose is added again, any unbalanced ratio will result in either deficiency or weird growth.


----------



## Edward

dukydaf said:


> Could you please elaborate ?


Hi dukydaf
Your XYZ plan in post #167 above is the right one for building a bridge but plants don’t think this way.

Let’s build a bridge the way plants think:
The plan for today, our dear coworkers is to deliver 10 beams (macros) and 100 bolts (micros) needed to fasten the beams. In the first hour the first beam takes (uptakes) all 100 bolts (Luxury Uptake) and seals them in the structure (plant cells). Then coworkers place the remaining 9 beams but not having enough bolts left the structure deforms (unhealthy plants). 

Now one coworker says, let’s deliver more bolts (micros) to fasten the remaining beams (macros) and we go home. Ok here we have more bolts. Yeah, but look, … the following beam no longer fits because the first one has too many bolts in it (toxicity). Ok, then let’s deliver more beams to fill the gaps...but then we will need more beams and more bolts and ultimately the final structure will collapse.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Interesting Fablau. Just goes to show that every eco system is unique.
> 
> I have been dosing .15 Fe daily, and I have a few of the same species. My Ambulia is bigger than ever, no stunting at all. L. Mini red is growing faster than ever, and color is brighter red than ever. New AR leaves are straight, and Limno Aromatica is it's usual happy self.
> 
> And I'm guessing Burr's results are similar. We both use BDBS, similar PAR, pH drop, KH, GH. Biggest difference is my large fish stocking.
> 
> Your tank always seems to have been very sensitive to traces. Will be interesting to see if this can be sorted out.


Greg, just updated my journal with some pictures, eager to know your thoughts about them:

https://barrreport.com/threads/fablau-75-gallon-tank.14097/page-24#post-150019


Thanks 

Fab.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> @fablau I remember your tap having high levels of B, not exactly how much but if there's already 10-15, 25 ppb then you probably dont need to be adding so much, if any. Or you may need to raise something else/everything else for a more balanced ratio.
> 
> I dont think ratios are that important really, unless you have a very high level of one or more things, those nutrients will out compete certain other nutrients. Most nutrients have a tendency to compete with a few specific others. Which can cause an induced deficiency of something else.
> 
> *2.* Could be that something is short now since you've raised so many other things. Only way to know if it's Ni is to add some and see. It does sound to me like something's missing. I say that because you've had these same or similar issues dosing extremely low levels in the past...right?
> 
> Is there more co2 or light in the 75 than in the 20? Either one of those would cause the big tank to need more, also plant mass.
> 
> Got any moss in the 20? I know you've frequently had problems with moss in the big tank. No idea what that's about, though it seems unlikely to be a nickel thing imo. Might be as simple as OD'ing on B from the high level in the tap + ferts.
> 
> Idk man, those are just some thoughts off the top of my head. Could be way off....



Yes, Boron could be over the limits. My tap has already 0.11 ppm in it, so I could try to stop dosing it at all...

I have just updated my journal with some new pictures, please, let me know your thoughts about it:

https://barrreport.com/threads/fablau-75-gallon-tank.14097/page-24#post-150019

To be sincere, I started noticing issues with Ambulia when I started raising Zn to around 0.02 ppm a dose... but as we all know, that could have just raised the threshold to the next deficient element, so... hard to know! But I might want try to lower Zn and get back to the dosing I use to have a while ago, when plants were doing better...


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> Greg, just updated my journal with some pictures, eager to know your thoughts about them:
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/fablau-75-gallon-tank.14097/page-24#post-150019


Fablau this is just a thought. When I first started dosing the new micros more heavily, I went through a short period where I tried to decrease my macros. I saw some similar issues creep up quickly. I went heavier on the macros, and it turned around just as quickly. Maybe just coincidence, but who knows? I now dose N at about EI, and P higher than EI.

Just curious, what is your current macro dosing like? Could it be a new deficiency related to macros? Again, just a wild guess and my first thought. Curious as to what Burr thinks as well.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Fablau this is just a thought. When I first started dosing the new micros more heavily, I went through a short period where I tried to decrease my macros. I saw some similar issues creep up quickly. I went heavier on the macros, and it turned around just as quickly. Maybe just coincidence, but who knows? I now dose N at about EI, and P higher than EI.
> 
> Just curious, what is your current macro dosing like? Could it be a new deficiency related to macros? Again, just a wild guess and my first thought. Curious as to what Burr thinks as well.


Good point Greg, I was dosing this until 1 week ago:

KNO3: 3.67 ppm a dose
PO4: 0.4 ppm a dose

Keep in mind I dose the above 3x a week with 50% WC every 2 weeks, so we may have some accumulation. In total, I was dosing 22ppm KNO3 between WCs.

Since I got your same exact thought a week ago (maybe I am low in macros?? Even thought test kits showed me I was plenty...), I doubled that, so for the past 7 days I have been dosing this every 2 days:

KNO3: 7 ppm a dose
PO4: 0.8 ppm a dose

With my current WC schedule (50% WC every 2 weeks), that's going to be a total of 42 ppm KNO3 and 4.8 ppm of PO4 between WCs.

I think that should be ok, right? Fact is, I haven't seen any improvement in the past 7 days. I think that if macros were the issue, I would have seen an improvement by now. Do you agree with me?

Thanks Greg!


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> Bump: based on my Previous Experiment, i will be testing the following ratio and Nutrinets


Happi,

It may be too early, but have you seen any results from this experiment, as yet? I'm referring to your handwritten formula.


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> I think that should be ok, right? Fact is, I haven't seen any improvement in the past 7 days. I think that if macros were the issue, I would have seen an improvement by now. Do you agree with me?
> 
> Thanks Greg!


Yeah I tend to agree with you, but it was worth testing out. Every tank is different, and yours does seem very sensitive to micros. 

Question for you though. Any reason for the longer time between water changes? I only ask because it seems like both my fish and plants love a water change. Just less work, or part of a strategy?

Looking forward to seeing what you try next. And I've got to add, I admire your drive to get the best out of your plants.


----------



## Edward

Hi fablau
Do you know what your NO3 and PO4 concentrations are after water change before dosing?


----------



## dukydaf

Thank you both for answering and letting us know more of your views and understanding of the topic. 
@happi It seems hard to get the exact ratio in water over a long amount of time, given all the interaction of bacteria and different species contributing different % to the biomass. It is clear that you have given a lot of though on the topic and hope you find a reliable way to fertilize for the species that don't play well.
@Edward Thank you for expanding on your input. It seems to me plants will not last long on Earth if they keep collecting all the available stuff and locking it away in the next cell, leading to toxic levels and inability to grow further.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Yeah I tend to agree with you, but it was worth testing out. Every tank is different, and yours does seem very sensitive to micros.
> 
> Question for you though. Any reason for the longer time between water changes? I only ask because it seems like both my fish and plants love a water change. Just less work, or part of a strategy?
> 
> Looking forward to seeing what you try next. And I've got to add, I admire your drive to get the best out of your plants.


Thank you Greg, appreciated!

To answer your question: First of all, I wanted to make my life easier, so I started a couple of months ago after one year of weekly water change. I used to perform WC every 2 weeks already in the past, then for the past year or so I tried to change water weekly, but I must say, I didn't notice that much difference and benefit. It was just a lot of work more for me (too busy with family over the weekends!)... also, Tom suggested the fact that reduced water changes could help with water with high levels of Sodium, Sulfur, Chloride and stuff like that (my tap is terrible on that side). So, here I am...

Bump:


Edward said:


> Hi fablau
> Do you know what your NO3 and PO4 concentrations are after water change before dosing?


Yes, before doubling the dose, I used to measure something like 20-30 ppm NO3 and 4-5 ppm PO4. But we all know test kits are terrible on that... sure thing it looked like I had enough macros. But I can certainly try to increase them... that won't hurt.


----------



## Edward

fablau said:


> Good point Greg, I was dosing this until 1 week ago:
> 
> KNO3: 3.67 ppm a dose
> PO4: 0.4 ppm a dose
> 
> Keep in mind I dose the above 3x a week with 50% WC every 2 weeks, so we may have some accumulation.





fablau said:


> Yes, before doubling the dose, I used to measure something like 20-30 ppm NO3 and 4-5 ppm PO4. But we all know test kits are terrible on that...


There is some discrepancy. The levels after water change at zero plant uptake should read
22 ppm NO3
2.4 ppm PO4

Tested 
20 – 30 ppm NO3
4 – 5 ppm PO4

There is no uptake!?

(And test kits are not bad. Bad are the colour charts. It should be a common sense to make test solutions of 0, 10 and 20 ppm NO3 and *visualize* the results. Same for PO4 at 0, 1 and 2 ppm. I have ten year old test kits and they are all fine, except Ca kit.)


----------



## roadmaster

Wondering out loud.
Has anyone tried increasing only manganese to their current dosing scheme?
Said to be second in need only to iron in trace mixes.
Maybe not increase all trace's but just manganese and note any changes.
Given the high energy lighting mentioned in this thread,maybe changes would be realized quickly.
My other thought is with substrates with good CEC and possible iron oxides building up and affecting P uptake?
My apologies for wading into the deep end of this thread but am curious.
(crawls back under the woodpile).


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Happi,
> 
> It may be too early, but have you seen any results from this experiment, as yet? I'm referring to your handwritten formula.


yes, am getting mixed results with that recipe, but not perfect, rotala wallachi some leaves decent and some have issue with stunting, as you can see i have elevated some PPM numbers compare to my old TPN based Ratio in this mix. beside that, i made my old recipe with everything same as TPN except added 1/2x more Zn and added fulvic acid as well to the mix, here is an interesting thing that has been happening, did water change 60-70% and added this new dose and stunting still appeared on some leaves of Wallichi but at the same time new side shoots looks decent or much better and they still growing better after i skipped 2 days of dosing, today i will be on day 3 without dosing, so we will see how they look. BTW if i post any picture how bad the plant can look under certain dosing, i hope you guys don't judge my plant keeping skills based on those pics :laugh2:


----------



## fablau

Edward said:


> There is some discrepancy. The levels after water change at zero plant uptake should read
> 
> 22 ppm NO3
> 
> 2.4 ppm PO4
> 
> 
> 
> Tested
> 
> 20 – 30 ppm NO3
> 
> 4 – 5 ppm PO4
> 
> 
> 
> There is no uptake!?
> 
> 
> 
> (And test kits are not bad. Bad are the colour charts. It should be a common sense to make test solutions of 0, 10 and 20 ppm NO3 and *visualize* the results. Same for PO4 at 0, 1 and 2 ppm. I have ten year old test kits and they are all fine, except Ca kit.)




Good point Edward, I used to make test solutions, then I stopped because I stopped testing all together. I know what I add and I know I should have enough, but maybe I should test again properly just for the sake of accuracy. I will do


----------



## Edward

2.2.1. Photolysis 
The process considered to be the most important for the elimination of EDTA from surface waters is direct photolysis, which results from the fraction of sunlight below 400 nm [62]. 

Apparently, only Fe(III)EDTA is susceptible to sunlight irradiation, whereas other environmentally relevant EDTA species (complexes with Mg2‡, Ca2‡, Ni2‡, Cu2‡, Zn2‡, Cd2‡ and Hg2‡) will not photolyse. 

Under laboratory conditions, Mn(II)EDTA and Co(III)EDTA also photodecomposed, although at rates approximately one order of magnitude lower than that of Fe(III)EDTA [96,97]. 

Interestingly, initially uncomplexed EDTA was photodegraded in the presence of lepidocrocite, an iron oxide [98], indicating that EDTA adsorbed to the surface of the iron hydroxide can be photooxidised. Although free EDTA is not present in natural systems, the authors suggested that metal complexes might undergo photodegradation in an analogous manner by adsorbing to iron oxides and forming ternary surface complexes. 

Several researchers [40,99,100] have calculated the photolysis half-lives of Fe(III)EDTA for surface waters at various geographical locations. They ranged between only 11.3 min to more than 100 h depending on the light conditions employed for modelling. A comparison of field data with model calculations demonstrated that photolysis by sunlight is really the most important process for the degradation of EDTA in the Swiss river Glatt [7]. While on cloudy days no significant decrease in the EDTA concentrations could be detected along the river, all available Fe(III)EDTA was eliminated by photodegradation under sunny conditions within approximately 1 day. The remaining EDTA found on sunny days consisted of photostable EDTA complexes.

EDTA and UV light
There is only one study analysing the behaviour of EDTA in a marine ecosystem. In microcosms containing sea water and sediment illuminated with UV light, about 50% of the initially added Fe(III)EDTA complex was converted after 17 weeks [150].

Outlook
EDTA, DTPA and HEDTA seem to be - if at all - only poorly biodegradable and therefore abiotic elimination mechanisms are of greater significance. Indeed, for EDTA it has been demonstrated that the most important elimination process in rivers is its photolysis, which is, however, restricted to sunny days and to only one EDTA species, i.e. Fe(III)EDTA.

Environmental fate and microbial degradation of aminopolycarboxylic acids - Bucheli-Witschel - 2006 - FEMS Microbiology Reviews - Wiley Online Library


----------



## fablau

Edward said:


> 2.2.1. Photolysis
> The process considered to be the most important for the elimination of EDTA from surface waters is direct photolysis, which results from the fraction of sunlight below 400 nm [62].
> 
> Apparently, only Fe(III)EDTA is susceptible to sunlight irradiation, whereas other environmentally relevant EDTA species (complexes with Mg2‡, Ca2‡, Ni2‡, Cu2‡, Zn2‡, Cd2‡ and Hg2‡) will not photolyse.
> 
> Under laboratory conditions, Mn(II)EDTA and Co(III)EDTA also photodecomposed, although at rates approximately one order of magnitude lower than that of Fe(III)EDTA [96,97].
> 
> Interestingly, initially uncomplexed EDTA was photodegraded in the presence of lepidocrocite, an iron oxide [98], indicating that EDTA adsorbed to the surface of the iron hydroxide can be photooxidised. Although free EDTA is not present in natural systems, the authors suggested that metal complexes might undergo photodegradation in an analogous manner by adsorbing to iron oxides and forming ternary surface complexes.
> 
> Several researchers [40,99,100] have calculated the photolysis half-lives of Fe(III)EDTA for surface waters at various geographical locations. They ranged between only 11.3 min to more than 100 h depending on the light conditions employed for modelling. A comparison of field data with model calculations demonstrated that photolysis by sunlight is really the most important process for the degradation of EDTA in the Swiss river Glatt [7]. While on cloudy days no significant decrease in the EDTA concentrations could be detected along the river, all available Fe(III)EDTA was eliminated by photodegradation under sunny conditions within approximately 1 day. The remaining EDTA found on sunny days consisted of photostable EDTA complexes.
> 
> EDTA and UV light
> There is only one study analysing the behaviour of EDTA in a marine ecosystem. In microcosms containing sea water and sediment illuminated with UV light, about 50% of the initially added Fe(III)EDTA complex was converted after 17 weeks [150].
> 
> Outlook
> EDTA, DTPA and HEDTA seem to be - if at all - only poorly biodegradable and therefore abiotic elimination mechanisms are of greater significance. Indeed, for EDTA it has been demonstrated that the most important elimination process in rivers is its photolysis, which is, however, restricted to sunny days and to only one EDTA species, i.e. Fe(III)EDTA.
> 
> Environmental fate and microbial degradation of aminopolycarboxylic acids - Bucheli-Witschel - 2006 - FEMS Microbiology Reviews - Wiley Online Library


This is very interesting Edward, I am wondering what happens in our tanks. In the micro mix we are discussing here, we use mostly DTPA, and it is my understanding DTPA is not easily biodegradable as well. What does it happens to it in the long term? Precipitates? Binds to something else?


----------



## Edward

fablau said:


> This is very interesting Edward, I am wondering what happens in our tanks. In the micro mix we are discussing here, we use mostly DTPA, and it is my understanding DTPA is not easily biodegradable as well. What does it happens to it in the long term? Precipitates? Binds to something else?


Hi fablau
I don’t know much about it, only what I read. The most common trace element mix we use since year One is the so called CSM+B made by plantproducts.com. There are two versions, 

USA market
https://msds.plantprod.com/document/1280
EDTA 65.4%
Fe 2.6 ppm chelated
Mn 0.75 ppm chelated
Zn 0.15 ppm chelated
Cu 0.038 ppm chelated
B ? ppm added by resellers non-chelated
Mo 0.023 ppm non-chelated


Canada market
Plant-Prod Chelated Micronutrient Mix
EDTA 42%
DTPA 14%
Fe 2.1 ppm chelated
Mn 0.6 ppm chelated
Zn 0.12 ppm chelated
Cu 0.03 ppm chelated
B 0.39 ppm non-chelated
Mo 0.018 ppm non-chelated

EDTA and DTPA in terms of degradability are basically the same. From the research, the most significant degradation factor is sunlight and UV light. As I posted above, it took 4 months for UV light to degrade 50% of chelated Fe. Non-Fe chelated metals are much more stable, almost indestructible. 

Second is biodegradation by bacteria in water column and substrate. This process takes longer then sunlight and UV light. And the important fact is that mostly only freed chelates and Fe chelates are involved. Non-Fe chelates are not on the bacteria menu. 

In summary, when I dose TE daily for years without water changes, chelates accumulate up to a point and then level out. This might be something in order of several months of dosage. This is not a bad thing. 

Chelated Fe remains protected against oxidation and therefor bioavailable to plants for a long time, maybe months, depending on light and UV intensity. Non-Fe chelates are floating around for much longer, maybe years. 

We have to keep in mind that higher ion concentrations are the higher plant uptake is expected. This, with light and UV, and with biodegradation, is why the chelate levels will stabilize. 

Interestingly, the research indicates that free EDTA is not present in natural systems. It means that after plants remove trace element ion from chelate, the freed chelate finds another cation metal ion to bond with. Mostly Fe leached from substrate or from degraded chelate. This makes the ion bioavailable again to plants. 

It looks like plants produced root acids and microorganism processes can restore oxidized trace element ions in substrates making them available to freed chelates for bonding, then bioavailable again. 

Please correct if my understanding is wrong.


----------



## roadmaster

Other significant degradation factor with respect to EDTA/DTPA is pH according to most.
In Hard water DTPA is said to be available for longer.


----------



## fablau

Very interesting, thank you Edward for the in-depth explanation.


----------



## Edward

roadmaster said:


> Other significant degradation factor with respect to EDTA/DTPA is pH according to most.
> In Hard water DTPA is said to be available for longer.


Isn’t the pH dependent bioavailability the plant’s mechanism limitation rather than the chelates? The chelates don’t degrade so easily, even at pH 9.3 in boiling water they stay stable for several days.

The half life for Fe(II1)-EDTA at pH 9.3 is about 3 h at 125°C. This redox reaction greatly destabilizes EDTA at temperatures just above the boiling point of water. However, the Fe(I1) chelate formed was found to be stable at similar or higher temperatures even for periods exceeding several days.
Thermal degradation of EDTA chelates in aqueous solution


----------



## Gary Bucey

Does anyone have any ideas on what kind of mix may be good for a bucephalandra only tank? I've been EI dosing but I get some pale pink new growth that usually melts. Most of the growth is good but perhaps 1/10 new leaves are pale and melt. Running co2 and 60w of LED. I have the GLA EI package ferts.


----------



## burr740

I think you guys are talking about two different things. 1) the chelate staying bound to the original compound, and 2) the chelate itself degrading or "going away"

The chelate is not degrading at higher PH levels, but it does separate from the original compound at certain levels.

DTPA starts to break loose from Fe in the mid-upper 7s. 

EDTA starts to break loose from Fe around 6.5. (to the other micros it stays bound much higher)

This is why DTPA Fe is better for higher Ph levels than EDTA Fe. 

This has nothing to do with the chelate itself degrading. Once the chelate separates from the original compound it is free to bind with something else. And since it is not bio-degradeable, it just sticks around, building up, only removed by water changes. Which may or not present much of a problem. The main problem is the now raw unchelated Fe


----------



## Surf

> I agree with that, but fact is, in my 75gl tank, I still don't see an improvement, actually the situation got worse with the increase of dosing in the past week... either something is causing issues or something else has become deficient... what the heck can that be if I am providing anything necessary??!! Maybe Nickel?!


Fablau, Looking through your posts I don't see any mention of Ca, Mg, S, or CL. These are all esential nutrients. Mg is typically in CSM+B. But if you are no longer using CSM+B you might now be deficient in it. Ca, S, and CL are often not added to commercial fertilizers because tap water typically has enough. But if your water is soft or you are using RO or distilled water and you are adding micros and NPK then Ca, Mg, S, and Cl will deplete very fast in your tank. IN my RO tank I have used a hand made mixture of Calcium sulfate, Magnesium sulfate, and calcium chloride to boost my GH and prevent deficiencies in this area. I boost my GH by 2 degrees and and NPK. For me that has worked well.


----------



## burr740

Gary Bucey said:


> Does anyone have any ideas on what kind of mix may be good for a bucephalandra only tank? I've been EI dosing but I get some pale pink new growth that usually melts. Most of the growth is good but perhaps 1/10 new leaves are pale and melt. Running co2 and 60w of LED. I have the GLA EI package ferts.


This could be any number of things, possibly (likely) unrelated to micros.

In order to get the most accurate advice, consider starting a new thread with pictures and list as much information as possible. Folks around here will be glad to help Im sure.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> I think you guys are talking about two different things. 1) the chelate staying bound to the original compound, and 2) the chelate itself degrading or "going away"
> 
> The chelate is not degrading at higher PH levels, but it does separate from the original compound at certain levels.
> 
> DTPA starts to break loose from Fe in the mid-upper 7s.
> 
> EDTA starts to break loose from Fe around 6.5. (to the other micros it stays bound much higher)
> 
> This is why DTPA Fe is better for higher Ph levels than EDTA Fe.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the chelate itself degrading. Once the chelate separates from the original compound it is free to bind with something else. And since it is not bio-degradeable, it just sticks around, building up, only removed by water changes. Which may or not present much of a problem. The main problem is the now raw unchelated Fe


Joe, to what extent do you think raw unchelated Fe can be a problem? For fish or plants? Curious...

Bump:


Surf said:


> Fablau, Looking through your posts I don't see any mention of Ca, Mg, S, or CL. These are all esential nutrients. Mg is typically in CSM+B. But if you are no longer using CSM+B you might now be deficient in it. Ca, S, and CL are often not added to commercial fertilizers because tap water typically has enough. But if your water is soft or you are using RO or distilled water and you are adding micros and NPK then Ca, Mg, S, and Cl will deplete very fast in your tank. IN my RO tank I have used a hand made mixture of Calcium sulfate, Magnesium sulfate, and calcium chloride to boost my GH and prevent deficiencies in this area. I boost my GH by 2 degrees and and NPK. For me that has worked well.


Good point Surf, but in my case I use 90% tap which has plenty of those compounds. Even too much! That's one of the reasons I tend to perform less water changes.

In my case here, the problem is very simple: I need to understand if what I am experiencing is a deficiency or a toxicity. Everyone is pointing me toward a deficiency, and that's what I am trying to find out by double/tripling macros/micros doses. A couple of weeks and I'll know... thanks for checking on this!


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Joe, to what extent do you think raw unchelated Fe can be a problem? For fish or plants? Curious...


Fe is very volatile, that's why it needs an appropriate chelator. The other micros, not so much.

Unchelated Fe is either going to quickly precipitate out (oxidize or whatever) and/or bind with P and who knows what else.

Thats about as far as my understanding goes, somebody else can probably give better details.


----------



## rhiro

In the Health food stores I see products such as Boron Chelate, Molybdenum Chelate and others. Has anyone used these products or would know if these are viable to be used as ferts?


----------



## Chlorophile

My Bacopa Caroliniana stems have been getting thinner progressively. 
The leaves are fine, but stems are thinning. 
I started doing half dose Traces on Macro day and also added 20ppm K per week extra. 
Could this be from too much traces or am I short on something that I wasn't short on before when Trace limited?


----------



## Deanna

roadmaster said:


> Has anyone tried increasing only manganese to their current dosing scheme?


…and Tropica uses Mn at 7X the level of the closest of all other traces. A year ago, I built my own mix mainly around the Tropica and was happy. Currently testing the higher levels laid out by @burr740 and have recently backed that down to half that level. Can’t report anything useful, other than a significant BBA outbreak, but I have been simultaneously playing with lighting as well. Once things settle down, I will be re-testing a Tropica-type loading to see if things change from the present.



happi said:


> yes, am getting mixed results with that recipe, but not perfect, rotala wallachi some leaves decent and some have issue with stunting, as you can see i have elevated some PPM numbers compare to my old TPN based Ratio in this mix. beside that, i made my old recipe with everything same as TPN except added 1/2x more Zn and added fulvic acid as well to the mix, here is an interesting thing that has been happening, did water change 60-70% and added this new dose and stunting still appeared on some leaves of Wallichi but at the same time new side shoots looks decent or much better and they still growing better after i skipped 2 days of dosing, today i will be on day 3 without dosing, so we will see how they look. BTW if i post any picture how bad the plant can look under certain dosing, i hope you guys don't judge my plant keeping skills based on those pics :laugh2:


Thanks. I’ve also been thinking about purging/restting my system with bare minimum dosing of macros and micros followed by 50-60% wc’s every third day to see the results before reviving the Tropica-type loading. I won’t laugh at your photos. I don’t find value in photos other than if trying to spot a particular problem. To me, they only reveal what YOU (or anyone) have achieved in a brief moment. I prefer the comments about results, particularly about results when ferts are withdrawn as part of the test.


----------



## Surf

Fabliau, I noticed your listed your location (I didn't notice that in your earlier posts) and I pulled up the water report.
Chloride 100ppm
Sulfate 257ppm
Calcium 78ppm
magnesium 29ppm
GH 303ppm
KH 126ppm
PH 8.1ppm

As fare as CL, S, Ca, and Mg go you are probably right. However the PH might be an issue based on Burr740 earlier comment. 



> DTPA starts to break loose from Fe in the mid-upper 7s.


So even DTPA may not provide much iron at that PH.Don't know if that is your problem but it is worth considering. There are other forms of iron that can be used other than EDTA DPTA. EDDHA was mentioned in another thread recently and it is stable up to a PH of 11. Unfortunately it cost about twice as much as EPTA

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1225457-iron-dosing-options.html


----------



## slipfinger

Surf said:


> Fabliau, I noticed your listed your location (I didn't notice that in your earlier posts) and I pulled up the water report.
> Chloride 100ppm
> Sulfate 257ppm
> Calcium 78ppm
> magnesium 29ppm
> GH 303ppm
> KH 126ppm
> PH 8.1ppm
> 
> As fare as CL, S, Ca, and Mg go you are probably right. However the PH might be an issue based on Burr740 earlier comment.
> 
> 
> 
> So even DTPA may not provide much iron at that PH.Don't know if that is your problem but it is worth considering. There are other forms of iron that can be used other than EDTA DPTA. EDDHA was mentioned in another thread recently and it is stable up to a PH of 11. Unfortunately it cost about twice as much as EPTA
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1225457-iron-dosing-options.html


Like most, they are or should be dosing their Fe when the tank pH has been lowered by their Co2 injection. For example my de-gased pH is in around 7.4ish and my pH drop from Co2 is around 6. I only dose Fe/micros at the start of my light cycle when my pH is lowest and remains low for the next ~7h.


----------



## fablau

Yes, I do what Slipfinger suggested: I dose when pH it's under 7, never higher than that. So... I should be ok, even though pH never go higher than 7.5 in my 75gl tank.


----------



## Axelrodi202

Chlorophile said:


> My Bacopa Caroliniana stems have been getting thinner progressively.
> The leaves are fine, but stems are thinning.
> I started doing half dose Traces on Macro day and also added 20ppm K per week extra.
> Could this be from too much traces or am I short on something that I wasn't short on before when Trace limited?


I would suspect light or macronutrients. IME Bacopa are not very picky about traces and grow well even at extremely low levels.


----------



## Chlorophile

Axelrodi202 said:


> I would suspect light or macronutrients. IME Bacopa are not very picky about traces and grow well even at extremely low levels.


Thanks, odd because the plants are closer to the light than when they were thick stemmed, maybe they're thinning because they're getting more light now but not enough Macro's


----------



## DMtankd

An update on changes to my dosing from 2 weeks ago and the results:

Full updated table attached, including the % of the previous dosing. 

Big Increases
Zn - 3x
Cu - 3x
PO4 -2x

Moderate Increases
Urea & Fe - ~35%
Mn & Mo - ~15%


For about the first 7 -10 days since the change, I saw increased pearling and good overall results, particularly from my HC/MC which pearled like mad and grew much faster. The new Patanal growth was also definitely much redder and I was hopeful. However, in the last 3 or so days, I am noticing things seem to be looking...worse. Very broadly, all of the new growth on green stuff is looking paler green or maybe yellow. Veins in particular look lighter in color. The new Patanal growth does still look redder, but it's obvious that it's all still getting stunted. My Aromatica is worst off with the newest growth looking slightly stunted, yellow/white and not folding up at night like the leaves 3 or 4 nodes down. Some pics attached. 

For a sanity check, I tested with Hanna Checkers and Lamotte Nitrate kit that have usually matched fairly well with lab results and found Fe = 0.30, Phosphate = 1.03 and Nitrate = 15-20 ppm. I know CO2 has been unchanged for the past two weeks as I can see the pH charts from my Apex Jr still dropping ~1 pH before lights on. No changes to the lighting either.

Maybe I overdid it with the Urea? I'm using Flourish Trace as the base for my micros so there's definitely Ni in the tank.
Perhaps I was PO4 limited before and the doubling up on PO4 has substantially increased the need for micros, creating a micro deficiency in spite of my moderate micro increase?

Thinking I might leave the macros as-is and just start increasing the Fe and micros (using the present ratios). Any thoughts welcomed. Thanks!


----------



## Greggz

DMtankd said:


> Perhaps I was PO4 limited before and the doubling up on PO4 has substantially increased the need for micros, creating a micro deficiency in spite of my moderate micro increase?


I'm going to help you out here. Below is your dosing chart. Much easier for people to see it if you screen shot it then post it as a picture. 










As to being PO4 limited, I believe you might be on to something. 

With 100 PAR, you are driving the plants pretty hard. Both your macro & micro dosing is well on the lean side. Is there a reason you are dosing so much less than EI??

Personally I would try more of everything (a lot more), and a bit more pH drop as well. It might be worth a try to see what happens.


----------



## Immortal1

Think I will have to agree with Gregg regarding PO4. My spreadsheet for this thread listed my weekly PO4 as 3.90ppm. On a whim I decided to actually test the amount in the tank at the end of the week. Surprising to me I was at 0.25ppm to 0.5ppm. I have since doubled my PO4 dosing and now I am measuring 2.0ppm at the end of the week.


----------



## Edward

Trace elements ratios referenced to 0.25 ppm Fe.


----------



## DMtankd

Greggz said:


> With 100 PAR, you are driving the plants pretty hard.


I should clarify I guess - I have ~ 70 par in the middle of the tank. Closer to 90-100 on the outside edges of the tank, I assume due to internal reflection from the glass. I was listing the highest observed at the substrate - is that the approach?



Greggz said:


> Is there a reason you are dosing so much less than EI??


Because these levels have given me decent - completely algae free - growth from almost any plant I throw in the tank. It's only since I developed Patanal-envy that the desire to chase better growth with more difficult plants has outpaced the fear of going back to algae-land.



Greggz said:


> Personally I would try more of everything (a lot more), and a bit more pH drop as well. It might be worth a try to see what happens.


I may. Right now, what I'm trying to figure out is why my Aromatica got wonky from an increase in basically everything. If I was previously PO4 limited, you'd think doubling it would have made things better, not worse - i.e. my Aromatica used to grow OK, now it's yellowish and stunted.



Immortal1 said:


> Think I will have to agree with Gregg regarding PO4. My spreadsheet for this thread listed my weekly PO4 as 3.90ppm. On a whim I decided to actually test the amount in the tank at the end of the week. Surprising to me I was at 0.25ppm to 0.5ppm. I have since doubled my PO4 dosing and now I am measuring 2.0ppm at the end of the week.


Interesting. I'm dosing less than you were and reading ~1ppm PO4 from a Hanna Phosphate checker which has always correlated closely with lab grade results.

Thought I'd read that if something was going to be limiting but not outright deficient, after light, PO4 is the next best thing as far as keeping the overall plant appearance and tank health in line. So my working theory was that I've now got enough PO4 in the tank that it's not limiting, but instead something else - presumably a micro. Overall consensus here seems to be focused on the macros so I'll keep it out of the micro focused thread.


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> Right now, what I'm trying to figure out is why my Aromatica got wonky from an increase in basically everything. If I was previously PO4 limited, you'd think doubling it would have made things better, not worse - i.e. my Aromatica used to grow OK, now it's yellowish and stunted.


Just a thought based on personal experience; You can cruise a long with most things doing OK if several things are limited, say, micros, Fe and P. Most of my old 75's life was spent in such a state.

But when you start unlimiting a few of them, the others can get deficient quick.

I described earlier what happened when I first started dosing these custom blends, starting at levels similar to what I used to dose csmb.

Fe deficiency quickly appeared. Adding more Fe cured it but then other weird non-Fe symptoms showed up, and not always at the same time. Like short internodes, chloritic white spots, just to name a couple.

Adding more of this or that micro would eventually fix it, then Fe symptoms would re-appear. This went on for a few months back and forth as I was working up through mid-range levels. Finally it all got better with higher dosing of everything.

tl;dr - I think the aromatica is probably lacking something.  Sounds like Fe but thats just a guess


----------



## DMtankd

Got it. I found a happy medium on a plateau with the right combination of limitations to keep the tank relatively healthy for less demanding plants. Upped some ferts and got the balanced limitations a bit out of wack. I can either keep ratcheting my way up through one plateau after another, or just fast forward to where you guys are by upping the macros and then get right to the fun of micro tweaking. For kicks, think I'll go ratchet  ...at least for this next change, just to see if I can get back to another mid-range plateau...and see what the deficiencies look like on the way. Thanks as always for the insight!


----------



## happi

@DMtankd

do you test for other things with Hanna Checkers and Lamotte kits such as K, Fe, other minerals etc?


----------



## DMtankd

I have the Hanna Checkers for Fe and PO4. Lamotte for Nitrate. API for GH and KH. I later found a lab that tests all the parameters we are interested in, including all the micros. I used that a handful of times to get a detailed view of what's in my tap, sanity check the results of my dosing, etc.

I found that the Hanna Checkers (Fe and PO4) were always very close to the lab results (and the Nitrate, GH, and KH were usually ballpark). So now I just use the Fe and PO4 checker results when I make changes as proxies to confirm my levels went in the right direction at least.


----------



## happi

DMtankd said:


> I have the Hanna Checkers for Fe and PO4. Lamotte for Nitrate. API for GH and KH. I later found a lab that tests all the parameters we are interested in, including all the micros. I used that a handful of times to get a detailed view of what's in my tap, sanity check the results of my dosing, etc.
> 
> I found that the Hanna Checkers (Fe and PO4) were always very close to the lab results (and the Nitrate, GH, and KH were usually ballpark). So now I just use the Fe and PO4 checker results when I make changes as proxies to confirm my levels went in the right direction at least.


if you have access to this you should try to find out what happen to the Micro after dosing them for a day or so, test to see what is still present and what it not, you should try both Non cheleated and Chelated for this test, you could just test this in a cup of DI water to see what exactly would be present in the solution, example: something like 1 ppm Mn SO4 vs 1 ppm Mn EDTA


----------



## happi

i thought i share what i experience sometime


----------



## Chlorophile

I am seeing something I haven't ever seen before... 
Not sure what the cause is.

On my older Ludwigia leaves there is some bruising or dark discoloration..
It looks a little bit transparent but not very much.. 

I've unlocked a deficiency by upping my traces somehow, but what?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Chlorophile said:


> I've unlocked a deficiency by upping my traces somehow, but what?


That ludwigia looks like polysperma green.
The deficiency may be light on that one.>

I have no ludwigia that is that green anywhere!


----------



## fablau

Yeah, that looks like Hygo Polysperma to me. They react pretty fast to changes, that's why I keep them in my tank, to have early warnings 

Anyway, when did that appear? Did you increase all micros and no macros? What's your dosing right now, please, let us know, macros and micros.


----------



## Chlorophile

Maryland Guppy said:


> That ludwigia looks like polysperma green.
> The deficiency may be light on that one.>
> 
> I have no ludwigia that is that green anywhere!


hmm.. The leaves are very long on polysperma? 
This is not so much like that, maybe its my lighting or camera.
Let me show you another picture of the plant under different lighting, also it grew out of the tank slightly!
I do think its Ludwigia but i don't know what kind... 
Maybe its not


----------



## Chlorophile

Anyway, my dosing!

3x a week MICROS day I dose:
Fe DTPA - .2 ppm
Mn - .09 ppm
B - .032 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm
Mo - .0013 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm

3x a Week MACROS day I dose:
NO3 11.13
PO4 4.21 PPM
K: 16.24 PPM

Fe DTPA - .1 ppm
Mn - .045 ppm
B - .016 ppm
Zn - .025 ppm
Mo - .00065 ppm
Cu - .001 ppm


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> I think you guys are talking about two different things. 1) the chelate staying bound to the original compound, and 2) the chelate itself degrading or "going away"
> 
> The chelate is not degrading at higher PH levels, but it does separate from the original compound at certain levels.
> 
> DTPA starts to break loose from Fe in the mid-upper 7s.
> 
> EDTA starts to break loose from Fe around 6.5. (to the other micros it stays bound much higher)
> 
> This is why DTPA Fe is better for higher Ph levels than EDTA Fe.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the chelate itself degrading. Once the chelate separates from the original compound it is free to bind with something else. And since it is not bio-degradeable, it just sticks around, building up, only removed by water changes. Which may or not present much of a problem. The main problem is the now raw unchelated Fe


How many times has chelation been kicked around on TPT - WOW! However, it is worth repeating in this thread about traces.

Enhancing @burr740 comments, here is my understanding (correct me if you think me wrong):

Another way to put this is that EDTA starts to break apart from the iron at pH levels that our CO2 creates during the day (~6.5), but we don't want it to break loose, because plants can pull it away from the chelate and use it as they need it if it stays chelated. If it breaks away, then the iron starts to bind to the PO4 and/or Ca and precipitates into the substrate, preventing sufficient access by plant leaves. DTPA will keep it bound-up at those acidic levels, but will start to break apart at night when pH rises into the 7's and will precipitate then, when the plants won't use it anyway. HEEDTA (used by Tropica) stays chelated at even higher pH levels and EDDHA even higher still. 

Once the iron leaves the chelate, the chelate stays in our tanks and accumulates in the substrate (probably not good). The EPA does not like EDTA (not sure about DTPA) and is trying to, essentially, outlaw it in agriculture for this reason. Current chelates we use are not biodegradable. There are recently introduced biodegradable chelates, but we don't have access to any of them yet.

I have some questions of the community:

1) Is anyone aware of any tests of EDDHA iron for planted tanks (available on Amazon, for example)? I may consider this now that the subject is re-arisen.

2) I'm also considering dosing all macros and micros every day, but using, at least, DTPA iron or, maybe the EDDHA iron. I'm also thinking about putting all of the mix into one solution for dosing (looking for simplicity). Does anyone see a problem with this? Tropica puts their EDDHA iron into their macro solution containing "phosphor" which, I assume, is orthophosphate (PO4) since that is the only immediately available form of P to plants. If you test their mix, you will find it is very acidic (<6) which may be to keep the iron chelated so as not to bind to the PO4. Maybe adding vinegar to such a Mother-of-All-Solutions would make this work.

3) Have any of you tried a single weekly dose of all ferts to the tank after a water change, or do you think toxicities to the plants and shock to the fauna might result?


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> How many times has chelation been kicked around on TPT - WOW! However, it is worth repeating in this thread about traces.
> 
> Enhancing @burr740 comments, here is my understanding (correct me if you think me wrong):
> 
> Another way to put this is that EDTA starts to break apart from the iron at pH levels that our CO2 creates during the day (~6.5), but we don't want it to break loose, because plants can pull it away from the chelate and use it as they need it if it stays chelated. If it breaks away, then the iron starts to bind to the PO4 and/or Ca and precipitates into the substrate, preventing sufficient access by plant leaves. DTPA will keep it bound-up at those acidic levels, but will start to break apart at night when pH rises into the 7's and will precipitate then, when the plants won't use it anyway. HEEDTA (used by Tropica) stays chelated at even higher pH levels and EDDHA even higher still.
> 
> Once the iron leaves the chelate, the chelate stays in our tanks and accumulates in the substrate (probably not good). The EPA does not like EDTA (not sure about DTPA) and is trying to, essentially, outlaw it in agriculture for this reason. Current chelates we use are not biodegradable. There are recently introduced biodegradable chelates, but we don't have access to any of them yet.
> 
> I have some questions of the community:
> 
> 1) Is anyone aware of any tests of EDDHA iron for planted tanks (available on Amazon, for example)? I may consider this now that the subject is re-arisen.
> 
> 2) I'm also considering dosing all macros and micros every day, but using, at least, DTPA iron or, maybe the EDDHA iron. I'm also thinking about putting all of the mix into one solution for dosing (looking for simplicity). Does anyone see a problem with this? Tropica puts their EDDHA iron into their macro solution containing "phosphor" which, I assume, is orthophosphate (PO4) since that is the only immediately available form of P to plants. If you test their mix, you will find it is very acidic (<6) which may be to keep the iron chelated so as not to bind to the PO4. Maybe adding vinegar to such a Mother-of-All-Solutions would make this work.
> 
> 3) Have any of you tried a single weekly dose of all ferts to the tank after a water change, or do you think toxicities to the plants and shock to the fauna might result?



i have successfully made AIO solution, works best when DTPA Fe is used to make AIO soltuion, i also have EDDHA Fe which will make your water red even at such a low ppm, 0.07 ppm EDDHA Fe make the solution looks like WINE :laugh2: i also add Vitamin C in all my solution, i try not to add too much vinegar, i have witnessed that it melt certain plants if overdosed. its better to stick with DTPA, EDDHA makes a big mess.


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> i have successfully made AIO solution, works best when DTPA Fe is used to make AIO soltuion, i also have EDDHA Fe which will make your water red even at such a low ppm, 0.07 ppm EDDHA Fe make the solution looks like WINE :laugh2: i also add Vitamin C in all my solution, i try not to add too much vinegar, i have witnessed that it melt certain plants if overdosed. its better to stick with DTPA, EDDHA makes a big mess.


Thanks. Red water has no appeal for me. how many ppm of ascorbic acid do you add?


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Thanks. Red water has no appeal for me. how many ppm of ascorbic acid do you add?


between 0.5-1 gram


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> between 0.5-1 gram


Into what quantity of solution?


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> 2) I'm also considering dosing all macros and micros every day, but using, at least, DTPA iron or, maybe the EDDHA iron. I'm also thinking about putting all of the mix into one solution for dosing (looking for simplicity). Does anyone see a problem with this? Tropica puts their EDDHA iron into their macro solution containing "phosphor" which, I assume, is orthophosphate (PO4) since that is the only immediately available form of P to plants. If you test their mix, you will find it is very acidic (<6) which may be to keep the iron chelated so as not to bind to the PO4. Maybe adding vinegar to such a Mother-of-All-Solutions would make this work.
> 
> 3) Have any of you tried a single weekly dose of all ferts to the tank after a water change, or do you think toxicities to the plants and shock to the fauna might result?


These items interest me as well. There has been a conventional wisdom, dose micros/macros opposite days, water change is day of rest. 

I know both Burr and I have been dosing micros daily for a while now, and the sky hasn't fallen. 

Personally I dose both macros and micros right after a water change, and then again the next day too. My theory is I'm loading the system back up a bit.

And I have really been considering just dosing micros & macros daily all the time. With the change to DTPA, does anyone think that would have any negative effect? Could it actually be better to keep a stable supply day by day? 

And once a week dosing? Well, I am a long way from trying that, but would be curious if anyone is doing it? And the effects?


----------



## Immortal1

I guess another twist @Greggz to your dosing macros and micros daily - I typically leave for work about 6:30am and the lights don't come on till noon. So, will / could there be an issue with dosing macros and micros 5.5 hours before the lights come on?
If so, would I end up running short on Iron and excessive on other micros even though I am dosing twice as much micros?
:-( too many variables....


----------



## Chlorophile

Immortal1 said:


> I guess another twist @Greggz to your dosing macros and micros daily - I typically leave for work about 6:30am and the lights don't come on till noon. So, will / could there be an issue with dosing macros and micros 5.5 hours before the lights come on?
> If so, would I end up running short on Iron and excessive on other micros even though I am dosing twice as much micros?
> :-( too many variables....


Would probably make the most sense to dose when you get home from work assuming thats around mid photo period.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> These items interest me as well. There has been a conventional wisdom, dose micros/macros opposite days, water change is day of rest.
> 
> I know both Burr and I have been dosing micros daily for a while now, and the sky hasn't fallen.
> 
> Personally I dose both macros and micros right after a water change, and then again the next day too. My theory is I'm loading the system back up a bit.
> 
> And I have really been considering just dosing micros & macros daily all the time. With the change to DTPA, does anyone think that would have any negative effect? Could it actually be better to keep a stable supply day by day?
> 
> And once a week dosing? Well, I am a long way from trying that, but would be curious if anyone is doing it? And the effects?


I suspect that the alternate-day dosing may have been more related to the iron precipitate issue when EDTA was (still is, I think) the dominant chelator. Then, for EI, it may be that it was viewed as easier to alternate for simplicity sake. Seachem recommends alternate dosing between Flourish (old Comprehensive) and Flourish Trace, but there is nothing in Trace that should interfere with Comp. May just be trying to even dosing out. They make no effort to recommend dosing their Phosphorus and Iron on separate days. Tropica seems to recommend dosing both macro and micro on the same day and do it once a week! Based on this, daily dosing shouldn't be meaningful since it seems ok, according to these two companies, for excess nutients to hang around waiting to be consumed.

Since you and @burr740 have several tanks, an interesting test might be to try dosing one tank on a weekly basis with the summed daily dosings.


----------



## Nlewis

Greggz said:


> Personally I dose both macros and micros right after a water change, and then again the next day too. My theory is I'm loading the system back up a bit.
> 
> And I have really been considering just dosing micros & macros daily all the time. With the change to DTPA, does anyone think that would have any negative effect? Could it actually be better to keep a stable supply day by day?
> 
> And once a week dosing? Well, I am a long way from trying that, but would be curious if anyone is doing it? And the effects?


I never could truly wrap my head around the fact that on WC day we just dose macros. I’ve only been using ferts for about 2 years now so I just went along with the EI schedule that was the staple. It just never made since to me because you would “reset” the nutrient values with the WC, add macros back in but leave the system depleted of micros. 

I remember reading somewhere(probably here),that it was always a no, no to dose macros and micros on the same day. It was as if they would have an adverse affect on each other. Most if not all of you are more knowledgeable than I am in regards to ferts. Am I wrong, or was this the thinking back in the day?

I’m not opposed to being a guinea pig of sort and dosing both daily. Although I’m not sure what effects I would see compared to your guys tank due to mine being a biotope. I’m also only dosing half of what EI calls for.


----------



## Chlorophile

Nlewis said:


> I never could truly wrap my head around the fact that on WC day we just dose macros. I’ve only been using ferts for about 2 years now so I just went along with the EI schedule that was the staple. It just never made since to me because you would “reset” the nutrient values with the WC, add macros back in but leave the system depleted of micros.
> 
> I remember reading somewhere(probably here),that it was always a no, no to dose macros and micros on the same day. It was as if they would have an adverse affect on each other. Most if not all of you are more knowledgeable than I am in regards to ferts. Am I wrong, or was this the thinking back in the day?
> 
> I’m not opposed to being a guinea pig of sort and dosing both daily. Although I’m not sure what effects I would see compared to your guys tank due to mine being a biotope. I’m also only dosing half of what EI calls for.


I think the logic comes largely from knowledge gained by terrestrial gardeners.. 
The logic behind the Synergism vs Agonism is sound for the most part, but it does depend on certain conditions. 
Sometimes its binding, sometimes it nutrient uptake prevention, sometimes its I have no idea, but in general things that are agonistic shouldn't be dosed at the same time.. or atleast you could argue that it might not be smart.









I dont really get the chart cause N, Mo, Cu, Mg, P, K, are all synergystic... 
But then pretty much everything else is an Agonist on Phosphate and vise versa which is probably why Phosphate is the main thing they say you shouldn't add on Trace day...


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> Since you and @*burr740* have several tanks, an interesting test might be to try dosing one tank on a weekly basis with the summed daily dosings.


Why do I always have to be the guinea pig?? 

How many of you use Purigen? I know Greggz does, already told him about this. Here's what happened a couple weeks ago

The 120 has two canisters, each one has about 250 ml of Purigen inside. The bags are swapped out for fresh ones whenever I take one apart for cleaning.

So a couple of weeks ago, all of a sudden one day pantanal tops had gone pale with bright cherry red centers, clear sign it wasnt happy. Also mini limno, and something else too I dont remember.

Well nothing had changed in a few weeks (except for adding nickel which I'll get to later) and everything was crusing along very well with daily dosing of a .2 Fe blend.

Checked CO2, all good, racking my brain at this point, the only thing that's changed recently is I cleaned the Hydor two days ago and that certainly didnt do anyth......wait, the new bag of Purigen??

Ive always read it wasnt supposed to affect micros. Searched the Seachem forum, their official stance is "should have minimal impact"

Found some discussion on other boards with mixed opinions. A few folks were emphatic their plants did better without, the majority seem to dismiss the notion.

So anyway I removed the Purigen from every single filter, they all had it.

And lo and behold 2-3 days later the Pantanal and everything else was looking fine again. So...I believe it does have at least some impact, maybe on just a thing or two, and maybe unchelated makes a difference. IDK, just reporting what happened.

Update on the nickel. I'd started adding it to the micros about a week earlier. Couldnt really tell a significant difference but everything was growing really well.

Current recipe in ppb, dosing daily

Fe DTPA - 200
Mn - 90
B - 32
Zn -75
Mo - 1.3
Cu - zero
Ni - .5

Since removing the Purigen these last couple of weeks everything has really kicked up a notch. No issues to speak of with anything.

So either the Ni is soaking in making a big difference, or the Purigen, at least when brand new, was having a negative effect.

tifwiw


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Why do I always have to be the guinea pig??
> 
> How many of you use Purigen? I know Greggz does, already told him about this. Here's what happened a couple weeks ago
> 
> The 120 has two canisters, each one has about 250 ml of Purigen inside. The bags are swapped out for fresh ones whenever I take one apart for cleaning.
> 
> So a couple of weeks ago, all of a sudden one day pantanal tops had gone pale with bright cherry red centers, clear sign it wasnt happy. Also mini limno, and something else too I dont remember.
> 
> Well nothing had changed in a few weeks (except for adding nickel which I'll get to later) and everything was crusing along very well with daily dosing of a .2 Fe blend.
> 
> Checked CO2, all good, the only thing that's changed recently is I cleaned the Hydor two days ago and that certainly didnt do anyth......wait, the new bag of Purigen??
> 
> Ive always read it wasnt supposed to affect micros. Searched the Seachem forum, their official stance is "should have minimal impact"
> 
> Found some discussion on other boards with mixed opinions. A few folks were emphatic their plants did better without, the majority seem to dismiss the notion.
> 
> So anyway I removed the Purigen from every single filter, they all had it.
> 
> And lo and behold 2-3 days later the Pantanal and everything else was looking fine again. So...I believe it does have at least some impact, maybe on just a thing or two, and maybe unchelated makes a difference. IDK, just reporting what happened.
> 
> Update on the nickel. I'd started adding it to the micros about a week earlier. Couldnt really tell a significant difference but everything was growing really well.
> 
> Current recipe in ppb, dosing daily
> 
> Fe DTPA - 200
> Mn - 90
> B - 32
> Zn -75
> Mo - 1.3
> Cu - zero
> Ni - .5
> 
> Since removing the Purigen these last couple of weeks everything has really kicked up a notch. No issues to speak of with anything.
> 
> So either the Ni is soaking in making a big difference, or the Purigen, at least when brand new, was having a negative effect.
> 
> tifwiw


I don't notice a difference between With and Without Purigen.. the first time I used it I feel like it was a positive effect, but now I've taken it out and didn't see any changes.
My plants are not in the kind of condition and growth rates yours as though, so its probably not easy for me to tell!


----------



## DMtankd

Wow, very timely on the Purigen. I run it and was just pondering that last night while I was doing maintenance and swapping out the old stuff (which comes out dark brown nearly black after only a month or two). No idea if it preferentially takes up one micro vs another etc and is skewing results - so was planning to ask if others were using it. I pulled mine last night.

I auto dose micros and macros daily with a jebao doser. I dose in different areas of the tank 60 minutes apart just to avoid locally high concentrations causing precipitation. I see no reason not to - it's not like iron and phosphate go to zero when dosing on alternate days. If you're at EI macros you probably have something like 2ppm phosphate in the column on any given day, right? Does waiting a day to add iron and maybe having it be at 1.6 vs 2.0 really make a difference?

As far as when to dose...I thought plants could more or less uptake nutrients anytime - only photosynthesis is light dependent - no?


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Into what quantity of solution?


usually in 500-1000 ml solution


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Why do I always have to be the guinea pig??


I’m thinking that we should start calling you Mikey. “Hey, Mikey!”



burr740 said:


> How many of you use Purigen? I know Greggz does, already told him about this. Here's what happened a couple weeks ago


Jumping off the speculation cliff:

I believe you also add urea. Purigen absorbs only organics – including all nitrogenous products. It’s not supposed to absorb traces. Could it be that much of your urea downstream was being lost to the Purigen (maybe even the urea itself – check with Seachem) and that, with the new addition of Ni now combined with the removal of the Purigen, more of the urea component is being activated by the Ni? Almost like saying that your plants wanted more N.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> I believe you also add urea. Purigen absorbs only organics – including all nitrogenous products. It’s not supposed to absorb traces. Could it be that much of your urea downstream was being lost to the Purigen (maybe even the urea itself – check with Seachem) and that, with the new addition of Ni now combined with the removal of the Purigen, more of the urea component is being activated by the Ni? Almost like saying that your plants wanted more N.


That could explain it too I suppose


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> How many of you use Purigen? I know Greggz does, already told him about this. Here's what happened a couple weeks ago


As usual, this is interesting. 

Burr & I have discussed this, and as I told him, so far I have not seen the same correlation. I am running 200mg of Purigen in each of 3 filters, so quite a bit. I have not noticed any of the same symptoms after a change of Purigen, but then again I haven't been looking for them. Now I do have a fully stocked tank, so I might be getting more benefit from it. 

My normal schedule is to clean one of three filters every two weeks, and add fresh Purigen at the time. So my plan is to skip adding Purigen for the next few cleanings, and see how things go. Kind of slowly wean the system and see where it goes. 

I've been using it for so long, honestly I don't know anymore if it's doing anything or not. So we'll find out. 

Right now I am 50/50 on the Ni or the Purigen. Could be either at this point. Interested in what others have to say.


----------



## DMtankd

FWIW, went back and found something from a thread I had with Seachem a while back: "Purigen can bind with EDTA, DTPA, or Citrate. However, if it's EDTA chelated iron, the plants will utilize the iron much quicken that the Purigen can bind it."

So, while it is supposed to have minimal impact on the traces themselves, it sounds like it could pull out the traces when they're bound to the most common chelates. Seachem indicates the plants will utilize the micro element "much quicker than Purigen can bind it" but that's a bit confusing. In a steady state where there's constantly say .30 ppm of DTPA bound Fe flowing over the Purigen, it must be constantly removing some of it. As the Purigen ages, less available adsorption sites would then likely mean it more slowly removes the chelated iron. So, at the very least, it seems reasonable to think the use of Purigen is adding an additional variable (it's pulling more chelated iron out of the column when it's new vs aged). Now, whether the amount it's pulling out even when brand new is material or not, not sure how to quantify unless you set up a controlled experiment...


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Fe DTPA - 200
> Mn - 90
> B - 32
> Zn -75
> Mo - 1.3
> Cu - zero
> Ni - .5



Thanks Joe for the new dosing details... But wasn't Ni dosed at .05 ppb?


----------



## slipfinger

Immortal1 said:


> I guess another twist @Greggz to your dosing macros and micros daily - I typically leave for work about 6:30am and the lights don't come on till noon. So, will / could there be an issue with dosing macros and micros 5.5 hours before the lights come on?
> If so, would I end up running short on Iron and excessive on other micros even though I am dosing twice as much micros?
> :-( too many variables....


My understand is consistence is more important than when you actually dose. The main exception to this is your Fe dosing. As discussed a page or so back EDTA and DTPA are/can be effected by pH. In saying that I dose micros pretty consistently at the beginning of my light cycle when my pH is around 6 and remains there for 7/8 hours.


----------



## happi

can we see some update with some pictures of those who are testing?


----------



## burr740

Anyone interested in the Purigen thing might want to check out the thread on Barr report

https://barrreport.com/threads/the-custom-micro-mix-thread.14952/page-2#post-150448

Its looking like N or Fe is the most likely to be affected, specifically the chelate


----------



## Edward

Trace element ratios to Fe.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Anyone interested in the Purigen thing might want to check out the thread on Barr report
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/the-custom-micro-mix-thread.14952/page-2#post-150448
> 
> Its looking like N or Fe is the most likely to be affected, specifically the chelate


I would think if it can do anything to N it would get used up quickly in our tanks..
If it's taking up the chelate then that might explain why I saw benefit when I added purigen while still using CSM B


----------



## Edward

Trace element ratios to Fe.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> The 120 has two canisters, each one has about 250 ml of Purigen inside. The bags are swapped out for fresh ones whenever I take one apart for cleaning.


Just a thought. When you cleaned the filter, did you also perform a water change? And do you dose macros on water change day?

Maybe between water change, clean filter, urea interaction with Purigen.....maybe just a sudden drop in N and not micros at all? 

Might explain why I haven't seen it, as with my fish load my Nitrates are higher than yours? And I dose immediately after a water change. 

Or like always maybe it's something completely different.


----------



## Edward

Trace element ratios to Fe. Micro20180110 in post #238 above.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Anyone interested in the Purigen thing might want to check out the thread on Barr report
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/the-custom-micro-mix-thread.14952/page-2#post-150448
> 
> Its looking like N or Fe is the most likely to be affected, specifically the chelate


I think we need to look further. Quoting Seachem:



> Purigen will remove the organics before they are converted into the toxic nitrogenous components. There are no products on the market that directly removes nitrate (or nitrite and ammonia).


So, NO3 is 'safe' from Purigen. Note that they used the word: "removes", not de-toxifying or non-man-made products such as BB.



> Purigen is a resin that will primarly remove nitrogenous organic waste. It will not impact chelated Iron.


As far as other traces are concerned, they say the effect is "minimal." Does anyone wish to quantify "minimal" for us?


----------



## Deanna

@Edward

Charts make things so much easier for quick comparisons. Not sure how you feel about Tropica, but I tend to think they are a little better than other commercial products. Might be interesting to add their "Specialised" and "Premium" separated, then combined, as you did with the Flourish products.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Just a thought. When you cleaned the filter, did you also perform a water change? And do you dose macros on water change day?
> 
> Maybe between water change, clean filter, urea interaction with Purigen.....maybe just a sudden drop in N and not micros at all?
> 
> Might explain why I haven't seen it, as with my fish load my Nitrates are higher than yours? And I dose immediately after a water change.
> 
> Or like always maybe it's something completely different.


I usually clean the filters at night after the lights/CO2 go out, at just random times. Rarely coincides with a water change


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> I usually clean the filters at night after the lights/CO2 go out, at just random times. Rarely coincides with a water change


Oh well there goes that thoery!:wink2:


----------



## acino

Deanna said:


> I think we need to look further. Quoting Seachem:
> 
> So, NO3 is 'safe' from Purigen. Note that they used the word: "removes", not de-toxifying or non-man-made products such as BB.
> 
> As far as other traces are concerned, they say the effect is "minimal." Does anyone wish to quantify "minimal" for us?


Actually, Purigen affects NO3 levels. Seachem is often a bit misleading in their claims. It's a cationic organic resin which attracts negatively charged compounds. Most likely, it has higher affinity for organic compounds (tannis etc) than inorganic anions. Nevertheless, Purolites are known to have very high binding capacity for nitrates. I suggest checking the links in the thread that Burr linked. The papers show adsorption of up to 82 mg NO3 per 1 g of resin.


----------



## Deanna

acino said:


> Actually, Purigen affects NO3 levels. Seachem is often a bit misleading in their claims. It's a cationic organic resin which attracts negatively charged compounds. Most likely, it has higher affinity for organic compounds (tannis etc) than inorganic anions. Nevertheless, Purolites are known to have very high binding capacity for nitrates. I suggest checking the links in the thread that Burr linked. The papers show adsorption of up to 82 mg NO3 per 1 g of resin.


Purolites must have been introduced after the Seachem comments. I think that I'll create a known level of KNO3 in a bottle of distilled water, add some Purigen, and test for NO3 changes over a week. If anyone sees a flaw in that logic, please let me know to save me some time and effort.


----------



## Edward

Trace element ratios to Fe.


----------



## Chlorophile

acino said:


> Deanna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to look further. Quoting Seachem:
> 
> So, NO3 is 'safe' from Purigen. Note that they used the word: "removes", not de-toxifying or non-man-made products such as BB.
> 
> As far as other traces are concerned, they say the effect is "minimal." Does anyone wish to quantify "minimal" for us?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Purigen affects NO3 levels. Seachem is often a bit misleading in their claims. It's a cationic organic resin which attracts negatively charged compounds. Most likely, it has higher affinity for organic compounds (tannis etc) than inorganic anions. Nevertheless, Purolites are known to have very high binding capacity for nitrates. I suggest checking the links in the thread that Burr linked. The papers show adsorption of up to 82 mg NO3 per 1 g of resin.
Click to expand...

Hmm ok so in a tank with 20 ppm no3 and 100l of water it would take 25 grams of purigen to adsorb all no3.
If we add 10ppm the next day we're at 37.5 grams needed, etc etc.


I just don't see how it could impact N that much, does it adsorb it all right away or is that just the maximum capacity assuming something like a purigen reactor where it can be optimal?


----------



## acino

That is maximum adsorption pretty much under ideal conditions for some cationic Purolite resins. I assume Purigen is some type of a Purolite, since they are also used for organics removal and regenerated in similar way.

Note that I am not saying it will keep your tank NO3 free or that it will scavenge NO3 for a long time, I am simply suggesting that a large new batch of Purigen can in my opinion cause a drop to NO3 which could result in the symptoms Burr describes. I have also experienced an unexpected drop in nitrates the first time I used Purigen. Perhaps it was from something else, though? You never know in this hobby...


----------



## Deanna

I think we're in a practice vs. theory tie-up. When I use Purigen, I have not noted any difference in NO3, but neither was I looking for such a change. Of course, this assumes that Purigen is Purolite. I tend to doubt it, because Seachem insists that Purigen does not remove NO3 and, since Purolite appears to remove some quantity of NO3, Seachem would not make such a statement.

With so many people trying to remove NO3 (non-planted tanks), it seems odd that there are no Purolite based products if it works so well.


----------



## acino

I would take Seachem statements with a grain of salt. I remember them claiming Excel was not gluteraldehyde at some point (not sure if the still do). Also, they say using Seachem Prime and Flourish at the same time is not a problem (although Prime clearly removes Cu, Zn and maybe some other stuff). When somebody on BarrReport started to investigate this more in depth, he indeed found out you should not be dosing micros within 48 h of Prime.

What I am trying to say here is that I could of course very well be wrong, but I would be wary of Seachem statements.

What do you mean there are no Purolite products? Purolite is a standard in tap water treatment.

EDIT: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showpost.php?p=404154&postcount=5
http://www.seachem.com/support/foru...purigen-and-flourish-nitrogen?p=3174#post3174
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showpost.php?p=81981&postcount=6


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> I would think if it can do anything to N it would get used up quickly in our tanks..
> If it's taking up the chelate then that might explain why I saw benefit when I added purigen while still using CSM B


Im trying to send tracking for the plants but your PM box is full. Make some room!


----------



## Edward

acino said:


> … Also, they say using Seachem Prime and Flourish at the same time is not a problem (although Prime clearly removes Cu, Zn and maybe some other stuff). When somebody on BarrReport started to investigate this more in depth, he indeed found out you should not be dosing micros within 48 h of Prime. …


 I never used Prime and never had to add crazy amounts of trace elements, any connection?


----------



## Deanna

acino said:


> I would take Seachem statements with a grain of salt. I remember them claiming Excel was not gluteraldehyde at some point (not sure if the still do). Also, they say using Seachem Prime and Flourish at the same time is not a problem (although Prime clearly removes Cu, Zn and maybe some other stuff). When somebody on BarrReport started to investigate this more in depth, he indeed found out you should not be dosing micros within 48 h of Prime.
> 
> What I am trying to say here is that I could of course very well be wrong, but I would be wary of Seachem statements.
> 
> What do you mean there are no Purolite products? Purolite is a standard in tap water treatment.
> 
> EDIT: Aquatic Plant Central - View Single Post - Purigen Disagreement
> Purigen and Flourish Nitrogen - Seachem Support Forums
> Aquatic Plant Central - View Single Post - Explain something to me about Purigen...


Let’s stay focused:

I was referring to Purigen statements by Seachem. I can’t comment on every individual attack on Seachem by others. To my knowledge, Seachem hasn’t denied the use of glut in Excel, they simply say that it is some [made-up name] polymer.

I also did not say that Purolite is not being used by any companny on the planet. I was clearly referencing the aquarium market.


----------



## nilocg

Deanna said:


> Let’s stay focused:
> 
> I was referring to Purigen statements by Seachem. I can’t comment on every individual attack on Seachem by others. To my knowledge, Seachem hasn’t denied the use of glut in Excel, they simply say that it is some [made-up name] polymer.
> 
> I also did not say that Purolite is not being used by any companny on the planet. I was clearly referencing the aquarium market.


Seachem definitely says its not glut.


----------



## Deanna

nilocg said:


> Seachem definitely says its not glut.



Where? I'm interested.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

From local Purolite Rep several years ago.
Some general literature was provided.

2.1 Organic Scavenger Resins 
These resins are normally manufactured from either polystyrenic or polyacrylic polymers. 
The polystyrenic based Purolite product is Purolite A500P.
The polyacrylic based product is Purolite® A860.

I have tested the A860 regenerated with brine and/or caustic, it did not clean well.
Even tested regeneration with bleach and bead degradation was high, thus making cloudy water.




Nitrate Scavenging Resins are A300E, A520E A600E/9149 Nitrate selective, Type II SBA, Type I SBA.

I have not tested them.
Nitrate removal resins have a tendency to dump NO3 back into the water column under the right conditions.



The rep was not aware of any product they offered that resembled Purigen with bleach regeneration.



Danger Will Robinson!:grin2:
Do not accidentally dump a large quantity of any resin on concrete floor in warehouse.
It is like a river of ball bearings, been there!


----------



## DMtankd

acino said:


> When somebody on BarrReport started to investigate this more in depth, he indeed found out you should not be dosing micros within 48 h of Prime.


Any chance you can link this thread? I would be curious to understand more about the interaction of Prime and micros.


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> Any chance you can link this thread? I would be curious to understand more about the interaction of Prime and micros.


 @fablau 's journal. May need to go back or forward a page or two but this is close, and I think further reading later on as Seachem reps answered his questions on their forum

https://barrreport.com/threads/fablau-75-gallon-tank.14097/page-18


----------



## Deanna

DMtankd said:


> Any chance you can link this thread? I would be curious to understand more about the interaction of Prime and micros.


Go this Seachem link where you will find the responses to an excellent inquiry by @fablau beginning at post # 13 and you'll have your answer directly from the horses' mouth:

Prime dosage - Seachem Support Forums


----------



## Chlorophile

Hmm.. The Prime thing is actually super interesting to me.

If anyone followed my old thread on my tank troubles, one of the things I changed around the time when the tank started going down hill is I switched from 5 gal bucket water changes to using a Python. 

Before I'd add 1 drop per gallon of tap water to my buckets.
Now after going to the python I started dosing 5ml to my 30 gal tank since I was adding chlorinated water straight to the tank. 

I STILL use the python but Seachem mentions that this interaction depends on there being Chelator present. 
Thats where things get interesting since EDTA breaks down rapidly in my high pH water.. During a water change my pH is at its highest. 


Are there dechlorinators other than prime that would be a better choice for planted tanks?


----------



## DMtankd

So Seachem says that Prime will bind a fixed amount of metals per unit added to the tank, with a preference for certain metals. For those of us who do the python thing and dose Prime for the full tank we may be binding all or most of the micro content in the tank.

Two questions left after reading the Seachem thread:

Is it confirmed that the metals, while complexed by Prime, are unavailable to the plants? No chemist, but doesn't EDTA complex with metals yet leave them available to plants? Maybe I missed it, but didn't see where it says for certain Prime makes them unavailable while bound. I.e. is the "binding" just making them harmless to fauna?

Per Seachem - if you treat RO water with 0 metals in it, the complexing agent will disappear within 24-48 hrs and then you may dose metals. Correct? Does that mean that any metals that may be complexed\bound would become unbound after 24-48 hours...or does the act of binding somehow make the the complexing agent permanent? I.e. even if the metals are unavailable to plants while bound...do they all become available again after 48 hours?


----------



## Deanna

DMtankd said:


> So Seachem says that Prime will bind a fixed amount of metals per unit added to the tank, with a preference for certain metals. For those of us who do the python thing and dose Prime for the full tank we may be binding all or most of the micro content in the tank.
> 
> Two questions left after reading the Seachem thread:
> 
> Is it confirmed that the metals, while complexed by Prime, are unavailable to the plants? No chemist, but doesn't EDTA complex with metals yet leave them available to plants? Maybe I missed it, but didn't see where it says for certain Prime makes them unavailable while bound. I.e. is the "binding" just making them harmless to fauna?
> 
> Per Seachem - if you treat RO water with 0 metals in it, the complexing agent will disappear within 24-48 hrs and then you may dose metals. Correct? Does that mean that any metals that may be complexed\bound would become unbound after 24-48 hours...or does the act of binding somehow make the the complexing agent permanent? I.e. even if the metals are unavailable to plants while bound...do they all become available again after 48 hours?


My understanding is that, once bound, they will precipitate and remain in your substrate unless broken down by very acidic conditions. So, the plant leaves won't be able to access them. don't know about roots, but I suspect not even there if the Prime compound is intact.

According to Seachem, you are safe at 48 hours, but those that have been bound are, essentially, bound for life - holy matrimony.

Seachem is unusually good at responding to questions either by email or on their forum. Be free to ask them directly.


----------



## nilocg

Deanna said:


> Where? I'm interested.


Send them an email and ask. They will tell you its a completely different product.


----------



## fablau

DMtankd said:


> So Seachem says that Prime will bind a fixed amount of metals per unit added to the tank, with a preference for certain metals. For those of us who do the python thing and dose Prime for the full tank we may be binding all or most of the micro content in the tank.




Yes, that was m understanding. I actually use Prime with the idea of "resetting" most of the metals after each WC. That could be a good thing in my case, where my tap has high Cu and Zn contents. At least it is a way to control what I put in my tank.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Anyone getting tired yet!!!>


----------



## Deanna

nilocg said:


> Send them an email and ask. They will tell you its a completely different product.


I have in the past. They told me it was an isomer of the glut compound, but they NEVER deny that it is glut. I know it is glut, but I was hoping that you could point me to their website forum where they actually deny it.

A company that considers itself to have proprietary aspects to its’ products must only state what they officially state about their products in all communications. They should not open it up for speculation by using other verbiage in discussions with the market. The message is: don’t deny anything, just say what we say. This is all that Seachem does and I admire them for it. It provides them with market consistency and an image of dependability. 

Anyway, glut isn't a topic for this thread, since it's not micro related. My point was that I haven't seen Seachem lie. A lot of people read between the lines and make accusations, but their company website forum and emails to me are very carefully worded so that they always state what their products are and what they do, without revealing info they don't want revealed.

Bump:


Maryland Guppy said:


> Anyone getting tired yet!!!>


going to bed ...now.


----------



## roadmaster

PRIME ain't the boogey man.
Dose micros day after water change and it is non issue IMHO
If the effect's of PRIME with respect to all of metals found in fertilizer's was an issue over period of more than a few hour's,, and given PAR values close to 100 at substrate that some see,,then it would not take long at all for plant's to exhibit their displeasure.IMHO


----------



## natemcnutty

Chlorophile said:


> Are there dechlorinators other than prime that would be a better choice for planted tanks?


Not saying it is better, but Seachem Safe does not bind metals. It may be a better fit depending on your needs.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chlorophile

natemcnutty said:


> Not saying it is better, but Seachem Safe does not bind metals. It may be a better fit depending on your needs.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Thank you!
In my environment (have emailed water department yearly, they always claim they have never nor do they intend to in the near future, use Chloramines) the source water always has a consistent chlorine level, and all our water comes from one river with very stable param's, so i feel comfortable picking a dechlorinator and not worrying about anything beyond that. 
So for ME personally it might be better. 
I'd like to try it because personally the concentrated nature of prime, while a benefit to some is kinda a PITA!
I'd really like to take my bottle of prime and dilute it 2x or 4x down because dosing ml/g is just a bit awkward and I do really feel there is too much room for deviation considering it has other capabilities beyond chlorine!
I dont want to 2x or 3x dose it and have it mess with traces or what have you!


----------



## Edward

Fe to Mn, B, Zn, Mo, Cu ratio in ppm.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Fe to Mn, B, Zn, Mo, Cu ratio in ppm.


Hmmm …I think I like the separation of traces better in the pie charts. However, this bar chart highlights another issue I have with how we look at trace mixes: iron. Why do we feel it necessary to index traces to iron? I think it was originally because traces were packaged with iron and we knew the dangers of too much or too little iron. IMO, iron is just another trace and all traces stand on their own (although I grant that there may be value in maintaining ratios among some of them).

As @Greggz has standardized a parameter chart, I like that you are trying to develop a standard for graphic viewing of the various trace packages. My preference would be to see a simple share of each trace, including iron, such as in a pie chart, for each package. It would be good to have others chime-in here to express their preferences.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> ... Why do we feel it necessary to index traces to iron? ...


 Fe is the defining element for dosing trace element packages. We add Trace Element Mix as 0.1 ppm TE(Fe), not as 0.0014 ppm TE(Cu), that would be quite confusing.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Fe is the defining element for dosing trace element packages. We add Trace Element Mix as 0.1 ppm TE(Fe), not as 0.0014 ppm TE(Cu), that would be quite confusing.


Yes, I understand that. I just don't see a need for indexing, unless there were clear inter-dependencies among the traces.


----------



## DMtankd

Emailed with Seachem on Prime. Will post the email later but the tl;dr is: Prime does not precipitate metals. It leaves them bioavailable in the column.

My read: Prime is not really impactful from a micro perspective and may be slightly helpful in that it keeps otherwise unchelated metals bioavailable instead of precipitating. 

I know this conflicts with @fablau 's test finding with copper, but I suspect that he saw it drop to 0 after dosing prime due to interferences from the Prime itself with the copper test, the copper being complexed and so somehow not being read the same way, or just that the checker has a +- of 10ppb and I think the reading before was 10ppb ...so right at the edge of the accuracy range for that test.


----------



## Deanna

DMtankd said:


> Emailed with Seachem on Prime. Will post the email later but the tl;dr is: Prime does not precipitate metals. It leaves them bioavailable in the cloumn.


Double-check with Seachem about that. Take a look at the above link. Seachem stated:



> Prime will reduce and detoxify heavy metals, and make them fall out of solution (the by-product would be a salt). So, yes, the metals will technically still be in the aquarium; they can become "available" again if your pH were to ever drop significantly.


----------



## DMtankd

Deanna said:


> Double-check with Seachem about that. Take a look at the above link. Seachem stated:


I saw that. I also saw later in the same support thread where they say: 



> 3. Prime contains a chemical that will form complexes with metal ions.


And here is the full exchange I had in email with Seachem. Read it bottom up. 



> Seachem Support 10286 (Seachem Laboratories)
> Jan 11, 17:50 AST
> Thanks for your response. *Prime does not cause solid precipitation of heavy metals, and yes the complexed metals will still be available for utilization by plants*
> I hope this helps!
> Thank you,
> Seachem Support 10286
> 
> Jan 11, 17:47 AST
> Thank you so much - just to double confirm...all of the metals would be complexed but would still be completely available to plants to consume through their leaves from the water column? Is that correct?
> There seems to be some thinking on various forums that Prime causes the metals to precipitate out in solid form. Can you address whether that happens at all?
> 
> Seachem Support 10286 (Seachem Laboratories)
> Jan 11, 17:24 AST
> Thank you for your email. Prime detoxifies a very small amount of heavy metals - usually sufficient for the concentrations typically found in tap water. If you have high levels of heavy metals that you are trying to get rid of, I would recommend Cuprisorb . When you treat with prime, metals in the complexed form, are still bioavailable, but will remain complexed for good. Prime itself will start to breakdown when exposed to a pH of less than 4.
> I hope this helps!
> Thank you,
> Seachem Support 10286
> 
> 
> Jan 10, 23:59 AST
> 
> Message: Hi there - This is in reference to the thread in the support forum here: Prime dosage - Seachem Support Forums 1) In that thread, it is stated "Prime contains a chemical that will form complexes with metal ions.". While the metal ions are complexed by Prime - do they remain bio available to plants in the water column to any degree - or are they completely bound up and unavailable? 2) How long does the complexing last? That is, it is stated in that thread that, if dosed into pure RO water, Prime would remain for 24-48 hours before dissipating entirely. If instead, there are metals in the water and they are complexed by Prime, do they remain complexed for more than 24-48 hours. If so, how long? 3) In that thread it is also stated that "components in Prime will start to breakdown when they are exposed to a pH lower than 4." Does that mean that uncomplexed Prime breaks down at a pH lower than 4, or that the complexed metal ions become uncomplexed at pH lower than 4? Thanks so much for clarifying!



I sent one follow up asking them to re-confirm, specific to the quote you mention, which statement is accurate. Sigh...though, I think I'm chasing my tail here.


----------



## Deanna

DMtankd said:


> Sigh...though, I think I'm chasing my tail here.


You may have to flip a coin to decide which statement is closer to reality. However, since they consistently say that there is very little of the trace absorbed, it's probably not worth worrying about. If you are following their directions for Prime dosing and if Seachem's comments about trace adsorption are based upon their Flourish and Flourish Trace dosing recommendations, then they are referring to starting trace metal quantities well below what you are dosing (Seachem's doses are low and designed for low-tech setups).

Additionally, you may not need Prime anyway. Although I use RODI now, I used to use my local water company and inquired about their chloramine content. As I recall, they said that, while the content is x-amount at the test point, by the time it reaches my part of the path, there isn't much, if any, there. Sure enough, I always was able to change water without a chloramine detoxifier. You may want to ask your water company about your specific address in this regard.


----------



## DMtankd

FWIW Seachem indicating the older post is inaccurate and re-confirming bio-availability of the elements we're concerned about. 




> Seachem Support 10286 (Seachem Laboratories)
> Jan 12, 10:49 AST
> Thanks for your response. Yes, if you use Prime following the recommended dosing instructions, Manganese, Boron, Zinc, Copper, Molybdenum, and Nickel bound by Prime will all be in a bioavailable salt form. Again, however, Prime only detoxifies quite small amounts of heavy metals.
> That post is unfortunately quite old, so we have updated our knowledge slightly since then - I will happily clarify on the forum, and thank you for alerting us to this discrepancy!
> I hope this helps!
> Thank you,
> Seachem Support 10286
> 
> Jan 11, 22:01 AST
> Actually, sorry, one more: in that thread we are referencing, the Seachem rep previously stated:
> "Prime will reduce and detoxify heavy metals, and make them fall out of solution (the by-product would be a salt). So, yes, the metals will technically still be in the aquarium; they can become "available" again if your pH were to ever drop significantly."
> This seems to directly conflict with what you've told me here. Can you address which statement is correct and - ideally - update the thread in the support forum with a clarifying statement, if applicable?
> Prime dosage - Seachem Support Forums
> Thank you!


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> FWIW Seachem indicating the older post is inaccurate and re-confirming bio-availability of the elements we're concerned about.


Really appreciate you pressing them for a clear answer and sharing it. Thanks!
@fablau Im sure this is relevant to your interests as well


----------



## rhiro

I looked up the meaning of Bioavailable but could anyone explain it in the context of this discussion? Can the plants uptake the nutrient in this "salt form" or does it need to be broken down further before plants can access the nutrient?


----------



## Chlorophile

rhiro said:


> I looked up the meaning of Bioavailable but could anyone explain it in the context of this discussion? Can the plants uptake the nutrient in this "salt form" or does it need to be broken down further before plants can access the nutrient?


https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0595-468

Plants are very good at uptake, they do so without much knowledge of what they are taking. If they were preferential eaters they'd be a lot more resistant to over Fertilization and pesticides.

Salts in chemistry are the result of combining an acid and a base to form a neutral (close to neutral) compound. 
Many of our fertilizers (more so in agriculture) are salts
Some are usable right away others are broken down by bacteria (urea for example in soils is rapidly converted by bacteria into ammoniacle nitrogen)
I'm not that good with aquatic plants but I'm a super huge grass nerd (you wouldn't wanna he my neighbor) and I did turf grass management in college.

I would be very interested to know if there are similar systems in aquatic plants


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Really appreciate you pressing them for a clear answer and sharing it. Thanks!
> @fablau Im sure this is relevant to your interests as well




Yes indeed!


----------



## Deanna

Chlorophile said:


> Plants are very good at uptake, they do so without much knowledge of what they are taking. If they were preferential eaters they'd be a lot more resistant to over Fertilization and pesticides.


Good summary. In fact, they can be downright pigs and eat more metal than they should, thus our toxicity issues.


----------



## fablau

Deanna said:


> Good summary. In fact, they can be downright pigs and eat more metal than they should, thus our toxicity issues.




Yes, this is a very important point. Most of us (me included) assume that plants can regulate the intake of nutrients to avoid toxicities and related issues, whereas the opposite is true!


----------



## burr740

Marcel published an interesting experiment before making all his stuff private. Actually this one might've been private too but some of us were still able to see it.

For those who may not be familiar, he has 6 small tanks lined up side by side, each with the same light, co2, substrate, and water.

In each tank are 10-12 stems of the same species. Rotalla wallichii was the subject in this one.

The difference in each tank is the dosing, which starts from a low level in tank number 1 and proceeds higher and higher up to tank number 6. What usually happens is one or two tanks grows really well, a couple do not so well, and one or two others do terrible.

After this particular experiment was over he had a tissue analysis done on the best plants and the worst ones. The worst plants were all horribly stunted and barely grew at all over the course of 6 weeks (or whatever the time was)

And here is the interesting thing - the plants that did worst of all had several times more of some nutrients in their tissues than the plants that did great.

For example say the good plants had 5 ppm Fe inside their tissues, the bad plants might have 20. Those are arbitrary numbers just to give an idea.

If I remember correctly, the nutrients that increased were N, Fe, Mn, Mo and Cu (possibly Ca Im not sure) All the other nutrients were less or about the same as in the good plants.

So it seems plants are able to "shut the door" on some things but not others, at least in the case of Rotala wallichii.


----------



## Greggz

Burr very interesting. 

If I recall, Pikez has done several experiments on Rotalla wallichii, and it grew best in tanks with almost no dosing.

And in my own EI tank with ample nutrients, I have never had much success with Wallichii.

So that would be in line with the results of the testing.

But that begs the question......are the results Marcel had indicative of aquatic plants in general......or only of Wallichi?

If the same exact experiment was done with Limnophila Aromatica "Mini", would the results be the same? Or Rotala Macranda Variegated? Same results? Different?

And then lets say with these experiments, what if you changed other elements. Different substrate, more/less CO2, different PAR, spectrum of light, tank maintenance, etc. Would the results be the same?

In general, I don't know if a planted tank can be solved like a math problem. Too many variables, and very few conclusive results.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Burr very interesting.
> 
> If I recall, Pikez has done several experiments on Rotalla wallichii, and it grew best in tanks with almost no dosing.
> 
> And in my own EI tank with ample nutrients, I have never had much success with Wallichii.
> 
> So that would be in line with the results of the testing.
> 
> But that begs the question......are the results Marcel had indicative of aquatic plants in general......or only of Wallichi?
> 
> If the same exact experiment was done with Limnophila Aromatica "Mini", would the results be the same? Or Rotala Macranda Variegated? Same results? Different?
> 
> And then lets say with these experiments, what if you changed other elements. Different substrate, more/less CO2, different PAR, spectrum of light, tank maintenance, etc. Would the results be the same?
> 
> In general, I don't know if a planted tank can be solved like a math problem. Too many variables, and very few conclusive results.


Indeed, the possibilities are endless.

The point of that was plants continuing to absorb nutrients even when they arent needed, and/or possibly doing harm. It wasnt meant to be a nod towards low or high dosing.

- Pikez already tried to duplicate marcel's exact "optimum" conditions for Lythracae in his 180 gal. The results were catastrophic. My personal opinion is that an actual aquarium full of plants operates differently from a controlled experiment using just a few stems isolated in a small tank.

As for Wallichii, mine continues to respond better than ever under higher and higher micro dosing.

Here's a pic from this evening. It was going to be the "before" pic in my journal update tomorrow after doing a big trim and rearrangement.  But since we're on the subject, check out the wallichii in back. Perfect specimens over a foot and a half tall, growing like a weed


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> My personal opinion is that an actual aquarium full of plants operates differently from a controlled experiment using just a few stems isolated in a small tank.
> 
> As for Wallichii, mine continues to respond better than ever under higher and higher micro dosing.


Now I agree with that 100%. That is where the "art" of the process comes in.

And now I'm thinking maybe I have to try Wallichii for maybe the 3rd time? Maybe that's the charm.

And by the way, great FTS! Looking forward to the update.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> And now I'm thinking maybe I have to try Wallichii for maybe the 3rd time? Maybe that's the charm.


Yeah give it another shot. It's fun to keep trying plants we previously struggled with, later on when things are different. You know what a fit Pantanal gave me for a couple of years.

Ive stunted enough wallichii to fill a 5 gallon bucket. It used to barely hang around looking like this most of the time, back in the low-dosing/csmb days. This pic was maybe a year and a half ago


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Yeah give it another shot. It's fun to keep trying plants we previously struggled with, later on when things are different. You know what a fit Pantanal gave me for a couple of years.
> 
> Ive stunted enough wallichii to fill a 5 gallon bucket. It used to barely hang around looking like this most of the time, back in the low-dosing/csmb days. This pic was maybe a year and
> a half ago


Burr it's funny you say that. I remember when you were killing Wallichii.

I was going to put together a post on my tank about the species it took 2, 3, or 4 times to be successful with. 

I tried Helferi 3 times, but I wasn't ready. Now it grows great. I killed things as simple as Blyxa when I first went high tech. Now it's beautiful.

The point is, as you progress, don't be afraid to try plants you have failed with. And don't be afraid to try "difficult" plants. I still have the same Rotala Mac. Var. you sent me, and that was before I had a clue to what I was doing. Somehow it survived my ignorance, and now it thriving.

So I agree, always fun to try plants you failed with. Your relationship with Pantanal is a great case study.


----------



## Immortal1

Funny you mention Blyxa @Greggz - at one time I had like 6 or 7 of those in my tank and they all died off. Haven't tried since as I assumed they just did not like Iowa water....
Might have to try them again some time. Currently hoping the Eriocaulon Lineare that I just got stays happy!


----------



## Greggz

Immortal1 said:


> Funny you mention Blyxa @Greggz - at one time I had like 6 or 7 of those in my tank and they all died off. Haven't tried since as I assumed they just did not like Iowa water....
> Might have to try them again some time. C


Linn more likely light than Iowa water. Prediction is you do better with it now.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Marcel published an interesting experiment before making all his stuff private. Actually this one might've been private too but some of us were still able to see it.
> 
> For those who may not be familiar, he has 6 small tanks lined up side by side, each with the same light, co2, substrate, and water.
> 
> In each tank are 10-12 stems of the same species. Rotalla wallichii was the subject in this one.
> 
> The difference in each tank is the dosing, which starts from a low level in tank number 1 and proceeds higher and higher up to tank number 6. What usually happens is one or two tanks grows really well, a couple do not so well, and one or two others do terrible.
> 
> After this particular experiment was over he had a tissue analysis done on the best plants and the worst ones. The worst plants were all horribly stunted and barely grew at all over the course of 6 weeks (or whatever the time was)
> 
> And here is the interesting thing - the plants that did worst of all had several times more of some nutrients in their tissues than the plants that did great.
> 
> For example say the good plants had 5 ppm Fe inside their tissues, the bad plants might have 20. Those are arbitrary numbers just to give an idea.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the nutrients that increased were N, Fe, Mn, Mo and Cu (possibly Ca Im not sure) All the other nutrients were less or about the same as in the good plants.
> 
> So it seems plants are able to "shut the door" on some things but not others, at least in the case of Rotala wallichii.




I recall perfectly that experiment. What I don't recall though, is what kind of compounds Marcel used at that time. Chelated or not chelated? And what ratios?


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> I recall perfectly that experiment. What I don't recall though, is what kind of compounds Marcel used at that time. Chelated or not chelated? And what ratios?


Tenso Cocktail, it has EDTA based compounds similar to CSMB, different ratios. Its on the calculator


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Tenso Cocktail, it has EDTA based compounds similar to CSMB, different ratios. Its on the calculator




Could also be the proven issue with chelates based traces? Maybe he could have gotten different results if he used unchelated compounds as we are doing now? Just wondering...


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> If I remember correctly, the nutrients that increased were N, Fe, Mn, Mo and Cu (possibly Ca Im not sure) All the other nutrients were less or about the same as in the good plants.
> 
> So it seems plants are able to "shut the door" on some things but not others, at least in the case of Rotala wallichii.


...


----------



## MCFC

I know I'm waaaayyy late to the discussion, and I don't use a custom micro mix, but I've really enjoyed reading through this thread. There is a lot of information that is light-years beyond where I'm at now with my planted tanks, yet I still found a wealth of very interesting/helpful information. 

I can't contribute much on the custom micro mix front so I thought maybe I'd just fill out the Excel form


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Could also be the proven issue with chelates based traces? Maybe he could have gotten different results if he used unchelated compounds as we are doing now? Just wondering...


I know he ran CO2 24/7 at 30 ppm, along with reconstituted RO water with a very low KH. The PH was almost certainly under 6.5 all the time. So I doubt he was getting the Fe separation or whatever happens to some of us


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Marcel published an interesting experiment before making all his stuff private. Actually this one might've been private too but some of us were still able to see it.
> 
> For those who may not be familiar, he has 6 small tanks lined up side by side, each with the same light, co2, substrate, and water.
> 
> In each tank are 10-12 stems of the same species. Rotalla wallichii was the subject in this one.
> 
> The difference in each tank is the dosing, which starts from a low level in tank number 1 and proceeds higher and higher up to tank number 6. What usually happens is one or two tanks grows really well, a couple do not so well, and one or two others do terrible.
> 
> After this particular experiment was over he had a tissue analysis done on the best plants and the worst ones. The worst plants were all horribly stunted and barely grew at all over the course of 6 weeks (or whatever the time was)
> 
> And here is the interesting thing - the plants that did worst of all had several times more of some nutrients in their tissues than the plants that did great.
> 
> For example say the good plants had 5 ppm Fe inside their tissues, the bad plants might have 20. Those are arbitrary numbers just to give an idea.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the nutrients that increased were N, Fe, Mn, Mo and Cu (possibly Ca Im not sure) All the other nutrients were less or about the same as in the good plants.
> 
> So it seems plants are able to "shut the door" on some things but not others, at least in the case of Rotala wallichii.


Interesting.

I couldn't rule out if that is evidence of preferential uptake or just that some things can be stored(starches, iron in chlorophyll) and others can't.
In plants not doing well how do we know they simply couldn't use what they were taking up and so it accumulated?


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> Could also be the proven issue with chelates based traces? Maybe he could have gotten different results if he used unchelated compounds as we are doing now? Just wondering...


far as i remember, Marcel have told me that he obtained good results with Chelated or Non chelated, yes he does use Tenso Cocktail for his traces.


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I couldn't rule out if that is evidence of preferential uptake or just that some things can be stored(starches, iron in chlorophyll) and others can't.
> In plants not doing well how do we know they simply couldn't use what they were taking up and so it accumulated?


I have no idea. This is getting above my pay grade tbh


----------



## hbosman

Where are the individual chemicals available? Other than Fe, calcium, magnesium, I haven't been able to identify a source.


----------



## burr740

hbosman said:


> Where are the individual chemicals available? Other than Fe, calcium, magnesium, I haven't been able to identify a source.


I get mine from amazon and the bay. Alpha Chemicals is a good source for most of them, except I think they dont have boric acid

Easiest way is probably google the chemical compound + amazon or (e)bay. Thats what I usually do


----------



## hbosman

Thank you!!


----------



## happi

MBFERT|Wholesale Hydroponic Fertilizer Recipe|Buy DIY Garden Farm


----------



## Deanna

Just stumbled upon this comment by T Barr from over ten years ago:



> It's well known that harder waters require more traces.


Anyone know of this? If true, perhaps one or more of the traces can be tied to GH for indexing purposes? Perhaps a useful ratio of Ca and/or Mg (or just dGH) to trace x would be possible.


----------



## Surf

You can also go to Loudwolf.com (they also sell on amazon). The typically sell everything if 4 oz bottles and is 99% purity. This is a great size for smaller tanks. They carry everything except sodium molybdate. Most other sources have a minimum size of 1lb. Loudwolf prices are very resonable. Many other vendors increase the price for small quantities. 

They also carry borax and boric acid. Note I found borax is not compatible with sulfates. If you mix the sulfates with borax the sodium reacts with the sulfate forming sodium sulfate and insoluble manganese and zinc borates. It should work if if you dose the borax separately from the sulfates. but if you want to mix everything together boric acid is more frequently used. Loud wolf carries both boric acid and borax.


----------



## Edward

By “harder waters” he meant higher KH. 
And yes, it is known, I used 0 dKH with CO2 and very little traces.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> By “harder waters” he meant higher KH.
> And yes, it is known, I used 0 dKH with CO2 and very little traces.


Are you sure? The post was definitely referencing a quote regarding GH with no mention of KH.

The post is #11 here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8-general-planted-tank-discussion/35914-potassium-calcium-interaction.html


----------



## natemcnutty

Deanna said:


> Are you sure? The post was definitely referencing a quote regarding GH with no mention of KH.
> 
> The post is #11 here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8...sion/35914-potassium-calcium-interaction.html


Check out his post #17 in that same thread 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna

Then, if it is just KH (he unintentionally misleads in either post 11 or 16, not sure which), what is the issue? Alkaline water inhibiting certain chelators or does it it actually impede plant uptake of the traces, requiring heavier dosing to increase access? @Edward: are you saying that your traces were all easily consumed at 0 dKH, so you didn't add much?


----------



## Immortal1

Edward said:


> By “harder waters” he meant higher KH.
> And yes, it is known, I used 0 dKH with CO2 and very little traces.


Interesting part of this topic. My tank is running a GH of 16 and a KH of 9 - so regardless if Tom referenced GH or KH I am assuming I will likely need more micros than say @Edward


----------



## Surf

> Originally Posted by Edward View Post
> By “harder waters” he meant higher KH.
> And yes, it is known, I used 0 dKH with CO2 and very little traces.
> Are you sure? The post was definitely referencing a quote regarding GH with no mention of KH.
> 
> The post is #11 here: Potassium/ Calcium interaction?


That thread started with this post:



> Do high levels of potassium cause problems with calcium uptake in some plants?
> 
> I'm wondering because the plants (mainly Anubia and Glosso) in my 120 tank have curling leaves/ stunted new growth. I can't figure if I need more or need less potassium although I've seen positive results adding some calcium Chloride to treat these symtoms in the past despite the fact the tap water has at least 4-6 degrees GH all the time.


Basically he had curling leaves and he found he had positive results by adding Calcium chloride. That didn't make sense to hime because his GH was 4-6. So he was looking for another cause. 

For starters a GH of 4-6 is no guarantee that you have enough calcium it is also doesn't tell you if you have enough magnesium. also curling leaves today is a known symptom of calcium deficiency. Most fertilizers today don't include calcium but they do have magnesium. So if your tap water is deficient in calcium, magnesium can gradually build up in the aquarium. This means the GH may stay stable event though the water chemistry is gradually shifting form a mix of calcium magnesium to one of mostly magnesium. Also if your water is rich in calcium you may deplete magnesium in your tank causing other issues. 

That said if you dose potassium nitrate to maintain a stable nitrate level you will always have more potassium in your tank than the plant needs. So everyone has potassium excess and yet it is more common to see problems due to low calcium levels.



> By “harder waters” he meant higher KH.
> And yes, it is known, I used 0 dKH with CO2 and very little traces.


When talking about hard water and KH you have to be careful. Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate will make water hard. However a lot of people add sodium Bicarbonate to their tanks to increase KH. Sodium bicarbonate will post KH but it will not boost GH. So it is important to know the source of the carbonate if you are trying to determine the problem. Sodium doesn't like to stay attached to a carbonate. It prefers to attach itself to chlorine, sulfate, or nitrate. So in theory a excess sodium carbonate in a tank can cause many of the trace elements in fertilizers (which are mostly sulfates) to convert to trace carbonates which may not be as soluble and may precipitate out of the water making them unavailable to plants. Many fertilizers are also deficient in sulfur which can make the problem worse. 

Manganese carbonate is listed in Wikipedia as negligibly soluble in water which means it probably becomes less available to plants.. In my opinion Calcium and magnesium carbonate are a lot less likely to react with trace nutrients and cause problems. Especially if the water is low in sodium and high in sulfates.


----------



## dukydaf

When salts are dissolved in water the source of the cation and anion doesn't matter as much as the conc of each. So all bicarbonate ions no matter the source are equal once dissolved. Look up dissolution of salt in water if you want to understand more as to why.

In wastewater management, carbonate and hydroxide precipitation are used to clean mining water of heavy metals. Plenty of papers describing the process in detail available. It will be a chemical reaction with unchelated micronutrients. Some will become available again once pH drops lower (5.5 for example)


----------



## burr740

Surf said:


> . So in theory a excess sodium carbonate in a tank can cause many of the trace elements in fertilizers (which are mostly sulfates) to convert to trace carbonates which may not be as soluble and may precipitate out of the water making them unavailable to plants. Many fertilizers are also deficient in sulfur which can make the problem worse.
> 
> Manganese carbonate is listed in Wikipedia as negligibly soluble in water which means it probably becomes less available to plants..* In my opinion Calcium and magnesium carbonate are a lot less likely to react with trace nutrients and cause problems.* Especially if the water is low in sodium and high in sulfates.


Doesnt the bolded statement in the last paragraph contradict the previous paragraph?

If the first paragraph is true, why would CaCO3 be the better source to use with unchelated micro nutrients?

Im just trying to understand



dukydaf said:


> When salts are dissolved in water the source of the cation and anion doesn't matter as much as the conc of each. So all bicarbonate ions no matter the source are equal once dissolved. Look up dissolution of salt in water if you want to understand more as to why.
> 
> In wastewater management, carbonate and hydroxide precipitation are used to clean mining water of heavy metals. Plenty of papers describing the process in detail available. It will be a chemical reaction with unchelated micronutrients. Some will become available again once pH drops lower (5.5 for example)


Does this mean it would be better to use another source of calcium besides CaCO3 along with unchelated micros?


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> ... @Edward: are you saying that your traces were all easily consumed at 0 dKH, so you didn't add much?


Plants were happy with much less traces than some people need to dose. 

Reading aquatic plant forums for a decade shows this trend where the higher the KH (called harder water) the more difficulties people have. Look at some lower KH regions where 1-2 dKH grows plants like crazy, almost with no dosing. Very little traces compared to you know what. 

What is wrong with high trace levels?

Rasbora sumatrana, after 96 hours 50% fish dead due to 1.71 ppm Fe
Poecilia reticulate Guppy, after 96 hours 50% fish dead due to 1.46 ppm Fe
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0748233712472519

At this concentration of 1.71 ppm Fe Plant-Product CSM+B already makes Cu level 4 times more lethal than the 96 hours 50% rate.


----------



## Deanna

It seems that there is a fine distinction, which I never noticed before, between the terms; ‘hard water’ (GH) and ‘water hardness’ (KH). So, I’m agreeing that T Barr was, in fact, referring to KH when he used the phrase; “water hardness.”



Surf said:


> Manganese carbonate is listed in Wikipedia as negligibly soluble in water which means it probably becomes less available to plants.. In my opinion Calcium and magnesium carbonate are a lot less likely to react with trace nutrients and cause problems. Especially if the water is low in sodium and high in sulfates.


Although, I think, the primary direction has turned from GH components (Ca & Mg) to KH components (bicarbonates), I want to probe further on your CaCO3 and MgCO3 comments. My understanding is that the carbonate forms of these are much slower to dissolve (particularly in alkaline water) than other forms which, in turn, limits availability to plants. Could that be the reason for your opinion that they also won’t react as easily with traces or are you thinking that unchelated traces are better off not being exposed to unbound Ca and Mg? Can plants access the Ca and Mg in CaCO3 and MgCO3 directly?



dukydaf said:


> When salts are dissolved in water the source of the cation and anion doesn't matter as much as the conc of each. So all bicarbonate ions no matter the source are equal once dissolved.


The operative words are: “once dissolved.” For carbonate forms, if the water is alkaline, dissolution is slow. When CO2 is high, it will be dissolved more rapidly so, maybe the availability is limited throughout the day?



burr740 said:


> Does this mean it would be better to use another source of calcium besides CaCO3 along with unchelated micros?


Or the opposite (see above)?



Edward said:


> Reading aquatic plant forums for a decade shows this trend where the higher the KH (called harder water) the more difficulties people have. Look at some lower KH regions where 1-2 dKH grows plants like crazy, almost with no dosing. Very little traces compared to you know what.


My understanding was that if KH drops below about 3 dKH, CO2 usage by plants goes down, which results in retarded plant growth (and often increased algae growth). Don’t ask where I found this, but please try to de-bunk it. 

Since I opened this can of worms, you are all challenging my traditional thoughts about this and I’m wondering if there is a benefit to maintaining a KH below 3 dKH. I noticed, in most of your charts, that your dKH ranges between 5 – 7. Maybe the higher trace loadings are needed at those KH levels. I wonder what would happen if you dropped your KH along with the trace loadings …@ burr740: another assignment for one of your tanks!!


----------



## happi

@Edward 

just curious if the above was demonstrated while using Non chelated heavy metals or EDTA Based metals.

Bump: @ Deanna

"My understanding was that if KH drops below about 3 dKH, CO2 usage by plants goes down, which results in retarded plant growth (and often increased algae growth). Don’t ask where I found this, but please try to de-bunk it."

actually it suppose to be other way around, plant will actually utilize the co2 better when KH is lower, drop checker will become useless under very low KH to almost 0, i have ran my tank on almost at 0 KH for many years and i can ensure you that it will not kill your plants or fish. but, what you might be seeing is that plant decline to use or are less effective at using certain nutrients as KH/PH gets very low as certain nutrients are uptake better at certain PH levels, even with the extremely high CO2 and 0 KH you will only get to 5 PH being the lowest.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> Or the opposite (see above)?


Mmm, Im still reading that as some other source would be better. Maybe it depends on what's more important, being more available to plants or being less reactive to other micro nutrients??




Deanna said:


> …@ burr740: another assignment for one of your tanks!!


LOL, I'll add that to the ever growing list of things to try


----------



## happi

i have a another Project for @burr if he is willing to try it on his current setup where he is using the same recipe for both NPK and Trace/Fe, this will demonstrate the Toxicity of any kind, all you have to do is lower the GH and KH to 1 with very minimum Ca and Mg, around 10 ppm Ca and about 3-4 ppm Mg while using RO water. if anything goes bad, at least we will know for sure that it wont be co2 or nutrients issue. this would be a good demonstration because Burr tank has been very stable now and no one could really blame on CO2 or Nutrinets issue otherwise that issue would have already occurred by now, what you think @Burr. this isn't a challenge toward Burr, but rather this would be interesting demonstration just to see what really happens. if we could get some Shrimps in Burr's tank that would make it even more interesting.

if someone else have a spare tank who want to test few different things, i have few more recommendations.


----------



## Edward

happi said:


> @Edwardjust curious if the above was demonstrated while using Non chelated heavy metals or EDTA Based metals.


 Not sure what they have used, still chelated traces should be less toxic to fish, also here … chelated traces decrease mortality … 
_
The acute toxicity of copper and copper plus complexing agents to common guppy Lebistes reticulatuswas studied for 96 h by a static bioassay technique. The addition of complexing agents viz. disodium salt of EDTA, citric acid, sodium thiosulphate and glycine in Cu2+ solutions caused a great decrease in the per-cent mortality as compared to that of Cu2+ test solutions alone. _
Effect of Complexing Agents on the Acute Toxicity of Copper to Common Guppy Lebistes reticulatus (PETERS) - Khangarot - 1981 - CLEAN ? Soil, Air, Water - Wiley Online Library

Bump:


Deanna said:


> ... Since I opened this can of worms, you are all challenging my traditional thoughts about this and I’m wondering if there is a benefit to maintaining a KH below 3 dKH. I noticed, in most of your charts, that your dKH ranges between 5 – 7. ...


 Where?
...


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> i have a another Project for @burr if he is willing to try it on his current setup where he is using the same recipe for both NPK and Trace/Fe, this will demonstrate the Toxicity of any kind, all you have to do is lower the GH and KH to 1 with very minimum Ca and Mg, around 10 ppm Ca and about 3-4 ppm Mg while using RO water. if anything goes bad, at least we will know for sure that it wont be co2 or nutrients issue. this would be a good demonstration because Burr tank has been very stable now and no one could really blame on CO2 or Nutrinets issue otherwise that issue would have already occurred by now, what you think @Burr. this isn't a challenge toward Burr, but rather this would be interesting demonstration just to see what really happens. if we could get some Shrimps in Burr's tank that would make it even more interesting.



Yeah that's not gonna happen. I have pretty good tap which I use 100% in all tanks, no RO system and no plans to get one any time soon.


----------



## DMtankd

burr740 said:


> Yeah that's not gonna happen. I have pretty good tap which I use 100% in all tanks, no RO system and no plans to get one any time soon.


I think my PAR is lower than @burr740 's, and for quite a few other very good reasons, this is probably not a good comparison, but FWIW and by way of general update - I use 70% RO and my tank runs GH ~5 and KH between 1-2 after I reconstitute. I dose micro's using similar ratios and the same compounds. Similar lighting, similar but slightly lower PH drop from CO2 injection., etc.

I'm dosing micros at 1/4 of what Burr does. Of course, I also have exactly 0 big ol' ribbons for best scape  ...but I do have 0 algae and I'm even starting to see reasonable growth from my Patanal after the recent 25% increase in my micro dosing. Updated table attached. My intent is to continue increasing micro dosing, but I seem to be doing OK at a much lower micro dosing level. Perhaps there is something to the lower KH -> lower micro requirements thing?


On the Seachem Prime front: I'm a glutton for punishment and had to ask for clarification on the 'salt' comment in Seachem's last response. They confirmed it's a complex/ligand - see below. So it sounds as though Prime has some sort of 'chelating' agent that is rapidly biodegradable on it's own (it disappears within 24-48 hours remember) but also becomes 'permanent' once it binds to a metal. Just wanted to pass along.



> Seachem Support 10286 (Seachem Laboratories)
> Jan 16, 16:20 AST
> 
> Thanks for your response. It will be the latter where the metal is bound to a ligand but remains in solution . I have been unable to update the forum as of yet, but will do so by the end of the week!
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Thank you,
> Seachem Support 10286
> 
> 
> Jan 12, 14:52 AST
> 
> Thank you. Sorry for being so pedantic but just to check: you say "will all be in a bioavailable salt form". I thought they were being 'complexed'. When I hear 'salt' I think of an ionic compound (that may or may not be soluble in water) but, if soluble in water, completely dissociates into it's basic component ions. When you say 'salt' there, do you mean a "complex salt" or, effectively a coordination complex - where the metal is bound to ligands but remains in solution?



An additional random thought - on our baseline dosing gallons. I have a 40 Breeder (which actually holds ~45 gallons). I base my PPM calculations on 40 gallons - subtracting for substrate, plants, hardscape,etc, but adding back in my Eheim 2217 and the big Grigg Style reactor. @Greggz - do I read it right from your first post that you have a 120g but base your dosing on 80g? @burr740 - your volumes seems to be based on 100g, correct (so ~83% of starting tank volume)? Comparing PPM's might be misleading if we're not all using pretty good estimations of the actual total system volume, no? That seems much 'lower' (i.e. I'm basing my dosing on ~88% of my starting tank volume, you are basing on ~66% if i read it right). **EDIT - i see now that Greggz RO reconstitution is based on 80g, but looks like fert dosing is based on 105g - so ~88% of initial tank volume. we all seem to be in the same neighborhood**:iamwithst


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Bump: Where?
> ...


You didn't post a chart. The others have posted one.


----------



## dukydaf

Deanna said:


> It seems that there is a fine distinction, which I never noticed before, between the terms; ‘hard water’ (GH) and ‘water hardness’ (KH). So, I’m agreeing that T Barr was, in fact, referring to KH when he used the phrase; “water hardness.”


 Frankly, I think people should be more clear. Doesn't really make sense to use water hardness instead of GH or KH... look how much you have to type 



Deanna said:


> Although, I think, the primary direction has turned from GH components (Ca & Mg) to KH components (bicarbonates), I want to probe further on your CaCO3 and MgCO3 comments. My understanding is that the carbonate forms of these are much slower to dissolve (particularly in alkaline water) than other forms which, in turn, limits availability to plants. Could that be the reason for your opinion that they also won’t react as easily with traces or are you thinking that unchelated traces are better off not being exposed to unbound Ca and Mg? Can plants access the Ca and Mg in CaCO3 and MgCO3 directly?
> 
> The operative words are: “once dissolved.” For carbonate forms, if the water is alkaline, dissolution is slow. When CO2 is high, it will be dissolved more rapidly so, maybe the availability is limited throughout the day?
> 
> Or the opposite (see above)?
> 
> My understanding was that if KH drops below about 3 dKH, CO2 usage by plants goes down, which results in retarded plant growth (and often increased algae growth). Don’t ask where I found this, but please try to de-bunk it.





burr740 said:


> Does this mean it would be better to use another source of calcium besides CaCO3 along with unchelated micros?


I will try to answer both at the same time. But, short answer for @burr740 Ca(NO3)2 would be my choice for Ca or CaCl2. The first because you use both ions (tip: dose for Ca not NO3), the second just because it is easy to dissolve.

Well, yes we are pretty much always talking about what is dissolved as for the most part "in solution"=plant available. I am not concerned about the precipitated phosphates, but people with KH=0 and very low pH (eg below 5.5) may start considering that some % of their precipitated traces may become available again. Regarding CaCO3, yes the solubility is very very low, pretty much insoluble and will stay at equilibrium, as long as you do not add acid. Add acid, such as carbonic acid from CO2, and BOOM, you get a lot faster and can go up the pH ladder.

So that problem being solved, it is still a bad choice for Ca in planted aquariums. As the CO3 is exposed to water, at most of our aquarium pH it is converted to HCO3, increasing the pH and leaving a lot of OH- to react with our precious metals, forming precipitates. The CO3 itself also reacts with iron, Cu etc. but I don't recall all the conditions necessary for the reaction. The issue here is that many of the precipitates will return in solution once the pH drops enough.... But, if no CO2 is added or pH above 7 ( high KH) all the time ... add daily amounts of traces and fingers crossed . Maybe this is also why the precipitation with PO4 is more relevant for trace loss even though PO4 are a lot less concentrated.


----------



## burr740

dukydaf said:


> Ca(NO3)2 would be my choice for Ca or CaCl2. The first because you use both ions (tip: dose for Ca not NO3), the second just because it is easy to dissolve.


Thanks for the in depth answers. 

What about using CaSO4?


----------



## dukydaf

burr740 said:


> Thanks for the in depth answers.
> 
> What about using CaSO4?


It works, but needs a little bit of active mixing or time... also one of the few chemicals we use in aquariums that generates heat when dissolved and has higher solubility at lower temperature.:nerd: Good thing is that it is readily available and cheap. It also increases the TDS more than the others...seems important for shrimp folks


----------



## Deanna

dukydaf said:


> I will try to answer both at the same time. But, short answer for @burr740 Ca(NO3)2 would be my choice for Ca or CaCl2. The first because you use both ions (tip: dose for Ca not NO3), the second just because it is easy to dissolve.
> 
> Well, yes we are pretty much always talking about what is dissolved as for the most part "in solution"=plant available. I am not concerned about the precipitated phosphates, but people with KH=0 and very low pH (eg below 5.5) may start considering that some % of their precipitated traces may become available again. Regarding CaCO3, yes the solubility is very very low, pretty much insoluble and will stay at equilibrium, as long as you do not add acid. Add acid, such as carbonic acid from CO2, and BOOM, you get a lot faster and can go up the pH ladder.


Agree on the Ca/Mg CO3 formats. In addition to avoiding these forms for Ca and Mg sources, it should be considered a warning for those interested in using a substrate high in carbonates. I am currently struggling with high GH and KH (8-12 degrees each) because I was misled/guided into adding Seachems' Onyx Sand to my Fluorite. All of the GH and KH are in carbonate form. When my pH drops to 6.4 during the day, kaboom!, the CO3 moves in and raises my GH and KH about 2 degrees per day form a weekly water change level of 1-2. Will be changing it out soon.


----------



## Edward

happi said:


> ... when KH is lower, drop checker will become useless under very low KH to almost 0, i have ran my tank on almost at 0 KH for many years ...


Why is that? I haven’t tried, but drop checker has its own predetermined KH set liquid inside to interact with nearby CO2.


----------



## happi

Edward said:


> Why is that? I haven’t tried, but drop checker has its own predetermined KH set liquid inside to interact with nearby CO2.


far as what i understand, drop checker doesn't work very well if the KH is 0, am going based on what i have read, i could be wrong, there is a thread on this topic somewhere, so don't take my word for it.

Bump: anyways, anyone here use vinegar to dissolve Ca or Mg CO3? i believe this suppose to remove all the KH and you should only be left with Ca or Mg in the soltuion


----------



## Surf

I want to probe further on your CaCO3 and MgCO3 comments. My understanding is that the carbonate forms of these are much slower to dissolve (particularly in alkaline water) than other forms which, in turn, limits availability to plants.

calcium and magnesium carbonate have basically zero solubility when the PH is above 7. Solubility increases rapidly as the PH drops below 7. As it dissolves it pushes the PH back up. 



> Could that be the reason for your opinion that they also won’t react as easily with traces or are you thinking that unchelated traces are better off not being exposed to unbound Ca and Mg?


The primary reason for my opinion is that sodium is very reactive. It just doesn't want to stay attached to carbonate for very long in water. If there is anything else in the water that sodium can react to it will. Ca and Mg are not as reactive. They will exist as carbonates for quite some time in water. But that said the lower solubility does help. Another factor to consider is that a lot of different reactions are occurring all the time and PH can change significantly during one day. So if a trace nutrient is converted to a none soluble carbonate it might redissolve later in the day. If you are injecting CO2 into your your tank doing the day, and turn it off at night, the PH will change daily. 

Overall most of the time when someone has high KH due to hard water the water is typically very rich in calcium (up to 95% calcium with little to no magnesium. With such high levels of calcium magnesium can become deficient and plant growth will then slow. So I can see how someone would think that high KH is causing carbonates to precipitate out creating a deficiency. However in reality high calcium levels may help the plants to grow faster allowing the plants to consume so much magnesium that magnesium goes into deficiency causing slow growth.



> Does this mean it would be better to use another source of calcium besides CaCO3 along with unchelated micros?
> Or the opposite (see above)?


It depends on what you are try to achieve. If you are trying to stabilize tank PH putting sea shells or coral in a filter does a very good job in a low tech tank. However in tank with CO2 injection it increase GH. 

If you want to put ca and Mg in your fertilizer to satisfy the calcium need of the plantCa Mg sulfate and chloride work very well. In fact my source of Ca Mg, S, and Cl in my tank is entirely from a GH booster I made from Ca, Mg, sulfates and chlorides. It provides all my Ca and Mg, S, Cl, It also provides excess Cl and sulfates which can help keep trace nutrients soluble.

Calcium nitrate can be used to create a better balanced macro fertilizer. Replacing potassium nitrate with Calcium nitrate can eliminate excess potassium in the fertilizer. However in this case you are replacing excess potassium with excess calcium which will take the form of calcium carbonate once the nitrate is absorbed pushing KH up.


----------



## dukydaf

Surf said:


> Calcium nitrate can be used to create a better balanced macro fertilizer. Replacing potassium nitrate with Calcium nitrate can eliminate excess potassium in the fertilizer. However in this case you are replacing excess potassium with excess calcium which will take the form of calcium carbonate once the nitrate is absorbed pushing KH up.



Yes replacing all KNO3 with Ca(NO3) 2 is a bad idea. For one, plants need plenty of K, more than Ca, and then to add enough No3 you would have to add way too much Ca. As I said, dose for Ca not for NO3.

I am curious how would Ca from CaNO3 react with carbonates and push the pH up? Aren't the carbonates already in solution?
If CaCO3 is formed it will precipitate, wouldn't that drive the KH down as CO3 is taken from the solution?
And if Ca from CaCO3 reacts wouldn't Ca from other sources also react?


----------



## Deanna

Thanks @Surf. You have reaffirmed my understanding of the GH components aspect.

Back to KH and traces and trying to summarize thus far:

Seems like lower KH (perhaps due to the absence of a CO3 effect on traces) has allowed some members to have excellent growth with low trace levels, although we haven’t seen any tests (adding and withdrawing) to try to confirm this. The implication being that, perhaps, KH above 3 dKH may require increasingly higher levels of traces to achieve optimal growth(?).

Once I remove the high-carbonate substrate from my tank, I think I will try maintaining a KH of 2 dKH using CaCO3 and, as needed, I’ll start using potassium bicarbonate if I continue to buffer with bicarbonates. I hadn’t considered the potential problems of sodium build-up from using sodium bicarbonate. 

Regarding pH dangers; IME I have never (over many decades) observed pH stress in any fish and I’ve had tanks ranging from 6 through 8, so I’m not too concerned about pH swings, especially those driven by CO2 injection. I believe that pH stress effects are usually more TDS stress issues.

In the back of my mind, I remain concerned about pushing trace levels higher and higher. I suspect that biomass and, maybe now, KH must determine trace level dosing. So, a way to index those two aspects to a trace proxy is what I’m hoping to see happen. At the same time, I’m hoping the trace experiments will find a generally accepted ratio of unchelated traces and then we can adjust this balance according to biomass and [maybe] KH.


----------



## Surf

> I am curious how would Ca from CaNO3 react with carbonates and push the pH up? Aren't the carbonates already in solution?
> If CaCO3 is formed it will precipitate, wouldn't that drive the KH down as CO3 is taken from the solution?
> And if Ca from CaCO3 reacts wouldn't Ca from other sources also react?


All aerated water has CO2 and carbonic acid in it due to the CO2 in the air. When the plant consumes the NO3 from the CaNO3 the calcium the plant doesn't need stays in the watar. A free calcium atom will react with the O2, CO2, and carbonic acid in the tank to form CaCO3. Depending on concentration of carbonates and PH the CaCo3 will either stay in solution or very slowly precipitate out of the water. 

Since plants need more nitrogen then any other macro or micro nutrient the use of any nitrate salt will cause an excess of something in the water other than nitrate. A water change is then needed to prevent the excess from reaching toxic levels.


----------



## dukydaf

Surf said:


> All aerated water has CO2 and carbonic acid in it due to the CO2 in the air... A free calcium atom will react with the O2, CO2, and carbonic acid in the tank to form CaCO3.


If what you describe were true in aquariums (say pH 5.5 to 8, 15-30°C, normal atm), as you inject CO2 or expose water to the atmosphere two things should be observed: 
1. KH would increase depending on CO2 conc. (after all you have extra CO3 to interact with the Ca)
2. Ca would be removed from solution just by adding CO2 ie GH would reduce ( As it forms CaCO3 somehow and precipitates)
Neither of these is observed in aquariums or sterile experiment conditions. 



Surf said:


> Depending on concentration of carbonates and PH the CaCo3 will either stay in solution


I give up. Just like there is no NaCl , no KNO3 in water, *there is no CaCO3 in solution *. In a water solution you have Ca 2+ surrounded by loads of water molecules (and forming unstable products such as Ca(OH)2... with water) and CO3 2- surrounded by loads of water molecules ( and forming unstable products such as HCO3- and H2CO3 ). When a Ca and CO3 collide there are 2 main options: 
1. stay together (when conditions are right) and precipitate --- get out of solution 
2. separate ( the pull of the dipolar solvent (water) is too strong) --- get back to Ca and CO3, individually surrounded by molecules of water

As you see neither option is to stay as a CaCO3 molecule suspended in water. I think this is the main message to understand for many readers. Once in solution every ion is on its own. 

As this discussion is only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, I'm out.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

What has happened to that simple cabin???>


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> What has happened to that simple cabin???>


LOL!! If this keeps up, Burr is going to need a bigger secret lair!:grin2:


----------



## Edward

...


----------



## DMtankd

Looking at the attached solubility chart, you'll notice that both carbonates (CO3) and phosphates (PO4) are mostly insoluble with many of the unchelated metals we're dosing. So, as your KH increases or you up your PO4 dosing - you increase the rate at which your metals will precipitate out.

The case study is my recent doubling of my PO4 dosing that lead pretty quickly to apparent micro deficiency. This is probably partially because I was PO4 limited and when I increased it, the next limited nutrient was a micro. At the same time, I also likely had a less micros in the column because the additional PO4 was precipitating them out more rapidly.

I doubt there is a specific threshold (i.e. 3 dKH) where this fully kicks in, but likely it's a spectrum where, as your KH and phosphate levels increase, you're overall need for unchelated micros increases.

I suspect maybe this does not apply - at least not as much - to the iron in our case since it is bound - fairly stably as I understand it - by DTPA?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Edward said:


> ...


I recently filled a spreadsheet with this data too.
27 recipes in all, it included peoples recipes from the threads(9) in order to make a comparison to build a custom mix!

It is bad when one performs a preview and realizes that three paragraphs must be deleted because they are inappropriate.>

I am surprised, didn't know one could stack it this high!:grin2:


----------



## Surf

> If what you describe were true in aquariums (say pH 5.5 to 8, 15-30°C, normal atm), as you inject CO2 or expose water to the atmosphere two things should be observed:
> 1. KH would increase depending on CO2 conc. (after all you have extra CO3 to interact with the Ca)
> 2. Ca would be removed from solution just by adding CO2 ie GH would reduce ( As it forms CaCO3 somehow and precipitates)


Aerated DI water has a PH of about 6 and KH of zero. The PH is low due to carbon dioxide in the air. KH is not a measure of CO2. It is a measure of an alkaline atom attached to a carbonate molecule. You can test this yourself by bubbling CO2 into DI water and doing a PH and KH test. Rain water is also acidic and has zero KH. But when left in a glass to outgas it will have a PH of 7 with a KH of still zero.

So:
1)KH will not increase withincreasing CO2 levels.
2)Ca would not be removed from the solution since the acidity of water increase as the CO2 level increases. As the PH drops the solubility of CaCO3 increases. 



> As you see neither option is to stay as a CaCO3 molecule suspended in water. I think this is the main message to understand for many readers. Once in solution every ion is on its own.


True that applies to all molecules in the water such as NO3, SO4, and CL which by themselves are all acidic. K, Ca, Mg are also in the water and they are all alkaline. And all are going to be present in an aquarium with growing plants. The SO4 and CL will almost always be in excess of what plants need. Since plants need a lot more K, Ca, and Mg but less SO4 and CL plants tend to push the water PH down which also helps preventing micro carbonates from accumulating in the substrate. 

I recently started testing my own micro mix in a 1 gallon aerated tank with plants.PH started at 7. 24 hours later my 10ppm nitrate was gone, PO4 was almost gone, and the PH was 6. I forgot to add any calcium carbonate to the substrate in the test tank to provide any buffering. The loss of K, Ca, and Mg while SO4 and Cl built up cause the PH to drop. With even a small PH drop (smaller than I had) any micro carbonates would have been converted back to sulfates and Chlorides and would again be available.

In my second test of the fertilizer in the test tank (with Ca / Mg carbonates the nitrate and phosphate was still consumed in 24 hours but the PH only dropped to 6.5 Thanks to the carbonates I added to the substrate. The addition of the carbonates in the second test didn't appear to affect nutrient uptake rate by the plants.

All by itself it would appear that micro carbonates is a problem. But when you take into account all the chemistry going on in the water it probably not a serious problem. 

PS my current micro mix is B 20ppb, Mn 50ppb, Zn 20ppb, Cu 9ppb, Mo and Ni 1ppb each. NO3 is 10ppm, PO4 is 1ppm. The rest of the nutrients are in my GH booster which I am currently running at a GH of 7.


----------



## Surf

> Seems like lower KH (perhaps due to the absence of a CO3 effect on traces) has allowed some members to have excellent growth with low trace levels, although we haven’t seen any tests (adding and withdrawing) to try to confirm this.


If one had the money they could send a lab 2 samples of the same fertilized water one with No Kh and one with KH. The lab could then do a detailed analysis. The results would probably prove of disprove the theory. A aquarium test might show the affect but it could also be a deficiency unrelated to the carbonates. It would not be possible to know without the lab work.



> Once I remove the high-carbonate substrate from my tank, I think I will try maintaining a KH of 2 dKH using CaCO3 and, as needed, I’ll start using potassium bicarbonate if I continue to buffer with bicarbonates. I hadn’t considered the potential problems of sodium build-up from using sodium bicarbonate.


If you do this I would use a mix of about 2 parts ca carbonate to 1 part Mg carbonate to insure you don't become mg deficient. Note also that whenever you add a powder of this to he tank it may turn the water milky until it settles. Another option is to use the mineral dolomite. this mineral is a mix of about 50% Ca carbonate to with the remainder being mg carbonate. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that potassium is slightly more reactive than sodium. I have never used potassium bicarbonates I don't know for certain how well it will work in a aquarium.



> In the back of my mind, I remain concerned about pushing trace levels higher and higher. I suspect that biomass and, maybe now, KH must determine trace level dosing. So, a way to index those two aspects to a trace proxy is what I’m hoping to see happen. At the same time, I’m hoping the trace experiments will find a generally accepted ratio of unchelated traces and then we can adjust this balance according to biomass and [maybe] KH.


You might find this link interesting:
Macronutrients and Micronutrients

The table on that sight lists the about of nutrient in 1KG of dried plant material. I assumed the ratio between the nutrients in the table was typical of plants. In fact Burr740's micro mix appears to be close to the ratios seen in plants. So I have chosen to follow this ratio in my mix In fact if the ratios in the table are correct the nutrients most likely to go deficient for me now are Nitrogen and phosphorous which can easily be measured. I hop it works this way. It would help a lot when trying to determine which nutrient is deficient. I am also surprised that many fertilizers have micro dose levels a lot lower that what is being discussed in this thread.


----------



## Whysoserious

Surf said:


> A free calcium atom will react with the O2, CO2, and carbonic acid in the tank to form CaCO3. Depending on concentration of carbonates and PH the CaCo3 will either stay in solution or very slowly precipitate out of the water.


 
Ca <=> Ca(HCO3)2 <=> CaCO3




Bjerrum plot













> KH is not a measure of CO2. It is a measure of an alkaline atom attached to a carbonate molecule.


 
Not it is not. It is a measurement of carbonate ions HCO3 + CO3. Test kits measure Total Alkalinity though.




> True that applies to all molecules in the water such as NO3, SO4, and CL which by themselves are all acidic. K, Ca, Mg are also in the water and they are all alkaline. And all are going to be present in an aquarium with growing plants. The SO4 and CL will almost always be in excess of what plants need. Since plants need a lot more K, Ca, and Mg but less SO4 and CL plants tend to push the water PH down which also helps preventing micro carbonates from accumulating in the substrate.



The pH of a solution only controlled by plant species, will vary depending on the uptake rate of the ions in the solution. Feed your plant a positive cation (NH4+) and the plant will deposit one (or more depending on the valence of the uptaken cation) H+ ion into the water to maintain a neutral charge in the solution. Feed your plant a negative anion (NO3-) and the plant will deposit one or more HCO3- ions.


If the plant uptakes more NH4+ then NO3-, then there will be an excess of H+ ions deposited into the solution and the pH will drop, and vice-versa.


----------



## Edward

Surf said:


> You might find this link interesting:
> Macronutrients and Micronutrients
> 
> The table on that sight lists the about of nutrient in 1KG of dried plant material. I assumed the ratio between the nutrients in the table was typical of plants. In fact Burr740's micro mix appears to be close to the ratios seen in plants. So I have chosen to follow this ratio in my mix In fact if the ratios in the table are correct the nutrients most likely to go deficient for me now are Nitrogen and phosphorous which can easily be measured. I hop it works this way. It would help a lot when trying to determine which nutrient is deficient. I am also surprised that many fertilizers have micro dose levels a lot lower that what is being discussed in this thread.


Interesting ideas. 
The funny part is how low microelement levels are needed with 20 ppm of NO3, only 0.01 – 0.03 ppm of Fe and others.
Additionally, I have added the linked data to the Trace Element chart for easier comparison.


----------



## Deanna

Surf said:


> my current micro mix is Ni 1ppb each.


Ni seems pretty high. Why?



Surf said:


> Another option is to use the mineral dolomite.


HAH! The Seachem Onyx Sand I now have is like dolomite on steroids! After I pull it out, I’m going to try putting some in a bag in my filter and see if KH can be controlled in the ~2 dKH area.



Surf said:


> You might find this link interesting:
> Macronutrients and Micronutrients


Yes, I have seen that table. In fact, @Zapins converted this into ppm values in post #6 on this thread:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/651994-do-high-tech-planted-tanks-reduce-gh-fast.html


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Yes, I have seen that table. In fact, @Zapins converted this into ppm values in post #6 on this thread:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/651994-do-high-tech-planted-tanks-reduce-gh-fast.html


Who noticed the conversion from N to NO3 and P to PO4 in the above thread? N is not equal to NO3, and P is not PO4. It even says in the original article “Please note that concentrations, whether in mg/kg (= ppm, parts per million) or …”.

The original article listed value of 15000 mg/kg represents 66401 ppm of NO3, and the 2000 mg/kg of P represents 6132 ppm of PO4. That's a huge difference. 

Strange that nobody in the following posts noticed, or am I smoking to much today?


----------



## Zapins

The original article mentioned


> Please note that concentrations, whether in mg/kg (=ppm, parts per million) or Percent (%), are always based on the weight of dry matter, instead of the fresh weight. Fresh weight includes both the weight of the dry matter and the weight of the water in the tissue. Since the percentage of water can vary greatly, by convention, all concentrations of elements are based on dry matter weights.


Which I take to mean that the terrestrial plants they measured had varying amounts of water in the tissue. If they compared nutrient : water ratios then the concentration would vary a lot simply based on the shape & water content of the leaf/plant tissue they were testing which wouldn't give as reproducible result as comparing a specific nutrient of interest : the total dry weight after all water was removed. 

Their nutrient : dry weight gave values of about 1.5% etc which is similar to the % we dose in our aquariums with nutrient : water ratio (only a few orders of magnitude less). 



> 15000 mg/kg represents 66401 ppm of NO3


 How are you getting this ppm?

The Rotalabutterfly calculator says if you take 15000 mg KNO3 and add it to 1 kg of water you get NO3=9,199.5 ppm, N=2078.09, K= 5,800.5 ppm. Not the same as 15000 mg in 1 kg of dry plant tissue which is what the paper's values were.

My previous post mentioning dry ratios to water ratios is probably not the most accurate and directly comparable way to see what nutrients are in terrestrial plants and aquatic plants but still interesting that the %'s are similar. I'd love to find a study that compares the ppm of nutrients in a culture medium to the concentration of nutrients in the dry weight of the plant. That might give us a bit of insight into whether ratios make any difference to plants at all (my guess is ratios don't matter much). I think its most likely that as long as nutrients are not too low concentration to be absorbed and not toxically high plants will absorb whatever they need as they need it.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Who noticed the conversion from N to NO3 and P to PO4 in the above thread? N is not equal to NO3, and P is not PO4. It even says in the original article “Please note that concentrations, whether in mg/kg (= ppm, parts per million) or …”.
> 
> The original article listed value of 15000 mg/kg represents 66401 ppm of NO3, and the 2000 mg/kg of P represents 6132 ppm of PO4. That's a huge difference.
> 
> Strange that nobody in the following posts noticed, or am I smoking to much today?


I was only focused on the traces.


----------



## happi

here's how Osmocote+ ratio would look like if anyone is interested, correct me if i mess up anywhere and sorry Edward, i cannot make my graph look good as yours :smile2::


----------



## Edward

happi said:


> here's how Osmocote+ ratio would look like if anyone is interested, correct me if i mess up anywhere and sorry Edward, i cannot make my graph look good as yours :smile2::


Happi, this is for you...

Outdoor & Indoor Plus - Planters Place


----------



## Edward

Zapins said:


> How are you getting this ppm?
> 
> The Rotalabutterfly calculator says if you take 15000 mg KNO3 and add it to 1 kg of water you get NO3=9,199.5 ppm, N=2078.09, K= 5,800.5 ppm. Not the same as 15000 mg in 1 kg of dry plant tissue which is what the paper's values were.


Hi Zapins
There is 22.59% of N in NO3. 
Therefore, 15000 ppm of N / 22.59 x 100 = 66401 ppm of NO3.


----------



## Chlorophile

Switching to pure RO water.. thinking about a GH 5 kh 1.. 
As good as this mix has done for me, Im still unhappy with a few select plants so i figured why not!


----------



## Edward

Chlorophile said:


> Switching to pure RO water.. thinking about a GH 5 kh 1..
> As good as this mix has done for me, Im still unhappy with a few select plants so i figured why not!


Are you going to use any water conditioner, like Prime or similar?

Also, the new and improved carbon filters lately turned into pretty useless junk. This is quite important with chlorine. Chlorine destroys the main RO membrane and is also toxic to plants and fish. The regular Home Depot carbon filters I use need to be hooked in doubles to filter out chlorine, and that’s only up to 50 gallon a day RO production rate. Higher rate doesn’t keep up.


----------



## Chlorophile

Edward said:


> Are you going to use any water conditioner, like Prime or similar?
> 
> Also, the new and improved carbon filters lately turned into pretty useless junk. This is quite important with chlorine. Chlorine destroys the main RO membrane and is also toxic to plants and fish. The regular Home Depot carbon filters I use need to be hooked in doubles to filter out chlorine, and that’s only up to 50 gallon a day RO production rate. Higher rate doesn’t keep up.


I bought the RO Buddy by Aquatic Life with the "Nuclear mixed bed DI resin" 
Not sure how good the Carbon Filters are on it but it seemed well reviewed, I will probably replace this fairly regularly, although I will only be using 20 gallons a week so it might last me a while!
Since I wont be anywhere close to the gallon usage by 6 months I'll just replace every 6 months.
Our Chlorine levels in the tap are on the higher end at 2.5mg/l


I think I will use no water conditioner, the complications and confusion regarding Prime and metals seems like it's better left out if possible.


----------



## Edward

Don't show anyone this ...


----------



## happi

Edward said:


> Don't show anyone this ...


Edward, am confuse as certain things are not adding up compare to what rotalacalc have provided us, for example: there is no Cl in either one, 10x Mo adds up to 0.1 instead of 0.067, Zn slightly lower in your calculation? last question is where did you find the correct information on tropica and what % they have used along with ppm, am interested to hear more about it.


----------



## Edward

happi said:


> Edward, am confuse as certain things are not adding up compare to what rotalacalc have provided us, for example: there is ...


https://www.ukaps.org/forum/attachments/analysis-certificate-liquid-fertiliser-pdf.78063


----------



## happi

Edward said:


> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/attachments/analysis-certificate-liquid-fertiliser-pdf.78063


thanks @Edward, that is a very important and vital Nutrient known as Cl, which is not calculated in the rotalacalc. thanks for sharing.


----------



## Chlorophile

I've ruined Burrs plants lol.
Maybe it's my lighting since I should have similar iron levels! 

Ludwigia Rubin practically green again, ludwigia Super Red is purple/green now haha. 

At least the Clinopodium is a pearling MACHINE, constantly forming huge bubbles under the leaves!










Edit: what is it that causes the crinkly leaves on Ludwigia? Rubin and Super red were quite crinkly when I got them and now they're quite flat and smooth and significantly less colorful


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Maybe it's my lighting since I should have similar iron levels!
> 
> Ludwigia Rubin practically green again, ludwigia Super Red is purple/green now haha.


In my experience, the color on both of those plants is directly related to light intensity. Best reds are at 100+ PAR for me. Less PAR still healthy and growing, but a much less intense different color.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's my lighting since I should have similar iron levels!
> 
> Ludwigia Rubin practically green again, ludwigia Super Red is purple/green now haha.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, the color on both of those plants is directly related to light intensity. Best reds are at 100+ PAR for me. Less PAR still healthy and growing, but a much less intense different color.
Click to expand...

Interesting, the growth in my tank is much smaller leaves and very smooth and flat no crinkling or twisting texture that it had and typically has in photos including on tropicas site etc.
Both plants are near waters surface directly under the hot spot of the Kessil!
The pogostemon Kimberly actually has very good color, can't wait for it to get taller I'm using it as a foreground right now haha.


----------



## Whysoserious

Edward said:


> Happi, this is for you...
> 
> Outdoor & Indoor Plus - Planters Place


Can you share your maths? Mine says,


N=20
PO4=16
K=13
Mg=1.7
S=8


----------



## Greggz

I have noticed there has been very little of discussion of one topic lately in this thread…….growing plants!!

So here is an update on my micro dosing. For about two weeks now, I have been dosing Burr micro mix Version 11.15. I have updated my spread sheet to show the new levels. Still dosing .15 Fe seven days a week.










And here is the comparison between my previous and current mix.










So quite a bit more Zn, and the addition of Ni. Other than micros, everything else has been steady. Same lighting, CO2, macros, maintenance, etc. 

So you know how sometimes things just catch your eye. Lately I’ve noticed a better intensity of colors, particularly with red plants. Things like Ludwigia Rubin, Rotala Macranda Variegated, Ludwigia Sp. Red, Ludwigia Cuba, and Pantanal have all shown the deepest best color I have ever been able to get from them. And in general, just a better separation of colors throughout the tank.

Now keep in mind, I understand some more accomplished plant growers might get more out of them. And they aren’t perfect. But for a piker like me, always struggling to improve, pretty good.

So as usual, when something catches my eye, I PM @burr740 to get his thoughts. He mentioned he had read that Ni may help plants with uptake of Fe. And maybe Zn is an underrated piece of the micro pie?? So are those making a difference? Hmmmmm? Or maybe something completely different, who knows?

All I know is things have improved just a notch. So here a few pics. And I've got to mention, I just can’t get a picture of the R. Mac. Var. that shows what I see. It’s more of a bright red/pink mix in person.


----------



## Edward

Whysoserious said:


> Can you share your maths? Mine says,
> 
> N=20
> PO4=16
> K=13
> Mg=1.7
> S=8


Hi
Both are correct. 
Your results are referenced to 86.7 ppm NO3. My chart is referenced to 20 ppm NO3 as stated in the chart title. Thanks for checking.


----------



## Edward

Greggz said:


> So quite a bit more Zn, and the addition of Ni. Other than micros, everything else has been steady. Same lighting, CO2, macros, maintenance, etc.


Greg,
You posted Micro11.15 in #378 where Zn is 3.3 x higher than Fe and 116 x higher than Zn in Tropica. Typo or real?


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Greg,
> You posted Micro11.15 in #378 where Zn is 3.3 x higher than Fe and 116 x higher than Zn in Tropica. Typo or real?


Good eye. Typo. I'll go clean that up. Thanks.


----------



## Surf

> Interesting, the growth in my tank is much smaller leaves and very smooth and flat no crinkling or twisting texture that it had and typically has in photos including on tropicas site etc.


Chlorophile, Based on the link below I believe the smaller leaves might be a symptom of zinc deficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_deficiency_(plant_disorder)


----------



## Nlewis

Greggz said:


> I have noticed there has been very little of discussion of one topic lately in this thread…….growing plants!!
> 
> So here is an update on my micro dosing. For about two weeks now, I have been dosing Burr micro mix Version 11.15. I have updated my spread sheet to show the new levels. Still dosing .15 Fe seven days a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the comparison between my previous and current mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So quite a bit more Zn, and the addition of Ni. Other than micros, everything else has been steady. Same lighting, CO2, macros, maintenance, etc.
> 
> So you know how sometimes things just catch your eye. Lately I’ve noticed a better intensity of colors, particularly with red plants. Things like Ludwigia Rubin, Rotala Macranda Variegated, Ludwigia Sp. Red, Ludwigia Cuba, and Pantanal have all shown the deepest best color I have ever been able to get from them. And in general, just a better separation of colors throughout the tank.
> 
> Now keep in mind, I understand some more accomplished plant growers might get more out of them. And they aren’t perfect. But for a piker like me, always struggling to improve, pretty good.
> 
> So as usual, when something catches my eye, I PM @burr740 to get his thoughts. He mentioned he had read that Ni may help plants with uptake of Fe. And maybe Zn is an underrated piece of the micro pie?? So are those making a difference? Hmmmmm? Or maybe something completely different, who knows?
> 
> All I know is things have improved just a notch. So here a few pics. And I've got to mention, I just can’t get a picture of the R. Mac. Var. that shows what I see. It’s more of a bright red/pink mix in person.


Plants are looking awesome man. I just received 3 batches of the V12.15 and started dosing it yesterday. Although I’m not growing “harder to grow” plants due to the tank is a biotope, I have seen an improvement in plant growth since using one of Burr’s mixtures. I have one of his older versions from months ago that I started using and ditched the CSMB a few weeks ago.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> I have noticed there has been very little of discussion of one topic lately in this thread…….growing plants!!
> 
> So here is an update on my micro dosing. For about two weeks now, I have been dosing Burr micro mix Version 11.15. I have updated my spread sheet to show the new levels. Still dosing .15 Fe seven days a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the comparison between my previous and current mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So quite a bit more Zn, and the addition of Ni. Other than micros, everything else has been steady. Same lighting, CO2, macros, maintenance, etc.
> 
> So you know how sometimes things just catch your eye. Lately I’ve noticed a better intensity of colors, particularly with red plants. Things like Ludwigia Rubin, Rotala Macranda Variegated, Ludwigia Sp. Red, Ludwigia Cuba, and Pantanal have all shown the deepest best color I have ever been able to get from them. And in general, just a better separation of colors throughout the tank.
> 
> Now keep in mind, I understand some more accomplished plant growers might get more out of them. And they aren’t perfect. But for a piker like me, always struggling to improve, pretty good.
> 
> So as usual, when something catches my eye, I PM @burr740 to get his thoughts. He mentioned he had read that Ni may help plants with uptake of Fe. And maybe Zn is an underrated piece of the micro pie?? So are those making a difference? Hmmmmm? Or maybe something completely different, who knows?
> 
> All I know is things have improved just a notch. So here a few pics. And I've got to mention, I just can’t get a picture of the R. Mac. Var. that shows what I see. It’s more of a bright red/pink mix in person.


Wow beautiful! I need that color in my life!



Surf said:


> Chlorophile, Based on the link below I believe the smaller leaves might be a symptom of zinc deficiency.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_deficiency_(plant_disorder)


hmm maybe something im doing is agonistic towards Zn because I am dosing good levels of everything


----------



## Greggz

Nlewis said:


> Plants are looking awesome man. I just received 3 batches of the V12.15 and started dosing it yesterday. Although I’m not growing “harder to grow” plants due to the tank is a biotope, I have seen an improvement in plant growth since using one of Burr’s mixtures. I have one of his older versions from months ago that I started using and ditched the CSMB a few weeks ago.


Nlewis thanks and good to hear from you. I have been following your biotope journal. It's interesting to see the mix having an effect in that environment. Will follow to see how it goes from here.

And I have to ask..........any thoughts ever of going back to the high tech dark side again?

Bump:


Chlorophile said:


> Wow beautiful! I need that color in my life!
> 
> hmm maybe something im doing is agonistic towards Zn because I am dosing good levels of everything


Chlorophile with the work and research you are putting in, I expect you to surpass my efforts before long.


----------



## Nlewis

Greggz said:


> Nlewis thanks and good to hear from you. I have been following your biotope journal. It's interesting to see the mix having an effect in that environment. Will follow to see how it goes from here.
> 
> And I have to ask..........any thoughts ever of going back to the high tech dark side again?
> 
> Bump:
> Chlorophile with the work and research you are putting in, I expect you to surpass my efforts before long.


Hell yeah, I think about it all the time. I really want to do a 75 with some T5 action.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> I have noticed there has been very little of discussion of one topic lately in this thread…….growing plants!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ludwigia broadleaf looks awesome!
> I have some of this and the leaves are the size of a quarter!


----------



## burr740

Great update @Greggz , those plants look amazing! Glad the new mix is working well.

Im starting to believe Zn is a very underrated and under dosed nutrient.

Things have been crazy on the Burr ranch lately setting up two new tanks. Apologies for the lack of updates but Im still dosing about the same as the last one and seeing good results.

Another thing I did a couple weeks ago was raise KNO3 to 7.5 ppm, up from 5. Several species responded very well to that,. Im thinking about ditching the urea and going to 9-10 ppm KNO3, 3x per week. 

Never really been impressed with urea and having one less thing to fool with would be nice.


----------



## Greggz

Nlewis said:


> Hell yeah, I think about it all the time. I really want to do a 75 with some T5 action.


Well I be looking forward to that. Last time it was pretty spectacular.

Bump:


Maryland Guppy said:


> Ludwigia broadleaf looks awesome!
> I have some of this and the leaves are the size of a quarter!


Thanks Maryland.....expect to see your new micro mix and some pics here before long.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Im starting to believe Zn is a very underrated and under dosed nutrient.


Agreed on the Zn. And I am pretty sure I noticed another bump with Ni.



burr740 said:


> Another thing I did a couple weeks ago was raise KNO3 to 7.5 ppm, up from 5. Several species responded very well to that,. Im thinking about ditching the urea and going to 9-10 ppm KNO3, 3x per week.


You know my NO3 and PO4 levels are through the roof, so I am not surprised. I'm beginning to believe with the huge increase of micros, that non limiting macros might be helpful. I think you told me long ago, never saw a negative effect from too many macros, so why not.


----------



## Nlewis

Greggz said:


> Well I be looking forward to that. Last time it was pretty spectacular.


Thanks, I do miss it a lot. Tax time is on the horizon, so maybe I’ll anger my wife by spending gobs of money on a new tank🤪.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Great update @Greggz , those plants look amazing! Glad the new mix is working well.
> 
> Im starting to believe Zn is a very underrated and under dosed nutrient.
> 
> Things have been crazy on the Burr ranch lately setting up two new tanks. Apologies for the lack of updates but Im still dosing about the same as the last one and seeing good results.
> 
> Another thing I did a couple weeks ago was raise KNO3 to 7.5 ppm, up from 5. Several species responded very well to that,. Im thinking about ditching the urea and going to 9-10 ppm KNO3, 3x per week.
> 
> Never really been impressed with urea and having one less thing to fool with would be nice.


I'm dosing more than 7.5ppm NO3 3x a week and most of the plants seem to love it, my Bacopa and the Clinopodium I got from you are always forming huge o2 bubbles under the leaves, although I do wonder sometimes if lower could bring out better reds. 

P.S. I'm gonna need to order some more traces soon! Dosing traces 6x a week and I've only got half a bottle left! Plus excited to get a Ni addition in the next batch since I'm on pure RO(soon) I've been wondering if some things might eventually go missing if they aren't dosed.

P.P.S maybe try Ammonium Sulfate instead of Urea.. I've been trying it in a nano tank as an experiment and growth is good, really tight internodes on everything in the tank


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> I'm dosing more than 7.5ppm NO3 3x a week and most of the plants seem to love it, my Bacopa and the Clinopodium I got from you are always forming huge o2 bubbles under the leaves, although I do wonder sometimes if lower could bring out better reds.


I have heard this theory many times, and who knows it may be true for some.

As usual, I can only speak to my own observations.

With my fully stocked Rainbow tank (generating lots of N & P), and full EI dosing, my NO3 level is very high by most standards. Measured after a 70% water change at 25ppm, so probably closer to 80ppm before.

I've never seen a correlation between low NO3 levels and reds. I have seen a huge correlation between PAR values and reds. More PAR = more red. Not just one plant, but every single one. At least for me. 

And who knows, maybe meeting even more nutrient needs, like increased micro dosing, brings out even more? At least that is the theory we are testing.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> I have heard this theory many times, and who knows it may be true for some.
> 
> As usual, I can only speak to my own observations.
> 
> With my fully stocked Rainbow tank (generating lots of N & P), and full EI dosing, my NO3 level is very high by most standards. Measured after a 70% water change at 25ppm, so probably closer to 80ppm before.
> 
> I've never seen a correlation between low NO3 levels and reds. I have seen a huge correlation between PAR values and reds. More PAR = more red. Not just one plant, but every single one. At least for me.
> 
> And who knows, maybe meeting even more nutrient needs, like increased micro dosing, brings out even more? At least that is the theory we are testing.


For sure! I think most of the time it doesn't matter, I do think R. Macrandra and a few others respond, my Bacopa gets a tiny orange tint if I forget to dose for a couple days(like when my co2 ran out this weekend)


----------



## burr740

@Greggz I thought about another change you made iirc - skipping the latest Purigen.

Normally you'd be operating with a brand new bag, plus an older and oldest one, right? 

Since didnt add it to the last filter clean, you're currently only operating with the two older ones. The freshest most powerful bag is now gone from the equation.

Significant? Perhaps...

Regardless of what Seachem or anyone else says, removing Purigen made an immediate big difference in mine.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> @Greggz I thought about another change you made iirc - skipping the latest Purigen.
> 
> Normally you'd be operating with a brand new bag, plus an older and oldest one, right?
> 
> Since didnt add it to the last filter clean, you're currently only operating with the two older ones. The freshest most powerful bag is now gone from the equation.
> 
> Significant? Perhaps...
> 
> Regardless of what Seachem or anyone else says, removing Purigen made an immediate big difference in mine.


It's funny you mention that, as I meant to include that in my post.

Since things have been going very well and improving, I replaced the Purigen with the last filter change. Actually two brand new bags.

Since I clean one of my three filters every two weeks, I am getting fresh Purigen in there quite often.

But keep in mind my very heavy fish stocking level. It could be with a tank like mine that I get more benefit from benefits of Purigen, as I have higher organics.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> It's funny you mention that, as I meant to include that in my post.
> 
> Since things have been going very well and improving, I replaced the Purigen with the last filter change. Actually two brand new bags.
> 
> Since I clean one of my three filters every two weeks, I am getting fresh Purigen in there quite often.
> 
> But keep in mind my very heavy fish stocking level. It could be with a tank like mine that I get more benefit from benefits of Purigen, as I have higher organics.


Ah, so you added it back again? Interesting, so much for that theory. Must be the new micros!


----------



## roadmaster

If it were more red plant appearance (not to be confused with plant health), I might try some bulbs such as those depicted in @burr740's avatar photo.
Pink and or rosette bulbs in combination with other spectrums.
Also, If I felt that I needed to dose more of everything ( 6 days a week) to compensate for light energy being blasted into then tank,I might be tempted to run thing's at 9 or 10 rather than at eleven.
I have seen little mention made of expieriment's with the light energy being used and decreasing it to slow demand of both CO2 and macro's/micro's.


----------



## Greggz

roadmaster said:


> If it were more red plant appearance (not to be confused with plant health), I might try some bulbs such as those depicted in @burr740's avatar photo.
> Pink and or rosette bulbs in combination with other spectrums.
> Also, If I felt that I needed to dose more of everything ( 6 days a week) to compensate for light energy being blasted into then tank,I might be tempted to run thing's at 9 or 10 rather than at eleven.
> I have seen little mention made of expieriment's with the light energy being used and decreasing it to slow demand of both CO2 and macro's/micro's.


Roadmaster I agree with you. I have been running quite a bit of color in my bulbs, and I did notice more reds quickly when I made the change (covered in my journal).










And then again another increase going to the new micro mix.

So I am driving the tank pretty hard, that is correct. Now this may be hard to believe, but I did tone it down. I was up to over 150 PAR at the substrate at one point. By swapping out some high PAR bulbs to lower intensity colored bulbs, I am more at about 115 PAR with all six bulbs on (only a portion of the day, 100 PAR with 4 bulbs). 

Now that is still pretty darn high light.........but in the words of Pikez, I can't drive 55!:smile2:


----------



## Deanna

@burr740: As @Edward showed, Tropica loves to load on the Cu. Any reason you’ve hesitated on increasing it? Based upon Tropica’s dosing, seems you have plenty of room.



Greggz said:


> But keep in mind my very heavy fish stocking level. It could be with a tank like mine that I get more benefit from benefits of Purigen, as I have higher organics.


Greggz: I'm curious, why do you want to remove the organics that Purigen removes (nitrogenic organics)? My thinking is that the entire NH3 stream is beneficial to plants. I, too, have an overly stocked tank and never need NO3 since my fish and their food maintain a 20 ppm level. I took the Purigen out long ago for this reason.



Chlorophile said:


> P.P.S maybe try Ammonium Sulfate instead of Urea.. I've been trying it in a nano tank as an experiment and growth is good, really tight internodes on everything in the tank


Anxiously watching your other thread on this to see if you can find some optimal regimen with definite impact ...especially the internode aspect. Like @burr740, I tried urea recently, but didn't notice anything significant after three weeks.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> @*burr740*: As @*Edward* showed, Tropica loves to load on the Cu. Any reason you’ve hesitated on increasing it? Based upon Tropica’s dosing, seems you have plenty of room.


Because based on previous tests Im fairly certain there's a little in my tap, most likely plenty.

Once I was dosing about 6 ppb per week from csmb, which could mean 12 total after build up with 50% water changes and no uptake. Testing the tank water at the end of the week showed 17. So there must be some in the tap. Not a whole lot though which is good.

It is also one of the most likely to be toxic micros. Plus I have Fire reds breeding in the 50 gal. No thanks on copying Tropica. 

But I did bring it back when I made the last mix, 2 ppb per dose. Since Ive decided not to assume the tap has adequate levels of anything else, like nickel, Im not going to assume anything about Cu either. I believe dosing 2 ppb daily should be plenty but not enough to cause any problems.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> Greggz: I'm curious, why do you want to remove the organics that Purigen removes (nitrogenic organics)? My thinking is that the entire NH3 stream is beneficial to plants. I, too, have an overly stocked tank and never need NO3 since my fish and their food maintain a 20 ppm level. I took the Purigen out long ago for this reason.


Boy Deanna that's a loaded question with no clear answers.

My tank is heavily stocked with 27 Rainbows, 4 Clown Loaches, and 3 Roseline Sharks (video in my journal). The tank with no dosing can generate easily over 60 ppm NO3. 

Now it's interesting you mention you never need to dose NO3. In my tank, I have tested lean macro dosing many times and tried just relying on fish waste. What I have experienced is my tank goes down hill fast. As soon as I go back to full EI, things improve. Again, only what I observe in my own tank, but it's very repeatable. 

It's as if the uptake of NO3 from fish waste is different than from dosing. I have absolutely no scientific reason to believe that, but like I said that's what happens in my tank.

Now as to Purigen, at one time I read that Burr was using it, so I thought why not? I enjoyed how the water became really crystal clear. Since then, I just kept using it. Does it help? I don't know. I also run a UV light full time, use 100% RO water, and aerate heavily during non CO2 periods. Call it the everything but the kitchen sink approach. 

And I have seen some tanks here from time to time that rely on fish waste, and are very successful. Doesn't work for me.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> My tank is heavily stocked with 27 Rainbows, 4 Clown Loaches, and 3 Roseline Sharks (video in my journal). The tank with no dosing can generate easily over 60 ppm NO3.
> 
> Now it's interesting you mention you never need to dose NO3. In my tank, I have tested lean macro dosing many times and tried just relying on fish waste. What I have experienced is my tank goes down hill fast. As soon as I go back to full EI, things improve. Again, only what I observe in my own tank, but it's very repeatable.
> 
> It's as if the uptake of NO3 from fish waste is different than from dosing. I have absolutely no scientific reason to believe that, but like I said that's what happens in my tank.
> 
> Now as to Purigen, at one time I read that Burr was using it, so I thought why not? I enjoyed how the water became really crystal clear. Since then, I just kept using it. Does it help? I don't know. I also run a UV light full time, use 100% RO water, and aerate heavily during non CO2 periods. Call it the everything but the kitchen sink approach.
> 
> And I have seen some tanks here from time to time that rely on fish waste, and are very successful. Doesn't work for me.


Yup; I like lots of fish, too. It’s the primary reason for my setup. I have about 40 fish ranging from neons up to a way-too-large gourami …in a 29 gal tank!

I’ve tried adding ‘fresh’ NO3 and urea, but couldn’t see a difference and I’m generally very happy with plant growth, health and appearance. Even tried loading Purigen to remove the organic source of fish-based NO3 in order to add my own, but: no change. From a chemistry standpoint, I just can’t understand how NO3 could be different from NO3 (that’s not a typo), but I do suspect that some/all plants may benefit from the pre-NO3 stream, such as, perhaps, @Chlorophile may be finding with his Ammonium Sulfate experiments – I’m hopeful. I know that @happi may have some data to support some benefit of non-fish-based NO3. Maybe he can share it if he’s listening.

I know, from experience, that Purigen will clear some evils. It's a good product. I used to use it many years ago, but found that those particular evils were also cured with a UVS (mine is Level 1 capable). Now, my water remains crystal clear always and I haven't had disease in years, but I haven’t turned off the UVS for a lengthy time to test if cloudiness would recur. However, I do run it only at night. I assume that you are aware that a big-boy sterilizer will break chelator bonds. So, dosing my DTPA iron in the AM is good for the day, but I suspect that, at night, the UVS separates the iron and it then precipitates out with my always 2-3 ppm minimum PO4 (from fish waste). I do the same as you on RODI and aeration (surface rippling only, though, no aerators). So, add my tank to your list of successful fish-waste only setups.


----------



## Whysoserious

Greggz said:


> Now it's interesting you mention you never need to dose NO3. In my tank, I have tested lean macro dosing many times and tried just relying on fish waste. What I have experienced is my tank goes down hill fast. As soon as I go back to full EI, things improve.


So you're not just reducing N, but K and P also?

NO3 is NO3 is NO3.
NH4 and CO(NH2)2 are not NO3. So it's entirely likely to see different effects when the plants are supplied different forms of N (NO3 vs NH4 vs CO(NH2)2). But again, NO3 is NO3 is NO3.

Be wary of bias.


----------



## adairjenkins

All of the custom micro mixes I've seen appear to be for high light tanks. How would you recommend adjusting it for a fully stocked medium light (40-50 PAR at substrate) 90g tank with CO2? I use RODI water + gH booster, the KH is 2.5 and GH 5, and the pH drops from 7.6 to 6.5. The plants are primarily slow growing ferns, anubias, and buces so I wouldn't have rapid uptake or immediate feedback that faster growing stem plants give. As of now I do 50% weekly water changes but my long term goal is to fine tune the dosing and make them less frequent.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Here's what I'm thinking of trying:


----------



## Greggz

Whysoserious said:


> So you're not just reducing N, but K and P also?
> 
> NO3 is NO3 is NO3.
> NH4 and CO(NH2)2 are not NO3. So it's entirely likely to see different effects when the plants are supplied different forms of N (NO3 vs NH4 vs CO(NH2)2). But again, NO3 is NO3 is NO3.
> 
> Be wary of bias.


Bias would assume I had prejudice in favor of or against it working.

I've got no horse in this race.

If anything, I wanted low/no dosing to work. I expected it to work. Two years of spreadsheets with notes suggest otherwise for my tank.

Just using trial and error. 

My criteria. Dying plants = bad. Growing healthy plants = good.

Simple as that. Just want to grow the best plants I can and create an aesthetic presentation that is pleasing to my eye , couldn't care less what method makes that happen.


----------



## Deanna

adairjenkins said:


> All of the custom micro mixes I've seen appear to be for high light tanks. How would you recommend adjusting it for a fully stocked medium light (40-50 PAR at substrate) 90g tank with CO2? I use RODI water + gH booster, the KH is 2.5 and GH 5, and the pH drops from 7.6 to 6.5. The plants are primarily slow growing ferns, anubias, and buces so I wouldn't have rapid uptake or immediate feedback that faster growing stem plants give. As of now I do 50% weekly water changes but my long term goal is to fine tune the dosing and make them less frequent.
> 
> Any advice would be very much appreciated.
> 
> Here's what I'm thinking of trying:


You're not a piker regarding your setup: 40-50 PAR at the substrate would be considered to be high light by many. So, you would probably benefit from these trace experiments. Make sure you're maximizing CO2. 

If it were me, I'd take @burr740's current version and cut it in half. Then, wait a few weeks and note any change. Then, regardless of any change, go to the full dose, wait a few weeks more and decide which version, if any, was best.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> Yup; I like lots of fish, too. It’s the primary reason for my setup. I have about 40 fish ranging from neons up to a way-too-large gourami …in a 29 gal tank!


Wow 40 fish in a 29G! That IS some heavy stocking. 

Would love to see a picture of that sometime.


----------



## Chlorophile

Deanna said:


> @burr740: As @Edward showed, Tropica loves to load on the Cu. Any reason you’ve hesitated on increasing it? Based upon Tropica’s dosing, seems you have plenty of room.
> 
> 
> 
> Greggz: I'm curious, why do you want to remove the organics that Purigen removes (nitrogenic organics)? My thinking is that the entire NH3 stream is beneficial to plants. I, too, have an overly stocked tank and never need NO3 since my fish and their food maintain a 20 ppm level. I took the Purigen out long ago for this reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Anxiously watching your other thread on this to see if you can find some optimal regimen with definite impact ...especially the internode aspect. Like @burr740, I tried urea recently, but didn't notice anything significant after three weeks.


I might switch the Ammonium Sulphate experiment to my main tank, now that I'm on RO I should be able to consistently keep the PH below the Ammonia level and therefor keep it fish safe. 
Will be easier to quantify the effects too on a healthier tank.. 

But in general the internodes in the Ammonium Sulphate tank have gotten quite tight, Ludiwigia especially. 



So since its kind of "growing plants" related I thought I'd share this here. 
I ran out of co2 for 3 days cause I ran out on a friday and the AIRGAS was shut til Monday. 
I stopped dosing during the 3 days, stopped all dosing but didn't change my lighting at all.. Started to see BBA coming back within 24 hours =[ 
But anyway, I did my first water change on Sunday with the pure RO water (0GH and 0KH) and then Monday kicked up the co2 again and started dosing. 

Today after coming home from work I noticed a few things: 
My water is CRYSTAL clear.. I've always had issues with my water clouding towards the end of the day but being very clear in the morning. 

My plants look SUPER vibrant? Maybe thats just the clear water but I have red forming on some of my Bacopa, the L. Super Red is like Burgundy purple instead of brown today, L. Rubin has picked up significantly more color as well. 
Pearling! So much pearling, pearling on things that never pearl.. Pearling on my AR Mini Pearling on my Lobelia Cardinalis.. 

Either my tapwater is secretly poison or plants just REALLY like having lower KH and I didn't know it. Kind of hard to do a KH Comparison between different tanks, but here I'm seeing the exact same tank experience a change. 

As far as Micro's go.. I might need to start adding Cu and Ni since I wont have a source of it anymore.. 


















Definitely time to lose the hairgrass carpet though! Prob gonna suck out all the substrate right there, pull the hairgrass out and put some Erio's and more Staurogyne


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> Wow 40 fish in a 29G! That IS some heavy stocking.
> 
> Would love to see a picture of that sometime.


They won't die! Keep reproducing and then I add more pretty ones from the LFS! None seem stressed, but I really have a lot of surface rippling so the O2 is decent. Will try to remember to post a picture, but I'm going into tear-down mode because of a Seachem Onyx Sand substrate disaster, so it will be a while.



Chlorophile said:


> I might switch the Ammonium Sulphate experiment to my main tank, now that I'm on RO I should be able to consistently keep the PH below the Ammonia level and therefor keep it fish safe.
> Will be easier to quantify the effects too on a healthier tank..
> 
> But in general the internodes in the Ammonium Sulphate tank have gotten quite tight, Ludiwigia especially.
> 
> So since its kind of "growing plants" related I thought I'd share this here.


I’m waiting to try it until you do all the testing for us -  - and can suggest an approach. I really like that internode possibility.

I know it’s a micro thread, but we drift usefully and, I think, @Greggz is ok with it. Hmmm …what about protein hydrolysate? Hmmm …slow-release nitrogen that might sink into the substrate? But I drift, again.



Chlorophile said:


> Either my tapwater is secretly poison or plants just REALLY like having lower KH and I didn't know it. Kind of hard to do a KH Comparison between different tanks, but here I'm seeing the exact same tank experience a change.


Will be interesting to see what you decide is the reason: low KH or RODI. Of course, you’ll have to test KH both low and high to know. I’m going to bet on the RODI, which gives better control over parameters ..but thoses KH discussions earlier are going to be something I try later as well.



Chlorophile said:


> Definitely time to lose the hairgrass carpet though! Prob gonna suck out all the substrate right there, pull the hairgrass out and put some Erio's and more Staurogyne


I love my soft green DHG! Planning on ripping out most of my Dwarf Sag to let the DHG expand.


----------



## Surf

> Because based on previous tests Im fairly certain there's a little in my tap, most likely plenty.


I purchased a Hana HI747 copper meter. It measured 58 ppb of copper in my tap water. I personally have been using RO long before I got the meter. As near as I can tell my copper plumbing is in good condition. I would suspect my tap water copper levels are average. But I could be wrong. The EPA limit for copper is 1.3 ppm.


----------



## Deanna

Surf said:


> I purchased a Hana HI747 copper meter. It measured 58 ppb of copper in my tap water. I personally have been using RO long before I got the meter. As near as I can tell my copper plumbing is in good condition. I would suspect my tap water copper levels are average. But I could be wrong. The EPA limit for copper is 1.3 ppm.


Have you tested your RODI (or is it RO only)? I'm wondering if any of the Cu gets through the RODI filters.


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Either my tapwater is secretly poison or plants just REALLY like having lower KH and I didn't know it. Kind of hard to do a KH Comparison between different tanks, but here I'm seeing the exact same tank experience a change.


Interesting post. How high was the KH?

Mine was over 20 before I went to RO. Noticed big changes too.

I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes from here.

Andy by the way, the tank is looking great.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Interesting post. How high was the KH?
> 
> Mine was over 20 before I went to RO. Noticed big changes too.
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes from here.
> 
> Andy by the way, the tank is looking great.


Thank you very much, mine was a 6 in the summer and 8 in the winter.. 
I'm not sure if its KH or something else but I've never noticed such a quick change in appearances. 
Maybe the plants somehow have gained newfound respect for co2!


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Interesting post. How high was the KH?
> 
> 
> 
> Mine was over 20 before I went to RO. Noticed big changes too.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes from here.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy by the way, the tank is looking great.




Ouch, 20 dH KH? That's crazy Greg. Where do you live?

By the way, I couldn't attend this thread for a while, but your last posted pictures of your plants look amazing. Keep it up!


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> Edward, am confuse as certain things are not adding up compare to what rotalacalc have provided us, for example: there is no Cl in either one, 10x Mo adds up to 0.1 instead of 0.067, Zn slightly lower in your calculation? last question is where did you find the correct information on tropica and what % they have used along with ppm, am interested to hear more about it.




Should I add Cl to the Tropica recipes? Also, about the "rounded" results, try to increase the "round past decimals"... I k ow, I should improve the "auto" option


----------



## Surf

> Have you tested your RODI (or is it RO only)? I'm wondering if any of the Cu gets through the RODI filters.


My RO water measures at zero and has a TDS of 75ppm. It is getting old and has developed some problems. So Before I add the RO water to the tank I do filter it with a DI filter to a TDS of 1. 

Note :the hanna instruments meter has a range of 0-999ppb +/-5 of reading +/-10ppb. I like the range and the digital readout. But at low readings it might not be the best test kit available. I am dosing 6ppb and it often reads zero. However if there is a deficiency it will show copper levels going up. I don't check copper levels all the time but I do believe it is useful.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> I know it’s a micro thread, but we drift usefully and, I think, @Greggz is ok with it. Hmmm …what about protein hydrolysate? Hmmm …slow-release nitrogen that might sink into the substrate? But I drift, again.


Deanna anything that might help better the hobby is good by me. Only started this topic to foster discussion that might benefit those like me, experimenting with trial and error in an effort to create a better environment for growing plants.

Micros are one piece of the pie.

How they interact with everything else is also part of that discussion.

Bump:


fablau said:


> Ouch, 20 dH KH? That's crazy Greg. Where do you live?
> 
> By the way, I couldn't attend this thread for a while, but your last posted pictures of your plants look amazing. Keep it up!


Thanks Fablau. I live in Michigan, but my tap is well water run through a water softener.

So super high KH, and then also very high TDS (around 500ppm).

The combination of those two is why I went with RO.


----------



## Whysoserious

Greggz said:


> Bias would assume I had prejudice in favor of or against it working.


There are a number of forms of bias, and prejudice is one of them. Notice how many different types of bias are listed on that wiki page. Phew, quite a few. Not all of them are so personal.



> In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.


.

Making mistakes is part of the fun.

"The tank with no dosing can generate easily over 60 ppm NO3. "

Which comes from a long process. Organic > NH4 > NO2 > NO3. Each of those steps requires a biological process.

"I have tested lean macro dosing many times and tried just relying on fish waste. What I have experienced is my tank goes down hill fast. As soon as I go back to full EI, things improve."

That would seem logical. When I'm hungry I go down hill fast. So does the missus, and the kids. Everyone seems happier after a meal.

"Again, only what I observe in my own tank, but it's very repeatable."

Excellent. Repeatable is good. Why do the results vary from other peoples observations?
Is it because all of the macros were being reduced? What happens if we assume that there is enough N from the fish waste, but a significantly deficient supply of P and K via (only) organic supply.


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> Should I add Cl to the Tropica recipes? Also, about the "rounded" results, try to increase the "round past decimals"... I k ow, I should improve the "auto" option


sure, i think it dose play very important role in photosynthesis, i use NH4Cl In my DIY Tropica recipe, but you can use KCL Etc as well

Bump:


Deanna said:


> Yup; I like lots of fish, too. It’s the primary reason for my setup. I have about 40 fish ranging from neons up to a way-too-large gourami …in a 29 gal tank!
> 
> I’ve tried adding ‘fresh’ NO3 and urea, but couldn’t see a difference and I’m generally very happy with plant growth, health and appearance. Even tried loading Purigen to remove the organic source of fish-based NO3 in order to add my own, but: no change. From a chemistry standpoint, I just can’t understand how NO3 could be different from NO3 (that’s not a typo), but I do suspect that some/all plants may benefit from the pre-NO3 stream, such as, perhaps, @Chlorophile may be finding with his Ammonium Sulfate experiments – I’m hopeful. I know that @happi may have some data to support some benefit of non-fish-based NO3. Maybe he can share it if he’s listening.
> 
> I know, from experience, that Purigen will clear some evils. It's a good product. I used to use it many years ago, but found that those particular evils were also cured with a UVS (mine is Level 1 capable). Now, my water remains crystal clear always and I haven't had disease in years, but I haven’t turned off the UVS for a lengthy time to test if cloudiness would recur. However, I do run it only at night. I assume that you are aware that a big-boy sterilizer will break chelator bonds. So, dosing my DTPA iron in the AM is good for the day, but I suspect that, at night, the UVS separates the iron and it then precipitates out with my always 2-3 ppm minimum PO4 (from fish waste). I do the same as you on RODI and aeration (surface rippling only, though, no aerators). So, add my tank to your list of successful fish-waste only setups.


are you referring to all NO3 being - charge? i think NO3 will stay - charge no matter what source its coming from, Urea doesn't have any charge, NH4 is + charge, and if you say Nitrogen is Nitrogen, this is not true in term of charges because you can have all the above charges and plant react differently to each of them.


----------



## Greggz

Whysoserious said:


> "Again, only what I observe in my own tank, but it's very repeatable."
> 
> Excellent. Repeatable is good. Why do the results vary from other peoples observations?
> Is it because all of the macros were being reduced? What happens if we assume that there is enough N from the fish waste, but a significantly deficient supply of P and K via (only) organic supply.


I understand what you are getting at here. And believe me I have thought about it.

I have tried about every combination. Just reduce N. Reduce N & P. Just reduce P. Always have loads of K from K2CO3 dosing into RO water.

And now here's another one for you. I dose quite a bit more P than EI calls for. Why? Because everything does better. Healthier plants and less algae. Does it have to do with ratio of N in my tank? Maybe. Maybe not. But if there is a correlation 10:1 seems to be best for me. 

Like I've said before, in my tank, I've never seen a negative reaction from too many macros. But I have seen negative reactions from too little. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. It's just what I observe in my particular tank eco system.


----------



## Deanna

@happi: I was referring to your earlier post:



happi said:


> we actually do have an answer to your question on why things works better when you dose N and P when your fish already provide lot of it, the answer is within Cations and anions.


However, I see that you were specific about N and not NO3 and you went on to point out the differences in nitrogenics with your current post:



happi said:


> are you referring to all NO3 being - charge? i think NO3 will stay - charge no matter what source its coming from, Urea doesn't have any charge, NH4 is + charge, and if you say Nitrogen is Nitrogen, this is not true in term of charges because you can have all the above charges and plant react differently to each of them.


Based upon this, you are affirming that there is no difference between NO3 from fish waste and NO3 from any of the salts we dose. So, @Greggz should probably consider that the benefit noted from adding an NO3 salt vs. NO3 from fish waste was not related to the NO3 source, but must have been something else. Maybe just the extra NO3 was needed.

Are you are also saying that the “answer” you mentioned, in the first post, above, is due to the charge? If so, and plants benefit from a positively charged nitrogenic ion, in addition to a negatively charged ion, then @Chlorophile may be on to something with his ammonium experiments.


----------



## burr740

Most agricultural studies show plants do best with equal parts NO3 and NH4.

Thats what I'd intended to eventually get to with urea (granted urea is not exactly ammonia), by inching NO3 down and urea up. 

But I think I started running low of NO3 because going from 5 ppm to 7.5 ppm doses sparked a rapid positive response. This was a couple weeks ago as previously mentioned. Adding more urea may have done the same thing, not sure.

Either way for the time being Im ditching the urea and going to 10 ppm NO3 3x a week. 

Looking back to around a year and a half ago, the 50 gal went a few months at 10/2/10 NO3/P/K. @Saxa Tilly and I were trying to see whether high macros stunted Lythracae, specifically Rotala sunset.

It was during this time I had some of the best sunset growth Ive ever seen, and havent been able to duplicate it since.



















Micros at the time were .0187 ppm of each csmb, dtpa, and gluc, 3x per week

Current update:

About 5 weeks into daily micro dosing @

Fe DTPA - .2 ppm
Mn - .09 ppm
B - .035 ppm
Zn - .065 ppm
Mo - .0025 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

You may notice a couple minor tweaks but basically it's all been the same.

Here's some pics:

Rotala macranda variegated, Limnophila belem, Rotala wallichii in the 50 










Wallichii in the 120










Persicaria sao paulo in the 75. When this plant's leaves are flat and horizontal things are pretty damn good.










Mermaid weed in the 50










Ludwigia brevipes in one of the new 20s. It's been in a back corner of the 75 for a few months almost completely shaded, that's why its so green. Starting to color up nice after, four days I think


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> sure, i think it dose play very important role in photosynthesis, i use NH4Cl In my DIY Tropica recipe, but you can use KCL Etc as well



Added. Thanks!


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Micros at the time were .0187 ppm of each csmb, dtpa, and gluc
> 
> Current update:
> 
> About 5 weeks into daily micro dosing @
> 
> Fe DTPA - .2 ppm
> Mn - .09 ppm
> B - .035 ppm
> Zn - .065 ppm
> Mo - .0025 ppm
> Cu - .002 ppm
> Ni - .0005 ppm
> 
> You may notice a couple minor tweaks but basically it's all been the same.
> 
> Here's some pics:
> 
> Rotala macranda variegated, Limnophila belem, Rotala wallichii in the 50


Burr great to see some pictures of plants make their way into this thread. And you do grow the best looking plants.

First of all, that Sunset is beautiful. Maybe you can bring it back to that former glory again.

And I noticed a few tweaks in your latest version from my last batch. I'm going to hold steady with my mix right now, but maybe try going up from .15 to .20 Fe daily dosing.

The R. Macranda V. looks fantastic. Looks like you've seen a positive reaction there, same for me. Seeing your Wallichi makes me want to try it again. Like I've said, I've killed it a few times over the years. And I do have L. Belem, just a few stems I am starting to propagate, so hoping that goes well.

And in the spirit of bringing more pictures into this thread, here's some L. Cuba and Pantanal. I hope others will contribute as well.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Mermaid weed in the 50


And interestingly, my mermaid weed used to look completely different from yours at one time.

Since I started dosing your mix, mine is looking much more like yours now. Really changed quite a bit.

Right now I am keeping it short, but may let some grow up to the light. Would be interesting to see what kind of color it might get to now with a blast of PAR.


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Yup; I like lots of fish, too. It’s the primary reason for my setup. I have about 40 fish ranging from neons up to a way-too-large gourami …in a 29 gal tank!
> 
> I’ve tried adding ‘fresh’ NO3 and urea, but couldn’t see a difference and I’m generally very happy with plant growth, health and appearance. Even tried loading Purigen to remove the organic source of fish-based NO3 in order to add my own, but: no change. From a chemistry standpoint, I just can’t understand how NO3 could be different from NO3 (that’s not a typo), but I do suspect that some/all plants may benefit from the pre-NO3 stream, such as, perhaps, @Chlorophile may be finding with his Ammonium Sulfate experiments – I’m hopeful. I know that @happi may have some data to support some benefit of non-fish-based NO3. Maybe he can share it if he’s listening.
> 
> I know, from experience, that Purigen will clear some evils. It's a good product. I used to use it many years ago, but found that those particular evils were also cured with a UVS (mine is Level 1 capable). Now, my water remains crystal clear always and I haven't had disease in years, but I haven’t turned off the UVS for a lengthy time to test if cloudiness would recur. However, I do run it only at night. I assume that you are aware that a big-boy sterilizer will break chelator bonds. So, dosing my DTPA iron in the AM is good for the day, but I suspect that, at night, the UVS separates the iron and it then precipitates out with my always 2-3 ppm minimum PO4 (from fish waste). I do the same as you on RODI and aeration (surface rippling only, though, no aerators). So, add my tank to your list of successful fish-waste only setups.


logically speaking, the N fish produce is usually in a form of NH4+ and depending on your filter you might end up with NO3- and who ever add more KNO3 if their fish is already adding lot of Nitrogen such as NO3 from bacteria conversion, what actually helping here is the K+ not addition of NO3. you could easily test this by only adding K+ if your fish load is heavy, think of ADA dosing for example. in other word we could say - and + charge interact with each others for better uptake, this is our assumption and require further testing. 
@Chlorophile i would be careful with any source of NH4 as it could cause green patchy/spots alage and GDA as well, you will definitively find an increase in growth on certain plants, i have all kinds of NH4 here to play with, play with them wisely, i would stay between 0.2-0.5 ppm daily dose for NH4 in fully planted tank, i have added about 1-2 ppm daily and this will cause the algae i have mentioned above, in worse case green water.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> And I do have L. Belem, just a few stems I am starting to propagate, so hoping that goes well.


Yeah that pic doesnt do the Limno justice. It's another great plant Im still trying to figure out how to scape with. There's nothing else in the hobby quite like it.

It's an easy plant in general, but it has to be real happy and have decent light to get the nice purple stripes. These are about...75% happy I'd say


----------



## Immortal1

"*And in the spirit of bringing more pictures into this thread, here's some L. Cuba and Pantanal. I hope others will contribute as well*"
Well, @Greggz I will do what I can  Now mine are not quite as nice as those above, but they certainly are looking better than they have in the past.
From my 75g

































These are from my low tech 20g

















And just because somebody decided to show them selves, one pic of the wifes beta tank


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> Deanna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup; I like lots of fish, too. It’s the primary reason for my setup. I have about 40 fish ranging from neons up to a way-too-large gourami …in a 29 gal tank!
> 
> I’ve tried adding ‘fresh’ NO3 and urea, but couldn’t see a difference and I’m generally very happy with plant growth, health and appearance. Even tried loading Purigen to remove the organic source of fish-based NO3 in order to add my own, but: no change. From a chemistry standpoint, I just can’t understand how NO3 could be different from NO3 (that’s not a typo), but I do suspect that some/all plants may benefit from the pre-NO3 stream, such as, perhaps, @Chlorophile may be finding with his Ammonium Sulfate experiments – I’m hopeful. I know that @happi may have some data to support some benefit of non-fish-based NO3. Maybe he can share it if he’s listening.
> 
> I know, from experience, that Purigen will clear some evils. It's a good product. I used to use it many years ago, but found that those particular evils were also cured with a UVS (mine is Level 1 capable). Now, my water remains crystal clear always and I haven't had disease in years, but I haven’t turned off the UVS for a lengthy time to test if cloudiness would recur. However, I do run it only at night. I assume that you are aware that a big-boy sterilizer will break chelator bonds. So, dosing my DTPA iron in the AM is good for the day, but I suspect that, at night, the UVS separates the iron and it then precipitates out with my always 2-3 ppm minimum PO4 (from fish waste). I do the same as you on RODI and aeration (surface rippling only, though, no aerators). So, add my tank to your list of successful fish-waste only setups.
> 
> 
> 
> logically speaking, the N fish produce is usually in a form of NH4+ and depending on your filter you might end up with NO3- and who ever add more KNO3 if their fish is already adding lot of Nitrogen such as NO3 from bacteria conversion, what actually helping here is the K+ not addition of NO3. you could easily test this by only adding K+ if your fish load is heavy, think of ADA dosing for example. in other word we could say - and + charge interact with each others for better uptake, this is our assumption and require further testing.
> 
> @Chlorophile i would be careful with any source of NH4 as it could cause green patchy/spots alage and GDA as well, you will definitively find an increase in growth on certain plants, i have all kinds of NH4 here to play with, play with them wisely, i would stay between 0.2-0.5 ppm daily dose for NH4 in fully planted tank, i have added about 1-2 ppm daily and this will cause the algae i have mentioned above, in worse case green water.
Click to expand...

Two weeks in of very peaky dosing and no change in algae whatsoever. 
I'm completely unconvinced that amnonium sulfate does anything when kept stable.
What's the key difference though in general from my experiments and others experience?
No water changes.
My pH is stable I think the fluctuation between ammonia and ammonium might trigger certain biomarkers that algae looks for.


----------



## burr740

@Immortal1 are you dosing the .15 blend daily now or what exactly?


----------



## Immortal1

@burr740 - Almost  Likely have 2 or 3 days left on the .10


----------



## Whysoserious

Greggz said:


> I understand what you are getting at here. And believe me I have thought about it.


I tried to discuss a statement you made earlier.



Greggz said:


> It's as if the uptake of NO3 from fish waste is different than from dosing.


But you totally ignored the pertinent points, got defensive on what otherwise is good advise (for everyone, not just you personally), and then proceeded not discuss the matter, not to seek clarity, but to defend your methods. Defense, defense, defense.

......

In terrestrial plants, there are a large variety (of plants) that require an equally large variety of nutritional requirements. It seems that planted tank enthusiasts expect to be able to grow a large variety of plants, equally well, in one specific solution. Everyone seems to be chasing their tails trying to fulfil a task that can only be solved through genetics, specifically, genetically modifying a number of plant species to have the same nutritional requirements.

When the solution parameters vary as wildly as they do via the members of this community, it's only logical that every now and then the sun aligns with the planets, and someone thinks they've found the answer that everyone is seemingly looking for.

Perhaps that is the answer in itself. Not to stick to some specific dosing regime, but the vary the regime to best satisfy the requirements of the varies plant species. To boost the dosing levels to satisfy the requirements of heavy feeders, and then to reduce the dosing levels before reaching toxicity in other plant species. Up, down, up down.


----------



## Greggz

Whysoserious said:


> I tried to discuss a statement you made earlier. But you totally ignored the pertinent points, got defensive on what otherwise is good advise (for everyone, not just you personally), and then proceeded not discuss the matter, not to seek clarity, but to defend your methods. Defense, defense, defense.


Okey Dokey my friend.

It seems I may have offended you, but that certainly was not my intention. 

I’ve always believed I can only comment on my personal experience with my own tank, and that is what I provided in my responses to you. If you’ve been around here long enough, you will see there are many, many different approaches to this hobby, and no one has the “answer” (well except maybe for Burr740!). If it were that easy, you would see every new tank follow a recipe and be successful. Doesn’t work that way, everyone needs to go through some trial and error to see what works in THEIR tank. 

And I can assure you I have no agenda and am not advocating any method. In fact, I wouldn’t even say I have a method. I just keep trying lots of things stumbling along and try to see what works the best in my tank. Kind of what you said in your last paragraph. 

In fact, I have a journal here with 60 pages and hundreds of photos of how my tank has changed and evolved. So if you care to you can see how many different theories I have tried, and how I have come to where I am now. And keep in mind, rich macro and micro dosing into a heavily stocked tank happens to be what is working for me at the moment. And if you’ve been around here long enough, you would know that is subject to change.

And this thread notwithstanding, in my opinion ferts are only a small piece of the pie to having a successful healthy tank. You can chase your tail round and round with ferts and get nowhere if you don’t have lots of other things going right. To me tweaking ferts is kind of like fine tuning the engine once it’s already running well. 

So enough about me, I see you are new here. I am always curious as to how others approach the hobby. Please share the details of your tank when you get a moment, or maybe start a journal. I’m always curious to learn what others are doing and seeing the results.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

@Whysoserious so what is growing in your tanks?



Whysoserious said:


> Be wary of bias.





Whysoserious said:


> There are a number of forms of bias, and prejudice is one of them. Notice how many different types of bias are listed on that wiki page. Phew, quite a few. Not all of them are so personal.





Whysoserious said:


> I tried to discuss a statement you made earlier.
> 
> But you totally ignored the pertinent points, got defensive on what otherwise is good advise (for everyone, not just you personally), and then proceeded not discuss the matter, not to seek clarity, but to defend your methods. Defense, defense, defense.


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> @Whysoserious so what is growing in your tanks?


Yes I would be curious too.


----------



## Chlorophile

Well....
Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid, Nitrogen Dioxide, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.
Do they all contain no3 at some point? Yes.
Even down to the average electrical charge there are huge differences so Greggz is not wrong when he says no3 from fish waste and fertilizer aren't the same.

To quote science people I'll leave this as well

"Inorganic nitrate and nitrite have simple ionic structures and are produced endogenously and are present in the diet, whereas their organic counterparts are far more complex, and, with the exception of ethyl nitrite, are all medicinally synthesised products. These chemical differences underlie the differences in pharmacokinetic properties allowing for different modalities of administration, particularly of organic nitrates, due to the differences in their bioavailability and metabolic profiles. "

This is in reference to medical value in people but if they can impact us so differently why would plants exhibit no difference in response? And bacteria? And algae?


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Well....
> Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid, Nitrogen Dioxide, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.
> Do they all contain no3 at some point? Yes.
> Even down to the average electrical charge there are huge differences so Greggz is not wrong when he says no3 from fish waste and fertilizer aren't the same.


Very interesting stuff Clorophile and thanks for sharing.

But here's the thing. While the science interests me, it's not that important to me to prove or disprove it.

Whether NO3 from ferts and NO3 from fish waste is the same or not has no bearing on my dosing. It's only based on observations in my tank. And my primary goal is growing healthy plants, not having clarity on why it happens. If I happen to be correct in theory, nice. If I'm not, I don't really care one way or the other. 

It's very much like this thread about custom micros. There are theories on why many of us are able to dose 20 times more of @burr740 micro mix (or similar) than CSM+B. They may be correct. But then again, maybe not. 

Burr & I have discussions sometimes on things we see in our tanks. Recently it was Purigen. We share our theories, but almost always add............but then again it could be something completely different.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....
> Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid, Nitrogen Dioxide, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.
> Do they all contain no3 at some point? Yes.
> Even down to the average electrical charge there are huge differences so Greggz is not wrong when he says no3 from fish waste and fertilizer aren't the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting stuff Clorophile and thanks for sharing.
> 
> But here's the thing. While the science interests me, it's not that important to me to prove or disprove it.
> 
> Whether NO3 from ferts and NO3 from fish waste is the same or not has no bearing on my dosing. It's only based on observations in my tank. And my primary goal is growing healthy plants, not having clarity on why it happens. If I happen to be correct in theory, nice. If I'm not, I don't really care one way or the other.
> 
> It's very much like this thread about custom micros. There are theories on why many of us are able to dose 20 times more of @burr740 micro mix (or similar) than CSM+B. They may be correct. But then again, maybe not.
> 
> Burr & I have discussions sometimes on things we see in our tanks. Recently it was Purigen. We share our theories, but almost always add............but then again it could be something completely different.
Click to expand...

Of course, I agree results talk more than ideas. But sometimes it's not even worth the discussion.
Especially if it's a personal attack, no need to go down the rabbit hole.

I've been a part of enough of these long threads to notice that eventually someone always comes along who wants to prove something and it gets toxic and loses purpose. I'd hate to see that happen here.


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Of course, I agree results talk more than ideas. But sometimes it's not even worth the discussion.
> Especially if it's a personal attack, no need to go down the rabbit hole.
> 
> I've been a part of enough of these long threads to notice that eventually someone always comes along who wants to prove something and it gets toxic and loses purpose. I'd hate to see that happen here.


I agree with you 100%. Room for all kinds of ideas here, and sometimes have to remind ourselves we are just a bunch of people here trying to grow plants. 

And it's funny you said a thread can get toxic. Have you heard of the micro tox wars??

A lot of blood was shed on these forums a few years back. I fear a few are still scarred.

So I was a little nervous starting this thread. It can be a hot topic. So far I am pleasantly surprised, it's been a kinder, gentler micro discussion this time around.


----------



## Deanna

Chlorophile said:


> Well....
> Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid, Nitrogen Dioxide, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.


Yes, they are. They are all ionic compounds. However, my interest is in the anion: NO3, which cannot vary.

When @Greggz found a difference between dosing [I assume] KNO3 as opposed to dosing via fish waste, I’m wondering what it is that actually helped him. Was it more NO3 than provided by the fish waste? Was it the extra K? If magnesium nitrate had been dosed at the same NO3 ppm, would the results be the same?

Just like the ammonium sulfate being different from urea. It’s not a matter of challenging for the sake of challenging, it’s about trying to find the optimal balance from all components in the nitrogen stream and this means finding out, from others, what is actually causal vs. coincidental.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> Yes, they are. They are all ionic compounds. However, my interest is in the anion: NO3, which cannot vary.
> 
> When @Greggz found a difference between dosing [I assume] KNO3 as opposed to dosing via fish waste, I’m wondering what it is that actually helped him. Was it more NO3 than provided by the fish waste? Was it the extra K? If magnesium nitrate had been dosed at the same NO3 ppm, would the results be the same?
> 
> Just like the ammonium sulfate being different from urea. It’s not a matter of challenging for the sake of challenging, it’s about trying to find the optimal balance from all components in the nitrogen stream and this means finding out, from others, what is actually causal vs. coincidental.


Deanna you got me. I'm not really sure what it it.

I do know it's not additional K from KNO3. I have almost 60ppm K from K2CO3, which is quite a lot.

Could it be the tank just needed more NO3? Maybe. But I'm telling you my Nitrates are always pretty high. Logically it should enough. And I have calibrated two different types of kits, same result.

I just chalk it up to one of the many mysteries of the planted tank.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> I just chalk it up to one of the many mysteries of the planted tank.


Yup. Could be any number of millions of permutations of positive and negative things, e.g.; could be the load of KNO3 you introduce is impeding something bad (or good) in the fish waste stream as opposed to enhancing. Who knows? If it ain't broke, don't fix it ...but it sure is fun to try to figure it out.


----------



## MCFC

I'm certainly no expert but maybe it's down to the different food each of you feed your fish? Or possibly the different species of fish themselves and how they process whatever food they eat?


----------



## Surf

> Yes, they are. They are all ionic compounds. However, my interest is in the anion: NO3, which cannot vary.


Keep in mind not all the nitrogen in the tank is in the form of NO3. some will be in the form of NH3, urea, and organic compounds with nitrogen in them. The NO3 test will not detect NH3, urea, or organics that contain nitrogen. Also the ammonia test might not detect all forms of ammonia and it will not detect urea or organics. So you could have a tank with no NO3 and no NH3 and yet the plants might have all the nitrogen they need. If you have a lot of organics with nitrogen that might cause some problems due to toxicity or bacteria feeding on the organics. 

I cannot say what was going on with the earlier comment on NO3 and fish waste. But I wouldn't fixate on NO3 and your water tests when investigating such an issue.


----------



## Chlorophile

Deanna said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....
> Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid, Nitrogen Dioxide, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are. They are all ionic compounds. However, my interest is in the anion: NO3, which cannot vary.
> 
> When @Greggz found a difference between dosing [I assume] KNO3 as opposed to dosing via fish waste, I’m wondering what it is that actually helped him. Was it more NO3 than provided by the fish waste? Was it the extra K? If magnesium nitrate had been dosed at the same NO3 ppm, would the results be the same?
> 
> Just like the ammonium sulfate being different from urea. It’s not a matter of challenging for the sake of challenging, it’s about trying to find the optimal balance from all components in the nitrogen stream and this means finding out, from others, what is actually causal vs. coincidental.
Click to expand...

In the example of sodium nitrate it is still an anion as the sodium takes an electron to give it a negative charge.
I think it's more important than just that though, what happens in the plant when nitrate is more complex, like presumably most organic forms would be.
There's more work to be done in the tissue to get it where it needs to be, there's byproducts, etc.

Not to mention what about the other yields of all the processes? Extra electrons and Hydrogen, does it change the redox of the water, does it stress plant tissue? I have no idea. Lol.
But there's lots that could happen in my opinion


----------



## dukydaf

Chlorophile said:


> Well....
> Nitrate in the form of Salt Peter, Nitric Acid,* Nitrogen Dioxide*, sodium nitrate, nitratine... They're all different.
> Do they all contain no3 at some point? Yes.
> Even down to the average electrical charge there are huge differences so Greggz is not wrong when he says no3 from fish waste and fertilizer aren't the same.


I don't see any nitrate in nitrogen dioxide. 



Chlorophile said:


> In the example of sodium nitrate it is still an anion as the sodium takes an electron to give it a negative charge.
> I think it's more important than just that though, what happens in the plant when nitrate is more complex, like presumably most organic forms would be.
> There's more work to be done in the tissue to get it where it needs to be, there's byproducts, etc.
> 
> Not to mention what about the other yields of all the processes? Extra electrons and Hydrogen, does it change the redox of the water, does it stress plant tissue? I have no idea. Lol.
> But there's lots that could happen in my opinion


Here we go again


> I think this is the main message to understand for many readers. Once in solution every ion is on its own.


All those molecules you mentioned (with the exception of NO2), once in solution will add -NO3, available for plants. All -NO3 from all sources, organic or inorganic will behave the same in solution. If not in solution they are not plant available, do not give any results on the test kit and not the topic of discussion.

If the NO3 group is part of an organic molecule it is largely unavailable for plants and will not give a positive result on the test. This is similar to why we do not eat wood as a source for carbohydrates. Even though cellulose is make out of hundreds of D-glucose units linked together, he have no way of digesting it. 

If you look at the nitrification cycle you see that bacteria feed on what was the side-product of the bacteria upstream. Several digest organic molecules, produce NH4, then others uptake NH4 produce NO2 and some use NO2 and produce NO3. In the denitrification part other bacteria what that Oxygen and Hydrogen atom and move the reactions backwards. The main source of energy is just this reaction with oxygen of the NH4 and NO2, thus the molecules are secreted as such (NO2, NO3) and not bound in other organics. Just like humans produce CO2 and not bind that molecule up ... why waste precious energy producing a complex molecule just to excrete it?

So bacteria produce simple NH4, NO2, NO3; plants take them up. What happens in the plant or plant cell is another discussion.

I agree, aquarium conditions are influenced by what exact molecules are added. Not all plant-available-N is present as NO3, however all this does not explain why plant health was improved by addition of KNO3 even though K levels were high and NO3 levels were high already. That is the intriguing question worth pursuing.


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> I agree, aquarium conditions are influenced by what exact molecules are added. Not all plant-available-N is present as NO3, however all this does not explain why plant health was improved by addition of KNO3 even though K levels were high and NO3 levels were high already. That is the intriguing question worth pursuing.


So I have been giving this some thought. 

Then I read the following post buy @burr740.

_My 120 for example might only use 2-3 ppm KNO3 per day, Lets be generous and say 20 ppm per week. But it doesnt do well unless NO3 in the water column is in the 40+ range. In fact 50-60 seems to be ideal.

Things would quickly go south with water column nitrates in the 20 ppm range, even quicker if I tried to maintain a strict 3 ppm per day (the most plants actually use)

So apparently, having 40-50 ppms in the water column makes it easier, and possible, for plants to get their 2-3 ppms per day/20 ppm per week.
_

So maybe it turns out that my tank just likes the higher N value? I test my water after a water change. Lately it's been about 20 or 25 with the salifert kit. Now keep in mind even with a calibrated kit this is not an exact science. Assuming those numbers, my pre water change levels would be somewhere around 60 to 75pmm.

Maybe it's just as simple as that? My tank just does better with higher NO3? And every time when I stopped or severely lowered dosing, the tank was just telling me it runs better with more??

Who knows but I have a hunch that might be it now.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> Maybe it's just as simple as that? My tank just does better with higher NO3? And every time when I stopped or severely lowered dosing, the tank was just telling me it runs better with more??


Something is surely going on if you can repeat this reliably. Just seems hard to believe that so much NO3 is needed to get such a response, particularly since so much NO3 is left unconsumed. Maybe it does have something to do with the negative charge of the anion. An interesting experiment would be to stop dosing the KNO3, wait for the plants to falter (as you've done before) and then add ammonium sulfate according to @Chlorophiles recommended dosing to see if you get a recovery. This might provide some clue as to whether or not it's a nitrogen issue.

The other thought is: could the excess NO3 or K, albeit it seemingly small, be just enough to interfere with another nutrient (maybe a micro) that is being overdosed, and push it back into line?

Sure would be good to find the reason, since it does give your plants a kick. Might be generally useful for all of us.


----------



## Chlorophile

Concentration is probably the key here.
Usage and optimal levels are very different.
Walstad showed optimal growth is around 120ppm.
That doesn't mean there is 120ppm uptake.
Most aquatics don't have a stomata but can absorb through their surface cells. (No waxy membrane, cuticle, or stomata is why most dry out so quickly as well)

Be it the actual odds of the surface tissue coming into contact with the appropriate nutrient needed or osmotic pressure I don't know, but the plants definitely can get more of something if there's more around.
Co2 being the very obvious example, doesn't necessarily mean plants are consuming 30ppm of co2 but having that much makes it easier for the plant to get what it needs.

I feed my fish like every 3 days so there's no way I could get that much from fish waste...


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> I feed my fish like every 3 days so there's no way I could get that much from fish waste...


If I did that my Bows might jump out of the tank after me!!

I've always fed daily, but just once a day and in moderation.

Also found when I stopped feeding any frozen brine/blood worms, tank did better, less issues with algae, and nitrates were lower.


----------



## burr740

Well I was typing out a response but Chlorophile summed it up better. 

Concentration affects absorption, its nothing to do with how much plants actually use.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feed my fish like every 3 days so there's no way I could get that much from fish waste...
> 
> 
> 
> If I did that my Bows might jump out of the tank after me!!
> 
> I've always fed daily, but just once a day and in moderation.
> 
> Also found when I stopped feeding any frozen brine/blood worms, tank did better, less issues with algae, and nitrates were lower.
Click to expand...

Ah see every three days they get either blood worms mysis shrimp or some other live food, they get so fat and full I feel like they need a good starve after haha


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Chlorophile said:


> Concentration is probably the key here.
> Usage and optimal levels are very different.
> Walstad showed optimal growth is around 120ppm.
> That doesn't mean there is 120ppm uptake.


NO3 levels @ 120 will stall the nitrogen cycle. @Immortal1 has tested this theory in the past!!!



Greggz said:


> _My 120 for example might only use 2-3 ppm KNO3 per day, Lets be generous and say 20 ppm per week. But it doesnt do well unless NO3 in the water column is in the 40+ range. In fact 50-60 seems to be ideal.
> 
> Things would quickly go south with water column nitrates in the 20 ppm range, even quicker if I tried to maintain a strict 3 ppm per day (the most plants actually use)_
> 
> So maybe it turns out that my tank just likes the higher N value? I test my water after a water change. Lately it's been about 20 or 25 with the salifert kit. Now keep in mind even with a calibrated kit this is not an exact science. Assuming those numbers, my pre water change levels would be somewhere around 60 to 75pmm.


 @Greggz I don't remember your pH levels but?
With that many fish the major plant uptake of Nitrogen would be NH3/NH4
Phish waste is most likely 50-60% expelled liquid quickly turning to ammonia.
You have lots of large fish fed daily, fish crap(40%solid waste) is a longer process to degrade.

This could all be luxury uptake @ a high NO3 level when the alternative NH4 is depleted by nitrogen cycle and plant uptake.

Just a thought!!!


----------



## Chlorophile

Maryland Guppy said:


> NO3 levels @ 120 will stall the nitrogen cycle.
> @Immortal1 has tested this theory in the past!!!
> 
> 
> 
> @Greggz I don't remember your pH levels but?
> With that many fish the major plant uptake of Nitrogen would be NH3/NH4
> Phish waste is most likely 50-60% expelled liquid quickly turning to ammonia.
> You have lots of large fish fed daily, fish crap(40%solid waste) is a longer process to degrade.
> 
> This could all be luxury uptake @ a high NO3 level when the alternative NH4 is depleted by nitrogen cycle and plant uptake.
> 
> Just a thought!!!


What does the nitrogen cycle have to do with anything? 
Plants dont care about it and neither do fish if pH is low enough. 
If fish load is balanced to nutrient uptake you dont even need a filter..


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Chlorophile said:


> What does the nitrogen cycle have to do with anything?
> Plants dont care about it and neither do fish if pH is low enough.
> If fish load is balanced to nutrient uptake you dont even need a filter..


The nitrogen cycle is not associated in any way.
Beneficial bacteria (BB) should have been my reference.:grin2:

Plants care lots about it, they are in direct competition with BB regarding ammonia/ammonium consumption.
Don't we dose Urea for that purpose, the easier form of N for plant uptake?

Many have dosed Urea and seen a growth improvement.
Does it mean plants were nitrogen limited, not at all.
A preferred for of nitrogen (NH4) became available.
Maybe a higher concentration of NO3 in the WC is needed when 20+ Boes are urinating in the water all day in large quantity???
The higher saturation level of NO3 in some way makes uptake of N easier for plants?

I really don't know, just taking an innocent stab @ this puzzling high nitrate dilemma.
It has occurred in my tanks before I went phishless.

Needing a filter sounds like a water change thread, ain't touching that one!:icon_mrgr
Even in phishless heavily planted tanks, I'd recommend a filter.
The amount of debris that accumulates on the substrate from plant matter can be unsightly.


----------



## Deanna

Maryland Guppy said:


> Plants care lots about it, they are in direct competition with BB regarding ammonia/ammonium consumption.
> 
> Needing a filter sounds like a water change thread, ain't touching that one!:icon_mrgr
> Even in phishless heavily planted tanks, I'd recommend a filter.
> The amount of debris that accumulates on the substrate from plant matter can be unsightly.


Interestingly, I removed the bio-media from my filter last summer for that very purpose of improving access by the plants to NH3 (there is a post I started about how I did it and the many discussions over it) and have been doing without it ever since. The bio-media in our filters is ultra-efficient at stealing the NH3, but the BB in our tanks is not nearly as efficient. So, I concluded, plants will have more NH3 available. 

The filter is still running, but only for mechanical filtration. There was no observable downside to this and the one improvement I noticed was a surge in my Dwarf Sag growth (spread everywhere).



Maryland Guppy said:


> NO3 levels @ 120 will stall the nitrogen cycle.
> @Immortal1 has tested this theory in the past!!!


Additionally, plant growth may stall beginning around 80 ppm of NO3. T Barr noted this:



> The range is likely up to about 80--100 before you see a slight decline in growth(see Gerloff 1966)


in this thread: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/144626-optimum-nitrate-level.html, #'s 13 and 14.


----------



## Chlorophile

Interesting, I wonder if it stops growing or he just stopped seeing improvement at 80 ppm.

As for the Urea, it's broken into ammonium via urease, by bacteria, not sure if the urea is useable before that or not.
If it is that would explain the lack of filter media helping, otherwise I'd expect the benebac to be able to convert about as much urea to ammonium as they can convert to nitrite, since both are population limited conversion.
Hope that makes sense...

I've dosed my main tank with 1/32 tsp ammonium sulfate now that the KH is 2 and the pH stays acidic all night, not worried about my fish.


----------



## happi

here's my few cents, if one is really looking forward to improve NO3 or N uptake in General, they can increase the dose of Mo in their solution.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> here's my few cents, if one is really looking forward to improve NO3 or N uptake in General, they can increase the dose of Mo in their solution.


Ive always wondered about this. Plants need Mo to process NO3, similar to needing Ni to process urea 

Does adding more Mo allow the plant to process more NO3? Does more Ni equal a higher amount of urea can be processed?

Is there really a relative increase? 

Or is it just a matter of having "enough" Mo or Ni means the processing can take place, and having none or insufficient levels impairs the process.

Dont know for sure but I lean towards believing its the latter.


----------



## Axelrodi202

I use N uptake as a proxy of plant health. My tank does well when NO3 is around 5 ppm. If it goes any higher (and assuming no fish have died), then this suggests to me that plant health is compromised, impairing N uptake and leading to a higher NO3 level despite the same dosing. This is often correlated to insufficient traces.


----------



## SamuelLG

burr740 said:


> Ive always wondered about this. Plants need Mo to process NO3, similar to needing Ni to process urea
> 
> Does adding more Mo allow the plant to process more NO3? Does more Ni equal a higher amount of urea can be processed?
> 
> Is there really a relative increase?
> 
> Or is it just a matter of having "enough" Mo or Ni means the processing can take place, and having none or insufficient levels impairs the process.
> 
> Dont know for sure but I lean towards believing its the latter.


I work with protein/enzymes/biological process and maybe I can bring some light on this. Essentially, the enzymes that require ion metals to do their job (or to process ion metals so it can do its job trapped in a large molecule) sometimes doesn't bind to the ion metal in a "permanent" state (as in a a covalent bond). They have a thing called dissociation constant witch determine if the ion will stay most bonded to the enzyme or loosed to the solution. If the concentration of the metal ion is less than this dissociation constant value, then the enzyme will exist most in a form without the metal in its structure, being inactive or slowing down the process in which the enzyme works. If the concentration of the ion increase a little bit just enough to stay more time bonded with the enzyme, it will exist in a form more active speeding up the process. The limits in concentrations will vary according to the enzyme, ion etc. Presumably, when the concentration of the ion is high enough, the biological process related to that pathway can take place. So its all to do with "having enough". Sometimes having more than the "minimal necessary" can help with keeping the enzymes related to the process bonded with the ion most part of the time, but not always "more" is "better" as once the enzyme is saturated with their coenzyme the speed of the process can't increase.

Perhaps with Ni and Mo this effect can occur, so the Urea is there, the enzymes that wants to process it is there, but it lacks Ni in a such concentration enough to starts the entire process, same with Mo and NO3.


----------



## aclaar877

I may the only person not getting great results in all plants after switching from CSM+B to getting my own traces and copying Burr’s ratios. I am not attributing it to the trace mix, but rather am wondering if I have something bad in tap water, or possibly induced a CO2 limitation since my tank would be no longer trace limited.

Initial results were very good – I saw new shoots on Ludwigia Glandulosa (which has been stunted and dormant FOREVER), Ammania Senegalensis and flatter AR leaves when using v5.15 and dosing at 0.05 ppm Fe 3-4x per week. This mix did not have boron (up to 0.08 ppm in tap), molybdenum (up to 4.1 ppb in tap) or copper (shipment of CuSO4 hadn’t come in).
Given that Burr and others are dosing boron well over 0.08 ppm before water changes, I added that plus a pinch of copper sulfate, and started dosing at 0.15 ppm Fe 3-4x per week. Most plants have done great, like Ludwigia Repens, Ludwigia Palustris and most others. I have no BBA or GDA, and just some GSA on glass. I also saw new macro deficiencies (which is understandable), so I’ve ramped that dosing up accordingly. But I have recently had several AR completely stunt, which is something I didn’t expect, and something I learned to avoid with low CSM+B doses. And Ludwigia Glandulosa has stopped dead in its tracks again. I don’t think it’s a CO2 problem, given my 1.3 pH drop with good flow, but I could be wrong. For the latest batch I left out copper, since things were better before my copper shipment came in before. Perhaps I should reduce boron, or just keep doses smaller and see if things turn around again. 

I’m also trying to get info from the water company on which river is my source – the parameters vary widely between the two rivers listed as supplying my zip code. Sodium range is 12-51 ppm, sulfate 16-167, 
Chloride is 26-36 ppm. Ca/Mg ratio is also 1:1, so I add 10-12 ppm Ca from plaster of Paris with each water change. I also have four plants from Burr’s tank which grow slowly, but otherwise are doing fine (Percisaria Sao Paulo, Nelsonia Canescens, Acmella Repens and Limnophila Belem). The only problem plants at this point are AR, L. Glandulosa and Ammania Senegalensis, which grows OK, but leaves are small and always have hooked tips. AR also seems to always have tips hooking downward as well, even when growing OK. A Senegalensis also looks bad on water change day, and then slowly recovers over the week. The leaves curl down, tips shrivel up, and some stems stunt completely. I have chloramines in tap which I treat with Seachem Safe. I have thought of getting an RO unit, but really don’t want to go to that kind of trouble for a 155 gallon tank.


----------



## Deanna

aclaar877 said:


> leaves are small and always have hooked tips. AR also seems to always have tips hooking downward as well, even when growing OK. A Senegalensis also looks bad on water change day, and then slowly recovers over the week. The leaves curl down, tips shrivel up, and some stems stunt completely.


Sure sounds like a calcium deficiency. You might want to post the problem to try and get ideas for solutions. When you add the calcium on water change day, it seems that your plants perk up but, after consuming that little bit, start to fade again.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Ive always wondered about this. Plants need Mo to process NO3, similar to needing Ni to process urea
> 
> Does adding more Mo allow the plant to process more NO3? Does more Ni equal a higher amount of urea can be processed?
> 
> Is there really a relative increase?
> 
> Or is it just a matter of having "enough" Mo or Ni means the processing can take place, and having none or insufficient levels impairs the process.
> 
> Dont know for sure but I lean towards believing its the latter.


That would be my guess. Otherwise @Greggz could increase his Mo until his NO3 came down from the 60-80 ppm area.


----------



## Chlorophile

aclaar877 said:


> I may the only person not getting great results in all plants after switching from CSM+B to getting my own traces and copying Burr’s ratios. I am not attributing it to the trace mix, but rather am wondering if I have something bad in tap water, or possibly induced a CO2 limitation since my tank would be no longer trace limited.
> 
> Initial results were very good – I saw new shoots on Ludwigia Glandulosa (which has been stunted and dormant FOREVER), Ammania Senegalensis and flatter AR leaves when using v5.15 and dosing at 0.05 ppm Fe 3-4x per week. This mix did not have boron (up to 0.08 ppm in tap), molybdenum (up to 4.1 ppb in tap) or copper (shipment of CuSO4 hadn’t come in).
> Given that Burr and others are dosing boron well over 0.08 ppm before water changes, I added that plus a pinch of copper sulfate, and started dosing at 0.15 ppm Fe 3-4x per week. Most plants have done great, like Ludwigia Repens, Ludwigia Palustris and most others. I have no BBA or GDA, and just some GSA on glass. I also saw new macro deficiencies (which is understandable), so I’ve ramped that dosing up accordingly. But I have recently had several AR completely stunt, which is something I didn’t expect, and something I learned to avoid with low CSM+B doses. And Ludwigia Glandulosa has stopped dead in its tracks again. I don’t think it’s a CO2 problem, given my 1.3 pH drop with good flow, but I could be wrong. For the latest batch I left out copper, since things were better before my copper shipment came in before. Perhaps I should reduce boron, or just keep doses smaller and see if things turn around again.
> 
> I’m also trying to get info from the water company on which river is my source – the parameters vary widely between the two rivers listed as supplying my zip code. Sodium range is 12-51 ppm, sulfate 16-167,
> Chloride is 26-36 ppm. Ca/Mg ratio is also 1:1, so I add 10-12 ppm Ca from plaster of Paris with each water change. I also have four plants from Burr’s tank which grow slowly, but otherwise are doing fine (Percisaria Sao Paulo, Nelsonia Canescens, Acmella Repens and Limnophila Belem). The only problem plants at this point are AR, L. Glandulosa and Ammania Senegalensis, which grows OK, but leaves are small and always have hooked tips. AR also seems to always have tips hooking downward as well, even when growing OK. A Senegalensis also looks bad on water change day, and then slowly recovers over the week. The leaves curl down, tips shrivel up, and some stems stunt completely. I have chloramines in tap which I treat with Seachem Safe. I have thought of getting an RO unit, but really don’t want to go to that kind of trouble for a 155 gallon tank.


What is your gh and kh? 
I have had a myriad of issues in my tank and while this trace mix brought my plants back to about 80% of their potential I think switching to RO has netted me another 10-15% on top of that, and probably about as much as I will achieve ever lol. 

my AR has been crinkly and weird for as long as I cam remember, I'm now two weeks into using RO GH 6 kh 0(waiting for tank KH to go down before i change this) and my AR is about as smooth as I've ever seen it in this tank for the last year.

If you're the patient experimental type, why not switch back to CSMB for 2 weeks and document the changes..


----------



## aclaar877

Chlorophile said:


> What is your gh and kh?
> I have had a myriad of issues in my tank and while this trace mix brought my plants back to about 80% of their potential I think switching to RO has netted me another 10-15% on top of that, and probably about as much as I will achieve ever lol.
> 
> my AR has been crinkly and weird for as long as I cam remember, I'm now two weeks into using RO GH 6 kh 0(waiting for tank KH to go down before i change this) and my AR is about as smooth as I've ever seen it in this tank for the last year.
> 
> If you're the patient experimental type, why not switch back to CSMB for 2 weeks and document the changes..


My GH is 5.5 out of tap, which I've raised to over 7 with plaster of paris for extra calcium. KH in the tank is over 5 right now, and 3-4 out of the tap. I just realized that plaster of paris is not 100% calcium sulfate, and that there is some calcium carbonate in it, and silica. I also got clarification on tap water - Ca is 13-14 and Mg is 12-15, and levels of boron, sodium and chloride are nothing to worry about. So plan is to get pure CaSO4 to add Ca for about a 2:1 Ca/Mg ratio and bring KH down to tap water levels. And I'll see if I can repeat the initial good results I had with the custom trace mix. Last resorts would be going back to CSM+B or getting RO unit. One thing I haven't tried yet is using the custom trace without adding the plaster of paris at water change. My plants don't seem to like water change day, and maybe it's the 6+ tsp of plaster of paris they aren't liking on water change day.


----------



## Chlorophile

aclaar877 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your gh and kh?
> I have had a myriad of issues in my tank and while this trace mix brought my plants back to about 80% of their potential I think switching to RO has netted me another 10-15% on top of that, and probably about as much as I will achieve ever lol.
> 
> my AR has been crinkly and weird for as long as I cam remember, I'm now two weeks into using RO GH 6 kh 0(waiting for tank KH to go down before i change this) and my AR is about as smooth as I've ever seen it in this tank for the last year.
> 
> If you're the patient experimental type, why not switch back to CSMB for 2 weeks and document the changes..
> 
> 
> 
> My GH is 5.5 out of tap, which I've raised to over 7 with plaster of paris for extra calcium. KH in the tank is over 5 right now, and 3-4 out of the tap. I just realized that plaster of paris is not 100% calcium sulfate, and that there is some calcium carbonate in it, and silica. I also got clarification on tap water - Ca is 13-14 and Mg is 12-15, and levels of boron, sodium and chloride are nothing to worry about. So plan is to get pure CaSO4 to add Ca for about a 2:1 Ca/Mg ratio and bring KH down to tap water levels. And I'll see if I can repeat the initial good results I had with the custom trace mix. Last resorts would be going back to CSM+B or getting RO unit. One thing I haven't tried yet is using the custom trace without adding the plaster of paris at water change. My plants don't seem to like water change day, and maybe it's the 6+ tsp of plaster of paris they aren't liking on water change day.
Click to expand...

Yeah my plants love lower kh, not a lot of plants like calcium carbonate other than anubias


----------



## DMtankd

Sorry if this should be obvious from other posts - are folks having good results with AR and AR mini with this style of dosing? I fully suspect it's due to a macro issue or something else but my AR and AR mini are suffering badly since I increased micros (among other changes). I'm seeing long internodes, disintegrating leaves, deformed new growth. My AR leaves have always been pretty crinkly (mini not so much) but at least it would grow. Now it looks like it's just barely hanging on. 

Rest of the tank seems to be chugging along (although my Patanal are still stunting afterall). 

I'm continuing to push up the micros (among other changes) - just recently bumped up to be at 40-50% of @burr740 's micro dosing. Also decreased the K and increased the Ca/Mg dosing as I suspected maybe a Ca deficiency (GH had been 4-5) and read that K maybe inhibits Ca uptake (though many other sources seem to say it does not). Updated dosing also attached. Any thoughts appreciated.


----------



## burr740

DMtankd said:


> Sorry if this should be obvious from other posts - are folks having good results with AR and AR mini with this style of dosing? I fully suspect it's due to a macro issue or something else but my AR and AR mini are suffering badly since I increased micros (among other changes). I'm seeing long internodes, disintegrating leaves, deformed new growth. My AR leaves have always been pretty crinkly (mini not so much) but at least it would grow. Now it looks like it's just barely hanging on.
> 
> Rest of the tank seems to be chugging along (although my Patanal are still stunting afterall).
> 
> I'm continuing to push up the micros (among other changes) - just recently bumped up to be at 40-50% of @*burr740* 's micro dosing. Also decreased the K and increased the Ca/Mg dosing as I suspected maybe a Ca deficiency (GH had been 4-5) and read that K maybe inhibits Ca uptake (though many other sources seem to say it does not). Updated dosing also attached. Any thoughts appreciated.


I think you're starving for macros, and the more you increase micros the more problematic it becomes. I would double (at least) NO3,P and K for a couple of weeks and see what happens.

My ARs were doing pretty good with daily .2, the regulars were perfectly flat and the variegated were...acceptable. But then a couple weeks ago when I ditched urea and went to 10 /2/10 NPK 3x a week (up from 5), plus an extra half dose after water change, ARs exploded with faster growth and bigger leaves. Still nice and flat and the varie's are getting flatter

Im starting to believe these past couple of months I'd been running low on macros, and micros did not really need to be increased as much as I thought. Although certain things did continue to improve dosing higher and higher micro levels, and Ive yet to see anything resembling a toxicity, I believe now there came a point where macros needed more. In another couple of weeks I may go down to .15 daily micros and see what happens

I wouldnt worry about K interfering with Ca a the levels we're talking about. Pretty sure it takes something ridiculous like a hundred or two ppms to be much of an issue if there's plenty of Ca to begin with.


Edit: Something else, Im not sure how effective dribbling tiny amounts via auto dosing really is. The water column may never reach high enough concentration for everything to eat well. Remember concentration affects absorption. Might be a good idea to do a big dose after water changes, then left the auto thing take it from there. Dry dose something like 10-15 ppm KNO3. Try it once or twice, you'll know right away if its a good thing or not


----------



## DMtankd

Interesting. I've often thought about this - for standard macros, autodosing small amounts daily with no big dose at WC effectively means the plants spend the first first day of the week with half the available macros as the last day of the week. My tap has ~10ppm nitrate, but I shifted a while back to using %70 RO. I had compensated by upping my weekly nitrate autodosing, but it obviously made the swing from WC day to the last day of the week even more dramatic. Assuming I have plenty of macros, this might not be a big deal, but if I'm on the edge this could be a problem. Also - I've seen that plants change in response to changes in CO2 or light levels - to the point of voluntarily shedding leaves to adjust to new conditions. So perhaps, even if I was at the upper end of the needed NPK in the column even right after WC, the dramatically changing levels could be creating stress.

I suspect that for unchelated micros there is a benefit to daily dosing as it keeps a more constant amount available. Same for urea - if there is benefit to dosing it - I assume daily dosing is best as it breaks down relatively quickly.

I like the repeatability and ease that come with autodosing in general - and with travel for work,etc I simply need a way to have dosing during the week just take care of itself. I think I'll keep with this routine for another week or two and then will probably supplement my current dosing, as you say, by adding a bunch of NPK alongside my existing GH/KH booster at WC. That will up my total NPK dosing and smooth out the concentration through the week. Thanks!


----------



## happi

any of you guys use Vinegar to dissolve caco3? this usually remove carbonate from the caco3 and you are left with pure calcium, i believe


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> any of you guys use Vinegar to dissolve caco3? this usually remove carbonate from the caco3 and you are left with pure calcium, i believe


Thought that was a very clever idea, looked it up and it yields Calcium acetate, water and co2.
If you use hydrochloric acid it'll be calcium chloride!
I have a bottle of calcium chloride but I never use it.


----------



## Chlorophile

What would we add to a micro mix for a tank on pure DI?
Feel like there might be a few things I'll run short on.


----------



## natemcnutty

Chlorophile said:


> What would we add to a micro mix for a tank on pure DI?
> Feel like there might be a few things I'll run short on.


What might you be adding through fish food?


----------



## DonoBBD

happi said:


> any of you guys use Vinegar to dissolve caco3? this usually remove carbonate from the caco3 and you are left with pure calcium, i believe


May I ask what are we trying to do with breaking the bond of calcium carbonate? Pure Calcium is going to be used for what?

When added to any water pure Calcium will act like a coagulant bonding with free soluble acids. If nitrate is present it will bond and make calcium nitrate and sink to the bottom very fast. This will happen as it swings the PH.

Calcium Carbonate will pull your PH to 7.2 if it is high and if it is low. It acts as a PH buffer.

With plant only tanks that I am growing plants for our pond I use https://www.plantprod.com/product/plant-prod-7-11-27-hydroveg/and equal parts Calcium nitrate. Us hydroponic calcium nitrate and not ag grade as it has more laxed impurity's. Hydro calcium nitrate is coated in a wax coating. I run the EC to 800 and let nature grow with no Co2.

Cheers Don.


----------



## Chlorophile

natemcnutty said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would we add to a micro mix for a tank on pure DI?
> Feel like there might be a few things I'll run short on.
> 
> 
> 
> What might you be adding through fish food?
Click to expand...

Pretty hard to say for sure lol.
Probably a bit of everything but I don't feed much.
I only ask because I saw Burr used to add cu but no longer does because it's in his water, and Edward showed some other mixes with high cu. 
I'm getting some weird cleft leaves on my Bacopa where it's split down the middle and had double lobes. No idea what causes that but maybe all my recent trimmings mean I'm a high on traces, no idea really!


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Was using Burr Trace Mix v10.2 for a while. Was dosing 0.2 ppm every other day. 

But I've been dosing that daily for a week. Too early to say if it's working well or not, but nothing has died, puckered, or stunted. Plants that were unhappy before are still unhappy.


----------



## Chlorophile

Saxa Tilly said:


> Was using Burr Trace Mix v10.2 for a while. Was dosing 0.2 ppm every other day.
> 
> But I've been dosing that daily for a week. Too early to say if it's working well or not, but nothing has died, puckered, or stunted. Plants that were unhappy before are still unhappy.


I had been sort of nurturing a few stems of Rotala Rotundifolia back to life that were very misshapen, they were doing good for a while and they're just randomly TINY TINY leafed again.


----------



## Greggz

Saxa Tilly said:


> Was using Burr Trace Mix v10.2 for a while. Was dosing 0.2 ppm every other day.
> 
> But I've been dosing that daily for a week. Too early to say if it's working well or not, but nothing has died, puckered, or stunted. Plants that were unhappy before are still unhappy.


Saxa Tilly good to see you make a guest appearance here.

Appreciate your comments on the Burr Trace Mix. 

I've been dosing a .15 Fe version daily for quite a while now. So far so good.

Only thing I have noticed is a need for more macros. Still seeing where it goes. And looking forward to seeing where it goes for you.


----------



## fablau

I will give an update tomorrow on my journal on the BarrReport, and I can say that daily dosing of the latest Burr's with Fe at 0.2 has requested more macros for sure, and that has helped with some plants, but other are still stuck, strangely fairly easy plants like Ambulia or Cabomba Furcata.

As I noted on my journal, I begun seeing Ambulia getting stuck when I increased Zn from 0.03 ppm to 0.05 ppm. I then increased it even more, until now dosing 0.075 ppm daily. But those plants are still stuck. 

I think I will try to reduce Zn back to 0.03 ppm and see what's gonna happen...


----------



## Chlorophile

fablau said:


> I will give an update tomorrow on my journal on the BarrReport, and I can say that daily dosing of the latest Burr's with Fe at 0.2 has requested more macros for sure, and that has helped with some plants, but other are still stuck, strangely fairly easy plants like Ambulia or Cabomba Furcata.
> 
> As I noted on my journal, I begun seeing Ambulia getting stuck when I increased Zn from 0.03 ppm to 0.05 ppm. I then increased it even more, until now dosing 0.075 ppm daily. But those plants are still stuck.
> 
> I think I will try to reduce Zn back to 0.03 ppm and see what's gonna happen...


I wonder about the needle-leaf plants like those, if they aren't adapted for leaner waters or waters low in co2. They are reportedly co2 hogs, and their structure lends itself to soaking up lots of co2 and nutrients from the water since there is more surface area per "leaf"
I'm going to be trying a single stem of Wallichi to see how that does in my tank.


----------



## fablau

Chlorophile said:


> I wonder about the needle-leaf plants like those, if they aren't adapted for leaner waters or waters low in co2. They are reportedly co2 hogs, and their structure lends itself to soaking up lots of co2 and nutrients from the water since there is more surface area per "leaf"
> I'm going to be trying a single stem of Wallichi to see how that does in my tank.


Actually both Ambulia and Cabomba were growing very well before increasing Zn. Maybe that was just an unfortunate coincindence... but I don't think they mind having high Co2. I also have Mirio in the same tank, and that's growing very well, mostly since I increased macros.


----------



## Edward

There are people being attacked for suggesting one compound over another. The opposing opinion demands that molecules once dissolved, the ions separate and have no further effect. Here is a study demonstrating how different anions bond to the same cation affect plant growth. 

Furthermore, it shows how chelated micro elements are 100x more effective than non-chelated in terms of plant uptake. For example, plants uptake 50x more Ni from EDTA chelate than from non-chelated NiSO4. So basically, plants are staring at almost unusable trace elements while the fish are being poisoned by it. 

*A Comparative Study on the Uptake and Toxicity of Nickel Added in the Form of Different Salts to Maize Seedlings*_
The outcome of the study demonstrates that different salts of the same metal have quite different ecotoxicities. Therefore, the anionic counterpart of a potentially toxic metal cation must be taken into account in the development of ecotoxicological criteria for evaluating the soil environment, and a preferred approach of leaching soil to reduce the anionic partner should also be considered.

The five Ni compounds had different influences on plant height and biomass at the same soil Ni concentration._ 
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/12/14972/pdf


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> For example, plants uptake 50x more Ni from EDTA chelate than from non-chelated NiSO4. So basically, plants are staring at almost unusable trace elements while the fish are being poisoned by it.


This paragraph from the pdf seems to state the opposite?



> "The ﬁve Ni compounds had different inﬂuences on plant height and biomass at the same soil Ni concentration.
> 
> At 560 mg¨kg´1, there was no signiﬁcant difference between NiSO4, Ni(II)-citrate, Ni(CH3COO)2,and NiCl2 in relation to plant height or plant biomass, *whereas Ni(II)-EDTA produced a signiﬁcant decrease(Figure1).*
> 
> The results of a Duncan multiple comparison show that Ni(II)-EDTA *signiﬁcantly (p < 0.05, n = 5) decreased plant height and biomass* at 560 mg¨kg´1 compared to the controls and the other Ni treatments


or am I reading that wrong?


----------



## Chlorophile

Starting to see pin holes and elongated holes in the lower portions of Ludwigia, and yellow patches or even white patches as well as deteriorating leaves in p. Kimberley..
Macros or micros related?


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Starting to see pin holes and elongated holes in the lower portions of Ludwigia, and yellow patches or even white patches as well as deteriorating leaves in p. Kimberley..
> Macros or micros related?


Man you have so much going on I couldnt begin to speculate. Maybe once things get settled from the new substrate and clean out, shoot for heavy and stable macros and keep doing the .15 custom blend. Give that a couple of weeks and see how things look.

But just from the pics last week, those Kimberly's are beyond righting themselves. If it ever gets the least bit stunted the plant gives up on the main stem and devotes its resources to making new ones. Best thing to do is cut them down to about 3" stumps and let new growth come in. Several new stems will emerge even from a bare stump with no leaves, which is probably where those are headed.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting to see pin holes and elongated holes in the lower portions of Ludwigia, and yellow patches or even white patches as well as deteriorating leaves in p. Kimberley..
> Macros or micros related?
> 
> 
> 
> Man you have so much going on I couldnt begin to speculate. Maybe once things get settled from the new substrate and clean out, shoot for heavy and stable macros and keep doing the .15 custom blend. Give that a couple of weeks and see how things look.
> 
> But just from the pics last week, those Kimberly's are beyond righting themselves. If it ever gets the least bit stunted the plant gives up on the main stem and devotes its resources to making new ones. Best thing to do is cut them down to about 3" stumps and let new growth come in. Several new stems will emerge even from a bare stump with no leaves, which is probably where those are headed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan, any idea what heavy is though?
Like 1.5x EI?


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Greggz said:


> Saxa Tilly good to see you make a guest appearance here.
> 
> Appreciate your comments on the Burr Trace Mix.
> 
> I've been dosing a .15 Fe version daily for quite a while now. So far so good.
> 
> Only thing I have noticed is a need for more macros. Still seeing where it goes. And looking forward to seeing where it goes for you.


Hey Gregg - I can understand some macro becoming limited in a situation like this. I've been dosing a LOT of macros (50-60 ppm nitrates per week) since I converted my Dutch into a farm tank. About 10-20% of that in phosphate. A little less K than nitrate. So there is a LOT of stuff in there. My higher macro dosing came before daily high micros. Several plants that were doing so-so showed dramatic improvement with higher macros (Syngo Giants, Saururus chinensis, unknown Persicaria species, Bergia capensis, and a few odd Erios and Lindernia) but others like wallichii deteriorated - no idea if it's connected or just coincidence. The Saururus chinensis was a two-inch long stump for a year - would not die. With the bump in macros, it suddenly came to life. With the bump in micros, it is really starting to come around. 

But boy, the wallichii looks like I set it on fire. Wretched. Nasty. 

I have 60-70 species in the 180 now. I'd say MOST like being in feast mode. 

FWIW, pH was about 3.5 or so. LOL. I know. Three point five. Not a typo. I'da panicked a few years ago. What I get for using 100% RO with Aquasoil. I add two tablespoons of potassium bicarb every week after water change, but the bicarb breaks down in a few days and there is virtually no buffer. Most plants and fish are just fine. I calibrated the probe just to make sure probe wasn't busted. But, no, the probe if fine. 

Anyway, I'm sure the super low pH has some impact on nutrients. Whatever it is, I am just letting it run. Let's see what happens.


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Like 1.5x EI?


Yeah, or full EI at the very least. 10/2/10 NPK 3x week works better for me


----------



## happi

For those who use RO water, have you guys tried the micro mix without boron? Boron is very difficult to remove from tap water, my friend tested his tap and ro water and boron level was 0.15 ppm in both cases in the lab. Boron can stunt plant very badly and must add decent amount of calcium to counter that. If you guys already know your boron levels and have decent ppm amount, then you guys should skip it in this mix just to see if you guys see any improvement.


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> This paragraph from the pdf seems to state the opposite? ...or am I reading that wrong?


Only when Ni was in Ni(II)-EDTA form, plant uptake was so high it reached levels where it caused decreased growth. Other Ni compounds did not allow plants to uptake levels so high. 

Plant Ni uptake was 50x higher from Ni(II)-EDTA chelate than from non-chelated NiSO4. Please see table below, 1703.5 / 32.4 = 53

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/12/14972/pdf


----------



## Deanna

happi said:


> For those who use RO water, have you guys tried the micro mix without boron? Boron is very difficult to remove from tap water, my friend tested his tap and ro water and boron level was 0.15 ppm in both cases in the lab. Boron can stunt plant very badly and must add decent amount of calcium to counter that. If you guys already know your boron levels and have decent ppm amount, then you guys should skip it in this mix just to see if you guys see any improvement.


Was the test on just RO or was it also DI?


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Only when Ni was in Ni(II)-EDTA form, plant uptake was so high it reached levels where it caused decreased growth. Other Ni compounds did not allow plants to uptake levels so high.
> 
> Plant Ni uptake was 50x higher from Ni(II)-EDTA chelate than from non-chelated NiSO4. Please see table below, 1703.5 / 32.4 = 53


So chelated Ni/micronutrients are more available, and/or available longer than non-chelated ones. In other words it takes more of the non-chelated version. Isnt that something we knew already?

What you said about being 90% is unavailable to plants and just killing livestock seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Plus the study is dealing with nutrients in the soil. 

If non-chelated compounds are so bad why does all Seachem products have them?

Sorry Im just not sure what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Surf

> What would we add to a micro mix for a tank on pure DI?
> Feel like there might be a few things I'll run short on.


Officially the macros are NKCAMgPS note: I wrote this in order based on the number of atoms in in a plant. Nitrogen being the most abundant with sulfur being the least. 

So if your micros are not limiting and you keep NPK levels sufficientyour plants might be limited by Calcium Magnesium and sulfur.

Many call calcium magnesium and sulfur as "minor" macros. For farmers these are abundant in soil and often there is no need to fertilize with these. In fact most fertilizers omit CaMgS and Chlorine. However in the aquarium these are often not abundant. Tap water will have some but in some cases it can be limiting plant growth. I have been using RO / DI for some time. 

I make my own from Calcium chloride, Calcium sulfate, and Magnesium sulfate. The GH booster puts CaMgSCL in excess of plant need. I add the GH booster as needed to maintain a stable GH (typically when I do a water change). For NPK I add KNO3 and KH2PO4 as needed. So If I get a macro deficiency there is a 99% chance it is a Nitrogen or phosphorous deficiency (K is also in excess of a plants need).

I originally was using Flourish comprehensive in my RO / DI aquarium. I had deficiencies in N Ca, Mg and S.I haven't had any macro deficiencies since I started using My GH booster. However at that point I then had a Chlorine and iron deficiency. And then early last year I got stuck with no plant growth and algae. One issue with low tech aquariums is that you often don't have deficiency symptoms. Just slow to no plant growth. With information posted early in this forum i made my own micro and with it and my GH booster and NPK dosing my plants have started to grow with some minor pearling.


----------



## Greggz

Saxa Tilly said:


> Hey Gregg - I can understand some macro becoming limited in a situation like this. I've been dosing a LOT of macros (50-60 ppm nitrates per week) since I converted my Dutch into a farm tank. About 10-20% of that in phosphate. A little less K than nitrate. So there is a LOT of stuff in there.


Hey Vin you are always up to something, aren't you?

So I read this with great interest. Let me tell you what is going on with my tank.

As you know, I am heavily stocked with Rainbows. Despite this, I find myself having to dose N at EI levels (tank seems to do best with 60 - 80ppm N combination ferts/fish load), and P even higher than EI. So for the past three months, I have been dosing P at 4.0ppm 4x week (yes crazy high I know). I started increasing it about the same time I started dosing daily heavier micros. In general, high micro dosing seem to bring on need for higher macro dosing.

My theory has been that maybe there is sweet spot in N to P ratio. With my high N, maybe tank needs more P too??

Then this week I noticed a couple of plants rebelling. L. Sp. Red got thin and weak, a few tops coming off. L. Rubin leaves kind of droopy, and tops looking a little stunted, and a few others just wonky in general. So I tested my water, and my P was through the roof. Did a water change, still through the roof. Diluted some with RO to get a better idea, and best guess was still high teens after a water change.

So my theory is that over time the P had really built up. Water changes weren't enough to reset it. Guessing at some point it's toxic or interferes with the uptake of something, but obviously in my case that is a pretty high number. 

I did another water change today, and am going to do another one tomorrow, then going to try 2.5ppm PO4 for a bit, and see what happens.

I was discussing this with Burr, and the interesting thing is that his tank doesn't seem to like anything over 2.0 ppm PO4 dosing. Even going to 2.5 stunts some plants for him. So here you are dosing quite a bit of P, and massive amounts of N. Burr has been upping his N, but still sensitive to P. I was at uber levels of P for quite awhile, and everything was great. Why?????? Who knows?

Question for you, any fish stocking in the farm tank? And I really don't know what to make of the pH. Makes me wonder if I should bring mine down lower. I start with RO and bump it up to 4 KH. Might try 1 or 2 and see what happens.

PS I know you like Bows a bit. Have a bunch of pictures of mine in the last few pages of my journal.


----------



## dukydaf

Edward said:


> There are people being attacked for suggesting one compound over another. The opposing opinion demands that molecules once dissolved, the ions separate and have no further effect. Here is a study demonstrating how different anions bond to the same cation affect plant growth.


Which compounds are you making reference to ? And what exactly was one opposing ?

The opposing opinion feels entities participant to this thread are alluding to one's remark:



> I think this is the main message to understand for many readers. Once in solution every ion is on its own.


1. Chemistry and physics dictate how the ions separate in water. No way to avoid it, no place for "I think", "I assume", entry level chemistry.

2. Ca from Ca(NO3)2 is equal in all chemical,physical and biological proprieties to Ca from CaCO3 or CaCl2. In other words the source of the Ca does not influence the availability of the Ca to plants once in solution. (this was the context of the remark)

3."and have no further effect" --- Never stated that, and it is untrue. One product adds NO3, another CO3 and another Cl. Do these influence plant growth differently? Yes they do. Do these influence the water proprieties differently (pH, TDS) and thus availability of other products, such as metals, yes they do. What do NO3, CO3 or Cl have to do with the original Ca cation ? Nothing.

Hence: 


> Once in solution every ion is on its own.


and is free to interact independently and be absorbed.

4."There are people being attacked" I take exception to your comment. I don't see any people tickled in the streets. I feel one can discuss an idea and provide arguments pro and against without being attacked. This is the only way science can progress, by challenging the _status quo_.




Edward said:


> Furthermore, it shows how chelated micro elements are 100x more effective than non-chelated in terms of plant uptake. For example, plants uptake 50x more Ni from EDTA chelate than from non-chelated NiSO4. So basically, plants are staring at almost unusable trace elements while the fish are being poisoned by it.


Although the paper has several limitation, not least of which it deals with soil not water, let's address what the paper states. I do not see anywhere statements to support 
"100x more effective than non-chelated "
"plants are staring at almost unusable trace elements while the fish are being poisoned by it" - no fish mentioned, absorbed Ni was overdosed but plants were able to use it/if needed

From the table you introduced you see that although the stem accumulation is showing 50x accumulation, only 22,3x accumulation is seen in leaf and 1,5x in roots. Going for the highest possible figure seems rather like subjective reporting. 

In addition notice in Figure 4, the highest conc. of Ni tested resulted in significantly lower conc. of Ni in roots, leafs and stems. This is not discussed by the authors, could it be protective mechanisms kicking in ?



Edward said:


> The outcome of the study demonstrates that different salts of the same metal have quite different ecotoxicities.


From the above mentioned paper: 
"At 560 mg¨ kg´1, there was no significant difference between NiSO4, Ni(II)-citrate,
Ni(CH3COO)2, and NiCl2 in relation to plant height or plant biomass, whereas Ni(II)-EDTA produced a significant decrease (Figure 1)"

So in reality all the salts produced similar effects, except for the chelated Ni. This is to be expected as Ni-EDTA does not dissociate (separate) under the polar forces of the H2O molecule, like the others. Ni-citrate is also not very stable in water, the citrate will be separated from the Ni rather fast. In other words for Ni-EDTA we cannot talk about any ions in solution, just the whole molecule for as long as it is stable. 




Edward said:


> Only when Ni was in Ni(II)-EDTA form, plant uptake was so high it reached levels where it caused decreased growth. Other Ni compounds did not allow plants to uptake levels so high.


So chelated traces are the best way to deliver traces to plants in soil conditions. Good to know.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Yeah, or full EI at the very least. 10/2/10 NPK 3x week works better for me


I guess I'll go back to dosing K, I am at about 1.2X P and definitely higher on N with the ammonium, standard N otherwise.

Bump:


Greggz said:


> So my theory is that over time the P had really built up. Water changes weren't enough to reset it. Guessing at some point it's toxic or interferes with the uptake of something, but obviously in my case that is a pretty high number.


I know I'm not the target recipient but I believe mathematically(and we have to exclude fish waste here) your maximum Possible P level is 2x your weekly dose since its cut in half weekly by water changes. 
Maybe you have a lot from your fish waste, and it is no longer being consumed by plants because you've saturated P uptake with dosing.


----------



## happi

Deanna said:


> Was the test on just RO or was it also DI?


i believe he said RO water and his tap water, am not sure if the same would apply to distilled water.


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> For those who use RO water, have you guys tried the micro mix without boron? Boron is very difficult to remove from tap water, my friend tested his tap and ro water and boron level was 0.15 ppm in both cases in the lab. Boron can stunt plant very badly and must add decent amount of calcium to counter that. If you guys already know your boron levels and have decent ppm amount, then you guys should skip it in this mix just to see if you guys see any improvement.




This is very interesting for me Hapoi, thank you for bringing it out. My tap has 0.11 ppm of Boron, and I still have issues with some plants despite I provide high macros and Burr's mix... I shall try to skip Boron for a couple of weeks and see if that makes any difference.

Do you have any references about how bad Boron can affect plants? And at what levels? I could not find consistent info on the web... Thank you!


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> I know I'm not the target recipient but I believe mathematically(and we have to exclude fish waste here) your maximum Possible P level is 2x your weekly dose since its cut in half weekly by water changes.
> Maybe you have a lot from your fish waste, and it is no longer being consumed by plants because you've saturated P uptake with dosing.


Precisely. My well stocked tank already produces P. So I think over time there was a slow build up, which eventually induced symptoms.

The interesting thing is that the level where everything still liked it was very high. And no algae outbreaks with very high P.


----------



## Edward

dukydaf said:


> .


Thank you for your time interpreting the article. 
What is your explanation on why plant uptake of four non-chelated forms varied up to 2x when being equal in solution? (chart)
Why can plant translocate chelated metal throughout its tissue and not non-chelated in the same quantities?


dukydaf said:


> In other words for Ni-EDTA we cannot talk about any ions in solution, just the whole molecule for as long as it is stable.


How can one compare metal concentration in tap with concentration in trace element mix when chelated to non-chelated uptake can vary 50x to 100x?


----------



## RLee

happi said:


> For those who use RO water, have you guys tried the micro mix without boron? Boron is very difficult to remove from tap water, my friend tested his tap and ro water and boron level was 0.15 ppm in both cases in the lab. Boron can stunt plant very badly and must add decent amount of calcium to counter that. If you guys already know your boron levels and have decent ppm amount, then you guys should skip it in this mix just to see if you guys see any improvement.


Do you happen to know the ratio one needs between boron and calcium? Lets say I have .15 ppm in my tap and I run it through the RO unit. How much calcium should I be adding back?
Oh and does anyone know where I can get some CSM not CSM + B?


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> This is very interesting for me Hapoi, thank you for bringing it out. My tap has 0.11 ppm of Boron, and I still have issues with some plants despite I provide high macros and Burr's mix... I shall try to skip Boron for a couple of weeks and see if that makes any difference.
> 
> Do you have any references about how bad Boron can affect plants? And at what levels? I could not find consistent info on the web... Thank you!


Hi Fablau, i don't really have enough data on Boron beside whatever the google search gives me, Boron toxicity Depends on the Calcium far as i could understand this, the reason many people don't see an issue while dosing High Boron or Micro mix, is probably due to high level of Calcium in there water, the one who do experience an issue most likely have low calcium levels in the water and am not sure if other Gh raising chemicals would offset the toxicity beside calcium only, basically you can have high boron with high Calcium, but shouldn't have low calcium and high Boron. am sure you have already read about Boron on one of Kekon Post?
@RLee the ratio is in quite a wide range, if one have 0.1 ppm Boron in their tap water, then you should totally skip the Boron dosing from the Micro mix or any other source, with 0.1 ppm Boron, you want to generally have at least 30-40 ppm Calcium. it also appear to me that most people have around 0.1-0.2 ppm Boron in their tap water, this seems stranded amount to me in USA tap water, but i could be wrong and would be surprise if its higher than that. 

so, one must really try this and see what kind of results you get, IMO those who are adding tons of Micro and Macro here, please give this one a try.


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> Hi Fablau, i don't really have enough data on Boron beside whatever the google search gives me, Boron toxicity Depends on the Calcium far as i could understand this, the reason many people don't see an issue while dosing High Boron or Micro mix, is probably due to high level of Calcium in there water, the one who do experience an issue most likely have low calcium levels in the water and am not sure if other Gh raising chemicals would offset the toxicity beside calcium only, basically you can have high boron with high Calcium, but shouldn't have low calcium and high Boron. am sure you have already read about Boron on one of Kekon Post?
> 
> @RLee the ratio is in quite a wide range, if one have 0.1 ppm Boron in their tap water, then you should totally skip the Boron dosing from the Micro mix or any other source, with 0.1 ppm Boron, you want to generally have at least 30-40 ppm Calcium. it also appear to me that most people have around 0.1-0.2 ppm Boron in their tap water, this seems stranded amount to me in USA tap water, but i could be wrong and would be surprise if its higher than that.
> 
> so, one must really try this and see what kind of results you get, IMO those who are adding tons of Micro and Macro here, please give this one a try.


Thank you Happi, very clear explanation. I don't use pure RO reconstituted water, but a mix of about 90% tap-10% RO, just to lower bad stuff a little... in the long turn should be beneficial. Considering my tap has 76ppm Ca, I should not worry about Boron that much then... but I'll try to skip dose it for a while and see


----------



## Surf

> Precisely. My well stocked tank already produces P. So I think over time there was a slow build up, which eventually induced symptoms.
> 
> The interesting thing is that the level where everything still liked it was very high. And no algae outbreaks with very high P


Greggz, I did see high phosphate levels (off the chart) in the past. At that time it was caused by a nitrate deficiency. When I corrected the deficiency levels came down. I then got a hanna instruments Phosphate meter and I have observed that phosphate levels tend to go up when when a deficiency is present in the tank(any deficiency not just N) Don't know if that will help you since every tank is different. I would go ahead and try reducing boron. If that doesn't work You might want to look at chlorine or nickel. From your dosing chart it looks like you are covering everything but those two. Since a lot of people don't add nickel to their tanks without issues I would focus on Chlorine. Maybe try replacing all some or of the calcium sulfate you add with Calcium chloride. Perhaps when you increase your micro / marco dose you are using up all the chlorine and or nickel provided by fish food and your plants then suffer and your phosphate goes up.



> Do you happen to know the ratio one needs between boron and calcium? Lets say I have .15 ppm in my tap and I run it through the RO unit. How much calcium should I be adding back?
> Oh and does anyone know where I can get some CSM not CSM + B?


RLee when you run water through a RO unit you and to loose a lot of nutrients in addition to calcium. Furthermore many fertilizers on the market don't have Calcium, Sulfur, and Chlorine and RO water will not have any of these. Many people add a GH booster to their RO water to remineralize it. Many are on the market I would get a sulfate GH booster like Sachem equilibrium. It adds calcium sulfate and magnesium sulfate. I would start out by adding enough to increase your aquarium GH to 2 degrees. If you have fish that prefer harder water feel free to slowly increase the GH to a higher value. GH boosters are generally very safe and having more than your plants need is not harmful. I wouldn't worry about trying to match the calcium dose to a calcium boron ratio. 

Note: I personally mix my own from calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, and magnesium sulfate. These chemicals are generally easy to get on line at Amazon.com or Loudwolf.com.


----------



## burr740

I was having issues early on dosing B in the .01-.015 range. Specifically puckered L red tops and few other things I dont remember exactly.

Bumping it into the .025 range (with no other changes at the time) magically fixed the issues after just a couple doses. Also noticed a difference switching to H3BO3 from Borax. Boric acid seems stronger maybe, does better whatever the reason 

There's around 35 ppm of Ca in my tap. No idea how much B 



fablau said:


> but I'll try to skip dose it for a while and see


Ive been telling you that for months! :red_mouth 

.11 in the tap is...alarming to say the least


----------



## RLee

Surf said:


> RLee when you run water through a RO unit you and to loose a lot of nutrients in addition to calcium. Furthermore many fertilizers on the market don't have Calcium, Sulfur, and Chlorine and RO water will not have any of these. Many people add a GH booster to their RO water to remineralize it. Many are on the market I would get a sulfate GH booster like Sachem equilibrium. It adds calcium sulfate and magnesium sulfate. I would start out by adding enough to increase your aquarium GH to 2 degrees. If you have fish that prefer harder water feel free to slowly increase the GH to a higher value. GH boosters are generally very safe and having more than your plants need is not harmful. I wouldn't worry about trying to match the calcium dose to a calcium boron ratio.
> 
> Note: I personally mix my own from calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, and magnesium sulfate. These chemicals are generally easy to get on line at Amazon.com or Loudwolf.com.


Yes i use all the same to reconstitute. I was curious about boron and calcium specifically. My tap has .15ppm of boron. I add 21ppm Ca and 7ppm Mg now.


----------



## SamuelLG

Surf said:


> I make my own from Calcium chloride, Calcium sulfate, and Magnesium sulfate. The GH booster puts CaMgSCL in excess of plant need. I add the GH booster as needed to maintain a stable GH (typically when I do a water change). For NPK I add KNO3 and KH2PO4 as needed. So If I get a macro deficiency there is a 99% chance it is a Nitrogen or phosphorous deficiency (K is also in excess of a plants need).
> 
> I originally was using Flourish comprehensive in my RO / DI aquarium. I had deficiencies in N Ca, Mg and S.I haven't had any macro deficiencies since I started using My GH booster. However at that point I then had a Chlorine and iron deficiency. And then early last year I got stuck with no plant growth and algae. One issue with low tech aquariums is that you often don't have deficiency symptoms. Just slow to no plant growth. With information posted early in this forum i made my own micro and with it and my GH booster and NPK dosing my plants have started to grow with some minor pearling.


Hi Surf, I have a question about the calcium chloride. I'm making my own GH booster containing magnesium sulfate and calcium sulfate to keep GH in 6 °dGH (around 28 ppm Ca, 9 ppm Mg). As I'm using DI water, the TDS of this filtered water is 0 ppm (32 ppm from tap water) and the only chloride source may come from micro solution which builds up to maximum 1 ppm Cl- (each week dose adds 0,5 ppm), so I think I may be running low on chloride levels.

So, how much chloride you have in your tank by adding calcium chloride? Thanks


----------



## Chlorophile

SamuelLG said:


> Surf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own from Calcium chloride, Calcium sulfate, and Magnesium sulfate. The GH booster puts CaMgSCL in excess of plant need. I add the GH booster as needed to maintain a stable GH (typically when I do a water change). For NPK I add KNO3 and KH2PO4 as needed. So If I get a macro deficiency there is a 99% chance it is a Nitrogen or phosphorous deficiency (K is also in excess of a plants need).
> 
> I originally was using Flourish comprehensive in my RO / DI aquarium. I had deficiencies in N Ca, Mg and S.I haven't had any macro deficiencies since I started using My GH booster. However at that point I then had a Chlorine and iron deficiency. And then early last year I got stuck with no plant growth and algae. One issue with low tech aquariums is that you often don't have deficiency symptoms. Just slow to no plant growth. With information posted early in this forum i made my own micro and with it and my GH booster and NPK dosing my plants have started to grow with some minor pearling.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Surf, I have a question about the calcium chloride. I'm making my own GH booster containing magnesium sulfate and calcium sulfate to keep GH in 6 °dGH (around 28 ppm Ca, 9 ppm Mg). As I'm using DI water, the TDS of this filtered water is 0 ppm (32 ppm from tap water) and the only chloride source may come from micro solution which builds up to maximum 1 ppm Cl- (each week dose adds 0,5 ppm), so I think I may be running low on chloride levels.
> 
> So, how much chloride you have in your tank by adding calcium chloride? Thanks
Click to expand...

Interested to know as well!
I just added a little calcium chloride just for the heck of it but not much.


----------



## aclaar877

happi said:


> Hi Fablau, i don't really have enough data on Boron beside whatever the google search gives me, Boron toxicity Depends on the Calcium far as i could understand this, the reason many people don't see an issue while dosing High Boron or Micro mix, is probably due to high level of Calcium in there water, the one who do experience an issue most likely have low calcium levels in the water and am not sure if other Gh raising chemicals would offset the toxicity beside calcium only, basically you can have high boron with high Calcium, but shouldn't have low calcium and high Boron. am sure you have already read about Boron on one of Kekon Post?
> 
> @RLee the ratio is in quite a wide range, if one have 0.1 ppm Boron in their tap water, then you should totally skip the Boron dosing from the Micro mix or any other source, with 0.1 ppm Boron, you want to generally have at least 30-40 ppm Calcium. it also appear to me that most people have around 0.1-0.2 ppm Boron in their tap water, this seems stranded amount to me in USA tap water, but i could be wrong and would be surprise if its higher than that.
> 
> so, one must really try this and see what kind of results you get, IMO those who are adding tons of Micro and Macro here, please give this one a try.


Wow, what a timely post. I've been trying to figure out why I've had a return of stunting and shriveled tips in AR and Ammania Senegalensis after using Burr's latest ratios at 0.2 ppm Fe 3-4 times per week. I thought I might have up to 0.08 ppm Boron in tap, but got clarification from water company that I have zero from my particular river source. I have same substrate, same CO2 reactor, similar pH drop, same flow pattern, and less lighting than Burr, but I only have 14 ppm Ca whereas he has a lot more. 

I initially had great results with 0.05 ppm Fe with the v5.15 mix, without any boron. But I only used this for a week or two, and then got some borax to add to the mix. I also wonder if zinc dosing at 0.2 ppm Fe could be a problem. Anecdote: last year, in hearing that EDTA could be problematic, I tried Flourish Trace and dosed at just half the recommended amount and got immediate stunting and shriveling in these plants within 24 hours. I also used it with 0.03 doses of Flourish Comp, and also saw similar immediate bad results. My water report says zinc was tested but none reported, but that's the only element that stands out as a possible culprit in the Flourish Trace ratios. Also, Friday night I did a 1/3 water change (I usually do them Sat morning), and on Saturday the A Senegalensis looked like it was coming back with healthy new buds starting out. I dosed the Fe and traces that afternoon at 0.2 ppm, and then they shriveled back up again. My conclusion is that my tank just prefers lower traces, and maybe that's due to 14-15 ppm Ca and a 1:1 ratio with Mg. I may have a sweet spot at 0.05 ppm Fe, and I should just maintain that with the corresponding levels of zinc and boron. But part of me is tempted to make a mix without zinc, or one without boron, and see if the tank handles 0.2 ppm doses without issue. An easier test this week is to hold off on trace dosing, see if this plant rebounds, and then give it a single dose of 0.06 ppm zinc and see what happens. Or, just lard on the CaSO4 and see if it helps as well!!

I have sometimes added 10 ppm Ca with the water change, but did not do so this past weekend, just to see if softer water made any difference with A Senegalensis. For the record, I have over 20 varieties in the tank and these are the only two that get issues. Everything else is doing great with these micros and robust macro dosing.


----------



## Surf

> Hi Surf, I have a question about the calcium chloride. I'm making my own GH booster containing magnesium sulfate and calcium sulfate to keep GH in 6 °dGH (around 28 ppm Ca, 9 ppm Mg). As I'm using DI water, the TDS of this filtered water is 0 ppm (32 ppm from tap water) and the only chloride source may come from micro solution which builds up to maximum 1 ppm Cl- (each week dose adds 0,5 ppm), so I think I may be running low on chloride levels.
> 
> So, how much chloride you have in your tank by adding calcium chloride? Thanks


My understanding right now is that plants need about the same amount of Cl as they do Fe. So my Fe dose of 0.1ppm means I should need about 0.1ppm Cl. I apply enough GH booster to maintain a GH of about 2 degrees which is about 35ppm Mg/Ca. I have not worked it out but I would guess my chloride level is at about 15ppm. Looking at water quality reports of people that had nutrient problems it is not uncommon to see Cl levels at about 20-30ppm range (when it is listed). I haven't seen anything to indicating these levels are harmfull. So that is probably a safe range. However levels very much higher are known to be harmfull to plants. 

So overall my tank has a lot of chloride and sulfate in it as well as Calcium and Magnesium. The only down side of this macro dosing method is that the water can get acidic since the plants consume Mg and Ca faster than S and Cl. I manage that by making sure I have some carbonate (calcium or magnesium carbonate) in my substrate or filter. This will counter act the Acidity and given enough time will keep the PH at about 7. However with the lights On it is not uncommon for me to see a PH of 6.5 which is still safe. 

Note I have a low tech tank and I am not injecting CO2 into the water. With a CO2 system the acidic water it creates can push the GH up substantially which might cause problems for some people using CO2. 

An alternative to using a chloride containing GH booster is to dose KCl (potassium chloride) at about the same level as you dose iron. I don't know which is better, a S/Cl booster or KCL. I mainly use added Cacl2 to my gh booster as a mater of convienence for myself. You could just as easily add KCl to your sulfate booster and get similar results.

Note my RO/DI water has a average TDS of 1. If I recall correctly Flourish Comp and Flourish trace are both very low in zinc.


----------



## happi

@aclaar877

this might be interesting to you:

Pic #1 water change and No dosing (this doesn't last very long though)
Pic #2 DIY Seachem Trace dosing
Pic #3 Additional 0.04 ppm Boron Added


----------



## fablau

It is no clear to me: is it showing more Boron made the plant worse?


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> It is no clear to me: is it showing more Boron made the plant worse?


not certain but, as you can see they stunted with seachem micro and similar thing occurred when i increased the Boron, i added more Boron while thinking that the issue was due to low Boron, but it wasn't, as plant did not change much.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi @happi,

Do those leaves at the very end of the growing tips appear to be "gelatinous" to you, like they are almost stuck together and not unfolding properly?










One of the symptoms of a calcium deficiency is:


> the leaf tips may be "gelatinous" and stuck together inhibiting leaf unfolding.


If you want don't change anything else but up your Ca dosing and let us know how the stems look in a couple of weeks. It is not uncommon to lose the stem tips of this is a Ca deficiency.



> I. Symptoms appearing first or most severely on new growth (root and shoot tips, new leaves)
> 
> A. Terminal bud usually dies. Symptoms on new growth.
> 
> 1. Basal part of young leaves and internal tissues of organs may become necrotic.
> One of the earliest symptoms is failure of the root tips to elongate normally. Terminal shoot meristems also die giving rise to a witch’s broom. Young leaves become very thick, leathery, and chlorotic; in some species young leaves may be crinkled because of necrotic spots on leaf edge during development. Young leaves of terminal buds become light green then necrotic and stem finally dies back at terminal bud. Rust colored cracks and corking occur on young stems and petioles... *boron deficiency*
> 
> 2. 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 stem 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*
> 
> Differentiating between calcium and boron deficiency symptoms: When calcium is deficient, there is a characteristic hooking of the youngest leaf tips. However, when boron is deficient, the breakdown occurs at the bases of the youngest leaves. Death of the terminal growing points is the final result in both cases.


----------



## happi

@Seattle_Aquarist 
yes they are kind of stuck together, i have added up to 20+ ppm Calcium and this issue was still there, also look at the 1st pic when water changes were done with 100% Ro water and nothing was added further such as GH, KH, other dosing and plant look great for day or so before declining again.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Greggz said:


> Hey Vin you are always up to something, aren't you?
> 
> 
> I was discussing this with Burr, and the interesting thing is that his tank doesn't seem to like anything over 2.0 ppm PO4 dosing. Even going to 2.5 stunts some plants for him. So here you are dosing quite a bit of P, and massive amounts of N. Burr has been upping his N, but still sensitive to P. I was at uber levels of P for quite awhile, and everything was great. Why?????? Who knows?
> 
> Question for you, any fish stocking in the farm tank? And I really don't know what to make of the pH. Makes me wonder if I should bring mine down lower. I start with RO and bump it up to 4 KH. Might try 1 or 2 and see what happens.


The bump in macros revived my long-dormant Saururus chinensis, as I mentioned in my earlier post. I was stoked. It was a plant that refused to die no matter what. I spoke too soon. 

I don't know if it didn't like the sudden bump in micros (0.2 daily) or something else. But it melted completely. So far, it is the only plant that has complained after the addition of high-dose, daily custom trace mix. (Burr V10.2). wallichii was in a world of pain before and continues to be. More macros + micros has not made it any happier. But most other plants are looking good. 

I don't know what killed the Saururus. Sudden high traces are likely coincidental because most other plants are thriving. 

I, too, had an offline conversation with Burr about his sudden wallichii stunting after increasing P, after the plant showed no issues for a long time. I am not dismissing that observation. There might be something there. 

I have not added any new fish (bows or otherwise) into the ex-Dutch farm tank. But my I have 2 or 3 big styros coming in from Colombia tomorrow. Stuff I collected there a few days ago. I'm sure there are no rainbows there. ;-) 

My crazy low pH is not ideal. I was just sharing to let people know that pH in the 3s, even low 3s, is not the end of the world. Other than iron and boron, virtually all macros are poorly absorbed at low 3s. That's what the books say. May be it's because my plants watch TV instead of reading...they did just fine. I would never recommend anyone try pH that low. The most acidic water I've ever measured in the Amazon was 3.8 and this tank was half a point lower. With this tank, it was a consequence of my going with 100% reconstituted RO with only 1 to 1.5 KH (and Aquasoil eats KH by about 0.5 per day in my tank) to rule our whether high Na and Cl (both are at about 100 ppm in my tap) had anything to do with my Rotala tip stunting. After almost two dozen 70% weekly water changes with 100% RO, there should be no issue whatsoever with Na or Cl and there is still no change in Rotala tip stunting. In other words eliminating high Na and Cl by avoiding tap water did not fix the problems I outline in my Rotala Kill Tank journal over at BR. So, I may go to 20% tap to increase KH and pH stability. That might also bump the pH into the mid to high 5s at peak CO2.


----------



## happi

do we get any update on what's happening to people's tank


----------



## Frangipani

Hi Sara Tilley. Been reading threads with interest. You wrote that ‘Aquasoil eats KH by about 0.5 per day’ in your tank which somewhat intersects with thread ‘Substrate CEC lab Analysis’ started by Quagulator. 

As a newbie trying again since newer information has surfaced for better health of aquatic aquarium plants then in past.

Question: 1) What in the Aquasoil is contributing to decreasing KH for those of us looking at substrate issues? Peat moss???

2) Are others in this forum also finding same results with Aquasoil decreasing KH and amount of decrease per day?


----------



## Greggz

Saxa Tilly said:


> wallichii was in a world of pain before and continues to be. More macros + micros has not made it any happier. But most other plants are looking good.


You and I have something in common. Wallachii hates us.:wink2:



Saxa Tilly said:


> I, too, had an offline conversation with Burr about his sudden wallichii stunting after increasing P, after the plant showed no issues for a long time. I am not dismissing that observation. There might be something there.
> 
> My crazy low pH is not ideal. I was just sharing to let people know that pH in the 3s, even low 3s, is not the end of the world. Other than iron and boron, virtually all macros are poorly absorbed at low 3s. That's what the books say. May be it's because my plants watch TV instead of reading...they did just fine.


Funny you mention this. I've been having an interesting reaction with P lately. I think I finally found an upper limit where things got wonky. But that was at some extremely high levels. 

And in general, I've always had to dose far more P than Burr. I've been considering the theory that it may have something to do with my lower pH level (less P being absorbed). With your pH that low, have you been dosing P higher than normal??? Or macros in general higher than normal??


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> do we get any update on what's happening to people's tank


Im still dosing the .2 blend almost every day. It continues to be favorable.


Couple weeks ago I increased P from 2 ppm 3x to 2.5 ppm. By the end of the week, about 1/3 of the wallichii in the 50 had stunted badly, looked about like those pics you posted. Wallichii in the 120 was unaffected for the most part.

60% water change, cut the worst tops off in the 50, back down to 2 ppm last week and things are fine again.

Idk what it is about P and my tanks but every time I try to go up bad things happen. Its been that way for a couple of years going back to the high/low csmb days. Must be interferring with something else is all I can think of.

And still it's only one plant we're talking about here (this time). Nothing else seemed to notice much difference

This week I just started 1.5 ppm 3x, gonna see how that works.

Here's some pics from today

Wallichii in the 50 










In the 120











Young Pantanal coming off stumps in the 75










Bottoms











The plan going forward Im gonna give the new P a couple of weeks to see if 1.5 is any better than 2. 

Then, if nothing happens to change my mind, Im either going up to .25 daily micros, or down to .15 - just to see what happens. Havent decided which yet.


----------



## Nlewis

Alright @greggs here’s my update. I’ve been struggling with stargrass in my 40b biotope for months. Thread is here http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/1182385-whats-happening-my-stargrass.html. I’ve been dosing @burr740 nice V.12.15 for the past 3 weeks and things have turned out quite well. I’m actually at the point to where I have to top the plant, where I haven’t hade to to that in months. It’s growing like crazy now and other than changing micro solution, nothing else has changed. 

Stargrass is now cresting the water surface. Thanks Joe, you’ll see more of my money in the near future��.


----------



## burr740

Thanks @Nlewis , very glad it's working well!


----------



## Chlorophile

Of my 3 wallichii stems, 2 seem fine, doing well. 
One is.. Green? Kinda closed up and kinda funny lookin but doesn't look twisted really or stunted. 
Just different, It looked a little bit different right off the bat but now it's kinda going green down the entire stem.. 


















Pantenal seems ok so far, new growth has similar color to the old, kinda small but Its too soon to say, unless it stays small I can't know if its normal or not. 
It's curled up for the night so hard to see but when its mid day its all spread out and looks kewl!


----------



## happi

let me know if you guys find this data to be interesting


----------



## Immortal1

Actually @happi that is very interesting to see how different the water is in various parts of the world compared to my little part of the world.

Speaking of my little part of the world, was a little surprised to note that the Ludwigia Rubin has grown faster than the Myriophyllum Red Stem this week. Was certain I would be trimming the Red Stem sometime this week once it hit the surface but remarkably the Rubin beat it to the surface (both were about the same height about 7 days ago). For what it's worth, I have been paying a lot more attention to my Phosphate levels lately. 1-2ppm does not seem to be the happy spot in my tank. I am now getting a 2ppm reading just before I add the Macros which should give me about 4ppm for the next day or so. The plants seem to be happier overall with the higher P level - or it just might be Burr's new micro mix that I started about the same time.

Either way, I am not complaining about having to sharpen the scissors....


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Greggz said:


> You and I have something in common. Wallachii hates us.:wink2:
> 
> 
> Funny you mention this. I've been having an interesting reaction with P lately. I think I finally found an upper limit where things got wonky. But that was at some extremely high levels.
> 
> And in general, I've always had to dose far more P than Burr. I've been considering the theory that it may have something to do with my lower pH level (less P being absorbed). With your pH that low, have you been dosing P higher than normal??? Or macros in general higher than normal??


No, I've not been dosing very high P. About 3 ppm every other day or so. High, but not super high. N and K are higher than typical EI.


----------



## fablau

Hey guys, I just updated my journal on the Barrreport, eager to know your thoughts... removing Boron, decreasing traces of 1/3 and decreasing Zn of 2/3 didn't help for the past week, some plants got stunted tips like this Rotala:




















Ambulia is still stunted:



















AR got even more stunted:











I am beginning to think that my 75gl tank needs more, not less... the tank itself is a 75gl tank, but I have an oversized wet/dry filter (add 10-15 gl more of water), plus two reactors and a cerges (maybe another couple of gls?)... of course, if you remove all hardscape (substrate, wood, rocks, filte rmedia, etc), that's going to be less... but how much less? I have been dosing for a 60gl tank so far, but maybe I should calculate for a 70? or 75? Or more? Just another point to consider?

I plan to still keep Boron out, but revert micros back to where they were... and/or maybe increase them even more? And maybe more macros?


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> I plan to still keep Boron out, but revert micros back to where they were... and/or maybe increase them even more? And maybe more macros?


The way I look at things in similar circumstances, Reducing didnt make anything better, and you've tried even lower levels in the past, so these issues are not "toxicity" related. The plants are running short on something.

I'd leave out B, go back to higher micro levels, increase NO3 and possibly K. 

My recent experience raising P has further cemented my belief that higher levels can be detrimental in some parameters. And since none of these issues appear to be related to P deficiency I would not increase it.

Then after a week or two of that, depending how things go, my next move would be increase micros and Fe by a pretty good bit, say 50%. That should tell you right away if more is gonna be favorable, as compared to inching things up slowly over a few weeks.

You may not need the whole 50% increase long term, But the first few doses will let you know if you're headed in the right direction

That's just how I would approach it, tifwiw obviously


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> The way I look at things in similar circumstances, Reducing didnt make anything better, and you've tried even lower levels in the past, so these issues are not "toxicity" related. The plants are running short on something.
> 
> I'd leave out B, go back to higher micro levels, increase NO3 and possibly K.
> 
> My recent experience raising P has further cemented my belief that higher levels can be detrimental in some parameters. And since none of these issues appear to be related to P deficiency I would not increase it.
> 
> Then after a week or two of that, depending how things go, my next move would be increase micros and Fe by a pretty good bit, say 50%. That should tell you right away if more is gonna be favorable, as compared to inching things up slowly over a few weeks.
> 
> You may not need the whole 50% increase long term, But the first few doses will let you know if you're headed in the right direction
> 
> That's just how I would approach it, tifwiw obviously


Thank you Burr, I'll do that, it is pretty much what I also was thinking doing. I'll give it a try. :wink2:


----------



## Subjected

Hi guys, I'm newer here. Decided to get more active on the forums and all.
Got lots of experience in planted tanks and growing plants. Came across this thread and would like to offer my Fluval Spec V for science haha. There is over 16 plant species stuffed in here.
I mix up my own fertz but have not gotten to the point of mixing complete Micro's yet. Just haven’t gotten around to buying all the separate salts.
What is the latest recipe you all would like me to try out? 










































Steve


----------



## Chlorophile

For giggles I added 1/32 tsp 90% humic acid to my 33 gal.
Probably pointless but, humic acid is kinda like a pseudo-macro in terrestrial plants so maybe it's good.


----------



## happi

Chlorophile said:


> For giggles I added 1/32 tsp 90% humic acid to my 33 gal.
> Probably pointless but, humic acid is kinda like a pseudo-macro in terrestrial plants so maybe it's good.


i use to add it to my mix along with fulvic acid, but humic acid wont dissolve in low ph, but will settle in the soil, kind of good stuff for plants if you think about it.


----------



## happi

anyways here are the results of Urea to see if it really need Ni to convert into Ammonium, i added 1.34 ppm N from Urea in 500 ml Distilled water, which is almost 6 ppm NO3, i used Distilled water to make sure its the purest form and free of everything that could affect the results, oh and this test was taken 12 hours later.

Edit: i have made a huge error this time in my calculation, i had set calculate for 50 gallon and 500ml solution and 500ml dose which came up to almost 0.543 gram, the actual dose for this experiment should have been 0.001436 gram in the 500 ml solution, which would have 1.34 N from Urea in actual solution. based on this error, the previous N in the solution should have been 506.52 N from Urea, if i did the math correctly. this is still amazing that only little NH4 showed up on the test kit after 12 hours, @Edward thanks for pointing it out, i can make mistake sometime, correct me if you ever notice it.


----------



## Subjected

So guys I went ahead and got all the Micro salts. Should all be here by end of next week. Cant wait to step up the fert game. I have tried and tried over the last few years to get better growth and colors. Dosing regular CSM+B / Millers or any combination thereof would work for a few weeks then hit a road block. I'm thinking this thread will solve my problem. Will test it out on the Spec and see how it goes.
If it works I'll initiate this protocol on the 50 gallon stem tank.


----------



## burr740

Subjected said:


> So guys I went ahead and got all the Micro salts. Should all be here by end of next week. Cant wait to step up the fert game. I have tried and tried over the last few years to get better growth and colors. Dosing regular CSM+B / Millers or any combination thereof would work for a few weeks then hit a road block. I'm thinking this thread will solve my problem. Will test it out on the Spec and see how it goes.
> If it works I'll initiate this protocol on the 50 gallon stem tank.


Awesome, looking forward to seeing your results. 

What amounts/ratio are you planning to try first?


----------



## Greggz

Subjected said:


> So guys I went ahead and got all the Micro salts. Should all be here by end of next week. Cant wait to step up the fert game. I have tried and tried over the last few years to get better growth and colors. Dosing regular CSM+B / Millers or any combination thereof would work for a few weeks then hit a road block. I'm thinking this thread will solve my problem. Will test it out on the Spec and see how it goes.
> If it works I'll initiate this protocol on the 50 gallon stem tank.


Well this should be interesting. Looking forward to seeing how this goes for you, and some more shots of your tank. Looks like a very nice one.


----------



## fablau

happi said:


> anyways here are the results of Urea to see if it really need Ni to convert into Ammonium, i added 1.34 ppm N from Urea in 500 ml Distilled water, which is almost 6 ppm NO3, i used Distilled water to make sure its the purest form and free of everything that could affect the results, oh and this test was taken 12 hours later.




Interesting.... how do you plan testing the correlation with Ni?


----------



## happi

fablau said:


> Interesting.... how do you plan testing the correlation with Ni?


am not sure if we really need it even though i have seen many product include it into their fertilizer, VIMI AIO for example adds decent amount of Ni in their product. if i go back couple years ago when i used RO water and used Urea as my main N source, i never really added any Ni, if it helps with Fe then that would be another story, but i plan on including it in my mixes, just a tiny bit for any benefit if there is any. but now this raises another question though, it shows up as Nh4 in the solution, but if we compare this with NH4NO3, i could never use NH4NO3 successfully compare to Urea without some kind of Algae if i were to dose like 1 ppm N. i will repeat the test again to see how long it really took for it to change the colors, since i let it sit for 12 hours, it changed color. i will try to test this one right away and rest every few hours to see if it really degrade slowly, if yes then we are less likely to see the NH4 spike in our tanks from Urea and making Urea still a better source than NH4NO3 or other NH4 based chemicals.


----------



## Subjected

Not quite sure as to amounts yet. Currently dosing about standard Ei. Was thinking just going all in and bumping NO3 up to 10ppm 3x week along with the rest. I will slowly go in with Micro's though.

Bump:


happi said:


> am not sure if we really need it even though i have seen many product include it into their fertilizer, VIMI AIO for example adds decent amount of Ni in their product. if i go back couple years ago when i used RO water and used Urea as my main N source, i never really added any Ni, if it helps with Fe then that would be another story, but i plan on including it in my mixes, just a tiny bit for any benefit if there is any. but now this raises another question though, it shows up as Nh4 in the solution, but if we compare this with NH4NO3, i could never use NH4NO3 successfully compare to Urea without some kind of Algae if i were to dose like 1 ppm N. i will repeat the test again to see how long it really took for it to change the colors, since i let it sit for 12 hours, it changed color. i will try to test this one right away and rest every few hours to see if it really degrade slowly, if yes then we are less likely to see the NH4 spike in our tanks from Urea and making Urea still a better source than NH4NO3 or other NH4 based chemicals.


Happi, 
Synthesis has both NH4NO3 and Urea in it with a ratio of NO3:NH2:NH4 25%:50%:25% as N 
It would be interesting to see how much Ni and traces Envy has.
I tried out their products a few years back with great results. Their just expensive on big tanks.


----------



## Ben Belton

happi said:


> anyways here are the results of Urea to see if it really need Ni to convert into Ammonium, i added 1.34 ppm N from Urea in 500 ml Distilled water, which is almost 6 ppm NO3, i used Distilled water to make sure its the purest form and free of everything that could affect the results, oh and this test was taken 12 hours later.



I thought bacteria used the Ni as part of their enzymatic process to utilize the urea. Since you used distilled water, could it have been the reagents that broke it down?


I could be missing something. :smile2:


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Ben Belton said:


> I thought bacteria used the Ni as part of their enzymatic process to utilize the urea. Since you used distilled water, could it have been the reagents that broke it down?
> 
> 
> I could be missing something. :smile2:


And I though Ni was needed by plants to process NH4? :grin2:


----------



## RLee

Subjected said:


> Not quite sure as to amounts yet. Currently dosing about standard Ei. Was thinking just going all in and bumping NO3 up to 10ppm 3x week along with the rest. I will slowly go in with Micro's though.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> Happi,
> Synthesis has both NH4NO3 and Urea in it with a ratio of NO3:NH2:NH4 25%:50%:25% as N
> It would be interesting to see how much Ni and traces Envy has.
> I tried out their products a few years back with great results. Their just expensive on big tanks.


Is that a custom Boba Fett mask under your name? Nice


----------



## Ben Belton

Maryland Guppy said:


> And I though Ni was needed by plants to process NH4? :grin2:


OK OK you got me. I was thinking bacteria (which also needs it), but I meant the plants... which some people consider bacteria to be plants, so maybe I right all along. maybe.... if you stretch... :grin2:


----------



## burr740

The way I understand plants need Ni to make urease, which is the enzyme used to process urea. They still take in urea even if they cant make the enzyme, but they dont process it and it can be toxic. Not sure if it's toxic period or has to build up to some level first 

And I do think it helps processing Fe because I noticed better colors pretty much right away from 5 ppb. Could've been due to urea too I suppose


----------



## Subjected

@RLee yes it sure is.


----------



## happi

back to my post #534 i have made a huge error this time in my calculation, i had set calculate for 50 gallon and 500ml solution and 500ml dose which came up to almost 0.543 gram, the actual dose for this experiment should have been 0.001436 gram in the 500 ml solution, which would have 1.34 N from Urea in actual solution. based on this error, the previous N in the solution should have been 506.52 N from Urea, if i did the math correctly. this is still amazing that only little NH4 showed up on the test kit after 12 hours, @Edward thanks for pointing it out, i can make mistake sometime, correct me if you ever notice it.


----------



## happi

Subjected said:


> Not quite sure as to amounts yet. Currently dosing about standard Ei. Was thinking just going all in and bumping NO3 up to 10ppm 3x week along with the rest. I will slowly go in with Micro's though.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> Happi,
> Synthesis has both NH4NO3 and Urea in it with a ratio of NO3:NH2:NH4 25%:50%:25% as N
> It would be interesting to see how much Ni and traces Envy has.
> I tried out their products a few years back with great results. Their just expensive on big tanks.


i believe it would look something like this:

500 ml solution, 20 ml dose per 50 gallon

Add 1.5 gram NH4NO3
0.7 ppm NH4 (0.25 N)
0.25 NO3 (0.05 N)

Add 3.043 gram of Urea 
0.3 ppm N (50% N from Urea?)

Total N 0.6ppm


----------



## Chlorophile

Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
Today I decided to skip it idk why.
Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.

So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.

So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.

I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
Ammonia is lower than ever too.

So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces


----------



## happi

Chlorophile said:


> Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
> Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
> Today I decided to skip it idk why.
> Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.
> 
> So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.
> 
> So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.
> 
> I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
> Ammonia is lower than ever too.
> 
> So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces


i usually get heavy pearling from high Zn, this is what i have noticed most of the time even when i dosed Zn alone.


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
> Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
> Today I decided to skip it idk why.
> Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.
> 
> So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.
> 
> So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.
> 
> I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
> Ammonia is lower than ever too.
> 
> So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces
> 
> 
> 
> i usually get heavy pearling from high Zn, this is what i have noticed most of the time even when i dosed Zn alone.
Click to expand...

Weird, my water is deionized, unless there's zinc in the new KH booster I got. "Nutrafin KH booster"
Actually I wonder if it was from adding that?
But then I wonder why it stopped when I did the full trace dose.

Edit: hmm it's potassium carbonate in the KH booster. 
I wonder if my plants like that lol.


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
> Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
> Today I decided to skip it idk why.
> Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.
> 
> So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.
> 
> So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.
> 
> I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
> Ammonia is lower than ever too.
> 
> So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces


I go by this a lot to know if the plants like something or not. Id say it is a sign less micros/Fe would be better. Might wanna go back to a regular 3x per week, or dose 1/2 dose every day 

I can also make your new blend .15 strength, what you have now is .2. Let me know before sat if you wanna change it


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
> Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
> Today I decided to skip it idk why.
> Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.
> 
> So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.
> 
> So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.
> 
> I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
> Ammonia is lower than ever too.
> 
> So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces
> 
> 
> 
> I go by this a lot to know if the plants like something or not. Id say it is a sign less micros/Fe would be better. Might wanna go back to a regular 3x per week, or dose 1/2 dose every day
> 
> I can also make your new blend .15 strength, what you have now is .2. Let me know before sat if you wanna change it
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah the pearling is a good indicator.
It seemed odd that it stopped cause I was only two hours into my photoperiod
Going to put my ista reactor on tomorrow and get it dialed in, I think it'll be good for my size filter cause my old Rex griggs one was just way too huge I got tons of air trapped at the top.


----------



## happi

@Chlorophile i didnt know you add CO3, KhCO3/K2CO3 also results in heavy pearling as well, there are so many nutrients i believe seems to trigger excessive pearling, i would get heavy pearling from KHCO3 alone as well, same for ZNso4, its interesting that there is heavy pearling from Znso4 vs ZNedta


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> @Chlorophile i didnt know you add CO3, KhCO3/K2CO3 also results in heavy pearling as well, there are so many nutrients i believe seems to trigger excessive pearling, i would get heavy pearling from KHCO3 alone as well, same for ZNso4, its interesting that there is heavy pearling from Znso4 vs ZNedta


This was my first time, since I switched to RO/DI I had a kh of 6 in the tank, and after so many water changes it was finally approaching zero so today I dosed KH booster in the form of Potassium Carbonate to get it up to a kh 2-3 (wasn't too specific with measurements) 
It raised the pH a LOT! Not sure if thats from KH only or if potassium Carbonate also raises pH through other means.


----------



## happi

Chlorophile said:


> This was my first time, since I switched to RO/DI I had a kh of 6 in the tank, and after so many water changes it was finally approaching zero so today I dosed KH booster in the form of Potassium Carbonate to get it up to a kh 2-3 (wasn't too specific with measurements)
> It raised the pH a LOT! Not sure if thats from KH only or if potassium Carbonate also raises pH through other means.


oh man, i use KHCO3 instead of K2CO3 now, did it kill anything in your tank yet? melt some plants? every time i dosed K2CO3, i notice sudden melt on some snestive sp. especially Eriocaulon, SYNGONANTHUS, Tonina etc, same would occur with CaCO3 as well, let me know if you do notice any of this effect.


----------



## burr740

Im confused how a particular nutrient can trigger more pearling, other than the obvious effect of making the plants happier than they were before resulting in greater photosynthesis.

But otherwise...?


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> oh man, i use KHCO3 instead of K2CO3 now, did it kill anything in your tank yet? melt some plants? every time i dosed K2CO3, i notice sudden melt on some snestive sp. especially Eriocaulon, SYNGONANTHUS, Tonina etc, same would occur with CaCO3 as well, let me know if you do notice any of this effect.


I will let you know.. 
I just bought it today, it is Hagen Nutrafin KH booster...
It said "uses a carbonate mineral specially tuned to plant growth" or something on the bottle, and the plants did seem very happy.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Im confused how a particular nutrient can trigger more pearling, other than the obvious effect of making the plants happier than they were before resulting in greater photosynthesis.
> 
> But otherwise...?


Only thing I can think of is if the chemistry somehow changes the limit of dissolved o2?


----------



## Subjected

burr740 said:


> Im confused how a particular nutrient can trigger more pearling, other than the obvious effect of making the plants happier than they were before resulting in greater photosynthesis.
> 
> But otherwise...?


I see it as 3 different things: Either adding more KHCO3 increased the TDS and that has something to do with pearling, it increased the kH which in tern makes CO2 more accessible or the added K. 

I dose CaSO4, MgSO4 and KHCO3 at water change but havn't paid attention to the pearling part.

On another note got my package today.


----------



## happi

@Subjected, nice to see you also interested in the experiment, let me know if you need help with anything.


----------



## Subjected

I've been in the plant game for a while now. CSM+B and Miller's just don't cut it any more for me. I have always wondered why but then I see all these foreign fertilizers with way different ratio’s and these guys tanks are outstanding and they hardly do anything to them. I know its not just about light any more. Makes a guy wonder. I have been meaning to role my own traces for a while, but then I accidentally found this thread and well .....

Now I am assuming that when mixing CSM+B say 11 grams per 500mL so much is needed due to the EDTA. 
I have run the numbers for these new fertz and well its hardly anything at all. Even down to a few milligrams for some. Is this correct?


----------



## burr740

Subjected said:


> I have run the numbers for these new fertz and well its hardly anything at all. Even down to a few milligrams for some. Is this correct?


Yep, I didnt run your numbers but that's the type of quantities you're gonna be dealing with


----------



## Greggz

happi said:


> oh man, i use KHCO3 instead of K2CO3 now, did it kill anything in your tank yet? melt some plants? every time i dosed K2CO3, i notice sudden melt on some snestive sp. especially Eriocaulon, SYNGONANTHUS, Tonina etc, same would occur with CaCO3 as well, let me know if you do notice any of this effect.


Happi I found this interesting. I also dose K2CO3 into RO water.

And I have not had much luck with Erio, Syn, Tonina. When you dosed K2CO3 vs KHCO3 were you dosing to get to the same KH level? And what KH were adjusting to? Andy idea what in K2CO3 could be affecting those plants?

With my RO water, the last stage is a remineralization filter, which raises the KH to about 2 without any dosing. I have been dosing to get that up to KH 4.

So I am thinking I might try not adding anything to raise KH. Just stick with KH 2 and see if it makes any difference. I do have a few a few Erio's right now, but they are just doing O.K.


----------



## happi

Greggz said:


> Happi I found this interesting. I also dose K2CO3 into RO water.
> 
> And I have not had much luck with Erio, Syn, Tonina. When you dosed K2CO3 vs KHCO3 were you dosing to get to the same KH level? And what KH were adjusting to? Andy idea what in K2CO3 could be affecting those plants?
> 
> With my RO water, the last stage is a remineralization filter, which raises the KH to about 2 without any dosing. I have been dosing to get that up to KH 4.
> 
> So I am thinking I might try not adding anything to raise KH. Just stick with KH 2 and see if it makes any difference. I do have a few a few Erio's right now, but they are just doing O.K.


i tried raising lets say 1 DKH or even less and it always results in melting those plants, maybe not all the way but most of it, they would recover inmost cases. i think K2CO3 is more Alkaline with much higher PH compare to KHCO3, i did not notice this melting under KHCO3, but i dosed it as daily dose at 0.2 DKH.


----------



## Chlorophile

It is definitely very basic in addition to being alkaline..
My holding tank, 30 gallons, received enough potassium carbonate to raise KH by 40ppm, and the resulting pH is over 9! Calibrated pH probe.

No wonder it has a picture of rift cichlids on it

Could the melt be related to already high K in either tanks ?

I did some searching and stumbled upon multiple research articles mentioning that potassium carbonate in an aqueous solution can capture CO2 from the air...


----------



## Subjected

@happi, I think this is why: K2CO3 + H2O + CO2 = 2KHCO3 (30-40° C)
Potassium bicarbonate KHCO3. Reactions.

You can turn KHCO3 into K2CO3 by baking it: 
From the wikipedia article of potassium bicarbonate:

"Decomposition of the bicarbonate occurs between 100 and 120 °C (212 and 248 °F): 2KHCO3 → K2CO3 + CO2 + H2O"

The temperature is only just above the boiling point of water, so you won't even need to get it too terribly hot. In order to tell if the reaction is happening, the potassium bicarbonate powder should "fluff up" as it releases water vapor and carbon dioxide. There will also be little geysers of gas forming on the powder's surface. Once these effects die down, the conversion is complete.


----------



## zervan

When you add K2CO3 and pH is less than cca 10 (for sure it is), it will be converted to KHCO3 by using some CO2: K2CO3 + CO2 + H2O -> 2 KHCO3
So, when you add K2CO3, three things happen:

K will raise;
alkality (KH) will raise => pH will raise permanently;
 CO2 will temporary drop => pH will temporary raise more.


----------



## burr740

zervan said:


> CO2 will temporary drop => pH will temporary drop more.


If you mean the CO2 level in the water column will temporarily be less, wouldnt that make the PH temporarily rise instead of drop?

This is getting quite above my pay grade so Im just trying to understand.


----------



## fablau

Chlorophile said:


> Did a water change and decided to try a double dose of NPK.
> Usually I dose a half dose of traces on Macro day.
> Today I decided to skip it idk why.
> Pearling like crazy on everything for a few hours, it was like nothing I'd seen in a while.
> 
> So then I did a full dose of traces cause I thought oh these plants are gonna need this! And pearling stopped within 10 minutes.
> 
> So now idk if my plants liked the extra npk or I'm dosing too much trace, or both.
> 
> I also have some staghorn which some sites say is from too much iron but I think that's bogus.
> Ammonia is lower than ever too.
> 
> So I'm gonna go back to 4x a week traces




This is very interesting, and I am wondering if it can be easily reproduced when plants have issues with some compound. @burr740, have you ever experienced something like that? I am very curious to see if I can reproduce it in my tank where some plants seems still to struggle despite I provide anything necessary... Maybe just one element is disturbing and this could be a way to figure it out!

Thoughts?


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> zervan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CO2 will temporary drop => pH will temporary drop more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the CO2 level in the water column will temporarily be less, wouldnt that make the PH temporarily rise instead of drop?
> 
> This is getting quite above my pay grade so Im just trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Yes it would raise pH, I think he meant carbonic acid would drop temporarily.

That explains why my holding tank went up to a pH 9! I assumed this compound was alkaline and basic but I guess it probably just dropped co2 out of equilibrium.

The question then is this.. is it possible maybe the extra pearling I saw was actually co2 gas forming on nucleation sites?
It could have been other factors but maybe.
Afaik co2 doesn't displace oxygen..


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> This is very interesting, and I am wondering if it can be easily reproduced when plants have issues with some compound. @*burr740*, have you ever experienced something like that? I am very curious to see if I can reproduce it in my tank where some plants seems still to struggle despite I provide anything necessary... Maybe just one element is disturbing and this could be a way to figure it out!
> 
> Thoughts?


Used to experience it all the time going up and down with csmb. 

Assuming there's no bogeyman in the tap, Fe would be my guess. Imo it is by far the most likely to run short or cause overdose issues.

I really think most micro problems revolve around Fe, either from too much, not the right kind relative to PH, or too little.

Most likely to overdose I think are

Fe/Cu
Mn
B

Zn/Ni

* assumes non-Fe compounds arent chelated

** based on personal observations, internet research and hunches. Not hardcore scientifically conducted peer reviewed studies, which in my opinion would have to be conducted under aquarium conditions to do us much good. What happens in a soybean field only holds so much relevance because everything behaves/interacts differently in water.

....hence the frequent use of "I think" so tifwiw


----------



## Chlorophile

Yeah, solubility, different microbes, pH etc really make a big difference, not to mention our plants are submerged in all the nutrients we dose.
There are plenty of things you do to crops which if applied foliarly would kill the crop, but by it being in the top feet of soil instead it's not nearly as concentrated and the acceptable ranges can be much larger.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> ** based on personal observations, internet research and hunches.


LOL, that's more than I go on!!:wink2::wink2:



burr740 said:


> Not hardcore scientifically conducted peer reviewed studies, which in my opinion would have to be conducted under aquarium conditions to do us much good. What happens in a soybean field only holds so much relevance because everything behaves/interacts differently in water.


I couldn't agree more here. And even if done under aquarium conditions, there are still so many variables from tank to tank. What works in one tank might have completely different results in another.


burr740 said:


> ....hence the frequent use of "I think" so tifwiw


Amen. I should probably get some fine print to put right below every post of mine.:grin2:

(Your results may vary, try at your own risk, poster not responsible for injury due to following his advice, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, the information provided is believed to be true at the time of posting, the user assumes all risk associated with using this method, not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any advice offered in this post)​


----------



## zervan

burr740 said:


> If you mean the CO2 level in the water column will temporarily be less, wouldnt that make the PH temporarily rise instead of drop?
> 
> This is getting quite above my pay grade so Im just trying to understand.


 Yes, of course. I have fixed that few minutes later when I found a way to add picture (I am new here), but you were faster and have read it before my fix :smile2: Sorry for that - I should use simpler words, like up and down instead of raise and drop (english is not my native language).

Bump:


Chlorophile said:


> That explains why my holding tank went up to a pH 9! I assumed this compound was alkaline and basic but I guess it probably just dropped co2 out of equilibrium.


 pH 9 is very high, how much K2CO3 did you put there? Did you try to measure KH?



> The question then is this.. is it possible maybe the extra pearling I saw was actually co2 gas forming on nucleation sites?


 I think anything dissolving in water with a lot of CO2 will put some CO2 away. Take Coca-Cola (or whatever similar) to cup and try to put there a little sugar...


----------



## Chlorophile

zervan said:


> burr740 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the CO2 level in the water column will temporarily be less, wouldnt that make the PH temporarily rise instead of drop?
> 
> This is getting quite above my pay grade so Im just trying to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course. I have fixed that few minutes later when I found a way to add picture (I am new here), but you were faster and have read it before my fix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for that - I should use simpler words, like up and down instead of raise and drop (english is not my native language).
> 
> Bump:
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why my holding tank went up to a pH 9! I assumed this compound was alkaline and basic but I guess it probably just dropped co2 out of equilibrium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pH 9 is very high, how much K2CO3 did you put there? Did you try to measure KH?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question then is this.. is it possible maybe the extra pearling I saw was actually co2 gas forming on nucleation sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think anything dissolving in water with a lot of CO2 will put some CO2 away. Take Coca-Cola (or whatever similar) to cup and try to put there a little sugar...
Click to expand...

In 30 gallons of ro/di I added 25 ml of Hagen nutrafin KH booster.
The direction were vague and said 5ml per 10g adds 15-20 ppm carbonate hardness as co3.

Then I did a 15g water change and topped the holding tank back up to 30g and it now reads 7.8
KH is now reading a 5...
So I must have seriously miscalculated my dosage lol.
I thought it would get me a KH around 3.. so it must have been like a 10 before water change.. what the heck?

My actual tank is a KH 1.5 (not fully yellow not blue) 6.4ph with co2 right now, it was a 3, can plants actually use up the k2co3?


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Used to experience it all the time going up and down with csmb.
> 
> Assuming there's no bogeyman in the tap, Fe would be my guess. Imo it is by far the most likely to run short or cause overdose issues.
> 
> I really think most micro problems revolve around Fe, either from too much, not the right kind relative to PH, or too little.
> 
> Most likely to overdose I think are
> 
> Fe/Cu
> Mn
> B
> 
> Zn/Ni
> 
> * assumes non-Fe compounds arent chelated
> 
> ** based on personal observations, internet research and hunches. Not hardcore scientifically conducted peer reviewed studies, which in my opinion would have to be conducted under aquarium conditions to do us much good. What happens in a soybean field only holds so much relevance because everything behaves/interacts differently in water.
> 
> ....hence the frequent use of "I think" so tifwiw



Yes, I agree with you that Fe is the most sensitive compound (and in our custom mix, the only chelated compound). You know, with this high dosing I am doing now (0.2ppm Fe every day), I see filters getting so dirty I never saw before. A lot of Fe, and I think that if in 2 weeks from now I still don't see an improvement in my "usual" plants, I'll try to reduce Fe and possible Mn, whereas keeping the rest there.

Here is what happened in my 75gl tank so far:

Less traces ---> Not good, most plants stunt, some thrive
More traces ---> Better, most plants thrive, a few stunt

It looks like that by increasing traces, we cure some deficiencies but at the same time some kind of "negative" effects kicks in, either toxicity or simply interaction between compounds, or something else. As you Burr said, you had similar issues increasing PO4 too much. Well, I am beginning to think that I'd need to reduce something in the trace mix, and keep the rest at the level where no deficiencies are given, and the first one to tackle is Fe followed by Mn. Would you agree with me?


----------



## Greggz

zervan said:


> Bump: pH 9 is very high, how much K2CO3 did you put there? Did you try to measure KH?


Just thought I would throw this out there.

My RO water holding tanks have a pH meter in them. When I pour in my dose of K2CO3, the pH meter jumps up a bunch immediately. It might go from 7.1 to over 9.0 in two seconds. 

In a few hours is comes back down to about 7.3 (I'm dosing for 2 KH increase).

I have no idea why, but wouldn't trust any readings taken right after a dosing.


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Yes, I agree with you that Fe is the most sensitive compound (and in our custom mix, the only chelated compound). You know, with this high dosing I am doing now (0.2ppm Fe every day), I see filters getting so dirty I never saw before. A lot of Fe, and I think that if in 2 weeks from now I still don't see an improvement in my "usual" plants, I'll try to reduce Fe and possible Mn, whereas keeping the rest there.
> 
> Here is what happened in my 75gl tank so far:
> 
> Less traces ---> Not good, most plants stunt, some thrive
> More traces ---> Better, most plants thrive, a few stunt
> 
> It looks like that by increasing traces, we cure some deficiencies but at the same time some kind of "negative" effects kicks in, either toxicity or simply interaction between compounds, or something else. As you Burr said, you had similar issues increasing PO4 too much. Well, I am beginning to think that I'd need to reduce something in the trace mix, and keep the rest at the level where no deficiencies are given, and the first one to tackle is Fe followed by Mn. Would you agree with me?


Fwiw Im about to go down to a .15 Fe blend and keep everything but Mn approximately where it's at. This will be roughly what Greggz and a few others are using.

After 5-6 weeks of daily .2, it does seem like too much Fe. Plants are basically happy but like you said just from filters etc you can tell its an awful lot of Fe.

Plus a few weeks ago I started seeing some bba on the substrate in the 75 and 120. It locks on to single grains of sand and forms little balls of the stuff. Nothing major but I still dont like it.

Im aware bba is usually co2 related. The reason I think this is from fe is past experience trying to dose higher levels of csmb. It used to be a chronic problem in the original 75, and a few times since when a lot of Fe brought it on in various tanks


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Fwiw Im about to go down to a .15 Fe blend and keep everything but Mn approximately where it's at. This will be roughly what Greggz and a few others are using.
> 
> After 5-6 weeks of daily .2, it does seem like too much Fe. Plants are basically happy but like you said just from filters etc you can tell its an awful lot of Fe.
> 
> Plus a few weeks ago I started seeing some bba on the substrate in the 75 and 120. It locks on to single grains of sand and forms little balls of the stuff. Nothing major but I still dont like it.
> 
> Im aware bba is usually co2 related. The reason I think this is from fe is past experience trying to dose higher levels of csmb. It used to be a chronic problem in the original 75, and a few times since when a lot of Fe brought it on in various tanks




Its amazing how we all end up with the same thoughts, that’s great!

Keep in mind, in my tank, BBA was always related to bad fertilization, never about Co2. Spent years testing Co2 to get rid of persistent BBA in any possible sauce you can think of... too much CSM ended up being the primary cause for me, and even nowadays when I see BBA lurking around, tells me that I am doing something wrong ferts side (usually wrong traces, either too few or too much). Rest assured, BBA could probably appear if I screw with Co2 or even just macros, but those are usually well dialed in in my tanks


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Fwiw Im about to go down to a .15 Fe blend and keep everything but Mn approximately where it's at. This will be roughly what Greggz and a few others are using.
> 
> After 5-6 weeks of daily .2, it does seem like too much Fe. Plants are basically happy but like you said just from filters etc you can tell its an awful lot of Fe.
> 
> Plus a few weeks ago I started seeing some bba on the substrate in the 75 and 120. It locks on to single grains of sand and forms little balls of the stuff. Nothing major but I still dont like it.
> 
> Im aware bba is usually co2 related. The reason I think this is from fe is past experience trying to dose higher levels of csmb. It used to be a chronic problem in the original 75, and a few times since when a lot of Fe brought it on in various tanks


Interesting Burr. I was wondering how long daily .2 Fe would last. That's like about....let me think....a million or so times more than you were dosing not too long ago. :wink2:

But somewhere in there is the sweet spot, and no way to find it without a little experimentation. I am still at .15 daily, and things are going along well. 

Funny, isn't it. Look at your lengthy journey, and the considerable success you have demonstrated, and here you are still trying to tweak things to get them just right. I think there is a lesson in there somewhere. A tank is a living breathing thing, and takes constant attention to get the most out of it. 

I remember when I first got started, I bought 4 pill cases, so I could measure out 4 weeks of ferts at a time. I figured I'll dose EI, and that was that. Then as I progressed, and understood how to read the tank better, I went to measuring one weeks worth.......and sometimes even that doesn't make to the end of the week without a change.

It's a crazy hobby!


----------



## Immortal1

Yes it is Gregg!


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

haven't notice anymore BBA than usual at 1.2 Fe per week (last 3 weeks) and 1.0125 Fe per week (5ever ago). gonna keep this routine for another 3 weeks, maybe the BBA will hit me hard then lmao


----------



## burr740

One of the new 20 gal is producing some of the biggest and best looking Ludwigia sp reds Ive ever grown or seen. Same dosing as the other tanks, about 75 par at the sub

The two or three biggest ones are damn near 3" wide


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> One of the new 20 gal is producing some of the biggest and best looking Ludwigia sp reds Ive ever grown or seen. Same dosing as the other tanks, about 75 par at the sub
> 
> The two or three biggest ones are damn near 3" wide


beautiful! 
Same substrate?
Maybe the co2 is better?


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> One of the new 20 gal is producing some of the biggest and best looking Ludwigia sp reds Ive ever grown or seen. Same dosing as the other tanks, about 75 par at the sub
> 
> The two or three biggest ones are damn near 3" wide


lmk if you ever have em for sale burr lol


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Interesting Burr. I was wondering how long daily .2 Fe would last. That's like about....let me think....a million or so times more than you were dosing not too long ago. :wink2:
> 
> 
> 
> But somewhere in there is the sweet spot, and no way to find it without a little experimentation. I am still at .15 daily, and things are going along well.



Greg, do,you calculate your dosing on your actual tank size, more, or less? Just curious...


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> One of the new 20 gal is producing some of the biggest and best looking Ludwigia sp reds Ive ever grown or seen. Same dosing as the other tanks, about 75 par at the sub
> 
> The two or three biggest ones are damn near 3" wide




That's fantastic, I have never seen it like that. I can grow it in both of my tanks tanks, and it looks pretty much the same in both, but the top leaves are always a little crinkled... How could you make it grow like that? Any guess?


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> Greg, do,you calculate your dosing on your actual tank size, more, or less? Just curious...


Fablau I base my dosing on 105G of water. Actual tank is 120G.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> One of the new 20 gal is producing some of the biggest and best looking Ludwigia sp reds Ive ever grown or seen. Same dosing as the other tanks, about 75 par at the sub
> 
> The two or three biggest ones are damn near 3" wide


Wow those are impressive.

It would seem the biggest difference between those two tanks is PAR.

Do you think it just likes that lower PAR? Or something else?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> It would seem the biggest difference between those two tanks is PAR.
> 
> Do you think it just likes that lower PAR? Or something else?


PAR vs. depth ratios between the two different tanks.
Shorter tank = dry armpits and higher PAR achieved quicker, usually.>


----------



## Chlorophile

Interesting concept..
I find it hard to believe though as par increase as it grows should be consistent.
If the substrate par measurements are the same in two tanks one tall and one short due to higher lighting on one of them, the taller tank would eventually hit a higher par level..
Unless it's the ratio between min and Max somehow.. 

My red ludwigia in my low tech tank is very red still but with no co2 it has very small leaves.
My high tech tank has bigger leaves, I've always attributed the smaller leaves to lack of co2

Dare I say, is it possible the new substrate is binding to some things still and the larger growth is from lower levels of x y or z?
Not sure if that substrate has any CEC it not


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Yeah I kind of worded that one wrong.
Relative to height of stem placed in either tank.

Thinking of some PAR data this eve, got me thinking on something.

Then there is also what I consider the "pancake" effect.
Some plants get more light and do not get tall, spread @ the base instead.


----------



## happi

any update on those who reduced the boron or eliminated it from the mix completely? as our goal was to see if this makes any difference and as we assumed that there should be plenty in our water to begin with.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Fablau I base my dosing on 105G of water. Actual tank is 120G


Thanks for the info Greg... just for the sake of comparison with my own setup, what kind of filter do you have? Wet/dry or canister? I'd like to compare your actual water volume size with mine.

Thanks!


----------



## Chlorophile

Maryland Guppy said:


> Yeah I kind of worded that one wrong.
> Relative to height of stem placed in either tank.
> 
> Thinking of some PAR data this eve, got me thinking on something.
> 
> Then there is also what I consider the "pancake" effect.
> Some plants get more light and do not get tall, spread @ the base instead.


Yeah, prostrate growth is always a sign of good lighting.
I'm very curious about his ludwigia though... It looks super healthy, and smooth.

When I got the same plant from Burr it transitioned and I remember posting saying the new growth was larger and smooth and not as crinkly.
My co2 isn't that good either, and my lighting is not as strong.
I'm not sure how heavy I was on traces at the time, but I'm wondering if my levels were slightly lower and it changed it's growth because of that.
It eventually went back to crinkly but I also ended up dosing heavier traces.


----------



## Subjected

Hey guys, 
Just wanted to let you know I have been dosing the Burr's 5.15 Micro Mix along with my DIY All in one for 2 days now and seeing positive signs. Crazy root growth, plants coloring up / brighter, greener. Now I don't know if the tanks just needed more micros or if its the new solution.
I still have about 500mL left of the All in One so don't want to switch to dry Macro's until its finished. 
I made up 280mL of the Micro mix so that should give me about 3 weeks worth.

In fact I'm so enthused I have started dosing it in all 4 tanks. I have to upload pics to PostImage so it will be a bit.

Steve


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> Thanks for the info Greg... just for the sake of comparison with my own setup, what kind of filter do you have? Wet/dry or canister? I'd like to compare your actual water volume size with mine.
> 
> Thanks!


Fablau I run three filters, 2 x Rena Filstar XP3 (L) and 1 x Rena Filstar XP4 (XL). Between the 3 it's an additional 8 gallons. 

As to actual volume of water, I am just guessing at 105. If anything I would guess it is a bit more.


----------



## burr740

About whats different in the new 20 gal tanks.

Same tap water, same type of lights, roughly the same PH drop from co2, same substrate,

Dosing has been slightly less. The 20s arent getting the double macro dose after water changes (the other tanks arent going to be either going forward but that's another story)

Flow is probably a little stronger, I switched from the powerhead sponges going through Ista reactors to Aquaclear 70 HOBs mounted on the ends. There are baffles on the outflow to cut down velocity, but there's no doubt more water volume is passing over these plants than in the other tanks

PAR is about 75 at the sub against the back wall, in the center its about 90. The 50 gal is in the 85-90 range. So not a whole lot of difference there. (For those who read the initial PAR readings in the 20s, it jumped up probably 10-15 points a few days later after the new bulbs "burned in." Who knew?)

There's a fresh batch of Osmocote+ in the substrate. I dont think this is much of a factor because the tops have been replanted twice. There hasnt been much tiime to make roots. These were started from small cut tops just a few inches tall. They've hit the surface twice already. (first week was a little rough) I replanted them for the second time last week and they didnt miss a beat. So if the O+ is having an effect on these particular plants, it's from whatever is leeching into the wc.

Personally I have no idea what the difference maker is. More flow and probably a higher concentration of everything in a small volume of water would be my guess.

But sometimes things just click fro no apparent reason. Surface film disappears, the water becomes crystal clear and the plant are all singing halleluja.

For the first couple of weeks there was a wicked diatom bloom, some GDA, and some sort of dark spot algae took over the older leaves of several plants. Everything was brand new starting out, new sand, filter sponges, everything. So there was zero bio-filter for a while. 

I added 3 otos to each one and threw in a few guppy and platy fry. Did 2x weekly water changes for the first 3 weeks. All that algae started going away in week 2. Its been one of the easiest start ups ever really


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Dosing has been slightly less. The 20s arent getting the double macro dose after water changes (the other tanks arent going to be either going forward but that's another story)


Would like to hear more about this sometime. Have you had some negative results from the double dosing??


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Would like to hear more about this sometime. Have you had some negative results from the double dosing??


OK this was destined for the journal but might as well put it here too.

Yeah a pretty severe GDA outbreak in all 3 big tanks, mostly on the glass.

The 120 has it the worst, not surprising because it has the most light, the 75 is next and the 50 is a mere nuisance level. When everything is right there's none at all. Sometimes I'll go 2-3 weeks without even touching the front glass.

It started showing up on the front glass of the 120 about halfway through the first week. No big deal, just wiped it off at water change and turned the UVs on.

But the second week it got worse, much worse in the 120. By day 3 it was seriously blocking the view.

So day 5 I did an 80% WC on all three tanks. Dosed back the single amount of 10/1.5/10 and thats where Im staying for a while, 3x per week.

If you recall I'd dosed 1.5x after water changes for I think 3 weeks prior. Plants seemed to like it. Then I went to 2x. Plants seemed to like that too for the most part. 

It has to be the culprit behind this GDA because its the only thing thats changed in recent weeks. I think after 2-3 weeks it finally built up to peak levels, which is too much 

The only plant affected is the Lagenandra in the 120. Probably wind up just cutting these two older leaves off but Im gonna wait a few days and see if it clears up by itself. This plant is amazingly efficient at ridding itself of algae once the cause is dealt with.











Wallichii in the 120 aint worried about much of anything, already at the surface again. 











Another interesting development is Hygrophila siamesis 53B in the 50 fattened up a lot over the past few weeks. Im thinking due to the higher macros, we'll see if the trend continues. Hard to tell from the pic but that one top is nearly 6" wide, thats pretty big for the species


----------



## SamuelLG

I didn't had good results by increasing the micros. Here is what I've done so far and the results I got.

Until the beginning of the year I had a severe infestation of what seemed like a green beard algae almost in every plant (specially in anubia, echinodorus, stargrass and Didiplis diandra), some green spot algae and some fuzz algae. So I got PO4 and NO3 tests and ever since I've testing nitrates and phosphates twice a week to make sure everything is ok and to keep the amount of NO3 into 10 ppm / PO4 1 ppm. It seems like my tank uses a lot of nitrates and phosphates, so I need to dose it twice a week to keep it from keep going down to 0 ppm. Also, I cutted down 1 hour of the photoperiod to 8 hrs/day. This erased 99% of the algae. Now I have only a few little fuzz algae here and there and, oddly, some blue-green algae that grows only in the apical gems of the rotalas (rotundifolia and wallichii) even with nitrates above 5 ppm all the time (and nitrates/phosphates in a ratio 10:1). Everything was growing amazingly with a lot of pearling and plant pruning almost every week. 

So, after handling most of the algae situation, I started to increase micros. The solution I got ("industrial" pre-mixed) adds the following amounts in ppm in each weekly dose:

Cl	0.293519
Fe	0.050000
Mn	0.014815
B	0.006481
Zn	0.002778
Cu	0.001019
Mo	0.000139

So, I started to increase micros in this proportion until the amount of Fe I was adding weekly was about 0,4 ppm (and also 4 times everything else of the above list). But the result was severe decreased in growth in almost every plant (specially Rotala rotundifolia, Rotala wallichii, Rotala sp. 'Butterfly', Didiplis diandra, Ludwigia repens and Ludwigia sp. 'Guinea'). Every one those was stunned and presented very small twisted new grown leafs, necrosis and loss of old leafs or/and almost no grow at all. So after some days into this problem I did an emergency 50% water change followed by another 50% water change two days later to bring down the amount of micros that was present in the water to 1/4.

So one week after this, I did another 50% water change and I started dosing the micros in this "low" amount weekly (0.05 ppm Fe and so on) and the plants that were stunned started to grow normally again, specially the Ludwigias. Rotalas still a little bit slow, but much better than with high micros.

I'm using DO water (which is originally very very soft) remineralized with CaSO4/MgSO4 to Ca 30 ppm and Mg around 8 ppm, KH of 4 and CO2 always between 30~40 ppm during photoperiod, and also I dose at least 10~20 ppm K every week. So something in the micros was building up in an amount that was toxic or preventing the plants to get Ca or something.


----------



## Chlorophile

SamuelLG said:


> I didn't had good results by increasing the micros. Here is what I've done so far and the results I got.
> 
> Until the beginning of the year I had a severe infestation of what seemed like a green beard algae almost in every plant (specially in anubia, echinodorus, stargrass and Didiplis diandra), some green spot algae and some fuzz algae. So I got PO4 and NO3 tests and ever since I've testing nitrates and phosphates twice a week to make sure everything is ok and to keep the amount of NO3 into 10 ppm / PO4 1 ppm. It seems like my tank uses a lot of nitrates and phosphates, so I need to dose it twice a week to keep it from keep going down to 0 ppm. Also, I cutted down 1 hour of the photoperiod to 8 hrs/day. This erased 99% of the algae. Now I have only a few little fuzz algae here and there and, oddly, some blue-green algae that grows only in the apical gems of the rotalas (rotundifolia and wallichii) even with nitrates above 5 ppm all the time (and nitrates/phosphates in a ratio 10:1). Everything was growing amazingly with a lot of pearling and plant pruning almost every week.
> 
> So, after handling most of the algae situation, I started to increase micros. The solution I got ("industrial" pre-mixed) adds the following amounts in ppm in each weekly dose:
> 
> Cl	0.293519
> Fe	0.050000
> Mn	0.014815
> B	0.006481
> Zn	0.002778
> Cu	0.001019
> Mo	0.000139
> 
> So, I started to increase micros in this proportion until the amount of Fe I was adding weekly was about 0,4 ppm (and also 4 times everything else of the above list). But the result was severe decreased in growth in almost every plant (specially Rotala rotundifolia, Rotala wallichii, Rotala sp. 'Butterfly', Didiplis diandra, Ludwigia repens and Ludwigia sp. 'Guinea'). Every one those was stunned and presented very small twisted new grown leafs, necrosis and loss of old leafs or/and almost no grow at all. So after some days into this problem I did an emergency 50% water change followed by another 50% water change two days later to bring down the amount of micros that was present in the water to 1/4.
> 
> So one week after this, I did another 50% water change and I started dosing the micros in this "low" amount weekly (0.05 ppm Fe and so on) and the plants that were stunned started to grow normally again, specially the Ludwigias. Rotalas still a little bit slow, but much better than with high micros.
> 
> I'm using DO water (which is originally very very soft) remineralized with CaSO4/MgSO4 to Ca 30 ppm and Mg around 8 ppm, KH of 4 and CO2 always between 30~40 ppm during photoperiod, and also I dose at least 10~20 ppm K every week. So something in the micros was building up in an amount that was toxic or preventing the plants to get Ca or something.


The rotala's are sensitive, donno what it is yet but they dislike higher traces from what I can tell. 
Obviously you can go high as burr has done, but I think if we were including his plant uptake given his light levels his levels might not be as high as we are assuming


----------



## Surf

> So, after handling most of the algae situation, I started to increase micros. The solution I got ("industrial" pre-mixed) adds the following amounts in ppm in each weekly dose:
> 
> Cl	0.293519
> Fe	0.050000
> Mn	0.014815
> B	0.006481
> Zn	0.002778
> Cu	0.001019
> Mo	0.000139


B and Zn are are very low in this Pre-mix you are using compared what Tom and others in this forum are using. This imbalance between your Fe/Mn and B/Zn might explain why. Iron and Manganese are known to cause problems if too much is present.


----------



## happi

Surf said:


> B and Zn are are very low in this Pre-mix you are using compared what Tom and others in this forum are using. This imbalance between your Fe/Mn and B/Zn might explain why. Iron and Manganese are known to cause problems if too much is present.


Boron and Zn are fine in this mix if its chelated, the only main issue i see is Mn and Fe ratio, correct ratio should be 2:1 Fe:Mn, to solve this i would add additional Mn to the mix at 0.01 ppm


----------



## fablau

SamuelLG said:


> I didn't had good results by increasing the micros. Here is what I've done so far and the results I got.
> 
> 
> 
> Until the beginning of the year I had a severe infestation of what seemed like a green beard algae almost in every plant (specially in anubia, echinodorus, stargrass and Didiplis diandra), some green spot algae and some fuzz algae. So I got PO4 and NO3 tests and ever since I've testing nitrates and phosphates twice a week to make sure everything is ok and to keep the amount of NO3 into 10 ppm / PO4 1 ppm. It seems like my tank uses a lot of nitrates and phosphates, so I need to dose it twice a week to keep it from keep going down to 0 ppm. Also, I cutted down 1 hour of the photoperiod to 8 hrs/day. This erased 99% of the algae. Now I have only a few little fuzz algae here and there and, oddly, some blue-green algae that grows only in the apical gems of the rotalas (rotundifolia and wallichii) even with nitrates above 5 ppm all the time (and nitrates/phosphates in a ratio 10:1). Everything was growing amazingly with a lot of pearling and plant pruning almost every week.
> 
> 
> 
> So, after handling most of the algae situation, I started to increase micros. The solution I got ("industrial" pre-mixed) adds the following amounts in ppm in each weekly dose:
> 
> 
> 
> Cl0.293519
> 
> Fe0.050000
> 
> Mn0.014815
> 
> B0.006481
> 
> Zn0.002778
> 
> Cu0.001019
> 
> Mo0.000139
> 
> 
> 
> So, I started to increase micros in this proportion until the amount of Fe I was adding weekly was about 0,4 ppm (and also 4 times everything else of the above list). But the result was severe decreased in growth in almost every plant (specially Rotala rotundifolia, Rotala wallichii, Rotala sp. 'Butterfly', Didiplis diandra, Ludwigia repens and Ludwigia sp. 'Guinea'). Every one those was stunned and presented very small twisted new grown leafs, necrosis and loss of old leafs or/and almost no grow at all. So after some days into this problem I did an emergency 50% water change followed by another 50% water change two days later to bring down the amount of micros that was present in the water to 1/4.
> 
> 
> 
> So one week after this, I did another 50% water change and I started dosing the micros in this "low" amount weekly (0.05 ppm Fe and so on) and the plants that were stunned started to grow normally again, specially the Ludwigias. Rotalas still a little bit slow, but much better than with high micros.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using DO water (which is originally very very soft) remineralized with CaSO4/MgSO4 to Ca 30 ppm and Mg around 8 ppm, KH of 4 and CO2 always between 30~40 ppm during photoperiod, and also I dose at least 10~20 ppm K every week. So something in the micros was building up in an amount that was toxic or preventing the plants to get Ca or something.




Are those traces chelated? If so, that could change the paradigm completely...


----------



## burr740

Its the same Fe:Mn ratio as in csmb - 3.5:1. Thats not enough difference to stunt things, plenty of folks growing Lythracae just fine at that ratio.

B is an anion so its never chelated, boric acid actually has mild chelating properties. And yeah that blend is woefully low on it and Zn (chelated or not) imo. 

Could be that raising micros caused more of a need for something else, or by unlimiting Fe and Mn caused B and Zn to run short at that ratio.

If you're limited to that particular product you may be stuck dosing the lower level. 

Or if the Fe is chelated with EDTA that might be a problem if your PH is much over 6.5 for any length of time each day

"Industrial strength" probably means its made to mix with hundreds or thousand gallons of water for hydroponic use or be sprayed on a field somewhere, like csmb is really made for. So it might just be a crappy product for aquarium use.

What I would try is increasing macros by dosing 10/1 NO3/P 3x per week, add a solid 20- 30 ppm of K per week, and try those micros at .1 ppm Fe 4-5 times per week.

That would rule a few things out, might just need to get over the hump with something.

_* No claim is made that the quality of speculation in this post is greater than the speculation contained in anyone else's post._


----------



## happi

its not about stunting things with that Mn:Fe ratio, its more about balancing it, this is one of the reason why people end you overdosing csm+b, because they think what they are seeing is Fe deficiency, when it actually might be Mn deficiency, Fe:Mn 2:1 is where the best results were obtained, Zn can also be slightly raised in this above mix by 0.002 ppm for better results.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> its not about stunting things with that Mn:Fe ratio, its more about balancing it, this is one of the reason why people end you overdosing csm+b, because they think what they are seeing is Fe deficiency, when it actually might be Mn deficiency, Fe:Mn 2:1 is where the best results were obtained, Zn can also be slightly raised in this above mix by 0.002 ppm for better results.


I mean, Ive seen the same crop studies you have. Most do arrive at the conclusion that 2:1 is best (which is why we use it in custom mixes) in some its 3:1. But its also not absolute where things go south at 3.1:1. The studies Ive seen with charts show about the same effect at 3, 4 even 5:1 or so before the down curve really begins.

Here's one - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438057/?page=6

Also there is chelation to consider, how long both nutrients remain available to plants. If both are edta, the Mn is going to hold at much higher PH levels than Fe. Unless both nutrients remain available for the same amount of time, whatever ratio they're in to begin with goes out the window.

Point is, 3.5 is likely close enough in a PH range that's favorable to edta Fe. In higher PH where the Fe doesnt last long, having even less Mn might do better.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> "Industrial strength" probably means its made to mix with hundreds or thousand gallons of water for hydroponic use or be sprayed on a field somewhere, like csmb is really made for. So it might just be a crappy product for aquarium use.
> 
> What I would try is increasing macros by dosing 10/1 NO3/P 3x per week, add a solid 20- 30 ppm of K per week, and try those micros at .1 ppm Fe 4-5 times per week.
> 
> That would rule a few things out, might just need to get over the hump with something.
> 
> _* No claim is made that the quality of speculation in this post is greater than the speculation contained in anyone else's post._


Agree with above. If you take a look at CSM+B, and then look at how Burr's mix is carefully proportioned, you just don't know what ratios you are getting with your mix. The odds of that tsp having the same mix as a 100lb bag are probably not that good.

And you leave out some details, like how much light (PAR), spread of light, density of planting, maintenance routine, surface agitation, type of substrate, fish stocking, etc. I only mention it in that sometimes we can chase our tails with a particular fert, when there could be other issues that need to be addressed.

I noticed you mentioned 30 to 40ppm CO2. If you have high light, you might be driving demand for more. I know of many successful planted tankers who routinely go for a 1.3 to 1.4 pH drop. I know in my tank 30 to 40ppm doesn't cut it.

And every tank is different. In my tank, if I were at 10 & 1.0 N/P in the water column, my plants would be starving (and magnets for algae). And when I upped my micro dosing, I also had to up some macros as well. Like Burr said, another deficiency could be cropping up. In general, I wouldn't look at higher macro levels as a cause of algae. Think giving plants everything they need. In my experience, happy healthy plants are the best defense against algae.

So I guess the point is you might need to look at everything. If you narrow your conclusions based solely on micro dosing you might be missing something else.

Good luck and I hope you get it solved. Patience is needed, as it can take quite a bit of time to get a tank in balance.

And I love the disclaimer Burr.

I might just start adding mine to every post.

(Your results may vary, try at your own risk, poster not responsible for injury due to following his advice, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, the information provided is believed to be true at the time of posting, the user assumes all risk associated with using this method, not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any advice offered in this post)​


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, Am I going to have to get Legal involved in developing appropriate disclaimers!
O.M.G, good way to start of a Monday :laugh2:


----------



## SamuelLG

fablau said:


> Are those traces chelated? If so, that could change the paradigm completely...


Unfortunately I don't know if the mix is chelated. I can send an e-mail to the manufacture and ask.



burr740 said:


> Its the same Fe:Mn ratio as in csmb - 3.5:1.


That's why I was confident in buying that product. It's produced by someone in my region and it's said to be specific for planted tanks. I attached a picture I made for comparison of some mix. Mine is the first one "Base Flora" and it's almost the same concentrations as CSM+B.



Greggz said:


> And you leave out some details, like how much light (PAR), spread of light, density of planting, maintenance routine, surface agitation, type of substrate, fish stocking, etc. I only mention it in that sometimes we can chase our tails with a particular fert, when there could be other issues that need to be addressed.
> 
> I noticed you mentioned 30 to 40ppm CO2. If you have high light, you might be driving demand for more. I know of many successful planted tankers who routinely go for a 1.3 to 1.4 pH drop. I know in my tank 30 to 40ppm doesn't cut it.


I can't measure the PAR at substrate, but I'm using two LED reflectors each one is 30w 6000K and about 2,850 lumens each one, positioned side by side at the middle and very close to the water as the spread angle is 100°. I think its an average amount of light.

Regarding other aspects, the tank is 60x40x40 centimeters, around 25 gallons. I have a lot of plants into the tank, maybe even overcrowded. I do 50% WC every week with DO water remineralized with Ca and Mg to GH 6 °dH as said above, dosing macros in the day of the WC and micros in the other day, both only once a week. The filtration is made by a Atman canister 800 L/h and the tank have good surface agitation, enough to pump out almost all CO2 during the night. The pH in the beginning of morning is about 7,2~7.4, and in the end of the photoperiod is 6.4~6.6 with KH 4 °dH. Substrate is "Amazonia MBreda", from a manufacture from my country Substrato Fértil - Substrato Amazônia MBreda - Mbreda Aquapaisagismo and its considered one of the best in my country. Fish is 10 cardinals, 8 tetra matogrosso (Hyphessobrycon eques), 12 rodostomus, 12 tanictis.



Greggz said:


> In general, I wouldn't look at higher macro levels as a cause of algae. Think giving plants everything they need. In my experience, happy healthy plants are the best defense against algae.


Yes, I'm aware that what is important is the balance of macros to get rid of algae, and not exactly the amount of NO3 and PO4. In the beginning my problem with algae was virtually no NO3 and PO4 in the water column. Currently I'm dosing macros to build up of 10 ppm NO3 / 1 ppm PO4 / 20 ppm K and checking it twice a week to make sure it never drops from NO3 5ppm and PO4 0,5 ppm.



happi said:


> Boron and Zn are fine in this mix if its chelated, the only main issue i see is Mn and Fe ratio, correct ratio should be 2:1 Fe:Mn, to solve this i would add additional Mn to the mix at 0.01 ppm.
> 
> Zn can also be slightly raised in this above mix by 0.002 ppm for better results.


I have access to some lab grad salts and I can made a mix with a little bit of zinc sulfate and manganese sulfate in order to raise its levels along with my current micro mix and see what happens. But it will be not chelated (or it can be if I use EDTA in the same molar concentration of the ions). Any suggestions regarding the use of EDTA? I don't think I can have access to other chelate agent.

The pictures are from my tank right now. You can see rotalas recovering from the stunt, as well the Ludwigia repens growing again close to the surface (there is one stem in the picture that is still with very small leafs, but its growing again). I'm also dealing with the Ludwigia guinea and Ludwigia inclinata cuba from emerse to submerse forms (its not fully adapted yet).


----------



## Greggz

SamuelLG said:


> I can't measure the PAR at substrate, but I'm using two LED reflectors each one is 30w 6000K and about 2,850 lumens each one, positioned side by side at the middle and very close to the water as the spread angle is 100°. I think its an average amount of light.
> 
> Regarding other aspects, the tank is 60x40x40 centimeters, around 25 gallons. I have a lot of plants into the tank, maybe even overcrowded. I do 50% WC every week with DO water remineralized with Ca and Mg to GH 6 °dH as said above, dosing macros in the day of the WC and micros in the other day, both only once a week. The filtration is made by a Atman canister 800 L/h and the tank have good surface agitation, enough to pump out almost all CO2 during the night. The pH in the beginning of morning is about 7,2~7.4, and in the end of the photoperiod is 6.4~6.6 with KH 4 °dH. Substrate is "Amazonia MBreda", from a manufacture from my country Substrato Fértil - Substrato Amazônia MBreda - Mbreda Aquapaisagismo and its considered one of the best in my country. Fish is 10 cardinals, 8 tetra matogrosso (Hyphessobrycon eques), 12 rodostomus, 12 tanictis.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm aware that what is important is the balance of macros to get rid of algae, and not exactly the amount of NO3 and PO4. In the beginning my problem with algae was virtually no NO3 and PO4 in the water column. Currently I'm dosing macros to build up of 10 ppm NO3 / 1 ppm PO4 / 20 ppm K and checking it twice a week to make sure it never drops from NO3 5ppm and PO4 0,5 ppm


Well you made it sound worse than it is. You must be doing a lot right, because it looks like plants are growing, and that is a good thing.

At first glance I agree with overcrowding. Some of those species are right on top of each other, creating lots of shading and poor flow. I would remove some mass and get some spacing between the species. That alone might help things. Some of those thick patches can be magnets for debris and waste and not good for general cleanliness.

Curious how you are measuring your pH. The reason I ask is that are providing a range and not an exact number. If you are using test strips, I would not rely on them. A calibrated pH probe would be much better. Based on how you are measuring now, your pH drop could be as high as 1.0 or as low as a .6 drop. If you are only dropping .6, that alone could create everything you described. I would turn it up a bit and see how things react.

And once again, like Burr suggested, I would dose even more macros and get the water column levels higher. At least give it a try to see if there is positive/negative reaction.

And I have no idea on the strength of those lights. But based on the color of those approaching the top of the tank, it appears that it should be good.

And I assume that is an active substrate? Again I am no help, as I use an inert substrate. Maybe someone with experience with similar substrate could chime in.


----------



## happi

@SamuelLG Mnso4 and Znso4 will work fine, actually they will work better in this case. Honestly i did not have any Zn deficiency while using Zn edta as low as 0.003 ppm while adding about 4-5 ppm NO3, but just to be safe we can slightly increase it in your case.

this ratio works quite well with Inert substrate when chelated by EDTA/DTPA:
Fe	0.02
B	0.003 
Mn	0.013
Mo	0.001
Zn	0.003 
Cu	0.003


----------



## SamuelLG

Greggz said:


> Well you made it sound worse than it is. You must be doing a lot right, because it looks like plants are growing, and that is a good thing.


Its because these pictures were made today, 1 and a half week after putting the micros down to low concentrations, so the plants that were stunted started to grow again, specially the Ludwigia repens that wasn't growing at all and just a few days after putting micros down it started to grow very fast reaching the surface (before this test with high micros I was used to prune it almost every week). Only one or other stem of it is still with very small leafs in its apical gem and recovering slowly. Rotalas are still very weak, but I can see the new gems in the internodes started to grow again with small but straight leafs.

Regarding the space between plants, I really want to improve it leaving more space between species. I'm just waiting two or three of the new plants that I got a couple weeks ago to fully transform to its submersed form in order to put them in the right place.





Greggz said:


> Curious how you are measuring your pH. The reason I ask is that are providing a range and not an exact number. If you are using test strips, I would not rely on them. A calibrated pH probe would be much better.


Yes, I'm using tests but not in strips. I'm using that tests you put 3 drops into 4 or 5 ml of water from the tank and compare the colors. That's why I give you ranges, because despite some minor color variations in between the numbers in the scale, someday when the tank is fully filled, there is a little bit less agitation in the surface so CO2 builds up more, and other days when there is evaporation and more surface agitation, CO2 stay a little bit less concentrated. So my pH in the end of the photoperiod is always between 6.4 and 6,6, and in the beginning of the morning before lights and CO2 is up, the pH is about 7.2 ~7.4. Also along with pH test, I'm using a drop checker that I check to adjust CO2 to leave it always with a green-lime color during the photoperiod (CO2 above 30 ppm and bellow 40 ppm). But I can increase CO2 easily and let it drop to 6,4 ~ 6.2 or a little bit less and see how the fishes behaves to this amount of CO2. I don't have plans to buy a pHmeter, but I can check if there is any pHmeter cheap here and give it a try.





Greggz said:


> And once again, like Burr suggested, I would dose even more macros and get the water column levels higher. At least give it a try to see if there is positive/negative reaction.





burr740 said:


> What I would try is increasing macros by dosing 10/1 NO3/P 3x per week, add a solid 20- 30 ppm of K per week, and try those micros at .1 ppm Fe 4-5 times per week.


So, 10:1 NO3O4 3 times a week isn't too much? Ignoring the uptake, this would build up to 60 ppm NO3 / 6 ppm PO4; or you mean to divide this amount (10ppm:1ppm) into 3 doses along the week?

So as *burr740* uses more Mn and Zn, and as suggested by happi, I'm considering dissolve some zinc and manganese sulfate with EDTA to dose it along my micro mix to add the following twice a week and see how it evolve:

Fe 0.1
Mn 0.050
B 0.013
Zn 0.010
Cu 0.002
Mo 0.0003

I don't think I want to dose more than this because I'm afraid more Cu could be poisoning for my neon cardinals.




Greggz said:


> And I assume that is an active substrate? Again I am no help, as I use an inert substrate. Maybe someone with experience with similar substrate could chime in.


It is an active substrate, and despite it can be used in direct contact with the water column, I'm using a few centimeters of an inert substrate above it. So basically it's nutrients are available only to the roots of the plants, but I saw somewhere else that those active substrates runs low of nutrients in a few months, so we should start with liquid fertilization.


----------



## happi

@SamuelLG, Cu 0.002 is nothing to worry about, i have gone quite high with Cu EDTA without much or any issue, will the plant use more than say 0.1 ppm Cu? most likely not, unless you are also dosing like so much NPK as well. based on some of the data that i have, plant would use much more NPK compare to Micro, i still feel some people are still overdosing Micro here, but i will wait for the finial results. some members would argue that their tank are growing way better when switching to So4/Cl based micro, this stand true due to easy availability of Micro compare to chelated one, but i still think we need to fine tune things further. you should look into trying So4/Cl based micro if you can.


----------



## Subjected

@burr740, I have found adding extra Mg a few times a week helps greatly reducing GDA (Green Dust Algae). Before I figured this out it was so bad by the end of the week it would cover plants. I started dosing 1/4 tsp 3x week with Macro's which has almost halted it. This is in the 50 gallon.


----------



## SamuelLG

happi said:


> Some members would argue that their tank are growing way better when switching to So4/Cl based micro, this stand true due to easy availability of Micro compare to chelated one...


I'm confused. Isn't chelated micros much more easily absorbed by the plants than non chelated ones (like in SO4/Cl salts), and because of this, it can be less concentrated in the water?


----------



## burr740

SamuelLG said:


> So, 10:1 NO3O4 3 times a week isn't too much? Ignoring the uptake, this would build up to 60 ppm NO3 / 6 ppm PO4; or you mean to divide this amount (10ppm:1ppm) into 3 doses along the week?


Good stuff man. To be clear I mean dose that 3x per week. You said you currently dose that amount 2x, so a 50% increase.

Sounds like a lot on paper, I know. Just try it for a week or two. You'll know right away if plants like it or not. Id be willing to bet that Didiplis colors up better immediately.

But you know, it's only a suggestion 

Also find out what type of Fe that product has. Your PH is similar to mine, which is really to high for edta Fe. Edta starts to break loose from Fe around 6.5. To the other micros it stays bound up into much higher PH levels, so Fe is the main issue.

I suspect that brand uses edta just based on the ratios of everything.



Subjected said:


> @*burr740*, I have found adding extra Mg a few times a week helps greatly reducing GDA (Green Dust Algae). Before I figured this out it was so bad by the end of the week it would cover plants. I started dosing 1/4 tsp 3x week with Macro's which has almost halted it. This is in the 50 gallon.


Interesting. How much Ca do you have?

My tap stays around 35 ppm Ca and 4.4 ppm Mg. I add another 3 ppm MgSO4 after water changes, no additional Ca (although Ive tried it before). Been doing that for months, used to add 5 ppm Mg for a while and then 4. Spent a few months doing each. Never really noticed a difference but it might be worth revisiting. Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## happi

SamuelLG said:


> I'm confused. Isn't chelated micros much more easily absorbed by the plants than non chelated ones (like in SO4/Cl salts), and because of this, it can be less concentrated in the water?


its the other way around, plant need to spend extra energy trying to extract Nutrients from Chelated form.


----------



## Greggz

So I thought I would post a little update.

A short while ago I had what I think to be a bad reaction to too much P (I THINK, but who knows??). Now keep in mind, I was dosing loads. Things have bounced back nicely after several water changes, basically resetting the system. My thought is it might be a good thing to reset the system once in awhile just in general. Tank always seems to enjoy it.

And I have now been dosing Burr micro mix daily for 14 weeks. It’s just part of my regular routine, and I don’t see any reason to change it, at least for now.

I’m also dosing macros just two times a week, a double dose on water change day, and another double dose three days later. Thought is to have more stable supply of nutrients in tank at all times. Only the second week, so hard to tell if it’s made much difference. 

I did notice global pearling seemed very strong on Sunday after the double dose on Saturday. I know Burr was doing something similar, and may attribute some negative results with it, but so far I have not seen similar. But keeping a really close eye on things, because it could be coming. 

I am also considering bringing down my KH level. Right now the last stage of my RO system is a remineralization filter, so my RO water starts at about KH 2. I’ve been bumping it up to KH 4 with K2CO3. Might just stop that dosing, and see how the tank likes a little softer water. 

So for what it’s worth, here is my latest dosing. Still dosing a load of P, but that’s 25% less than before. I might try even cutting it down further, but very slowly and watching everything closely. My tank seems to be sensitive to too little P, so just need to find the sweet spot.










And here is an FTS from Saturday.


----------



## Subjected

burr740 said:


> Interesting. How much Ca do you have?
> 
> My tap stays around 35 ppm Ca and 4.4 ppm Mg. I add another 3 ppm MgSO4 after water changes, no additional Ca (although Ive tried it before). Been doing that for months, used to add 5 ppm Mg for a while and then 4. Spent a few months doing each. Never really noticed a difference but it might be worth revisiting. Thanks for the suggestion!


I have less than 20ppm Ca. Cant even read a Nutrafin Ca Test kit result. I add 14ppm Ca at water change, 5ppm Mg, and 40ppm K to 50 gallons. Tap water reads 62 ms/cm so very soft.


----------



## Edward

Subjected said:


> Tap water reads 62 ms/cm so very soft.


Tap water reads 62 mS/cm?


----------



## Subjected

Edward said:


> Tap water reads 62 mS/cm?


My bad 62 us/cm (TDS)

Steve


----------



## Chlorophile

a couple of observations,
unfortunately for science I made two changes that can be attributed to these results. 
Having backed off traces from .2ppm fe 3x a week and .1ppm fe 4x a week to just .2ppm 3x a week
And I also added k2co3 last thursday. 

Improvements:
Much longer more colorful leaves on P. Kimberley
Pink coloration on L. Rubin
Pink coloration on Ammania Gracilis(is it ammania gracillis? lol i have no idea)

Moderate change:
L. sp Red is darker, more purple

No change: 
... everything else

I am inclined to believe I was too heavy on traces, I have had a higher KH and a lower KH than what I'm running now with RO and K2CO3, so if the k2co3 is the factor it isn't because of the raw kH value. 

Actual color is better than the pics, way better, the kessil is very "peaky" and so the colors at the tips always appear washed out on my camera due to the intensity. But in person there is definitely more color on all the plants. 
Leaf size on Kimberley is quite apparent compared to the lower growth, and this is after the plant had been topped to let the stumps sprout new growth. 




























The weird black hair algae (doesn't look like BBA or staghorn..) Also seems to be slipping away, I wonder if the mega iron was blackening normal hair algae or something. 

Not to say my Iron levels were astronomically high since others are succesful at these levels, but just too high for my tank/lighting/growth level.

overall, things are looking healthier.. 









edit: also my Rotala Bonsai has much larger rounder leaves and is growing faster than I've ever seen


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Having backed off traces from .2ppm fe 3x a week and .1ppm fe 4x a week to just .2ppm 3x a week
> And I also added k2co3 last thursday.


It looks like you backed off from the same level you are at. Typo??


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> It looks like you backed off from the same level you are at. Typo??


I was dosing a full 10ml dose i.e. .2ppm Fe 3x a week, and also a 5ml dose i.e .1ppm fe on all the other days. 
Now I am just doing the .2ppm Fe 3x a week, so technically I have cut out .4ppm Fe per week.


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> I was dosing a full 10ml dose i.e. .2ppm Fe 3x a week, and also a 5ml dose i.e .1ppm fe on all the other days.
> Now I am just doing the .2ppm Fe 3x a week, so technically I have cut out .4ppm Fe per week.


Aha....my mistake, I was misreading things there. Interesting. 

Look forward to seeing what comes next.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Aha....my mistake, I was misreading things there. Interesting.
> 
> Look forward to seeing what comes next.


Will be recieving a .15 fe mix with .002 cu and some Ni soon, so I will switch to that and start off at 3x a week and see how things go. 
This will be even less Fe and more other stuff so if response is positive I can try dosing more often.


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> I was dosing a full 10ml dose i.e. .2ppm Fe 3x a week, and also a 5ml dose i.e .1ppm fe on all the other days.


Wait wat??

Its not a good idea to supplement the Custom Mix with additional Fe because the other micros are added in direct proportion for a proper ratio.

You basically turned it into csmb, and since the non-Fe micros arent chelated, performance-wise, the poorer ratios are gonna perform even worse. Hypothetically speaking

Not saying it's the root of any problems but imo it would be...less than ideal. 

I believe @Greggz did something similar with one of the earlier mixes, dont think anything bad really happened


----------



## dukydaf

Chlorophile said:


> Will be recieving a .15 fe mix with .002 cu and some Ni soon, so I will switch to that and start off at 3x a week and see how things go.
> This will be even less Fe and more other stuff so if response is positive I can try dosing more often.


With so many changes in such a short time one cannot attribute with any degree of confidence an effect to a certain dose or ratio. Even if you were to monitor exact values in water, instead of estimating what is left after plant/microbial uptake, you will still be unable to account for the time lag effect and long term effects.

I know, it's tempting after all plants are suffering and you want to give them the best. See a damaged leaf, hmm something is wrong add X, see a discoloration add more Y, Z, T and increase the light, some BBA.. need to clean the filter. 2 days later massive plant melt. So which intervention caused the melting? Or did the power go off last night? Theories are a dime a dozen, good evidence is hard to find.

And I do not speak as someone disconnected from these problems, I also see this with myself. I want to experiment but also want a display aquarium. Combining the two is hard and almost impossible. Experiments mean functional instead of aesthetics, dangers instead of beaten path.

Add to all of this the fact that even with a control and experiment aquarium we will still suffer from observational, confirmation and selection and... bias. Unless our understanding life partner is willing to blind us to the exposure and outcome. 

Don't mean to be discouraging and have to say that I am glad this thread is more level headed. Thinking about how to best approach a problem to get a relevant answer can greatly reduce the time of dabbling in the dark. 

Give at least 2 weeks to see the results of a change, 9 would be better with weekly 50% wc. 

From my side, the.micro dosing stayed the same as posted at the start for about 15 weeks now and did not see a damage in plants with 2 exceptions.

1 was stunted growth in L. Cuba one time this period. First it went really red (stressed) and then small growth. Growing tips repaired on their own without change in dosing or wc... Who knows why, crowding maybe. 

2.
Immediately after wc I get what looks like nitrogen deficiency in Persicaria sp. Which results in damaged old leaves. Despite dosing enough N from different sources, I suspect

1. that my filter/substrate is efficient to rapidly convert to NO3
2. that the dose of Mo is too low and that my pH <6 makes availability worse

So it looks like N deficiency but actually plants are unable to process the available NO3 because they are low on Mo. The observation that this is repeatedly happening after wc and stops after a certain time seems to support my theory. Next step would be to increase only Mo dosing.


----------



## burr740

dukydaf said:


> 1. that my filter/substrate is efficient to rapidly convert to NO3
> 2. that the dose of Mo is too low and that my pH <6 makes availability worse
> 
> So it looks like N deficiency but actually plants are unable to process the available NO3 because they are low on Mo. The observation that this is repeatedly happening after wc and stops after a certain time seems to support my theory. Next step would be to increase only Mo dosing.


Good stuff as usual. How much Mo are you dosing? I scrolled back through the thread but didnt see any post showing your micro routine. Unless I missed it, which is entirely possible because things started to blur after the first 20 pages or so..


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was dosing a full 10ml dose i.e. .2ppm Fe 3x a week, and also a 5ml dose i.e .1ppm fe on all the other days.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wat??
> 
> Its not a good idea to supplement the Custom Mix with additional Fe because the other micros are added in direct proportion for a proper ratio.
> 
> You basically turned it into csmb, and since the non-Fe micros arent chelated, performance-wise, the poorer ratios are gonna perform even worse. Hypothetically speaking
> 
> Not saying it's the root of any problems but imo it would be...less than ideal.
> 
> I believe @Greggz did something similar with one of the earlier mixes, dont think anything bad really happened
Click to expand...

Lol no, only thing I used was your mix!
Just a half dose or .1ppm Fe equivalent the 4 off days!


----------



## Chlorophile

dukydaf said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will be recieving a .15 fe mix with .002 cu and some Ni soon, so I will switch to that and start off at 3x a week and see how things go.
> This will be even less Fe and more other stuff so if response is positive I can try dosing more often.
> 
> 
> 
> With so many changes in such a short time one cannot attribute with any degree of confidence an effect to a certain dose or ratio. Even if you were to monitor exact values in water, instead of estimating what is left after plant/microbial uptake, you will still be unable to account for the time lag effect and long term effects.
> 
> I know, it's tempting after all plants are suffering and you want to give them the best. See a damaged leaf, hmm something is wrong add X, see a discoloration add more Y, Z, T and increase the light, some BBA.. need to clean the filter. 2 days later massive plant melt. So which intervention caused the melting? Or did the power go off last night? Theories are a dime a dozen, good evidence is hard to find.
> 
> And I do not speak as someone disconnected from these problems, I also see this with myself. I want to experiment but also want a display aquarium. Combining the two is hard and almost impossible. Experiments mean functional instead of aesthetics, dangers instead of beaten path.
> 
> Add to all of this the fact that even with a control and experiment aquarium we will still suffer from observational, confirmation and selection and... bias. Unless our understanding life partner is willing to blind us to the exposure and outcome.
> 
> Don't mean to be discouraging and have to say that I am glad this thread is more level headed. Thinking about how to best approach a problem to get a relevant answer can greatly reduce the time of dabbling in the dark.
> 
> Give at least 2 weeks to see the results of a change, 9 would be better with weekly 50% wc.
> 
> From my side, the.micro dosing stayed the same as posted at the start for about 15 weeks now and did not see a damage in plants with 2 exceptions.
> 
> 1 was stunted growth in L. Cuba one time this period. First it went really red (stressed) and then small growth. Growing tips repaired on their own without change in dosing or wc... Who knows why, crowding maybe.
> 
> 2.
> Immediately after wc I get what looks like nitrogen deficiency in Persicaria sp. Which results in damaged old leaves. Despite dosing enough N from different sources, I suspect
> 
> 1. that my filter/substrate is efficient to rapidly convert to NO3
> 2. that the dose of Mo is too low and that my pH <6 makes availability worse
> 
> So it looks like N deficiency but actually plants are unable to process the available NO3 because they are low on Mo. The observation that this is repeatedly happening after wc and stops after a certain time seems to support my theory. Next step would be to increase only Mo dosing.
Click to expand...

How long should I wait then?
I was on daily traces for several weeks..
Now 3x a week for one week
In a few days still 3x a week but lower iron + Ni and Cu
Not like I have much choice in that regard I'm out of the old mix.

It's easy to keep things the same for a long time when plants are growing well and there are few problems. But when I see negative effects show up I have to try something.


----------



## Edward

Micro Mix 11.15 contains already 10x more Mo in relationship to other trace elements needed, except Cu. So the fact that lower pH is making it less bioavailable, maybe 50%, is negated by usual uptake during night when pH is up due to CO2 being off. The night Mo uptake can cover lighting period needs, considering common 50% night uptakes, luxury uptakes storing more than needed and Mo being a mobile element.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Micro Mix 11.15 contains already 10x more Mo in relationship to other trace elements needed, except Cu.


What is this statement based on?


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> What is this statement based on?


...


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> ...


That's just a tissue analysis, which has very little to do with how much needs to be dosed. Too many other factors involved such as availability and interaction based on the specific compounds involved, competition between nutrients, various PH levels, concentrations affecting absorption. The list is a long one

For example a micro mix using chelated Zn might do best with 5x less than a micro mix using non-chelated Zn. The ratio of Zn in healthy plant tissue is completely irrelevant. 

It's too bad we cant hook plants up to an IV and inject exactly what we want into the proper receptors...


----------



## dukydaf

So I ve written this detailed reply to each of you but Tapatalk crashed on me... And being too tired I delayed the reply until now.
@burr740 the dose is 0.07ppm over 2 weeks with 50 to 60% wc. Dosing is daily with 2x the first day after wc.
@Edward I hear what you are saying about Mo, but who said I am dosing micro mix 11.5? Also a little more detail, my actual pH is between 5.4 to 6.3, so even the high is pretty low. I also considered adding the extra Mo at night. Adding some more Mo will give more data, for or against my previous theory. In any case it will only be an observation, nothing conclusive. 

Regarding plant tissue analysis, I also am wary of using them to ground my dosing. Look at what people did with Redfield ratio. It is a very old average ratio of c:n from various marine organisms and oceans. There is a problem when applying this all encompassing average to a specific organism, but what really amazed me is how anybody though this would apply to freshwater macrophytes? It is like looking at what sheep eat and basing the diet of a lion on it. 

That being said plant tissue analysis is a great tool for agriculture. Here a farmer will notice problems with a specific crop, do plant tissue analysis and compare with values from the strain provider or the same healthy plants. Based on this comparison, and detailed soil analysis he may decide on his intervention. Quite different to how people in this hobby propose plant tissue analysis be used. 
@Chlorophile... The period depends. Large effects require a shorter period, small effects require a lot more time. 

Eg. Pour boiling water on the plant and you will see the end result in max 30 min. Change X micronutrient from 0.001 to 0.002 and you are likely to never even be able to see any change in the lifetime of the aquarium. 

There is also the long term effect of dosing to take into consideration. Suppose P is severely limited, adding 1 mg/L PO4, you will notice immediate improvement. Continue adding 2 mg/L and the improvement will be a little less and slower and so on. 


For this reason I said at minimum 2 weeks, better 9 weeks. By 9 weeks from a mathematical point of view the values stabilize in water with 50% weekly wc, even with plant uptake. But this is for one change. If you do 4 changes to the system during this period you are unable to attribute the outcome to only one of this changes.

Realistically, searching for strong links between nutrients and symptoms on a display tank is not a good idea. It hinders the science part and it damages the aesthetical part, neither experience will be satisfying or produce good results. However, it is human nature to try and find reason in random observations and I know I will still do it [emoji39]


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> That's just a tissue analysis, which has very little to do with how much needs to be dosed.
> …
> The ratio of Zn in healthy plant tissue is completely irrelevant.
> …
> It's too bad we cant hook plants up to an IV and inject exactly what we want into the proper receptors...





dukydaf said:


> @Edward Regarding plant tissue analysis, I also am wary of using them to ground my dosing.
> …
> It is like looking at what sheep eat and basing the diet of a lion on it.
> …
> That being said plant tissue analysis is a great tool for agriculture.
> …
> Quite different to how people in this hobby propose plant tissue analysis be used.





burr740 said:


> I mean, Ive seen the same crop studies you have. Most do arrive at the conclusion that 2:1 is best (*which is why we use it in custom mixes*)
> Here's one - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438057/?page=6
> The Iron Manganese Relation in Soybean Metabolism


You are right guys, 
Just looking at the chart, the levels between Micro Mix 11.15 and tissue are night and day different. And constructing the mix based on soybean research is the way to go.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> And constructing the mix based on soybean research is the way to go.


I linked that particular experiment to show that not all crop studies claim a strict 2:1 Fe:Mn ratio is best.

As Ive said a few times already, my opinion is crop studies can only take us so far, primarily due to all the variables I mentioned in post #636 for why tissue analysis cant be used to dictate ppms.

Crop studies at least show how plants respond to dosing, even if we cant always translate it directly under water.


----------



## dukydaf

Edward said:


> You are right guys,
> Just looking at the chart, the levels between Micro Mix 11.15 and tissue are night and day different. And constructing the mix based on soybean research is the way to go.


Well using the same argumentation technique (irony), I guess I will kill a couple of gazelles to feed the sheep. After all their muscle tissue analysis has pretty much the same ratio of elements as that of a lion.

However there are more logical arguments to be made. 

1)Studies of aquatic plants concentrating cesium and aluminium in their tissue are plenty. If I were to base my fertilization on their plant tissue analysis I will surely need to add them, and in high conc. Fortunately, we know that addition of the 2 elements is not required for plant growth. 

2)Second there are plant tissue analysis from aquatic macrophytes so why compare to grass (whatever species that is). Look at Stephen et al, 1976 and Gerloff and Krombholz, 1966, feijoo et al 2002 for example. 

3)Same plant, Vallisneria americana has between 0.8 to 4% N dpw depending on environmental concentration. On which should fertilization be based? 

4) same lake, same date different plants: 2-3.4% N and 0.38-0.71% P. On which should fertilization be based? 

5) same plant M. spicatum, same lake different months 
Month May July August 
Fe 0.094 0.031 0.41
Mn 0.37 0.47 0.35
B 0.26 0.16 0.16
Look at the levels and the ratios how much they vary in nature, yet plants survive and grow. 

Since we are talking about Fe:Mn in particular, in May you have 2.5:1 and in July 1:1.5 by ppm. How is that for variation of ratios in plant tissue?


----------



## SamuelLG

the bellow version of the text is the complete one I meant to reply


----------



## SamuelLG

dukydaf said:


> Look at what people did with Redfield ratio. It is a very old average ratio of c:n from various marine organisms and oceans. There is a problem when applying this all encompassing average to a specific organism, but what really amazed me is how anybody though this would apply to freshwater macrophytes? It is like looking at what sheep eat and basing the diet of a lion on it.


Over the last week I've been reading tons of scientific papers to get a good view on the N ratio thing, and what I saw is the N ratio is an extremely debated subject matter among scientists across the world for decades! Although some ratios has been established many many years ago, there is a lot of recent studies to review or define new ratios for plants in crops, wetlands, lakes and marine environments. The Redfield ratio (16:1) was only a start point.

I don't know if is appropriate to discuss N in this thread, but here is the paradigms and conclusions from those papers and what I think about it that I would like to share with you all:

A paper from 1992 (Nutrient concentration of aquatic plants: Patterns across species) stated the following ratios:

:: freshwater phytoplankton 16:l (same for marine phytoplankton/Redfield ratio)
:: freshwater angiosperms 24:1
:: marine angiosperms 20:1

Really high N content for those angiosperms hum?!

In contrast, a paper from 1996 (The vegetation N ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation), only 4 years latter, reviewed 40 studies in diverse type of freshwater wetland ecosystems (bogs, fens, wet heathlands, dune slacks, wet grassland...) and concluded that the N limiting ratios to herbaceous freshwater wetlands lies between 14:1 and 16:1 (very close to Redfield ratio).

Which of those we should "believe" or apply in our tanks?

More recently studies push this ratio down for freshwater and even terrestrial plants.

A paper from 2007 (Tissue nutrient concentrations in freshwater aquatic macrophytes: high inter-taxon differences and low phenotypic response to nutrient supply) suggests a N ratio of 13:1 for freshwater vascular plants (what excludes algae and moss).

A very interesting paper from 2008 (A Unifying Concept for the Dependence of Whole-crop N Ratio on Biomass: Theory and Experiment) analyses 38 field experiments on crops and reviewed a lot of other studies to show that N ratios are different in every tissue (leafs, stems, roots), implying that the ratio decreases with an increase in plant mass (so total mineral weight analysis for a specific plant is kind of tricky to analyze). Also, this paper develops a mathematic model that shows growing tissues (predominate in leafs) has a N ratio of 11.83 while storage tissues (stems/roots) has a ratio of 5.57. 

And finally, a paper from 2015 (Multielement stoichiometry of submerged macrophytes across Yunnan plateau lakes (China)) stated the N ratio in foliar tissues of submerged macrophytes from China is 4:1 in contrast to terrestrial plants 14.7:1.

All those ratios are atomic ratios, not weight ratios. So 16:1 atoms of N (Redfield ratio) means 10 ppm of NO3 for each 0.96 ppm of PO4. I put bellow some mentioned ratios in terms of NO3O4 ppm to better understand.

N : P | NO3 : PO4 in ppm
24 : 1 | 10 : 0.64
16 : 1 | 10 : 0.96
13 : 1 | 10 : 1.18
11.83 : 1 | 10 : 1.29
4 : 1 | 10 : 3.83

What does it all means? Keep doing 10:1 ppm NO3O4 and you should be fine lol...

Although we can calculate very precisely the amount of KNO3 / KH2PO4 we should use in your tanks to keep a specific ratio, the weight balance we use has errors, the volume of the tank we calculate to dose is an estimative of the real volume in most cases, there is evaporation over time which means concentrations will fluctuate along days, our colorimetric tests is not THAT precise to show the exact amount of a specific nutrient we have in water, etc etc etc.

So, "at the end of the day" the difference between 10:0.96 ppm NO3O4 (Redfield 16:1 ratio) from 10:1.29 ppm (11.83:1 growing tissues ratio) is really relevant with all those errors mentioned above??

It seems like unless you decide to do the extremes 4:1 or 24:1 atomic ratios, the middle values (10 : 0.96 ~ 1.29 ppm NO3/PO4) looks pretty safe to do and puts the old average Redfield ratio very very close to recent ratios stated for freshwater plants.


----------



## dukydaf

Thank you for sharing the results of your research with us @SamuelLG. 



SamuelLG said:


> N : P | NO3 : PO4 in ppm
> 24 : 1 | 10 : 0.64
> 16 : 1 | 10 : 0.96
> 13 : 1 | 10 : 1.18
> 11.83 : 1 | 10 : 1.29
> 4 : 1 | 10 : 3.83
> 
> What does it all means? Keep doing 10:1 ppm NO3O4 and you should be fine lol...
> .


Let me put them in a more standardized manner so we can compare more easily

NO3 : PO4 (ppm) 
15.7:1
10.4:1
8.5:1
2.6:1

Look at that variability between averages done with several repeats in a scientific method. You have 6x the conc. of NO3 in plant tissue and the results are not comprehensive. In one lake an article also identifies a variation of 10:1 and 23:1 (molar ratio) between different plant species. So why work with averages when plants species are so different? 

You asked if we should dose more phosphate and if we should keep doing 10:1 NO3O4... My answer is, this data should not be used to figure out dosing of your aquarium. 

Should one dose more PO4 or less NO3? There are two ways to reach the same ratio. Does it make a difference if you dose 300 ppm NO3, 30ppm PO4 and if you dose 3ppm NO3, 0.3ppm PO4? After all same ratio. 

Regarding errors, you are right and another important one is plant uptake. Plant uptake will mess with all the calculated ratios, leaving behind in the water column a jumbled mess. So unless you do daily 100% water changes, what is the point in targeting a specific ratio? 

All that variability shows that plants are adaptable and every species is particular in what is "optimal". What is in leaf is not necessarily at the same conc as what is in water, just like we do not need to live in an atmosphere with the same O% as our bodies. It also says concentration is more important that a particular ratio. 



SamuelLG said:


> It seems like unless you decide to do the extremes 4:1 or 24:1 atomic ratios, the middle values (10 : 0.96 ~ 1.29 ppm NO3/PO4) looks pretty safe to do and puts the old average Redfield ratio very very close to recent ratios stated for freshwater plants.


You would be working with averages which are somewhere in the ballpark of marine biomass and then trying to fit it to a particular aquarium. It does not work due to a well characterized phenomenon known as ecological fallacy, the details of which are not the subject of this thread. 

What about the studies with 24:1, 10:1 and 4:1, why exclude them? Starting with a theory and then picking and choosing data points to fit my views and ignoring the rest is not the kind of science I want to do. We have ratios for freshwater macrophytes , they vary, hence there is no universal ratio to be targeted in their plant tissue. Thus we need to base our dosing decisions on something else.


----------



## SamuelLG

Thanks for answering dukydaf.



dukydaf said:


> You asked if we should dose more phosphate and if we should keep doing 10:1 NO3O4... My answer is, this data should not be used to figure out dosing of your aquarium.


I disagree in some way, but that's ok. I think these studies made with freshwater plants can show a little bit of a big scenario in terms of nutrition. It doesn't explain the whole scenario, but it helps to fill some gaps. Probably 10:1 ppm NO3/PO4 isn't the best values do deal with, but it a good start to figure things out, even because these values work for a lot of people. Despite different species, different environment conditions, luxury uptake, different species uptake, the vital cellular process in all plants are the same, and these average studies try to define the range in which the values for "surviving" or maybe even "best growth" are.



dukydaf said:


> Does it make a difference if you dose 300 ppm NO3, 30ppm PO4 and if you dose 3ppm NO3, 0.3ppm PO4? After all same ratio.


You have a point and I see what you mean. Although being same ratio, of course there is a difference where a total concentration of NO3 is too much or too low for a planted tank, specially if you have fish or other animal. I can't remember the value, but there is a concentration in which all nitrification stops and nitrites/ammonia start to build up which isn't any good for animals but very very good for algae.



dukydaf said:


> Regarding errors, you are right and another important one is plant uptake. Plant uptake will mess with all the calculated ratios, leaving behind in the water column a jumbled mess. So unless you do daily 100% water changes, what is the point in targeting a specific ratio?


It's known that a very odd ratio of NO3/PO4 (although can be good enough for plant growth) trigger the development of some algae or cyanobacteria. So at least a range around a specific ratio is important to target in my opinion.




dukydaf said:


> All that variability shows that plants are adaptable and every species is particular in what is "optimal". What is in leaf is not necessarily at the same conc as what is in water, just like we do not need to live in an atmosphere with the same O% as our bodies. It also says concentration is more important that a particular ratio.


I agree 100%.



dukydaf said:


> You would be working with averages which are somewhere in the ballpark of marine biomass and then trying to fit it to a particular aquarium.


But most of the values I presented were described for freshwater macrophytes, what about targeting them (which is indeed close or even contains the one stated for marine biomass)?



dukydaf said:


> What about the studies with 24:1, 10:1 and 4:1, why exclude them? Starting with a theory and then picking and choosing data points to fit my views and ignoring the rest is not the kind of science I want to do.


The papers that stated 24:1, ~15:1, 13:1 and 4:1 N ratios all these are studies made with freshwater plants, showing that their tissues has a lot os variations in rates, it's true. I just feel more comfortable picking the average values than choosing the extreme ones, and then, start to adjust things from there.

Lets say you may end up finding that 1 ppm NO3 / 0.25 ppm PO4 every day (that 4:1 N) are the best concentration and ratio for your tank with your specific plant species / fish, feeding, filtration etc etc. That's nice! I just don't think that whatever ratio or concentration you may end up finding as being the best will be soooooo different from ratios and concentrations contained on the average or min/max values defended by those papers, after all, the most basic cellular process are basically the same and if you don't respect the minimum necessary for them, plants will stops growing or even dying.



dukydaf said:


> Thus we need to base our dosing decisions on something else.


You have something in mind?


----------



## dukydaf

@SamuelLG , I agree with what you are saying. 

What to base your dosing on ? 

My preferred way would be to dose based on plant performance, but for this you would need an accurate guide and documentation for deficiencies in our species. What we have at the moment ? Many(all?) of the graphs and definitions you see in the hobby are based on terrestrial plants.Next well-meaning hobbyists with a background of random observation that only recommend from what they have subjectively seen. susceptible to trends and hysteria I have see all sorts of stuff blamed on Fe, K, Ca:Mg, PO4, CO2, toxic devilish traces, now Ca again. 
What we need: actual controlled trials , well documented, photographed studies. As there is little financial interest from the industry and little interest from the hobby for such a study we are unlikely to get these results.

Another approach: EI


----------



## Greggz

I’d like to take a moment to make a general observation and suggestion for this thread.

I started this thread to foster discussion on micro dosing. As you know Burr740 began rolling his own, and when he offered I was glad to participate. The intention was to see if there might be a better solution than CSM+B, which could improve the growth and health of a planted tank.

And while I appreciate and read with great interest the very detailed discussions here recently, I think that there is something missing…………the discussion of actual planted tanks. Many of the people involved in the deepest discussion here have never mentioned or shown a picture of their own tank(s).

What I would encourage is that more people include details of their own tanks, including dosing schedules, photos, and any other information or observations that might help others. It just seems to me that what gets lost in all this discussion is actually keeping a planted tank. 

For me, my goal is simple. A healthy tank, with a colorful display of plants that is aesthetically pleasing to my eye. If I get closer to the proper balance through experimentation (trial and error), it doesn’t really matter to me if my method can be scientifically proven to be correct. I just want a nice looking planted tank.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy the detailed discussions, and am in no way trying to discourage them. But at some point we need to turn the discussion back to actual results in actual tanks. 

I would guess the average person who drops in here sees a bunch a gobbledygook that they can’t relate to at all.

So please, show me your tanks, show me your plants, show me your dosing. Tell me what you have tried, and what you have observed. No it’s not perfect science, but I’m really interested in seeing and learning more about the experiences of others. I might be able to relate that to something in my tank, and I think it would be more helpful and interesting to a broader range of people.

In that spirit, here is my lab, where I struggle to improve bit by bit.......


----------



## Chlorophile

@Greggz yes, I definitely like the details, but it's lost if it's not shown in practice, at least for... Most people.

I make a lot of changes, and I see improvements. I might not be able to tell you precisely what causes something but I can tell what has improved and what hasn't, and I like being told hey that's probably not gonna help, or that's a bad idea, or hearing someone say "oh yeah my AR mini smoothed out too when I got my KH down)


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Still at it! >


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Still at it! >


Boy those are some good looking Buce! Love the purple.

And I think you have risen now to the level of Buce farmer.......this years crop yield was quite impressive.:grin2:


----------



## Immortal1

Have to admit - those are some damn good looking plants!
Currently my FTS would not be overly impressive, but I feel that this guy deserves a little recognition. Not an expert by any means but, I am thinking I have enough macros in the water to keep most happy. Am also running Burr V11.15 micros 3 times per week and can only assume I must be doing at least something right  .


----------



## max88

Greggz said:


> I’d like to take a moment to make a general observation and suggestion for this thread.
> ......
> So please, show me your tanks, show me your plants, show me your dosing. Tell me what you have tried, and what you have observed. No it’s not perfect science,


You smooth talker.

Tank has been running for over 3 years.
Micro dosing numbers used to be much lower, about 20% of current numbers. Plants suffered. Had BBA all over the place.
Current dosing numbers have been over 1 month, after seeing this thread. Plants have improved a lot.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Don't feel bad about a FTS, I have floating stuff going on still.
You just don't get to see it!:grin2:


----------



## Greggz

Immortal1 said:


> Have to admit - those are some damn good looking plants!
> Currently my FTS would not be overly impressive, but I feel that this guy deserves a little recognition. Not an expert by any means but, I am thinking I have enough macros in the water to keep most happy. Am also running Burr V11.15 micros 3 times per week and can only assume I must be doing at least something right  .


Linn that new growth looks good. I would not be afraid to dose even a bit higher. Maybe try an extra half dose on off days for a week or two, just to see if there is a positive/negative reaction. When I went to daily dosing, it seemed tank needed more macros. I think you were trying increasing P a bit?

And the color is getting better since you increased the light a bit. Getting closer all the time.


----------



## Greggz

max88 said:


> You smooth talker.


Hey it brought you out of the wood work, so it worked!:wink2:



max88 said:


> Tank has been running for over 3 years.
> Micro dosing numbers used to be much lower, about 20% of current numbers. Plants suffered. Had BBA all over the place.
> Current dosing numbers have been over 1 month, after seeing this thread. Plants have improved a lot.


And thanks for participating. Sometimes you don't know if anyone is really reading or following along.

And very interesting to hear that you saw some improvement. I'd comment more on your dosing, but it looks like things are going pretty good for you. If anything, be aware that is seems like dosing more micros can increase the need for macros. More than likely bringing out a new deficiency. 

And I noticed you list BPS, but not pH drop. The amount of pH drop via CO2 is a big piece of the pie. Do you know what your pH drop is?

And once again, in the spirit of my previous post, here is a shot I posted in my journal recently. I do love my fish as much as my plants, and I thought this shot combined them nicely.


----------



## SamuelLG

So, I posted 4 days ago about stunting plants after increasing the doses of micros from the mix I ordered here. Because of this, in the middle of last week, I did 2 consecutive WC of 50% to bring down those micronutrients to the 'safe' concentrations I was used to do. The first results of recovering came in a couple days with some of the stunt plants returning to grow their leafs.

The worst was L. repens. In middle of October of the last year I got a single and little stem that was growing very very fast. I did some pruning and in two months I was with 6 or so individual stems. Basically every week I had to pruning them and replant the top, or cut very close to substrate to get more stems, or cut and trow in the trash... And with the increasing micros, all stems stop growing.

Just 1 week after putting micros down again, some of the stems were able to fully recover and just in these few days it reached the surface (I'm going to prune it Saturday). Just one is still slowly recovering (pictures). Sorry for the photos, it was taked now in the night. You can see one of the L. repens stems that reached the surface and other that is still stunt.















As suggested by burr, I increased the macros dose this week by half and it really seems to had a fast result in the top of D. diandra colors. It is a little bit more orange. Lets see if its really macros effect when i cut it all and let it grow again. >









Rotala butterfly is still struggling a bit and it seems that something is missing; while R. rotundifolia and waliichii is slowly growing again. Wallichii has some algae on it and just one or two of a few stems is growing :frown2:









Bacopa caroliniana looks great (even during the increasing of micros). I also got just 1 stem of it and its growing very good and with some pruning I'm getting more stems out of it.









Alternanthera reineckii Splendida and Ludwigia inclinata Verticillata is almost entirely in their submersed forms. I'll be able to take some good pictures soon (I hope).

I also got some GPA over some leafs this week and increased PO4 a little bit too.

*This weekend I'm impelled to do my own micro mix and let aside the one I bought a couple months ago because looks like it has some unbalanced ratios. 

I'll also make my own FeEDTA using Iron(II) sulfate and dissodium EDTA. I'm bringing down KH from 4 to 2 in order to let the water a bit more acidic because of EDTA. I hope it works. Anyone has any suggestion? What do you put along the micros to conserve it (vitamin C or glutaraldehyde?). Should I make a separately solution for FeEDTA and a second one for Mn, B, Zn, Mo and Cu?*


----------



## max88

Greggz said:


> And very interesting to hear that you saw some improvement. I'd comment more on your dosing, but it looks like things are going pretty good for you. If anything, be aware that is seems like dosing more micros can increase the need for macros. More than likely bringing out a new deficiency.
> 
> And I noticed you list BPS, but not pH drop. The amount of pH drop via CO2 is a big piece of the pie. Do you know what your pH drop is?


Thanks for this thread. I've benefited a lot from reading threads like this. There is still a lot to learn.

My pH drop was about 0.2, based on multiple tests (after running air pump for over 24 hours). Not sure if hobbyist grade test kit is sufficiently accurate. Power head breaks CO2 into micro bubbles that distribute throughout the tank. Most plants have bubble accumulation, my speculation is that CO2 is not limiting factor. Not knowing accurate CO2 level is one of the reasons I keep light at most at 50PAR using dimmer.

NO3 is usually 40+ppm while PO4 is 3+ppm before water change. Besides dosing, feeding is the only other source of nutrients. I have no test kit for K, probably should up K by 2 PPM/dose just in case.

I may up micro by 25% to see if plants improve further.


----------



## max88

SamuelLG said:


> Bacopa caroliniana looks great (even during the increasing of micros). I also got just 1 stem of it and its growing very good and with some pruning I'm getting more stems out of it.
> 
> View attachment 831770


Speaking of Bacopa caroliniana, mine actually recovered after increasing micros. My dosing may still have room for increased micros.


----------



## Greggz

max88 said:


> Thanks for this thread. I've benefited a lot from reading threads like this. There is still a lot to learn.
> 
> My pH drop was about 0.2, based on multiple tests (after running air pump for over 24 hours). Not sure if hobbyist grade test kit is sufficiently accurate. Power head breaks CO2 into micro bubbles that distribute throughout the tank. Most plants have bubble accumulation, my speculation is that CO2 is not limiting factor. Not knowing accurate CO2 level is one of the reasons I keep light at most at 50PAR using dimmer.
> 
> NO3 is usually 40+ppm while PO4 is 3+ppm before water change. Besides dosing, feeding is the only other source of nutrients. I have no test kit for K, probably should up K by 2 PPM/dose just in case.
> 
> I may up micro by 25% to see if plants improve further.


I would not trust any test kit for pH readings. I have tested them, and they are barely in the ballpark most times. 

The CO2 concentration is very important. For me, dialing down just slightly and I can see the difference (not good!). Accurate readings are well worth the trouble.

IMO a calibrated pH probe is worth the investment. Fine tuning CO2 can cure a lot of ills, and result in growth/color not thought achievable. 

Just an FYI, you said you are dropping CO2 by 0.2 with your current testing methods. I know of many successful planted tankers who routinely drop pH by 1.3 to 1.4. I'm not so sure your CO2 is non limiting. If there is one thing to get right, CO2 might be it.


----------



## Subjected

Evening guys, 
So here are some pics of my 4 tanks. I have been seeing some issues in 2 of the tanks. So going to back off on traces a little until I can mix up some new NPK. A little Info 1st. I have been dosing DIY all in one and the Burr Micro Mix V5.15 3x week. I have a feeling / know its adding to much micros in the wrong proportions. 

Here is 2 of the tanks. 12 Long and Fluval Spec V.









The 12 Long, mostly mosses, Buce, Hairgrass, Ferns so its hard to tell there is something wrong at first glance. 
The Dwarf penny wort and Rotala Japan red growing out of the tank is what I saw issues with. 

































Here is the Spec V which seems to be doing fine. Not as fast growth as before but no bad issues. Some 16 species stuffed in here.









The 50 Gallon which is growing like mad. Some stunting but growing none the less.









The other 12 Long growing like mad but hairgrass is pale and roots are out of control. haha.
Sorry cant post FTS or good shots of this secret tank.









This tank also has Rotala Sunset and its not quite right yet. Pale also.









DIY All in one 6ml per 30 gallons adds:
NO3 7.017, PO4 1.296, K 4.966, Fe DTPA 0.248, Mg 0.033, Mo 0.001, Mn 0.034, Zn 0.008, Cu 0.005
B 0.016, Co 0.0001

Burr Micro Mix 5.15 10mL per 30 gallons:


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> @Greggz yes, I definitely like the details, but it's lost if it's not shown in practice, at least for... Most people.
> 
> I make a lot of changes, and I see improvements. I might not be able to tell you precisely what causes something but I can tell what has improved and what hasn't, and I like being told hey that's probably not gonna help, or that's a bad idea, or hearing someone say "oh yeah my AR mini smoothed out too when I got my KH down)


Chlorophile your posts are a great example of what I consider to be helpful to a lot of people. You have been experimenting, using trial and error, and posting details on the results. 

I think we will all learn something from you as you continue your journey.


----------



## SamuelLG

I've been gathering ratios and concentrations from this thread and others in order to decide which ratios I'll try while mixing my own FeEDTA + micros solutions. So I made this graph to compare them and to calculate the median (which values I'll use).

Median (in ppm):

Fe	0,2
Mn	0,084
B	0,032
Zn	0,036
Mo	0,0016
Cu	0,002










I'm going to use the following salts that I have available right now:

FeSO4.7H2O + Na2EDTA
MnCl2.4H2O
H3BO3
ZnSO4.7H2O
(NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O (ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate)
CuSO4.5H2O

Although the molybdate salt I have available has ammonium, the amount is really little and I think I don't have to worry about it.

I just have some questions. I'm going to chelate Fe with EDTA to keep it soluble and in +2 state and I'll bring the KH down from 4 to 2 to let the water of the tank to be more acidic (bellow 6,5 during photoperiod and part of the night, so FeEDTA will stay stable longer). *Do I have to chelate Mn, Zn and Cu to keep them in a stable oxidation state as well or not worry about it?*


----------



## burr740

SamuelLG said:


> *Do I have to chelate Mn, Zn and Cu to keep them in a stable oxidation state as well or not worry about it?*


Only Fe is chelated in the custom blends, nothing else. Im sure it changes the game whether they are/not, could possibly get by with less of some things (idk)

Fe is what really matters because it is so volatile, the other micros not so much


----------



## max88

Greggz said:


> Just an FYI, you said you are dropping CO2 by 0.2 with your current testing methods. I know of many successful planted tankers who routinely drop pH by 1.3 to 1.4. I'm not so sure your CO2 is non limiting. If there is one thing to get right, CO2 might be it.


I am willing to accept that CO2 is limiting, and to increase CO2 BPS. As shown in the photo, there are bubble build up on the plants, and free flowing micro bubbles in the water that it has soda look. The problem is more likely too little CO2 dissolved in water. The only solution is a better diffuser or reactor, which I find to be challenging for myself.

Testing pH now, and will be testing de-gassed water in 24 hours.

Added photo of micro traces label. I also add extra FeDTPA 11%.


----------



## Chlorophile

max88 said:


> Speaking of Bacopa caroliniana, mine actually recovered after increasing micros. My dosing may still have room for increased micros.


B. Caroliniana is one of the plants which was the most obvious indicator of too much micros. 
It is so easy and hardy, when other plants are doing weird things or twisting or deforming I have so many things to question. 
B. Caroliniana will grow perfect in so many conditions. 
But once I hit a certain level of Micros, the new leaves come out at odd angles, or they may be cleft like a clover leaf, or only one leaf will come out on the stem. 

Other plants show symptoms as well but its harder for me to be sure what the cause is since I have trouble growing them in so many conditions.

Also regarding pH drop, when I was using API test kit I thought I only had a .4 - .6 pH drop. 
Once I got pH probe I realized my off gassed pH was around 8, not the 7.6 that the test kit maxes at. 
And my Peak CO2 pH was a 6.45, also lower than the API test kit can read. 
so I have a 1.55 pH drop, not a .4-.6
Without a pH pen or probe, just going to around the point where the fish are.. uncomfortable just for the last hour of the day or so is probably as good as it can get.


----------



## Immortal1

Chlorophile said:


> B. Caroliniana is one of the plants which was the most obvious indicator of too much micros.
> It is so easy and hardy, when other plants are doing weird things or twisting or deforming I have so many things to question.
> B. Caroliniana will grow perfect in so many conditions.
> But once I hit a certain level of Micros, the new leaves come out at odd angles, or they may be cleft like a clover leaf, or only one leaf will come out on the stem.
> 
> Other plants show symptoms as well but its harder for me to be sure what the cause is since I have trouble growing them in so many conditions.
> 
> Also regarding pH drop, when I was using API test kit I thought I only had a .4 - .6 pH drop.
> Once I got pH probe I realized my off gassed pH was around 8, not the 7.6 that the test kit maxes at.
> And my Peak CO2 pH was a 6.45, also lower than the API test kit can read.
> so I have a 1.55 pH drop, not a .4-.6
> Without a pH pen or probe, just going to around the point where the fish are.. uncomfortable just for the last hour of the day or so is probably as good as it can get.


I hear ya on the pH testing. For me I have a Milwaukee controller (actually 2) which I calibrate every month or so. I "assume" it is the gold standard on pH reading. I have used the API pH high range test to compare readings. Recently the API showed degassed water as having a higher pH than the controller. Hmmm, which is correct? Eventually put both Milwaukee probes in the degassed water to verify they were probably more correct.

I have learned over time that the fish seem uncomfortable with a 1.4 to 1.5 pH drop. But at a 1.3 pH drop they don't seem to mind at all. So, I do my best not to drop it more than 1.3


----------



## Whysoserious

SamuelLG said:


> Do I have to chelate Mn, Zn and Cu to keep them in a stable oxidation state as well or not worry about it?


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pourbaix_diagrams 
Note: the lines represent equal concentration. 

I've taken multiple manufacturer minimum recommended weekly doses for traces and found the accumulated concentrations subject to 50% weekly water changes. 
Fe 0.295
Mn 0.076
B 0.014
Zn 0.009
Cu 0.007
Mo 0.003


----------



## Greggz

Immortal1 said:


> I have learned over time that the fish seem uncomfortable with a 1.4 to 1.5 pH drop. But at a 1.3 pH drop they don't seem to mind at all. So, I do my best not to drop it more than 1.3


I am exactly the same regarding pH drop. I can get to even 1.35 with no symptoms, but get to 1.4 or over and they show some distress pretty quick. 

So of course I typically keep it right on the edge!:wink2:

I do have heavy aeration come on right after the lights turn down for the evening, loading the tank up with oxygen over night. Turns off just before the CO2 comes on in the morning. 

Great for the fish, and I do believe the aeration is also good for the plants. It seems once I added it the tank just seemed a bit healthier all the way around. I decided to add it after Saxa Tilly (Pikez at TBR) noted in his Going Dutch journal that he thought it provided benefits. Good enough for him, good enough for me.


----------



## Chlorophile

Immortal1 said:


> I hear ya on the pH testing. For me I have a Milwaukee controller (actually 2) which I calibrate every month or so. I "assume" it is the gold standard on pH reading. I have used the API pH high range test to compare readings. Recently the API showed degassed water as having a higher pH than the controller. Hmmm, which is correct? Eventually put both Milwaukee probes in the degassed water to verify they were probably more correct.
> 
> I have learned over time that the fish seem uncomfortable with a 1.4 to 1.5 pH drop. But at a 1.3 pH drop they don't seem to mind at all. So, I do my best not to drop it more than 1.3


Yep! 

For me with a Skimmer sucking surface water into the filter, Koralia Nano, and my outflow both aimed at the surface, I can get away with more co2 than this but the fish become boring and they kinda just stay in place. 
Oto's are the only ones who breathe fast. 
I can't really get the co2 any higher though because when I turn it up a little bit it climbs a LOT by the end of the day. 
And if I start the co2 any earlier it also gets too high. 
Only way really would be to run 2 solenoids to the tank and have them both come on and then one turn off once co2 peaks.


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Only way really would be to run 2 solenoids to the tank and have them both come on and then one turn off once co2 peaks.


No, there is another way. 

A CO2 controller does exactly that. Turns CO2 off when it hits peak, turns it back on at your set point. 

I wouldn't be without one. Keeps my pH in the same range for the entire CO2 period. But even more important it's insurance against gassing a tank full of hard to replace Rainbows.


----------



## burr740

@Greggz has so many cool gadgets. Feels like Im living in the stone age sometimes 

I think chlorophile has some type of Aquasoil? Controllers are only good if you have inert sub and a rock solid KH (like Gregg)

If the KH is falling during the week between water changes, as it tends to do with aquasoil, it's impossible to have steady co2 keeping the same PH

Big difference in CO2 at 6.5 PH with 3 KH, and 6.5 PH with 2 or 4 KH



Chlorophile said:


> .
> I can't really get the co2 any higher though because when I turn it up a little bit it climbs a LOT by the end of the day.
> And if I start the co2 any earlier it also gets too high.
> Only way really would be to run 2 solenoids to the tank and have them both come on and then one turn off once co2 peaks.


Run a lower injection rate and start it earlier.

Ive got the 120 coming on 2.5 hours before the lights. PH has dropped 1.1 when the lights come on, peaks a couple hours later around 1.3 or so.

I could drop it much faster with a higher rate if I wanted to, but then I'd have the same problems you mentioned.

Balancing the rate of injection vs when it comes on is a key part of having plenty of CO2 all day but not too much for the livestock.

If it takes 3-4 hours after the lights come on for co2 to reach optimum levels there's gonna be problems. Tanks like this usually struggle with bba if nothing else


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> @Greggz has so many cool gadgets. Feels like Im living in the stone age sometimes


LOL Burr!

Truth is I have a weak mind that is very susceptible to the power of suggestion.

Heck, Immortal1 only had the Seneye for a week and I was searching for one.

Come to think of it, you may have the same sickness........how many flow meters you have now??????:wink2:


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> @Greggz has so many cool gadgets. Feels like Im living in the stone age sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run a lower injection rate and start it earlier.
> 
> Ive got the 120 coming on 2.5 hours before the lights. PH has dropped 1.1 when the lights come on, peaks around 1.3 or so.
> 
> I could drop it much faster with a higher rate if I wanted to, but then I'd have the same problems you mentioned.
> 
> Balancing the rate of injection vs when it comes on is a key part of having plenty of CO2 all day but not too much for the livestock.
> 
> If it takes 3-4 hours after the lights come on for co2 to reach optimum levels there's gonna be problems. Tanks like this usually struggle with bba if nothing else


I might try to play around with it some more. 
I had it come on 3 hours before the lights before but the fish would be stressed by the time the lights come on and then the drop checker would never get past lime-green as the photosynthesis ramped up. 
Now I am co2 on 10AM and lights on 12PM - CO2 Off 7pm and lights off 9PM
At around 7 the co2 is getting quite high and the fish get a little lazy but then they start to liven up again towards the end which is also feeding time. 

Personally, I've found it easier to set the injection rate as high as I can and control the rate of off-gassing.. I feel like the fish like it this way better, as if I decrease ripple even a little bit the fish look visibly stressed at 1.4pH drop.
I say this but yet I have BBA on older leaves... LOL


----------



## burr740

Keep the surface agitation, for sure


----------



## max88

Chlorophile said:


> But once I hit a certain level of Micros, the new leaves come out at odd angles, or they may be cleft like a clover leaf, or *only one leaf will come out on the stem*.


I've seen one leaf symptom 2 times. Once long time ago when dosing much higher micros and infrequent water change. Most recently after increasing micros to [email protected] per week, which is much lower than many who have posted here.

High range pH test kit shows same color for both tank water and distilled water at around 7.2pH (color chart minimum).
Regular pH test kit is showing unexpected results. I tested twice using regular pH test kit, thinking of error on my part. It's weird to see distilled water at 6.0pH. Does anyone know whether distilled water should test 7.0pH?


----------



## burr740

max88 said:


> Does anyone know whether distilled water should test 7.0pH?


Its hard to test distilled or deionized water with a PH electrode because they dont have enough ions present for the electrode to function properly. 

I would assume its the same for liquid drop tests but not entirely sure. 

For pinpointing co2 levels, you really should invest in a $20 digital PH pen + calibration solution(s). Those liquid drop tests arent going to cut it


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Personally, I've found it easier to set the injection rate as high as I can and control the rate of off-gassing.. I feel like the fish like it this way better, as if I decrease ripple even a little bit the fish look visibly stressed at 1.4pH drop.


C02 and oxygen are not mutually exclusive. That is, you can have lots of both. And you should have lots of both.

Interesting with good aeration you are seeing fish stress at the same pH drop (1.4) as myself and Immortal1. I'm wondering if that more universal than I thought.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> C02 and oxygen are not mutually exclusive. That is, you can have lots of both. And you should have lots of both.
> 
> Interesting with good aeration you are seeing fish stress at the same pH drop (1.4) as myself and Immortal1. I'm wondering if that more universal than I thought.


Hmm, yeah well its kinda nice when data points line up like that. Probably becomes too difficult for the gills to function at higher co2 levels. 

Toleration of co2 I assume will be largely dependent on oxygen and species. 
While the Cardinal Tetra's get lazy, their breathing does not get rapid even in the slightest, I will sometimes see them sitting still in the stems (Maybe higher O2 and less CO2 where plant mass is thicker? Maybe they get lazy to reduce respiration?)

Rummy Nose Tetra begins to breathe a bit more quickly, and they swim close to the substrate in and out of the plants (Somewhat counter to my intuition I assume this has something to do with O2, maybe the flow at the substrate is slower and they are being bombarded by less co2 rich water?) 

Otocinclus will breathe very fast but stay quite active, as co2 gets higher they will swim up and down the glass. I used to run more co2 and they would all get in a group near the powerhead or right up in the corner of the tank. 
I don't let co2 get that high anymore. 

I'm assuming their co2 tolerance is dependent on their natural environments.


----------



## Chlorophile

One big water change and 3 days later and preliminary results of the .15 Fe mix is positive.
mix 13.15 also has copper and nickel which I've had none of for months outside of fish food.
There was no dramatic spike in pearling but a slow increase.

Viewing the tank from my chair beside it right now and it's like it's raining.. up.

Some new things I've never seen, pogostemon Kimberley leaves are coming out kind of vase shaped pointing up and then turning parallel to the waters surface.
L. Pantanal has some red at the center for the first time other than when I first got it.
It's been all yellow until now.


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Viewing the tank from my chair beside it right now and it's like it's raining.. up.


Chlorophile looks like things are getting better quickly for you. Nice pics of the plants. 

And that global pearling is always a good sign. In general, tank is telling you it's happy. 

Nice work and look forward to seeing how things go from here.


----------



## Wobblebonk




----------



## Nlewis

Wobblebonk said:


>


Congratulations on the Hydra!


----------



## max88

My plants seem to look better in 1 or 2 days after water change, and started to look worse into the second week (water change ever 1 or 2 weeks depending). My tap water has Ni @ 0.005 according local water analysis report, while I don't dose Ni that I know of, except whatever in fish food. Many, including Greggz, have posted dosing Ni as part of micros, I am wondering whether depletion of Ni has anything to do with plants looking worse?

Finally tested de-gassed tank water.
pH=7.1 on tank water while CO2 running.
pH=7.9 after after running air pump for 24 hours.
A difference of 0.8 pH is better then I had thought. For gH=10, kH=6, what's CO2's estimated PPM?


----------



## Chlorophile

Nlewis said:


> Congratulations on the Hydra!


Lol I think I got them from Burr ;] Never had any before I bought plants from him lol >


----------



## dukydaf

Greggz said:


> I think that there is something missing…………the discussion of actual planted tanks. Many of the people involved in the deepest discussion here have never mentioned or shown a picture of their own tank(s).
> …For me, my goal is simple. A healthy tank, with a colorful display of plants that is aesthetically pleasing to my eye. If I get closer to the proper balance through experimentation (trial and error), it doesn’t really matter to me if my method can be scientifically proven to be correct. I just want a nice looking planted tank.
> …
> But at some point we need to turn the discussion back to actual results in actual tanks.
> So please, show me your tanks, show me your plants, show me your dosing. Tell me what you have tried, and what you have observed. No it’s not perfect science, but I’m really interested in seeing and learning more about the experiences of others. I might be able to relate that to something in my tank, and I think it would be more helpful and interesting to a broader range of people.


So as Greggz, the OP asked, and as “as one of the people involved deepest in discussion here”, I show you again my dosing and some of my plants, per two weeks total dosing. @Greggz , you can single me out man, it's alright. I take no offense nor do I target anyone personally. I argue about statements, not against anybody*, so hope you all are also able to not take things personally. Far as I see it we all learn and share what we know. And I will be the first to admit, I have much to learn. 
*there was only one person with whom it did get personal. Called him ma'friend, but most of you know him if I say SL. 

So with no more poetics. The Dosing: 

The aquarium is at GH 9, KH3 by the end of the 2 weeks, high light, high CO2. Almost no soil visible due to plants. Also 3x per week , 0,5 ppm N from urea. 

My dosing is presented and here are some observations and photos during this period. I look forward to seeing what are your conclusions/suggestion as to what caused the damage or good growth in some plants: 

Bottom of the plant, look at that BBA ? Why so much growth, is it a micronutrient ?: 

Anubias leaf damage, what did this ? : 
Look at that blue spots on this plant. What nutrient is missing or what is happening? Notice it is pretty new growth. 

L. repens seems pretty tame for my micro levels, no stunning 

What caused the white leaf in this Persicaria sp. ?


Note that the damage did not occur simultaneously in all plants and may be unrelated. Looking forward to see what you believe is happening with these plants. 

More photos of my tanks are spread throughout the years. At one time I kept a journal but found that the time invested in keeping it up was not worth the reward to me or to the forum. I decided to use my time in helping others here rather than showing photos of how I trimmed this week. 

Let me also add this : 
It is not science at all. Looking at random observations in varied tanks with various degrees of descriptions may be interesting, just like looking at a gallery, but in reality, it has nothing scientific. 

That is fine, it’s a hobby and for many in this hobby there are plenty of companies out there selling ready made all in one solutions for aquariums. Just follow the dosing on the package and when problems appear, they have a solution to sell for that too. Just remember “This product does not contain nitrates or phosphates. Does not cause algae.” or another common one “No water pollution as free of phosphate and nitrate”… but looking at horticulture (the science of growing plants) we concluded we actually need these "pollutants" in our planted tanks. So maybe we need science after all ???

As photos are good arguments here, I would like to add this photo as an example for how little we are able to tell with random observations. It is also a nice counter example to the earlier photos suggesting that R. wallichii should be grown in pure, unfertilized RO water. I put some stems for 2 months in a tank with similar traces and a GH, KH over 10 at all times. I bet I could make it even better if I give it more space but it does not fit in this particular hardscape.


----------



## happi

i thought i share what happen when you dose lower nutrients, in these pic new growth observed to be good but somewhat pale on certain plants, this is just to demonstrate that plant grew without twisting or weird growth, 100% RO water was used in this test without adding any additional GH/KH/PH K+ booster, this test showed results quite quickly and only 2 N was dosed as proxy so far for the last few days, traces were added from so4/cl based chemicals and DTPA Fe was used. by looking at the plant, it seems there is need for improvement on colors mainly.


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> So as Greggz, the OP asked, and as “as one of the people involved deepest in discussion here”, I show you again my dosing and some of my plants, per two weeks total dosing. @Greggz , you can single me out man, it's alright. I take no offense nor do I target anyone personally. I argue about statements, not against anybody*, so hope you all are also able to not take things personally. Far as I see it we all learn and share what we know. And I will be the first to admit, I have much to learn.
> *there was only one person with whom it did get personal. Called him ma'friend, but most of you know him if I say SL.


Dukydaf I hope you don't think I was singling you out. I actually very much enjoy your insights, look forward to your posts, and am glad to have you here as part of this discussion. 

Like I said, at some point we just need to steer the conversation back to the hobbyist level. In the end the hope is to find clues that someone might apply to their own tank. Even then, with so many variables, it's still a process of trial and error with no absolutes.

Truth be told, limiting a discussion to nutrients is probably not a good idea either. One might think that if they just find the proper mix, all is perfect. In my opinioin, lighting intensity/duration, CO2 levels, tank maintenance, and general plant care trimming/pruning is equally important. 

Now as to SL, well let's just say sometimes better to let sleeping dogs lie. And I do believe this go around is more civil, with a better spirit, and ultimately may be more helpful. 

I take it the dosing you indicate are weekly totals??

And I do appreciate seeing some pics. Is that L. Cuba above? Curious, how do you think it's doing there?


----------



## dukydaf

All is good Greggz. Yes,that is the total over 2 weeks, 50%+ wc every 2 weeks, dosed daily with double dose after water change. Forgot to say, for the record all numbers are for ppm, always based on total tank volume. 

Yep that is L. cuba. It is a weed growing large and branching like crazy. I am growing some out for selling/other tanks so it is bit crowded. I think this is the main reason why it is not as compact as I would like. During the above dosing, there was only one episode of stunning immediately after water change. Tips recovered on their own though, who knows the reason. The stump is also from the same stem of L. cuba after being cut. Looking forward to see what you believe caused the problems. 
@happi Is that daily dosing ? With 50% weekly water changes? 

There are some necrotic spots on R. macrandra and L. senegalensis . Were they there before starting this dosing ?


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Lol I think I got them from Burr ;] Never had any before I bought plants from him lol >


You didnt get that ish from me! None of my tanks have hydra so blame somebody else.


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> All is good Greggz. Yes,that is the total over 2 weeks, 50%+ wc every 2 weeks, dosed daily with double dose after water change. Forgot to say, for the record all numbers are for ppm, always based on total tank volume.
> 
> Yep that is L. cuba. It is a weed growing large and branching like crazy. I am growing some out for selling/other tanks so it is bit crowded. I think this is the main reason why it is not as compact as I would like. During the above dosing, there was only one episode of stunning immediately after water change. Tips recovered on their own though, who knows the reason. The stump is also from the same stem of L. cuba after being cut. Looking forward to see what you believe caused the problems.


Interesting those numbers are for two weeks. Just goes to show there are lots of different ways to go about it. Those numbers are all less than I dose in one week. 

I would not presume to know what caused your stunting. In the scheme of things, I am not qualified to diagnose others tanks. I have a hard enough time figuring mine out. That's why I am here trying to learn more.

However I can share my experience with Cuba. For me, it is a weed that likes lots of everything (macros & micros). If I cut back, it is one of the first to complain. Load the tank with nutrients, and it seems to explode with growth (in my tank anyway). Also likes loads of light. It gets well over 200 PAR when it gets closer to the surface in my tank. 

So who knows, it might be possible low nutrient levels right after a water change, at least lower than it would prefer. But who knows, could also be a dozen other things.

Here's mine from recently. The top is almost 4" across. For me when it gets really large, the tops show the most red.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Damn Cuba!:grin2:


----------



## Subjected

happi said:


> i thought i share what happen when you dose lower nutrients.


 As I understand it, this lean dosing is what ADA uses along with many of the Europeans. I myself have dabbled dosing this way. Now I have found it is always a very fine line of balancing just enough vs not enough with algae and deficiencies in a High Light tank. Is the only solution to dim / raise the lights?


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> You didnt get that ish from me! None of my tanks have hydra so blame somebody else.


Lol floated in with some fish then! I was just messin anyway


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Lol floated in with some fish then! I was just messin anyway


I'll gladly take credit for any and all snails you may have acquired, but I gotta draw the line at freakin hydra..


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Damn Cuba!:grin2:


Hey, that reminds me.....how is the Cuba transition going?


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> I'll gladly take credit for any and all snails you may have acquired, but I gotta draw the line at freakin hydra..


Lol I dont have any snails anymore except one big guy.. I think they all wound up in the filter or something.. or the hydra are getting them. 

Not sure where the hydra came in to be honest, they're kinda cute but I'll probably get rid of them before I get shrimp in the tank.


----------



## Greggz

max88 said:


> My plants seem to look better in 1 or 2 days after water change, and started to look worse into the second week (water change ever 1 or 2 weeks depending). My tap water has Ni @ 0.005 according local water analysis report, while I don't dose Ni that I know of, except whatever in fish food. Many, including Greggz, have posted dosing Ni as part of micros, I am wondering whether depletion of Ni has anything to do with plants looking worse?
> 
> Finally tested de-gassed tank water.
> pH=7.1 on tank water while CO2 running.
> pH=7.9 after after running air pump for 24 hours.
> A difference of 0.8 pH is better then I had thought. For gH=10, kH=6, what's CO2's estimated PPM?


Honestly with those tests, you still have little idea of your pH drop. I am just saying I have tested them against calibrated meters, and sometimes they are not even close. 

I would suggest getting a pH meter and calibration fluid. You will be glad you did. Getting CO2 levels just right is a big piece of the puzzle. Those tests are not nearly accurate enough for our purposes. In my tank I can make small changes in pH drop and see large effects. 

And in general fish and plants like a water change. Maybe try performing water change EVERY week see how things respond. You kind of answered your own question when you said things start to look worse in the second week. 

And in general, I doubt Ni depletion is an issue. Sure plants might be happier with more, but I really don't think it's vital enough to cause a really bad reaction without it.


----------



## max88

burr740 said:


> For pinpointing co2 levels, you really should invest in a $20 digital PH pen + calibration solution(s). Those liquid drop tests arent going to cut it





Greggz said:


> Honestly with those tests, you still have little idea of your pH drop. I am just saying I have tested them against calibrated meters, and sometimes they are not even close.
> 
> I would suggest getting a pH meter and calibration fluid. You will be glad you did. Getting CO2 levels just right is a big piece of the puzzle. Those tests are not nearly accurate enough for our purposes. In my tank I can make small changes in pH drop and see large effects.


Yup, will do (pH pen/meter + calibration fluid).


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> Bottom of the plant, look at that BBA ? Why so much growth, is it a micronutrient ?:


I was going back over this, as I wanted to read the entire post more carefully. 

My first thought is kind of what I was getting to earlier, that ferts are only a slice of the pie.

If I had BBA like this in my tank, my first thought would not be micros or ferts in general.

My first thought would be tank maintenance. I would vac the substrate, clean the filters, trim any dead or dying plants, perform at least one and more likely several water changes, double and triple check my CO2 injection, reevaluate my lighting intensity/duration, reduce plant mass in tank, create more room between species, pull/top/trim/replant any dense bushes, and in general get things uber clean. 

Maybe even add some Purigen, or run the UV light for a while.

In my tank, these things are equally if not more important than any fert routine. Personally I look at ferts like fine tuning an engine that is already running well. But I have to have a bunch of things going right before small changes in ferts makes any difference at all. 

At least that is what I have experienced in my tank. And it took a long time for all that to set in. I read it a bunch of times in Burr's journal, in Pikez's journal, but still just figured alter ferts and everything will be fine. Pikez refers many times that the way to fix problems in his tank is just good old fashioned elbow grease. After banging my head against the wall for a couple of years, I truly believe this to be true. 

Anyway, just my thoughts. I certainty don't have everything figured out, and my tank is far from perfect. Curious as to your thoughts on the whole holistic approach rather then just focusing on ferts??


----------



## happi

dukydaf said:


> All is good Greggz. Yes,that is the total over 2 weeks, 50%+ wc every 2 weeks, dosed daily with double dose after water change. Forgot to say, for the record all numbers are for ppm, always based on total tank volume.
> 
> Yep that is L. cuba. It is a weed growing large and branching like crazy. I am growing some out for selling/other tanks so it is bit crowded. I think this is the main reason why it is not as compact as I would like. During the above dosing, there was only one episode of stunning immediately after water change. Tips recovered on their own though, who knows the reason. The stump is also from the same stem of L. cuba after being cut. Looking forward to see what you believe caused the problems.
> 
> @happi Is that daily dosing ? With 50% weekly water changes?
> 
> There are some necrotic spots on R. macrandra and L. senegalensis . Were they there before starting this dosing ?


as i have mentioned, so far the results were from like few days after the new dosing which i started by 90% water change and so far 2 N as proxy were dosed and older growth looks bad where i have tried higher traces etc but as you can see older growth isn't good as this new one, just look at the about 2" of each stem which was newly grown, but this recipe still need further improvement, i have yet to do any water change, but i don't think i need to as i balanced the nutrients based on the research and i don't think there should be any buildup long as i keep the same ratio.

Bump:


Subjected said:


> As I understand it, this lean dosing is what ADA uses along with many of the Europeans. I myself have dabbled dosing this way. Now I have found it is always a very fine line of balancing just enough vs not enough with algae and deficiencies in a High Light tank. Is the only solution to dim / raise the lights?


i don't really believe in need for very high nutrients just because i have high light, plant wont die without it. only time you might require to add more nutrients are when you are running extremely high light along with very high co2, those high nutrients are no where near as many member dose when it comes to Micro. if you look at my previous post, 2 N is almost equal to 8.8 ppm No3, yet Micros are still very low compare to NO3 ratio, am not saying this recipe is working best but you can see how plant respond to such a lower dose and we can improve it from there. i kept my light and co2 levels the same during all these experiments, so no one could make that excuse later on.


----------



## chayos00

Can't contribute much to this thread but do watch it and feel overwhelmed. LOL However I just replaced my cheap never the same reading twice sub$20 pH meter and for one twice the price but with much better reviews and should last between calibrations. So far reads spot on and press of a button calibrations. 

Apera Instruments AI209 PH20 Value Waterproof pH Pocket Tester, ±0.1 pH Accuracy, 0-14.0 pH Range, Complete Kit https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ENFOHN8

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

happi said:


> i don't really believe in need for very high nutrients just because i have high light, plant wont die without it. only time you might require to add more nutrients are when you are running extremely high light along with very high co2, those high nutrients are no where near as many member dose when it comes to Micro.


Happi that is your opinion, and maybe what you observe in your test tanks. You have alluded several times now that some are dosing too many micros, and you are entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, many (not all) have reported very good results from increasing micro dosing derived from the right mix of nutrients. Myself I have been dosing micros at .15 Fe daily for 14 weeks. Tank has never been better. 

I'm curious. Do you currently actually keep any multi species planted tanks? If so I would love to see recent full tank shots. I mean I could walk over and post a pick of my actual tank in two minutes, and I do quite often. What you see is what you get. And maybe you can too, I don't know. Most pics you show are from some point in time, but not current. 

This is a serious question. For instance, I have seen pictures of your Wallachii, and it means little to me. I admit, I could never grow Wallachii well. I believe I share that fate with Pikez (Saxa Tilly), and Burr for many years. Show me that Wallachii in a diversified large planted tank (like Burr's Wallachii currently) and it would interest me more. 

However, getting Wallachii perfect is not my goal. Tending to a tank with 20 or more species and trying to get the best out them is more typical of the hobbyist here on this forum. 

The thing is, growing plants in a test tank has very little to do with growing them in a mixed species tank. To me, I see your pictures, and I think ferts is maybe at most 1/3 of that. There are so may other contributing factors. I'm just trying to figure out how your conclusions relate to the average hobbyist out there??

Bump:


chayos00 said:


> Can't contribute much to this thread but do watch it and feel overwhelmed.


You and me both brother!!:grin2: I feel like I am wading in the deep end sometimes.


----------



## Chlorophile

High light, high nutrients, high co2.. 
What is limiting? 
You decide, but there is always a limiting factor. 


And if you ask me, the reason lower dosing works is because your changing the limiting factor to something less volatile. 
When the only limiting factor is co2 things are going to be volatile. 
When the limiting factor is lighting, things are gonna be... drab? 
When the limiting factor is nutrients... things are gonna be.. small? 


Plants outdoors in full sun grow well in tubs with wind over the tubs and not much fertilizer. 

Plants in my low tech no co2 tank grow well under good lighting and low dosing + NH4 , only some GDA that blows away in current. 

Plants in my high tech are the most difficult. Co2 or nutrients (not sure which) triggers more aggravating types of algae that are persistent. 

Whats the difference? 
Is it easier to grow plants with no co2? or is growth of all things just limited due to the low co2, or the low dosing? 
Problems arise slower.. color is better.. Hydrocotyle japan is thick and lush, no algae in sight... Bacopa Caroliniana is bronze, Ludwigia is bronze. 
High tech tank? Hydrocotyle japan doesn't grow.. has BBA on it. Ludwigia is green. Bacopa is green. 

My Rotala Indica grows 1 leaf per 2 weeks in the low tech, but that leaf set is golden the entire time. 

Ludwigia Red grows slowly too, but the internodes are tight tight tight, and its fairly red, not quite as much so as in the high tech. 

If you ask me there is no right or wrong answer regarding high or low traces, and plenty of reasons why one works and the other doesn't and many cases where both could probably work in the same tank. 

I'm having better results on less traces now, but I'm still dosing a good bit.


----------



## happi

Greggz said:


> Happi that is your opinion, and maybe what you observe in your test tanks. You have alluded several times now that some are dosing too many micros, and you are entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, many (not all) have reported very good results from increasing micro dosing derived from the right mix of nutrients. Myself I have been dosing micros at .15 Fe daily for 14 weeks. Tank has never been better.
> 
> I'm curious. Do you currently actually keep any multi species planted tanks? If so I would love to see recent full tank shots. I mean I could walk over and post a pick of my actual tank in two minutes, and I do quite often. What you see is what you get. And maybe you can too, I don't know. Most pics you show are from some point in time, but not current.
> 
> This is a serious question. For instance, I have seen pictures of your Wallachii, and it means little to me. I admit, I could never grow Wallachii well. I believe I share that fate with Pikez (Saxa Tilly), and Burr for many years. Show me that Wallachii in a diversified large planted tank (like Burr's Wallachii currently) and it would interest me more.
> 
> However, getting Wallachii perfect is not my goal. Tending to a tank with 20 or more species and trying to get the best out them is more typical of the hobbyist here on this forum.
> 
> The thing is, growing plants in a test tank has very little to do with growing them in a mixed species tank. To me, I see your pictures, and I think ferts is maybe at most 1/3 of that. There are so may other contributing factors. I'm just trying to figure out how your conclusions relate to the average hobbyist out there??
> 
> Bump:
> You and me both brother!!:grin2: I feel like I am wading in the deep end sometimes.



people have reported good results not due to increase in Nutrients, but due to form or source of nutrients being dosed here, i believe i have already shared some of the pics in the beginning of the thread somewhere. far as wallchi goes, i only obtained this sp, few weeks back and now its finally growing, i either have to wait or get more so i could post full shots, the one i previously thought in the past was not wallachi as i was told. but i don't think you are understanding is that currently plant showed better response to lower micro dosing than it did with higher dosing. i agree that we all cannot have same results with the same recipe due to certain factors, but what am trying to say is that even if i consider most of those factor, plant still don't need so much Micros unless you have some serious issue with your tank. Honestly, i have repeated these test several time now and results are always the same. everything from research to plant analysis proved that micro are not need as much as people been dosing here, if you have to dose lot of micro then like i said your tank must have some serious issue going on with precipitation, oxidizing etc 

now the same recipe was dosed by 2 different people here and we both obtained similar results if that is what you were asking. based on what people been dosing here, i predict that you guys will eventually lower your Micro dosing down the road, i believe i already seen this as Burr himself have stated in some of the previous posts.

Bump:


Chlorophile said:


> I'm having better results on less traces now, but I'm still dosing a good bit.


can you explain why you are having better results with lower traces?


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> people have reported good results not due to increase in Nutrients, but due to form or source of nutrients being dosed here, i believe i have already shared some of the pics in the beginning of the thread somewhere. far as wallchi goes, i only obtained this sp, few weeks back and now its finally growing, i either have to wait or get more so i could post full shots, the one i previously thought in the past was not wallachi as i was told. but i don't think you are understanding is that currently plant showed better response to lower micro dosing than it did with higher dosing. i agree that we all cannot have same results with the same recipe due to certain factors, but what am trying to say is that even if i consider most of those factor, plant still don't need so much Micros unless you have some serious issue with your tank. Honestly, i have repeated these test several time now and results are always the same. everything from research to plant analysis proved that micro are not need as much as people been dosing here, if you have to dose lot of micro then like i said your tank must have some serious issue going on with precipitation, oxidizing etc
> 
> now the same recipe was dosed by 2 different people here and we both obtained similar results if that is what you were asking. based on what people been dosing here, i predict that you guys will eventually lower your Micro dosing down the road, i believe i already seen this as Burr himself have stated in some of the previous posts.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> can you explain why you are having better results with lower traces?


I believe what Gregg was asking is a full tank picture of a well running tank that's been getting your magical ratio for a while. Not just a plant or two that happens to be looking well atm. 

Can you really make a judgement after one big water change and, let me get this straight...two doses??

Maybe the plants just perked up from the water change. Lots of things going on there besides ferts.

This thread isnt a micro tox debate so please dont turn it into one. 

I get it. You think high micros are the devil and everyone here is dosing too much. 

I used to think that too, as anyone who's followed my old 75 journal can tell you. Extremely low micros were the only way I could get some plants to live, like certain rotalas or pantanals. Meanwhile plants like Staurogyne repens slowly died out on me.

Today these same finicky plants are thriving dosing 20x the micros/Fe I used to dose. So the problem all along was never micros/Fe. It was something else.

And in case you missed it or forgot, I started out the custom blend with a .015 csmb clone 3x per week and went from there. Thats extremely low by anoyone's standards. Since then its been a gradual increase based on plant response over several months across sixty something species in five different tanks. So we arent exactly here on a whim.



happi said:


> plant still don't need so much Micros unless you have some serious issue with your tank.


 I can flip this statement around and say if you have to dose extremely low levels, there is something else wrong in your tank. See how that works? But Im not trying to go there. Countless factors can affect how much of a certain thing is needed, we've touched on things like PH levels and chelated vs non chelated ad nausem already.



Please understand this thread is primarily for discussing how the compounds used in these custom blends work, or dont work, can be improved, etc. 

This isnt a thread to prove extremely low micros can grow certain plants. We already know that. If you want to chide folks for dosing too much or otherwise prove some kind of point, please take it somewhere else.


----------



## dukydaf

Thanks @happi for the details. Looking forward to see how the plants perform in the long term while at these conc. Thanks for offering your plants for this. I think it is obvious I am at the other end if the dosing philosophy but still interested in your results and willing to replicate when successful.
@Greggz Yes the dosing is less than what your dose especially for macros. I did higher in the past but did not see any benefit for my plants and residuals are pretty good. With a calibrated PO4 kit I have a pretty constant value of 6, for what is worth. And for nitrates it's always orangish.

However, Mo(8x), Cu(9x) and Zn(2x) are a lot higher. These would call again ratios (on their own) into question.

Looking at your Cuba, your plant seems to have more down turned leaves and that dense growth I would expect when this plant has space. I agree it is redest at the top. I suspect that what I have here in the EU may also be another cultivar/collection round than what is common in the US now. My leaves are always narrower.

You are exactly right, hard to say in others' tanks but this is pretty much what you get in plant deficiency threads, photos, dosing and tank stats. And if we want to help the hobbyists we need to be able to work within these parameters with some confidence.

Now to the specific photo of BBA,
"My first thought would be tank maintenance"

Yes to all you suggest, seems like fish of a scale shoal together. That was pretty much my thought process, but that comes with experience. 

What does a beginner do, start dosing excel, open the web browser... find BBA associated with varying CO2... Increase CO2... Find BBA associated with high traces... Stop dosing traces... Etc etc

As you point out, I noticed BBA on many old leaves... something is wrong with the bioload/bacteria... Check filters... One of the pre-filter fell off the canister intake. Open canister, 2 H. Callistus and some rcs got sucked up and were rotting there. Removed fish, cleaned filters, replaced fleece. Add displaced water and done. BBA stopped spreading, still sad about the fish. The remaining BBA will likely stay there until I remove the stem... Removing the trigger will not necessarily kill the existing algae or stop the growth.

Now, I have a strong suspicion that the rotting corpses were the trigger and fuel for the BBA, but can I be sure it wasn't because of the dosing? Or because I had plenty of traces in the water? Or because of the increased flow (without pre-filter)? All these are confounding factors and I cannot say for sure, as I did not have a control aquarium.

Now for me it was easy to find something to blame for BBA. But how many fish or shrimp die and are never found. How many people forget they gave life food just before the BBA bloom and who monitors for the mg of uneaten food? and then show dosing, tank characteristics and photos... Here is BBA... In time it would be easy to find an association.

I will talk more about the holistic approach when I get to a pc

Regards duky


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> I will talk more about the holistic approach when I get to a pc
> 
> Regards duky


Nice post. 

I think you said a lot already.

Much to learn there.


----------



## happi

*Staurogyne repens*

@burr its interesting that i am growing it under lowest dosing as possible, oh don't worry your post doesn't offend me, BTW most of you guys still need to work on your plants, people who are testing micros here, most of the plants still look terrible which i did not mention before, Ludwigia panantal is the worse i have seen. ask you self when you first started with higher dose and now cutting it down? why is that? and good luck further i will let you guys carry on with these experiments without interfering further. 

here is Staurogyne repens that responded well to this dosing where it would randomly melt and grow weird before with higher micros. good luck


----------



## Chlorophile

Plants must be loving the new mix, stuff is growing so fast it's freaky.

Pantanal put out 3 bright red side shoots overnight

Kimberley is coloring up quite well and growing half an inch a day.

It also has holes in leaves that are only a few days old.
I must have changed my limiting nutrient.
My guess is I had zero cu in the water after 10+ water changes with DI but I'd just be guessing.


----------



## Chlorophile

happi said:


> Bump:
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having better results on less traces now, but I'm still dosing a good bit.
> 
> 
> 
> can you explain why you are having better results with lower traces?
Click to expand...

My dosing isn't low, it's just lower than the guy with three times more par than I have.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

burr740 said:


> @Greggz has so many cool gadgets. Feels like Im living in the stone age sometimes
> 
> I think chlorophile has some type of Aquasoil? Controllers are only good if you have inert sub and a rock solid KH (like Gregg)
> 
> If the KH is falling during the week between water changes, as it tends to do with aquasoil, it's impossible to have steady co2 keeping the same PH
> 
> Big difference in CO2 at 6.5 PH with 3 KH, and 6.5 PH with 2 or 4 KH
> 
> Run a lower injection rate and start it earlier.
> 
> Ive got the 120 coming on 2.5 hours before the lights. PH has dropped 1.1 when the lights come on, peaks a couple hours later around 1.3 or so.
> 
> I could drop it much faster with a higher rate if I wanted to, but then I'd have the same problems you mentioned.
> 
> Balancing the rate of injection vs when it comes on is a key part of having plenty of CO2 all day but not too much for the livestock.
> 
> If it takes 3-4 hours after the lights come on for co2 to reach optimum levels there's gonna be problems. Tanks like this usually struggle with bba if nothing else


I wish someone had sat me down 10 (heck, 20) years ago, stared me in the eye and told me exactly this. Word for word. This is really important stuff.


----------



## Subjected

Decided to go all out and get serious. Already have the Micro solution so made up a Macro bottle. Mon 02/26/18 Day One and counting. Don't be hating on my Bottles LOL.














































Plants are in not the best shape. stunting / deficiencies etc. 

Alternanthera reineckii Variegated
Ammanna Gracilis
Ammannia Senegalensis
Bacopa Colorata
Blyxa japonica
Eleocharis acicularis
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Hygrophila pinnatifida
Lobelia cardinalis
Ludwigia sp. Arcuata
Ludwigia sp. Atlantis
Ludwigia sp. Pantanal
Ludwigia sp. White
Marsilea quadrifolia
Pericaria SP Sao Paulo
Rotala sp. Green
Rotala sp. Sunset aka Ammania sulawesi
Rotala sp. Yao Yai
Rotala Macrandra sp. Narrow Leaf Japan Red


----------



## burr740

Good stuff @Subjected , looking forward to seeing how it goes. Nice bottles, lol. 

Oh and that's an incredible amount of P, why so much?


----------



## Subjected

burr740 said:


> that's an incredible amount of P, why so much?


The 4 leaf clover (Quadrifolia) eats PO4 like candy. I have to keep about 3ppm at all times or GSA appears. I did base all ppms off of your info though.


----------



## Surf

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by dukydaf View Post
> Bottom of the plant, look at that BBA ? Why so much growth, is it a micronutrient ?:


I wanted to reply to this earlier but I have been very busy with family maters: When you look at the nutrients in a plant leaf they are generally in a ratio between all the elements. Now there is some variation from plant to plant. In the wild the water will not have the nutrients in that ratio but with thousands of gallons of water available the plant will be able to get all the nutrients it needs and complete growth. Deficiencies in the wild are very rare. However in a tank the amount of water and the mineral content in it is fixed and deficiencies can easily show up. So in an aquarium we should try to match the nutrient levels in the water to what a plant needs so that it can complete growth. 

This bas is the main reference I have been using:
Macronutrients and Micronutrients

I is my understanding that the Burr micro mix was primarily made through trial and error. If we compare it to nutrient ratios in plants we find a rather good correlation between the micro nutrients with one exception, copper. The copper discrepancy is understandable. Many homes have copper pipes which can easily put 20ppb of copper in the water. My home has 58ppb in the tap water (I use RO water)

Now Lets compare this information with nutrient levels Dukydaf has posted.
1. the MN to FE ratio in the tank looks good
2.the ratio of MN and FE to boron doesn't look good 
3. For calcium ot magnesium the result are again not good. You should have about 2 times more calcium in the water compared to magnesium. Most GH boosters have 3 or 4 parts ca to 1 part mg. New York city water has a 3 to 1 ratio. This tank has 4 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. Calcium is seriously deficient.
4.and copper also looks deficient. This might not be a problem if you have copper plumbing.
5. No information on sulfur and chlorine is present in the table.

So in summary there calcium appears to be deficient and copper looks lowin the aquarium. 

My tank was in even worse with flourish comprehensive used as a micro fertilizer (at the manufactures recommended dose). Once the substrate lost its nutrients nothing would grow in the tank. Last month I made my own micro and within a week all the hair algae melted away. There is algae still on the glass but 2 Nerites are make great progress in removing it. So far every plant I have tried has grown. But I am not using CO2 so my growth rates are currently slow with no apparent deficiencies at this time. I am currently dosing Feat 0.1ppm, Mn at 0.5ppm, B an Zn at 0.02ppm, Cu 0.006ppm, Ni and Mo at 0.001ppm. My RO water has a TDS of 1ppm and I use a GH booster (3 to 1 Ca to Mg ratio) with NO3 dosed to 10ppm and PO4 at 1ppm.


----------



## dukydaf

Thank you for the detailed post. So you say ratios of B, Ca, Cu, (SO4 and Cl, possibly). Could you detail on the photos above which problems you attributed to the wrong ratios?
Which ratio would you say produced the wholes/dead patches in Anubias and Hygroryza?

Are you sure about Cu, at 0.135 it is pretty up there with the LD50 for some inverts. Very few Cu pipes around here, water report says 0.005 if I remember. How high would you recommend?


----------



## happi

all right, hopefully this one will clear some doubt and confusion, if you look at all the stuff i have posted in the beginning of thread, you will see i have posted pics with results and with certain dosing style and ratio. some people are keep on linking my lower trace dosing to toxicity, which is not the case at all, what i been trying to demonstrate is that when the ratio of trace/fe ca,mg, NPK are in correct order, you wont need to dose much as some people are dosing here, why we need to add more traces? the answer is because some already have rich ca,mg,NPK to begin with and this create the balance for some and works well and for some this balance could be way off where traces could be higher than ca,mg,NPK and this is where you will see issue to arise, other factor that interfere with the results are lightning, substrate, filter, sump, tap water parameter etc. some pointed out those results i get are for day or two isn't valid, but every time these results are repeated for long term and results were same every time, i have said before i have already done these experiments before many years ago and whatever am saying is not based on opinion but rather on the results that were produced.

here is the pic of Ludwigia Panantal, almost been a week since total dose of 2 N as proxy was dosed. is everything in the tank is perfect? No, some shows little smaller leaves but overall all plants showed positive results, what i learn from this? i need to improve what am doing wrong. compare the previous growth vs new one, previous one is in unbalanced and higher doses and new one in lower and balanced ratio


----------



## Surf

I didn't use the photographs. I used the table that lists what is in the water. Using photos to diagnose deficiencies is very problematic. The severity of the deficiency symptoms visible will depend on how fast the plants were growing and how fast the deficiency hit. In low tech tanks growth is slow enough that it can be hard to see any deficiencies. That was my experience with my tank growth gradually slowed over time and gradually plants stopped growing. I had no symptoms. The only the information I had was what was printed on the bottle of fertilizer I had. 

This hobby would be a lot simpler if we could by a test kit to measure all plant nutrients or if we could take a sample of the water to the local lab and get a full analysis done for $5. But we can't so we have to visually look for deficiencies or examine what we know is in the water. For my aquarium it is fairly easy now. It's not in the water or substrate (which is inert) so it must come from the fish food or from my fertilizer.

Most pictures of deficiencies are from high tech tanks with fast growth rates and rapid nutrient depletion. Furthermore the visual symptoms of deficiencies are often based on farm crops. Deficiency symptoms for plants that are not farmed are poorly documented or unknown. Some will have similar symptoms whiles others may not. 

As to copper I shouldn't have said deficient I made a mistake. i misread the number Sorry. However as to Copper readings. The number for my own home was obtained with a hanna instruments Cu color I meter. Its not from the water quality report. Most data in water quality reports for Copper is an average from homes not the water source. Basically the utility goes to homes and and takes a sample of the water flowing out of the tap. They then test the samples and and average the numbers and post the average in the report. Most water reports list the Cu range as zero to 1ppm. The same is done for lead readings. Other elements such as boron and sulfur don't come from pipes so those numbers are from the water sources. Other numbers are from materials the utility puts in the water to control pipe corrosion or to insure the water is safe to drink such as chlorine. 

Based on data I have looked at the most likely toxic level for copper is probably around 0.035ppm Cu. So in my opinion you shouldn't go higher than that. When I set up my aquarium I really didn't know anything about copper. But since my water was hard and I had a RO system i use RO water. I didn't worry about it until I had a copper deficiency (no copper in the fertilizer I was using at the time). Then I had to learn about it. For most fertilizer ingredients the toxic levels for animals will be dependent on the chemical used and PH. And that data is hard to find on the web. Other levels in your water might be toxic.

When I made my own micro fertilizer I started by setting the levels a a ratio that was close to what is in most plants. Set an iron level that was consistent with what other people were ding for Fe DTPA (which I had never used before). After doing the calculations Everything was at a much higher level than what was in Flourish comprehensive but was generally at levels that I felt were safe based on earlier research I did. And I was pleasantly surprised when I found the ratios were close to what Tom Burr was using.


----------



## burr740

happi said:


> when the ratio of trace/fe ca,mg, NPK are in correct order, you wont need to dose much as some people are dosing here,


Would you mind posting the correct order everything should be in? Im sure many folks would like to try it.



happi said:


> why we need to add more traces? the answer is because some already have rich ca,mg,NPK to begin with and this create the balance for some and works well


Unlimiting macros will certainly call for more traces/Fe. And vice versa.



happi said:


> and for some this balance could be way off where traces could be higher than ca,mg,NPK and this is where you will see issue to arise,


Who doses more traces than macros?



happi said:


> other factor that interfere with the results are lightning, substrate, filter, sump, tap water parameter etc.


Of course, which is partly the reason some folks need more dosing than others. What I never understand is why you have such an issue with people dosing higher levels. If they have healthy plants whats the problem? 

What we do not want in this thread is EI haters nagging folks for trying higher levels, just because it fits some weird personal agenda. 

If you have a solution, please share it with the rest of us in detail so everyone can try it if they want to. 

Do that instead of just telling people their system is broke. That's you're go-to explanation for why higher micros are favorable to some people.

I have no agenda, dont care what levels grow plants best. Ive spent the better part of 3 years trying low to very low levels and getting mixed results. Now Im trying higher levels and seeing much better growth. 




happi said:


> some pointed out those results i get are for day or two isn't valid,
> but every time these results are repeated for long term and results were same every time, i have said before i have already done these experiments before many years ago and whatever am saying is not based on opinion but rather on the results that were produced.


Sounds wonderful. Again please share the exact routine. My apologies if you've posted it already, lots of info itt to sift through



happi said:


> here is the pic of Ludwigia Panantal,


Healthy Pantanal is orange and the leaves are wide and flat. The one you posted has needle like leaves. It looks more like a wallichii stem than pantanal. Its not stunted but its clearly coming from a low nutrient environment. 

This is what healthy Pantanal looks like











Bottoms













Surf said:


> After doing the calculations Everything was at a much higher level than what was in Flourish comprehensive but was generally at levels that I felt were safe based on earlier research I did. And I was pleasantly surprised when I found the ratios were close to what Tom Burr was using.


One thing to remember is according to Seachem, Flourish Comp is designed to be used along with Fourish Trace. Its not really meant to be a stand alone source for micros.

Here's the ppm ratio you'd get from both by following the directions

Comp - Trace - Both

Fe - .07 - 0 = .07 ppm
Mn - .002 - .0056 = .0076 ppm
B - .0019 - .0018 = .0037
Zn - .00015 - .0111 = .01125
Mo - .0002 - .00019 = .00039
Cu - .00002 - .0021 = .0021
Ni - 0 - .000002

Lets kill some of those zeros, here's the total from both in ppb

Fe - 70
Mn - 7.6
B - 3.7
Zn - 11.25
Mo - .39
Cu - 2.1
Ni - .002

This is pure speculation but I have to think they know Fe gluconate doesnt stick around very long, which is why the Fe:Mn ratio is so big. Possibly the same reason they use so much Zn too

...or perhaps Im just giving them way too much credit.


----------



## Edward

Surf said:


> ... I am currently dosing Fe at 0.1ppm, Mn at 0.5ppm, B an Zn at 0.02ppm, Cu 0.006ppm, Ni and Mo at 0.001ppm.





Surf said:


> ... And I was pleasantly surprised when I found the ratios were close to what Tom Burr was using.


I find some experiments difficult to follow or replicate. Are you referring to Mix 11.15?
Thanks


----------



## dukydaf

happi said:


> when the ratio of trace/fe ca,mg, NPK are in correct order, you wont need to dose much as some people are dosing here, why we need to add more traces? the answer is because some already have rich ca,mg,NPK to begin with and this create the balance for some and works well and for some this balance could be way off where traces could be higher than ca,mg,NPK and this is where you will see issue to arise


Your explanation sounds a lot like Liebling’s law of minimum. You are right, you are able to grow plants with very little, jumping from one deficiency to the other or always keeping the same deficiency. I also suspect some limiting nutrients do not produce visible side-effects or produce desirable patterns ( variegated growth, red growth) unless severely deficient. In other words, provide the plants just enough to survive and multiply their cells. When going so low, ratios become more important in determining what you will run out of. For example, having plenty of everything but 0 Mg will result in white leaves on that S. repens. But limit to low P or N and you might get by with low Mg or traces. But what if you had more than ALL plants could consume in the water at any point, being metabolically or light limited? Would the ratio of macros to micros be as important? I think we already discussed this. Just another view point as I said, plants adapt. 


happi said:


> if you are in well balanced ratio, your plant will equally use those needed nutrients and immediately stop growing once any of those nutrients runs out, but they will not grow much unless same repeated dose is added again, any unbalanced ratio will result in either deficiency or weird growth.


Thanks Surf for the answer. You seem to have gained a great deal of knowledge and experience. Given that you also adjusted the micros for improved growth you must have seen some symptoms that determined those adjustments. 



Surf said:


> I didn't use the photographs. I used the table that lists what is in the water. Using photos to diagnose deficiencies is very problematic.


Fair, but remember, the purpose of this thread is to compare microdosing and the results we get based on photos. Then adjust according to the observations. 


Surf said:


> The severity of the deficiency symptoms visible will depend on how fast the plants were growing and how fast the deficiency hit.


I would say holes in the leaves and white leaves are quite severe symptoms. I also offer you slow (Anubias) and medium (Persicaria) and fast (Hygroryza), so you have the entire gamut to pick from. All the problems progressed over 1-3 days.


Surf said:


> In low tech tanks growth is slow enough that it can be hard to see any deficiencies... Most pictures of deficiencies are from high tech tanks with fast growth rates and rapid nutrient depletion.


As I said this is a high tech tank, this should make it easier as you said: fast growth, rapid depletion, lots of pics already available. I think the demanded details are there. Do you think it is now possible to narrow your belief to what caused the symptoms ? This is not directed just at Surf or Greggz, feel free to join based on the presented data, articles, books, experience etc.
I will also add that I used Ca from CaCl2*2H2O and Mg and (most) traces from SO4 compounds. The ratio may be weird but with GH of 9 I do not feel I am running short on these 2. Fe was EDTA and gluc (less than 10%). 



Surf said:


> As to copper I shouldn't have said deficient I made a mistake. i misread the number Sorry. However as to Copper readings. Based on data I have looked at the most likely toxic level for copper is probably around 0.035ppm Cu. So in my opinion you shouldn't go higher than that. For most fertilizer ingredients the toxic levels for animals will be dependent on the chemical used and PH.


Yes, I also suspect that Cu is more than what is necessary but the mix is already done and the berried RCS with this level of Cu, pH below 6.4 and KH of 3 seem to be a good point against many threads you will read on shrimp forums. Also, this is not just short term dosing, they have been breading in the aquarium like rabbits with this dosing for some time. Most studies argue that Cu is less toxic with higher KH. So if I understand you correctly, you actually meant high Cu. So to reiterate, BBA was most likely due to stupid mistake resulting in decaying fish, for the rest until now I have the following suggestions: Fe:B ratio, high Cu, low Zn, Ca:Mg ratio, maybe SO4 and Cl. Anyone care to add or support one over the other ? Where should I begin ?

The relevant photos again 
Anubias leaf damage, what did this ? : 

Look at that blue spots on this plant. What nutrient is missing or what is happening? Notice it is pretty new growth. 

What caused the white leaf in this Persicaria sp. ?




burr740 said:


> If you have a solution, please share it with the rest of us in detail so everyone can try it if they want to.


Here is some experimental dosing he shared:
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...8-custom-micro-mix-thread-6.html#post10671042
He also shared his dosing as an image in another post I believe, saying we should not share it or something to that effect. I have it on a notebook at home.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> Would you mind posting the correct order everything should be in? Im sure many folks would like to try it.


the post with his recipe:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-custom-micro-mix-thread-46.html#post10823809

the micro ratios are close to what @Surf had linked
Macronutrients and Micronutrients

Fe:Mn 1:0.5
Fe:B:Zn 1:0.2:0.2
Fe:Cu 1:0.06
Fe:Mo:Ni 1:0.001:0.001


----------



## Whysoserious

dukydaf said:


> The relevant photos again


Are these old photos from the plants that have since recovered, or are they current photos?
Manganese would be my first attempt at remedy, and it looks like you're ensuring sufficient supply of Mn also. If these are current photos, I'd throw in more K first (for synergy).

Bit hard to advise with a lack of experience with your tank, but a fun game nonetheless.


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> the post with his recipe:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-custom-micro-mix-thread-46.html#post10823809





dukydaf said:


> Here is some experimental dosing he shared:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...8-custom-micro-mix-thread-6.html#post10671042
> He also shared his dosing as an image in another post I believe, saying we should not share it or something to that effect. I have it on a notebook at home.


Right, thanks.

Ive seen those two which are quite different ratio wise. Here they are for comparison

















The routine I wanted to see is the tried and true produces the same results for many years routine mentioned here -



happi said:


> when the ratio of trace/fe ca,mg, NPK are in correct order, you wont need to dose much as some people are dosing here,





happi said:


> every time these results are repeated for long term and results were same every time, i have said before i have already done these experiments before many years ago and whatever am saying is not based on opinion but rather on the results that were produced.


Which routine is this, precisely? What is the correct order of everything that requires less dosing?


----------



## happi

burr740 said:


> Right, thanks.
> 
> Ive seen those two which are quite different ratio wise. Here they are for comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The routine I wanted to see is the tried and true produces the same results for many years routine mentioned here -
> 
> 
> 
> Which routine is this, precisely?


you do not understand that i test and tested multiple recipe and that was one of them and it did not work well as expected, am sure i have posted the results somewhere. now since you posted that for comparison, the lower micro one was working much better in some of the recent pics i just posted, which is several times lower in term of traces compare to macros, in the other pic, it wasn't, that is exactly the point, am glad you posted it by yourself. you really want to test this to prove it to your self, go ahead keep the micro the same or raise them, reduce the NPK, Ca and Mg, you will get your results, i challenge you on this one.

you can certainly use different ratio for micro to grow plants, but you will get mixed results and those results will be out of optimum Zone, for example: Zn 1 and B 2 vs Zn 2 and B 1, both will grow plant but as this ratio grows higher and higher, it will grow plant equally well as some issues at the same time. another example Zn 0.1 and B 0.2 vs Zn 0.2 and B 0.1, in this case plant will continue to do better without much issue as ppm are much lower, but eventually lead to issue down the road even with multiple water changes, the issue will be resolved again once the PPM number are very low again and it will repeat again. when the plant are in opium ratio, you can avoid doing much water changes, because there wont be any buildup. 

here's tanks with several's months to a year for experimental setup
Tank #1 EDTA/DTPA weekly dose
N	1.363
P	0.1
K	1
Mg	0.4
S	0.925
B	0.004
Cu	0.006
Fe	0.07
Mn	0.04
Mo	0.004
Zn	0.001






Tank #2 So4/DTPA weekly dose
N	1.363
P	0.1
K	1
Mg	0.4
S	0.925
B	0.004
Cu	0.006
Fe	0.07
Mn	0.04
Mo	0.004
Zn	0.001





oh BTW, i can grow panantal with very large leaves if i want to, all i have to do is change the NO3 and Urea/NH4 ratio to higher urea/NH4 ratio, am known for growing panantal very well

and here is the tank with extreme dosing, almost 1 ppm Fe from Miller Microplex






you said you had issue with it, well there you have it, grown under both conditions. 
and here is what happen when the ratio gets broken or improper ratio, take a look at the last picture of panantal, which appear to show lack of Zn and B when all traces are preset in much higher ppm vs the other one, it should not do that because it used the same ratio mentioned in tank #1 and #2, but it did not occur in the precious pic i posted of panantal, when i would expect that to happen in that pic due to very low traces, the reason being is possibly close to optimum levels of all ratio, does Tank #1 and #2 had optimum? most likely not even though it grew plant very well, how would i have correct it? just like seen in the previous post, but not by raising the B and Zn alone, this is the only best way i could describe it. 

my final thought: i gave very much importance to ratio for long term success, which will reduce the outcome of being failure in term of plant, fish shrimps etc, not only that, but we can reduce the water changes as well due to balanced uptake of Nutrients, i think what people arguing here is that, only higher traces, higher this or that is the only way to succeed, like i said it will defiantly work for some, but not all, my Zn and B is an good example to this. in another word, if you are using Fe 1, Mn 0.5 vs Fe 0.1, Mn 0.05, the results very well be the same if your NPK, Ca, Mg are already at higher levels, but risk of stunt growth and other issues will always be there with Fe 1, Mn 0.5, using this example, because you just broke the importance of Ratio. on the other hand some ratio that are unbalanced will not have serious affect on plants overall health unless they are in very very low amount, in this case micro deficiency will appear very quickly, raising the unbalanced ratio will definitively grow plants in this case but not as you would expect, raising it further will improve things because now something that was low is usable by plants now, but this will only work temporally and you will be changing water more often to fix the issue. 

the optimum ratio i have used in the previous post is written by scientist and very well tested by group of people that i know of, they all had similar issue once they break that ratio, BTW we dont really just test one ratio and call it success, we had to do multiple different ratio to come to decent conclusion, the ratio posted earlier was one of the most successful one, does that mean we have the exact ratio that is 100% guarantee to work for all, the answer is NO, can we improve it or modify it little bit, sure, do we need to, most likely not, unless your parameter are not favorable to begin with. i hope this is my last post in this thread, i need to focus on other things too.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

@happi out of curiosity have you tried running the So4/DTPA weekly dose routine on Tank #1? and if you have, any differences in growth?


----------



## Surf

> One thing to remember is according to Seachem, Flourish Comp is designed to be used along with Fourish Trace. Its not really meant to be a stand alone source for micros.


This is not mentioned on the bottle. On the web page in the lower right corner you will find under resources "dosing calendar and only there will you find flourish trace mentioned. I think Flourish comprehensive was developed with tap water (which may have been rich in nutrients) But when used with RO/DI water it simply isn't close to having enough. When EI dosing became popular they developed the dosing calendar to encourage people to continue to use there products. From what I have seen Most people using flourish comprehensive are not using trace with it.




> I find some experiments difficult to follow or replicate. Are you referring to Mix 11.15?


Edward, I was at the time comparing it to V5.15 greggs listed on the first page on the thread. I know Tom has created other versions but I don't know which page shows version 11.15 and there are simply too many posts here to find it quickly.

Note on your circular graph no scale is listed for each line and from the shape of the graph each nutrient appears to be scaled differently. I think your graph would be more helpful if the center of the graph is zero and the outermost band being 0.3ppm flor all the nutrients. Simply looking at your graph it appears that I am dosing more Mn than iron which is not the case. 



> Given that you also adjusted the micros for improved growth you must have seen some symptoms that determined those adjustments.


No symptoms. Just algae covered plants that refused to grow. I had macro deficiencies in the past which also showed no symptoms When the macros were right and the substrate still had some nutrients the tank did well but as the substate depleted (which I wasn't aware at the time) the growth gradually slowed and then stopped. I quickly confirmed I didn't have another macro deficiency so the problem must be the micros. But nothing I could see (which was only algae covered plants which were not growing)indicated the cause of the problem. 

I have so far only made one batch of micro fertilizer. I will have to make some soon but the only changes planned are:
1. Removing chlorine from my GH booster and replacing it with sodium chloride (Cl at 0.1ppm) in the micros.
2. Switching from Sodium borate to boric acid. Sodium borate must be dosed separately from the sulfate. If the sodium reacts with the sulfate most Mn, Zn,Cu they will precipitate out in the bottle.
3. I want to put shrimp back in the tank so I will be adding potassium iodide to the micro (I at 0.01ppm). I had a iodine deficiency show up in the past with shrimp (symptom no activity or minimal movement of the shrimp). I resolved it in the past quickly by adding iodine.



> Would you mind posting the correct order everything should be in? Im sure many folks would like to try it.


I use the following based on this web site:
http://http://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/macronut.htm
Plant nutrient ratios:
Macros
N=1
K =N *0.666
Ca=N*0.333
Mg=N*0.1333
P=N*0.1333
S=N*0.0666
CL=N*0.00666

Note Fe=Cl

Micros
Fe=1
B=Fe*0.20
Mn=Fe*0.50
Zn=Fe*0.20
Cu=Fe*0.060
Mo=Fe*0.001
Ni=Fe*0.001

Note Fe=Cl

It's similar to Happi's but I separated it into a macro and micro ratio list. Plants need about the same amount of Cl as Fe so a Macro calculation can be extended down to the micro list or a micro calculate could be extended to to the macros.


----------



## burr740

@happi , thanks for the info. If you could answer the following questions it would help folks test this out

"Tank #1 EDTA/DTPA weekly dose" - does this mean Fe is all dtpa and the other micros are edta, or what exactly? Plz include Mg

Where is the Ca? Or to put it differently because I remember you have some in the tap or whatever, what should the ratio be? Since you are promoting the idea that ratio is so important, and Ca is a critical nutrient known for interaction with, and its effect on other things, I would assume having Ca in the proper ratio is very important too. What should it be?

What is the KH and PH levels these ratios were applied at. Or does it matter?

Is the substrate aquasoil or what? Pic with the stauro looks like aquasoil.

I understand those are weekly totals. Is it dosed one time per week, daily or what? Does it matter?

When you say N is that all from urea or NH4 or what exactly? Is there any NO3 in the mix?

Those are curious levels of Cu. Ive never seen a study or product with so much compared to other stuff. But if you say so...



happi said:


> i think what people arguing here is that, only higher traces, higher this or that is the only way to succeed


Literally nobody is arguing that. 



happi said:


> if you are using Fe 1, Mn 0.5 vs Fe 0.1, Mn 0.05, the results very well be the same if your NPK, Ca, Mg are already at higher levels, but risk of stunt growth and other issues will always be there with Fe 1, Mn 0.5, using this example, because you just broke the importance of Ratio.


So just to be clear, assuming ratio is the critical factor, should Cu be increased x10 to .06 as well dosing .1 Fe? How about the other micros?

What is the ceiling where this ratio fails to work? I assume .01 Fe is the floor?



happi said:


> the optimum ratio i have used in the previous post is written by scientist and very well tested by group of people that i know of, they all had similar issue once they break that ratio,


Got a name for the scientist or a link to the paper? Would love to read more about it.
----------

Personally I cant put much faith in ratios at this point, except for one or two that might be important to keep in a general range like Fe:Mn, Ca:Mg:k, possibly N

Marshner was the last ratio I saw that was supposed to be the latest best thing ever, at least according to Marcel and his wallichii experiments. 

I tried Marshner ratio for micros, both at the same ppms and higher amounts using the same ratio. My friend @Saxa Tilly (Pikez on Barr report) tried it for every single compound right down to the KH in his 180 gal Dutch. Things quickly went south for both of us.

As been mentioned before there are so many variables that affect how much or how long various compounds are available to plants once they are added to our aquarium water (another reason soil studies cant always apply) For ratio to be such a critical factor, everything would need to remain present and available for the same amount of time. Which just isnt going to happen, and especially will not be the same for everyone under different parameters. 

As soon as one thing precipitates out of solution or becomes unavailable, say from PH levels - the ratio goes out the window. Whats in the bottle to begin with no longer matters. 

Chelated Zn vs non-chelated Zn is a good example. Although I havent tried using chelated Zn in the custom blend, logic would dictate that the custom blend could get by with far less Zn if it was chelated. Yet according to happi's ratio, the same level should be applied for both SO4 and edta versions (pending his answer to the question above)

When first starting the custom blends and noticing <what appeared to be> B and Zn deficiencies. Adding more of those two helped. And it helped for good once a certain level was reached. 

Ive seen the same effect with just about every other nutrient, NO3, Fe, whatever. Once you have plenty actually making it to the plants, what the other nutrients do is not so important. Just as long as there are no short slats on Leibig's barrel 

I dont always agree with Tom Barr when it comes to some things, but he know a helluva lot more than most folks and has said many many times that ratios dont matter. All that matters is having enough of something. On this I agree 100% and its based on personal experience. 

But Im willing to listen, and would be positively thrilled if there was such a thing as a magical ratio for everything. 

I'd love to see somebody put happi's ratio theory to the test. Personally Im going in another direction which is offering good results and not about to rock the boat to such a degree.

Although if happi is correct, things should be going south for me any minute now due to improper ratio. So maybe in the near future... 

If anyone does try it out please post the results or give us a link to read about it.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

@burr740 

you're still using this mix 6x a week right?:


this the only update i have so far from about 3 weeks (started feb 5th?) of the above recipe

Java fern looking a lil pale, unless javafern is supposed to be like that. Waiting on my Seneye Reef Monitor to come in to measure the PAR up there and my JBL Freshwater Mg to check on Mg levels. I have a suspicion my Mg might be really low.


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> @*burr740*
> 
> you're still using this mix 6x a week right?:
> 
> 
> this the only update i have so far from about 3 weeks (started feb 5th?) of the above recipe
> 
> Java fern looking a lil pale...


Wow, yeah Id say that java fern is definitely lacking something! LOL (or maybe you just have bad ratios  )


I changed micros about a week ago. The daily .2 was working well but since increasing macros about 5 weeks ago, so many things got dramatically better as I went higher with NO3 and K (P not so much), now I suspect .2 Fe probably isnt needed. 

I really didnt see any improvement going from .15 to .2, although nothing got worse either. The whole macro thing leads me to believe that micros, at least Fe, probably didnt need to be increased so much.

So now that macros seem to be settled on a more favorable level (granted its only been a couple of weeks dosing the latest) Im going back down to .15 ppm Fe, Mn adjusted for 2:1, everything else left basically the same or a little less. 

This will be roughly the same mix Greggz, Chlorophile, Immortal and several other people are currently running with only minor changes

Fe - .15
Mn - .7
B - .28
Zn - .6
Mo - .0015
Cu - .001 (accounting for some in the tap)
Ni - .0005

Macros are 3x per week with a 1.5x dose after water change
KNO3 - 10 ppm
P -1 ppm

Also at water change is 5 ppm Mg and 7.5 ppm K2SO4

Updated -


----------



## Greggz

Hey folks just want to take a step back, and address an issue several here might be wondering about.

For those that are not familiar with Happi, for many years he and his posse have been suggesting that every problem in every planted tank is the result of too many micros. They used to call it Micro toxicity. So began the micro tox wars. At it’s peak, he and his little group were dropping into 10 threads here a day and diagnosing every tank with micro tox. The LOL funny part that escaped them was that some of these folks were not dosing ANY micros. That didn’t slow them down.

It go so out of control that some were banned from the site (and others) for life. Just trying to put some of this latest discussion into context. Funny thing is I have never seen him discuss lighting, CO2 levels, substrates, flow, tank maintenance, etc. etc. etc. Every discussion ends the same way……..every evil is micro tox.

This was his first post directed at me early in this thread.



happi said:


> i normally don't like to make people feel bad about their tanks, but i have to judge the tank based on how the plant health looks, first thing i notice is certain plant leaves are twisted and burnt looking, i also notice the lack of colors on certain plants, please do share more close up pics if you are not offended by my post.


I ignored it, as I know where it would lead. Just recently he posted the following.



happi said:


> BTW most of you guys still need to work on your plants, people who are testing micros here, most of the plants still look terrible which i did not mention before, Ludwigia panantal is the worse i have seen.


I am pretty certain this was directed at me, as Burr740 and I are the only ones who posted picture of Pantanal in this thread. Here is the pic I am pretty sure he is referring to.









And here's one with the Pantanal in the background from this past weekend.









Do I claim it’s perfect? No. Always trying to improve. Now when my wife sit down in the den on a Friday, enjoying a glass of wine and talking about life, all I can say is that it makes me happy.

In my opinion, a singular focus on ferts is not helpful to many here. There are so many other things that need to be going right before fine tuning ferts will make a significant difference. The idea that Happi has a recipe that magically makes every tank perfect is holding out false hope for most. There are a number of other things that are equally, if not more, important. Call it the holistic approach.

And unfortunately, I’ve seen so many threads that Happi and his posse get involved in degenerate so quickly that they get locked. Then come the suspensions. I thought by now he might be exhausted by extolling the virtues of his one trick pony, but no it continues.

So anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, and to help people who don’t understand the context of what is going on here.


----------



## Edward

Surf said:


> Edward, I was at the time comparing it to V5.15 greggs listed on the first page on the thread. I know Tom has created other versions but I don't know which page shows version 11.15 and there are simply too many posts here to find it quickly.





Surf said:


> ... I am currently dosing Fe at 0.1ppm, Mn at 0.5ppm, B an Zn at 0.02ppm, Cu 0.006ppm, Ni and Mo at 0.001ppm.





Surf said:


> ... And I was pleasantly surprised when I found the ratios were close to what Tom Burr was using.





Surf said:


> Note on your circular graph no scale is listed for each line and from the shape of the graph each nutrient appears to be scaled differently. I think your graph would be more helpful if the center of the graph is zero and the outermost band being 0.3ppm flor all the nutrients. Simply looking at your graph it appears that I am dosing more Mn than iron which is not the case.


Having more Mn than Fe in your mix is what I wanted to ask you about. 

I use charts because I find them more understandable than tons of words describing positions. Thank you for suggesting improvements, I am listening, I also want to make them better. The centre is zero and the outermost band is to fit the data inside for readability. Scaling each ion is also for readability, see attached no scaled chart, pretty useless. It is because of concentration differences between Fe and Ni for example. 

The ion levels are irrelevant as long as they are scaled equally in both mixes. What matters is the difference between the same ions the two mixes have in relationship to the whole mix. 

To interpret the attached chart describing the difference between your mix and Mix 5.15, your mix has unusually high Mn and somewhat Cu as well. Ni is missing in Mix 5.15, no data. 

See modified chart where Mn is lowered 10x to 0.05 and Cu 5x to 0.0012. Your mix now looks just like the Mix 5.15, no Ni.


----------



## dukydaf

@Edward,if you really want to get closer to a scientific graph instead of good looking here are some more suggestions :

the lines between the nutrients serve no purpose, they should be removed.

Each concentric heptagon needs a number showing the conc at that level otherwise they serve no purpose and should be removed

The problem of varying conc. of more than 100x is easily solved by. applying log(10) to all the numbers, this is pretty standard procedure in scientific graphs.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> Wow, yeah Id say that java fern is definitely lacking something! LOL (or maybe you just have bad ratios  )
> 
> 
> I changed micros about a week ago. The daily .2 was working well but since increasing macros about 5 weeks ago, so many things got dramatically better as I went higher with NO3 and K (P not so much), now I suspect .2 Fe probably isnt needed.
> 
> I really didnt see any improvement going from .15 to .2, although nothing got worse either. The whole macro thing leads me to believe that micros, at least Fe, probably didnt need to be increased so much.
> 
> So now that macros seem to be settled on a more favorable level (granted its only been a couple of weeks dosing the latest) Im going back down to .15 ppm Fe, Mn adjusted for 2:1, everything else left basically the same or a little less.
> 
> This will be roughly the same mix Greggz, Chlorophile, Immortal and several other people are currently running with only minor changes
> 
> Fe - .15
> Mn - .7
> B - .28
> Zn - .6
> Mo - .0015
> Cu - .001 (accounting for some in the tap)
> Ni - .0005
> 
> Macros are 3x per week with a 1.5x dose after water change
> KNO3 - 10 ppm
> P -1 ppm
> 
> Also at water change is 5 ppm Mg and 7.5 ppm K2SO4
> 
> Updated -


wait 0.75 Mn? or did you forget a zero and meant 0.075?


----------



## happi

Greggz said:


> Hey folks just want to take a step back, and address an issue several here might be wondering about.
> 
> For those that are not familiar with Happi, for many years he and his posse have been suggesting that every problem in every planted tank is the result of too many micros. They used to call it Micro toxicity. So began the micro tox wars. At it’s peak, he and his little group were dropping into 10 threads here a day and diagnosing every tank with micro tox. The LOL funny part that escaped them was that some of these folks were not dosing ANY micros. That didn’t slow them down.
> 
> It go so out of control that some were banned from the site (and others) for life. Just trying to put some of this latest discussion into context. Funny thing is I have never seen him discuss lighting, CO2 levels, substrates, flow, tank maintenance, etc. etc. etc. Every discussion ends the same way……..every evil is micro tox.
> 
> This was his first post directed at me early in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored it, as I know where it would lead. Just recently he posted the following.
> 
> 
> I am pretty certain this was directed at me, as Burr740 and I are the only ones who posted picture of Pantanal in this thread. Here is the pic I am pretty sure he is referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one with the Pantanal in the background from this past weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I claim it’s perfect? No. Always trying to improve. Now when my wife sit down in the den on a Friday, enjoying a glass of wine and talking about life, all I can say is that it makes me happy.
> 
> In my opinion, a singular focus on ferts is not helpful to many here. There are so many other things that need to be going right before fine tuning ferts will make a significant difference. The idea that Happi has a recipe that magically makes every tank perfect is holding out false hope for most. There are a number of other things that are equally, if not more, important. Call it the holistic approach.
> 
> And unfortunately, I’ve seen so many threads that Happi and his posse get involved in degenerate so quickly that they get locked. Then come the suspensions. I thought by now he might be exhausted by extolling the virtues of his one trick pony, but no it continues.
> 
> So anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, and to help people who don’t understand the context of what is going on here.



did you even ever read anything that i have written? doesn't seems that way, to me it appear as you are looking for a reason and excuses to disrespect me, so you want to judge me based on something that was written few months ago which also does play its own role in plants? you keep on repeating about Micro toxicity and make it sound like am the founder of it or something, do you even know anything about it? do you even know anything about how we came to that? did you even see what am opinion is about that now? did you even read more about maybe you should read my stuff more carefully where you will find good enough information to atleast improve that panantal, if you already dosing enough which i think you are,i would have expected good normal growth. maybe you should read my previous post carefully, i have always stated no matter what recipe i or anyone will come up with, margin for error will always be there and room for improvement will always be there. good luck to you


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> wait 0.75 Mn? or did you forget a zero and meant 0.075?


Oops! yeah obviously thats supposed to be .075. I'll fix it when I get home to a PC

Edit: Done


----------



## Edward

happi said:


> ... here's tanks with several's months to a year for experimental setup
> Tank #1 EDTA/DTPA weekly dose
> N	1.363
> P	0.1
> K	1
> Mg	0.4
> S	0.925
> B	0.004
> Cu	0.006
> Fe	0.07
> Mn	0.04
> Mo	0.004
> Zn	0.001


Why would anybody find this experiment upsetting? It is no fake, it is pretty doable. Look at the levels per day and tell me why should this approach be impossible?

N 0.1947
P 0.0143
NO3 0.8571
PO4 0.0443
K 0.1429
Mg 0.0571
Ca
S 0.1321
Cl

Fe 0.01
Mn 0.00571
B 0.00057
Zn 0.00014
Mo 0.00057
Cu 0.00086
Ni


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Edward said:


> Why would anybody find this experiment upsetting? It is no fake, it is pretty doable. Look at the levels per day and tell me why should this approach be impossible?
> 
> NO3 0.8571
> PO4 0.0443


These two would kill me before a weeks end due to a macro deficiency.>
Some weeks need 1 or 2 (2xEI doses) for macros and it's still gone end of week.

Disclaimer: I test these two items sometimes twice a week!


----------



## Chlorophile

A small interruption of the debate.. hope no one minds..
Got a quad t5 ho light for the tank.
Super bright tons of pearling.
One question, and I know it's not all that micro mix related.

Best tips on preventing BBA?
I already have some issues with it and now with probably 100+ par at the substrate I'm wanting to be cautious.
Turned co2 up even more.. hit a 6.2 pH today, fish seem fine, degassed is around 8 bust starting to question accuracy on this pH pen. Vivosun brand.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

Chlorophile said:


> A small interruption of the debate.. hope no one minds..
> Got a quad t5 ho light for the tank.
> Super bright tons of pearling.
> One question, and I know it's not all that micro mix related.
> 
> Best tips on preventing BBA?
> I already have some issues with it and now with probably 100+ par at the substrate I'm wanting to be cautious.
> Turned co2 up even more.. hit a 6.2 pH today, fish seem fine, degassed is around 8 bust starting to question accuracy on this pH pen. Vivosun brand.


how clean is your filter? cuz every time i have a mini bba bloom or if i see bba growing it's because i need to clean my sump. after that i just physicall remove what bba i can and then i kill the rest by spot dosing with glut.



Maryland Guppy said:


> These two would kill me before a weeks end due to a macro deficiency.>
> Some weeks need 1 or 2 (2xEI doses) for macros and it's still gone end of week.
> 
> Disclaimer: I test these two items sometimes twice a week!


 @Xiaozhuang / Dennis Wong doses at those levels iirc. think he had like 200 PAR at substrate, super low kH, think he had dirt and aqua soil though.

edit: found it. and by T5 he meant T5HO


----------



## Surf

I wrote earlier:


> So far every plant I have tried has grown. But I am not using CO2 so my growth rates are currently slow with no apparent deficiencies at this time. I am currently dosing Feat 0.1ppm, Mn at 0.5ppm, B an Zn at 0.02ppm, Cu 0.006ppm, Ni and Mo at 0.001ppm. My RO water has a TDS of 1ppm and I use a GH booster (3 to 1 Ca to Mg ratio) with NO3 dosed to 10ppm and PO4 at


Edward replied:


> To interpret the attached chart describing the difference between your mix and Mix 5.15, your mix has unusually high Mn and somewhat Cu as well. Ni is missing in Mix 5.15, no data.
> 
> See modified chart where Mn is lowered 10x to 0.05 and Cu 5x to 0.0012. Your mix now looks just like the Mix 5.15, no Ni.


Edward your comment led me to go back and check my earlier post. I forgot a zero for MN My Mn dose is not 0.5. It is 0.05 which is just like your third graph. So your third graph is what I saw when I compared my recipe with Tom's 5.15. And note my copper is higher since I and usingRO/DI water with a TDS of 1. Tom in comparison is using tap water which probably has some copper in it. So the copper difference is simply due the difference in water source. So in summary my dose is:
Fe 0.1
Mn0.05
B 0.02
Zn 0.02
Cu 0.006
Mo 0.001
Ni 0.001
Water RI/DI TDS=1
All Values in ppm.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

Surf said:


> I wrote earlier:
> 
> 
> Edward replied:
> 
> 
> Edward your comment led me to go back and check my earlier post. I forgot a zero for MN My Mn dose is not 0.5. It is 0.05 which is just like your third graph. So your third graph is what I saw when I compared my recipe with Tom's 5.15. And note my copper is higher since I and usingRO/DI water with a TDS of 1. Tom in comparison is using tap water which probably has some copper in it. So the copper difference is simply due the difference in water source. So in summary my dose is:
> Fe 0.1
> Mn0.05
> B 0.02
> Zn 0.02
> Cu 0.006
> Mo 0.001
> Ni 0.001
> Water RI/DI TDS=1
> All Values in ppm.


just to clarify, burr740 is not Tom Barr (think his username is plantbrain on here) lol.


----------



## Chlorophile

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> how clean is your filter? cuz every time i have a mini bba bloom or if i see bba growing it's because i need to clean my sump. after that i just physicall remove what bba i can and then i kill the rest by spot dosing with glut.
> 
> @Xiaozhuang / Dennis Wong doses at those levels iirc. think he had like 200 PAR at substrate, super low kH, think he had dirt and aqua soil though.
> 
> edit: found it. and by T5 he meant T5HO


Filter is cleaned frequently, hoses much less so..
Maybe I should clean those....


Also, really big fan of dennis wong! 
He does some very interesting stuff with the substrate, layering different rock and clay etc under the aquasoil so that he can use less. 
Here you can see in the bottom left how he has dirt layered under the aquasoil


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


>


Chlorophile the tank is looking great!

It looks like you are really getting somewhere.

Nice work and great pics.

BBA??? 9 times out of 10 tank maintenance, at least in my experience. But very little I see there.

Keep dosing and go a little extra uber clean.

Bump:


happi said:


> did you even ever read anything that i have written?


Yes Happi I have read every word.

And good luck to you as well.


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> just to clarify, burr740 is not Tom Barr (think his username is plantbrain on here) lol.


Its funny I get PMs on Barr Report from folks thinking Im Tom. WTH? Cant decide if Im flattered or offended

Second one in about a month (for etiquette sake I blacked out the username)


----------



## Immortal1

Chlorophile said:


> A small interruption of the debate.. hope no one minds..


Really like this pic for some reason! Will be interesting to see how things change with the different light


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Its funny I get PMs on Barr Report from folks thinking Im Tom. WTH? Cant decide if Im flattered or offended
> 
> Second one in about a month (for etiquette sake I blacked out the username)


Lol Tom Burr, Tom Barr.. its understandable I think!



Immortal1 said:


> Really like this pic for some reason! Will be interesting to see how things change with the different light


Thank you!
I was taken aback by the deepness of the reds on my L. sp Red. 
It seems odd that 6500k bulbs would make it so dramatically different... 
The kessil was apparently doing a good enough job of pushing the red growth, but not so much showing it, same with the AR mini and AR variegated, both suddenly had a ton of pop. and I could even notice red on the wallichi. 
Bacopa Colorata also is apparently bronze 4-5 leaves down! I could only ever see the bronze on the top two sets of leaves!
I am gonna run just these 4 bulbs for a while and try to get the CO2 dialed in for the new influx of lighting. 
Probably gonna have to do a big trim soon too because everything was already near the surface. 
If the coloration gets even better.. well then I will want to add a Geisemann Superflora and something with some more blue to counter it. 
Want to keep the CRI kinda accurate and just see how much natural pigmentation I can push. 












edit: P.S. I know your name isn't Tom, Burr! But I can understand the confusion lol.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

burr740 said:


> I tried Marshner ratio for micros, both at the same ppms and higher amounts using the same ratio. My friend @Saxa Tilly (Pikez on Barr report) tried it for every single compound right down to the KH in his 180 gal Dutch. Things quickly went south for both of us.



Yes, I tried Marschner ratios, based on the text book. 

After a couple of years of heavy duty nutrient testing, I finally read Marschner's plant nutrition book. At least 400 of the 600 pages. Even though the book is not about aquatic plants or more specifically, aquatic plants in closed systems growing under artificially high CO2 levels, there is still a lot in the book worth noting. 

The first thing the book did for me was take me out of the aquarium bubble and the EI bubble. I was really inspired to try the ratios listed in the book. The ratios are not cited as critical in fertilization, but it's what's found inside plant tissues. So the hypothesis was that if that's what's inside plants, then, well, we should feed plants the same ratio. That sounded so reasonable to me that I wondered why we weren't all doing that. 

Ultimately, the plan I tried was custom crafted by Marcel and his team of experts in Europe. Yes, that Marcel. Say what you will about him, but the guy is technically accurate and knows his stuff. I was closely following his research for a long time. Nobody does better plant nutrition research than his group. Their research is well-designed, clean, controlled, methodical and sadly, will probably not be published in the public domain for a long time. This is because there is great concern and sensitivity in the research group about making bold statements that later are proven wrong. I have to accept their decision. But they want to figure out all the mysteries and THEN publish the last word on the subject. 

I not only followed Marschner's trace ratios, but also did the whole ultra-low secondary dissolved substances (sulfates, chlorides, Na, Cl, HCO3 etc.) and ultra-low KH too, at under 0.5. 

The traces were dosed at:

Fe = 62 ppb
Mn = 30 ppb
B = 12 ppb
Zn = 11 ppb
Cu = 3 ppb
Mo = 0.05 ppb

It eventually did not work well in my tank because of several reasons including starting with unhealthy plants, aquasoil interference, etc. I didn't have any issues with the trace ratio, but the absolute level of Ca, Mg and possibly macros may have been too low given my tank's conditions. Started seeing Ca deficiency symptoms, which is typically really rare, that went away quickly when I reversed course. I stuck with the above for a month and finally abandoned it. 

I still think there is a lot of merit to this approach. I tried it. Joe tried it. Just because it did not work in our tanks' conditions does not mean that the approach is flawed. If someone in Marcel's group posts a guide on how someone might follow this approach, it'd be worth trying. You may have better luck. Even I might go back to it one day.

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Its funny I get PMs on Barr Report from folks thinking Im Tom. WTH? Cant decide if Im flattered or offended
> 
> Second one in about a month (for etiquette sake I blacked out the username)


Burr, why did you change the trace level on Rotala Butterfly?


----------



## Whysoserious

Plants have luxury consumption. Just because plant tissue might have 1:1 N:K, does not mean that the plant needs 1:1 N:K to live or thrive.

Tis a shame about Marcel's contribution to this forum, but I'll leave well enough alone for fear of upsetting those who fear science.


----------



## Chlorophile

AFAIK, about the only soil nutrient that correlates to plant tissue in a meaningful way is Nitrogen. 
We're not in a position to make those comparisons. 
We have very minimal roots and lots of photosynthetic tissue. 
If you analyze the ENTIRE terrestrial plant, it has a lot of roots. Nutrients in the roots vs other tissues are very different. 

For example, here is a soil test from my own yard. 









Soil iron is 86ppm.
That is considered low, I need more like 200ppm at this soil pH
My Exchangeable Hydrogen is only 1.5, everything is bound up because I have way too much Calcium in the soil, theres no room to alter the ions, at all.
I have been adding tons of iron to my soil for a few years, it barely creeps up. 
I haven't done a tissue analysis on my grass, but I guarantee you its not low on iron, because I add organic forms which it can take up, and they don't really show in the soil test. 
And if you apply foliar iron, you can feed the plant without feeding the soil. 

Are our plants not constantly being given a foliar treatment? 
How can the soil ratios/tissue ratios apply?

I don't really know where I'm going with this but basically ratios in soil vs plants dont match up, and if you are basing it off soil tests you are just adding an extra level of ridiculous if you ask me.

Look at my soil test, 8:1 cal-mag ratio.. super healthy grass. 
Probably not gonna work in the fishtank. 
Grass looks great


----------



## Surf

> It eventually did not work well in my tank because of several reasons including starting with unhealthy plants, aquasoil interference, etc. I didn't have any issues with the trace ratio, but the absolute level of Ca, Mg and possibly macros may have been too low given my tank's conditions. Started seeing Ca deficiency symptoms, which is typically really rare, that went away quickly when I reversed course. I stuck with the above for a month and finally abandoned it.


I tink I know what is going on with some of the different micro levels and why increasing phosphate dosing has caused problems that were reported earlier in the thread. It all relates to excess potassium and minimal sulfur and chlorine levels. When you dose KNO3 the K to N ratio is 1 but in the plant there is more nitrogen than potassium. So when the plant consumes N some excess potassium is left in the water potassium doesn't like to stay alone and will react 
first with CO2 to form carbonate, then S to form potassium sulfate, and then finally with chlorine to form potassium chloride. 

So if your water is low on sulfur or chlorine Manganese sulfate, zinc sulfate will be converted to oxides or carbonates. These intern may react with the boric acid forming insoluble manganese and inc borate which is insoluble. So too much potassium and not enough sulfur or chlorine can rapidly deplete micronutrients. This can be compensated for by using higher levels of micros

This is also why boric acid works better than sodium Borate. When I mad my first batch of micros I used sodium borate and mixed that with the other macros. The end result most of the micros precipitated out in the bottle as insoluble borates while the sodium turned into sodium sulfate which is soluble.

One thing that always puzzled me is that most fertilizers don't contain calcium. One reason I have read is that calcium sulfate when mixed with Mono Potassium sulfate will react to form potassium sulfate, and calcium phosphate which again is not soluble. Note sure if this is true since magnesium phosphate is also not soluble and yet Calcium and magnesium sulfates are frequently used.


----------



## Whysoserious

Surf said:


> One reason I have read is that


Ions have differing levels of affinity. This is the attraction between positive cations and negative anions.

Calcium nitrate has a divalent cation Ca++ (double positive charge) attached to two negative Nitrate anions (NO3-). Nitrate has a single charge, and thus there needs to be two nitrate ions attached to the double charged calcium ion. Calcium nitrate has a solubility of around 1.2Kg per liter.

Potassium Sulfate has two single charge potassium cations attached to the divalent sulfate anion. Potassium sulfate has a solubility around 120grams per liter.

When added to a solution the ions detach (dissolve into the solution) and float around in the solution. The solution maintains an equal charge (equal positive cations to negative anions), but the ions are free floating, so to speak. But when you have Calcium ions floating around and sulfate ions floating around, these ions like to attach to each also, and have a higher affinity (a higher attraction to each other) then Calcium and nitrate, or potassium and sulfate, or potassium and nitrate. 

The solubility of calcium sulfate is only around 2.4grams per liter. So if you add 500 grams of calcium nitrate and 100 grams of potassium sulfate to a solution, an equivalent amount of 2.4grams per liter of calcium sulfate will remain dissolved in the solution. The rest of the calcium and sulfate ions will bond and precipitate out of the solution due to their high affinity. This won't happen immediately, in other words, the entire amount won't precipitate immediately, but it will happen.

The same happens with every other ion.


----------



## Subjected

dukydaf said:


> What caused the white leaf in this Persicaria sp. ?


I have had this problem in the past. I usually dose an All in One solution. I mixed it a little hot one time. As in too much PO4 and Fe. They made FePO4 (Precipitated). Anyway not even 2 days later after dosing this mix this exact symptoms showed up in my Persicaria sp. I dumped the mix, made it again but separated bottles and symptom fixed itself for new growth. The affected leaves would not recover. 

@Chlorophile
BBA for me only appears if the Biofilter as in bacteria is off / disturbed. I have learned to keep the tank clean via vacuuming even if people say not too. Clean filters regularly including hoses. All my tanks have dual canisters so I clean one one week the other the next usually 2x month etc.

Steve

Bump: A little update. Been dosing the mix for a week tomorrow now. Almost all plants seem to be doing well especially my Blyxia, every plant has almost trippled in size and turned a bright Purplish red. Only one I can see that doesn't like this mix is my Rotala Sunset. It was a nice pink / purplish color. It is now a dark orangish red. Weard. 
Although because of the new dosing the ol GW came to visit in both tanks. Green Water. Guess its multiple water changes for me.


----------



## Surf

> Originally Posted by Surf View Post
> One reason I have read is that
> Ions have differing levels of affinity. This is the attraction between positive cations and negative anions.
> 
> Calcium nitrate has a divalent cation Ca++ (double positive charge) attached to two negative Nitrate anions (NO3-). Nitrate has a single charge, and thus there needs to be two nitrate ions attached to the double charged calcium ion. Calcium nitrate has a solubility of around 1.2Kg per liter.
> 
> Potassium Sulfate has two single charge potassium cations attached to the divalent sulfate anion. Potassium sulfate has a solubility around 120grams per liter.
> 
> When added to a solution the ions detach (dissolve into the solution) and float around in the solution. The solution maintains an equal charge (equal positive cations to negative anions)


I understood all of that a long time ago. Yes the solution maintains an equal charge after the fertilizers are add. However that is not the case after plants consume all the nitrate *and only some of the potassium*. The instant that happens the solution charge is no longer balanced. This causes a PH Changes and a new series of reactions until the solution charges rebalance. This rebalancing of charges in the solution results in some elements precipitating out of solution. And some of these may be the micros we are adding to the tank.


----------



## dukydaf

Subjected said:


> I have had this problem in the past. I usually dose an All in One solution. I mixed it a little hot one time. As in too much PO4 and Fe. They made FePO4 (Precipitated). Anyway not even 2 days later after dosing this mix this exact symptoms showed up in my Persicaria sp. I dumped the mix, made it again but separated bottles and symptom fixed itself for new growth. The affected leaves would not recover.


Thank you @Subjected for the input. You suggest it is a Fe or PO4 deficiency since both were taken out of solution. I guess other micros could also precipitate with PO4 in solution in high conc. 

Did you notice that in the newest leaves? Or were they already old.

I use separate mixes for N P K and micros, but deficiency is possible even if dosed separately.


Surf, listen to what @Whysoserious is saying. You have some very imaginative chemistry there, but most of it only happens at very high conc.(even then it is not 100%). PO4 and metal interaction is problematic in the dosing solution, but once in aquarium it is a lot less of a problem. Same for Ca.

To get a better view on the scale of things, to dose 100L with a 10mL dose and increase by 10mg/L you will make a solution with 100,000mg/L, so 10,000x higher concentration.


----------



## Whysoserious

Surf said:


> after plants consume all the nitrate *and only some of the potassium*....................This causes a PH Changes...........results in some elements precipitating out of solution. And some of these may be the micros we are adding to the tank.


The net problem is pH. That only relates to the charges* of the ions that form total alkalinity. The solution always has an equal charge of all ions.

*More correctly, the concentration of the various ions in relation to each other. The charge of the solution remains the same, but the balance of the concentration of the listed ions controls pH, which thus has an affect on the other ions in the solution.


----------



## Chlorophile

I know we add an acid to the Trace mix for various reasons but what about adding a heavy base and combining some macro and some micro into two solutions?
I wonder if some fertilizers might benefit from being stored at higher pH, maybe they would be more stable in the aquarium?

Just curious if they would have a different charge and if they might maintain that charge for a while?


----------



## Subjected

dukydaf said:


> Did you notice that in the newest leaves? Or were they already old.


New growth. I'm not sure which one it was PO4 or Fe or... 

Related to this in a way, is there or we should make a database of plant pic's with these weard deficiency symptoms? There is not very much info anywhere on actual Aquatic Plant Trace issues.


----------



## burr740

Whysoserious said:


> The net problem is pH. That only relates to the charges* of the ions that form total alkalinity. The solution always has an equal charge of all ions.
> 
> *More correctly, the concentration of the various ions in relation to each other. The charge of the solution remains the same, but the balance of the concentration of the listed ions controls pH, which thus has an affect on the other ions in the solution.


For you or anyone else that knows more about this stuff than I do, help me understand something

Lets say there's a concentration of X ppms in the water column for N, P, K, Ca, Mg, whatever else.

I add 15-20 ppm more Ca. How does this impact the availability of other nutrients? Or say 5-10 ppm of P is added, or 25 more K.

Does anything happen to, or between other nutrients in the water column, as far as availability goes?

I dont mean within the plant, competition between nutrients and that sort of thing.

What potentially happens in the water column? (Im familiar with the potential interaction between P and Fe, Zn, Cu. So I guess Im more specifically interested in the effects of K, Ca, and Mg, or anything else not mentioned) 


In other news, Pantanal is doing not too bad today



















Notice Persicaria pink behind it is somewhat askew. Micro related? Who knows, could be 100 different reasons


----------



## dukydaf

Boy, did this hot thread get chilly all of the sudden. Hot or cold, let me be the wind blowing over it, as I hear wind makes all things better. 

Allow me to show in summary how this thread looks to me:

*Background*
After some of us being chided for speaking too much theoretical babble and bringing in scientific studies, it was proposed that we focus on sharing our dosing and showing photos of the plants and tanks. 
Looking at the post again, I would sum up: 

*Goal:*
1)	help more people
2)	get closer to the goal of “a healthy tank with a colorful display of plants”
*Aim of the thread: *
1)	see if there might be a better solution of micronutrients than CSM+B

*Method:* 
1) foster discussion on micro dosing 
2) limit to only discussion of actual planted tanks
3) include details of tanks, dosing schedules, photos and observations

All very high and noble goals with a worthy aim. Keep them in mind, I will come back to them later.



Greggz said:


> this thread to foster discussion on micro dosing. As you know Burr740 began rolling his own, and when he offered I was glad to participate. The intention was to see if there might be a better solution than CSM+B, which could improve the growth and health of a planted tank.
> … I think that there is something missing…………the discussion of actual planted tanks. Many of the people involved in the deepest discussion here have never mentioned or shown a picture of their own tank(s).
> What I would encourage is that more people include details of their own tanks, including dosing schedules, photos, and any other information or observations that might help others. It just seems to me that what gets lost in all this discussion is actually keeping a planted tank.
> 
> For me, my goal is simple. A healthy tank, with a colorful display of plants that is aesthetically pleasing to my eye. If I get closer to the proper balance through experimentation (trial and error), it doesn’t really matter to me if my method can be scientifically proven to be correct. I just want a nice looking planted tank.
> I would guess the average person who drops in here sees a bunch a gobbledygook that they can’t relate to at all.
> 
> So please, show me your tanks, show me your plants, show me your dosing. Tell me what you have tried, and what you have observed. No it’s not perfect science, but I’m really interested in seeing and learning more about the experiences of others. I might be able to relate that to something in my tank, and I think it would be more helpful and interesting to a broader range of people.


*Test of the methods: *

Me, being a rule follower, used this suggestion for a very practical purpose and set up a little game. I put myself in the category of people that need help from all of you, from beginners to very knowledgeable and respected people in the hobby.
I included details of the tanks, dosing schedules and photos showing plants with damage. I also answered any questions asked about the plants and tanks honestly. Go to the Plants section and you will see deficiency posts with pretty much the same info and questions. There is one advantage over them, my dosing and aquarium details stayed the same for a long time

*Results: *
I will go photo by photo and show the relevant bits posted in the last week. 
Challenge


dukydaf said:


> Bottom of the plant, look at that BBA ? Why so much growth, is it a micronutrient ?:


Response


Greggz said:


> My first thought is kind of what I was getting to earlier, that ferts are only a slice of the pie.
> My first thought would be tank maintenance. I would vac the substrate, clean the filters, trim any dead or dying plants, perform at least one and more likely several water changes, double and triple check my CO2 injection, reevaluate my lighting intensity/duration, reduce plant mass in tank, create more room between species, pull/top/trim/replant any dense bushes, and in general get things uber clean.


Challenge


dukydaf said:


> Anubias leaf damage, what did this ? :


No specific answer received.


dukydaf said:


> Look at that blue spots on this plant. What nutrient is missing or what is happening? Notice it is pretty new growth.


No specific answer received.


dukydaf said:


> What caused the white leaf in this Persicaria sp. ?





Subjected said:


> New growth. I'm not sure which one it was PO4 or Fe


*General comments*


Whysoserious said:


> Manganese would be my first attempt at remedy, and it looks like you're ensuring sufficient supply of Mn also. If these are current photos, I'd throw in more K first (for synergy).





Surf said:


> 2.the ratio of MN and FE to boron doesn't look good
> 3. For calcium ot magnesium the result are again not good.
> 4.and copper also looks deficient.
> 5. No information on sulfur and chlorine is present in the table.
> 
> So in summary there calcium appears to be deficient and copper looks lowin the aquarium.
> I use the following based on this web site:
> http://http://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/macronut.htm





Surf said:


> I didn't use the photographs. I used the table that lists what is in the water. Using photos to diagnose deficiencies is very problematic…. As to copper I shouldn't have said deficient I made a mistake. ..so in my opinion you shouldn't go higher than that. When I set up my aquarium I really didn't know anything about copper.





Greggz said:


> I would not presume to know what caused your stunting. In the scheme of things, I am not qualified to diagnose others tanks. I have a hard enough time figuring mine out. That's why I am here trying to learn more.



*What really happened – Interpretation of results *
So, first let us look at what was said. The photos and dosing suggested adjustment to the following:
K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, B, P, general tank maintenance.

Quite a large variety I would say, but at least these members did their best to follow the rules of the thread and help people. Props to all of you. Now I am now seeking to discredit any of you, just showing how the method worked. 
Here is the actual reason why stuff may have happened, repeated and observed with strong correlation: 
1.	BBA 
What happened: Prefilter fell off, resulting in some fish and shrimps getting stuck in the canister filter and rotting there. Once they were removed BBA stopped proliferating, even without any water change.

2.	Anubias with holes. 
What happened: Dosed dry urea grains without pre-diluting and sufficient flow. The grains fell directly onto the leaves and dissolved there resulting in high local conc. of urea. The holes were observed the next morning on the exact same spots were the grains fell. They were at first dark green spots, then transparent and then holes which had a gradient. No new spots developed once urea was prediluted. Other stems also had localized melting at the base where urea grains fell. 

3.	Hygrorhiza with purple spots
What happened: This is a floating plant. Like many floating plants it hates water on the leaves and has developed special adaptations to deal with it. When I covered a part of my tank this plant developed purple spots overnight in the plants staying under the cover, while other plants stayed symptom free. Artificially placing water drops on the leaves under high intensity spot-LED light produced similar results. 

4.	Persicaria with white leaves
What happened: When I changed the water to the aquarium I run out of RO water the last mile. It took a while to fill it up again. Look again at the photo, the plant is semi-emersed ( front leaves are emersed). The leaves that were grown emersed did not have problems, the leaves that were in water did not have problems, the leaves that were grown submersed and were left in air longer turned white. Somehow, I kept them just enough to not dry them out completely. This happened to other Persicaria plants in the aquarium at the exact same level, like drawing a line. All the plants that were lower than the line had no problems at all. 

*Summary:* None of the images shown had anything to do with micronutrients. All the problems shown had to do with common occurrences that can happen in the lifetime of an aquarium. But when you look for evidence that it is a micronutrient problem, you will find them. 

*Discussion*
The purpose of this thread and all the knowledgeable people contributing is to help people and get closer to perfect plant health. I asked for help in identifying what produced the symptoms seen, with one exception we were not able to identify accurately why from the photographs or dosing described. 
Credit to Greggz, he got the BBA right. It somehow had to do with the increased organics in the system. Then again, BBA and organics is pretty well known by now. Not saying that organics are the only factor, but when all others are present (flow, temp, light, micros, macros) and increase in organics will generate a nice BBA bloom. This was the easy one, but still BBA was sometimes blamed on traces, sadly.

A great number of changes in dosing were suggested, more or less at random, as one would expect for experience based on random observation. I was most impressed by the ability of some to determine how my dosing was deficient without looking at my photos but by comparing my dosing ratios to those present in a terrestrial plant book. In reality all I need to do was clean the filters, remove dead fish and remove cover. The dosing still goes on with good results in over 50 plant sp. Is the dosing perfect for all, no Is it to blame for the problems seen, unlikely. However, thanks to all who tried to help, really your heart is in the right place. 
What I found even more intriguing, was that all the “extremely experienced members” who claim to have developed, tested and improved different mixed and ratios were unwilling or did not know what to reply (despite having posted plenty in that time). And I am not taking sides here, none of the big advocates for both sides (low or high) were able to help in any way. Why should they know?

The logic is simple and it has nothing to do with each aquarium is unique. When you determine that more or less of X is needed, you do so because you know how too little X looks and how too much X looks like. Having tested so many combinations and improved so many times you would think they know by now how problems in plants due to X look like. Yet not one of them said it has nothing to do with micronutrients for img 2,3,4 or it is X that did this. I will let each one of you draw your conclusion to the knowledge deployed in developing ratios and mixes. I did and am disappointed. 



Subjected said:


> Related to this in a way, is there or we should make a database of plant pic's with these weard deficiency symptoms? There is not very much info anywhere on actual Aquatic Plant Trace issues.


And instead of listing hundreds of different mixes, being obvious we have no idea what a X deficiency looks like… I would suggest we do what @Subjected said above. But here is the catch, others have tried in the past but were puzzled by their results and untrusted by others. Why? If you do not do such studies in a controlled manner with good documentation, you might as well not do it at all. And by controlled, I mean with an experimental tank and a control tank, yes like Marcel did. Just dosing a tank with all except X and then looking for symptoms will bias your study so much that you can throw it in the can from the start. It is the equivalent of hoping bloodletting will cure a bacterial disease.

*Conclusion*
By applying the methods described above (dosing, photos, tank details) it was not possible to correctly identify that the problems in the photos had nothing to do with dosing. Only one member correctly pointed out that BBA was linked to maintenance. The lack of input from those who improved and developed micronutrient and dosing regimes was surprising and points to unwillingness to help or inability to identify problems. Both options are alarming to normal members and to the hobby. It is my view that without well-documented deficiencies in plants, the methods proposed in this thread are unlikely to achieve the stated aims and goals. So are we here only because we love a good fight ?


----------



## Subjected

I've got problems. Been dosing the new mix for exactly 1 week now. I am going to continue for another week or 2 just because 1 week isn't enough time to actually judge. 

Tank: AquaMax 12 Long Iwiagumi
Substrate: 2 month old ADA Amazonia
Light: MicMol Aqua Air 900 Planted all channels at max 50% about 8" from water surface
Plants in tank: DHG Belem, Blyxia, Rotala Sunset, Rotala Mini Pearl 1 or 2 
Rocks: 7x Elephant Skin Stone 
Macro Dosing: NO3 10ppm, PO4 3, K ?? (from KNO3 and KH2PO4) 3x week.
Micro Dosing: Burr 5.15 Micros 7x week as per his numbers. 
gH Booster: Ca 14ppm, Mg 4.6ppm
CO2: Aquatek paintball Regulator on 24oz bottle. Bubble count to fast to read. LOL
Diffuser: Ceramic 3 ring glass

Blyxia older leaves disintegrating starting at tip / turning white. Blyxia has turned Bright Red (Although this is normal in high light)
Rotala Sunset growing tips stunted rest of leaves turning Orangish yellow red (instead of the pinkish purple they were).
Rotala Mini Pearl has always been a hassle for me stunting and hardly growing. Now it is finally growing like supposed too
Last of all this dosing has induced Green Water.


----------



## burr740

dukydaf said:


> What I found even more intriguing, was that all the “extremely experienced members” who claim to have developed, tested and improved different mixed and ratios were unwilling or did not know what to reply (despite having posted plenty in that time). And I am not taking sides here, none of the big advocates for both sides (low or high) were able to help in any way. Why should they know?
> 
> The logic is simple and it has nothing to do with each aquarium is unique. When you determine that more or less of X is needed, you do so because you know how too little X looks and how too much X looks like. Having tested so many combinations and improved so many times you would think they know by now how problems in plants due to X look like. Yet not one of them said it has nothing to do with micronutrients for img 2,3,4 or it is X that did this. I will let each one of you draw your conclusion to the knowledge deployed in developing ratios and mixes. I did and am disappointed.


Well I guess your talking about me here? I didnt attempt to diagnose your problems because I had no idea what it might be. Like my curly Persicaria leaf, could be anything.

Not sure why Im being chided for not hazarding a guess, or proclaiming it had nothing to do with micros. How the hell is anyone supposed know? Tbh Im just glad there werent 10 folks screaming MICRO TOX

It seems like you're expecting too much from this thread. We (I) arent trying to solve every micro problem under the sun, put to rest any high vs low arguments, or identify specific deficiencies. Although if a pattern emerges which indicates some of the above, great.

No the original intent was for people using the mixes Ive made, and folks have made themselves using the same stuff, to share and discuss the results for the purpose of coming up with a pretty good blend that works well across a wide range of parameters.

Thats all. 

Im sorry that you are disappointed nobody nailed your plant problems, lol. 

And my sincere apologies if the recipe discussion here is not scientific enough for some folks. My advice to those people would be feel free to ignore it all. I'll be the first to admit that it's purely anecdotal.


----------



## burr740

@Subjected at the risk of getting scolded by Duky for, Im not sure what exactly lol, a couple of things that jump out to me are

Two month old AS. You really shouldnt need much dosing at this point, Fe and K mainly for the first few months. You could add something like half EI and light traces just to make sure all the bases are covered. 

The green water probably happened because the tank is a macro nutrient soup.

I can also tell you 3 ppm P 3x a week would cause major issues in my tanks. Works well for some but not me.

Personally Id do a very large water change and cut dosing way back for a while


----------



## Subjected

burr740 said:


> Personally I'd do a very large water change and cut dosing way back for a while


Ill do this. 
One of the reasons I was dosing so much to begin with is to grow out the tank real quick for the IIAC Contest deadline. As we can see more is not always better.


----------



## Edward

What caused the random holes in Najas guadalupensis leaf? 
Disclaimer: Once identified, feel free to use in the new Plant Deficiency database.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> What caused the random holes in Najas guadalupensis leaf?
> Disclaimer: Once identified, feel free to use in the new Plant Deficiency database.


Clearly micro tox


----------



## Maryland Guppy

dukydaf said:


> *What really happened – Interpretation of results *
> 1.	BBA
> What happened: Prefilter fell off, resulting in some fish and shrimps getting stuck in the canister filter and rotting there. Once they were removed BBA stopped proliferating, even without any water change.
> 
> 2.	Anubias with holes.
> What happened: Dosed dry urea grains without pre-diluting and sufficient flow. The grains fell directly onto the leaves and dissolved there resulting in high local conc. of urea.
> 
> 3.	Hygrorhiza with purple spots
> Artificially placing water drops on the leaves under high intensity spot-LED light produced similar results.
> 
> 4.	Persicaria with white leaves
> What happened: When I changed the water to the aquarium I run out of RO water the last mile. It took a while to fill it up again. Look again at the photo, the plant is semi-emersed ( front leaves are emersed). The leaves that were grown emersed did not have problems, the leaves that were in water did not have problems, the leaves that were grown submersed and were left in air longer turned white.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> So are we here only because we love a good fight ?


Wow!
Baiting everyone is a great way to maintain one's integrity.>

This thread has been very peaceful so far, give it time.


----------



## burr740

Here's one that almost has to be fert related. Somebody diagnose this

This past week I noticed a couple plants in one of the new 20 gal looking not so good.

AR mini leaves puckered up some and a couple wallichii stunted. Didnt think a whole lot about it, all other tanks doing well so it must be just one of those things. Figured it'll soon pull out of it...










Any guesses?

Let me save you the trouble. It was a mystery to me until a couple hours ago.

The 20s have an Aquaclear 70 hanging on both ends. CO2 feeds directly into them. Both run wide ope open. There's a homemade aluminum baffle on the outflow to cut down velocity.

Not a very bright pic but you'll get the point










When I drain the tanks for water change the filters keep running. I manually adjust the flow all the way down to reduce splashing.

Last week apparently I forgot to turn the flow back up. Just noticed it today when I started to turn it down before doing the water change. It was down already, never turned back up since last weekend.

The difference between wide open flow and cut all the way down, according to the manufacturer, is 300 gph wide open and 100 gph all the way down.

That's how much flow was reduced, and whatever co2 efficiency lost in the process.

Now Id have to repeat the result a few time to be sure, run a couple double blind studies and have it peer reviewed...but I'd bet all 5 of my tanks it's what the problem was.


Gotta say Im very disappointed nobody here stepped in and said it cannot be a fert issue.


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> Me, being a rule follower, used this suggestion for a very practical purpose and set up a little game. I put myself in the category of people that need help from all of you, from beginners to very knowledgeable and respected people in the hobby.


A little game, huh?? Really? Maybe just a bit pompous on your part? I think I misjudged you. I actually answered one of your questions, and regret responding at all now.



dukydaf said:


> So are we here only because we love a good fight ?


Sadly there are those who are here precisely for that reason. I think you may be one of them.

And I've got to say, I am still astounded that so many here who delve so far into the science of planted tanks.......don't seem to have a planted tank. At least not one they can post a picture of.

Personally, I follow and respect the opinions of those who can actually walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And the funny thing is, you rarely see those people speaking in absolutes. They don't need or want a control experiment to prove their thesis. Heck, they don't have a thesis. It's constantly a work in progress. They just want a beautiful healthy colorful tank that they can enjoy in their home. 

And if tinkering around with dosing can help, they are all for it. For those who think they have it all figured out......well good for you. Then please show me your multi species well run tank with every species perfect. I honestly would love to see it. But I doubt it will happen, as I have been asking for this for years in these threads.


----------



## dukydaf

Maryland Guppy said:


> Wow!
> Baiting everyone is a great way to maintain one's integrity.>


No bait here to be found. I provided only the honest descriptions of dosing and photos *as required *in the thread to document "the results". When asked for more details, I also supplied them. When somebody was somewhere in the ballpark, I also fully disclosed what happened. Now ask yourself why was Greggz able to make the link between BBA and organics, but we are not yet able to link the other photos to anything ? Now this brought to light problems with the methodology proposed, that is not comfortable for all, but maybe there is something to learn here ? Or something to improve ? 
If you say I only photographed selected areas... Yes I did. How many just photographs their best stem tops of R. wallichii or another while ignoring or removing the stems with stunted growing tips ? Or the reverse, take a photo only of the distorted growing tip while ignoring the 99 other tips that are growing fine? Or remove the bottom part of the plant because leaves cannot survive more than a week despite getting good light and flow?



burr740 said:


> No the original intent was for people using the mixes Ive made, and folks have made themselves using the same stuff, to share and discuss the results for the purpose of coming up with a pretty good blend that works well across a wide range of parameters.


I am curious how do you propose one can improve or "come up with a pretty good blend" if one does not know left from right in the first place? Or can one prepare a good wine if they have only tasted water and beer ?

I am not the person to start flame wars as I think we can have a rational discussion with good arguments and without using jokes with sexual connotations to make myself feel better about me. But if that works than have at it. 

So, yeah from my side : 
Live long and prosper ! --- :icon_roll sorry wrong crowd, this was for the rational folks
Then in the spirit of this thread: 
Qapla'! or Good luck!


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Here's one that almost has to be fert related. Somebody diagnose this
> 
> This past week I noticed a couple plants in one of the new 20 gal looking not so good.
> 
> AR mini leaves puckered up some and a couple wallichii stunted. Didnt think a whole lot about it, all other tanks doing well so it must be just one of those things. Figured it'll soon pull out of it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any guesses?


Burr I wish you would have let us guess before you answered it. 

I personally have at least a dozen ways to stunt Wallachii......well, who's kidding, maybe more. :grin2:

And I would buy your low flow low CO2 scenario. It's the first thing I check when I see something wonky. If it ain't right, dosing the most perfect blend of ferts in the world ain't gonna help.


----------



## burr740

dukydaf said:


> I am curious how do you propose one can improve or "come up with a pretty good blend" if one does not know left from right in the first place? Or can one prepare a good wine if they have only tasted water and beer ?


Idk, maybe have a few dozen folks using it and see what happens? Results seem pretty good so far.


----------



## Greggz

dukydaf said:


> So, yeah from my side :
> Live long and prosper ! --- :icon_roll sorry wrong crowd, this was for the rational folks
> Then in the spirit of this thread:
> Qapla'! or Good luck!


And good luck to you too sir.

You should leave by walking over and taking a picture of your tank and posting it here. It might cause me to actually go back and read your posts more carefully.

And it's not a challenge. I'm sure you really do have a beautiful tank. I really am truly curious to see it.


----------



## Whysoserious

Less is more. In life and in ferts.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

dukydaf said:


> Live long and prosper ! --- :icon_roll sorry wrong crowd, this was for the rational folks
> Then in the spirit of this thread:
> Qapla'! or Good luck!


Integrity?
Quote Spock (RIP) and throw a rock, gotta love it.:x

The ViewPoint:

We are all involved in a hobby that will not be rewarded with any dedicated science.
Growing aquatic plants will never receive the attention as growing say "Corn"
Genetic modification, crop yield %, sample modified crop testing etc...
We apply findings that have worked for others to our own tanks and still hope.
We apply above ground principals and techniques to our aquatic plants and hope.
All we can really do is share our success stories and hope it helps another.
Papers from the 60's described CO2 usage, we now all use it.
Tom & EI, Edward & PPS, and all the other fert regimes from others along the way.
Let's not forget the vast differences in all of our water sources either!

I hope this post is in good taste and I won't add a disclaimer.:grin2:


----------



## Greggz

Whysoserious said:


> Less is more. In life and in ferts.


Do you keep a successful mixed species tank where less is more works well? 

Seriously, whysoserious, I'd love to learn more. I find the different methods that others use very interesting. 

You should post your tank specs, dosing schedule, and recent full tank shots. It might be helpful to many, and I might learn something I can apply to my own tank.

Bump:


Maryland Guppy said:


> All we can really do is share our success stories and hope it helps another.


Nice post MG.......and the above really sums it up quite well.

I hope this thread turns back to that direction soon.


----------



## max88

I just posted this in another thread. This is still relevant to this thread. If we can resemble natural habitat and keep the parameters stable, all plants would grow like weed.

There two sets of parameters concerning aquarium or any habitat: 1) Environmental Condition; 2) Demand and Consumption.
For planted tanks, the sets of parameters may look like this. What are the numbers? (million dollar question)


----------



## burr740

dukydaf said:


> Now this brought to light problems with the methodology proposed, that is not comfortable for all, but maybe there is something to learn here ? Or something to improve ?
> 
> How many just photographs their best stem tops of R. wallichii or another while ignoring or removing the stems with stunted growing tips ? Or the reverse, take a photo only of the distorted growing tip while ignoring the 99 other tips that are growing fine? Or remove the bottom part of the plant because leaves cannot survive more than a week despite getting good light and flow?


OK you criticize the methodology, fair enough. Then go on to explain why pictures offer little proof of anything, again fair enough. But Im curious what methodology would you have us use? Hopefully something that doesnt involve tons of finance and a laboratory...

Im also confused what exactly is going on here that you dont approve of? Folks trying something new and talking about the results?

You seem to want "proof" of...something? Well, what exactly? And what sort of proof would satisfy you? 

You cant demand proof without first defining what that proof would be.



dukydaf said:


> Im curious how do you propose one can improve or "come up with a pretty good blend" if one does not know left from right in the first place?


While its true I may not know a bunch of them big sciency words, I'd like to think I can at least tell left from right.

2017 AGA Aquascaping Contest - #631

^ grown using a custom blend fwiw, one of the earlier versions

OK thats the last bait Im taking guys. Serious this time!


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> ^ grown using a custom blend fwiw, one of the earlier versions
> 
> OK thats the last bait Im taking guys. Serious this time!


Yeah Burr I was going to post your tank earlier. I hate to take it there, but some of these guys are laughable. Happi was worried that someone was going to sell his recipe for a profit? My goodness that is LOL funny. I think he thinks he found Nirvana in a bottle. Truth is there is so much more than dosing that goes into what you presented there. 

The pic of your award winning tank is what this group is missing. And for the life of me, I don't understand how they don't see it. A picture of their Pantanal from 10 years ago when it was perfect is "proof" that their "recipe" is the best. Sorry to be this way but I just can't take it anymore.










Why don't one of you experts in planted tanks and science post one picture like this???? 

I think I know the answer, they don't exist.


----------



## Immortal1

burr740 said:


> Idk, maybe have a few dozen folks using it and see what happens? Results seem pretty good so far.


I will admit, most of the technical stuff in this thread is a bit over my head. What isn't over my head is what this gentleman has offered the "few dozen folks".
The commercially available product that is sold everywhere did help make my tank better. But my knowledge of better was very limited. I'm sure there are many individuals in this hobby that have decided to "roll their own" micro mix - and probably with great success. But for me, Burr740 offered to let *me* try what he thought might be better option. To the best of my memory (which may have diminished some over the past year), nobody else on this forum has offered to give me something try with no strings attached - simply for the betterment of this hobby. Easy to offer advice or criticism on a faceless forum - going out of your way to make a product and give it away, well not many are willing. 

Now, I am excluding the RAOK situations which I may have been lucky enough to have the right number or whatever. And the VERY generous supply of plants from my friends on this forum.

Thank-you Burr for your contributions.


----------



## Surf

> I add 15-20 ppm more Ca. How does this impact the availability of other nutrients? Or say 5-10 ppm of P is added, or 25 more K.
> 
> Does anything happen to, or between other nutrients in the water column, as far as availability goes?
> 
> I dont mean within the plant, competition between nutrients and that sort of thing.
> 
> What potentially happens in the water column? (Im familiar with the potential interaction between P and Fe, Zn, Cu. So I guess Im more specifically interested in the effects of K, Ca, and Mg, or anything else not mentioned)



There are effect of GH boosters on PH. A GH booster made of Ca, Mg, and or Cl will tend to cause a PH drop as calcium and magnesium are consumed at a faster by the plants than S or Cl. This results in the formation of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. This drop in PH will help extract any non soluble nutrients from the substrate. I normally control this PH drop by having Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in the tank. The carbonates react with the acid to create more Ca, Mg sulfate or chlorides. Using Ca, Mg, carbonates in a CO2 tank however will probably create excessively hard water. In my experience a PH drop of 1 point is possible if the substrate has little the acid can react with. 

I also tied just using calcium and magnesium carbonate as my source of GH before I went to a conventional sulfate GH booster. I found carbonates can push the PH up. So GH boosters can change the PH enough to affect the solubility of some fertilizer ingredients in a low tech tank. They may also affect PH CO2 controllers. Also if your sulfides and chlorides are low some sulfide micros may be converted to less soluble chlorides

Also Sodium borate will react with sulfates in micro mixes converting some of the micro sulfide ingredient into insoluble borates. I saw that in my first attempt to make a micro fertilizer. The reaction was slow and not immediately obvious. However a couple of days later material could be seen on the bottom. Boric acid should not do this and I see most fertilizers on the market use boric acid. I believe it was the sodium in the sodium borate that triggered the reaction.I also am beginning to think that sodium bicarbonate can do the same (although I haven't tested this).


----------



## burr740

Surf said:


> Also Sodium borate will react with sulfates in micro mixes converting some of the micro sulfide ingredient into insoluble borates. I saw that in my first attempt to make a micro fertilizer. The reaction was slow and not immediately obvious. However a couple of days later material could be seen on the bottom. Boric acid should not do this and I see most fertilizers on the market use boric acid. I believe it was the sodium in the sodium borate that triggered the reaction.I also am beginning to think that sodium bicarbonate can do the same (although I haven't tested this).


Interesting, thanks.

The first few mixes I was using Borax for B. It usually took a couple of hours to fully dissolve. However, I never saw any particle build up in the bottom of the solution. It remained crystal clear. But I never kept a mix for more than probably a month or so, cant say what would happen beyond that.

I also noticed a substantial improvement in certain plants after switching to H3BO3, almost immediately after only a dose or two. This lead me to believe boric acid is either stronger (more available) or perhaps it increases the availability of other stuff due to having mild chelating properties.

Just a couple observations


----------



## Whysoserious

I don't remember ever having my tank in perfect condition. I do remember a time when everyone's skin was a little thicker though.
My obscure reference yesterday about less being more.......in life......and letting it go................Pity.



Surf said:


> There are effect of GH boosters on PH. A GH booster made of Ca, Mg, and or Cl will tend to cause a PH drop as calcium and magnesium are consumed at a faster by the plants than S or Cl.


What about the other anions?



Surf said:


> I normally control this PH drop by having Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in the tank. The carbonates react with the acid to create more Ca, Mg sulfate or chlorides.


How does CO2, Ca, Mg, CO3, and H2O create SO4 and Cl?



Surf said:


> I believe it was the sodium in the sodium borate that triggered the reaction.I also am beginning to think that sodium bicarbonate can do the same (although I haven't tested this).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate
Solubility around 100 grams per liter. ie: not likely.


----------



## Surf

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate
> Solubility around 100 grams per liter. ie: not likely.


yes sodium sulfate is still soluble but the other byproducts, zinc borate, manganese borate, and copper borate are not.

Originally Posted by Surf View Post



> There are effect of GH boosters on PH. A GH booster made of Ca, Mg, and or Cl will tend to cause a PH drop as calcium and magnesium are consumed at a faster by the plants than S or Cl.


Whysoserious replied:


> What about the other anions?


Most GH boosters are made from calcium magnesium sulfate and or calcium magnesium chloride. So Chlorine and sulfur are the only anions in the GH booster. There are other anions in the micros but for the most part these do not have a significant affect on PH due to the lower quantities present in the water.

Whysoserious replied:


> How does CO2, Ca, Mg, CO3, and H2O create SO4 and Cl?


CaCO3 +H2SO4 > CaSO4 +CO2
CaCO3 + 2HCL > CaCl2 +H2O
MgCO3 +2HCl > MgCl2 +H2O
MgCO3 + H2SO4 > MgSO4 + H2O

All carbonates are solids in waterEverything else is water soluble. So carbonates in the substrate are not available to plants because they are solid. The chloride and sulfides are soluble and and as a result are available to the plants.


----------



## Greggz

Whysoserious said:


> I don't remember ever having my tank in perfect condition. I do remember a time when everyone's skin was a little thicker though.
> My obscure reference yesterday about less being more.......in life......and letting it go................Pity.


Thicker skin? Obscure reference? Let's be real my friend. I think taking the time to find and post a video that is a reference to your dosing philosophy is more "in your face" than "obscure".

And it still fascinates me, bring up actual tanks and pictures and the reaction is quite predictable. But I'm sure you have your cation Ca++ and anions and ions correct. Very impressive.


----------



## Surf

> The first few mixes I was using Borax for B. It usually took a couple of hours to fully dissolve. However, I never saw any particle build up in the bottom of the solution. It remained crystal clear. But I never kept a mix for more than probably a month or so, cant say what would happen beyond that.


The solids I saw appeared as translucent gelatin. If your bottle was translucent white plastic it would be hard to see. I used a glass container and I could easily see it the day after I made it. I Scrapped that batch and made another but with the sodium borate and sodium molybdate in a separate bottle. So a two part micro. The two part concentrate dissolved in the tank appear to be reasonably stable. Next batch will be made with boric acid. 

I forgot to mention one other thing I have noticed. Some time earlier I learned that there are two types of plants C3 plants and C4 plant. Most plants are C3. C3 is the term used to describe how CO2 is absorbed and processed. C4 plants process CO2 differently and as a result they are more drought tolerant, and survive at lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Unlike C3 plants C4 plant need sodium. So sodium is an essential nutrient for C4 plant while it is not for C3 plants. Corn, Sorghum, and dwarf hair grass (a common aquarium plant) are C4 plants. From what I have read C4 plants need as much sodium as iron. So it might be helpful to have sodium in the micro fertilizer. sodium chloride (table salt) is probably the best choice to satisfy the sodium and chlorine needs. My next batch micros will have NaCl.


----------



## burr740

Surf said:


> The solids I saw appeared as translucent gelatin. If your bottle was translucent white plastic it would be hard to see. I used a glass container and I could easily see it the day after I made it. I Scrapped that batch and made another but with the sodium borate and sodium molybdate in a separate bottle. So a two part micro. The two part concentrate dissolved in the tank appear to be reasonably stable. Next batch will be made with boric acid.


Interesting. Ive seen those translucent gelatin pieces before. You're right, cant really notice them through a clear plastic bottle, but you can see them when it goes in the tank. So far Ive not seen any of that in these custom mixes. Either from earlier Borax versions or using H3BO3. Mixing with distilled water plus 5 ml of vinegar per 500 ml

Id be curious to hear if anyone else has?

The last time I saw those was in a recent GH mix with MGSO4 and K2SO4 (no Ca) using tap water. Just the occasional piece, not much. Any idea what was going on there?


----------



## Whysoserious

Surf said:


> yes sodium sulfate is still soluble but the other byproducts, zinc borate, manganese borate, and copper borate are not.


How does sodium trigger the reaction?



Surf said:


> Most GH boosters are made from calcium magnesium sulfate and or calcium magnesium chloride. So Chlorine and sulfur are the only anions in the GH booster. There are other anions in the micros but for the most part these do not have a significant affect on PH due to the lower quantities present in the water.


What about the other anions? The plants are consuming more Ca and Mg then SO4 and Cl. Plants don't grow with only SO4, Cl, and the other anions in the micros, that for the most part, do not have a significant effect.



Surf said:


> CaCO3 +H2SO4 > CaSO4 +CO2
> CaCO3 + 2HCL > CaCl2 +H2O
> MgCO3 +2HCl > MgCl2 +H2O
> MgCO3 + H2SO4 > MgSO4 + H2O


The left and right sides of those equations do not balance. In either case, sulfates and chlorides are already present in the water.




Greggz said:


> Let's be real my friend. I think taking the time to find and post a video that is a reference to your dosing philosophy is more "in your face" than "obscure".


Lol. Why so serious Greggz.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Surf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solids I saw appeared as translucent gelatin. If your bottle was translucent white plastic it would be hard to see. I used a glass container and I could easily see it the day after I made it. I Scrapped that batch and made another but with the sodium borate and sodium molybdate in a separate bottle. So a two part micro. The two part concentrate dissolved in the tank appear to be reasonably stable. Next batch will be made with boric acid.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Ive seen those translucent gelatin pieces before. You're right, cant really notice them through a clear plastic bottle, but you can see them when it goes in the tank. So far Ive not seen any of that in these custom mixes. Either from earlier Borax versions or using H3BO3. Mixing with distilled water plus 5 ml of vinegar per 500 ml
> 
> Id be curious to hear if anyone else has?
> 
> The last time I saw those was in a recent GH mix with MGSO4 and K2SO4 (no Ca) using tap water. Just the occasional piece, not much. Any idea what was going on there?
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed anything since my mix is in a brown PET plastic bottle but I may pour it into something to look just for fun


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

Surf said:


> There are effect of GH boosters on PH. A GH booster made of Ca, Mg, and or Cl will tend to cause a PH drop as calcium and magnesium are consumed at a faster by the plants than S or Cl. This results in the formation of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. This drop in PH will help extract any non soluble nutrients from the substrate. I normally control this PH drop by having Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in the tank. The carbonates react with the acid to create more Ca, Mg sulfate or chlorides. Using Ca, Mg, carbonates in a CO2 tank however will probably create excessively hard water. In my experience a PH drop of 1 point is possible if the substrate has little the acid can react with.
> 
> I also tied just using calcium and magnesium carbonate as my source of GH before I went to a conventional sulfate GH booster. I found carbonates can push the PH up. So GH boosters can change the PH enough to affect the solubility of some fertilizer ingredients in a low tech tank. They may also affect PH CO2 controllers. Also if your sulfides and chlorides are low some sulfide micros may be converted to less soluble chlorides
> 
> Also Sodium borate will react with sulfates in micro mixes converting some of the micro sulfide ingredient into insoluble borates. I saw that in my first attempt to make a micro fertilizer. The reaction was slow and not immediately obvious. However a couple of days later material could be seen on the bottom. Boric acid should not do this and I see most fertilizers on the market use boric acid. I believe it was the sodium in the sodium borate that triggered the reaction.I also am beginning to think that sodium bicarbonate can do the same (although I haven't tested this).


damn, think i may have screwed up my recent batch of ferts after reading this lmao

i grabbed a bottle of water out of the fridge thinking it was distilled water. it ended up being Nestle Pure Life Purified Water w/ minerals for taste (link leads to the water report if anyone's interested)


----------



## max88

Yesterday (Sunday):
60% water change weekly.
Dose 25ML Seachem Excel (as algaecide) per 50G water.
Slightly trim plants (shorten overly tall ones).
Increase light intensity by 10~15%
Slightly adjust macros and micros.
CO2 is turn ed on 2 hours before light, and turned off 30minutes before light.
Same CO2 bubble rate. (Unfortunately have not found a pH pen locally).

Today (Monday), 20 minutes after CO2 shutoff.:
More bubbles on plants.

Speculation 1: Seachem Excel kills ofs some algae, leaving more micros for plants.
Speculation 2: lighting strength is at a sweet spot.


----------



## Surf

> Interesting. Ive seen those translucent gelatin pieces before. You're right, cant really notice them through a clear plastic bottle, but you can see them when it goes in the tank. So far Ive not seen any of that in these custom mixes. Either from earlier Borax versions or using H3BO3. Mixing with distilled water plus 5 ml of vinegar per 500 ml


Burr740, I don't add vinegar to my micros. Vinegar is an acid so that may change the reaction and might prevent gelatin pieces from forming. But I don't know for sure on that. Vinegar might convert the micro sulfates to acetates. I don't know if those are soluble or not. And I don't know if the acetates will affect plant uptake of nutrients. 

I generally just use DI water (TDS 1ppm) and and the fertilizer salts when I make a fertilizer concentrate. And so far I have not seen any algae growing in my solutions. If the water is pure, the bottle is clean,and and your solution only contains some of the nutrients needed to support life (Algae, bacteria, plant, or animal) it is highly unlikely anything can grow in the solution. Since all the micros formulas I have seen are missing a multiple nutrient needed for life it is highly unlikely that anything will grow in the bottle. So in my opinion I don't think the vinegar is needed.


----------



## Chlorophile

Surf said:


> Burr740, I don't add vinegar to my micros. Vinegar is an acid so that may change the reaction and might prevent gelatin pieces from forming. But I don't know for sure on that. Vinegar might convert the micro sulfates to acetates. I don't know if those are soluble or not. And I don't know if the acetates will affect plant uptake of nutrients.
> 
> I generally just use DI water (TDS 1ppm) and and the fertilizer salts when I make a fertilizer concentrate. And so far I have not seen any algae growing in my solutions. If the water is pure, the bottle is clean,and and your solution only contains some of the nutrients needed to support life (Algae, bacteria, plant, or animal) it is highly unlikely anything can grow in the solution. Since all the micros formulas I have seen are missing a multiple nutrient needed for life it is highly unlikely that anything will grow in the bottle. So in my opinion I don't think the vinegar is needed.


I've always heard (erroneously?) The lower pH is beneficial to prevent iron precipitation. 
That is atleast what I tell myself I'm doing it for when I add the vinegar.


----------



## burr740

Pure water is neutral, it has a PH of 7 (depending on temperature)

Thats too high for a lot of these compounds to remain stable and not interact, and to remain in an available state for plants, especially all crammed together in a small solution. That is why folks (and companies) add various acids to micro blends. Its to drop and stabilize the PH.

Its good to add a dash of vinegar even using csmb or whatever, something like 5 ml per 500 ml of water



Surf said:


> Burr740, I don't add vinegar to my micros.


I'll go out on a limb and say that is why you were seeing those precipitation particles


----------



## Whysoserious

There is no such thing as pure water outside of a lab. Once water comes into contact with the atmosphere, the water will begin to take in gases present in the atmosphere. One of these gases is CO2 which creates carbonic acid.

Thus the pH of RO water is around 5.7.

In any case, even if there was pure water for making of micro solutions, there is nothing in this pure water. No acids and no bases. A tiny amount of acid or a tiny amount of base will change the pH of this pure water significantly, because there are no acids or bases in this pure water to counteract the substances being added. There's nothing in the water for micros to react with. They will remain stable.


----------



## burr740

Whysoserious said:


> There's nothing in the water for micros to react with.


You mean besides each other 

The point wasnt how pure distilled water is or isnt, of course its not 100% pure. The point was adding vinegar helps 

Try it both ways and see which one works better. Or just feel free to skip it, doesnt matter to me.


----------



## Whysoserious

The cations and the anions react with each other.

MnSO4, CuSO4, ZnSO4 and NiSO4 for instance, will not react with each other, regardless of pH of the solution.
Fe doesn't really like anything, and should be kept separate to maintain the strength of the chelate.
Mo is another should should be kept separate, or with NH4, Mg or Na, again, regardless of pH.

Weak acids such as vinegar, citric, fulvic etc, have a weak chelate effect.


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> Pure water is neutral, it has a PH of 7 (depending on temperature)


 Fill a test tube with 5ml distilled or good quality RO water, add one drop of pH test solution and start blowing air from your lungs in it. The CO2 in your breath will start changing the solution colour from neutral green to acidic yellow, ending at about 4 pH. Pure water does not have properties to have pH.


Whysoserious said:


> Weak acids such as vinegar, citric, fulvic etc, have a weak chelate effect.


Some trace element fertilizers have free chelates listed as ingredients. Can trace element products like CSMB have also some free or extra chelates in them? I guess yes. My question is, when let’s say NiSO4 is added to CSMB solution, can some Ni ions bond with free floating chelates?


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Fill a test tube with 5ml distilled or good quality RO water, add one drop of pH test solution and start blowing air from your lungs in it. The CO2 in your breath will start changing the solution colour from neutral green to acidic yellow, ending at about 4 pH. Pure water does not have properties to have pH.


We're arguing semantics. Pure water is neutral. Neutral PH is 7. 

As soon as you start doing other stuff to it, like the things you mentioned, or just opening the container, then its no longer pure water, or as pure as it was. But the starting point is still 7.0

I guess my bad for saying "pure water" earlier instead of "distilled water after its been opened and had a few things tossed into it" 

Semantics

Either way I highly recommend anyone using mine or making their own in the same way to add an acid to the solution. Vinegar is the simplest


----------



## Whysoserious

Edward said:


> My question is, when let’s say NiSO4 is added to CSMB solution, can some Ni ions bond with free floating chelates?


Yes. How much free chelate is present, how much of that binds with Ni, ?
I guess the chelate might have a higher affinity with other metals though. The image below is an affinity chart for EDTA. Looks like Ni hasn't been measured,












burr740 said:


> We're arguing semantics.


That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it might involve respecting those who have clearly stated that they struggle to understand the science based aspects of these discussions, and thus being accurate. 

In my experience, the "arguing" tends to take place when people become offended at finding out they were wrong. These people should probably just 'let it go'. I posted about youtube video not long ago about letting it go, and no, that had nothing to do with a dosing regime. lol.


----------



## Chlorophile

Edward said:


> burr740 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure water is neutral, it has a PH of 7 (depending on temperature)
> 
> 
> 
> Fill a test tube with 5ml distilled or good quality RO water, add one drop of pH test solution and start blowing air from your lungs in it. The CO2 in your breath will start changing the solution colour from neutral green to acidic yellow, ending at about 4 pH. Pure water does not have properties to have pH.
> 
> 
> Whysoserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weak acids such as vinegar, citric, fulvic etc, have a weak chelate effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some trace element fertilizers have free chelates listed as ingredients. Can trace element products like CSMB have also some free or extra chelates in them? I guess yes. My question is, when let’s say NiSO4 is added to CSMB solution, can some Ni ions bond with free floating chelates?
Click to expand...

What do you mean it doesn't have properties to have a pH?
pH is the concentration of hydrogen ions or hydroxides, something that is neutral like Pur water has neither or or close to none at all Ergo it is at 7


----------



## Whysoserious

Chlorophile said:


> What do you mean it doesn't have properties to have a pH?
> pH is the concentration of hydrogen ions or hydroxides, something that is neutral like Pur water has neither or or close to none at all Ergo it is at 7


If pH is the measure of the concentration of a thing, and water has none of this thing, then how can it have a pH? Technically I guess you could say it has a pH of 7, since that represents the equal concentration point. Nothing of one thing, and nothing of the other thing, is equally, nothing.

The issue is that this water, that has nothing in it, but having a pH of 7.0, was presented as being a problem for micros, because of the pH. Even though the pH in this example was representing the concentration of nothing.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

And the new "ButterBean" shall be?>


----------



## burr740

Whysoserious said:


> In my experience, the "arguing" tends to take place when people become offended at finding out they were wrong.


Or from folks who apparently just like to argue.

Anyone with a google can get a clear picture of whats going on here in about 2 minutes, it doesnt take a phd or 10 pages arguing about it



Whysoserious said:


> Technically I guess you could say it has a pH of 7


Im glad we agree


In other news: 3 days after setting the filters back on high, wallichi in the 20 is un-stunting. Except for that worst one. Might as well just pinch the top off and let new side shoots come in.



















That was a pretty dramatic effect both ways. Its causing me to take a hard look for ways to improve flow/circulation in other tanks.


----------



## Chlorophile

Whysoserious said:


> If pH is the measure of the concentration of a thing, and water has none of this thing, then how can it have a pH? Technically I guess you could say it has a pH of 7, since that represents the equal concentration point. Nothing of one thing, and nothing of the other thing, is equally, nothing.
> 
> The issue is that this water, that has nothing in it, but having a pH of 7.0, was presented as being a problem for micros, because of the pH. Even though the pH in this example was representing the concentration of nothing.


Ugh, I think you just wanna stretch your legs and prove something to someone? 
But honestly maybe pick something more complicated next time so there's not as much room for error correction? 

"technically I guess" no, absolutely, if you wan't to talk about pH the definition of neutral is *exactly *what you are saying is "nothing" 

At lower pH there is Hydrogen Ions, at higher pH there is hydroxide. 
Having one or the other makes it acid or base. 
Having neither makes it neutral. 
That by no means makes something "lack the properties to have pH" 
Does Water lack the properties to be a solid or a gas too since it's being observed as a liquid? 

The reason is also the definition. 
pH is a scale, and you can be on either side of neutral. 
If you'd prefer to think of neutral as 0.. you can be negative or positive.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Or from folks who apparently just like to argue.
> 
> Anyone with a google can get a clear picture of whats going on here in about 2 minutes, it doesnt take a phd or 10 pages arguing about it
> 
> 
> 
> Im glad we agree
> 
> 
> In other news: 3 days after setting the filters back on high, wallichi in the 20 is un-stunting. Except for that worst one. Might as well just pinch the top off and let new side shoots come in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty dramatic effect both ways. Its causing me to take a hard look for ways to improve flow/circulation in other tanks.


Burr how dare you bring up growing plants in an aquarium. >

This is a serious discussion of ......uhhhh...........well.....what........uhhhhhh...heck I can't figure out what the discussion is about anymore!!:grin2:

Once again it seems like this thread is veering a long way off from anything to do with a planted tank. I'm starting to have deja vu all over again. Might be son of SL come to haunt us. 

I tell you what, let's just all agree that you scientists are absolutely correct in everything you have said or will say, you have superior knowledge and intellect, and whatever else it is you seek. 

Then, if it's not too much to ask, can we squeeze in just a little bit of talk of actually growing plants? In an actual planted aquarium. You know, like not a virtual tank, or a mathematical model of a tank, or a theoretical idea of what a tank should be.....you know........one you can walk up to a take a picture of. 

Maybe us dummies who somehow manage to grow a plant or two are just naive. We do it in spite of our ignorance. Oh well, then I guess that ignorance truly is bliss.


----------



## DMtankd

Woah, been a while, my bookmarks musta got scrambled. Could a moderator please move this post to that one super awesome thread where you post pictures of your tank and your dosing? 

Apologies, some errors in execution have delayed a progress update - I accidentally set the autodoser to dose micros at 2X intended for about a week, realized and corrected it, then shortly thereafter the Fe solution ran out and it took me a number of days of increasingly obvious symptoms for it to register. My default position remains that autodosing is awesome, but this is certainly a good time to convince me otherwise 

Got everything sorted ~3 weeks ago and wanted to wait for things to settle out before posting an update. So here goes:
- After Burr's "dribbling tiny amounts" slur (autodosers are people too! ) I started adding a big dose of KNO3 and PO4 (10ppm and 1ppm) at water change. My daily auto-dosing of macros remains unchanged, but the big dose at WC ups my overall weekly total by 50% and ensures a more constant level through the week.
- I have been at ~50% of Burr's recent .15 Fe/Micro dosing levels for the past 3 weeks with the exception that my Zn is more like 20%.

Results:
- Still basically 0 algae in the tank. Haven't cleaned the glass in a month.
- My HC (or MC) turned into a frothing invasive weed. Growth was faster and pearling was significant. I pulled it all out and replanted a few small nodes - I expect it will take over the tank again by midday tomorrow.
- Buce is doing much better. It used to grow BBA faster than new leaves, but I'm seeing noticeably more new shoots and a flower bud or two.
- Most other plants seem as good or slightly better. I cannot say I've noticed anything crazy different, but the Aromatica has moved from yellow to green.
- My AR and AR mini do seem a bit worse than way back when my levels overall were much lower, but they also seem better since increasing the macros. Internodes on the AR seem really long.
- Patanal is....surviving. It seems like its stunting a little less. It grew well for a short period that I'm pretty sure aligned with the accidental 2X micros stage soooo...

I am going to up my micro dosing by another 50% to come to ~80% of Burr's recent .15 Fe micro levels and give it another week or two before reporting back. Maybe after that I can actually get to the goal of tweaking the individual micro levels.

Some pics. Please forgive - among many many other things - the randomly placed Patanal and walichi test subjects.


----------



## Greggz

DMtankd said:


> Woah, been a while, my bookmarks musta got scrambled. Could a moderator please move this post to that one super awesome thread where you post pictures of your tank and your dosing?


I wish I could give you more than one "like".

Good to see a follow up on your tank, and looking forward to seeing where it goes from here.

Despite some of the tangents this thread has taken, I think there are others like me who look forward to posts like yours, so thanks!


----------



## Immortal1

burr740 said:


> In other news: 3 days after setting the filters back on high, wallichi in the 20 is un-stunting. Except for that worst one. *Might as well just pinch the top off and let new side shoots come in*.


While it may not directly relate to micro dosing, the above likely answers a question I was going to ask regarding stem plants in general.
One of my 3 Pogo Kimberly seems to have stunted a bit and I was not sure what to do about it. Tossing the entire stem does not seem like the correct approach. So, my new assumption is what you wrote above will work just fine.


----------



## Whysoserious

You guys are far to funny.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> In other news: 3 days after setting the filters back on high, wallichi in the 20 is un-stunting. Except for that worst one. Might as well just pinch the top off and let new side shoots come in.


You know Burr, flow is another interesting topic. 

I think there is a fine between too much and too little. 

At one time I was running two circulation pumps in addition to my three filters. Plants really moving around, just short of mayhem. What I found is that some algae seemed to love those high flow areas.

I turned off one of the pumps for a few weeks, and the spots where the flow was hitting the hardest cleared up quickly. Then I took the other one out, and same thing happened. 

I just mention it, as I think sometimes people get the wrong idea of what good flow is. In my experience, just like too low of flow can create issues, so can too much. 

Thoughts??


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> burr740 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other news: 3 days after setting the filters back on high, wallichi in the 20 is un-stunting. Except for that worst one. Might as well just pinch the top off and let new side shoots come in.
> 
> 
> 
> You know Burr, flow is another interesting topic.
> 
> I think there is a fine between too much and too little.
> 
> At one time I was running two circulation pumps in addition to my three filters. Plants really moving around, just short of mayhem. What I found is that some algae seemed to love those high flow areas.
> 
> I turned off one of the pumps for a few weeks, and the spots where the flow was hitting the hardest cleared up quickly. Then I took the other one out, and same thing happened.
> 
> I just mention it, as I think sometimes people get the wrong idea of what good flow is. In my experience, just like too low of flow can create issues, so can too much.
> 
> Thoughts??
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd be interested to know?
My filter is 160gph and I have a 240gph koralia nano, so 12x my tank size.
But with co2 reactor and not perfectly clean it's probably less.
To me it seems too low? 
But BBA grows on the outflow, it definitely likes current.
All my plants will move some if I'm watching


----------



## ipkiss

burr740 said:


> I'll gladly take credit for any and all snails you may have acquired, but I gotta draw the line at freakin hydra..




So it WAS you! > YOUR snails' progeny developed a taste for my mystery reddish crypt and perfectly (err, mostly) fine leaves just started floating up daily. They all got pretty cleanly cut at near the base of the stem. Got me thinking it was a deficiency too .. sheee.... I'm usually benevolent to snails so I left them alone when they started out, but enough was enough.. Now I establish a 2.5cm snail-free zone around my crypts. Imagine what my wife and kid thinks as I sit there with a flashlight in one hand and planting tongs in the other, pincer-ing out any snail found on said crypts or within that vicinity.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> You know Burr, flow is another interesting topic.
> 
> I think there is a fine between too much and too little.
> 
> At one time I was running two circulation pumps in addition to my three filters. Plants really moving around, just short of mayhem. What I found is that some algae seemed to love those high flow areas.
> 
> I turned off one of the pumps for a few weeks, and the spots where the flow was hitting the hardest cleared up quickly. Then I took the other one out, and same thing happened.
> 
> I just mention it, as I think sometimes people get the wrong idea of what good flow is. In my experience, just like too low of flow can create issues, so can too much.
> 
> Thoughts??


Ive seen the same thing, but Ive also seen algae disappear by directing more flow in its direction. I think it probably depends on what the system as a whole needs. If co2 was lacking and more flow improves it, might take care of the algae. Otherwise it might cause it to show up. BBA does thrive in high current.

On the 75 I ran a circulation pump on and off for various periods of time. Had a good reactor with no visible mist. Very interesting thing I noticed is with the circulation pump running the PH would drop a 10th-10th and a half lower than without it, and the fish seemed happier. This is running the same rate of CO2.

So more circulation definitely helps CO2 efficiency. 

Having said that I dont like a strong velocity blowing plants around too much. 

Best to have a very strong laminar flow where a large volume of water passes over everything. These 20s are showing me just how effective that can be.

More below




Chlorophile said:


> Yeah I'd be interested to know?
> My filter is 160gph and I have a 240gph koralia nano, so 12x my tank size.
> But with co2 reactor and not perfectly clean it's probably less.
> To me it seems too low?
> But BBA grows on the outflow, it definitely likes current.
> All my plants will move some if I'm watching


As mentioned earlier the 20 gallons have Aquaclear 70s hanging on the end. 300 gph wide open, 100 gph all the way down. Thats a ton of flow for roughly 16 gals of water.

There are homemade baffles on the outlet to cut down the velocity, otherwise it'd be like a tornado hit

Here they are, made from light gauge aluminum trim coil that's used with vinyl siding


















So there's a ton of water movement but nothing is really blowing around. I believe this is why these two tanks settled in and balanced so fast.



ipkiss said:


> So it WAS you! > YOUR snails' progeny developed a taste for my mystery reddish crypt and perfectly (err, mostly) fine leaves just started floating up daily. They all got pretty cleanly cut at near the base of the stem. Got me thinking it was a deficiency too .. sheee.... I'm usually benevolent to snails so I left them alone when they started out, but enough was enough.. Now I establish a 2.5cm snail-free zone around my crypts. Imagine what my wife and kid thinks as I sit there with a flashlight in one hand and planting tongs in the other, pincer-ing out any snail found on said crypts or within that vicinity.


Haha, guilty as charged! :icon_eek: 

But I gotta say, small common pond snails, mini ramshorn etc, they are not equipped to inflict that kind of damage to a healthy leaf, especially not a Crypt leaf. If the tissue is soft, say due to a deficiency, or damaged in some way then yeah they can certainly chow down on that. 

But no snail you got from me is mauling an otherwise healthy Crypt. Trust me. So feel free to put down the flashlight and tell the wife and kids you've returned to your sanity.


----------



## burr740

Immortal1 said:


> While it may not directly relate to micro dosing, the above likely answers a question I was going to ask regarding stem plants in general.
> One of my 3 Pogo Kimberly seems to have stunted a bit and I was not sure what to do about it. Tossing the entire stem does not seem like the correct approach. So, my new assumption is what you wrote above will work just fine.


What most stems will do when they've stunted to a certain point is abandon the main top and put all their energy into making new side shoots. Its an attempt to start itself over for the sake of survival.

That one wallichii stem will start making new ones down low pretty soon, pinching the top off now will speed the process.

Never toss a kimberly stump unless you just have it coming out your ears. if a top goes bad just pinch it off and it'll quickly sprout 2-3 new ones from the stump. And there's very good chance they'll do better than the original.

Wallichii doesnt get in a hurry making new side stems. Most other Rotalas do, Kimbelry, Pantanal, Ludwigias... all very fast about it.


----------



## ipkiss

burr740 said:


> Haha, guilty as charged! :icon_eek:
> 
> But I gotta say, small common pond snails, mini ramshorn etc, they are not equipped to inflict that kind of damage to a healthy leaf, especially not a Crypt leaf. If the tissue is soft, say due to a deficiency, or damaged in some way then yeah they can certainly chow down on that.
> 
> But no snail you got from me is mauling an otherwise healthy Crypt. Trust me. So feel free to put down the flashlight and tell the wife and kids you've returned to your sanity.


Man, I can't believe it myself. Which is why I never removed them to begin with, didn't want to have to remove them, and even now, I let most of them go if they're not touching my crypts. There might be some underlying deficiency that's causing microscopic tears on the stem and they've taken advantage ... OR because during a round of trimming, they developed a taste for mushy leftover rotting stems, and they figured how to attack the stem until they've gnawed a microscopic hole and they just keep going. Once they create a large enough "ulcer like" gnawed area, they don't even have to chew through. The stem will soon lose it's integrity and become mush and the upper leaf that is still fine becomes detached. 

For all I know, they're probably not your snails and could've come from someone else. I just felt like piling on ya  Either way, crypt leaf survival rate have went way up due to my dedicated purging.


----------



## Immortal1

burr740 said:


> What most stems will do when they've stunted to a certain point is abandon the main top and put all their energy into making new side shoots. Its an attempt to start itself over for the sake of survival.
> 
> That one wallichii stem will start making new ones down low pretty soon, pinching the top off now will speed the process.
> 
> Never toss a kimberly stump unless you just have it coming out your ears. if a top goes bad just pinch it off and it'll quickly sprout 2-3 new ones from the stump. And there's very good chance they'll do better than the original.
> 
> Wallichii doesnt get in a hurry making new side stems. Most other Rotalas do, Kimbelry, Pantanal, Ludwigias... all very fast about it.


Thank you Joe - for me, very good information!


----------



## Quagulator

Out of curiosity (I'll admit to me being lazy/not searching through 55 pages as well), has there been discussion here on nutrient ratios? Ex: K:Mg ratios. Or are these ratios not very applicable to aquatic plants?


----------



## Chlorophile

Quagulator said:


> Out of curiosity (I'll admit to me being lazy/not searching through 55 pages as well), has there been discussion here on nutrient ratios? Ex: K:Mg ratios. Or are these ratios not very applicable to aquatic plants?


Lots of people mentioned ratios, but I think the goal of this dosing style is non-limiting nutrients and ratios are AFAIK only relevant when you are limiting. 
I.E. you might want limiting K or P but not N so a 1:2 ratio would show up as a favorable plant and the inverse would show up as some sort of stunting, etc, etc. 

In our cases I think the only ratio that is of much concern is Ca:Mg? 
But I think mostly only an issue when it becomes more than 1:2 
Typically 3:1 is advised? But leniency from that position doesn't seem to cause people much issue.


----------



## Quagulator

Chlorophile said:


> Lots of people mentioned ratios, but I think the goal of this dosing style is non-limiting nutrients and ratios are AFAIK only relevant when you are limiting.
> I.E. you might want limiting K or P but not N so a 1:2 ratio would show up as a favorable plant and the inverse would show up as some sort of stunting, etc, etc.
> 
> In our cases I think the only ratio that is of much concern is Ca:Mg?
> But I think mostly only an issue when it becomes more than 1:2
> Typically 3:1 is advised? But leniency from that position doesn't seem to cause people much issue.


I was giving it some thinking, the non-limiting aspect, and I came to this thought: Lets use the K:Mg ratio for example, and lets say both are in excess within our water. Now, if K is in extreme excess, and Mg in only slightly in excess, the K:Mg ratio would be very high, call it 10:1. So, because certain nutrients influence the uptake of other nutrients, and K/Mg are dependent on each other, in this scenario we _could_ see an Mg deficiency, where as the high K levels are hindering the "lower" Mg levels, despite there being more Mg in the tank than needed on paper. 

Of course.... this is all coming from my agronomy references/information, which is why I am asking if there could be potential issues in regards to aquatic plants.


I took the 3 or 4:1 Ca:Mg ratio and applied it to the ideal levels in agronomy, and they matched... as in the concentration of Ca is ideally 3-4x that of Mg.


----------



## Chlorophile

Quagulator said:


> I was giving it some thinking, the non-limiting aspect, and I came to this thought: Lets use the K:Mg ratio for example, and lets say both are in excess within our water. Now, if K is in extreme excess, and Mg in only slightly in excess, the K:Mg ratio would be very high, call it 10:1. So, because certain nutrients influence the uptake of other nutrients, and K/Mg are dependent on each other, in this scenario we _could_ see an Mg deficiency, where as the high K levels are hindering the "lower" Mg levels, despite there being more Mg in the tank than needed on paper.
> 
> Of course.... this is all coming from my agronomy references/information, which is why I am asking if there could be potential issues in regards to aquatic plants.
> 
> 
> I took the 3 or 4:1 Ca:Mg ratio and applied it to the ideal levels in agronomy, and they matched... as in the concentration of Ca is ideally 3-4x that of Mg.


Right, the thing is it still doesn't matter much. 
I have an 8:1 Ca:Mg ratio in my lawn, you can see pictures of it and my soil test a few pages back.
If anything aquatics are less concerned than terrestrials because they have access to everything all the time and not just via roots. 

Of course you can look at the Agonist charts and start to come up with all sorts of elaborate dosing schemes of spacing things apart 8 hours, synergism between X and Y so you dose at the same time, blah blah blah. 
I'm not convinced any of that is relevant when dissolved in a solution though? 

When I do my lawn, I have to make sure I haven't dosed any Urea for atleast 1 month before I apply Lime.. It's not that the Urea will ruin the Lime but it will make the lime less effective, and when applying pounds and pounds of stuff, or say over many acres.. 
Well those guys found out the efficiency standpoint stuff very quickly but... not as important in a fish tank I dont think? 

Of course there is probably some Nutrient uptake inhibition depending on whats going on... but non limiting within reason? Probably not. 
If I had another co2 tank I'd love to dose EI and just up the K higher and higher and higher and see what symptoms it induces.


----------



## Whysoserious

Chlorophile said:


> At lower pH there is Hydrogen Ions, at higher pH there is hydroxide.
> Having one or the other makes it acid or base.
> Having neither makes it neutral.
> That by no means makes something "lack the properties to have pH"


At all pH, there are hydrogen and hydroxide ions. pH describes the H+ and OH- ion activity (their relationship to each other) on a logarithmic scale.










Having more H+ ions then OH- ions makes the solution acidic.
Having more OH- ions then H+ ions makes the solution alkaline.
A pH of 7.0 does not mean that there are none of these ions present, only that the ion activity is neutral.
Thus, a pH of 7.0 can represent a solution having ten H+ ions and ten OH- ions, as it can also represent a solution having ten gazillion H+ ions and ten gazillion OH- ions. Significantly different solutions that have the same pH. These solutions will have different effects on added micro nutrients _despite have the same pH.

_Water always has the properties of pH due to the constant separation and recombination of the waters molecules.











Adding dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4, NH4H2PO4) to a solution containing only twenty ions made of H+ and OH- will drive the pH to around 5.0 with no significant change in the phosphate species. Adding the same amount of dihydrogen phosphate to a solution containing twenty gazillion ions made of H+ and OH- will convert half of the dihydrogen phosphate to hydrogen phosphate, _despite the original solutions having an equal pH._


----------



## Chlorophile

Deleted.


----------



## Whysoserious

Ouch.....from the person equally adept at saying dumb [censored][censored][censored][censored].

Who cares......but can we atleast agree on..........

I am always happy an open to increasing knowledge and understanding. Which means pursuing topics that I currently do not fully understand, and learning through discussion.


----------



## roadmaster

Knee choppin to progress shortly
Wondered how long it might take.
For myself ,,it was/is much easier to begin with more nutrient's possibly in excess from plant perspective, than beginning with limitation's,or ratio's.
Just worked better for me.
Everybody's sharing nice like,while giving others pause to consider if they like, or seems applicable,, to their own system dynamic's.
No need for butt hurt folks to muddy things up any further considering the variables that affect the original topic no?
No one size gonna fit all tanks/goal's.
I have been learning plenty !


----------



## maolin

*report and problems*

First of all,sorry for my poor english.
After 2 weeks travel,i found all my 3 tanks been badly without dosing and water changing. So I got some new plants to replace some of then 2 weeks ago and start following @burr740 's method. until today,it's not bad,but still some problems. I try to describe it clearly,any suggestions are welcome.

there is same dosing method for both 3 tanks,most like burr i think,in every week:
50% water changing,
3x macro,every dosing NO3 10 ppm,PO4 2 ppm,K 10 ppm.
7x micro,every dosing Fe 0.2 ppm,Mn 0.09 ppm,B 0.038 ppm,Zn 0.064 ppm,Cu 0.003 ppm,Mo 0.0013 ppm. Element Mn,Zn,Cu is chelated by edta,and Fe is mix by edta-fe,dtpa-fe,ferrous gluconate in ratio 4:1:1.

This is tank one,some soil like ada about one and half years old,RO water,add 15 ppm Ca from CaSO4,5 ppm Mg from MgSO4,1 dKH from KHCO3 when water changing,so i think it is ~3dGH, ~1dKH,PH 5.8 when light turn on.



















1. the top middle of syngonanthus becomes pale,it looks like iron deficiency.
2. The leaf tissue becomes yellow, nitrogen deficiency ?
3. Pantanal leaves becomes fat,i tried this plant couple times,every time it did like this.

this is tank two,some soil like ada about two years old,half tap and half RO,add 15 ppm Ca from CaSO4,5 ppm Mg from MgSO4 when water changing,i think it is 7-8 dGH,3-4 dKH,PH 6.2 when light turn on.


















Plants looks do better than before,but BBA is also do better..., i just clean filter and do 90% water change one week ago.


This is tank three,same like tank two,but 10 month old soil.


























Most plants look good,but rotala mac grow legs and some of them stun.Because all stun stem in corner and hidden by others, may be it's someting about CO2 ?


----------



## burr740

@maolin , that Pantanal is converting back to emersed form. Ive sen a couple people have that problem and so far have never seen an explanation for exactly what makes it happen.

As for the other problems, 2 weeks isnt a very long time. Since things are starting to look better maybe just keep doing what you're doing. Unless something drastic happens I wouldnt change anything for at least a couple more weeks, or a month. See how things look then.

Typical things that make Syns go yellow, not enough N03 or Fe, water is to hard. You seem to have none of these issues.

Personally the next change I'd make is cut P in half. Higher P levels (such as 6 ppm per week) can be a real troublemaker for some (me) other folks seem to have no issues with it. So its just a suggestion for something you might try

And of course you should rule out CO2 first, make sure to have around a 1 point drop in PH, ideally be the time lights come on or pretty soon thereafter. And make sure its stable, meaning the same every day.


----------



## maolin

yesterday i checked PH, in tank 2 there was 1.4 degree drop down from 7.6 to 6.2, although I don't really believe in my test solution, it should not be too much error. i will cut down half PO4 as you said, and keep other things for weeks,let's see what will happen. Thank you very much.


----------



## maolin

burr740 said:


> @maolin , that Pantanal is converting back to emersed form. Ive sen a couple people have that problem and so far have never seen an explanation for exactly what makes it happen.
> 
> As for the other problems, 2 weeks isnt a very long time. Since things are starting to look better maybe just keep doing what you're doing. Unless something drastic happens I wouldnt change anything for at least a couple more weeks, or a month. See how things look then.
> 
> Typical things that make Syns go yellow, not enough N03 or Fe, water is to hard. You seem to have none of these issues.
> 
> Personally the next change I'd make is cut P in half. Higher P levels (such as 6 ppm per week) can be a real troublemaker for some (me) other folks seem to have no issues with it. So its just a suggestion for something you might try
> 
> And of course you should rule out CO2 first, make sure to have around a 1 point drop in PH, ideally be the time lights come on or pretty soon thereafter. And make sure its stable, meaning the same every day.


I never thought that phosphate may be too high, but the more I think I may think you are right. Phosphate ions are very active, and high concentrations of phosphate can react with metal ions, such as iron and calcium, to form insoluble precipitate, causing iron deficiency(pale and yellow) and calcium deficiency (stun) in plants. Can not wait to try to reduce the phosphorus,maybe the problems will solved.


----------



## burr740

maolin said:


> I never thought that phosphate may be too high, but the more I think I may think you are right. Phosphate ions are very active, and high concentrations of phosphate can react with metal ions, such as iron and calcium, to form insoluble precipitate, causing iron deficiency(pale and yellow) and calcium deficiency (stun) in plants. Can not wait to try to reduce the phosphorus,maybe the problems will solved.


Be sure to give an update how it goes!


----------



## maolin

burr740 said:


> Be sure to give an update how it goes!


I will :grin2:

I remember a long time ago i did a testing,if mix a few milliliters of macro solution(made by KNO3 and KH2PO4) and micro solution(made by edta-x),there would be precipitate in hours. but if micro solution made by dtpa-x,there was nothing even after days.


----------



## Chlorophile

Only struggling with 3 plants right now 
Pantanal
Rotala rotundifolia
And I guess my ammania.
Rotala is practically non existent cause it keeps stunting and losing tips and I cut it and it gets shorter and shorter.


----------



## fablau

Chlorophile said:


> Only struggling with 3 plants right now
> Pantanal
> Rotala rotundifolia
> And I guess my ammania.
> Rotala is practically non existent cause it keeps stunting and losing tips and I cut it and it gets shorter and shorter.




Interesting... Are you dosing Burr's micromix? If not, what are your currently dosing?


----------



## Chlorophile

fablau said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only struggling with 3 plants right now
> Pantanal
> Rotala rotundifolia
> And I guess my ammania.
> Rotala is practically non existent cause it keeps stunting and losing tips and I cut it and it gets shorter and shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... Are you dosing Burr's micromix? If not, what are your currently dosing?
Click to expand...

Yes the newest version but with Cu as well


----------



## SamuelLG

About a month ago I posted some issues that I got by dosing a higher amount of micros (most of my plants were severely stunted). Back on that days I did two or three consecutive WC 50% to bring down the concentrations in the water column and things started to grow again. Then I left the tank alone for a few more days, dosing nothing at all but macros and keeping KH / GH and things went back to "normal".

After that, guessing the micro mix I got has something wrong with it, I decided to make and dose my own micro mix with a specific ratio of the elements. But even keeping a low micro dosing along the last couple weeks I started to see the same stunted things going on in the same species. As I was adding a safe amount of micros (0,05 ppm Fe-EDTA/dose), it probably wasn't related to micro dosing, and now I think I know whats was happening.

Along with the micro dosing 4x a week, I was adding daily glutaraldehyde 2% following the recommended dose of Excel (assuming Excel is an isomer of glutaraldehyde at 1,5%). I think it was too much and it was killing my plants.

Now, I'm dosing my micro mix 4 times a week (0,05 ppm Fe-EDTA and other metals/dose) and not putting any glutaraldehyde into the tank. Rotalas went back to grow normally and Ludwigias is still stunted, but let's see how things goes on from now.



Edward said:


> Pure water does not have properties to have pH.


Regarding the discussion about water pH, remember water is HOH and it auto dissociates creating H+ and OH- (just a tiny tiny part of it: 1 molecule at each 1,000,000). So, pure water has a H+ concentration of 10^-7 mol/L, in other words, pH 7.


----------



## Whysoserious

SamuelLG said:


> (just a tiny tiny part of it: 1 molecule at each 1,000,000).


It's funny how water likes to stay as water.


----------



## Edward

Pure water does not have properties to have *useful* pH.


----------



## chayos00

Edward said:


> Pure water does not have properties to have *useful* pH.


The tiniest factors will influence the pH reading and DI water will read funky.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Chlorophile

Wondering if higher levels of micros should be built up too slowly as plant growth is improved and not all at once.
This is purely speculation but here's my thoughts on it..

When I was running less light I was dosing micros 3 days a week at full strength and then 3 days at half strength - started to see stunted Bacopa with some weird margins and occasionally only one leaf growing per node

I lowered to 3x a week and things improved.


Upped my lighting and so I also upped my micros - things were good, really aggressive pearling for a few days.
Pearling has since become much less so, and I'm seeing stunting again on Bacopa and now also have clinopodium growing with only one leaf per node in a couple stems.

It's not as dramatic this time though, and also disregard my other issues if you've been following my other thread (pale and spotty staurogyne)

Nothing has changed much since I started using RO water, and really the tanks been more or less standard EI it's entire life.
I tinkered with GH and KH here and there, and for two months I've used more P than most.

New stunting coming with higher light obviously opens up a world of possible causes, including not enough micros.

But I'm just thinking maybe if you shock the plants by jumping too quick you end up with less uptake and that compounds the issue even more.

And that might explain why some naysayers on here have had bad results, going from super lean to super heavy and saying "woah all my plants started being weird"

And Burr, you went from super lean to super heavy but you experimented along the way and you've probably adapted your plants along the way.

Of course it's an easy hypothesis to test, swapping some plants from a lean tank to a rich tank and seeing if they adapt quickly or lose tips first etc.
Maybe that's already been disproven, if so let me know!
In the meantime I'm gonna go back to the median dosing I did with 3 days full strength and 3 days half strength and see if there's any improvement

I expect to see iron deficiency first if it's not enough, but is there something else that might show up sooner?


----------



## burr740

@Chlorophile I dont think your current issues are micro related.

Things are moving much faster now with the new brighter light, both good things and bad. Things like plant metabolism and internal processes, along with their need for CO2 and nutrients.

There may have been slight imbalances before that were barely noticeable. If there were, you just put them center stage and shined the spot light on them. It's one of the drawbacks of running high light, its a high risk/high reward kind of thing.

Following your other thread, those plants are lacking something, probably a macro nutrient. And since you're dosing <what should be> plenty of K and PLENTY of P, NO3 would be my first guess.

Backing down micros might help, at least in the beginning, but all you're doing is swapping one limitation for another. Which if the plants look healthy then who cares, right?

Nothing wrong with going back to a full dose/half a dose or whatever micro routine, but I believe the problem is more macro related now.

*This assumes based on what you've said in the other thread that you've ruled out co2 and/or flow, which also needs to be better now with more light.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> @Chlorophile I dont think your current issues are micro related.
> 
> Things are moving much faster now with the new brighter light, both good things and bad. Things like plant metabolism and internal processes, along with their need for CO2 and nutrients.
> 
> There may have been slight imbalances before that were barely noticeable. If there were, you just put them center stage and shined the spot light on them. It's one of the drawbacks of running high light, its a high risk/high reward kind of thing.
> 
> Following your other thread, those plants are lacking something, probably a macro nutrient. And since you're dosing <what should be> plenty of K and PLENTY of P, NO3 would be my first guess.
> 
> Backing down micros might help, at least in the beginning, but all you're doing is swapping one limitation for another. Which if the plants look healthy then who cares, right?
> 
> Nothing wrong with going back to a full dose/half a dose or whatever micro routine, but I believe the problem is more macro related now.
> 
> *This assumes based on what you've said in the other thread that you've ruled out co2 and/or flow, which also needs to be better now with more light.


Yeah, Im not sure what's going on with some of the issues, I added a dose of Thrive+ this morning and pearling was good today which points towards macros (especially since thrive has more micros too)
But the ammonium and urea in thrive could cause the pearling even N isn't my issue

I want to send you my rotala rotundifolia and see if it grows for you lmao. I think it's cursed.


----------



## Subjected

Well guys I have gone back to the drawing board. Dosing Burr's Micros at his ppms and NO3 @ 10ppm, PO4 @ 4ppm per dose was growing plants in both tanks but I cant see them due to the Green Water. Only time I could observe anything is right after a double 80% water change. the very next day it was hazy again. By weeks end its like split pea soup. 
Nothing else has changed in months except Nutes. I have re-formulated my concoction still using DIY Micros not CSM+B or Millers and have started dosing lean. NO3 4.8, PO4 0.3, NH2 0.35, K 2.9, Fe 0.12 etc. Ill post pics later once I can upload them.

Steve


----------



## SamuelLG

Edward said:


> Pure water does not have properties to have *useful* pH.


What is your definition of an *useful* pH?

Glass electrodes being messy to measure pH of pure water doesn't mean that pure water doesn't have pH or "properties" to have pH. Their H+ ions are there all the time, so it has a pH. The fact that those electrodes don't work well while measuring pH of high purity water is just an equipment limitation.


----------



## Edward

Chlorophile said:


> pH probe reads my RO water with 0 KH a 10?!
> This thing is junk..





SamuelLG said:


> What is your definition of an *useful* pH?
> Glass electrodes being messy to measure pH of pure water doesn't mean that pure water doesn't have pH or "properties" to have pH. Their H+ ions are there all the time, so it has a pH. The fact that those electrodes don't work well while measuring pH of high purity water is just an equipment limitation.


That’s right. Knowing demineralized water pH has no useful benefit in terms of growing aquatic plants.


----------



## Phil Edwards

I've been told to come over here and stir the pot. 


I dose 1/32tsp CSM+B dry powder straight into my tank even on days when I dose PO4. 


Phil


----------



## Immortal1




----------



## Greggz

Phil Edwards said:


> I've been told to come over here and stir the pot.
> 
> 
> I dose 1/32tsp CSM+B dry powder straight into my tank even on days when I dose PO4.
> 
> 
> Phil


LOL Phil. I'm thinking I can guess who sent you.

And am glad to see you here.

But I don't think you know what you are getting into.................


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> LOL Phil. I'm thinking I can guess who sent you.
> 
> And am glad to see you here.
> 
> But I don't think you know what you are getting into.....


I was providing direction!
Phil has been bent on helping others out and I saw no better place!:grin2:

Heck I tested water this eve, yeah really!
Despite the fact that this is the 2nd 2x EI dose this week of macros I had to add a splash of PO4 on top even.
Also Urea and micros this eve in the 33G! Go figure?
At least I do test @ monthly!


----------



## Phil Edwards

Greggz said:


> But I don't think you know what you are getting into.


You're absolutely right. I know very little, to jack sh*t, about traces. Other than the fact that I've made liquid trace mixes before at an old job using many of the same chemicals you're discussing, your all talking above my head.


----------



## Chlorophile

Maryland Guppy said:


> I was providing direction!
> Phil has been bent on helping others out and I saw no better place!:grin2:
> 
> Heck I tested water this eve, yeah really!
> Despite the fact that this is the 2nd 2x EI dose this week of macros I had to add a splash of PO4 on top even.
> Also Urea and micros this eve in the 33G! Go figure?
> At least I do test @ monthly!


Now you're talkin! Thats my style lol


----------



## Subjected

As promised here are some updated pics of all 4 of my tanks. The 12 Long Iwagumi and the 50 gallon are the only ones getting this new concoction. The other 2 get Thrive 3x week. 

Here is my moss only Fluval Spec V moss only tank with Micmol Aqua Air dimmed to 30% all channels. Sand Substrate. It gets Thrive 3x week.

































My 12 Long Aquamax Nature Style tank. Its been up for almost a year. DIY Compact HO Bulb 36w @ 4100k. ADA Amazonia Substrate. It gets Thrive 3x week.









The 50 Gallon. It has DIY mineralized soil. 1x Sat Pro Plus and 2x T8 LEDs. Dosing the new mix I posed a little earlier.

















My New 12 Long Mr Aqua Iwagumi contest tank. Micmol Aqua Air at 65% all channels. ADA Amazonia Substrate. Dosing the new mix.

























Enjoy
Steve


----------



## Chlorophile

Some observations from recent reading suggested to me

It seems like some people are going with a dosing scheme that looks more like the ratio's in PPS-Pro, but at... 10x the levels and much more K? 

What is the supposed benefits of PPS Pro? 
I assumed for a while it was sort of intentionally limiting P and leaving everything else sufficient.. Is that way off base? 

Obviously thats more Macro than Micro, but I think it kind of relates to this thread in so far as we've talked a lot about alternative dosing regimens as a whole and not just Micro's at this point. 

I'm gonna try "lean" P and see how it goes as its about the only thing I haven't tried at this point. Even though its probably not actually a lean level..


----------



## Subjected

Chlorophile said:


> What is the supposed benefits of PPS Pro?
> I assumed for a while it was sort of intentionally limiting P and leaving everything else sufficient.. Is that way off base?


I thought PPS Pro came about due to people wanting a stable system. Where there arn't water changes except top offs. The low dosing to keep all plants from growing out of control in a nice strict regime. 



Chlorophile said:


> I'm gonna try "lean" P and see how it goes as its about the only thing I haven't tried at this point. Even though its probably not actually a lean level..


Its easy to see how much PO4 your tanks needs by observing GSA. Green Spot Algae. If it appears then your tank needs more PO4.


----------



## Chlorophile

Subjected said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the supposed benefits of PPS Pro?
> I assumed for a while it was sort of intentionally limiting P and leaving everything else sufficient.. Is that way off base?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought PPS Pro came about due to people wanting a stable system. Where there arn't water changes except top offs. The low dosing to keep all plants from growing out of control in a nice strict regime.
> 
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna try "lean" P and see how it goes as its about the only thing I haven't tried at this point. Even though its probably not actually a lean level..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its easy to see how much PO4 your tanks needs by observing GSA. Green Spot Algae. If it appears then your tank needs more PO4.
Click to expand...

That's been my thinking too but have been pressed to question my logic.
I get GSA with large spots at lower P, and at medium levels my GSA is very small spots and more pale, and at high levels I have none.
But I'm dosing 9ppm per week of PO4 and wondering if it's agonistic towards other nutrients since I see deficiency where I should have none


----------



## maolin

*tracking report.*

it has been 5 days since my last post. current dosing:
macro 3x weekly,NO3 10, PO4 1, K 6.7 (ppm)
micro 7x weekly,Fe 0.2, Mn 0.09, B 0.037, Zn 0.064, Cu 0.003, Mo 0.0013 (ppm) 

i cut down half PO4 from 2ppm to 1ppm,hard to say it's getting better. may be it's nothing to do with PO4,but 3ppm a week seem enough already ,i will keep the level at 1.


This is tank 1,iron deficiency in plants looks a litte worse.i had checked iron concentration of tank water,it had a 0.25-0.5ppm reading. really makes me confused.









This is tank 2,not bad,BBA still the same,but I decided to give priority to plant health. Rotala mac "green" looks good to restore, rotala mac is some light color.









This is tank 3,red plants like sunset also got some light color,rotala mac grow new shoots,but leaves hooked and damaged,looks related to Ca or CO2.i bet on CO2,because it's hard to believe when 20ppm of calcium is added, making GH reach 8 or more, there will be calcium deficiency. so i adjust the flow,a little more BPS,install a new filter. Hope it helps.

















I started planting aquatic plants for less than two years and I am still a newbie. So I like to try different ways to maintain the tank. Sometimes it will get good results, but it will not take long for me to mess up. However, the process is the most interesting and can learn a lot of new things.

This is tank 1 used to be:

























This is tank 2 used to be:

















This is tank 3 used to be:


----------



## burr740

Phil Edwards said:


> Other than the fact that I've made liquid trace mixes before at an old job using many of the same chemicals you're discussing, your all talking above my head.


At Brightwell? Do you know

1. What type of water was used for the base
2. Was there anything added besides the nutrient elements, like a mild acid or anything else to assist the solution's integrity


----------



## Phil Edwards

burr740 said:


> At Brightwell? Do you know
> 
> 1. What type of water was used for the base
> 2. Was there anything added besides the nutrient elements, like a mild acid or anything else to assist the solution's integrity


Yeah, at Brightwell. From what I recall, yes, with mixes like this pH was typically brought to below 4. I could be wrong and things may have changed since I left. I was on the office side doing the technical work but occasionally got my hands wet when we had to make a load of stuff and it was just the manufacturing supervisor and I left. It's been years since I did anything like that for them.


----------



## Edward

Chlorophile said:


> Some observations from recent reading suggested to me
> It seems like some people are going with a dosing scheme that looks more like the ratio's in PPS-Pro, but at... 10x the levels and much more K?


The PPS nutrient ratios did not come from previous research studies or from tissue analysis. They were created from scratch by practical applications in my 13 aquariums and thousands of measurements.


Chlorophile said:


> What is the supposed benefits of PPS Pro?
> I assumed for a while it was sort of intentionally limiting P and leaving everything else sufficient.. Is that way off base?


 No nutrient should be limited. 
PPS intention is to saturate and maintain. It may take 1-2 ppm PO4 daily to fill the plants, but once they are, they need much less to maintain. Water column accumulation is the indicator. What people do instead, is flooding already saturated plants.


Chlorophile said:


> Obviously thats more Macro than Micro, but I think it kind of relates to this thread in so far as we've talked a lot about alternative dosing regimens as a whole and not just Micro's at this point.


Some are not gonna like it.


Chlorophile said:


> I'm gonna try "lean" P and see how it goes as its about the only thing I haven't tried at this point. Even though its probably not actually a lean level..


It will create havoc. Flooded plants will leach nutrients back to water when conditions change to lean or to low TDS, same applies to substrates. So yes, starting aquariums is the hardest part of growing aquatic plants.


----------



## Chlorophile

Edward said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some observations from recent reading suggested to me
> It seems like some people are going with a dosing scheme that looks more like the ratio's in PPS-Pro, but at... 10x the levels and much more K?
> 
> 
> 
> The PPS nutrient ratios did not come from previous research studies or from tissue analysis. They were created from scratch by practical applications in my 13 aquariums and thousands of measurements.
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the supposed benefits of PPS Pro?
> I assumed for a while it was sort of intentionally limiting P and leaving everything else sufficient.. Is that way off base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nutrient should be limited.
> PPS intention is to saturate and maintain. It may take 1-2 ppm PO4 daily to fill the plants, but once they are, they need much less to maintain. Water column accumulation is the indicator. What people do instead, is flooding already saturated plants.
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously thats more Macro than Micro, but I think it kind of relates to this thread in so far as we've talked a lot about alternative dosing regimens as a whole and not just Micro's at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some are not gonna like it.
> 
> 
> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna try "lean" P and see how it goes as its about the only thing I haven't tried at this point. Even though its probably not actually a lean level..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will create havoc. Flooded plants will leach nutrients back to water when conditions change to lean or to low TDS, same applies to substrates. So yes, starting aquariums is the hardest part of growing aquatic plants.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if I cut my P dosing by a third I will have leeching from plants and substrate?
For how long and what is the solution?


----------



## Phil Edwards

I don't know about the plants, but the substrate leaching will continue until the concentration of P adsorbed to the surface particles matches the concentration in the water. It may take some time to start depending on the type of material, but it's bound to happen with a substrate that's been enriched through water column dosing.


----------



## Chlorophile

Phil Edwards said:


> I don't know about the plants, but the substrate leaching will continue until the concentration of P adsorbed to the surface particles matches the concentration in the water. It may take some time to start depending on the type of material, but it's bound to happen with a substrate that's been enriched through water column dosing.


I have aquasoil and shrimp sand (montmorillinate clay?)
So probably a fair bit considering the aquasoil has broken down a fair bit, become waterborne and then settled again many times


----------



## Phil Edwards

Yeah, sounds like you probably have a ton of P stored in that substrate.


----------



## burr740

Toss that aquasoil crap and get a real substrate like blasting sand! 

*only half joking


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Toss that aquasoil crap and get a real substrate like blasting sand!
> 
> *only half joking


Burr I am with you that stuff scares me!:grin2:


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Toss that aquasoil crap and get a real substrate like blasting sand! <a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/smilie/icon_smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" ></a>
> 
> *only half joking


Lol I love aquasoil, but I think it's more suitable for tanks like my old Iwagumi set ups where you carpet and leave it alone, plus with all that hardscape and fewer stems you don't really need much more fertilizer.
I also love the PH drop, but mines pretty well exhausted at this point.

But I kid you not I've been tempted to tear up the substrate and rescape the tank with the fish in a bucket for a little while.
I'm scared though I always end up scratching my tanks when I use sand!


----------



## SamuelLG

burr740 said:


> At Brightwell? Do you know
> 
> 1. What type of water was used for the base
> 2. Was there anything added besides the nutrient elements, *like a mild acid or anything else to assist the solution's integrity*


Burr, I have a question about it. When I was dissolving the salts to make my mix I started with EDTA than FeSO4.7H2O. The EDTA itself is an acid and it alone put the pH of the solution very acidic (I was using a glass electrode all the time and it was bellow pH 3). Then I added the others salts, boric acid and also vitamin C (which is also an acid, antioxidant and helps to keep the pH acidic to avoid mold), what brought the pH down even more (bellow pH 2). But at this low pH something started to precipitate and I had to add NaOH in order to bring the pH up a bit to let the solution clear again without any precipitate (close to pH 3,5).

So, when you put something in your mix to let it acidic and avoid mold (or avoid EDTA/DTPA to loose from Fe), do you get any precipitate? Do you know what is the final pH of the mix? Thanks!


----------



## burr740

SamuelLG said:


> Burr, I have a question about it. When I was dissolving the salts to make my mix I started with EDTA than FeSO4.7H2O. The EDTA itself is an acid and it alone put the pH of the solution very acidic (I was using a glass electrode all the time and it was bellow pH 3). Then I added the others salts, boric acid and also vitamin C (which is also an acid, antioxidant and helps to keep the pH acidic to avoid mold), what brought the pH down even more (bellow pH 2). But at this low pH something started to precipitate and I had to add NaOH in order to bring the pH up a bit to let the solution clear again without any precipitate (close to pH 3,5).
> 
> So, when you put something in your mix to let it acidic and avoid mold (or avoid EDTA/DTPA to loose from Fe), do you get any precipitate? Do you know what is the final pH of the mix? Thanks!


Mine is crystal clear as soon as everything dissolves completely, usually after an hour or two. Not sure what the final PH is.

I add 5 ml distilled vinegar to 500 ml of distilled water - before adding the ferts. Swirl that around and let it sit while weighing out the dry compounds. 

When all the ingredients have been added shake the hell out of it. And that's it.

Really have no idea what might be going on in your case. FeSO4 is pretty unstable, that might have something to do with it


----------



## Subjected

SamuelLG said:


> Burr, I have a question about it. When I was dissolving the salts to make my mix I started with EDTA than FeSO4.7H2O. The EDTA itself is an acid and it alone put the pH of the solution very acidic (I was using a glass electrode all the time and it was bellow pH 3). Then I added the others salts, boric acid and also vitamin C (which is also an acid, antioxidant and helps to keep the pH acidic to avoid mold), what brought the pH down even more (bellow pH 2). But at this low pH something started to precipitate and I had to add NaOH in order to bring the pH up a bit to let the solution clear again without any precipitate (close to pH 3,5).
> 
> So, when you put something in your mix to let it acidic and avoid mold (or avoid EDTA/DTPA to loose from Fe), do you get any precipitate? Do you know what is the final pH of the mix? Thanks!


I have dabbled in All in One Solution's for a while now. Never added EDTA though. 
Hardly ever have precipitation issues from Fe and PO4. Even to the point of Ei Concentrations. I do get precipitation any time I add K2SO4 to it.


----------



## SamuelLG

Looks like after stop dosing glutaraldehyde (it was killing some plants), putting new led lights with a good spectra and dosing my own micro mix I'm getting somewhere!


----------



## redchigh

Sorry if this has been mentioned by others, but I just found this thread and it's a lot to take in.

I've been thinking about mixing up an all in one.

I see a lot of comments and thoughts about using chelators like EDTA, and I'm also familiar with it's potential build-up.

I'm having a bit of trouble finding exactly what it breaks down into- I assume at least some carbon?

Also glut- is anyone in this thread dosing it? Is the consensus that it works according to Tom Barr's theory that it improves plant growth simply because it's an effective algicide (since it's co2 contribution is negligible)

Finally, I'm curious why no one here is discussing fulvic acid as a chelator, either by itself or in combination with an inorganic chelator? (There are several studies that show increased growth and iron uptake when EDTA is used with fulvic acid)

I've been doing a lot of research from the aquaculture angle- (hydroponics with fish) and a lot of success comes from using products like maxicrop+iron (an iron enhanced kelp extract) directly in the water column- with the fish.

Even if thats a leap, organic nutrient sources work well (in my opinion) because of the various amino acids and natural compounds. Fulvic acid seems to be a good place to start as a chelator that instead if building in concentration, would just be absorbed by the plants.


----------



## Chlorophile

redchigh said:


> Sorry if this has been mentioned by others, but I just found this thread and it's a lot to take in.
> 
> I've been thinking about mixing up an all in one.
> 
> I see a lot of comments and thoughts about using chelators like EDTA, and I'm also familiar with it's potential build-up.
> 
> I'm having a bit of trouble finding exactly what it breaks down into- I assume at least some carbon?
> 
> Also glut- is anyone in this thread dosing it? Is the consensus that it works according to Tom Barr's theory that it improves plant growth simply because it's an effective algicide (since it's co2 contribution is negligible)
> 
> Finally, I'm curious why no one here is discussing fulvic acid as a chelator, either by itself or in combination with an inorganic chelator? (There are several studies that show increased growth and iron uptake when EDTA is used with fulvic acid)
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research from the aquaculture angle- (hydroponics with fish) and a lot of success comes from using products like maxicrop+iron (an iron enhanced kelp extract) directly in the water column- with the fish.
> 
> Even if thats a leap, organic nutrient sources work well (in my opinion) because of the various amino acids and natural compounds. Fulvic acid seems to be a good place to start as a chelator that instead if building in concentration, would just be absorbed by the plants.


Someone mentioned that EDTA drove their mix solution down to 3 or so PH, but I haven't heard anyone else say they've tested the mix.
Fulvic or humic acid probably has benefits beyond chelation, for fish health especially


----------



## redchigh

Coincidentally, researching fulvic and humic acids have let me to discover the ingredients used in Ada Amazonia... The 'benefits' of fulvic and humic acids very much line up with the claimed benefits of the substrate's..


----------



## maolin

sorry for my poor english...
It has been almost a month since it has passed. The situation is not very good. Take tank 1 as an example. Previously submitted photos:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-custom-micro-mix-thread-55.html#post10850649
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-custom-micro-mix-thread-57.html#post10863145

At present, there is still a clear white tinge in the top of plants. The plants are growing, but very slow. The foreground grass (English name Utricularia bifida) has almost no growth, and there are a lot of BBAs. I reverted to 2 ppm PO4 each dosing, because in the previous week it was reduced to 1 ppm, GDA was apparent on the glass, cleaned up and returned to 2 ppm, and basically disappeared. Now is the same as the beginning:
macro 3x weekly,NO3 10, PO4 2, K 7.3 (ppm)
micro 7x weekly,Fe 0.2, Mn 0.09, B 0.037, Zn 0.064, Cu 0.003, Mo 0.0013 (ppm) 
every wc, Ca 15 ppm from CaSO4,Mg 5 ppm from MgSO4,1 dKH from KH2PO4

I really do not understand how to improve, I can think of these:
1. Iron deficiency symptoms? Although 1.4 ppm of iron per week is already very abundant, in my limited knowledge, the whitening of new leaves of aquatic plants is a typical iron deficiency. My iron is composed of edta-fe, dtpa-fe, and ferrous gluconate. dtpa-fe only accounts for about 15%. Although iron is abundant, it is not available for aquatic plants. I added 0.1 ppm dtpa-fe two additional times this week, but I saw no significant improvement.
2. CO2 deficiency? The water quality is about 3dGH, 1dKH, the tank size is 60x45x45 cm, about 100L of water, and 50W of LED lamps are used. It took a day to test the PH, CO2 07:00-17:30 and the light 10:00-18:00. Tank water 07:00 (6.9) 08:00 (6.5) 09:20 (6.3) 10:30 (6.2) 13:20 (6.1) 18:00 (5.8), after 48 hours of degassing, the pH is 7.9.the measure point behind the spout and near the water surface, which should be the place with the lowest CO2. The drop checker turns yellow in the morning, BPS estimates 4-5, too fast I can count. I think it should be enough, but not very sure.
3. The environment is too unstable. As far as I know, these kinds of plants all hate sudden changes in the environment. And I used to change the water at night, so each time when wc, the ph of tank water is about 6.3, fresh water is 7.6 or higher,suddenly changed 40% - 50%, PH shock for these kinds of aquatic plants too much? I remember that after each wc in the past two weeks, the next day that the white part of the plant became larger.
4. The water flow is too strong? I understand that good CO2 requires good flow and good surface agitation, but maybe i did do it too much? The total capacity of the tank is 120L, the pump is 3800L/H, and a 2.5w power header is configured. so I had to try to make the flow more gentle at the same time, i see every leaf moving,but not too strong to keeping stand up.
5. micro overdosing? Not sure, I had success in a nutrient-rich soil + a small amount of water fertilization mode, but also succeeded in a large number of water fertilization modes. I do not know...

Now my mind is in a mess and I need your advice. Thanks very much!


----------



## natemcnutty

maolin said:


> every wc, Ca 15 ppm from CaSO4,Mg 5 ppm from MgSO4,1 dKH from KH2PO4
> 
> I really do not understand how to improve, I can think of these:
> 
> 1. Iron deficiency symptoms? Although 1.4 ppm of iron per week is already very abundant, in my limited knowledge, the whitening of new leaves of aquatic plants is a typical iron deficiency. My iron is composed of edta-fe, dtpa-fe, and ferrous gluconate. dtpa-fe only accounts for about 15%. Although iron is abundant, it is not available for aquatic plants. I added 0.1 ppm dtpa-fe two additional times this week, but I saw no significant improvement.


Try increasing Ca and Mg just a little bit more. When you have plenty of Fe like that, you have to consider how the plant take in Fe. Mg facilitates this process, so a deficiency there results in a Fe deficiency.



maolin said:


> 2. CO2 deficiency? The water quality is about 3dGH, 1dKH, the tank size is 60x45x45 cm, about 100L of water, and 50W of LED lamps are used. It took a day to test the PH, CO2 07:00-17:30 and the light 10:00-18:00. Tank water 07:00 (6.9) 08:00 (6.5) 09:20 (6.3) 10:30 (6.2) 13:20 (6.1) 18:00 (5.8), after 48 hours of degassing, the pH is 7.9.the measure point behind the spout and near the water surface, which should be the place with the lowest CO2. The drop checker turns yellow in the morning, BPS estimates 4-5, too fast I can count. I think it should be enough, but not very sure.


A more than 2 point drop in pH is a crazy amount of CO2. Definitely not going to run into a CO2 deficiency there, but I'm surprised your livestock is OK with that!



maolin said:


> 3. The environment is too unstable. As far as I know, these kinds of plants all hate sudden changes in the environment. And I used to change the water at night, so each time when wc, the ph of tank water is about 6.3, fresh water is 7.6 or higher,suddenly changed 40% - 50%, PH shock for these kinds of aquatic plants too much? I remember that after each wc in the past two weeks, the next day that the white part of the plant became larger.


If anything, you may not have enough oxygen prior to water changes. You said degassed for 48 hours comes to 7.9, but your tank is always less than that. That means CO2 is not fully degassing overnight, and that might mean you don't have enough surface agitation (which would reduce O2 levels). Lack of O2 can be a huge issue for plants as well - a point I think many people miss.



maolin said:


> 4. The water flow is too strong? I understand that good CO2 requires good flow and good surface agitation, but maybe i did do it too much? The total capacity of the tank is 120L, the pump is 3800L/H, and a 2.5w power header is configured. so I had to try to make the flow more gentle at the same time, i see every leaf moving,but not too strong to keeping stand up.


Your description sounds like flow is good. You don't want them laying down, but a gentle sway is fine. Some plants are lake / marsh plants that don't prefer high flow, but even those can tolerate it fine. Easy theory to test though if you wanted, but that's not what I'd be looking at first. 



maolin said:


> 5. micro overdosing? Not sure, I had success in a nutrient-rich soil + a small amount of water fertilization mode, but also succeeded in a large number of water fertilization modes. I do not know...
> 
> Now my mind is in a mess and I need your advice. Thanks very much!


At this point, I'd keep a consistent dosing and maintenance schedule, reduce lighting slightly, watch the plants, and then up the dosing slightly as you see deficiencies until they go away. Use EI levels as your max target and work your way up (or go opposite, dose EI levels then reduce until you see deficiencies).


----------



## maolin

thank you @natemcnutty, i will seriously think about your suggestions!


----------



## Chlorophile

Happy plants happy life.
But what's making Pogostemon Kimberley so sad?
Was wondering if I'm low on manganese..
This is getting worse for a week and a half.
Haven't done anything reactive yet but thinking by now it's not gonna clear up on it's own.

























Other than that, tank is doing good still!


----------



## Subjected

maolin said:


> At present, there is still a clear white tinge in the top of plants. The plants are growing, but very slow. The foreground grass (English name Utricularia bifida) has almost no growth, and there are a lot of BBAs.


You should have all kinds of growth with that amount of CO2 and fertz.

I suggest resetting the tank by doing say 2 back to back 60-80% water changes.
Then go back to a dosing that you know works, such as standard Ei or whatever. 
The theory behind this is 1, you know it works, 2 the plants will recover from whatever deficiency and grow better.

Then when things get better start slowly adjusting say just the Micros. This way you know if something goes wrong its the micros not N, P, K. 

Steve


----------



## burr740

@Chlorophile at the risk of stating the obvious that pogo is lacking something. Hard to say what but I'd make sure there's plenty of NO3, K, and micros.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> @Chlorophile at the risk of stating the obvious that pogo is lacking something. Hard to say what but I'd make sure there's plenty of NO3, K, and micros.


Right! I have plenty of that stuff (I should at least) if I am low on K it's just the difference between whatever amount of K 3ppm vs 1ppm of kh2po4 adds..
Substrate swap might be helping though, the new growth has some more red in it for the last two days and that's what went away first when it started to stunting and get holes


----------



## maolin

Subjected said:


> You should have all kinds of growth with that amount of CO2 and fertz.
> 
> I suggest resetting the tank by doing say 2 back to back 60-80% water changes.
> Then go back to a dosing that you know works, such as standard Ei or whatever.
> The theory behind this is 1, you know it works, 2 the plants will recover from whatever deficiency and grow better.
> 
> Then when things get better start slowly adjusting say just the Micros. This way you know if something goes wrong its the micros not N, P, K.
> 
> Steve


I made a mistake about PH,like @natemcnutty said,a more than 2 point drop in pH is crazy, so rechecked it with another PH meter yesterday. remineralized water is 7.1,before CO2 turn on PH of tank is 7.1,when light turn on PH is 6.3,when CO2/light turn off PH is 6.1,and it take 3.5 hours from light on to drop ph from 7.1 to 6.1. I did not had CO2 as much as i once thought, or there was too much surface agitation.

i removed power head, add a little more CO2,change Ca:Mg from 15:5 to 12:8,add a little fulvic acid when wc.
just curious, from lights on,how many hours will you need to drop pH 1 degree or more?


----------



## natemcnutty

maolin said:


> I made a mistake about PH,like @natemcnutty said,a more than 2 point drop in pH is crazy, so rechecked it with another PH meter yesterday. remineralized water is 7.1,before CO2 turn on PH of tank is 7.1,when light turn on PH is 6.3,when CO2/light turn off PH is 6.1,and it take 3.5 hours from light on to drop ph from 7.1 to 6.1. I did not had CO2 as much as i once thought, or there was too much surface agitation.
> 
> i removed power head, add a little more CO2,change Ca:Mg from 15:5 to 12:8,add a little fulvic acid when wc.
> just curious, from lights on,how many hours will you need to drop pH 1 degree or more?


Even with high surface agitation, you should still be getting a 1 point drop pretty easily, but you are right, higher surface agitation will take longer to achieve that.

Personally, I start my CO2 2 hours before lights on because I have high surface agitation. I think it's better for both the fish/shrimp and plants. I'm excited to hear how the extra Mg does for you


----------



## Subjected

natemcnutty said:


> Personally, I start my CO2 2 hours before lights on


Nailed it.


----------



## Subjected

So I did a thing and updated my lights to 2x SBReef Lights 16" Basic Freshwater. Running Channel 1 @ 60%, Channel 2 @ 20%

It had 1x Sat Pro Plus and 2x T8 LED 26w tubes on it before:

















Here is the new lights:

























Here is the other tank getting the same fertz regiem but with a MicMol Aqua Air 900.
Rotala Sunset, Blyxia, DHG Belem









Dose: 5mL per 40L adds:

H2O: 500mL
KNO3: 23.496g
Co(NH2)2: 3.6605g
KH2PO4: 2.197g
K2SO4: 8.43g
Fe DTPA: 8.4615
MgSO4.7H2O: 3.1695
Na2B4O7.10H2O: 0.386g
ZnSO4.2H2O: 0.0285g
CuSO4.5H2O: 0.037g
Na2MoO4.2H2O: 0.008g
MnSO4.H2O: 0.2885g

NO3 4.89
PO4 0.383
NH2 0.670
K 2.902
N ??
P ??
Fe 0.1250
Mg 0.0000
B 0.0109
Mm 0.0234
Zn 0.0024
Mo 0.0008
Cu 0.0023
Ni 0.0001

Steve


----------



## maolin

natemcnutty said:


> Even with high surface agitation, you should still be getting a 1 point drop pretty easily, but you are right, higher surface agitation will take longer to achieve that.
> 
> Personally, I start my CO2 2 hours before lights on because I have high surface agitation. I think it's better for both the fish/shrimp and plants. I'm excited to hear how the extra Mg does for you


everything looks much better in the past two days! :grin2:
what i really want to know,how many hours will cost for your tank water getting a stable PH,starting from CO2 turn on. i hate my poor english...


----------



## Chlorophile

maolin said:


> natemcnutty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even with high surface agitation, you should still be getting a 1 point drop pretty easily, but you are right, higher surface agitation will take longer to achieve that.
> 
> Personally, I start my CO2 2 hours before lights on because I have high surface agitation. I think it's better for both the fish/shrimp and plants. I'm excited to hear how the extra Mg does for you <a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/smilie/icon_smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" ></a>
> 
> 
> 
> everything looks much better in the past two days! <a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/PlantedTank_net_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" ></a>
> what i really want to know,how many hours will cost for your tank water getting a stable PH,starting from CO2 turn on. i hate my poor english...
Click to expand...

Very variable
Depends on injection type - reactors are slower, then in tank diffuser, and an inline atomic diffuser is very fast.
Bubble rate, tank size, surface agitation, etc, all change this
It takes me about 3 hours to get optimal co2 with a reactor.


----------



## maolin

Chlorophile said:


> Very variable
> Depends on injection type - reactors are slower, then in tank diffuser, and an inline atomic diffuser is very fast.
> Bubble rate, tank size, surface agitation, etc, all change this
> It takes me about 3 hours to get optimal co2 with a reactor.


really？ This is exactly the opposite of what I had previously imagined. I always thought that reactor is the fastest. i have both reactor and inline diffuser been used in different tanks, i'd better check it out someday.


----------



## Chlorophile

maolin said:


> really？ This is exactly the opposite of what I had previously imagined. I always thought that reactor is the fastest. i have both reactor and inline diffuser been used in different tanks, i'd better check it out someday.


I don't think so, co2 into a reactor starts off as large bubbles and slowly becomes dissolved, an inline atomizer/diffuser will shoot out a very fine mist immediately that can start to dissolve. 
It's probably not a huge difference but I can't fathom a reactor would be a quicker pH drop..


----------



## chayos00

Chlorophile said:


> I don't think so, co2 into a reactor starts off as large bubbles and slowly becomes dissolved, an inline atomizer/diffuser will shoot out a very fine mist immediately that can start to dissolve.
> It's probably not a huge difference but I can't fathom a reactor would be a quicker pH drop..


Now from what I have seen on some YouTubes, where folks have clear PVC the bubbles look to disperse very quickly in the flow. Mines in my tub doing a leak check on it, as I just built it this weekend. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## RLee

Chlorophile said:


> I don't think so, co2 into a reactor starts off as large bubbles and slowly becomes dissolved, an inline atomizer/diffuser will shoot out a very fine mist immediately that can start to dissolve.
> It's probably not a huge difference but I can't fathom a reactor would be a quicker pH drop..


It all depends on how you build the reactor. I stuff a piece of hardwood dowel in the end of the co2 tube. This creates tiny bubbles.


----------



## Chlorophile

I can induce leaf curl by doing half doses of traces back to back instead of either full then half or full back to back.
This only takes three days to show up..
It shows in Ludwigia sp red first, then in Rubin, and if I let it go on Repens x Arcuata will also show it.
It's slightly noticeable in Clinopodium and pantanal but not as much, just a downward tilt not a curling.

Induced leaf curl https://imgur.com/gallery/VsRrl


A full trace dose will fix it within 6 hours and then if I go back to half doses it returns in a day or two.
Even after a week of full dosing I only get about 3 days before this returns.

Does anyone know what it's indicative of?
It's directly linked to traces and reproducible very quickly.


----------



## burr740

That is very interesting @Chlorophile . Its textbook B deficiency and Ive also seen it with low Zn. 

These symptoms specifically are what led to the custom blend having a lot of both. Might be time to experiment with even higher levels

Why not just do full doses every day?


----------



## elusive77

Chlorophile said:


> I can induce leaf curl by doing half doses of traces back to back instead of either full then half or full back to back.
> This only takes three days to show up..
> It shows in Ludwigia sp red first, then in Rubin, and if I let it go on Repens x Arcuata will also show it.
> It's slightly noticeable in Clinopodium and pantanal but not as much, just a downward tilt not a curling.
> 
> Induced leaf curl https://imgur.com/gallery/VsRrl
> 
> 
> A full trace dose will fix it within 6 hours and then if I go back to half doses it returns in a day or two.
> Even after a week of full dosing I only get about 3 days before this returns.
> 
> Does anyone know what it's indicative of?
> It's directly linked to traces and reproducible very quickly.


Kkk 6l
J

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> That is very interesting @Chlorophile
> Why not just do full doses every day?


Funny Burr I was reading this post and thinking the same thing.

The question is asked and answered.

Dose more for awhile, keep it steady, and don't jump around. 

If things go well, just keep it there. Then start fine tuning other things.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> That is very interesting @Chlorophile . Its textbook B deficiency and Ive also seen it with low Zn.
> 
> These symptoms specifically are what led to the custom blend having a lot of both. Might be time to experiment with even higher levels
> 
> Why not just do full doses every day?


I do dose full, but out of curiosity I tried half doses one time and saw this, a few weeks ago and then the other day I couldn't remember if I'd dosed or not so I did a half dose just incase and it came back.

I just think it's cool I've found something I can reproduce so quickly lol.

Interesting it's boron, probably no point adding more, but this would certainly get dramatic quickly if I took vacation.. 
I must have a ton of friggin par for it to show up so quickly

P.s. everything is almost normal again with only the SP red still drooping slightly.
Repens x Arcuata recovers first, then Rubin, then SP red.


----------



## Subjected

Chlorophile said:


> Does anyone know what it's indicative of?
> It's directly linked to traces and reproducible very quickly.


I had this happen but did not associate it with B or the other Zn
I lowered light from 70% to 60% and it fixed it, well for now. 
Maybe I should up B and Zn and raise light again. :grin2::grin2::grin2:


----------



## Chlorophile

Subjected said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know what it's indicative of?
> It's directly linked to traces and reproducible very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> I had this happen but did not associate it with B or the other Zn
> I lowered light from 70% to 60% and it fixed it, well for now.
> Maybe I should up B and Zn and raise light again. <a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/PlantedTank_net_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" ></a><a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/PlantedTank_net_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" ></a><a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/PlantedTank_net_2015/smilies/tango_face_grin.png" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" ></a>
Click to expand...

It's actually returned today again.. I did a 1.5x trace dose today cause it's bugging me.. plants must be dialed in on everything else right now for it to be this bad.


----------



## elusive77

Chlorophile said:


> It's actually returned today again.. I did a 1.5x trace dose today cause it's bugging me.. plants must be dialed in on everything else right now for it to be this bad.


This looks a lot like what I've been dealing with, at least the symptoms. Your plants look almost identical. For me it does not seem to be micro related though. I've tried half doses for a couple weeks and full doses, but it stays the same. For me the only thing I've been able to tie it to is a water change. Right after a water change it starts improving and after a couple of days it looks great. Give it a couple more days though and it starts to curl. And by water change day it looks pretty ugly. Have you noticed this with yours? I'm interested to see what you might figure out as I've been battling this for a long time with no solution.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## wayzokens

Friends I would like to try this recipe and experiment with micro, I have enough raw material here in my country (Chile).
So I wanted to know if someone can share the recipe with me.
So I can publish my results in this post.
regards


----------



## wayzokens

Friends I would like to try this recipe and experiment with micro, I have enough raw material here in my country (Chile). So I wanted to know if someone can share the recipe with me. So I can publish my results in this post. regards:grin2:


----------



## Chlorophile

elusive77 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually returned today again.. I did a 1.5x trace dose today cause it's bugging me.. plants must be dialed in on everything else right now for it to be this bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This looks a lot like what I've been dealing with, at least the symptoms. Your plants look almost identical. For me it does not seem to be micro related though. I've tried half doses for a couple weeks and full doses, but it stays the same. For me the only thing I've been able to tie it to is a water change. Right after a water change it starts improving and after a couple of days it looks great. Give it a couple more days though and it starts to curl. And by water change day it looks pretty ugly. Have you noticed this with yours? I'm interested to see what you might figure out as I've been battling this for a long time with no solution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 hmm no for me it seems to occur directly after WC to some extent regardless of dosing.
Maybe your tap has something good in it, I'm on RO water


----------



## burr740

elusive77 said:


> Right after a water change it starts improving and after a couple of days it looks great. Give it a couple more days though and it starts to curl. And by water change day it looks pretty ugly.


Looks better early in the week when ferts are leaner but gets worse as they build up = To much something



Chlorophile said:


> hmm no for me it seems to occur directly after WC to some extent regardless of dosing.


Looks better later in the week after ferts have built up but looks worse early in the week when they are leaner = Not enough something


* seems logical to me




wayzokens said:


> Friends I would like to try this recipe and experiment with micro, I have enough raw material here in my country (Chile).
> So I wanted to know if someone can share the recipe with me.
> So I can publish my results in this post.
> regards


Fe DTPA - .15 ppm
Mn - .075 ppm
B - .03 ppm
Zn - .055 ppm
Mo - .0015 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

Here is a calculator to figure how much to add for the desired ppm. You'll need to calculate each compound individually based on the size of your tank, size of your dosing bottle, and the dosage amount.

Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator

If you need help figuring something out just ask


----------



## elusive77

burr740 said:


> Looks better early in the week when ferts are leaner but gets worse as they build up = To much something
> 
> 
> Looks better later in the week after ferts have built up but looks worse early in the week when they are leaner = Not enough something
> 
> 
> * seems logical to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fe DTPA - .15 ppm
> Mn - .075 ppm
> B - .03 ppm
> Zn - .055 ppm
> Mo - .0015 ppm
> Cu - .002 ppm
> Ni - .0005 ppm
> 
> Here is a calculator to figure how much to add for the desired ppm. You'll need to calculate each compound individually based on the size of your tank, size of your dosing bottle, and the dosage amount.
> 
> Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator
> 
> If you need help figuring something out just ask


I definitely agree. It's figuring out what that's the problem  Still working on that. Obviously these are different issues though. But it's funny how they look so much alike. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Looks better early in the week when ferts are leaner but gets worse as they build up = To much something
> 
> 
> Looks better later in the week after ferts have built up but looks worse early in the week when they are leaner = Not enough something
> 
> 
> * seems logical to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fe DTPA - .15 ppm
> Mn - .075 ppm
> B - .03 ppm
> Zn - .055 ppm
> Mo - .0015 ppm
> Cu - .002 ppm
> Ni - .0005 ppm
> 
> Here is a calculator to figure how much to add for the desired ppm. You'll need to calculate each compound individually based on the size of your tank, size of your dosing bottle, and the dosage amount.
> 
> Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator
> 
> If you need help figuring something out just ask


the 1.5x dose seems to have worked for me to get it out of droopy mode, hopefully it was just in a big deficit from the half dose I did somehow. 
I'll continue with 1x doses starting tomorrow and hopefully it doesn't keep happening/getting worse. 

Growth on the Sp Red does seem a bit less than usual. 
I replanted it next to the Repens X Arcuata(which have I mentioned might be my new favorite plant, it grows soo stinking beautifully for me right now.. I wonder what kind of color it would get in your tank!)
And typically the hybrid Ludwigia grows about 1.5x faster than the SP Red, but right now its probably about twice as fast. 

Now, Maybe the SP Red was already growing optimally and the Repens X Arcuata was not, and now that it is fully healthy it's just a much more aggressive grower, not sure.


I'm also wondering if Magnesium has some sort of synergism with B and Zn. 
Previously when I induced this symptom I had been adding a little bit of Mg with Equilibrium cause I don't like the ratio of Ca:Mg in Equilibrium. 
I could still get this symptom to occur when I limited traces (on purpose or on accident lol) but it took longer and recovered quicker. 
I've been on just plain Equilibrium since I changed the substrate, and it seems to occur quicker and stick around longer. 
Alternatively I could have just had more of the B and Zn stuck in the substrate giving more of a buffer for the deficiency.

Kind of leaning towards the latter.. Inert substrate is inert after all, so symptoms should occur and persist differently since water column dosing is 100% of my nutrients.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Looks better early in the week when ferts are leaner but gets worse as they build up = To much something
> 
> 
> Looks better later in the week after ferts have built up but looks worse early in the week when they are leaner = Not enough something
> 
> 
> * seems logical to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fe DTPA - .15 ppm
> Mn - .075 ppm
> B - .03 ppm
> Zn - .055 ppm
> Mo - .0015 ppm
> Cu - .002 ppm
> Ni - .0005 ppm
> 
> Here is a calculator to figure how much to add for the desired ppm. You'll need to calculate each compound individually based on the size of your tank, size of your dosing bottle, and the dosage amount.
> 
> Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator
> 
> If you need help figuring something out just ask




Hey Joe, I see you have lowered Zn and increased Cu, any specific reason?


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Hey Joe, I see you have lowered Zn and increased Cu, any specific reason?


That's just the standard latest that people who've gotten it from me are using, v13.15. 

Im still dosing less Cu because there's a little in the tap.

Also Im experimenting with 35 ppb B instead of 30, and Zn down to 52 ppb. For no particular reason just to see if its more favorable. Im still trying to flatten AR mini variegated, everything else continues to do well. Probably isnt going to make much difference, started a few days ago

Rotala mac variegated just keeps looking better and better. I believe mostly due to front end loading macros and dropping P down to 2.5 ppm/week. 










Micros, everything from v9 up has worked fine, Im just over here splitting hairs looking for minor responses.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> That's just the standard latest that people who've gotten it from me are using, v13.15.
> 
> Im still dosing less Cu because there's a little in the tap.
> 
> Also Im experimenting with 35 ppb B instead of 30, and Zn down to 52 ppb. For no particular reason just to see if its more favorable. Im still trying to flatten AR mini variegated, everything else continues to do well. Probably isnt going to make much difference, started a few days ago
> 
> Rotala mac variegated just keeps looking better and better. I believe mostly due to front end loading macros and dropping P down to 2.5 ppm/week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micros, everything from v9 up has worked fine, Im just over here splitting hairs looking for minor responses.


Can you give any more detail on front loading macros?
I was interested in some info on other threads regarding "flat" N but no idea how to get there really. 
The 10:1 ratio I'm on right now seems fine, some plants responding well. (Repens X Arcuata is probably just madly inlove with the extra N) 
But some like Wallichi and Rotala Indica Bonsai seem worse off, markedly. 
I wonder if its from more N on MWF and the comparative difference on off days.. 

I don't have a plan and I'm sticking with this for a while longer but I love to try things. 
I'm pontificating going back down on N and adding Ammonium to my trace mix dosing that 6 days a week...


----------



## burr740

Chlorophile said:


> Can you give any more detail on front loading macros?
> I was interested in some info on other threads regarding "flat" N but no idea how to get there really.
> The 10:1 ratio I'm on right now seems fine, some plants responding well. (Repens X Arcuata is probably just madly inlove with the extra N)
> But some like Wallichi and Rotala Indica Bonsai seem worse off, markedly.
> I wonder if its from more N on MWF and the comparative difference on off days..
> 
> I don't have a plan and I'm sticking with this for a while longer but I love to try things.
> I'm pontificating going back down on N and adding Ammonium to my trace mix dosing that 6 days a week...


The idea is to keep a steadier level of NO3 throughout the week instead of starting out low and building up as with standard EI routine.

Lythracae in particular are supposed to appreciate a steady NO3 level. This is according to the nutrient expert at a commercial Singapore nursery who grows Rotalas for a living. He explained it to @Saxa Tilly .

What Ive been doing, right after the water change 18 ppm NO3, 1.5 ppm P, 18 ppm K (total counting whats in the KNO3 and P)

Then two more doses of 6/.5/6 throughout the week.


----------



## Chlorophile

burr740 said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give any more detail on front loading macros?
> I was interested in some info on other threads regarding "flat" N but no idea how to get there really.
> The 10:1 ratio I'm on right now seems fine, some plants responding well. (Repens X Arcuata is probably just madly inlove with the extra N)
> But some like Wallichi and Rotala Indica Bonsai seem worse off, markedly.
> I wonder if its from more N on MWF and the comparative difference on off days..
> 
> I don't have a plan and I'm sticking with this for a while longer but I love to try things.
> I'm pontificating going back down on N and adding Ammonium to my trace mix dosing that 6 days a week...
> 
> 
> 
> The idea is to keep a steadier level of NO3 throughout the week instead of starting out low and building up as with standard EI routine.
> 
> Lythracae in particular are supposed to appreciate a steady NO3 level. This is according to the nutrient expert in a commercial Singapore nursery who grows Rotalas for a living. He explained it to @Saxa Tilly .
> 
> What Ive been doing, right after the water change 18 ppm NO3, 1.5 ppm P, 18 ppm K (total counting whats in the KNO3 and P)
> 
> Then two more doses of 6/.5/6 throughout the week.
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting, yeah I read that part but couldn't really think of a good way to do it. I was thinking microdosing daily but your method should keep things more stable and account for water changes


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> Hmm interesting, yeah I read that part but couldn't really think of a good way to do it. I was thinking microdosing daily but your method should keep things more stable and account for water changes


I've been using a worksheet to help calculate accumulation and daily levels of N & P. You do have to make some assumptions for N/P generated by fish, and daily uptake of nutrients. 

But it can give a pretty good idea of what your daily levels are. For instance, in the first chart below, I am dosing 24 ppm KNO3 in typical EI fashion. Day of rest then every other day. Notice the last row, which would indicate the daily level of N. See how it starts low, then rises throughout the week.










And this chart shows what happens when I front load all the KNO3 right after a water change. See how the level is pretty stable all week.










I put together a spreadsheet for both N & P. It is set up for my tank, but you can change any of the variables for any tank. If you want to mess around with it, I uploaded it to a Google Drive for anyone to use.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CI7FdUKHGv7CgfA3lRJZdxESN07exBsu

My thought is that if there is an optimum level of N & P for plant uptake, wouldn't it make more sense to keep that level steady all week, instead of having the levels swing so much. At least that is my thought, whether it has any validity at all remains to be seen. Right now both Burr and I are experimenting with it, and early results are good.


----------



## Chlorophile

Greggz said:


> Chlorophile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm interesting, yeah I read that part but couldn't really think of a good way to do it. I was thinking microdosing daily but your method should keep things more stable and account for water changes
> 
> 
> 
> I've been using a worksheet to help calculate accumulation and daily levels of N & P. You do have to make some assumptions for N/P generated by fish, and daily uptake of nutrients.
> 
> But it can give a pretty good idea of what your daily levels are. For instance, in the first chart below, I am dosing 24 ppm KNO3 in typical EI fashion. Day of rest then every other day. Notice the last row, which would indicate the daily level of N. See how it starts low, then rises throughout the week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this chart shows what happens when I front load all the KNO3 right after a water change. See how the level is pretty stable all week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put together a spreadsheet for both N & P. It is set up for my tank, but you can change any of the variables for any tank. If you want to mess around with it, I uploaded it to a Google Drive for anyone to use.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CI7FdUKHGv7CgfA3lRJZdxESN07exBsu
> 
> My thought is that if there is an optimum level of N & P for plant uptake, wouldn't it make more sense to keep that level steady all week, instead of having the levels swing so much. At least that is my thought, whether it has any validity at all remains to be seen. Right now both Burr and I are experimenting with it, and early results are good.
Click to expand...

The logic is sound.
Probably makes for happier fish too.
I've heard shrimp guys say nitrate swings stunt breeding too so if it's detectable by shrimp the fish must notice too to some extent.

I'm down to try it, I feel like I gave this dosing plan enough time to see if it would work for me and while it did work the main thing I'm seeing falls in line with what Burr said regarding lythracae.

I'll keep P low while I try it. The GSA stabilized around the time I swapped substrates but I was thinking GSA might not be low P dependant as much as it could just come around when there's a drop in P, regardless of levels. 
I.e. in a tank with not enough P when plants consume it all, GSA shows up. Or in a tank with lots of P it shows up when you first reduce levels but if uptake and dosing balance out it goes back away


----------



## Greggz

Chlorophile said:


> The logic is sound.


Hopefully so. For me, my post water change tests are coming out right on. If they weren't, I'd be looking at my estimated uptake/fish load numbers.

If you decide to try the spreadsheet, here’s what you need to know. 

The first chart is for accumulation using EI dosing. Doesn’t really change after 5 weeks, so that’s as far as I went out. 

The second chart shows daily numbers based on actual dosing using the assumptions you provide (Est. NO3 from fish, Est. plant uptake). Phosphate charts work exactly the same way. If it’s not listed below, then it’s calculated from the other entries.

Not perfect but good enough to get some idea of the effect of different dosing schedules. With my heavily stocked tank, front end loading seems best. For others, with less fish load, some modified program might be better.










Nitrate Weekly EI Worksheet

C4 – Weekly KNO3 dosing carries over to weeks 2,3,4,5
C5 – Weekly NO3 Fish – estimated NO3 created by fish, carries over to weeks 2,3,4,5
C7 – Weekly Plant Uptake – estimated plant uptake carries over to weeks 2,3,4,5
C9 – Water Change – Carries over to weeks 2,3,4,5

Daily Nitrate Work Sheet

C14 – Carried over from K8 x water change %
C15, E15, G15, I15, K15,M15,O15 enter actual NO3 dosing


----------



## jprider63

Greggz said:


> I've been using a worksheet to help calculate accumulation and daily levels of N & P. You do have to make some assumptions for N/P generated by fish, and daily uptake of nutrients.
> 
> But it can give a pretty good idea of what your daily levels are. For instance, in the first chart below, I am dosing 24 ppm KNO3 in typical EI fashion. Day of rest then every other day. Notice the last row, which would indicate the daily level of N. See how it starts low, then rises throughout the week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this chart shows what happens when I front load all the KNO3 right after a water change. See how the level is pretty stable all week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put together a spreadsheet for both N & P. It is set up for my tank, but you can change any of the variables for any tank. If you want to mess around with it, I uploaded it to a Google Drive for anyone to use.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CI7FdUKHGv7CgfA3lRJZdxESN07exBsu
> 
> My thought is that if there is an optimum level of N & P for plant uptake, wouldn't it make more sense to keep that level steady all week, instead of having the levels swing so much. At least that is my thought, whether it has any validity at all remains to be seen. Right now both Burr and I are experimenting with it, and early results are good.


I'm a beginner, but I'm confused by this chart. You seem to be switching between KNO3 and NO3. Is there a reason you combine them? My understanding is that fish only produce NO3. Doesn't the potassium have to come from somewhere? 

If plants use less NO3 than fish produce, what's the reason for dosing NO3? Does keeping higher NO3 levels increase the availability for plants? Would improving flow improve availability, thereby allowing us to reduce NO3 doses? 

It seems like this chart assumes NO3 will be stable and not react with any other chemicals in the tank. Is this a reasonable assumption?


----------



## wayzoken

friends is it okay to use these chemicals to make micro mix? and dose daily. as recommended by you? thank you very much

copper sulfate, cobalt sulfate, manganese sulfate, boric acid, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate, rubidium chloride, nickel chloride, vanadium sulfate


----------



## Greggz

jprider63 said:


> I'm a beginner, but I'm confused by this chart. You seem to be switching between KNO3 and NO3. Is there a reason you combine them? My understanding is that fish only produce NO3. Doesn't the potassium have to come from somewhere?


Should have labeled everything NO3 (will change). 

Fish waste and fish food create NO3 and PO4. 



jprider63 said:


> If plants use less NO3 than fish produce, what's the reason for dosing NO3? Does keeping higher NO3 levels increase the availability for plants? Would improving flow improve availability, thereby allowing us to reduce NO3 doses?


This is up for debate. Let's say plants use up 3 ppm per day of NO3. Does that mean 3 ppm of NO3 in the water column is optimal? I think not. My tank, and many others, would crash at that level. 

Several of us believe there is an optimal level of availability, and are searching for that. For instance, in my tank plants seem to do best with NO3 about 40 to 50 ppm. If I'm at let's say, 25ppm, plants react negatively. 

Put simply, my heavily stocked high light high tech tank rebels if I don't dose additional NO3. In fact, I don't know of any high tech high light tanks that can survive on fish waste alone. Of course, as always, just my observation and experience, and your mileage may vary.

As to flow, more flow will not affect the availability of NO3.



jprider63 said:


> It seems like this chart assumes NO3 will be stable and not react with any other chemicals in the tank. Is this a reasonable assumption?


Don't know and don't care. The chart is not an exact science. 

It's intended to provide some general guidelines and understanding of how ferts accumulate. Remember, it's called the EI method. It's an estimate. And the intention is provide MORE than enough of each nutrient, so that nothing is limited.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

burr740 said:


> The idea is to keep a steadier level of NO3 throughout the week instead of starting out low and building up as with standard EI routine.
> 
> Lythracae in particular are supposed to appreciate a steady NO3 level. This is according to the nutrient expert at a commercial Singapore nursery who grows Rotalas for a living. He explained it to @Saxa Tilly .
> 
> What Ive been doing, right after the water change 18 ppm NO3, 1.5 ppm P, 18 ppm K (total counting whats in the KNO3 and P)
> 
> Then two more doses of 6/.5/6 throughout the week.


Whenever I see someone growing Rotala and Ammannia well, I grill them with questions and I try to find patterns and trends. I am curious about why these plants tip stunt so easily. As is human nature, virtually everyone gives me a slightly different answer and they all think they've got it figured out. Most people who grow these plants well, stumbled upon favorable conditions. No one (I mean NO ONE) can articulate EXACTLY what is good for these plants and what's not. 

Still, I keep asking and growing my database of answers. I also track conditions of tanks where these plants stunt badly - and I try to find patterns there too. It's crowd sourcing of sorts. There are general trends and consensus emerging after two years of asking and then testing the most reasonable (to me) hypothesis in my 3 dedicated experiment tanks. 

I'm giving a talk to GWAPA (DC area plant group) at the end of the month and I created word clouds of favorable and unfavorable conditions for the lecture. Here is a gist:

*Generally favorable conditions word cloud:* soft water, low-to-medium light, some CO2, low water column ferts, rich substrate, root feeding, Osmocote +, low tech, and PPS. 
*Unfavorable conditions word cloud:* high tech, inert substrate, EI, super high CO2, high KH, hard water, high light, pH controller.

This 'Flat Nitrate' concept is something I'm testing with so-so results. Granted I'm flying blind about how much NO3 my tanks consume. To fix that, I did a 70% water change and added 30 ppm NO3 and 20 ppm K immediately after. I took a sample and sent it off to Clemson U to get it tested. Did not add any more NO3 or K. After 7 days, I took another sample and am about to send it off for testing. Let's see what the tank consumes. No results yet. Once I know that, I'll add just enough urea or ammonium to keep N flat. 

Like I said, the results so far are not anything to write home about. Not yet anyway. May be Flat N only works if Nitrate is at a certain range. Who knows...

But it's a simple enough concept to test and rule out. If it works, great. If not, I have a dozen other variables to tinker with.


----------



## burr740

wayzoken said:


> friends is it okay to use these chemicals to make micro mix? and dose daily. as recommended by you? thank you very much
> 
> copper sulfate, cobalt sulfate, manganese sulfate, boric acid, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate, rubidium chloride, nickel chloride, vanadium sulfate


Yes


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Saxa Tilly said:


> and they all think they've got it figured out. Most people who grow these plants well, stumbled upon favorable conditions. No one (I mean NO ONE) can articulate EXACTLY what is good for these plants and what's not.
> 
> Still, I keep asking and growing my database of answers. I also track conditions of tanks where these plants stunt badly - and I try to find patterns there too.
> 
> I'm giving a talk to GWAPA (DC area plant group)
> 
> *Generally favorable conditions word cloud:* soft water, low-to-medium light, some CO2, low water column ferts, rich substrate, root feeding, Osmocote +, low tech, and PPS.
> *Unfavorable conditions word cloud:* high tech, inert substrate, EI, super high CO2, high KH, hard water, high light, pH controller.
> 
> This 'Flat Nitrate' concept is something I'm testing with so-so results.


It is not figured out, purely by accident.

Have never had it stunt bad, but appears less is best.

Planning on attending the GWAPA meeting.

Favorable vs. unfavorable IMO is not CO2 or PAR related.
Substrate related I would agree with, ammania enjoys a rich substrate.
Water column ferts no matter.

Really believe softer water is key, 0-2 KH IMO.

Flat nitrate is most likely bogus.

Just some thoughts, stepping down from soapbox now!


----------



## wayzoken

Na2Mo04 * 2H2O is very expensive. Does someone use some cheaper formula?


----------



## Surf

> Newbie
> 
> Join Date: Oct 2015
> Posts: 2
> Na2Mo04 * 2H2O is very expensive. Does someone use some cheaper formula?


I purchased a 1lb bad for $20 at amazon.com. For me that is literally a lifetime supply. You only need a couple of parts per billion in the tank. Nickel also needs a similarly low dose. 

If you are using tap water there is a good chance that it has some. I have not tried this but it might be possible to drop nickel and molybdenum and still get good results. Most fertilziers on the market don't have nickel.



> friends is it okay to use these chemicals to make micro mix? and dose daily. as recommended by you? thank you very much
> 
> copper sulfate, cobalt sulfate, manganese sulfate, boric acid, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate, rubidium chloride, nickel chloride, vanadium sulfate


Vanadium is not listed as an essential nutrient and most fertilziers don't have it. As to cobalt (which is also very expensive) I found in my research that only bacteria have the genetic information to use cobalt. Plants and animals don't. And again most commercial fertilziers don't have it. Cobalt is listed as an essential nutrient for one group of plants (legumes) but these plants only feed it to nitrogen fixing bacteria they host in their roots. So you could drop cobalt from your mix.


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Flat nitrate is most likely bogus.


Could be, but then again maybe not. 

My guess is much depends on the particular tank. For instance, I have large fish load and inert substrate.

You have no Phish load, and active substrate.

With my heavy fish load, my Nitrate swing with normal EI is pretty dramatic. Less so with less Phish. I can't see how having wild swings would be desired, or would benefit the tank.

In any event, how would we really ever know? My tank is doing better than ever. Is that because I lowered my P? Front end loaded macros? Or was it an act of god? Sometimes they all seem about the same probability. :wink2:

So for me, voodoo science or not, I just go based on what I see. Don't really care too much if it can be validated. If it's working, that's all I care about. And if it works for me, doesn't really mean it works for anybody else. Look at Dennis Wong's tanks to see some hard to recreate methodology.

Besides, my guess is in the scheme of all the things that really make a tank tick, front loading or not is not at the top of the totem pole. 

I do believe that if it is beneficial, finding the optimal N level would be key. Somewhere there must be a level of availability that is best. I just don't know what that is yet (but I'm working on it!), and who knows it could be different in every tank depending on bunches of other factors.

And then again maybe I just like experimenting just for the sake of experimenting.:grin2:


----------



## Immortal1

Not voodoo science, but...


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> You have no Phish load, and active substrate.
> 
> So for me, voodoo science or not, I just go based on what I see.


Regarding N the active substrate doesn't seem to hold it.
4 EI doses per week and sometimes when I test NO3 & PO4 I'm almost bottomed out.
Then a huge dose to get back to 20:2
Can't explain nor can I predict when this will happen, it seems to happen right after a heavy trim.
Figure that with a smaller plant mass.
Wanting to blame it on shading more than anything.

As for "Bad Juju" and "VooDoo" there are available priests that claim to conquer these things.
Investigate Santeria in Michigan for help! >

Bump:


Immortal1 said:


> Not voodoo science, but...


They spelled Phish wrong!:grin2:


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Regarding N the active substrate doesn't seem to hold it.
> 4 EI doses per week and sometimes when I test NO3 & PO4 I'm almost bottomed out.
> Then a huge dose to get back to 20:2
> Can't explain nor can I predict when this will happen, it seems to happen right after a heavy trim.
> Figure that with a smaller plant mass.
> Wanting to blame it on shading more than anything.


Hey whatever you do it clearly works, as you have prolific growth with many species. You need to post some more pics over here so others can see.

And I find your tanks fascinating in many ways, as they are so different from mine. 

That's why I'm interested to see how some of our common species do in your tank. For all I know they might morph into something more spectacular than I ever imagined........then it will back to the drawing board for me. Next I'll be running out to the store to get some dirt!!!:wink2::wink2:


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Pantanal morphed alright, right into 36 hours mush, couldn't even find it. >


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> Pantanal morphed alright, right into 36 hours mush, couldn't even find it. >


LOL if it makes you feel any better, I think I "mushed" a few plants you sent me too!


----------



## Immortal1

"Then it will be back to the drawing board for me"
LOL, I have this big easel with like 100 sheets of paper.... well, it "used" to have that many sheets LOL


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> Next I'll be running out to the store to get some dirt!!!


I have been meaning to write on article on the barr regarding dirted substrate.
Even detailed instructions with pics. :grin2:
There are Pros and Cons to this substrate method that warrant explanation.


----------



## Chlorophile

Maryland Guppy said:


> It is not figured out, purely by accident.
> 
> Have never had it stunt bad, but appears less is best.
> 
> Planning on attending the GWAPA meeting.
> 
> Favorable vs. unfavorable IMO is not CO2 or PAR related.
> Substrate related I would agree with, ammania enjoys a rich substrate.
> Water column ferts no matter.
> 
> Really believe softer water is key, 0-2 KH IMO.
> 
> Flat nitrate is most likely bogus.
> 
> Just some thoughts, stepping down from soapbox now!


less is almost certainly flatter, can't separate the two very well IMO.

Best Rotala I ever grew was in Miracle Gro Organic with a sand cap, low Co2 for shrimp breeding and zero dosing of any kind... 
Is slow release from substrate the flattest possible? Is it also lean? Idk..

Bump:


Saxa Tilly said:


> Whenever I see someone growing Rotala and Ammannia well, I grill them with questions and I try to find patterns and trends. I am curious about why these plants tip stunt so easily. As is human nature, virtually everyone gives me a slightly different answer and they all think they've got it figured out. Most people who grow these plants well, stumbled upon favorable conditions. No one (I mean NO ONE) can articulate EXACTLY what is good for these plants and what's not.
> 
> Still, I keep asking and growing my database of answers. I also track conditions of tanks where these plants stunt badly - and I try to find patterns there too. It's crowd sourcing of sorts. There are general trends and consensus emerging after two years of asking and then testing the most reasonable (to me) hypothesis in my 3 dedicated experiment tanks.
> 
> I'm giving a talk to GWAPA (DC area plant group) at the end of the month and I created word clouds of favorable and unfavorable conditions for the lecture. Here is a gist:
> 
> *Generally favorable conditions word cloud:* soft water, low-to-medium light, some CO2, low water column ferts, rich substrate, root feeding, Osmocote +, low tech, and PPS.
> *Unfavorable conditions word cloud:* high tech, inert substrate, EI, super high CO2, high KH, hard water, high light, pH controller.
> 
> This 'Flat Nitrate' concept is something I'm testing with so-so results. Granted I'm flying blind about how much NO3 my tanks consume. To fix that, I did a 70% water change and added 30 ppm NO3 and 20 ppm K immediately after. I took a sample and sent it off to Clemson U to get it tested. Did not add any more NO3 or K. After 7 days, I took another sample and am about to send it off for testing. Let's see what the tank consumes. No results yet. Once I know that, I'll add just enough urea or ammonium to keep N flat.
> 
> Like I said, the results so far are not anything to write home about. Not yet anyway. May be Flat N only works if Nitrate is at a certain range. Who knows...
> 
> But it's a simple enough concept to test and rule out. If it works, great. If not, I have a dozen other variables to tinker with.


I wonder why super high co2 is bad? 
Is it the swing from day to night? Since you can't really run super high 24/7 the swings will be dramatic.. 
Could Lythraceae actually care about pH swings?
And my co2 is.. insanely high. 
I used HIGH PH range solution in a 40dkh solution and got to a very distinguishable color that would put me over 60 ppm, which despite the unreliability of a drop checker, it's hard to spoof the results 40dkh got me.


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Maryland Guppy said:


> It is not figured out, purely by accident.
> 
> Have never had it stunt bad, but appears less is best.
> 
> Planning on attending the GWAPA meeting.
> 
> Favorable vs. unfavorable IMO is not CO2 or PAR related.
> Substrate related I would agree with, ammania enjoys a rich substrate.
> Water column ferts no matter.
> 
> Really believe softer water is key, 0-2 KH IMO.
> 
> Flat nitrate is most likely bogus.
> 
> Just some thoughts, stepping down from soapbox now!


Agree with all of the above, including my self-initiated flat nitrate concept. I am not ready to rule out irrelevance of water column ferts. After having reviewed 2 years of Kill Tank data, many of the tests seemed alien to me, like someone else had done them. It'd been that long and I had forgotten about the tests, so the results looked new and curious. 

But looking at the results of almost a dozen+ tests, the data suggests that light and CO2 can be ruled out as causal agents with a fair degree of comfort. The data does not suggest ruling out water column ferts. 

Don't want to give away the whole talk here...just flashing a little cleavage.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Saxa Tilly said:


> ...just flashing a little cleavage.


Wearing a bra to the meeting I hope?>


----------



## Saxa Tilly

Chlorophile said:


> less is almost certainly flatter, can't separate the two very well IMO.
> 
> Best Rotala I ever grew was in Miracle Gro Organic with a sand cap, low Co2 for shrimp breeding and zero dosing of any kind...
> Is slow release from substrate the flattest possible? Is it also lean? Idk..
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I wonder why super high co2 is bad?
> Is it the swing from day to night? Since you can't really run super high 24/7 the swings will be dramatic..
> Could Lythraceae actually care about pH swings?
> And my co2 is.. insanely high.
> I used HIGH PH range solution in a 40dkh solution and got to a very distinguishable color that would put me over 60 ppm, which despite the unreliability of a drop checker, it's hard to spoof the results 40dkh got me.


I can't say super high CO2 is bad for Rotala. It's correlation. 

I've seen really good Rotala growth in super high CO2, medium CO2, and low tech without CO2. The trace tox fad lasted a couple of years and burned bright in its time. But the '*low CO2 is the root of all evil*' notion never reached that red-hot fad status and as a result has been a chronic, slow boil with strong adherents. I feel pretty comfortable saying CO2 is not the primary cause of tip stunting in Lythraceae. 

But CO2 DOES influence metabolism. Certainly not as much as light. But when you have the classic high tech trap of both super high light and super high CO2, many tanks become high wire acts that struggle to find balance. 

You picks your poison. You lives with the consequences.

That was a nip slip. Oops!


----------



## burr740

My Rotala mac variegated took a definite turn for the better after a couple weeks of front loading macros. It wasnt bad before but its downright pristine now. A few other things perked up too. 

Although most plants probably dont care, when it comes to certain drama queens Im a believer.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> My Rotala mac variegated took a definite turn for the better after a couple weeks of front loading macros. It wasnt bad before but its downright pristine now. A few other things perked up too.
> 
> Although most plants probably dont care, when it comes to certain drama queens Im a believer.


+1 on the Rotala Mac V. very good response. Also Pantanal and Lud. Sp. Red. All drama queens. Were good before, but even better now.


----------



## RLee

I still want to know how to grow rotala wallichii without stunting.


----------



## Greggz

RLee said:


> I still want to know how to grow rotala wallichii without stunting.


Me too. Have never had much luck with it......but I'll probably bang my head against the wall again before long.

Burr has had good success this time around. Maybe he's got the secret??


----------



## Chlorophile

Still having these two issues.. the drooping Sp Red and holes in Pogostemon Kimberley.
Kimberley was fine for a little and poof it's right back again within 36 hours.
I have zero snails larger than a grain of sand right now and otos are definitely not the culprit.
KH 1.5-2
GH 6
6x a week Trace mix 13.xx?
Dosed 18ppm N on Sunday
7ppm on Tuesday
P is 3 or 4 ppm a week depending on water change day.
K only from 4.5 tsp of equilibrium at WC and from kh2po4 and kno3

Everything is fat and over grown so I can do a big trim tonight.
If that cures it I'm definitely deficient somewhere but I'd like to know specifically some how


----------



## Greggz

As some of you may know, I have been dosing a custom blend of Micro’s for about 6 months now. When @burr740 started “rolling his own”, he asked if I wanted to try some. Of course, I was happy to. That led to dosing micros at .15 Fe daily. Probably the best thing I have done for my tank in some time.

So why would you dose a custom mix? That discussion is far reaching and well covered in other threads here. But there are two basic reasons. The first is the use of DTPA vs. EDTA iron. The second is in regard to how uniform a dose of CSM+B is. CSM+B is typically used in large quantities for spraying crops. Loads of it are added to huge sprayers. What are the odds that the small amount you are dosing is the same from dose to dose? And then of course you can tweak your own mix to fit best with your individual tank needs. 

But back to the point of this post. Up until now, Burr has been kind enough to keep making his latest mix for me whenever I run out. I thought it was about time I bought everything and started mixing my own. 

So going to document making my first batch, and hopefully demystify the process a bit. Well, that’s the plan anyway.

I purchased everything from three sellers on the auction site. Total investment was $70.00. 










So next it’s figuring out how to make a dosing solution. Well it’s really much easier than you would think. You need to use a planted tank calculator, like Zorfox or RotalaButterfly. Then it’s just a matter of typing in your parameters and getting the gram weight of each ingredient that you need to dose.










So for instance, above is the calculation for DTPA 11% iron in my solution. You can see I selected solution, then entered my water volume (105G), container size (1000ml), and the amount of each dose (20ml). Next I typed in my desired concentration (.15 Fe), and then calculated. So the result for my dosing solution is to add 27.10gm of DTPA so that my daily 20ml dose supplies .15 Fe.

And since I use spread sheets to track about everything to do with my tank, I created a new one just for micros. Then I added each ingredient into the calculator, and calculated how much to add to make my first batch. It looks like this.










Next it’s on to mixing up the first batch. First thing turn the scale on which calibrates it to zero. 










So I’ll start with Boric Acid. You see I’ll need 3.64 Grams.










Close enough for me.










Next up is Sodium Molybdate.










Then MnSO4……










And so on……until the first bag is ready……










So some thoughts on the process. First, it’s really much easier than you would think, and well worth the effort. Now I'll be able to make a batch whenever I need it, and make any changes that I want to experiment with.

Second is that you buy these ingredients in 1 lb or ½ lb packages. Now some of these weigh out to mg measurements. For instance, Nickel is just 44 mg in the solution. That’s .044 Grams.

So a half pound of Nickel Sulfate is 226,796 mg. So that bag is enough to make 5 thousand containers of the dosing solution. So it’s like enough for several lifetimes of keeping a planted tank.

In fact, with the exception of iron, which is the bulk of the mixture, I don’t think I would have to purchase any of the other items again. With some of these, we could easily share some of the ingredients between us. 

So anyway, I’m not sure if this post would entice someone to start blending their own micros…….or if maybe it could have exactly the opposite effect???? I will say this. I have been dosing a blend like this daily for months now, much more than I ever dosed before, and the tank is doing better than ever. I’m a believer!


----------



## Deanna

@Greggz, excellent write-up on putting this into practice for those a little timid in trying it. As you did with the spreadsheet, you may want to standardize these instructions. I’ve been ‘rolling’ my own for about two years and would add just one additional tip for newbies: some of the ingredients (I forget which ones) will clump if just dumped into the water, resulting in difficulty in dissolving. By stirring the water as you slowly add these ingredients, it dissolves much easier.

If you decide to standardize the instructions, we may want to flesh out some other issues, in my mind, that might be added to the developing guide, such as: 

- There is probably good reason to add citric acid, which I do, to inhibit mold growth and otherwise help stabilize the mix. I make batches designed to last about 6 months.

- I haven’t matched @burr740’s ratios yet (I will be trying it once my tank returns to full stability) but, based upon his experiments, I did increase my own levels last year with noticeable positive results. However, I remain hesitant to add iron (DTPA) to the trace mix and keep this in a separate bottle. I also have concerns (maybe unfounded) in adding Mo to the trace mix, for the same reasons. Does anyone see issues with adding these two traces to the non-chelated mix? I’m considering placing the Mo into my Fe container. 

- Some of you have begun front-loading macros, with success. You may want to add this to the guide. Although I can’t support the conclusions, since I haven’t tried testing the before and after, you may want to try to get consensus on it. I don’t add N (tried various approaches such as urea, but without effect), since my fish keep it loaded in the 25 ppm area. I have always front-loaded K and P after every w/c and see no reason to change. My fish keep the P level in the 3-5 ppm area throughout the week once I set it there after the w/c.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> [MENTION=16861]There is probably good reason to add citric acid, which I do, to inhibit mold growth and otherwise help stabilize the mix. I make batches designed to last about 6 months.


I add about 5ml distilled white vinegar to the container. I make mine well ahead of time, and stir the heck out of it, then let it set for days before I use it.



Deanna said:


> tank returns to full stability) but, based upon his experiments, I did increase my own levels last year with noticeable positive results. However, I remain hesitant to add iron (DTPA) to the trace mix and keep this in a separate bottle. I also have concerns (maybe unfounded) in adding Mo to the trace mix, for the same reasons. Does anyone see issues with adding these two traces to the non-chelated mix? I’m considering placing the Mo into my Fe container.


All I can tell you is that I have been dosing basically this same recipe (all mixed together one solution) with some subtle variations for about 6 months. Have had no issues with DTPA and Mo. 



Deanna said:


> Some of you have begun front-loading macros, with success. You may want to add this to the guide. Although I can’t support the conclusions, since I haven’t tried testing the before and after, you may want to try to get consensus on it. I don’t add N (tried various approaches such as urea, but without effect), since my fish keep it loaded in the 25 ppm area. I have always front-loaded K and P after every w/c and see no reason to change. My fish keep the P level in the 3-5 ppm area throughout the week once I set it there after the w/c.


I have been front end loading macros for about 4 weeks now. My levels stay stable all week long. This could vary depending on how much N/P your fish produce. Less fish may mean an alternate schedule, maybe a double dose after water change and the a couple smaller doses during the week.

I put together a spreadsheet which helps putting together a more front end loaded dosing schedule. I put it up to a site and it can be downloaded. 

Here's how it looks.










And here is link to download it.....

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CI7FdUKHGv7CgfA3lRJZdxESN07exBsu

More discussion starting on page 75 of my journal (link in my signature).


----------



## hbosman

Would anyone here be willing to sell me one Lifetime's worth of chemicals? 
I'd like to mix my own as well but hesitant to spend $70 for some that I can't use up in a year or two. 
Currently using one of Burr740's mixtures with great success.
I have a digital scale that measures two places to the right of decimal point. Is that accurate enough?


----------



## chayos00

Out of curiosity does anyone mix their fertilizers using heated water to speed up the dissolving? As they are "salt's" which table salt tends to dissolve quicker the warmer the water. When I was mixing my EI fertilizer mix, as I dosed a liquid form, I found the hot distilled water worked best for me, otherwise I was shaking those containers for a good several minutes. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> I put together a spreadsheet which helps putting together a more front end loaded dosing schedule. I put it up to a site and it can be downloaded.


Good record keeping. I’ve done it in the past, more crudely, to try to get a handle on plant uptake and fish supply of NO3, but gave up. I struggle to determine, even roughly, what the fish contribution of NO3 is. How do you know that your fish contribute 4.28 ppm daily or that your plants take up 3 ppm daily? You would have to know, with certainty, at least what one of the two variables is and I can’t figure out how to do that without removing either the fish or the plants and then taking measurements. For example; how do you know if the fish aren’t actually contributing 14.28 ppm daily and your plants aren’t taking up 13 ppm daily? My NO3 measures pretty close to 10 ppm higher from post-w/c to pre-w/c. My plants are healthy and growing well, so there is obviously uptake, but are they taking up 100 ppm of NO3 and my fish are contributing 110 ppm or are both of them just barely adding and subtracting? In either case, the 20-30 ppm measurements, before and after, indicate non-limited supply.

I had forgotten that you found benefit in adding what some would consider huge amounts of NO3. I tried adding it on, after reading of your success, to see if my 20-30 ppm was limiting, but couldn’t see a difference – positive or negative, which drove me back to just letting the fish do it at whatever rate they are contributing. If anyone has an idea on how to firmly determine natural supply or demand of NO3, it would be very helpful.

If we could do that, it would also help us optimize the traces better.



chayos00 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone mix their fertilizers using heated water to speed up the dissolving?


Yes, it does work. Of course if it’s over-saturated at room temp, it will fall out of solution once it cools down. If it’s within saturation limits, heating the water does speed up dissolution, but the clumps that form are still slow to dissolve. The stirring as you poor option just prevents the clumping.


----------



## burr740

I use room temp distilled water, add 5 ml vinegar per 500 ml and swirl that around before adding the ferts.

Then add ferts and shake the hell out of it. 95% dissolves immediately, the rest will dissolve in an hour or two but I usually let it stand overnight before using.

When I was using Borax for B it used to take maybe 3-4 hours to fully dissolve. Boric acid dissolves faster

Never seen the clumps Deanna is talking about



hbosman said:


> I have a digital scale that measures two places to the right of decimal point. Is that accurate enough?


You'll need a scale that measures 3 places, aka a milligram scale

PM me regarding the other question


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> I struggle to determine, even roughly, what the fish contribution of NO3 is. How do you know that your fish contribute 4.28 ppm daily or that your plants take up 3 ppm daily? You would have to know, with certainty, at least what one of the two variables is and I can’t figure out how to do that without removing either the fish or the plants and then taking measurements.


Deanna this method will never be precise. I understand that I am making assumptions. 

The intent is to show general guidelines on how nutrients accumulate.

In my case, I estimated N uptake based on general estimates I have read over the years. Most often cited is somewhere around 3 ppm N for a heavily planted tank. I estimated N from fish load based on levels I could attain with no dosing. 

Based on my post water change readings, my assumptions seem pretty valid. I consistently get the readings I would expect. But again, it's really just a rough guide. My goal was to keep my macro levels more level throughout the week, without the large swings. I believe in that I have succeeded. 

Whether that is good or bad can be debated. For me, I have seen a lot of positive response. I believe Burr has as well. As usual, your mileage may vary.

At minimum, if there was no change at all, I would continue front loading just for convenience.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> Deanna this method will never be precise. I understand that I am making assumptions.
> 
> The intent is to show general guidelines on how nutrients accumulate.
> 
> In my case, I estimated N uptake based on general estimates I have read over the years. Most often cited is somewhere around 3 ppm N for a heavily planted tank. I estimated N from fish load based on levels I could attain with no dosing.
> 
> Based on my post water change readings, my assumptions seem pretty valid. I consistently get the readings I would expect. But again, it's really just a rough guide. My goal was to keep my macro levels more level throughout the week, without the large swings. I believe in that I have succeeded.
> 
> Whether that is good or bad can be debated. For me, I have seen a lot of positive response. I believe Burr has as well. As usual, your mileage may vary.
> 
> At minimum, if there was no change at all, I would continue front loading just for convenience.


Yup, I've assumed the same <10 ppm uptake area as well and was hoping you may have found a way to test for it. So, assuming your plants need only 3 ppm daily and you're ensuring 40+ ppm daily, that's a lot of ppm sitting around. Do you think that the extra 35 ppm is somehow making the plants better directly? Could it be that the large extra ppm is actually preventing another macro or micro from being consumed by the plants, to their benefit, or maybe helping another macro or micro get into the plants that was somehow blocked? So many possible permutations! These are probably more rhetorical questions that can't be answered by anyone, but may explain why it works for you and not me. Maybe, if I matched all you nutrients, the extra NO3 would create the same beneficial construct. Too bad we don't have a few million dollars to explore the possibilities.


----------



## burr740

The point of front loading macros is to maintain a steadier level throughout the week, NO3 being the main thing according to an expert or two (no proof of my own to base this upon)

It really doesnt matter what the uptake is or what the fish produce, front loading produces a steadier level than the standard EI routine, which starts the week out low after the water change and ends high.

So its really just a difference between the two methods. 

Ive been doing a 3:1:1 ratio for a couple of months - 18 ppm NO3 after the water change, and two more 6 ppm doses throughout the week. P and K divided up the same in their respective ppms

I noticed significant improvement in a few Rotalas starting the very first week. Nothing else changed much that Ive been able to see.

My personal opinion is most plants probably dont care but certain finicky species may appreciate it. Doubt its going to solve any major issues though


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> So, assuming your plants need only 3 ppm daily and you're ensuring 40+ ppm daily, that's a lot of ppm sitting around. Do you think that the extra 35 ppm is somehow making the plants better directly?


Concentration affects absorption. In other words, using NO3 as an example, having 30 ppm in the water column makes it easier for plants to get their daily 3 ppm. 

This applies to all nutrients and also CO2.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> The point of front loading macros is to maintain a steadier level throughout the week, NO3 being the main thing according to an expert or two (no proof of my own to base this upon)
> 
> It really doesnt matter what the uptake is or what the fish produce, front loading produces a steadier level than the standard EI routine, which starts the week out low after the water change and ends high.
> 
> So its really just a difference between the two methods.
> 
> Ive been doing a 3:1:1 ratio for a couple of months - 18 ppm NO3 after the water change, and two more 6 ppm doses throughout the week. P and K divided up the same in their respective ppms
> 
> I noticed significant improvement in a few Rotalas starting the very first week. Nothing else changed much that Ive been able to see.
> 
> My personal opinion is most plants probably dont care but certain finicky species may appreciate it. Doubt its going to solve any major issues though


I agree with you both. I've been front-loading macros (K & P) and GH/KH components for years. Haven't found a benefit in adding any NO3 at all, given heavy fish output. Was more wondering about how any dosing of NO3, beyond 20-30 ppm minimum levels, is going to help and I'm thinking it may be more related to how it interferes/facilitates other macros and/or micros.

I assume that you mean concentration as a function of availability, such as when poor circulation limits exposure. That begs the next question of how to assure maximum exposure. From there, adding more means more would be in contact to assure full uptake capability, which makes sense.


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Concentration affects absorption. In other words, using NO3 as an example, having 30 ppm in the water column makes it easier for plants to get their daily 3 ppm.
> 
> This applies to all nutrients and also CO2.


+1.

Let's say my tank truly uptakes 3ppm per day. If I kept my actual tank concentration at 3ppm, I can tell you without a doubt my tank would crash quickly. 

FWIW, I have been VERY slowly lowering my macros for several months now. Trying to find that sweet spot. I'm guessing optimum uptake is somewhere between 30 & 40 ppm NO3 in the tank.

In retrospect, I think some of the time I made changes in my tank, I made too drastic a change at one time, or too many changes at one time. I have found rocking the boat too hard can have negative consequences. 

So here's where I am today. As always, subject to change.


----------



## Deanna

Greggz said:


> Let's say my tank truly uptakes 3ppm per day. If I kept my actual tank concentration at 3ppm, I can tell you without a doubt my tank would crash quickly.
> 
> FWIW, I have been VERY slowly lowering my macros for several months now. Trying to find that sweet spot. I'm guessing optimum uptake is somewhere between 30 & 40 ppm NO3 in the tank.
> 
> In retrospect, I think some of the time I made changes in my tank, I made too drastic a change at one time, or too many changes at one time. I have found rocking the boat too hard can have negative consequences.


Yes, although the optimum uptake isn't 30-40 ppm, the optimum concentration is 30-40 ppm to assure the optimum 3 ppm uptake ...in your setup. 

Also agree that you want to make parameter changes slowly. I've also found that big changes are always bad, even when the targeted result would be good when approached gradually. I wonder if you were to find the NO3 point where plants suffered and then increased/changed circulation to see if that, alone, would cause improvement. I have high circulation and that may be the difference between our experiences with NO3 levels and, for that matter, any nutrient. Of course this is assuming that high NO3 is, in fact, not affecting other macro/micro aspects.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> Yes, although the optimum uptake isn't 30-40 ppm, the optimum concentration is 30-40 ppm to assure the optimum 3 ppm uptake ...in your setup.
> 
> Also agree that you want to make parameter changes slowly. I've also found that big changes are always bad, even when the targeted result would be good when approached gradually. I wonder if you were to find the NO3 point where plants suffered and then increased/changed circulation to see if that, alone, would cause improvement. I have high circulation and that may be the difference between our experiences with NO3 levels and, for that matter, any nutrient. Of course this is assuming that high NO3 is, in fact, not affecting other macro/micro aspects.


Deanna it could be circulation, but I have pretty decent circulation as well. I haven't seen a benefit from adding any more. Then again, it could also be many other things. 

I drive my tank pretty hard at about 115 PAR at the substrate. I also drop my pH 1.35 from CO2. I could be creating more demand for macros. 

And who knows, there could many other differences I haven't thought about. 

And like I said, I am slowly, methodically lowering macros, and waiting to see if I hit a bottom. So far, I am surprised at how well the tank is doing. In particular, I have lowered my P a great, great deal. 

Will continue and report back.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> I assume that you mean concentration as a function of availability, such as when poor circulation limits exposure. That begs the next question of how to assure maximum exposure. From there, adding more means more would be in contact to assure full uptake capability, which makes sense.


Well it partially depends on whether a particular nutrient's transport mechanism is active or passive, but no, not merely exposure.

Generally speaking, a change in concentration directly affects how much the plants absorb. Higher (up to a point) = more, or more efficiently

Plenty of scientific stuff out there explaining the principal. Google it 

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/48/4/457.full.pdf

Factors Influencing Nutrient Absorption - Nutrico

https://barrreport.com/threads/concentration-uptake.6008/

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...#v=onepage&q=Nutrient uptake kinetics&f=false

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044328X81800086


----------



## Surf

> I have zero snails larger than a grain of sand right now and otos are definitely not the culprit.


Chlorophyll you should look at the link below. mgeorges could not keep any invertebrates alive until he switched from potassium carbonate to sodium bicarbonate. If I recall correctly you are using potassium bicarbonate to maintain your KH. 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/88-shrimp-other-invertebrates/1251721-potassium-bi-carbonate-inverts.html

Unlike plants animals need sodium to survive. If your tap water is low in sodium and have a lot of K in your water (from potassium nitrate, potassium monophosphate, potassium bicarbonate, and potassium sulfate the Na K ratio is unnaturally heavy in K. Your snails may not be able to handle it. Also in people high potassium levels can cause heart attacks.

Another thing I am concerned about is how the bicarbonate reacts with the micros. Theoretically if the potassium bicarbonate comes in contact with zinc sulfate a reaction will occur converting the zinc into consolable zinc carbonate. Same can happen for copper. Manganese however from what I have read is partially soluble. With way more potassium in your system than your plants need you might be loosing a lot of your macros in your substrate which would affect your plants. I am not saying that is happening in your tank but it is a possibility you should tests by reducing your carbonate level. i think sodium bicarbonate would have the same effect on the micros but am not sure.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Well it partially depends on whether a particular nutrient's transport mechanism is active or passive, but no, not merely exposure.
> 
> Generally speaking, a change in concentration directly affects how much the plants absorb. Higher (up to a point) = more, or more efficiently
> 
> Plenty of scientific stuff out there explaining the principal. Google it
> 
> http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/48/4/457.full.pdf
> 
> Factors Influencing Nutrient Absorption - Nutrico
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/concentration-uptake.6008/
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=o...#v=onepage&q=Nutrient uptake kinetics&f=false
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044328X81800086


Thanks, interesting reading. Perhaps I’m not extracting the correct implications from these links. As I read through these, I see more of a reference to nutrient uptake being related to, essentially, growth spurts where higher concentrations are needed. Maximum concentration was needed for best growth, but what happens if double that concentration is provided? Does it mean there would be more growth or that they simply found the point of optimal growth, much as we have with the nominal 3 ppm of NO3? I think they were saying that all that the plant can consume had better be there during the growth phases. I’m also not sure we can draw an analogy from terrestrial root-based feeding to our water column feeding – it’s a bit of a stretch in my mind.

The one by Tom Barr also suggested that concentration is important but not beyond the limitation potential when he affirmed: “Yes, it does, but only up to V max. This is what we often refer to as non limiting concentration.”

My read on it all is that it is definitely important to be sure that all that is needed is made available and if that takes 30 ppm to assure contact with at least 3 ppm, so be it. It still seems to be the contact issue.


----------



## Immortal1

Deanna said:


> I agree with you both. I've been front-loading macros (K & P) and GH/KH components for years. Haven't found a benefit in adding any NO3 at all, given heavy fish output. Was more wondering about how any dosing of NO3, beyond 20-30 ppm minimum levels, is going to help and I'm thinking it may be more related to how it interferes/facilitates other macros and/or micros.
> 
> I assume that you mean concentration as a function of availability, such as when poor circulation limits exposure. That begs the next question of how to assure maximum exposure. From there, adding more means more would be in contact to assure full uptake capability, which makes sense.


Curious, for the last few weeks I have not added ANY KNO3 to my tank. I have been adding some KH2PO4 to keep my API tested reading more blue than blue green (around 5ppm), and adding K2SO4 to keep the Potassium levels around 30ppm (really have no way of testing actual Potassium levels). With my current (likely overstocked) fish load, my API tested Nitrate levels seem to be holding at something greater than orange (20ppm) but not blood red.

So my question, whats your thoughts on my current dosing? (letting the fish provide all the N and a large part of the P). From what I can see, most stem plants are still growing reasonably well. There are some minor issues with some plants but I am trying to get the major issues sorted out first.


----------



## Deanna

Immortal1 said:


> Curious, for the last few weeks I have not added ANY KNO3 to my tank. I have been adding some KH2PO4 to keep my API tested reading more blue than blue green (around 5ppm), and adding K2SO4 to keep the Potassium levels around 30ppm (really have no way of testing actual Potassium levels). With my current (likely overstocked) fish load, my API tested Nitrate levels seem to be holding at something greater than orange (20ppm) but not blood red.
> 
> So my question, whats your thoughts on my current dosing? (letting the fish provide all the N and a large part of the P). From what I can see, most stem plants are still growing reasonably well. There are some minor issues with some plants but I am trying to get the major issues sorted out first.


Well, you're doing exactly what I've been doing and I'm very pleased with my tank (will be even more when it fully recovers from a recent tear-down). I find that the NO3 drifts up over the week and the PO4 drifts down, but I load the PO4 front-end to about 5 ppm so that it ends at around 2-3 by w/c day. I get my K all from KHCO3 (and @Surf has me second-guessing that now) on w/c day. I'm running at about 30 ppm K, but I'm scheduling a test to cut it in half this week to see if I can notice a difference (I've been intrigued by some recent discussion on it's potential for interference).
@Greggz is clearly getting some benefit from adding to his NO3 load, but I can't duplicate it ...and I've tried. I think it must have something to do with the above discussions we've been having on the subject. I've also tried supplementing with urea and Seachems' unique N combination. However, none of this has shown any positive, or negative, vs. just letting the fish keep me in the 20-30 ppm area. I wish I could but, then again, I'm not sure there is really much more performing that my plants can do.


----------



## burr740

Deanna said:


> I’m also not sure we can draw an analogy from terrestrial root-based feeding to our water column feeding – it’s a bit of a stretch in my mind.


Did you read the one about seaweed? There is a concentration gradient in play for most things whether it roots, leaves...or the human body



Deanna said:


> The one by Tom Barr also suggested that concentration is important but not beyond the limitation potential when he affirmed: “Yes, it does, but only up to V max. This is what we often refer to as non limiting concentration.”


That means there is a ceiling where going higher no longer results in higher uptake, aka a non limiting concentration. 

Lets say its 60 ppm for NO3 in a particular aquarium, raising it 300 would offer no further benefit.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> Did you read the one about seaweed? There is a concentration gradient in play for most things whether it roots, leaves...or the human body


Is it this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=oDhSjvjJg0EC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=Nutrient+uptake+kinetics&source=bl&ots=aeTYBixGuy&sig=16vP_SmxkjzImR8hbvMQCxeJWxY&hl=en&ei=mHGcSrf3I5qusAO-69imBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Nutrient%20uptake%20kinetics&f=false

If so, then yes, but I just read it again. It seems that the author is saying that he has very little ability to describe seaweed (due to so few studies on it) and, therefore, is making much assumption. Where he speaks to uptake mechanisms, it seems that he is saying that the active transport activity is dependent upon the plant becoming saturated of a nutrient that, of course, requires some minimum concentration available. He does go on to say that limiting nutrients should provide an interesting study in the abilities of various plants to out-compete one another.



burr740 said:


> That means there is a ceiling where going higher no longer results in higher uptake, aka a non limiting concentration.
> 
> Lets say its 60 ppm for NO3 in a particular aquarium, raising it 300 would offer no further benefit.


That was my point about T Barr's comment as well.

I think we have been saying the same thing, just differently, and it's all about where the limiting level is for NO3 and that going beyond that offers no value. We just need to be sure that the non-limiting level must be reached at each cell on the plants' surface. That probably means, e.g., that a measurement, by our crude test kits, of 20 ppm does not mean that each cell is being exposed to 20 ppm. 

My questions were around the assumed NO3 uptake minimum level which has been variously placed in the 3-10 ppm area. If @Greggz is getting benefit by adding 30+ ppm on top of that, is it because he is flooding the plant surfaces with NO3 and assuring that whatever the actual minimum is will reach each cell or is there some effect (facilitating or inhibiting) that so much NO3 is having on another nutrient to the benefit of the plant? I think he is testing, right now, drawing those levels down to see if there is a lower level that will be the real minimum in his tank.

The possibility of high levels of NO3 affecting other nutrients was the more concerning to me. Could it be that the high trace doses we've been playing with are necessary depending upon the macro loading we are employing? I don't know, but the whole interdependence possibility thing nags at me and it would take far more time and money than any of us in this hobby are able to give to sort it out.


----------



## Deanna

Some of you know where I'm headed with this and may scream at me, but I'd like to ask for opinions/experience/knowledge as to whether or not you can see any deleterious issues in adding a little methanol to our non-chelated trace mixes? This is not about what the methanol will do in the tank, it's about whether the traces will be undermined/destroyed in the stored solutions.


----------



## chayos00

Greggz said:


> Now some of these weigh out to mg measurements. For instance, Nickel is just 44 mg in the solution. That’s .044 Grams.
> 
> So a half pound of Nickel Sulfate is 226,796 mg. So that bag is enough to make 5 thousand containers of the dosing solution. So it’s like enough for several lifetimes of keeping a planted tank.
> 
> In fact, with the exception of iron, which is the bulk of the mixture, I don’t think I would have to purchase any of the other items again. With some of these, we could easily share some of the ingredients between us.
> 
> So anyway, I’m not sure if this post would entice someone to start blending their own micros…….or if maybe it could have exactly the opposite effect???? I will say this. I have been dosing a blend like this daily for months now, much more than I ever dosed before, and the tank is doing better than ever. I’m a believer!


Well crap! I made up my DIY Micro mix based on this recipe..... However I totally missed the *MG* reading aspect. I weighed everything in Grams, not milligrams for those correct products. I was wondering why I had SO MUCH MORE weighted ferts in my 1L mixer than my Macros. I was finding that everything had a visual setting out of the micro mix and was a dark green color. I kept stirring it and it's been about 3 hrs and it still hasn't mixed properly. So I come back here and look for Greggz post and realized I'm a blind fool! So now I realize my 2kg scale has a Gram scale of down to 0.0g, so that will never work for some of these small milligram readings. So off to Amazon I go to now buy the correct calibration scale as well as dump this beast of a micro mix. For example, I should have 58.359g total of weight in my mix I fixed. I actually have 433.6g of product in my current incorrect mix. I guess I ought to use up the rest of my Plantex CSM+B for now and remake my micros till I get the correct scale.


----------



## hbosman

At my first attempt at DIY micros with my new scale, I was adding DTPA thinking geez this can't be right. Then realized scale was set to ounces.


----------



## chayos00

hbosman said:


> At my first attempt at DIY micros with my new scale, I was adding DTPA thinking geez this can't be right. Then realized scale was set to ounces.


At least you figured it out before you did what I did! LOL


----------



## chayos00

Any new updates to this??


----------



## burr740

chayos00 said:


> Any new updates to this??



I have nothing new to report. Everything's wonderful


----------



## MCFC

I asked @burr740 about this the other day and he wasn't too sure. I wonder if anyone else has an explanation:

So I tried making my first micro mix... 

I added the Mn, B, and Zn, along with DTPA Fe 7%, to 800ml distilled water and 20ml white vinegar. It started to fizz, sizzle, and pop, and a bunch of white chunks formed. 

I added that whole mix to ~1200ml of distilled water that had another 20ml of white vinegar in it. I stirred it a bunch and it stopped fizzing. 

I added the Mo, Cu, and Ni, stirred some more and then let it sit overnight.No more white chunks. The liquid is quite opaque though. I assume I did something wrong haha. 

Do you think it was the white vinegar vs distilled vinegar? 

When I added the 20ml of vinegar to the 800ml of distilled water I didn't stir it or anything, so maybe it sat on top and when I added the dry powder it was pretty much into 100% vinegar?


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> I have nothing new to report. Everything's wonderful


Me too!!:grin2::grin2:


----------



## Maryland Guppy

And I was hoping this thread was dead! :grin2:


----------



## chayos00

Maryland Guppy said:


> And I was hoping this thread was dead! :grin2:


Hahaha sorry! I only asked as I'm getting close to the end of my first custom mix. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

chayos00 said:


> Hahaha sorry! I only asked as I'm getting close to the end of my first custom mix.


Curious, how is it going with your first batch? Made any difference? Brought out any other needs? More macros? 

I've been dosing daily .15 Fe for seven months now. No desire to change anything at the moment.


----------



## chayos00

Greggz said:


> Curious, how is it going with your first batch? Made any difference? Brought out any other needs? More macros?
> 
> I've been dosing daily .15 Fe for seven months now. No desire to change anything at the moment.


Not sure if it's the micros, but seems plants are lighter in color on fresh growth from my anubis leaves, which if I'm reading deficiencies correctly that indicates nitrogen, which I'm seeing around 40-60ppm when I test. Good news is I don't see the spotty looking leaves anymore after getting my fertz going! Honestly I had wondered about my micro mix about jumping the mix 10% stronger, but I guess if I don't see any signs then it should be fine as is. Granted I dropping my lighting levels to pre CO2 after BBA peaked up. Still working on getting rid of that. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

Actually I do have a couple things to report.

Couple of months ago I tried higher and lower levels of Zn and Mn (independently) in a couple of the grow out tanks. 

L aromatica mini always seems borderline Fe deficient, and it certainly isnt a lack of Fe. Since Zn and Mn both have a strong antagonistic relationship with Fe I decided to see if changing their levels would help.

Mn deficiency looks a lot like Fe deficiency, so the first thing I tried is raising Mn to a 1.5:1 Fe:Mn ratio. The standard has always been 2:1, that's what most of you are probably using.

Not much happened to other plants but the aromatica got worse. This was a sign I was on the right track but went in the wrong direction. So I dropped it down to a 2.5:1 ratio and they immediately got better. Crazy huh? 

They still arent perfect, not even sure what perfect is actually. Ive never seen them color up like the regular version in anyone's tank. But they're a nice healthy yellowish green now at least.

In one of the 20s










In the Dutch










I dont have a pic of the deficiency but if anyone's ever seen it it's unmistakable. The top leaves will turn snow white

Zn I'd already tried .065 ppm, the current standard is 50-55, Ive dropped it down to .042. Hasnt made a difference that I can tell but if .04 is plenty there's no need to be adding .05 or .06.

So that is something you all may want to play around with.

Latest current recipes:

Fe - .15 ppm
Mn - .06 ppm
B - .03 ppm
Zn - .042 ppm
Mo - .0015 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

Stronger Fe version

Fe - .2 ppm
Mn - .08 ppm
B - .035 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm
Mo - .0015 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

I dosed both daily for a while and couldnt tell any difference

Currently trying the .2 version 4-5 times/week instead of daily. Again hasnt made much difference that I can tell.

The micro dose on water change day is probably wasted anyway if you use something like Prime that locks up heavy metals. So Ive been skipping WC day, then dosing 3-4 days in a row and then for sure one on the last day of the week before WC. There's no exact routine, just trying less frequent dosing


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> Actually I do have a couple things to report.
> 
> Couple of months ago I tried higher and lower levels of Zn and Mn (independently) in a couple of the grow out tanks.
> 
> L aromatica mini always seems borderline Fe deficient, and it certainly isnt a lack of Fe. Since Zn and Mn both have a strong antagonistic relationship with Fe I decided to see if changing their levels would help.
> 
> Mn deficiency looks a lot like Fe deficiency, so the first thing I tried is raising Mn to a 1.5:1 Fe:Mn ratio. The standard has always been 2:1, that's what most of you are probably using.
> 
> Not much happened to other plants but the aromatica got worse. This was a sign I was on the right track but went in the wrong direction. So I dropped it down to a 2.5:1 ratio and they immediately got better. Crazy huh?


Seems higher the ratio better, how high is the limit?
Fe : Mn
1.5 : 1.0 worse
2.0 : 1.0 Micro 5.15
2.1 : 1.0 Micro 11.15
2.2 : 1.0 Micro 20180124
2.5 : 1.0 Micro 20180619 better
2.8 : 1.0 Micro 7.25
3.5 : 1.0 Plant-Product Trace / CSMB

What Fe : Mn 2 : 1 standard? 
1.8 : 1.0 Tropica
3.5 : 1.0 Plant-Product Trace / CSMB
8.6 : 1.0 Flourish




burr740 said:


> Zn I'd already tried .065 ppm, the current standard is 50-55, Ive dropped it down to .042. Hasnt made a difference that I can tell but if .04 is plenty there's no need to be adding .05 or .06.


0.009 ppm Plant-Product Trace / CSMB
0.027 ppm Micro 5.15
0.030 ppm Micro 7.25
0.042 ppm Micro 20180619 -> plenty
0.049 ppm Micro 20180124
0.050 ppm Micro 11.15
0.065 ppm tested

Looks like Plant-Product Trace / CSMB needs much more Zn, the difference to ‘plenty’ is around 4 times, and the remaining B, Mo and Cu are almost the same. 

Magnum Opus


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> What Fe : Mn 2 : 1 standard?
> 1.8 : 1.0 Tropica
> 3.5 : 1.0 Plant-Product Trace / CSMB
> 8.6 : 1.0 Flourish


By standard I was referring to what's been used in the custom mix, pretty much since day one. This is also what I meant referring to 50-ish ppb Zn as the current standard. Meaning the custom mix standard 

Not the standard based on any other products. All but Seachem on that list uses edta based compounds anyway, which are going to have different dynamics. Tenso Cocktail has a 2:1 ratio. Popular in some parts of Europe, it uses EDTA compounds and closely resembles Marschner's ratio.

The 2:1 Fe:Mn ratio is based on most research out there showing that 2:1 is best. Some have a range of 3:1 - 2:1 but most (that Ive seen) agree that 2:1 is optimum.

Im sure you have or can find many papers to read on the subject. Marchner's book is a good one, and here's one, and here's another one , just to name a few 

Now keep in mind this is crop studies which dont always translate to our aquariums. But we can sometimes glean applicable generalities

Barr doesnt worry about a Fe:Mn ratio. He doses csmb, dtpa, and gluconate at a 3:1:1 ratio, any many hobbyists follow his lead. Have been for years. That 5.5:1. But he's also running Aquasouil which is loaded with traces to begin with. Might be different with inert substrate.

Seachem definitely isnt worried about it.

A few years ago when micro-tox was all the rage, like many other folks I was spiking csmb with additional Fe. I started adding Mn and it seemed to help...a little bit. But it could also have been my imagination. It certainly didnt solve the issues with csmb. 

Next I'll probably try a 3:1 ratio. Instinct tells me it'll still be fine if not better but I havent tried it yet


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> By standard I was referring to what's been used in the custom mix, pretty much since day one. This is also what I meant referring to 50-ish ppb Zn as the current standard. Meaning the custom mix standard
> 
> Not the standard based on any other products. All but Seachem on that list uses edta based compounds anyway, which are going to have different dynamics. Tenso Cocktail has a 2:1 ratio. Popular in some parts of Europe, it uses EDTA compounds and closely resembles Marschner's ratio.
> 
> The 2:1 Fe:Mn ratio is based on most research out there showing that 2:1 is best. Some have a range of 3:1 - 2:1 but most (that Ive seen) agree that 2:1 is optimum.
> 
> Im sure you have or can find many papers to read on the subject. Marchner's book is a good one, and here's one, and here's another one , just to name a few
> 
> Now keep in mind this is crop studies which dont always translate to our aquariums. But we can sometimes glean applicable generalities
> 
> Barr doesnt worry about a Fe:Mn ratio. He doses csmb, dtpa, and gluconate at a 3:1:1 ratio, any many hobbyists follow his lead. Have been for years. That 5.5:1. But he's also running Aquasouil which is loaded with traces to begin with. Might be different with inert substrate.
> 
> Seachem definitely isnt worried about it.
> 
> A few years ago when micro-tox was all the rage, like many other folks I was spiking csmb with additional Fe. I started adding Mn and it seemed to help...a little bit. But it could also have been my imagination. It certainly didnt solve the issues with csmb.
> 
> Next I'll probably try a 3:1 ratio. Instinct tells me it'll still be fine if not better but I havent tried it yet




Very interesting discussion the Fe:Mn ratio, I have been testing this for the past 2 months and for my tank looks like a ratio of 3:1 is working better than 2:1. But I am not done with my experiments yet, and as soon as I find some time (hard to find for me lately!) I will give an update to everyone on my tank's thread.

But in the meantime, Burr, what makes your instinct think that a 3:1 ratio could be better? Curious to know your thoughts on that.


----------



## burr740

fablau said:


> Very interesting discussion the Fe:Mn ratio, I have been testing this for the past 2 months and for my tank looks like a ratio of 3:1 is working better than 2:1. But I am not done with my experiments yet, and as soon as I find some time (hard to find for me lately!) I will give an update to everyone on my tank's thread.
> 
> But in the meantime, Burr, what makes your instinct think that a 3:1 ratio could be better? Curious to know your thoughts on that.


Most everything was cruising along just fine at 2:1 except for a few nagging issues, like the mini aromatica mentioned above.

The fact that it colored up so fast when the ratio changed to 2.5:1 (literally a couple days later) points to the likelyhood that higher Mn levels were interfering with Fe uptake, at least in a species or two. It was either that or the Mn itself being toxic. The former seems more likely imo.

Either way since dropping it down caused such a dramatic positive response, it seems likely to me that an even wider ratio might do even better. 3:1 still isnt that far apart.

But the only way to know where a sweet spot lies is by going past it in both directions. Until that happens its mere speculation

Interesting to know you're seeing better results at 3:1. Im looking forward to reading more about it whenever you get around to an update


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Most everything was cruising along just fine at 2:1 except for a few nagging issues, like the mini aromatica mentioned above.
> 
> The fact that it colored up so fast when the ratio changed to 2.5:1 (literally a couple days later) points to the likelyhood that higher Mn levels were interfering with Fe uptake, at least in a species or two. It was either that or the Mn itself being toxic. The former seems more likely imo.
> 
> Either way since dropping it down caused such a dramatic positive response, it seems likely to me that an even wider ratio might do even better. 3:1 still isnt that far apart.
> 
> But the only way to know where a sweet spot lies is by going past it in both directions. Until that happens its mere speculation
> 
> Interesting to know you're seeing better results at 3:1. Im looking forward to reading more about it whenever you get around to an update


Thank you for the clear explanation Burr, yes, I'll try to update my journal as soon as possible. I'll keep you posted


----------



## X3NiTH

When mixing the base ingredients together is it best practice for the receiving water to be acidified prior to receiving the salts? To what pH should the mix be adjusted to, should we be emulating Flourish Trace @ pH2.7 ?

I made a solution using 5L of DI water (1ppm TDS) targeting Mn 0.05, Zn 0.04, B 0.03 dosing @ 1ml/10L. I did not acidify the receiving DI water beforehand, I realise this was a mistake. I added in the following order 7.7g MnSO4.H2O, 9g ZnSO4.7H2O and 13.5g Na2B4O7.10H2O and gave it a good mix. After half hour or so there was a large precipitate forming, when remixed the suspension had a white opacity to it and looked fibrous, gel like, much like the appearance and consistency of diluted paper pulp or wallpaper paste. From looking this reaction up it appears a pile of Hydroxide has formed as the precipitate. Did some reading and found that you can unprecipitate by adding more NaOH which is the wrong direction because it makes the solution more basic and adds a pile of unwanted sodium, or to avoid this begin with an acid solution first so the precipitate doesn't form at all.

There was no point adding the Cu, Mo and Ni until this problem was rectified. To reduce the pH of the solution (which was 7.9 at this point) I used JBL pH minus (it's an oak leaf extract concentrate for reading pH from 8-7 at rate of 10ml/80L) and added about 50ml in stages to the 5L, this dropped the pH from 7.9 down to pH2.8 (2.7 is the pH of Flourish Trace). The precipitate cleared substantially almost immediately, unfortunately overnight a tiny amount remains as a fine thin sediment at the bottom of the jug and is black in appearance, I suspect I have now oxidised some of the metals, likely the zinc, part or all of it is unknown to me. This partial mixed batch is now useless (no biggie as its pennies in cost).

Next batch will be acidified RO/DI water before receiving the salts and exchanging the borax with boric acid instead which hopefully reduces the potential for formation of hydroxides?

What's the best acid to use? Ascorbic? Acetic? Fulvic? Humic? Sulphuric? Nitric?, what does Seachem use?

Great thread btw!


----------



## burr740

I used to add vinegar to distilled water before adding any ferts. Never had any problems.

Ive since switched to ascorbic acid. It works fine adding everything at once, never tried adding the ferts first.

Not sure what seachem does.


----------



## Grobbins48

burr740 said:


> I used to add vinegar to distilled water before adding any ferts. Never had any problems.
> 
> Ive since switched to ascorbic acid. It works fine adding everything at once, never tried adding the ferts first.
> 
> Not sure what seachem does.


Why the switch to asorbic acid? Any benefit over the vinegar? Lower ph? Last longer, more stable? How much do you add? I have been using the 10ml vinegar per 450ml. 

I never have tested the final micro solution pH.


----------



## burr740

I switched because a lot of people ask me for the pre-mixed packets and I wanted something they could just add water, shake and be good to go. 

There's no difference in effectiveness form what I can tell

.5 to 1 gram per 500 ml will work, I do .75 gram


----------



## Grobbins48

Ahhh yes that makes a lot of sense for pre mix packets! Thanks for sharing!!


----------



## chayos00

Never had an issue when measuring out all the dry and adding at once, except when I measured wrong and added WAYYYY too much! LOL Otherwise at the correction weights never had any precipitate in my mixes unless they sat for a longer time (more than 30 days).


----------



## jbvamos

I have been using the current version since the start of my tank 4 months ago. It's a 180 gallon with aquasoil, c02 injection, medium to high ligt (not sure of par). I want to start by saying the tank is algae free from the beginning less the diatom phase. Plant growth is outstanding, I have to do weekly prunings. My gh is 8 and kh is 4-5. Now on to what i am experiencing with this ratio and things were getting worse as the soil aged. These are all just annoying issues and most people would be very pleased to have the growth and no to little visible algae that i have. i will post pics later
1. italian val- new growth would come in almost completely lacking pigment and some growth was twisted and distorted
2. red rubin sword- new growth severly lacking pigment
3. hygro polysperma- some stems, not all had twisted distorted new growth and some leaves looked like i needed to go to the pharmacy to get some viagra and use them as root tabs they were so limp
4. ludwigia repens- beautiful healthy specimens but intensely red like it was nitrogen limited.
5. rotala willichi- whenever i would dose the micro solution it would show signs of stunting within 45 minutes of the dose. I could reverse this almost instantly with a water change. as of now it was severly stunted that a water change would not correct anymore. i cut it all back to stumps.
6. ar mini- distorted twisted growth in most plants, some are normal but not healthy specimens
I tried raising dtpa iron all the way up to .5ppm a day over several weeks with no real improvement. ive tried raising the Mn and also lowering the ratio to 3-1. Ive tried raising the zinc with no change. 
Ive tried raising co2 to higher levels and this actually makes things worse. My theory with this is it was forcing more uptake of nutrients that were already in excess inside the plant, exaggerating the problem. I have a 1.3 ph drop at beginning of photo period and drop checker is yellow. way over 100cc flow( my dwyer is maxed out on it's scale). i bought a 30-200 version but have not installed yet.

currently ive been doing alot of reading about interactions with traces particularily the relationship between fe and mn. I feel i am getting interference with fe from something that i am adding and the aquasoil is making it worse because of the amount of traces present in it. 
the ratios in this current micro mix i believe will not work for me so I did back to back 80percent water changes, added all my macros back and decided to try just adding fe at .2ppm per day for a couple weeks and see what happens. As of right now it looks promising. I am sure i will need to start adding all the traces again soon, but i feel the aquasoil will provide all they need for now. im currently keeping macros at 20-2-20.
I really would have skipped the aquasoil and went with bdbs if i did things over. It just does so many things to the water column ferts that i cant control or even test for.


----------



## jbvamos

one other thing i wanted to add. i think the 2-1 or 3-1 ration of fe-Mn would be ok if the Mn was chelated. This is purely a guess but i thing the ratio is way off being that the Mn is unchelated and the iron is. When I start adding traces back i will be starting off with 8-1 or 7-1 Fe-Mn.


----------



## MCFC

I'm no expert but with that long list of issues I'd be taking a good hard look at my light first, and then maybe flow/organics, before I started to think about micro ratios


----------



## jbvamos

Like I said it’s minor issues that a normal person wouldn’t even notice or would chalk it up as a plant they can’t grow. I will post pics later. I could guarantee it’s not flow or lighting.


----------



## jbvamos

I can’t get good pics of the deficiencies, these are all cell phone pics. It’s all I have


----------



## burr740

@jbvamos About a year ago I wasted a few months dicking around with little micro changes when the problem all along was not enough macros. This included symptoms like numbers 2,3,5 and 6 on your list.

Try raising P to 4 or 5 ppm/week. Another 5 ppm or so NO3, and 10 K might do well too. I'd start by raising P. 

When you start micros back (which you better do do soon) use a 3:1 Fe:Mn ratio, drop Zn to around 40 ppb and raise B 5 ppb or so. Im finding this works better than the standard ratios in v13.15. Its only a slight difference though


----------



## jbvamos

I will try your suggestions, thanks


----------



## Greggz

@jbvamos good to see some pics of the tank. 

Looks like a great start.

Agree with Burr, might be worth upping macros just to see what happens.

The numbers you posted would be considered "lean" in my tank. Now the aquasoil is a wild card. Never used it and don't know enough about how it changes thing. 

Looking forward to seeing where it goes from here.


----------



## jbvamos

@burr740 if you were to test your water column for N/P right now what would your levels be? What I’m getting at is the numbers you recommend just added every week per EI with 50+% water change or are you testing to try and maintain 30ppm N and 5ppm P according to what the tank produces/ consumes. When I stated my macro numbers it’s what is in the water column right now, not what I dose. I guess I need to play around with the accumulation calculator and see what my max levels would end up with no consumption.


----------



## jbvamos

@Greggz yeah this was the easiest tank I ever started. I guess it’s a combo of past experience and it being a large stable tank. The aquasoil was sucking up massive amounts of P in the beginning. For awhile I had to dose 5ppm per day to keep any measurable amount in the water column. Yes there is no decimal in front of that 5.


----------



## jbvamos

I will update my journal so I don’t clog up this thread with nonsense.


----------



## Greggz

@jbvamos it's all good conversation for this thread.

I can tell you the numbers Burr mentioned are dosing not measured levels. Fish load and other things will add to that naturally.

For instance, below are my current dosing levels. So I am dosing 24ppm K, but with my fish load it's usually more like about 45-50pp. P dosed at about 7 is more like 10. 










Now every tank is different. In my tank if my measured levels were 20-2-20 my fast growing stems would not be happy. But again, that's my tank and your mileage may vary.


----------



## burr740

@jbvamos



> if you were to test your water column for N/P right now what would your levels be?


Using API drops which is the only test I have, NO3 would be red off the charts and PO4 would be in the 5-10 range.

When you said 20/2/20 I thought those were weekly totals from dosing. That's what I meant by increasing P to 5 ppm, etc



> What I’m getting at is the numbers you recommend just added every week per EI with 50+% water change or are you testing to try and maintain 30ppm N and 5ppm P according to what the tank produces/ consumes.


 I dont worry about EI or what the tank consumes. Things do best for me dosing 25-30 ppm NO3 per week, 30-40 K, and 4-6 P - thats ppms per week. The water column can be whatever it is.

My advice is to forget about accumulation and all that. Dose enough to keep the plants happy and dont worry about it.

Trying to dose based on what the plants actually use is a futile effort. Remember that concentration affects absorption. Plants may only use 2-3 ppm NO3 per day but you cant sustain things with only that much in the water column. (although some would argue this point Im sure)

The point is, having a concentration of 25 ppm in the water makes it easier for the plants to get the 2-3 ppm they need.

The same applies to all nutrients and CO2 as well. Its why we shoot for 30-40 ppm CO2, not because plants are using that much, but to have enough concentration-wise so the plants can get what they need.

The latest change you made is based on a theory that micros are too high and causing all these problems, either by toxicity or interference. I can all but guarantee you that is not the case. If water column macros are only 20/2/20, the plants need more macros, and I'd start with P


----------



## jbvamos

With the aquasoil I feel I need to test. If I wasn’t testing my N would be through the roof and my P would be at 0 if I was following EI strictly. I set up a 40 gallon couple weeks ago for trimmings and I’m starting this tank totally different from the 180 as far as dosing P to maintain a measurable amount in the water column to see what happens. All I’m dosing is K at water change and iron a few times a week. I’m gonna wait for deficiencies or algae before I add anything else.


----------



## jbvamos

If I dosed 5 ppm P per week my test would read 0. I’m currently adding 2ppm per day. In the beginning when the soil was fresh I was dosing 5ppm in the a.m. and test right after and it would confirm 5ppm in water column. 8 hrs later I would test again and it would be barely measurable. I’m not the only one this happens to with aquasoil. I’ve read all I could on it. It has calmed down a lot but would still be hard to have a 5-10 ppm level of P in the water column without massive daily dosing. I guess that’s what I need to do. My concern is what else is it pulling out of the water column or adding to it that I can’t test for. Is it leaching Mn and I’m adding to that number like it’s doing with N? Is it sucking up Zn like it is P and I’m just not adding enough? Too many variables with this crap that I can’t control. Tank is basically fine, but it’s annoying me to the point I want to rip it all out and add bdbs.


----------



## Greggz

@jbvamos I feel the same way about Aquasoil. And believe me I know some are very successful with it, that is not in question.

But for me, it adds another level of figuring things out when I have enough on my plate most times.

And I've seen many tanks start like gangbusters with it, but then later when it changes, tank crashes quickly. 

Stuff scares me!


----------



## jbvamos

@burr740

today i am going to front load N and P to get the water column up to 35ppm N and 6ppm P. I will do frequent testing to see what's going on but most likely I won't have to add any more N till after water change and I will probably have to add 2-3 ppm P per day to keep this level. I basically have no fish load, 10 ottos, 10 amano shrimp and a dozen cardinals. I have some questions going back to my hunch of a micro problem. I am in no way doubting your extensive testing with these ratios or your knowledge and experience.

1. If this was a macro problem and not a micro problem why would things improve with a water change? both macro and micro levels would drop after a water change. I could see growth tips change appearance almost immediately. The lack of pigment or twisted leaves obviously wouldn't change, but fine leaved plants such as wallichi and ambulia would show a much healthier appearance in the growth tip. Pearling would dramatically increase like they let out a sigh of relief. This dramatic instant results have decreased over time. I don't see as much improvement after water change, but it is still there. I was thinking it is because levels have built up to a point where my water change is not having as big of an impact.

2. Why would increasing co2 exaggerate the problem? my theory was it was increasing uptake of a nutrient that it already had too much of, but I guess it could play the other way too

3. If i was to follow seachems flourish trace and flourish iron directions, which are the compounds we are using less the iron I would have to dose close to 10x the recommended amount of flourish trace to get to the Fe/Mn ratio we are at. There recommendation of .1 Fe daily isn't far off from where we are at. Do you think they are 10x off with their trace recommendation formula? Also to compound that, There iron is much more available then what we are using. 

Again, I am going to follow your advice with the macros. I am also going to add 10ppm calcium at water change. My plan is to get everything extremely healthy and THEN figure out what the problem was by starting to eliminate things such as calcium, Higner levels of macros etc. If I can't get things where i want them to be with macros I will go back to my original plan of decreasing micros because I feel i have already ruled out going higher. But then again, maybe I didnt go high enough.


----------



## burr740

@jbvamos

Those are all very good questions that raise good points.



> 1. If this was a macro problem and not a micro problem why would things improve with a water change? both macro and micro levels would drop after a water change. I could see growth tips change appearance almost immediately. The lack of pigment or twisted leaves obviously wouldn't change, but fine leaved plants such as wallichi and ambulia would show a much healthier appearance in the growth tip. Pearling would dramatically increase like they let out a sigh of relief. This dramatic instant results have decreased over time. I don't see as much improvement after water change, but it is still there. I was thinking it is because levels have built up to a point where my water change is not having as big of an impact.


The positive response after a water change is to be expected regardless what else is going on. Plants love water changes (and algae hates them)

For one thing the tank becomes saturated with O2 which perks up everything from the bio filter to the fish to the plants. This extra O2 is also the reason plants pearl like crazy after a water change. Not because photosynthesis has increased so much, but because the water is saturated with O2 which means the O2 from plants isnt being absorbed into the water. Instead it takes the form of visible bubbles.

A water change also removes tons of other junk besides nutrients, like organic waste and whatever crap might be coming from fresh Aquasoil. A large reduction in organic waste alone will spark new life into plants. A good pruning and cleaning session will often fix issues like stunting, things we normally associate with ferts or CO2. 

But as you suggested, it also makes sense that a particular nutrient(s) is too high and the water change helps by reducing it. However, in this case I just dont think its micros. I know at least 20 people using v13.15 in everthing from Aquasoil to Eco to blasting sand. About half are dosing daily, others 3-4x per week. It just doesnt cause problems at this level.

The main thing to watch out for is unlimiting micros can cause a deficiency in something else, namely macros. I suspect this is what's happening in your case 



> 2. Why would increasing co2 exaggerate the problem? my theory was it was increasing uptake of a nutrient that it already had too much of, but I guess it could play the other way too


Raising CO2 is a lot like raising light levels in that it drives the need for more of everything else. Anything that is in short supply or right on the edge will be exposed, so to speak.

So like raising micros above, raising CO2 exaggerates the need for something else



> 3. If i was to follow seachems flourish trace and flourish iron directions, which are the compounds we are using less the iron I would have to dose close to 10x the recommended amount of flourish trace to get to the Fe/Mn ratio we are at.


The Fe gluconate in Seachem products doesnt stick around very long, think hours. Which is probably why they dont use a higher Fe:Mn ratio. The first sentence is a fact, the second one is speculation. 

Have you noticed the ratio of Zn they use in Trace? Its over twice Mn levels.



> There recommendation of .1 Fe daily isn't far off from where we are at.


It is when you consider gluconate is only available for a very short time, compared to dtpa which can last indefinitely as long as the PH doesnt approach the 8 range



> Do you think they are 10x off with their trace recommendation formula?


See above. Dosing gluconate even daily at .1 you're gonna have about .1 in the water column at any given time.

Dosing dtpa daily at .1, you might wind up with .5 or .6 in the water column by the end of the week, because what the plants dont use isnt going anywhere.

Dosing .15 daily could easily produce 1 ppm in the water column. So there's your 10x difference.



> There iron is much more available then what we are using.


More available in the short term, yes. The trade off is it not sticking around very long.

This is also why the other non-Fe micros we are using arent likely to build up over time because they are not chelated. Easier to absorb but short-lasting.

I think of it as being strong, but friendly 



> Again, I am going to follow your advice with the macros. I am also going to add 10ppm calcium at water change. My plan is to get everything extremely healthy and THEN figure out what the problem was by starting to eliminate things such as calcium, Higner levels of macros etc. If I can't get things where i want them to be with macros I will go back to my original plan of decreasing micros because I feel i have already ruled out going higher. But then again, maybe I didnt go high enough.


Sounds like a good plan. Please keep us posted how everything goes!


----------



## jbvamos

Thanks for the time of that detailed response. This morning I added the old trace mix, 10ppm of Kno3 and 3 ppm of kh2po4. I tested the N/P levels an hour later and I was at 30ppm N and 5ppm P. I just tested agai ( sunset for my tank). N was at 30ppm as expected and P was back down to about 2ppm, maybe less. The aquasoil is still sucking up large amounts of P. I don’t see how anyone can grow any healthy plants in an aquasoil tank unless they are rooted in the substrate. Doesn’t make sense how they could have plants attached to wood, rocks etc and have them healthy. Tomorrow morning I will be mixing a new batch of trace according to the current recommendations and adding that to the tank along with 5ppm P. The best the tank has done was when I was adding 5ppm P per day but I did have some cloudiness with adding Fe gluc on top of that. I was also concerned with adding 35ppm of P per week too but I still do massive water changes twice a week because the plants love it. I always front load macros back after water change. I had mixed up a macro solution I was adding daily of 5ppm N, 2ppm P, 1ppm K and 2 ppm Mg. Then on the 3rd or 4th day was doing about a 70 percent water change. This was for a few weeks up to the point I started posting on this thread that I was having issues and did back to back 80 percent water changes. The trace mix I was using at that time I altered because I was showing signs of micro deficiency. I went to .3 fe .1 Mn .06 Zn .04 B and the rest the same. I will give this current routine 3 weeks and update this thread.
This is a stem of acmella I got from you. See the holes in the third leaf down and the opposing leaf not completely formed? The stem next to it is fine


----------



## jbvamos

Ludwigia repens about to breach the surface. These were cut back to about 6 inches a week ago. It’s a 24 inch tall tank. They are huge leaves and bright red. The picture doesn’t show the red and I don’t know why. I’ve never had lidwigia repens so red before.


----------



## jbvamos

Lobelia small form second leaf down has some issues. Yesterday the leaves were cupped the wrong way if you know what I mean. There’s lower leafs that show macro deficiency, probably N, but it’s how I received them. They have been shedding a lot of leaves lately


----------



## Greggz

@jbvamos if you want a deeper red, try L. Sp. Rubin. With enough light, becomes and stays a deep red. 

All in all an easy plant that propagates easily.


----------



## jbvamos

i got some from joe. Its growing well, but not that red for me. It could be this nutrient issue, because alot of plants are paler then they should be. The repens actually has alot more color. Might still be adjusting to my water. Do you have any P. erectus in your tank?


----------



## jbvamos

I got these bottles for my solutions from us plastics. They are great for dosing, just squeeze and they fill up dosing chamber to desired amount. When I would buy TMG years ago it would come in it. Very convenient. I mix my solutions in a separate container and then add it to these because the necks are small on them. The small one is 500ml and the big one is 1000ml. Has graduations of 5,15,30 ml on dosing chamber.


----------



## jbvamos

A blast from the past tropica dosing bottle. It’s probably 15+ years old


----------



## jbvamos

Here is what I just mixed up and will stick with this daily till it’s gone.


----------



## X3NiTH

Thought I would document the process of building a new mixture for reference purposes.

500ml Micro Mix @ 1ml/10L -

Fe 0.15
Mn 0.05
Zn 0.04
B 0.03
Cu 0.002
Mo 0.0015
Ni 0.0005

This mix includes a liquid Fe Gluconate component, 'Grow Microbe-Lift Plants Fe' (bottle instructions 1ml/100L - 0.1 mg/L and the solution in the bottle is pH 3.05).

The preparation water is RO/DI (Tap TDS 35, post treat TDS <1ppm, it really should be 0ppm but I think my DI resin is exhausted as the gauge flickers between 0 and 1 ppm when drawing water (TMC RO/DI unit).

I acidified the water beforehand using Ascorbic acid (I had this already and should have used it with the previous 5L preparation noted in my last post) and checked the pH of the solution before adding the salts. At the addition of each salt there was vigorous mixing to achieve near full dissolution (salt crystals disappearing on visual inspection after each shake of the bottle) then the pH probe was put in the resultant mixture and the reading was allowed to stabilise for 5 mins before it was noted down. The following list shows the respective weights of the salts addition and the resultant pH of the mixture, the Mo, Cu and Ni component is derived from individual pre prepared solutions (100ml containers dosing at 10ml/5L for Mo 0.0015, Cu 0.002, Ni 0.0005).

500ml Micro dosed @ 1ml/10L, Preparation as follows -

450ml RO/DI + 0.25g Ascorbic Acid - pH 3.2

+ 0.77g MnSO4.H2O (Mn 0.05 mg/L) - pH 3.42

+ 0.9g ZnSO4.7H2O (Zn 0.04 mg/L) - pH 3.5

+ 0.86g H3BO3 (B 0.03 mg/L) - pH 3.5

+ 0.019g Na2MoO4.2H2O (Mo 0.0015 mg/L) - pH 3.6

+ 0.04g CuSO4.5H2O (Cu 0.002 mg/L) - pH 3.68

+ 0.0113g NiSO4.6H2O (Ni 0.0005 mg/L) - pH 3.74

At this point the resulting mixture is clear with zero precipitation. The addition of the Fe increases the opacity of the mixture.

+ 50ml Fe Gluconate (pH 3.05 - Fe 0.1 mg/L) - pH 3.35 (Green tint to the mix)

+ 2.275g FeDTPA 11% (Fe 0.05mg/L) - pH 3.19 (Brown Green tint to the mix)

The mixture was allowed to stabilise overnight and on visual inspection the next day there was no sedimented precipitation detected, however there is a wispy milkiness on the interior surface wall of the bottle that dissipates fully when the bottle is shaken, I have seen this before with the FeDTPA at this same concentration when added to a mixture of Flourish Trace and Flourish Comprehensive (50ml Trace, 6ml Comp, 4ml RO/D1, this mixture gives Mn 0.02, B 0.007, Zn 0.04 and 0.1 Fe when dosed at 3ml/10L, the addition of 0.09g FeDTPA 11% and 0.02g MnSO4.H2O fortified it to Mn 0.05 and Fe 0.15 @ 3ml/10L (considering FTrace should be dosed @ 0.625ml/L that got expensive fast). This mixture still worked really well although the FeDTPA is slightly out of its range in the bottle and should be nearer pH4. With this in mind the next new mix I make I will target pH4 for the resultant solution and record what happens to the ingredients when mixed together at this pH.

It's now in the dosing pump bottle, first full dose should reach the tank day after tomorrow (when line from dosing pump to tank clears of previous mix), will be interesting to see what my Buce think of the extra B, Ni, Mo, 4x reduction in Cu and zero Cobalt.

I have a couple of questions.

Is it worth adding any Cobalt? I have the chloride to hand and could add it to the mix at a very low concentration if need be. (Trace and Comprehensive both have it listed).

Also has anyone put any thought to why Seachem are adding into Flourish Trace Vanadium Sulfate and Rubidium Chloride (even stating on the label 'NON-PLANT FOOD'), is it a ubiquitous contaminant in one of their base ingredients? or is it added to differentiate their mix from other similar products? As a point of note they are not listed as ingredients in Flourish Comprehensive and neither is Nickel. I am wondering if they are being added intentionally due to the higher concentration of Zinc and additional use of Nickel in the Flourish Trace, maybe to somehow keep the resultant mixture stabilised and available in the bottle for longer shelf life (not looked it up so pure speculation), hopefully it's not akin to adding Gold Leaf flakes to Vodka to make it more 'Special'.


----------



## Surf

> Is it worth adding any Cobalt?


From my google research plants don't need cobalt to grow and apparently plants don't even have and genetic information required to use it. Cobalt was added to the plant nutrient list because Legum plants ((beans Peas and a few othersother plants) appeared to need it. However now it is known that legume feed the cobalt to bacteria which use it to make nitrate which the plants need. If no nitrate is available from bacteria Legums will extract it from soil and water like most other plants. I am not aware of any lupum plants commonly used in aquariums.

It appear that cobalt is bacteria and possibly an algae nutrient. Plants cannot use it. Animals do need it but they get most of what they need from food. I would not recommend putting it in a fertilizer.





> Also has anyone put any thought to why Seachem are adding into Flourish Trace Vanadium Sulfate and Rubidium Chloride (even stating on the label 'NON-PLANT FOOD')


Algae does use vanadium to make organic molecules. Plants have evolved other ways to make organic molecules. Plants can still use Vanadium but if it is not available they still can grow.

I do not know why Sachem has added Rubidium to the trace product. It does not appear to be a plant, animal, or bacteria nutrient.



> Flourish Comprehensive and neither is Nickel. I am wondering if they are being added intentionally due to the higher concentration of Zinc and additional use of Nickel in the Flourish Trace


Most of the essential plant nutrients were identified about 100years ago. Nickel however was only added to the list in the 70s. Nickel is used by plants to process urea and to reproduce. plants only need about 1 part per billion of nickel. Most tap water has some nicely in it at close to 1ppb. Molybdenum is also need at about 1ppb. And again tap water has about this much naturally. If you are using tap water you might not need these in your fertilizer. But if you use distilled or RO water it is a good idea to add them. I do not know af any linkage between nickel and zinc. 


Most fertilizer recipes used today were developed for farms and house plants. Most aquarium fertilizer are based on they old recipes that were developed for farms long ago. These old recipes are typically missing calcium, sulfur, chlorine, and nickel. 

For example most aquarium fertilizer Have only 1ppb of copper in them (flourish has even less that that). However my own research using google indicates plants need about 6ppb of copper. Most homes have copper pipes and my tap water has 60ppb from the pipes. So if you are using tap water and your home has copper pipes you probably have more copper in your aquarium than you realize. However if you are using RO or distilled water you need to make sure your fertilizer has it. 

Overall I don't see any logic in why some fertilizers are missing nutrients. Also I don't see any logic in how the nutrient concentrations in fertilizers are determined.


----------



## NightHedgie

I just started to roll my own micros, I mixed it in 250 ml batches... I remember somewhere Burr740 uses 5ml vinegar to 500 ml to keep mold away. I put in 2.5 ml distilled white vinegar in 250 ml solution and I found after a week or so, some flat /thin translucent substance floating in my micros. Is that mold????? Shall i try citric acid? suggestions please.

Thanks


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> I just started to roll my own micros, I mixed it in 250 ml batches... I remember somewhere Burr740 uses 5ml vinegar to 500 ml to keep mold away. I put in 2.5 ml distilled white vinegar in 250 ml solution and I found after a week or so, some flat /thin translucent substance floating in my micros. Is that mold????? Shall i try citric acid? suggestions please.
> 
> Thanks


Sounds like mold.

Easiest thing would be try more vinegar. 5 ml per 500 ml is really a bare minimum, 10-20 is fine. Some people use even more but I havent personally.

Potassium sorbate would be a stronger mold preventative, .25 gram per 500 ml (plenty) But then you also need an acid to set the PH, I like ascorbic at .5 gram per 500 ml. 

Ascorbic by itself will prevent mold in mine, as does vinegar. But if you have a stubborn problem potassium sorbate is better.

Macros are actually more prone to mold for me, that's what I use it for


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Sounds like mold.
> 
> Easiest thing would be try more vinegar. 5 ml per 500 ml is really a bare minimum, 10-20 is fine. Some people use even more but I havent personally.
> 
> Potassium sorbate would be a stronger mold preventative, .25 gram per 500 ml (plenty) But then you also need an acid to set the PH, I like ascorbic at .5 gram per 500 ml.
> 
> Ascorbic by itself will prevent mold in mine, as does vinegar. But if you have a stubborn problem potassium sorbate is better.
> 
> Macros are actually more prone to mold for me, that's what I use it for


Ok I will try and double the vinegar...... Ascorbic acid will prevent mold and set the PH?

Hmmm for the macros, I've never seen mold.

I read somewhere Citric acid is used? 

thanks so much for the help


----------



## burr740

Citric acid works too but Ive never used it.


----------



## KeeperOfASilentWorld

burr740 said:


> Citric acid works too but Ive never used it.


Thank you for all the information you provide for us. Would excel work for mold prevention? Say 1/10.


----------



## natemcnutty

KeeperOfASilentWorld said:


> Thank you for all the information you provide for us. Would excel work for mold prevention? Say 1/10.


Yes, glut works for a while depending on how long it takes for you to use up the ferts. My concern is that glut may break down other things as it is a very complex chemical unlike ascorbic acid or similar.

I always use distilled white vinegar, and that seems to work well. Might try citric acid on my upcoming micro mix.


----------



## burr740

KeeperOfASilentWorld said:


> Thank you for all the information you provide for us. Would excel work for mold prevention? Say 1/10.



It should, yes. But as Nate pointed out there are some unknowns with it.


----------



## NightHedgie

By the way, which calculator to use? Rotala butterfly or zorfox?
Any preference?


----------



## burr740

I use rotalabutterfly simply because the compounds are listed in alphabetical order, which makes finding things a lot easier.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> I use rotalabutterfly simply because the compounds are listed in alphabetical order, which makes finding things a lot easier.


Thanks


----------



## KeeperOfASilentWorld

natemcnutty said:


> Yes, glut works for a while depending on how long it takes for you to use up the ferts. My concern is that glut may break down other things as it is a very complex chemical unlike ascorbic acid or similar.
> 
> I always use distilled white vinegar, and that seems to work well. Might try citric acid on my upcoming micro mix.





burr740 said:


> It should, yes. But as Nate pointed out there are some unknowns with it.


Thank you for all the information. 

Is there a dosing limit in terms of "ml per day per 10 litres" when I have; 0.5g ascorbic acid and 0.25g potassium sorbate per every 500ml bottle?

Same question for the distilled vinegar at 20ml per 500ml?


----------



## burr740

KeeperOfASilentWorld said:


> Thank you for all the information.
> 
> Is there a dosing limit in terms of "ml per day per 10 litres" when I have; 0.5g ascorbic acid and 0.25g potassium sorbate per every 500ml bottle?
> 
> Same question for the distilled vinegar at 20ml per 500ml?


Im sure there is but I'd have no idea what it might be. Doubt we get anywhere near it at the usual dosing amounts

Say you made a recipe for 100 ML doses into a 10 gallon tank, or 200 ML doses, then maybe, but who's gonna do that? 

I doubt anyone is going to dose more than 10 ml per 10 gal, and probably never more than 5. 

Unless you have a 2 gal nano tank or something like that and wanna dose 5 ml at a time. Then it might be something to consider. Idk really...good question though!


----------



## burr740

burr740 said:


> I use rotalabutterfly simply because the compounds are listed in alphabetical order, which makes finding things a lot easier.


OK well I just discovered on Zorfox's calculator, under preferences you can choose to sort alphabetically. Who knew? :nerd:


----------



## PortalMasteryRy

Soo.....are we done with the "it's micro toxicity!" phase and we have all bumped up our micros now? =)

I've been gone for a while and I remember this was a thing.


----------



## Greggz

PortalMasteryRy said:


> Soo.....are we done with the "it's micro toxicity!" phase and we have all bumped up our micros now? =)
> 
> I've been gone for a while and I remember this was a thing.


LOL well not exactly. I am sure the micro tox crowd could creep out of the shadows at anytime. 

And yes, many of us have upped our micros (personally 20 times more!)......but it's not CSM+B, which I think is the key to everything discussed here. 

And based on my tinkering with my custom mix, B is the most volatile component. In my journal I recently detailed the reaction to increasing B too much. It's the only compound where I have seen a quick and severe reaction. 

And it's easy to see how your relatively tiny portion of CSM+B could vary widely depending on which scoop out of the vat you received, which could certainly create issues. That and the use of DTPA rather than EDTA seems to be the greatest difference.


----------



## Quagulator

Greggz said:


> In my journal I recently detailed the reaction to increasing B too much. It's the only compound where I have seen a quick and severe reaction.


You would be correct. The software I use at work to build fertilizing programs for farmers has a built in warning if I attempt to add too much B into the growers fert mix. 

That, and all my meetings / training warns about too much B. It can be deathly toxic and can wipe out an entire crop at high enough levels.


----------



## Greggz

Quagulator said:


> You would be correct. The software I use at work to build fertilizing programs for farmers has a built in warning if I attempt to add too much B into the growers fert mix.
> 
> That, and all my meetings / training warns about too much B. It can be deathly toxic and can wipe out an entire crop at high enough levels.


Very interesting, good to know, and not surprising.

So be careful when raising that B!


----------



## burr740

PortalMasteryRy said:


> Soo.....are we done with the "it's micro toxicity!" phase and we have all bumped up our micros now? =)
> 
> I've been gone for a while and I remember this was a thing.



The experience some folks have/had was real. But it was never a micros problem, it's a csmb problem.


----------



## Edward

Problems caused also by spooning dry traces.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> LOL well not exactly. I am sure the micro tox crowd could creep out of the shadows at anytime.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, many of us have upped our micros (personally 20 times more!)......but it's not CSM+B, which I think is the key to everything discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> And based on my tinkering with my custom mix, B is the most volatile component. In my journal I recently detailed the reaction to increasing B too much. It's the only compound where I have seen a quick and severe reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> And it's easy to see how your relatively tiny portion of CSM+B could vary widely depending on which scoop out of the vat you received, which could certainly create issues. That and the use of DTPA rather than EDTA seems to be the greatest difference.




That‘ interesting Greg, I must have missed that discussion on your journal. Could you please just summarize what kind of problems did you get with higher doses of B?

Thanks!


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

I've followed this thread and tried to make sense of it all, got burr's receipt and will start dosing this week. I was wondering if someone would be so nice to double check my calculations to see if I'm on the right track here? This is also a brand new ADA heavy tank, heavily planted with CO2, 5h light, few days into week one. RO water remineralized with nilocg GH booster and Baking soda. PH 6.5. Any help welcome! Don't want to mess this up from the start

I’m dosing the burr mix in a 55 gallon (45 gallon used for royals butterfly calculator).

Micros:

Dosing 15ml 3x a day from a 500ml bottle and the below numbers ( xx grams) are how much I plan to put into the bottle to mix with RO water.


Fe - .15 ppm. 6.55 grams

Mn - .06 ppm. 1.05 grams

B - .03 ppm (H3B03). 974 milligrams

Zn - .042 ppm. 1.05 grams

Mo - .0015 ppm (NA2Moo4) 22 milligrams

Cu - .002 ppm. 45 milligrams

Ni - .0005 ppm 13 milligrams


Macros 15ml (500ml bottle) dosing 3x week:

KNO03: 69.44 grams for 7.5ppm 
K2SO4 94.9 grams for 7.5ppm K
KH2PO4 13.54 grams for 7.5ppm K


----------



## Greggz

fablau said:


> That‘ interesting Greg, I must have missed that discussion on your journal. Could you please just summarize what kind of problems did you get with higher doses of B?
> 
> Thanks!


Quick summary.

Saw Burr had some positive results going to .072 B. So on a whim, thought I will try .09 B and see what happens.

A huge bunch of Rot. Macranda Var. lost all it's color in three days. Still trying to nurse it back to recovery. Pantanal, L. Cuba, L. Sp. Red, etc, all stunted/rebelled. It was quick and pronounced.

Large water change and new batch at .055 and all was back to normal. 

But I am telling you, that stuff is one you have to watch. Too little leaves room for improvement, but too much is toxic.


----------



## fablau

Greggz said:


> Quick summary.
> 
> 
> 
> Saw Burr had some positive results going to .072 B. So on a whim, thought I will try .09 B and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> A huge bunch of Rot. Macranda Var. lost all it's color in three days. Still trying to nurse it back to recovery. Pantanal, L. Cuba, L. Sp. Red, etc, all stunted/rebelled. It was quick and pronounced.
> 
> 
> 
> Large water change and new batch at .055 and all was back to normal.
> 
> 
> 
> But I am telling you, that stuff is one you have to watch. Too little leaves room for improvement, but too much is toxic.




Thank you Greg. Personally, I am not dosing B at all, I have enough already in my tap, but it’s interesting to know that’s something to watch for.


----------



## RLee

fablau said:


> Thank you Greg. Personally, I am not dosing B at all, I have enough already in my tap, but it’s interesting to know that’s something to watch for.


I was meaning to ask you about that. You are using straight tap water in your tank? I had some mixed results with the rock hard water in our area so I switched to RO. I was thinking about trying tap again on another tank. Do a side by side comparison. Basically make a copy of what I run now. The plants I got from you obviously don't seem to mind the tap water!


----------



## burr740

TheLordOfTheFish said:


> I've followed this thread and tried to make sense of it all, got burr's receipt and will start dosing this week. I was wondering if someone would be so nice to double check my calculations to see if I'm on the right track here? This is also a brand new ADA heavy tank, heavily planted with CO2, 5h light, few days into week one. RO water remineralized with nilocg GH booster and Baking soda. PH 6.5. Any help welcome! Don't want to mess this up from the start
> 
> I’m dosing the burr mix in a 55 gallon (45 gallon used for royals butterfly calculator).
> 
> Micros:
> 
> Dosing 15ml 3x a day from a 500ml bottle and the below numbers ( xx grams) are how much I plan to put into the bottle to mix with RO water.
> 
> 
> Fe - .15 ppm. 6.55 grams
> 
> Mn - .06 ppm. 1.05 grams
> 
> B - .03 ppm (H3B03). 974 milligrams
> 
> Zn - .042 ppm. 1.05 grams
> 
> Mo - .0015 ppm (NA2Moo4) 22 milligrams
> 
> Cu - .002 ppm. 45 milligrams
> 
> Ni - .0005 ppm 13 milligrams
> 
> 
> Macros 15ml (500ml bottle) dosing 3x week:
> 
> KNO03: 69.44 grams for 7.5ppm
> K2SO4 94.9 grams for 7.5ppm K
> KH2PO4 13.54 grams for 7.5ppm K


What Fe did you calculate for?

Fe DTPA 11% - 7.74.gm

And you used the wrong Zn on the calculator. What you have is listed as "Zinc sulfate monohydrate 35%". It takes more of the other one (notice the extra 7 in the formula)

Calculating for the correct Zn gives 665 mg

Everything else looks right



Greggz said:


> Quick summary.
> 
> Saw Burr had some positive results going to .072 B. So on a whim, thought I will try .09 B and see what happens.
> 
> A huge bunch of Rot. Macranda Var. lost all it's color in three days. Still trying to nurse it back to recovery. Pantanal, L. Cuba, L. Sp. Red, etc, all stunted/rebelled. It was quick and pronounced.
> 
> Large water change and new batch at .055 and all was back to normal.
> 
> But I am telling you, that stuff is one you have to watch. Too little leaves room for improvement, but too much is toxic.


Yeah that was a crazy fast response!

But also it's important to note the my .07 dosing was 4-5x per week, your .09 was daily. So thats a bigger increase than it sounds like.

.35 per week compared to .63


----------



## fablau

RLee said:


> I was meaning to ask you about that. You are using straight tap water in your tank? I had some mixed results with the rock hard water in our area so I switched to RO. I was thinking about trying tap again on another tank. Do a side by side comparison. Basically make a copy of what I run now. The plants I got from you obviously don't seem to mind the tap water!




Yes, I use just tap and 5% RO water just to compensate evaporation. My current plants really don’t mind, I have tried soft water but at the end wasn’t worth the effort for me to appreciate the difference. Maybe for some picky plants like Pantanal, would make a difference, but not for the plants I have now.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy

Greggz said:


> Quick summary.
> 
> Saw Burr had some positive results going to .072 B. So on a whim, thought I will try .09 B and see what happens.
> 
> A huge bunch of Rot. Macranda Var. lost all it's color in three days. Still trying to nurse it back to recovery. Pantanal, L. Cuba, L. Sp. Red, etc, all stunted/rebelled. It was quick and pronounced.
> 
> Large water change and new batch at .055 and all was back to normal.
> 
> But I am telling you, that stuff is one you have to watch. Too little leaves room for improvement, but too much is toxic.


You should post pictures if possible of the so called stunting so other people will know what to look for. There is a high chance that some people keep the same plants and can get an idea of what to look for if ever they are interested in pushing micros like Boron to the limit.


----------



## Greggz

PortalMasteryRy said:


> You should post pictures if possible of the so called stunting so other people will know what to look for. There is a high chance that some people keep the same plants and can get an idea of what to look for if ever they are interested in pushing micros like Boron to the limit.


Yeah I should have got some pictures. I was too upset at the time.

Most pronounced was L. Macranda Var. It went from a nice bright pink color to kind of a dull yellow. Basically sucked all of the color right out of it.

After I changed the water and lowered the B dosing, the new growth came in pink. But the old growth did not recover. I ended trimming all of it off and am starting over with little 3" stems. 

As to the other plants, not as severe, but when you the heads of showy flowers stunt, you know it when you see it.


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

burr740 said:


> What Fe did you calculate for?
> 
> Fe DTPA 11% - 7.74.gm
> 
> And you used the wrong Zn on the calculator. What you have is listed as "Zinc sulfate monohydrate 35%". It takes more of the other one (notice the extra 7 in the formula)
> 
> Calculating for the correct Zn gives 665 mg
> 
> Everything else looks right


Ah thanks! I can't seem to find the FE11% on rotala, same with the correct Zn option. I'll follow your suggestions.


----------



## burr740

TheLordOfTheFish said:


> Ah thanks! I can't seem to find the FE11% on rotala, same with the correct Zn option. I'll follow your suggestions.


Going down the list alphabetically - DTPA Fe (11%)

The correct Zn is second from the very bottom - Zinc sulfate monohydrate 35%

The one on the very bottom is what you used the first time


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

burr740 said:


> Going down the list alphabetically - DTPA Fe (11%)
> 
> The correct Zn is second from the very bottom - Zinc sulfate monohydrate 35%
> 
> The one on the very bottom is what you used the first time


I don't know how I missed it


----------



## TheLordOfTheFish

burr740 said:


> Going down the list alphabetically - DTPA Fe (11%)
> 
> The correct Zn is second from the very bottom - Zinc sulfate monohydrate 35%
> 
> The one on the very bottom is what you used the first time



I just realized I'm dosing to remineralize my RO water (GH Booster | NilocG Aquatics). Does that mean I am taking that off from my 500ml mix? Macros would then only be:

Macros 15ml (500ml bottle) dosing 3x week:

KNO03: 69.44 grams for 7.5ppm 
KH2PO4 13.54 grams for 7.5ppm K

Is this correct?


----------



## burr740

TheLordOfTheFish said:


> I just realized I'm dosing to remineralize my RO water (GH Booster | NilocG Aquatics). Does that mean I am taking that off from my 500ml mix? Macros would then only be:
> 
> Macros 15ml (500ml bottle) dosing 3x week:
> 
> KNO03: 69.44 grams for 7.5ppm
> KH2PO4 13.54 grams for 7.5ppm K
> 
> Is this correct?



Yeah you shouldnt need any more K if your adding a GH booster like that. Most all of them add around 10 ppm K per 1 degree (Barr, GLA, nilocg, etc)


----------



## NightHedgie

I have been using Burr740's formula / ratios for the micros. Growth has been good... but suddenly i see fuzzy green algae on my leaves. Even on fast stems. Any thoughts?

no other changes to the tank, just the new micros. haven't seen this fuzzy green algae in a long long time.


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> I have been using Burr740's formula / ratios for the micros. Growth has been good... but suddenly i see fuzzy green algae on my leaves. Even on fast stems. Any thoughts?
> 
> no other changes to the tank, just the new micros. haven't seen this fuzzy green algae in a long long time.



Could be anything really. If you want to post your full parameters and exact dosing for everything, co2, light, substrate, etc etc, and some pics, we can try to figure it out


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Could be anything really. If you want to post your full parameters and exact dosing for everything, co2, light, substrate, etc etc, and some pics, we can try to figure it out


Thanks, can i do that in this thread? or shall i start a new one?

Looking back at my logs. I was having mold issues with my mixes with 5ml Distilled white vinegar /500ml. i increased it to 15ml /500ml and I don't see mold, but a few days after that i started to see the fuzzy green algae on the leaves. Could it be connected to the extra vinegar? I was thinking of whipping up a new batch, use citric acid to bring down pH and potassium sorbate for the mold.


----------



## burr740

Sure do it here if you want.

Ascorbic acid will take care of the mold too in most cases. Really dont need the potassium sorbate, that's for strong mold problems. Doubt the vinegar had anything to do with it, it works just fine, 5 ml isnt always enough. 15-20 should be good 

My guess would be now with a more potent micro mix something else is running low, like macros. This happens a lot when micros become optimized better.

Of course you need to make sure you didnt make a mistake with the mix, added the right amount of everything, didnt leave something out, misread a decimal point, etc...


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Sure do it here if you want.
> 
> Ascorbic acid will take care of the mold too in most cases. Really dont need the potassium sorbate, that's for strong mold problems. Doubt the vinegar had anything to do with it, it works just fine, 5 ml isnt always enough. 15-20 should be good
> 
> My guess would be now with a more potent micro mix something else is running low, like macros. This happens a lot when micros become optimized better.
> 
> Of course you need to make sure you didnt make a mistake with the mix, added the right amount of everything, didnt leave something out, misread a decimal point, etc...


Unfortunately ascorbic acid is expensive here.  ... but I was thinking along the lines... i could have made a mistake ... doubtful but who knows..... I'll make up another batch just in case I screwed up on the first one.  

My tank is a 36"W x 18"H x 17.5"D

Lights 4 x 39W Aquazonic T5HO (3 x 6500K super plant and 1 x 12000K super sun) About 19" above the substrate (dunno par values sorry)

Substrate is black inert euro sand (can't get black blasting sand here, got the next best thing) - followed u and greggz

Macro Dosing followed u again / Front loading
N 18ppm /6ppm/ 6ppm
P 3ppm /2.4ppm/ 2.4ppm
K 15ppm (not including the K from N and P)
Ca 25ppm
Mg 10ppm

KH 2.5 - 3dKH
GH 9-10 dGH

Micros - your latest 4-5 times per week

Water change weekly 50%

CO2 - pressurised - using drop checker with 4dKH - nice light green / yellowish


----------



## burr740

Everything looks good on paper



NightHedgie said:


> Micros - your latest 4-5 times per week


 Which latest? Ppost the exact recipe.

If its one of the high Zn or B recipes may need to back one or both of those down some


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Everything looks good on paper
> 
> 
> Which latest? Ppost the exact recipe.
> 
> If its one of the high Zn or B recipes may need to back one or both of those down some


this one
Fe - .2 ppm
Mn - .05 ppm
B - .073 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm
Mo - .00175 ppm
Cu - .001 ppm (there's a little in my tap)
Ni - .0005 ppm


before using the above, I was using some china traces ... had horrible consequences on my amania gracilis and polysperma.. curled crazily, now seems to be recovering a bit


----------



## burr740

Cut B down to around 50. Not saying it's the problem but it could be, .073 is really too much. B sticks around longer than the other stuff and the levels can build up. Make a new batch and do an 80% water change to reset the levels of everything

Nice looking tank btw!


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Cut B down to around 50. Not saying it's the problem but it could be, .073 is really too much. B sticks around longer than the other stuff and the levels can build up. Make a new batch and do an 80% water change to reset the levels of everything
> 
> Nice looking tank btw!


Agree with Burr. B is potential issue. 

Other macros/micros look good, and you seem to have plenty of light and CO2 too. 

So no wonder it's a very nice looking tank. Obviously a lot going right there.

You should start a journal. I think you have something people would be interested in learning more about.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Cut B down to around 50. Not saying it's the problem but it could be, .073 is really too much. B sticks around longer than the other stuff and the levels can build up. Make a new batch and do an 80% water change to reset the levels of everything
> 
> Nice looking tank btw!


Thanks

Like this?

Fe - .2 ppm
Mn - .05 ppm
B - .050 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm --> .04ppm (as i notice something like that in your earlier recipe)
Mo - .00175 ppm
Cu - .001 ppm 
Ni - .0005 ppm





Greggz said:


> Agree with Burr. B is potential issue.
> 
> Other macros/micros look good, and you seem to have plenty of light and CO2 too.
> 
> So no wonder it's a very nice looking tank. Obviously a lot going right there.
> 
> You should start a journal. I think you have something people would be interested in learning more about.


Thanks Greggz.. it was from looking at your tank that got me into rainbows.... but the LFS here only have boesemani ,blue rainbows, neon rainbows, and red salmon rainbows....
Never seen any others..... I've so far only have one good looking boesemani, and 2 others. 1 blue rainbow so far.

I'm thinking of getting a couple red salmon rainbows, been eyeing them for a few weeks already... Have so far resisted the urge.


----------



## burr740

You can leave Zn at .05, although you may not notice a difference between .04

And unless you're sure you have some Cu in the tap, .002 would be more like it.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> You can leave Zn at .05, although you may not notice a difference between .04
> 
> And unless you're sure you have some Cu in the tap, .002 would be more like it.


Ok Thanks Zn at 0.5... and Cu .002 .... never had my tap tested... and in my country . water report would be nonexistent.


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> Ok Thanks Zn at 0.5... and Cu .002 .... never had my tap tested... and in my country . water report would be nonexistent.


Hah. Ive started dosing more Cu lately myself, in spite of there being "supposedly" a little in the tap.

I have a couple 20 longs with shrimp. In those tanks Id been going w/o any Cu at all - assuming my tap would cover it. Well you know what they say about assumptions...

Nymphaea santerum (of all plants) was down right stunted. It was down to about 3 scraggly looking leaves and hadnt budged in months. I couldnt figure out why. The only difference between those tanks and the others was...no Cu

So I started adding Cu to those tanks and within just a few days it threw out a nice new leaf. Now about 6 weeks later it has all new leaves and spreading around the tank like its supposed to be.










Since then Ive raised Cu to about .01 per week in all tanks. Everything seems to like it


----------



## NightHedgie

ok done... it took me an hour to mix.... was really careful this time. double checked triple checked.....


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> ok done... it took me an hour to mix.... was really careful this time. double checked triple checked.....


Keep us updated how it goes!


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Hah. Ive started dosing more Cu lately myself, in spite of there being "supposedly" a little in the tap.
> 
> I have a couple 20 longs with shrimp. In those tanks Id been going w/o any Cu at all - assuming my tap would cover it. Well you know what they say about assumptions...
> 
> Nymphaea santerum (of all plants) was down right stunted. It was down to about 3 scraggly looking leaves and hadnt budged in months. I couldnt figure out why. The only difference between those tanks and the others was...no Cu
> 
> So I started adding Cu to those tanks and within just a few days it threw out a nice new leaf. Now about 6 weeks later it has all new leaves and spreading around the tank like its supposed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then Ive raised Cu to about .01 per week in all tanks. Everything seems to like it


Joe that is very, very interesting. 

I'm beginning to believe more and more that fine tuning micros can make far more difference than I ever imagined. And that right there with the Cu is a very good example. 

As you know, I had the set back with too much B. Right now I am at .055 x 7 or .385 weekly. As I've mentioned, my Macranda Var. has been slow to bounce back. Part of me says maybe drop it down to .045 x 7 for .315 weekly. Or maybe wait it out and see if it perks up. 

But here's the thing. Pretty much everything else seems to be peaking. Really seems to be a sweet spot. Are you still keeping Macranda Var? And have you noticed sensitivity to B? 

I take it your are still at .072 x 5 times for .36 weekly? 

Here's my latest. Anything else you think is worth tweaking with the next mix?










Like I said, when I set out down this road with you, I wasn't expecting the twists and turns, nor the impact seemingly small changes can produce. But I can see now it's true and was well worth the effort.


----------



## burr740

@Greggz it is possible your mac varie has too much built up within the plant. It would probably benefit from a week or two of zero. Other stuff probably would not appreciate it though. And if it's slowly bouncing back well, just keep doing what you're doing.

In my tanks during about a month when B and Zn were both in the .07s and dosing daily, several things began to melt at the stems down low; mac varie, myrio mini, didiplis and gratiola. So one or both of those caused problems at daily .07

At 4-5x per week havent noticed anything negative, but I still think it's too much.

I've been trying something new for the past 3 weeks- dosing higher concentrations only 3x per week

Fe - .3
Mn - .075
B - .06
Zn - .06
Mo - .002
Cu - .003
Ni - .0005

This is close to the old v13.15 that several of us were dosing daily at one point.

And I gotta say things are doing as well as ever.

Im trying 3x per week for two reasons, the convenience of going back to micros and macros on alternating days, and also because I have a theory about concentration and absorption.

As we know some of these non-chelated micros dont stick around very long. And we also know that concentration affects absorption. Higher concentrations make it easier to absorb smaller amounts. That's general biology, not just plants

So having .06 Zn for example, makes it easier for all plants to 'get enough' before it goes away in say a few hours (guessing on the time which is heavily related to PH)

Some things may not have access to enough at only .03 daily. .03 wont be absorbed as easily as .06, and it wont be around as long either 

Also Fe and most micros dont have to be in a steady concentration all the time, like how its better to have NO3 and PO4 steady. Plants can drink up Fe one day and be OK for a while as long as they have plenty. So that's another reason

Its just a theory. After a while I may try this exact recipe cut in half and dosed daily to see if there's any difference. All I can say right now is a higher concentration 3x is working well. 


And you're absolutely right small tweaks can make a big big difference. Who woulda thunk it?? :red_mouth


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Its just a theory. After a while I may try this exact recipe cut in half and dosed daily to see if there's any difference. All I can say right now is a higher concentration 3x is working well.


Thanks Joe.

Think I will bump down to .05 B daily. Then see what happens. Like I said, too much going right to make big changes. 

And as to above, my guess (only a guess) is that it is not much difference from alternate days to daily. But will be interested to see what happens. I've been wrong many times before.


----------



## fablau

Wow, very interesting thoughts guys!

I like these four concepts you have brought up:

1. Never get anything for granted: always test and see.

2. Tweaking micros can make big differences.

3. Plants can “accumulate “ stuff inside themselves, so trying a period of “no dosing” could help figure that out.

4. Dosing higher concentrations less often could result in better plants absorption.

Let’s keep testing and posting results here, we are making huge steps in understanding what our plants need.

I can’t thank you enough guys!


----------



## NightHedgie

Yup, I'll update in a week.

If the mix has mold already. Do u throw it away, or sieve the mold out and put more vinegar?


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> Yup, I'll update in a week.
> 
> If the mix has mold already. Do u throw it away, or sieve the mold out and put more vinegar?


The mix you made yesterday is molded already?? What does the mold look like?

I think its not mold but something precipitating. Its too soon for actual mold.

If that is the case then whatever it is is no longer in an available state so you need to just trash that mix.

Are you mixing with distilled water?

Did you add 15-20 ml distilled vinegar, like the common distilled white vinegar made for cooking?

What are the exact fert compounds you have (the chemical formula for each one)? 

I know one guy bought some weird Zn that was supposed to be monohydrate but it was 31% or something instead of 35%, it would turn immediately into white papery looking stuff.


----------



## NightHedgie

Not the new mix , the new mix is fine.

Was asking just in case I do get mold, and what I should do.


----------



## burr740

Whew! lol

Mold technically doesnt hurt anything. You could strain it off and add a dash more vinegar. Id probably just make a new batch though, it's not supposed to mold


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I am very guilty of using moldy micro solution.
Shake it up well so the mold is dispersed equally.:grin2:


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> Whew! lol
> 
> Mold technically doesnt hurt anything. You could strain it off and add a dash more vinegar. Id probably just make a new batch though, it's not supposed to mold


Yes, or use Potassium Sorbate if you have persistent mold. As Burr suggested, 0.25 gm per 500ml works great. Never had any more mold ever since!


----------



## NightHedgie

Deanna said:


> - There is probably good reason to add citric acid, which I do, to inhibit mold growth and otherwise help stabilize the mix. I make batches designed to last about 6 months.


Anyone know how much citric acid to add for a 500ml?


----------



## natemcnutty

NightHedgie said:


> Anyone know how much citric acid to add for a 500ml?


Not sure what the proper amount is, but my last batch I used 1/64 citric acid. Only been a few weeks so far, so probably too soon to tell if that was enough.


----------



## NightHedgie

natemcnutty said:


> Not sure what the proper amount is, but my last batch I used 1/64 citric acid. Only been a few weeks so far, so probably too soon to tell if that was enough.


1/64 teaspoon?


----------



## natemcnutty

NightHedgie said:


> 1/64 teaspoon?


Yeah, sorry, teaspoon. Don't know if it was enough, but l wanted to start low and work my way up if necessary. I usually don't see any mold until about 6 weeks in, about two weeks before I'm out and have to make more.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Wow, fantastic thread. After following, I’ve learned so much more about micros. Previously I tossed in CSM+B and never gave it much thought. Thanks to all who have posted, it’s all been very informative, and @Greggz, thanks for starting this thread.

After reading I noticed Burr740 was selling micos with the offer to provide recommendations. Free recommendation, of course I couldn’t resist! After purchasing the ferts, Burr740 was very helpful and provided recommendations which I summarized below along with a comparison of what I was doing before. Thanks, Burr740, for your help, your effort in assisting others is much appreciated.










Yesterday I started dosing per Burr740 recommendations. It will be interesting to see what happens. My tank is a little unique as it’s a combination of low and high-tech plants. The plants could use some improvement on overall quality, so I have my fingers crossed that the new dosing amounts will provide this. I’ll post results as time goes on. I do have some concerns, especially after reading the past few threads about boron buildup and what will happen over the next couple of weeks. Rotalla Butterfly has a nutrient accumulation calculator, but it requires entering data on how much the plants are using. Does anyone have any information on how much micros plants uptake per day?


----------



## fablau

Beautiful tank Ken.

It is interesting you get away by dosing Seachem Fe and EDTA, and not even very much... I guess you have soft water?

Instead I see you dose high P compared to NO3 (ratio is close to 1:3, whereas most folks dose 1:5).

Do you happen to know your light PAR at the substrate?


----------



## Greggz

Ken I agree with @fablau, beautiful tank. Healthy plants and nice presentation. Well done.

And nice job on the spreadsheet too. Good to see other plant nerds around who track every little detail. I enjoyed looking it over. Always interesting to see what others are up to.

FWIW, I am at very close to the same numbers on micros. Also very similar with macros as well, and also closer to 1:3 P to N.

How come you haven't started a journal? I think many would be interested to learn more about your tank. Sharing with the community is a great way to advance the hobby, as we all learn from each other. 

And like Fab, would be interested to know your PAR level and other details. 

Good luck with the new dosing. It will be interesting to see how your tank responds.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Thanks @fablau:

I was not dosing very much iron. I was going by Seachem's directions, but the range varies, and I was going by the low range. The new dosing amounts increases iron by quite a bit, so hopefully I'll see some improvements.

All water is RODI with added magnesium and calcium via Aquavitro Mineralize to 225 TDS.

I do not know my PAR Levels. I'm using two LED fixtures, the Finnex Planted Plus 24/7 and Current Satelllite LED Plus Pro. I've been looking at PAR meters, this may be one of my next purchases.

For Macros, I'm using EI recommendations for 60 - 80 gallon tanks. I did not realize others were using a different ratio.


----------



## Grobbins48

Greggz said:


> How come you haven't started a journal? I think many would be interested to learn more about your tank. Sharing with the community is a great way to advance the hobby, as we all learn from each other.


Agree! This is a journal I would really like to read if you had one going. Great looking tank! Let us know if you start one up!


----------



## Immortal1

Ken Keating1 said:


> Thanks @*fablau*:
> 
> I was not dosing very much iron. I was going by Seachem's directions, but the range varies, and I was going by the low range. The new dosing amounts increases iron by quite a bit, so hopefully I'll see some improvements.
> 
> All water is RODI with added magnesium and calcium via Aquavitro Mineralize to 225 TDS.
> 
> I do not know my PAR Levels. I using two LED fixtures, the Finnex Planted Plus 24/7 and Current Satelllite LED Plus Pro. I've been looking at PAR meters, this may be one of my next purchases.
> 
> For Macros, I'm using EI recommendations for 60 - 80 gallon tanks. I did not realize others were using a different ratio.



Ken, I know very little about the Finnex product, but I did a bunch of testing on the Current product. See link below. Also, nice looking tank and enjoyed the spreadsheet.

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/1235921-seneye-reef-review.html


----------



## burr740

Glad to see you get started @Ken Keating1 , and yeah you should definitely start a journal!!

Just to be clear though, I didnt mean to recommend that .2 recipe daily. My understanding was you'd been dosing 3x per week (according to the little spreadsheet you sent me). So I meant for that to be 3x per week doses. 

Daily that's probably a little too much B, and possibly Zn and Cu. And I doubt anyone needs that much Fe. 

If you want to dose daily I'd cut it in half to start out with. My apologies if you thought I meant that was a daily dose.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Thanks @Greggz, @Grobbins48 

I started the tank up last Nov. I didn't really know what I was doing, plus I didn't even know what a tank journal was, so it never crossed my mind to start one. My one goal was to keep fish and plants alive. Since I started I've been doing a lot of experimenting and have come up with some unique designs that I need to post, silent variable velocity water CO2 reactors, easy variable pressure 1 micron filtration , 1st floor to 2nd floor pumping shed and pre-filtration for canister filters. Since I was experimenting, and wasn't sure what would work, I wasn't sure if it would be worth posting. But after reading other Tank Journals, I've learned it's not about your tank or doing something right the first time, it's also about the input from others, open discussions, and the journey with help from others. I'll start a journal soon.

Thanks @Immortal1: I've been eyeing the Seneye PAR meter, thank you for your link with your write up. I'll pm you later for questions.

Yes, call me a spreadsheet nerd! The sheet I posted is just one worksheet out of 28 in my aquarium workbook. What fun!

OK, back to this thread:

@burr740: Sorry about the confusion on the spreadsheet I sent you. I compared your recommendations with what Greggz is doing and they were in the ballpark. But I'm also dosing Seachem Iron, so that adds to the total so I'll cut back.

@Greggz: How are you posting your spreadsheet info, it looks nice and clear? I snipped mine off the screen and made a jpg file from it, but it's not as clear as yours. Let me know.


----------



## fablau

Wow, from the lights you are using (LEDs) you should have pretty high light. That perfectly explains the nice red plants you are well growing!

Yes, a journal would be great, and I'll jump right in 

I have many questions to ask you (substrate, etc...)... thanks!


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> @Greggz it is possible your mac varie has too much built up within the plant. It would probably benefit from a week or two of zero. Other stuff probably would not appreciate it though. And if it's slowly bouncing back well, just keep doing what you're doing.
> 
> In my tanks during about a month when B and Zn were both in the .07s and dosing daily, several things began to melt at the stems down low; mac varie, myrio mini, didiplis and gratiola. So one or both of those caused problems at daily .07
> 
> At 4-5x per week havent noticed anything negative, but I still think it's too much.
> 
> I've been trying something new for the past 3 weeks- dosing higher concentrations only 3x per week
> 
> Fe - .3
> Mn - .075
> B - .06
> Zn - .06
> Mo - .002
> Cu - .003
> Ni - .0005
> 
> This is close to the old v13.15 that several of us were dosing daily at one point.
> 
> And I gotta say things are doing as well as ever.
> 
> Im trying 3x per week for two reasons, the convenience of going back to micros and macros on alternating days, and also because I have a theory about concentration and absorption.
> 
> *As we know some of these non-chelated micros dont stick around very long. And we also know that concentration affects absorption. Higher concentrations make it easier to absorb smaller amounts. That's general biology, not just plants*
> 
> So having .06 Zn for example, makes it easier for all plants to 'get enough' before it goes away in say a few hours (guessing on the time which is heavily related to PH)
> 
> Some things may not have access to enough at only .03 daily. .03 wont be absorbed as easily as .06, and it wont be around as long either
> 
> Also Fe and most micros dont have to be in a steady concentration all the time, like how its better to have NO3 and PO4 steady. Plants can drink up Fe one day and be OK for a while as long as they have plenty. So that's another reason
> 
> Its just a theory. After a while I may try this exact recipe cut in half and dosed daily to see if there's any difference. All I can say right now is a higher concentration 3x is working well.
> 
> 
> And you're absolutely right small tweaks can make a big big difference. Who woulda thunk it?? :red_mouth


makes sense after looking up charts like these

























and then we have to apply what we know form Mulder's chart too, oof lot of info / complexities.

I finally get why @Xiaozhuang / dennis said people under dose Phosphate lol

anyone if there's charts for how temperature affect nutrient uptake too? I'm pretty sure warmer temps = more nutrient uptake but having another source would be nice


----------



## NightHedgie

Looking at the charts. What would the ideal ph be, for macros and micros?


----------



## Deanna

NightHedgie said:


> Anyone know how much citric acid to add for a 500ml?


I add 700mg /500ml of the ascorbic acid as an antioxidant and 300mg / 500ml of potassium sorbate as a mold inhibitor.


----------



## NightHedgie

Citric acid won't cut it, like ascorbic acid.. Like a 2 in one?


----------



## Cichlid-140

First post to the thread. Great thread BTW.

A question for the knowledgeable. I'm starting up a Cichild tank (Mbuna) and I'm still cycling. Once I can proceed I'll be injecting CO2 for Vals, Anubias and Java Fern. 

In terms of Micros (considering the chart just posted by SAWT above) what sort of headaches am I in for due to the high initial pH of around 8.0-8.2 and are those issues reduced by the pH drop from CO2?


----------



## burr740

@Cichlid-140 The issue with PH that high is that it's out of range for Fe chelates to remain bound to the Fe, EDTA (whats in csmb) would be a poor choice, DTPA would probably be affected some but its a better choice. The other issue is most of the micros in general become less available to plants in higher PH. Not unavailable, just less available. So you may have to dose higher levels than the the avg person.

Yes those issues are reduced as the PH drops from co2.

It doesnt sound like you're going to have very demanding plants, and I assume you wont be blasting a ton of light. So Id probably just see how it goes and not worry about it for the time being.

@NightHedgie Citric acid should work but Ive never used it and dont know how much to add. You could test it on distilled water and see how much it takes to get the PH around 4


----------



## NightHedgie

Joe, half way thru the week using the new formula.

Looks like i have to get a digital PH meter. But I'm using 0.75g Citric acid in 500ml... so far so good.

Still struggling with the fuzzy green algae and my Ammania Gracilis growth has gone funny.... 
Pictures attached... please advice..


----------



## Cichlid-140

burr740 said:


> @Cichlid-140 The issue with PH that high is that it's out of range for Fe chelates to remain bound to the Fe, EDTA (whats in csmb) would be a poor choice, DTPA would probably be affected some but its a better choice. The other issue is most of the micros in general become less available to plants in higher PH. Not unavailable, just less available. So you may have to dose higher levels than the the avg person.
> 
> *If I decide to augment the Fe, you specified DTPA. Is there a reason you didn't mention Fe Gluconate?*
> 
> Yes those issues are reduced as the PH drops from co2.
> 
> *At least there's that.*
> 
> It doesnt sound like you're going to have very demanding plants, and I assume you wont be blasting a ton of light. So Id probably just see how it goes and not worry about it for the time being.
> 
> *By my best calculation I max out at about 50 PAR at the substrate and can adjust that down in 1% increments. I plan for 50% or less starting out. I'm hopeing the Val's (Jungle) will benefit from much of their foliage being at the surface. *


Thanks for the response


----------



## burr740

Cichlid-140 said:


> Thanks for the response


Gluconate precipitates very quickly in PH mid 7s and up.

Plants absorb it very fast so they're still able to get a little bit, but it just doesnt stick around long. It can be gone in just a couple or few hours.

It is also known to cloud the water in higher PH levels, not always but its common. 

So thats why I didnt mention gluconate

Of course you can try it and see. If it doesnt cloud the water and those slow growing plants are able to get a quick sip every day or two it might work fine


----------



## Cichlid-140

burr740 said:


> Gluconate precipitates very quickly in PH mid 7s and up.
> 
> Plants absorb it very fast so they're still able to get a little bit, but it just doesnt stick around long. It can be gone in just a couple or few hours.
> 
> It is also known to cloud the water in higher PH levels, not always but its common.
> 
> So thats why I didnt mention gluconate
> 
> Of course you can try it and see. If it doesnt cloud the water and those slow growing plants are able to get a quick sip every day or two it might work fine


Noted. If shows up as an issue I'll get some DTPA. Thanks.


----------



## NightHedgie

Burr740 any comments on the ammania gracilis?

For the fuzzy green algae on the leaves, could i be over dosing?
thanks

Bump: Burr740 any comments on the ammania gracilis?

For the fuzzy green algae on the leaves, could i be over dosing?
thanks


----------



## Greggz

Ken Keating1 said:


> @Greggz: How are you posting your spreadsheet info, it looks nice and clear? I snipped mine off the screen and made a jpg file from it, but it's not as clear as yours. Let me know.


Ken sorry I forgot to respond to this post.

My spreadsheet is in Excel, and I'm taking a screen shot, cropping it, and also saving it as a .jpg. Not sure why yours is a little blurry. 

I have posted my spreadsheet up to a google drive, and you and anyone else is welcome to use it. 

Several of us now have been using it to post a quick snapshot of what's going on with our tank. I save a new copy every time I change something and date it. One of the many ways I track my details.

You can find it here.....................


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CI7FdUKHGv7CgfA3lRJZdxESN07exBsu

Bump:


NightHedgie said:


> Burr740 any comments on the ammania gracilis?
> 
> For the fuzzy green algae on the leaves, could i be over dosing?
> thanks


NightHedgie do you have all of the specs of your tank posted somewhere? I highly doubt algae like that has anything to do with too many ferts. And it needs to be taken in the context of everything else.

The only time I have seen algae like that is when my CO2 ran out, or too little ferts. Just saying could be lots of reasons.

And tough to base too much on those two plants, as they aren't easy to begin with. Do you have a full tank shot?

And curious what Burr thinks too. Something going on there for sure, but not sure what.


----------



## Surf

> Noted. If shows up as an issue I'll get some DTPA. Thanks.


Other than DTPA and gluconate there is one other choice. It is Fe EDDHA it is stable at a PH of about 10. and should stick around a lot longer than gluconate. 

https://www.amazon.com/Grow-More-6546-Chelate-1-Pound/dp/B00BWE2CUE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540428363&sr=8-1&keywords=EDDHA&dpID=515UhBeTJEL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> Burr740 any comments on the ammania gracilis?
> 
> For the fuzzy green algae on the leaves, could i be over dosing?
> thanks


Hard to say other than there's definitely an imbalance somewhere. Ive never correlated that specific type of algae with something in particular.

Check co2, make sure that's good and stable from one day to the next.

Clean the filter, remove any gunk laying around on the substrate, wipe the glass, and remove any dead or dying leaves. Do a big water change.

Do all that first anytime there's a problem. We like to focus on ferts when a lot of the time it's one or more of the above that needs doing.

If that dont help then try raising or lowering something. If it gets better, great. If it gets worse, do the opposite.



Surf said:


> Other than DTPA and gluconate there is one other choice. It is Fe EDDHA it is stable at a PH of about 10. and should stick around a lot longer than gluconate.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Grow-More-65...pID=515UhBeTJEL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


Exactly right. The only problem is it turns the water red even in small amounts, so most people dont like using it


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Check co2, make sure that's good and stable from one day to the next.


Yup stable


burr740 said:


> Clean the filter, remove any gunk laying around on the substrate, wipe the glass, and remove any dead or dying leaves. Do a big water change.


Just did the above as u suggested... but I remove dead leaves everyday if there is / wipe glass too....I WC every week 50%, clean my filter every 3 weeks



burr740 said:


> If that dont help then try raising or lowering something. If it gets better, great. If it gets worse, do the opposite.


Any suggestions to raising /lowering the something ?


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> Yup stable
> 
> Just did the above as u suggested... but I remove dead leaves everyday if there is / wipe glass too....I WC every week 50%, clean my filter every 3 weeks
> 
> Any suggestions to raising /lowering the something ?


Purely a guess but since Ammania is badly stunted might try reducing NO3 a little bit.

Or you might need to do the opposite and raise macros if you recently increased micros and Fe, or made them better.

Or you might need higher co2 now with better/more ferts.

Or you may just need to reduce the overall biomass in the tank. Get rid of a bunch of old growth and replant the fresher tops, leave better space between groups. This too will stunt sensitive species and cause algae

Or...

Its just hard to say from over here what might be happening exactly.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Purely a guess but since Ammania is badly stunted might try reducing NO3 a little bit.
> 
> Or you might need to do the opposite and raise macros if you recently increased micros and Fe, or made them better.
> 
> Or you might need higher co2 now with better/more ferts.
> 
> Or you may just need to reduce the overall biomass in the tank. Get rid of a bunch of old growth and replant the fresher tops, leave better space between groups. This too will stunt sensitive species and cause algae
> 
> Or...
> 
> Its just hard to say from over here what might be happening exactly.


Thanks for the input...

Could it possibly be as Greggz suggested that I'm not dosing enough micros? 

Would doing 50% WC twice a week be of any help which includes vacuuming the detritus out ?
If so then after each WC I front load the macros each time?

after a week I noticed this plant looking stunted.. does it?


----------



## burr740

Could be anything! If you think you arent dosing enough micros, raise them. You'll just have to try something and see what happens.

Double water changes for a couple weeks, or a month, is always a good idea when there's an algae problem. Plants love water changes and algae hates them. Yes vacuum the surface of the substrate thoroughly. Might take a few water changes to get it done right.

Just keep in mind that increased water changes is going to lower the overall ferts in the water column. Weekly totals will no longer be weekly totals. 

Weekly totals will now be totals dosed between water changes. That's what it means anyway, most people just do them weekly so that's how it's expressed.

Actually 'weekly totals' always means the 'total between water changes' because thats when the dosing "week" starts over.

Personally I wouldnt alter dosing or change anything until you go through a maintenance period with aggressive cleaning and extra water changes. Part of the problem to begin with might be too many nutrients...you just dont know at this point. 

Plant doesnt look stunted. The one in back might be a little unhappy


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> Could be anything! If you think you arent dosing enough micros, raise them. You'll just have to try something and see what happens.
> 
> Double water changes for a couple weeks, or a month, is always a good idea when there's an algae problem. Plants love water changes and algae hates them. Yes vacuum the surface of the substrate thoroughly. Might take a few water changes to get it done right.
> 
> Just keep in mind that increased water changes is going to lower the overall ferts in the water column. Weekly totals will no longer be weekly totals.
> 
> Weekly totals will now be totals dosed between water changes. That's what it means anyway, most people just do them weekly so that's how it's expressed.
> 
> Actually 'weekly totals' always means the 'total between water changes' because thats when the dosing "week" starts over.
> 
> Personally I wouldnt alter dosing or change anything until you go through a maintenance period with aggressive cleaning and extra water changes. Part of the problem to begin with might be too many nutrients...you just dont know at this point.
> 
> Plant doesnt look stunted. The one in back might be a little unhappy


Okie, I'll keep on doing water changes twice weekly. And keep dosing ferts as if it is still on, a once a week water change schedule? is this what u mean by don't alter the dosing?

If I do have to test increase/decrease micros/macros ... how long do I observe to try to see the changes ,whether good or bad? days? weeks?


----------



## fablau

NightHedgie said:


> Okie, I'll keep on doing water changes twice weekly. And keep dosing ferts as if it is still on, a once a week water change schedule? is this what u mean by don't alter the dosing?
> 
> If I do have to test increase/decrease micros/macros ... how long do I observe to try to see the changes ,whether good or bad? days? weeks?


To answer your question, here's a rule for you: make the change, and wait a minimum of 2 weeks to see the result. It took me several years to understand that. Plants communicate slowly, and we have to wait for them... that's the only way to do it right 

Keep us posted!


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

NightHedgie said:


> Thanks for the input...
> 
> Could it possibly be as Greggz suggested that I'm not dosing enough micros?
> 
> Would doing 50% WC twice a week be of any help which includes vacuuming the detritus out ?
> If so then after each WC I front load the macros each time?
> 
> after a week I noticed this plant looking stunted.. does it?


oh wow what plant is that? Parrots feather?


----------



## NightHedgie

It's myriophyllum tuberculatum, I think


----------



## Maryland Guppy

NightHedgie said:


> It's myriophyllum tuberculatum, I think


Tuberculatum would be more red.
Could very well be submerged parrot feather.
Myrio no matter what.


----------



## KeeperOfASilentWorld

burr740 said:


> Im sure there is but I'd have no idea what it might be. Doubt we get anywhere near it at the usual dosing amounts
> 
> Say you made a recipe for 100 ML doses into a 10 gallon tank, or 200 ML doses, then maybe, but who's gonna do that?
> 
> I doubt anyone is going to dose more than 10 ml per 10 gal, and probably never more than 5.
> 
> Unless you have a 2 gal nano tank or something like that and wanna dose 5 ml at a time. Then it might be something to consider. Idk really...good question though!


Thank you !


----------



## Cichlid-140

Another question for the brain trust.

As pH goes up (to ~8.0 & ^) does Fe separate from the chelating agent or is it just less available to the plant? If the former does it re-associate with the chelating agent as the pH goes down with CO2 injection?


----------



## burr740

The chelate loses its bond with Fe. When this happens you're left with raw Fe and the free chelate. 

The chelate will then bind with some other free cation, whatever is closest and most abundant. Edta has a strong affinity for Ca. There's a chart around here somewhere showing an order of preference.

The chelate binding with something else isnt really a problem. The substance is still available to plants, just takes a little more energy to get.

Note that EDTA only begins to separate from Fe around 6.5. To most other things it stays bound at much higher PH levels, up in the 9 range

The raw Fe is the problem. In it's unchelated state is either going to quickly precipitate (lost forever) or bind with something else. PO4 being the main thing, which creates FePO4, of which neither is now available to plants.

To answer your last question, if the Fe was still around 12 hours later when the PH drops again, then theoretically yes the edta could rebind with it. But the Fe wont be around, and chances are the chelate has bound to something else by then anyway.

What does it all mean? Basically you just lose the Fe, and possibly a little PO4 along with it.


----------



## Cichlid-140

Got it. Need to get my wife on board with dosing after CO2 levels are up and bring the pH down (I'll be at work) or get a doser. Degassed pH is ~8.1 in the tank for the Mbuna but that'll come down with the CO2 to ~6.9-7.0. The tank just finished cycling yesterday and the last of the CO2 stuff comes in tomorrow.

Think there'd be any benefit to a thread on my Mbuna tank planting progress or has that been done? It'd be very lightly planted so it may present some different challenges.

Thanks.


----------



## Quagulator

Cichlid-140 said:


> Got it. Need to get my wife on board with dosing after CO2 levels are up and bring the pH down (I'll be at work) or get a doser. Degassed pH is ~8.1 in the tank for the Mbuna but that'll come down with the CO2 to ~6.9-7.0. The tank just finished cycling yesterday and the last of the CO2 stuff comes in tomorrow.
> 
> Think there'd be any benefit to a thread on my Mbuna tank planting progress or has that been done? It'd be very lightly planted so it may present some different challenges.
> 
> Thanks.


Make sure to get a journal set up (if you haven't already). 

I don't see many planted African tanks around. (I think I've only ever seen 1??) and it was planted HEAVY prior to adding any Mbuna....

I'm interested to follow along.


----------



## burr740

Of course make a journal! Im sure a lot of people would like to follow a planted cichlid tank.

Personally I think everyone should do a journal. Doesnt matter how "good" you think your tank is.

If nothing else ts great to have a pictoral diary just for yourself, but its also a good place to ask questions, or answer them, get feedback, etc. Everyone learns from a journal no matter what level the tank is on


----------



## Cichlid-140

Quagulator said:


> Make sure to get a journal set up (if you haven't already).
> 
> I don't see many planted African tanks around. (I think I've only ever seen 1??) and it was planted HEAVY prior to adding any Mbuna....
> 
> I'm interested to follow along.


I'll see about starting one this weekend. My son will be visiting from TN for my wife's birthday (and his, also this month) but I may be able to shoehorn some time in.


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> The raw Fe is the problem. In it's unchelated state is either going to quickly precipitate (lost forever) or bind with something else. PO4 being the main thing, which creates FePO4, of which neither is now available to plants.
> 
> What does it all mean? Basically you just lose the Fe, and possibly a little PO4 along with it.


 That also means that high PO4 is making Fe unavailable to plants.


----------



## Cichlid-140

Edward said:


> That also means that high PO4 is making Fe unavailable to plants.


???
Once more please, with details.


----------



## Edward

Higher the PO4 concentration the more likely Fe will form insoluble and to plants unavailable FePO4 compound. The ever increasing dosing trend can be counterproductive.


----------



## Cichlid-140

I'll keep that in mind. You see an issue @0.7ppm every other day?


----------



## Edward

The risk is not daily addition but accumulation. The 0.7 ppm PO4 every other day with 50% weekly water changes limits the accumulation to 4.9 ppm PO4 which should be fine.


----------



## Immortal1

Edward said:


> The risk is not daily addition but accumulation. The 0.7 ppm PO4 every other day with 50% weekly water changes limits the accumulation to 4.9 ppm PO4 which should be fine.



Curious, assuming approximately 6.7 average pH and DTPA FE, what would consider an upper weekly ppm limit for PO4 - assuming 50% weekly water changes.


----------



## Edward

Immortal1, I wish I knew. 
If we think about it, I have plants under high light, 0.05 ppm Fe added daily and 1 ppm PO4 total concentration. And @Greggz for example, has plants also under high light, but 0.15 ppm Fe added daily and 15 ppm PO4 total concentration. See the correlation?

Data based on post #1788, 9.83 ppm PO4 per 105 gallons, added to 70 gallons weekly.


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Immortal1, I wish I knew.
> If we think about it, I have plants under high light, 0.05 ppm Fe added daily and 1 ppm PO4 total concentration. And @Greggz for example, has plants also under high light, but 0.15 ppm Fe added daily and 15 ppm PO4 total concentration. See the correlation?
> 
> Data based on post #1788, 9.83 ppm PO4 per 105 gallons, added to 70 gallons weekly.


Guilty as charged!

And I don't necessarily recommend my levels to anyone else. Each person needs to find out what works best in their tank. Takes trial and error, and perseverance. 

I've seen beautiful tanks with all types of dosing schemes. From very lean, to very rich. For instance, compare the dosing of Tom Barr to Dennis Wong. Much different philosophy. But both create stunning display tanks. Truly inspiring. 

But if you follow both closely, you begin to realize they have more similarities than differences. One thing is that they both create uber clean conditions, and have a tremendous dedication to maintenance and plant management. More important than the dosing scheme in my opinion.


----------



## varanidguy

burr740 said:


> @Cichlid-140 The issue with PH that high is that it's out of range for Fe chelates to remain bound to the Fe, EDTA (whats in csmb) would be a poor choice, DTPA would probably be affected some but its a better choice. The other issue is most of the micros in general become less available to plants in higher PH. Not unavailable, just less available. So you may have to dose higher levels than the the avg person.
> 
> Yes those issues are reduced as the PH drops from co2.
> 
> It doesnt sound like you're going to have very demanding plants, and I assume you wont be blasting a ton of light. So Id probably just see how it goes and not worry about it for the time being.
> 
> @NightHedgie Citric acid should work but Ive never used it and dont know how much to add. You could test it on distilled water and see how much it takes to get the PH around 4




Would iron and the micros remain in the water and become available once more as pH drops from co2 injection? My off gassed pH is 7.4 but it reduces down to 6.2-6.4 with injection and remains stable there throughout the day. If not, would it be wise to use say the Seachem buffers to reduce pH below 7.0? I know the chemicals are a very bad idea as they don’t last and make the pH fluctuate resulting in dead livestock, but the Seachem products seem to be a lot more stable as they’re a buffer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

varanidguy said:


> Would iron and the micros remain in the water and become available once more as pH drops from co2 injection? My off gassed pH is 7.4 but it reduces down to 6.2-6.4 with injection and remains stable there throughout the day. If not, would it be wise to use say the Seachem buffers to reduce pH below 7.0? I know the chemicals are a very bad idea as they don’t last and make the pH fluctuate resulting in dead livestock, but the Seachem products seem to be a lot more stable as they’re a buffer.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I wouldnt use PH adjusters. If csmb is your only option, you can help the situation be adding additional Fe dtpa, which has a higher PH range. Say 50% of whatever your current Fe from csmb dose is. This will help with the main issue of ineffective Fe. The other micros in csmb are good in higher PHs


This should explain the rest of it



burr740 said:


> The chelate loses its bond with Fe. When this happens you're left with raw Fe and the free chelate.
> 
> The chelate will then bind with some other free cation, whatever is closest and most abundant. Edta has a strong affinity for Ca. There's a chart around here somewhere showing an order of preference.
> 
> The chelate binding with something else isnt really a problem. The substance is still available to plants, just takes a little more energy to get.
> 
> Note that EDTA only begins to separate from Fe around 6.5. To most other things it stays bound at much higher PH levels, up in the 9 range
> 
> The raw Fe is the problem. In it's unchelated state is either going to quickly precipitate (lost forever) or bind with something else. PO4 being the main thing, which creates FePO4, of which neither is now available to plants.
> 
> To answer your last question, if the Fe was still around 12 hours later when the PH drops again, then theoretically yes the edta could rebind with it. But the Fe wont be around, and chances are the chelate has bound to something else by then anyway.
> 
> What does it all mean? Basically you just lose the Fe, and possibly a little PO4 along with it.


----------



## varanidguy

burr740 said:


> I wouldnt use PH adjusters. If csmb is your only option, you can help the situation be adding additional Fe dtpa, which has a higher PH range. Say 50% of whatever your current Fe from csmb dose is. This will help with the main issue of ineffective Fe. The other micros in csmb are good in higher PHs
> 
> 
> This should explain the rest of it




Awesome, that’s exactly the plan. Do you see any real benefit to front loading macros and doing smaller micro dosing daily? Do you think there’s any real benefit to timing when you dose (when I leave the tank is blacked out, when I get home there’s only about 3 hours left in the photoperiod)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

varanidguy said:


> Awesome, that’s exactly the plan. Do you see any real benefit to front loading macros and doing smaller micro dosing daily? Do you think there’s any real benefit to timing when you dose (when I leave the tank is blacked out, when I get home there’s only about 3 hours left in the photoperiod)?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well theoretically it'd be best to dose micros and Fe at the beginning of a period of lower PH, just before lights on for example, or even an hour or two before since the co2 (should be) about to come on.

Dosing with 3 hours left in the photo period wouldnt be a terrible thing because there's still a few hours left before the co2 climbs up and up over the course of the night. 

Not sure if you'd ever see a noticeable difference or not really 

Macros it doesnt matter. I front load 60% of the weeks total right after a water change, then two more 20% doses through the week. Some like Greggz frontload the entire weeks worth in one whack. Tons of other folks obviously do three equal doses as with a standard EI routine. PPS-P folks dose both daily in smaller amounts with good success too, so there's that

Personally I cant say that any one way is better than another.


----------



## varanidguy

burr740 said:


> Well theoretically it'd be best to dose micros and Fe at the beginning of a period of lower PH, just before lights on for example, or even an hour or two before since the co2 (should be) about to come on.
> 
> Dosing with 3 hours left in the photo period wouldnt be a terrible thing because there's still a few hours left before the co2 climbs up and up over the course of the night.
> 
> Not sure if you'd ever see a noticeable difference or not really
> 
> Macros it doesnt matter. I front load 60% of the weeks total right after a water change, then two more 20% doses through the week. Some like Greggz frontload the entire weeks worth in one whack. Tons of other folks obviously do three equal doses as with a standard EI routine. PPS-P folks dose both daily in smaller amounts with good success too, so there's that
> 
> Personally I cant say that any one way is better than another.




Thank you for all the knowledge dropping you do! You’re probably an extremely patient person. It is sincerely appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

varanidguy said:


> Thank you for all the knowledge dropping you do! You’re probably an extremely patient person. It is sincerely appreciated.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL, no problem


----------



## Ken Keating1

As @Greggz stated in his tank journal, ppm accumulation levels tend to level out at 5 weeks. And accumulation levels are dependent on the amount of weekly WC. Based on 20% plant uptake, the values in the table below indicate the same ppm accumulation levels at the end of 5 weeks with the baseline being 50% WC. Example: if you perform 70% WCs you have to dose at an amount of 130% to maintain the same accumulation level as a tank with 50% WC at 100% dosing. Or you could dose at 53% the amount, perform weekly 10% WC, and have the same accumulation values as 100% dosing with 50% WC. The unknown in these values is the amount of uptake that actually occurs which then changes the parameters. Add to the fact the plant uptake probably varies between the elements, plus between different types of plants and then you realize what you’re up against. That’s why you really need to watch how your plants respond and react accordingly.


----------



## Quagulator

Question for the custom micro crew.

When you mix up a batch, how many daily "doses" are you mixing in one go? Seem like you would have to go 100 doses to get any accuracy from a scale that only goes into milligrams.


----------



## MCFC

Ken Keating1 said:


> The unknown in these values is the amount of uptake that actually occurs which then changes the parameters. Add to the fact the plant uptake probably varies between the elements, plus between different types of plants and then you realize what you’re up against. That’s why you really need to watch how your plants respond and react accordingly.


Don't forgot to also take into account what the fish are producing 




Quagulator said:


> Question for the custom micro crew.
> 
> When you mix up a batch, how many daily "doses" are you mixing in one go? Seem like you would have to go 100 doses to get any accuracy from a scale that only goes into milligrams.


I does 25ml from a 1500ml solution, gives me 60 doses.


----------



## Greggz

Quagulator said:


> Question for the custom micro crew.
> 
> When you mix up a batch, how many daily "doses" are you mixing in one go? Seem like you would have to go 100 doses to get any accuracy from a scale that only goes into milligrams.


1000ml solution, 20 ml dose, 50 daily doses.


----------



## Quagulator

MCFC said:


> Don't forgot to also take into account what the fish are producing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I does 25ml from a 1500ml solution, gives me 60 doses.


Yes, I understand how to mix up a solution and dose 'x' amount to reach a target ppm, but seeing as we are shooting for 0.0005ppm doses in some cases, we would need to mix up a lot of doses at once to get an accurate reading on a scale, no? 

I know my scale is much happier measuring at 10-1000 milligrams than at 5 milligrams or less.


----------



## MCFC

Quagulator said:


> Yes, I understand how to mix up a solution and dose 'x' amount to reach a target ppm, but seeing as we are shooting for 0.0005ppm doses in some cases, we would need to mix up a lot of doses at once to get an accurate reading on a scale, no?
> 
> I know my scale is much happier measuring at 10-1000 milligrams than at 5 milligrams or less.


My lowest amount is .051g and have no issues measuring that on my scale.

Edit: I think you're overthinking it. Just make up a batch and you'll see it's pretty simple.


----------



## Quagulator

MCFC said:


> My lowest amount is .051g and have no issues measuring that on my scale.
> 
> Edit: I think you're overthinking it. Just make up a batch and you'll see it's pretty simple.


I know it's simple, I've got my head around it without issue, it's just 100 doses worth to target my levels would have me measuring out like 10 milligrams which I do not believe to be accurate using a simple 0.001g scale, that's all.


----------



## Immortal1

FWIW, something I learned with my Gemini-20 scale (0-20g in 0.001g increments) is it's accuracy is highest in the middle of its range. So, when measuring out say 5 milligrams of something there is a 10g weight I can put in the dish prior to setting the Tare (zeroing out the scale). This puts me right in the middle of the scales range. Of course, if I have to measure out anything over 2 or 3 grams I remove the weight.


----------



## Quagulator

Immortal1 said:


> FWIW, something I learned with my Gemini-20 scale (0-20g in 0.001g increments) is it's accuracy is highest in the middle of its range. So, when measuring out say 5 milligrams of something there is a 10g weight I can put in the dish prior to setting the Tare (zeroing out the scale). This puts me right in the middle of the scales range. Of course, if I have to measure out anything over 2 or 3 grams I remove the weight.


Great idea, thank you!


----------



## MCFC

Quagulator said:


> I know it's simple, I've got my head around it without issue, it's just 100 doses worth to target my levels would have me measuring out like 10 milligrams which I do not believe to be accurate using a simple 0.001g scale, that's all.


I'm no chemist, but can't you just alter the size of your dose/container to increase the amount you would need to add?

One of us is missing something, that's for sure. Here's what my dosing looks like. Not sure why you would *need* to measure out .01g


----------



## Greggz

Quagulator said:


> I know it's simple, I've got my head around it without issue, it's just 100 doses worth to target my levels would have me measuring out like 10 milligrams which I do not believe to be accurate using a simple 0.001g scale, that's all.


Just curious, what size container, dose, and tank?

And 10mg of what? I'm guessing it's Ni?

Smallest amount I measure is 44mg, and doesn't seem to be an issue. 

And I don't think tanks are particularly sensitive to Ni (of course, could be wrong).

Put it this way, measuring out 44mg seems like it's accurate enough for me, but I do see where 10mg might be tough.


----------



## Ken Keating1

800ml solution dosed in 25ml increments, so 32 days. I can't even last 32 days without wanting to make changes, so longer duration solutions are not for me!

The smallest measurement is for Ni, which is 9 mg. It appears most here are using small jewelry scales which can be purchased for less than $20. The displays go down to 0.001g. Out of curiosity, two nights ago I did some research on analytical scales which have high accuracy. Very expensive, hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars, and even then some were only accurate down to 0.01g. I doubt the $20 scales being used measure down to 1 mg accuracy, much less +- 10 mg. It would be interesting to measure out 10mg, put it into a container, and measure it again the next few days at different times and see if our scales show the same value each time.


----------



## Quagulator

MCFC said:


> I'm no chemist, but can't you just alter the size of your dose/container to increase the amount you would need to add?
> 
> One of us is missing something, that's for sure. Here's what my dosing looks like. Not sure why you would *need* to measure out .01g


It was just an example. So for my mix, it would be 19mg into 1000 mL's water with a 30 mL dose into the tank. So measuring out 19mg of Nickel Sulfate would not be very accurate when compared to measuring out lets say, a 2.775g dose of KNO3. 



Greggz said:


> Just curious, what size container, dose, and tank?
> 
> And 10mg of what? I'm guessing it's Ni?
> 
> Smallest amount I measure is 44mg, and doesn't seem to be an issue.
> 
> And I don't think tanks are particularly sensitive to Ni (of course, could be wrong).
> 
> Put it this way, measuring out 44mg seems like it's accurate enough for me, but I do see where 10mg might be tough.


30 gal is 1/3 the size you guys are dealing with, hence my nickle dose of roughly 1/3. Same as all the other compounds. But, I like that idea of taring out the scale at like 10 grams, and the measuring out 19mg. That "should" be a sweeter spot on the scale no? 

I know it's simple, I was just curious if everyone was getting super finicky with how accurate their scale's were measuring in a couple milligrams instead of grams.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Interesting to note , large tanks required larger measured amounts due to size. If one is dosing for a 10 gallon tank then i could see where the measured amounts can get very small.


----------



## Immortal1

Ken Keating1 said:


> Interesting to note , large tanks required larger measured amounts due to size. If one is dosing for a 10 gallon tank then i could see where the measured amounts can get very small.



Something to note: (from Rotalabutterfly) 10g tank, 500ml bottle. Ni - NiSO4.6H2O dosed to 0.0005ppm per dose.
2ml dose = 21 milligrams
4ml dose = 11 milligrams
6ml dose = 7.06 milligrams
10ml dose = 4.24 milligrams


----------



## Greggz

Ken Keating1 said:


> 800ml solution dosed in 25ml increments, so 32 days. I can't even last 32 days without wanting to make changes, so longer duration solutions are not for me!


Sounds like I am not the only one who has tossed some perfectly good micro mix to make a new batch.

Not proud of it.......but good to know I am not alone!:wink2:


----------



## Cichlid-140

Ken Keating1 said:


> 800ml solution dosed in 25ml increments, so 32 days. I can't even last 32 days without wanting to make changes, so longer duration solutions are not for me!
> 
> The smallest measurement is for Ni, which is 9 mg. It appears most here are using small jewelry scales which can be purchased for less than $20. The displays go down to 0.001g. Out of curiosity, two nights ago I did some research on analytical scales which have high accuracy. Very expensive, hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars, and even then some were only accurate down to 0.01g. I doubt the $20 scales being used measure down to 1 mg accuracy, much less +- 10 mg. It would be interesting to measure out 10mg, put it into a container, and measure it again the next few days at different times and see if our scales show the same value each time.



I bought a 6-piece calibration weight set (5g - 100g) and back check mine every use and calibrate when needed. Can't say how accurate the weights are but they're the same weight every time so at least I'm consistent.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Cichlid-140 said:


> I bought a 6-piece calibration weight set (5g - 100g) and back check mine every use and calibrate when needed. Can't say how accurate the weights are but they're the same weight every time so at least I'm consistent.


5 gram calibration weights are quite large compared to some of the small mg some need to measure. The ideal is good, and in looking on Amazon, there are some calibration weight kits with 10mg weights that are less than $15.00 There's even some down to 1mg, but those are expensive, +$150.00.


----------



## varanidguy

Ken Keating1 said:


> 5 gram calibration weights are quite large compared to some of the small mg some need to measure. The ideal is good, and in looking on Amazon, there are some calibration weight kits with 10mg weights that are less than $15.00 There's even some down to 1mg, but those are expensive, +$150.00.




Pick up Lyman/RCBS check weights. They’re measured in grains which is extremely light. All you need to do is convert to milligrams.

On that same subject, reloading scales are typically accurate to .1 grain for digital scales and you can get even better accuracy out of a good beam scale. Digital reloading scales will measure in grams/milligrams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lazy999

Hi all Guru,

Need advise here. I try playing around with various dosing size and container amount for NiSO4.6H2O in the rotala calculator and the dosing size but i still encounter the below error.

"WARNING: The solubility of Ni at room temperature is N. You should adjust your dose."

Tank size:180L 
Container:800ml (*Tried 1000ml and 1500ml*)
Dose size:20ml (*Tried 30, 40,50 and up to 100ml*)
Target:0.0005ppm



Is this a norm?


----------



## burr740

My $20 jewelry scales go from zero to 5 mg as soon as it registers some weight, there's no in between.

5-10 is doable but I doubt it's exactly accurate

Anything over 10 seems to work fine


@lazy999 ignore that warning for Ni. What that really means is its undetermined. Idk what the solubility limit is but we are not even remotely close


----------



## lazy999

burr740 said:


> My $20 jewelry scales go from zero to 5 mg as soon as it registers some weight, there's no in between.
> 
> 5-10 is doable but I doubt it's exactly accurate
> 
> Anything over 10 seems to work fine
> 
> 
> @*lazy999* ignore that warning for Ni. What that really means is its undetermined. Idk what the solubility limit is but we are not even remotely close



Ah i see. Thanks for your advise, Burr.


Btw, I manage to find a local supplier who is able to provide me the mix as what you guys are using now.


=)



I'm on my DIY micro quest now too.


----------



## Deanna

Wow: 77 pages and still going strong!

I stumbled upon, and then began digging into more, heavy metal toxicity symptoms in terrestrial plants (couldn’t find any large-scale studies on hydroponics). Of course, we all know about toxicity issues with the various traces we use. Toxicity symptoms are fairly diverse, as we know. Symptoms range from chlorosis to necrosis, but twisted/curled leaves seems common early on. Again: this is in terrestrial plants.

The thing that started me on this was that I found the mention of substrate dangers with heavy trace dosing. This made me wonder if this could explain why some of us have success with heavy micros and others don’t. I found a few comments about substrates having high CEC capacity will find the heavy metals from traces taking priority in being held to them. As dosing goes on, these excesses accumulate in the substrate and eventually deliver the heavy metal toxic leeching to the roots. Inert substrates don’t have this issue.

I suppose that if any of you can report long-term success with high micro dosing, and having high CEC substrates, you may be able to falsify this possibility.


----------



## Immortal1

Absolutely @Deanna, Monsenior @Greggz started a very good topic with this thread!
Curious, I have read that Eco Complete is an inert substrate and I have also read that it does have "some" CEC capacity. Would be curious how my long term high dosing would compare. Which brings me to another question - what level of FE would be considered High Micro Dosing? My weekly FE dosing is 0.75ppm. I believe GreggZ is over 1.0ppm weekly dosing with a BDBS substrate.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Wow: 77 pages and still going strong!


 Why not, everybody knows it will never be deciphered.


Deanna said:


> I stumbled upon, and then began digging into more, heavy metal *toxicity* symptoms in terrestrial plants (couldn’t find any large-scale studies on hydroponics). Of course, we all know about *toxicity* issues with the various traces we use. *Toxicity* symptoms are fairly diverse, as we know. Symptoms range from chlorosis to necrosis, but twisted/curled leaves seems common early on. Again: this is in terrestrial plants.
> 
> The thing that started me on this was that I found the mention of substrate dangers with heavy trace dosing. This made me wonder if this could explain why some of us have success with heavy micros and others don’t. I found a few comments about substrates having high CEC capacity will find the heavy metals from traces taking priority in being held to them. As dosing goes on, these excesses accumulate in the substrate and eventually deliver the heavy metal *toxic* leeching to the roots. Inert substrates don’t have this issue.
> 
> I suppose that if any of you can report long-term success with high micro dosing, and having high CEC substrates, you may be able to falsify this possibility.


 *Forbidden Word !!!*


----------



## Deanna

Ooops: didn't mean to risk unleashing the dogs of war. Please substitute the word "impediment" for "toxicity" in my post!


----------



## Deanna

Immortal1 said:


> Absolutely @Deanna, Monsenior @Greggz started a very good topic with this thread!
> Curious, I have read that Eco Complete is an inert substrate and I have also read that it does have "some" CEC capacity. Would be curious how my long term high dosing would compare. Which brings me to another question - what level of FE would be considered High Micro Dosing? My weekly FE dosing is 0.75ppm. I believe GreggZ is over 1.0ppm weekly dosing with a BDBS substrate.


 @Greggz and @burr740 can correct me, if i'm wrong, but I think that they both have inert substrate, so that won't help. We would need a number of people with a high CEC substrate - and with long-term high loading of micros - to tell us the high micros work for them, in order to falsify the what I am wondering about.


----------



## burr740

@Deanna you should've been around during the great micro-tox wars a few years ago when these topics were hashed over repeatedly. Its a plausible theory but good luck proving it one way or the other.

Im sure there are many examples to support both sides of the argument - as there always are when it comes to anything micro-toxy

Tom Barr's Aquasoil is 3-4 maybe 5 years old. Although he does add fresh portions every few months from what I understand, doesnt seem to be a problem for him.

Also back in the day when everyone was using csmb, many inert subs were seeing "micro-tox" worse than high cec folks.

Logic indicates that fresh cec could mitigate some of the effects of overdosing micros. What happens when it gets old is anyone's guess.


----------



## Deanna

burr740 said:


> @Deanna you should've been around during the great micro-tox wars a few years ago when these topics were hashed over repeatedly. Its a plausible theory but good luck proving it one way or the other.
> 
> Im sure there are many examples to support both sides of the argument - as there always are when it comes to anything micro-toxy
> 
> Tom Barr's Aquasoil is 3-4 maybe 5 years old. Although he does add fresh portions every few months from what I understand, doesnt seem to be a problem for him.
> 
> Also back in the day when everyone was using csmb, many inert subs were seeing "micro-tox" worse than high cec folks.
> 
> Logic indicates that fresh cec could mitigate some of the effects of overdosing micros. What happens when it gets old is anyone's guess.


Yeah ....I read through those some years ago and it was quite a ride. Without a large legitimate study (controls, statistical validity, etc.). I guess we'll never know. I would have thought that such studies would have been conducted in the hydroponics markets. 

Trying to understand why it is that some report good results and others report bad. Yes; we have the 'every tank is different' aspect, but there must be some group of coordinates that are common to good and bad results. I guess the permutations are just beyond anything we can record in this hobby.

Oh well, we should probably let this thought die, right here, before it drifts out of control ...yet again.


----------



## Edward

Deanna you are correct, trace element "impediment" is very known subject amongst professionals in horticulture and hydroponics. Solcielo Lawrencia has posted many interesting observations regarding this issue.


----------



## fablau

burr740 said:


> @lazy999 ignore that warning for Ni. What that really means is its undetermined. Idk what the solubility limit is but we are not even remotely close




Darn, I forgot about that warning! Better to remove it?


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Deanna you are correct, trace element "impediment" is very known subject amongst professionals in horticulture and hydroponics. Solcielo Lawrencia has posted many interesting observations regarding this issue.


Edward I assume you dose pps-p in all your tanks? Do you use .1 or .01 Fe for micros?




fablau said:


> Darn, I forgot about that warning! Better to remove it?


Yeah because it confuses everyone when they first start doing this.

Solubility is over 60 grams in 100 ml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel(II)_sulfate


----------



## Edward

This thread was very interesting at the beginning and then it kind of dried out. 

I would like to bring back the discussion about CSM+B being blamed for all the evil. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that B is being added by resellers later making it inconsistent. But what if, it has also something to do with the actual product difference between USA and Canadian version. First, the Canadian version has B included, added during the actual production. Second, it uses 42% EDTA and 14% DTPA instead of only 65.4% EDTA. Also, the Canadian version is deep red colour, USA version is green. Element ratios are identical.

Both products are made by the same company, for more details look at the begging of this thread here. 



burr740 said:


> Edward I assume you dose PPS-Pro in all your tanks? Do you use .1 or .01 Fe for micros?


 Dosing the same stuff would be boring so I have a variety of experimental macro-micro mixes. Right now I do a version that takes care of cation and anion balanced nitrogen, P, K, Mg and Ca, all liquid dosing for all essential plant nutrients. No dry CaSO4 spooning or other additions and no testing, only easy TDS monitoring. 

To your question, I always use the Canadian trace element version and it doesn’t really matter much how much I dose. The 0.1 daily works fine but there is the risk of accumulation on no water change setups so I changed it to 0.01. It works ok except under very high light, so I changed it to 0.05. We talking daily, all nutrients always daily and before lights go on, this was PPS strategy since day one. 

Under 1000 PAR on top of plants, it does not make difference if I dose daily 0.05 or 0.30, plants still look the same.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Under 1000 PAR on top of plants, it does not make difference if I dose daily 0.05 or 3.00, plants still look the same.



So 3 ppm Fe daily is favorable too, huh? Amazing


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> So 3 ppm Fe daily is favorable too, huh? Amazing


 It is not favorable, it is unnecessary. Sorry misprint, 0.30 not 3.00.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> It is not favorable, it is unnecessary.


You said "plants look the same", which implies dosing that much causes no negative effects.

Care to share this magical ratio?


----------



## Edward

Sorry misprint, 0.30 not 3.00.
What ratio?


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Sorry misprint, 0.30 not 3.00.


Lol, ok that makes more sense



Edward said:


> What ratio?


The routine you mentioned that's a balance of cation and anions. Can you give an example of that in ppm?


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Deanna you are correct, trace element "impediment" is very known subject amongst professionals in horticulture and hydroponics. Solcielo Lawrencia has posted many interesting observations regarding this issue.


Thanks, interesting reading. So, PPS-Pro might be equally labeled: "PPS-High CEC Substrate" whereas PPS Classic might be "PPS-Inert Substrate"?



Edward said:


> Under 1000 PAR on top of plants, it does not make difference if I dose daily 0.05 or 0.30, plants still look the same.


I assume that you mean 100 PAR, not 1000 PAR?



burr740 said:


> The routine you mentioned that's a balance of cation and anions. Can you give an example of that in ppm?


 @Edward: I, too, am interested to see how you approach the ionic balance of macros and what the ppm's are for each macro in the blend. When you did this, were you just balancing ppm’s or did you use mass and charge balance equations to determine ionic balance?

Here is a calculator, for ionic balance, that I've used in the past:
https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/accuracy/accuracy-water-analysis.htm

They have many interesting calculators. This one is also interesting in estimating how your TDS might be comprised:
https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/tds/tds-ec_engels.htm


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> Care to share this magical ratio? The routine you mentioned that's a balance of cation and anions. Can you give an example of that in ppm?


 I don’t believe in magical ratios and don’t think there will be some spectacular invention. What we need is more people cooperating and sharing results so we can improve what we already have.



Deanna said:


> Thanks, interesting reading.


 Glad you like it. @Solcielo lawrencia helped this hobby very much and it should not be forgotten. 



> I assume that you mean 100 PAR, not 1000 PAR?


 It is 1000 PAR blasting the tops of the plants.



> I, too, am interested to see how you approach the ionic balance of macros and what the ppm's are for each macro in the blend. When you did this, were you just balancing ppm’s or did you use mass and charge balance equations to determine ionic balance?


 This is for nitrogen ions. 

The *PPS-Pro TDS* v2.3 fertilizer is a preliminary version. 
It eliminates the need for water conditioning, preloading, dry CaSO4 MgSO4 K2SO4 additions. No chasing Ca and Mg. Works well with tap waters and especially well with RO water. It is dosed daily to increase TDS. The usual increase is 10 ppm NaCl or 20 ppm µS daily. It needs timed or TDS triggered water changes in order to maintain proper nutrient balance and concentrations. 

Nitrogen ions come from cation and anion molecules at 1 : 1 balanced ratio. This supposedly makes it easier on plant metabolism. I can also see faster growth rates. The fertilizer also includes custom trace element modifications. 


*Medium light daily dose:*
Macros 1 ml / 10 gallon or 40 L
Micros 0.5 ml / 10 gallon or 40 L

*Daily addition ppm:*
1.00 NO3
0.20 PO4
1.10 K
0.10 Mg
0.40 Ca
0.55 S
0.42 Cl

0.05000 Fe
0.01430 Mn
0.00930 B
0.01000 Zn
0.00043 Mo
0.00071 Cu
0.00005 Ni

*Maximum ppm at 50% weekly water changes:*
14.0 NO3
02.8 PO4
15.4 K
01.4 Mg
05.6 Ca
07.7 S
05.9 Cl

1.11 dGH

0.7000 Fe
0.2000 Mn
0.1300 B
0.1400 Zn
0.0060 Mo
0.0100 Cu
0.0007 Ni


*High light daily dose:*
Macros 2 ml / 10 gallon or 40 L
Micros 0.5 ml / 10 gallon or 40 L

*Daily addition ppm:*
2.00 NO3
0.40 PO4
2.20 K
0.20 Mg
0.80 Ca
1.10 S
0.84 Cl

0.05000 Fe
0.01430 Mn
0.00930 B
0.01000 Zn
0.00043 Mo
0.00071 Cu
0.00005 Ni

*Maximum ppm at 50% weekly water changes:*
28.0 NO3
05.6 PO4
30.8 K
02.8 Mg
11.2 Ca
15.4 S
11.8 Cl

2.21 dGH

0.7000 Fe
0.2000 Mn
0.1300 B
0.1400 Zn
0.0060 Mo
0.0100 Cu
0.0007 Ni

*Recipe PPS-Pro TDS v2.3*
*Solution #1 macros, 500 ml*, demineralized water
45.36 g K2SO4
05.73 g KH2PO4
20.28 g MgSO4
04.84 g CO(NH2)2

*Solution #2 micros, 250 ml*
14.2900 g CSM+B
00.6300 g ZnSO4
00.0045 g NiSO4

*Solution #3 macros, 500 ml*
19.40 g CaNO3
17.49 g CaCl2


----------



## Immortal1

@Edward - Interesting how close your *PPS-Pro TDS* v2.3 fertilizer, preliminary version is to what I am currently dosing.
*High light*
*Maximum ppm* at 50% weekly water changes:
28.0 NO3 - me 27.8
05.6 PO4 - me 06.5
30.8 K - me 32.4
02.8 Mg
11.2 Ca
15.4 S
11.8 Cl

2.21 dGH

0.7000 Fe - me 0.7500
0.2000 Mn - me 0.2500
0.1300 B - me 0.2500
0.1400 Zn - me 0.2500
0.0060 Mo - me 0.0085
0.0100 Cu - me 0.0100
0.0007 Ni - me 0.0025


----------



## Deanna

@Edward

Ahhh … I see the urea. I guess you see a difference when added. I never could. I’ve gone back to letting my tank do all the nitrogen cycling (took out the Purigen and bio-media). My Dwarf Sag suffered badly when I tried to reduce nitrates via quick capturing of the pre-NO3 stream that way. So, now the plants are getting, I presume, the urea-type kick since the BB in the tank can’t convert it all fast enough before the plants get their share. Slow improvement developing.

Yes, I see your ionic balance (with that calculator I use) in dosing and theoretical accumulation in your post. Very good. Thanks for showing that. I’ve tried doing my own ionic balancing, with different levels and aspect based upon the innate behavior of my tank. 

Why so much light? Really deep tank? What is your photoperiod, again (I forget)? Plus, you hold your CO2 below about 20 PPM, right?

Regarding micros: I’ve been mixing my own for a couple years and have recently pulled back from heavy loadings of it. After a series of high rate w/c’s and several weeks of much lower micros, I’m seeing a greater degree of deeper colors (especially reds – oddly). This isn’t related to the nitrogen cycling, above, as I do not recall this color effect prior to adding the Purigen and bio-media 4-5 months ago. Have about 80 PAR at the substrate with a badly-long photoperiod, so plants do struggle a little and algae (GSA mainly) is always somewhat present, but now seems slower following the pullback of micros. Not ready, yet, to say for sure.


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Ahhh … I see the urea. I guess you see a difference when added. I never could.


 During the year when temperature goes up and down I saw plants growing double the size and also kind of dormancy time. Lots of changes happened as well so I don’t think it is so simple. I found a research describing how urea in plants is a byproduct of usual plant metabolism where it can accumulate and become toxic. This was proven in non-urea growing solutions. So when plants don’t have Ni to process their own or fertilizer based urea they suffer. Sudden and unexpected urea addition doesn’t do anything positive to plants because they don’t have developed the metabolic mechanism to process it, they need time. Almost all the animals we keep in aquariums do not produce urea so plants are not used to it. 



> I’ve gone back to letting my tank do all the nitrogen cycling (took out the Purigen and bio-media). My Dwarf Sag suffered badly when I tried to reduce nitrates via quick capturing of the pre-NO3 stream that way. So, now the plants are getting, I presume, the urea-type kick since the BB in the tank can’t convert it all fast enough before the plants get their share. Slow improvement developing.


 Very good observation. Why destroy the best form of nitrogen food with Purigen, cycling BB sponges and bio-media. I don’t use any Purigen or bio-media. Only the necessary mechanical cleaning sponges washed every few days in hot tap water to clean it and kill BB. Research proved that aquatic plants will not absorb NO3 when NH4 is available. The NH4 nitrogen form is preferred. Fish excrete NH4, and urea supplies NH4 with CO2 molecule as a bonus.



> Yes, I see your ionic balance (with that calculator I use) in dosing and theoretical accumulation in your post. Very good. Thanks for showing that. I’ve tried doing my own ionic balancing, with different levels and aspect based upon the innate behavior of my tank.


 It is interesting stuff. 



> Why so much light? Really deep tank? What is your photoperiod, again (I forget)? Plus, you hold your CO2 below about 20 PPM, right?


 It is 24” deep and I have the light fixtures and I like experimenting. There are very low intensity viewing lights and eighty here born Corydoras sterbai. The high light was on for 5 hours and gradually going shorter, now at 3 hours a day. I want to see how short it can go. The problem with high aquariums is the light doesn’t reach the lower parts of the plants and they suffer, deteriorate and contaminate water and can’t support higher growth.

What the CO2 is? I don’t know, nobody knows, I don’t have a CO2 test kit. People don’t believe the pH/KH/CO2 calculation and the pH drop is a baloney idea. Here and here. 



> Regarding micros: I’ve been mixing my own for a couple years and have recently pulled back from heavy loadings of it. After a series of high rate w/c’s and several weeks of much lower micros, I’m seeing a greater degree of deeper colors (especially reds – oddly). This isn’t related to the nitrogen cycling, above, as I do not recall this color effect prior to adding the Purigen and bio-media 4-5 months ago. Have about 80 PAR at the substrate with a badly-long photoperiod, so plants do struggle a little and algae (GSA mainly) is always somewhat present, but now seems slower following the pullback of micros. Not ready, yet, to say for sure.


 Mixing all the trace elements is not for everyone, the amounts are incredibly small and some are toxic. I think one of the benefits the mixing brought to this hobby is to understand the power chemicals have. I remember people dumping spoons of traces in tanks, of course only on Tuesdays and Thursdays or something like that. 

The CSM+B is probably short on Zn and definitely needs Ni. I think I made it easier for people because most have CSM+B already and it is easily available, almost as ZnSO4 and NiSO4 are. This way people don’t have to go through the whole process and it might be the starting point to the complete mixing you describe.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Sudden and unexpected urea addition doesn’t do anything positive to plants because they don’t have developed the metabolic mechanism to process it, they need time.
> 
> Research proved that aquatic plants will not absorb NO3 when NH4 is available. The NH4 nitrogen form is preferred.


Re: urea and the time to develop the uptake enzymes. This may well be why some of us never noticed a benefit. Perhaps we didn’t give it long enough time to develop. Do you have any idea how long the exposure needs to be to awaken these enzymes?

Re: plant preference for NO3 vs. NH4. As I mentioned, all was happy when I ran my tank with no bio-media or chemical media. Organically generated NO3 was higher than I wanted so, in an effort to bring it down, I resumed use of bio-media and Purigen. My thinking was to push the enzymes responsible for NO3 uptake into high gear while minimizing organically produced NH4/NH3. Plants weren’t as happy about this after several months. 

I based much of my approach on the article by Jason King, where describes it, as follows in this excerpt:



> Plants can take up NH4+ faster and since there are fewer steps involved, far less energy, but plants are not as adapted to NH4+ in their aquatic environment compared to algae. Generally plants/algae have very sensitive NH4+ uptake transporter enzymes, but little is known about them. A lot is known about NO3- uptake enzymes and Nitrite Reductase and N03- reductase and their involvement, but much less
> is known about NH4+ to set off the uptake process. These enzymes are always "on". There are some like this for NO3- as well but they generally require high levels of NO3- and both plants and algae also have a low level NO3 uptake enzyme. These both appear to be inducible in some cases, some plants have constitutive (always on) NO3- uptake enzymes also that only require a tiny amount to activate the uptake process. Higher concentrations of NO3- may allow the NO3- channels to push more NO3- into the plant cell by means of a concentration gradient (see figure 1) whereas the high NO3- concentration will allow enzymes to be induced to handle more uptake (carriers).
> 
> Aquatic plants are likely set up like this: NH4+, plant remove from the environment all of the time, it's
> always being produced and cannot supply the growth needs entirely at higher rates without algae and fish related health issues. The cell cannot regulate this that much but generally it’s in low supply and energetically easy to assimilate. NO3 at low levels is always "on" as well. When we add more NO3, say 10ppm, perhaps more, then this second lower affinity NO3 uptake enzyme kicks in and is controlled by the plant cell. So keeping a good NO3 level over time will allow for that momentum to be maintained and these enzymes fully functioning. All the enzymes in plants require nitrogen so every process and control is nitrogen related at some level.
> 
> Having some fish waste or other sources of low level NH4, but not enough to stop NO3 uptake seems
> to be the best approach. Also, I’ve noted with a number of low NO3 sensitive species that maintaining higher levels of NO3 will help growth and health.


This may explain why some members experience better health with very high levels of NO3 (>40-50 ppm). Of course, the higher levels might also be needed to ‘push back’ on the high levels of micros.

In any case, my plants are now getting increased access to NH4 (Dwarf Sag doing better) and I’m not going to be concerned so much about NO3, based upon the article.


----------



## lazy999

Which iron will you use? Dtpa or Edta.

My tank ph before co2 on, its around 6.6

When co2 come in, the ph will drop to 5.4 and i normally dose Fe in the morning.

Btw, my kh is 1 and gh is 3.


----------



## burr740

lazy999 said:


> Which iron will you use? Dtpa or Edta.
> 
> My tank ph before co2 on, its around 6.6
> 
> When co2 come in, the ph will drop to 5.4 and i normally dose Fe in the morning.
> 
> Btw, my kh is 1 and gh is 3.



Either one will be fine at that PH level


----------



## lazy999

burr740 said:


> Either one will be fine at that PH level



Thx Burr. Btw if i want to use both, what ratio will you recommend? 1:1?


----------



## burr740

lazy999 said:


> Thx Burr. Btw if i want to use both, what ratio will you recommend? 1:1?


I see no advantage to using both since your PH is in the favorable range for each one. Dont think ratio is going to make any difference.


----------



## lazy999

burr740 said:


> I see no advantage to using both since your PH is in the favorable range for each one. Dont think ratio is going to make any difference.



Got it, then i just stick with edta one. :grin2:


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Re: urea and the time to develop the uptake enzymes. This may well be why some of us never noticed a benefit. Perhaps we didn’t give it long enough time to develop. Do you have any idea how long the exposure needs to be to awaken these enzymes?


 No benefit or no reaction could be also caused by having too high other nutrients in the water column. When we look at the high light PPS-Pro TDS daily addition, it adds 0.5 ppm of urea and it disappears in few hours. So having 50 ppm NO3, 8 ppm PO4, 50 ppm K, 40 ppm Ca, 15 ppm Mg and high traces doesn’t look good in terms of ratios to the urea. 

How long it takes to adjust to changing conditions? I guess it would be something like receiving new plants and watching them grow. 



> Re: plant preference for NO3 vs. NH4. As I mentioned, all was happy when I ran my tank with no bio-media or chemical media. Organically generated NO3 was higher than I wanted so, in an effort to bring it down, I resumed use of bio-media and Purigen. My thinking was to push the enzymes responsible for NO3 uptake into high gear while minimizing organically produced NH4/NH3. Plants weren’t as happy about this after several months.


 Yes, plants love NH4 but delivering the daily nitrogen needs in this form doesn’t go with fish. Also I have noticed that adding inorganic NO3 grows plants more than organic NO3. 



> This may explain why some members experience better health with very high levels of NO3 (>40-50 ppm). Of course, the higher levels might also be needed to ‘push back’ on the high levels of micros.
> 
> In any case, my plants are now getting increased access to NH4 (Dwarf Sag doing better) and I’m not going to be concerned so much about NO3, based upon the article.


He didn’t mention 40-50 ppm NO3. And yes, if some high dosing people would cut all elements in half, nothing would have changed.


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Also I have noticed that adding inorganic NO3 grows plants more than organic NO3.


I have found the same thing. Don't know why, but it seems to be true.




Edward said:


> He didn’t mention 40-50 ppm NO3. And yes, if some high dosing people would cut all elements in half, nothing would have changed.


Maybe.

Have thought a lot about this lately. 

Might start lowering everything just to see what happens.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> No benefit or no reaction could be also caused by having too high other nutrients in the water column. When we look at the high light PPS-Pro TDS daily addition, it adds 0.5 ppm of urea and it disappears in few hours. So having 50 ppm NO3, 8 ppm PO4, 50 ppm K, 40 ppm Ca, 15 ppm Mg and high traces doesn’t look good in terms of ratios to the urea.
> 
> He didn’t mention 40-50 ppm NO3. And yes, if some high dosing people would cut all elements in half, nothing would have changed.


Yes, I am turning more to believing that higher macros (including Ca and Mg) are required to fight for position against high loadings of micros and wondering if uniform reduction of all ferts yields the same results. I am seeing, even before abandoning chemical and bio media, no deterioration in plant health after reducing micros down dramatically (back to traditional levels). This was in concert with reducing the 5-6 broadly-interpreted macros mentioned above. It also coincided with my beginning to attempt to balance the ions a few months ago after stumbling upon this thread, beginning with post #61:

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/33-plants/753753-h-pinnatifida-how-much-potassium-5.html

This is all anecdotal on my part, as I have not tried falsifying yet and my one tank doesn’t even begin to approach the number needed for statistical validity.

Regarding the 40-50 ppm comment. Those words are mine, not Jason’s. I chose that level because I know some members maintain levels higher than that. I think @Greggz will confirm that his plants threaten to unionize if he doesn’t keep these levels at heights most of us would gag on.




Edward said:


> Also I have noticed that adding inorganic NO3 grows plants more than organic NO3.


This is one of the few areas I have to disagree on, even though others have also made this observation. I have access to many bench chemists and have some competency in chemical arenas and they all have stated that an ion is an ion and cannot be what it is not. If it is different from NO3, then it is not NO3. A plant cannot treat the ion differently simply based upon the ion’s ancestry. It just has to be a coincidental observational effect.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I dose a lot of macros sometimes 2x EI recommended at least once a week.
Accumulation is about none at the end of a week.
I target the water column levels. Test every other week, maybe?
Heavily planted to the utmost consuming 3ppm of NO3 per day some days.
Reckon this doesn't count phish waste, primary excretion of the dozen phish I have is ammonia right into the water column.
pH is under 7 so mostly it is ammonium.

Corner filter is poret foam changed out every 2 months with a sterile cleaned piece.
The foam is bleach washed after removal, no BB lives through this.
I reckon my tank has never been "cycled" since started, 18 months now.

Micro dosing in this tank is CSM+B with extra Fe, not my home brew micro mix.
Home brew is reserved for a different tank so far.
I target .3 to .4 Fe ppm in the water column with a Hanna checker @ end of week.
Sometimes I fall short on Fe but I catch up.

Moral of the story is lowering levels across the board would go unnoticed for most people, but I have extreme plant density going on.

I do not overfeed the phish, 3 times a week from various different foods.
WC's include about 5 gallons per week with a constantly dropping TDS.
Once per week includes a GH booster dose of what ever clumps/rocks I grab from container.

The tank is capped soil. so it's a bit different than most!


----------



## Deanna

@Maryland Guppy: Interesting. So, you are dosing closer to the lower traditional side of micros, based upon your Fe results (not nearly the soaking that many of us have been trying these past few years) and high on the macros. My NO3 uptake is right about where you are as well. I was able to test this when I added Purigen and had tons of bio-media in the filter because those two types of media were able to drive organically-sourced NO3 to zero and hold it there, so all NO3 was what I added and I could easily see the daily uptake in the first 3-4 days after a w/c (using a Salifert NO3 kit).

I think you're fully cycled. It's just that the substrate and BB on your surfaces are taking any slack that the plants don't use, don't you think?

What is your TDS pre and post water change and is it in ppm and calibrated to NaCl? Also, what percent does the 5 gallons represent in terms of w/c?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Deanna said:


> @Maryland Guppy: Interesting. So, you are dosing closer to the lower traditional side of micros, based upon your Fe results (not nearly the soaking that many of us have been trying these past few years) and high on the macros. My NO3 uptake is right about where you are as well. I was able to test this when I added Purigen and had tons of bio-media in the filter because those two types of media were able to drive organically-sourced NO3 to zero and hold it there, so all NO3 was what I added and I could easily see the daily uptake in the first 3-4 days after a w/c (using a Salifert NO3 kit).
> 
> I think you're fully cycled. It's just that the substrate and BB on your surfaces are taking any slack that the plants don't use, don't you think?
> 
> What is your TDS pre and post water change and is it in ppm and calibrated to NaCl? Also, what percent does the 5 gallons represent in terms of w/c?


TDS is always between 110-140ppm, cal to NaCl, cheap tester.
All RODI w/GH booster trying to get closer to 1KH.
80 gallon tank so 5 gallons is very little WC per week.
I dump a lot of ferts in but accumulation is not there @ the end of the week.

Every couple months I pull a quarter of plants, vac and clean the area.
This turns into a 20 gallon WC due to the vac.

I continue to use Purigen keeps water crystal clear.
Doesn't remove ferts, it's an organic scavenging resin, captures dissolved organics before degradation.

I never targeted "the lower traditional side of micros" it just seemed to happen.
Kind of figured why large water change, dose what plants need with a bit of extra not a lot of extra.

Urea I've also dosed but then I immediately start to see NO3 accumulation.
Then I feel it promotes the changing of more water?

This is all happening on capped soil by the way.
Right or wrong methods? who knows? It is working for me.
Just a different approach than some others so I thought to share.


----------



## ChrisX

How do you measure micros? I have seen multi-test strip kits on amazon, but is there a better way?


----------



## Edward

Deanna said:


> Yes, I am turning more to believing that higher macros (including Ca and Mg) are required to fight for position against high loadings of micros and wondering if uniform reduction of all ferts yields the same results.


 Ca and Mg included, absolutely, all elements are involved. See, if @Greggz had only 30% of the levels he has now, it would still be considered alarming to many. 



> I think @Greggz will confirm that his plants threaten to unionize if he doesn’t keep these levels at heights most of us would gag on.


 Good one, this is what happens when all problems must be deficiencies. 



> This is one of the few areas I have to disagree on, even though others have also made this observation. I have access to many bench chemists and have some competency in chemical arenas and they all have stated that an ion is an ion and cannot be what it is not. If it is different from NO3, then it is not NO3. A plant cannot treat the ion differently simply based upon the ion’s ancestry. It just has to be a coincidental observational effect.


 If true, then we could have heavy fish load, high light and CO2, while adding only K and traces and be done with it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work. 

I have had tested 30 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 from fish waste and had dormant plants. When I added K2SO4 plants didn’t react. When I added CaSO4 plants didn’t react. But when I added KNO3 or CaNO3 plants started pearling and growing. Can you explain?



Maryland Guppy said:


> I dose a lot of macros sometimes 2x EI recommended at least once a week. Accumulation is about none at the end of a week. I target the water column levels. Test every other week, maybe? Heavily planted to the utmost consuming 3ppm of NO3 per day some days.


 It’s not the plants using up all the NO3, it is the soil activity. 



> Corner filter is poret foam changed out every 2 months with a sterile cleaned piece.
> The foam is bleach washed after removal, no BB lives through this. I reckon my tank has never been "cycled" since started, 18 months now.


 Cycling happens if we want or not, it is natural. Why do you change the foam when it can work 100 years. And why do you bleach it, isn’t hot tap water good enough? 



Maryland Guppy said:


> Urea I've also dosed but then I immediately start to see NO3 accumulation.


 Did you dose the urea on top of the usual NO3 doses?



> I dump a lot of ferts in but accumulation is not there @ the end of the week.


 Your soil substrate is going to explode one day, you know that.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I have two pieces for corner filter.
One in service and one gets cleaned.
Yes it will last forever, good stuff.
About 200ppm bleach treatement before use.
Very clean and almost back to the original blue color.

Tank exploding from soil?
Don't know, if I don't dose anything everthing just seems to stop growing.
No death or melting going on. Tried this for a two week period a few months back.
It's been 18 months about with this soil, it may be depleted.
Plants used to grow a huge amount of roots into the soil, not as much anymore.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> If true, then we could have heavy fish load, high light and CO2, while adding only K and traces and be done with it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work.


Well, I think that’s what many do - me included (I have a very heavy fish load) and it does work. That’s why the various ferts sold that only contain K and Fe work so well in many cases, especially in low tech tanks. When I run with no chemical or bio media, my nitrates climb into the 25-30ppm area, so I add no N. PO4 is stable at around 1-2ppm, so I pepper enough in to get 2-3ppm. Plants are very healthy and I rarely get pearling because of my circulation and surface exchange (but I won’t go there again).



Edward said:


> I have had tested 30 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 from fish waste and had dormant plants. When I added K2SO4 plants didn’t react. When I added CaSO4 plants didn’t react. But when I added KNO3 or CaNO3 plants started pearling and growing. Can you explain?


No, I definitely can’t explain what you, and many others see regarding that effect, I can only speculate based upon the coincidence of the salt activity that comes along with either of those ferts. Is it possible that the KNO3 or CaNO3 synergy is the cause, or maybe just the additional NO3 is needed? E.g.; if you could split the Ca from the NO3, then dose both separately, I would expect the same positive results that you report now. However, if you were to just add the NO3, maybe the results wouldn’t be any different from the same quantity of NO3 if that could also be isolated from organic sources. Unfortunately, since we can’t isolate the NO3, from either the salt or the organic source, there is no way to know either way. 

Not trying to be argumentative for it’s own sake, just trying to find some explanation that would support it. I just can get around the fact that the NO3 ion is what it is, no matter the source. It’s kind of like saying that the number 2 is different from another number 2 when used in two different equations.


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Ca and Mg included, absolutely, all elements are involved. See, if @Greggz had only 30% of the levels he has now, it would still be considered alarming to many.
> 
> Good one, this is what happens when all problems must be deficiencies.


I have never stated or implied that all problems are deficiencies. In fact, quite the opposite. IMO, most problems have nothing at all to do with ferts. I've talked about that many, many times here. 

It comes up most often when someone self diagnosis a deficiency, then starts a thread asking for help. Then when you read further, you see most likely their premise is incorrect. They don't have a deficiency. They usually have several other issues they need to get correct before adjusting ferts will have any impact at all. 

Personally I have tried many different dosing schemes, relying on trial and error to see what works best in my tank. And for me it's been rich, but it's always evolving.

When I started this journey, I followed several journals both here and other sites. The ones I was drawn to were filled with regular updates and lots of pictures. To me seeing is believing. They had a few things in common, like being larger tanks with a wide variety of plants including fast growing stems, and a rich dosing routine. And that's pretty much true for every journal I follow here now.

And I don't doubt folks can be successful with lean dosing. Most I have seen have an active substrate, not inert like mine. In fact, I would really like to follow along with someone who is having success with lean dosing in a tank similar to mine (larger, wide variety of plants, inert substrate). And of course with lots of pictures would make it more meaningful. I can't think of any at the moment, but that doesn't mean they aren't here somewhere.


----------



## Edward

Gregg I am sorry, I often forget people don’t share the same sense of humor, it is my fault. I like to make conversations more colorful by pushing silly comments to get them to respond more openly, that’s all, no disrespect intended.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Edward said:


> Did you dose the urea on top of the usual NO3 doses?
> 
> Your soil substrate is going to explode one day, you know that.


Urea was on top of normal macro mix. :|

As I dose this eve I've placed a fire extinguisher near the tank.
I'm on the ready for spontaneous combustion! > 
What am I thinking it's already submerged???
There are are no oxidizers involved like strontium nitrate so no ignition under water. :grin2:

All joking aside @Edward I think the soil is now depleted.
18 months and with the quantity of plants I've grown in this short time, not too concerned.

Lowering of KH is of primary concern right now.
Raising the PAR is in the near future!


----------



## Greggz

Edward said:


> Gregg I am sorry, I often forget people don’t share the same sense of humor, it is my fault. I like to make conversations more colorful by pushing silly comments to get them to respond more openly, that’s all, no disrespect intended.


Edward no problem. I've just returned from back to back trips and might have taken it wrong.

After reviewing it, I edited my post. Hopefully it better illustrates what I was getting at.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

This seems to always happen.
I post some parameters/discoveries of my capped soil tank and everything gets quiet? >
Some of us just march to the beat of a different drummer I suppose???


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> This seems to always happen.
> I post some parameters/discoveries of my capped soil tank and everything gets quiet? >
> Some of us just march to the beat of a different drummer I suppose???


MG since you don't keep up your journal over here, I don't think many know what you are up to. 

I know I associate posters with their tanks, as I have seen pictures of them on a regular basis, and I can follow along and see how things progress. 

Personally I find your set up very interesting. DIY LED's, capped dirt, unique dosing schedule, very few water changes, very few Phish, etc. 

But more importantly, you can really grow plants. There are some here who post quite often and I am not even sure they actually have a tank or grow any plants. Since you rarely post pics here I would guess that most probably don't know about the farm you have going there.

As we have discussed, our tanks are very, very different. Some plants I can't grow in my tank are monsters in yours, and some that I grow easily you can't keep. I know there are lessons there, just not entirely certain what they are?


----------



## Cichlid-140

Got a question for the active participants. 11 months and nearly 1200 posts into this endeavor, if you had to pick between CSM+B and Miller's which would you go for, why, and at what rate? If neither, why not?


----------



## varanidguy

Cichlid-140 said:


> Got a question for the active participants. 11 months and nearly 1200 posts into this endeavor, if you had to pick between CSM+B and Miller's which would you go for, why, and at what rate? If neither, why not?




I chose CSM+B because Microplex has a lot more copper. Didn’t want to risk inverts or scaleless fish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Maryland Guppy

@Greggz I have fully embraced the fact that I cannot grow some species.
Thank You for the compliment by the way!

The very slow process of dropping the KH has been this years task.
To not disturb any plants is the reason for the slow method.
When I reach a KH of 1 maybe I try a few new species.
In the mean time only keeping the premium growers.
This avoids transitioning, rotting leaves, fowling water, etc...
No more experiments. :crying:

Yeah I guess my journal could use a few pics and an update here.


----------



## Immortal1

Maryland Guppy said:


> @*Greggz* I have fully embraced the fact that I cannot grow some species.
> Thank You for the compliment by the way!
> 
> The very slow process of dropping the KH has been this years task.
> To not disturb any plants is the reason for the slow method.
> When I reach a KH of 1 maybe I try a few new species.
> In the mean time only keeping the premium growers.
> This avoids transitioning, rotting leaves, fowling water, etc...
> No more experiments. :crying:
> 
> Yeah I guess my journal could use a few pics and an update here.



Something I have learned is there are certain plants that simply won't grow in my 8dKH tap water. So I can understand your desire to lower the KH and try some different plants. 



And yes, a few pics and an update would be nice


----------



## varanidguy

Immortal1 said:


> Something I have learned is there are certain plants that simply won't grow in my 8dKH tap water. So I can understand your desire to lower the KH and try some different plants.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, a few pics and an update would be nice




Personally I find that very frustrating lol. For instance, I’ve been trying to get ludwigia repens to grow well for me for a year. The tops usually look great while the lower 60% of the plants look terrible, I just can’t get the stuff to grow well. I added some alternanthera reineckii lilacina about a month ago and it’s doing great. Converted from emersed quickly, the new growth is beautiful, no algae on the plants....but the L repens that’s said to be much easier is crap....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> @Greggz I have fully embraced the fact that I cannot grow some species.
> Thank You for the compliment by the way!


My pleasure MG! We have that in common.



Maryland Guppy said:


> In the mean time only keeping the premium growers.
> This avoids transitioning, rotting leaves, fowling water, etc...
> No more experiments. :crying:


Now some who don't know you might believe this, but I know better!>



Maryland Guppy said:


> Yeah I guess my journal could use a few pics and an update here.


Way overdue................and don't even get me started on the fruit stand!:grin2:


----------



## Immortal1

@varanidguy - I have a couple types of ludwigia in my tank and have experienced similar issues. For me, it seems when my ferts (macro or micro) are off, I get those issues. I think of it this way, the plant pulls food from the lower leaves in order for the newer leaves to prosper. So, that would lead one to think it is a "mobile" nutrient issue - the question is which one?

As of late I have been dosing a little higher level of macros and, compared to several months ago, a much higher level of micros. I guess in my case, I was not trying to figure out exactly "which" was an issue, just give em more of everything. Right or wrong, my L. Repens and L. Atlantis are growing stems atleast 12" tall and the bottom leaves are still attached. They may not look as nice as the top leaves, but they are still there.

With your AR lilacina (I don't have / know this plant), my guess is what ever you may be deficient on is not so bad that it effects everything.


----------



## varanidguy

Immortal1 said:


> @varanidguy - I have a couple types of ludwigia in my tank and have experienced similar issues. For me, it seems when my ferts (macro or micro) are off, I get those issues. I think of it this way, the plant pulls food from the lower leaves in order for the newer leaves to prosper. So, that would lead one to think it is a "mobile" nutrient issue - the question is which one?
> 
> 
> 
> As of late I have been dosing a little higher level of macros and, compared to several months ago, a much higher level of micros. I guess in my case, I was not trying to figure out exactly "which" was an issue, just give em more of everything. Right or wrong, my L. Repens and L. Atlantis are growing stems atleast 12" tall and the bottom leaves are still attached. They may not look as nice as the top leaves, but they are still there.
> 
> 
> 
> With your AR lilacina (I don't have / know this plant), my guess is what ever you may be deficient on is not so bad that it effects everything.




That’s very good to know for future reference! I finally got into the dry ferts game a week ago and trying out front loading macros and daily dosing micros following the Rotala Butterfly calculator.

Truth be told I gave up on the L repens and tore it all out today. The stems themselves were thick but the leaves would always turn shabby and shed. Adding more light seemed to help but it didn’t fix it. Replacing it with some pogostemon yatabeanus that should arrive on Monday from Bartohog. The plants seem to be responding well so far to the dosing regimen over all.

Sorry for the bubbly picture, just performed the water change. The stems of the AR lilacina are even growing new leaves rather than melting, but it seems kind of sparse, so once they grow a lot taller, I plan to top them, remove the bottoms, and replant the tops.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cichlid-140

varanidguy said:


> That’s very good to know for future reference! I finally got into the dry ferts game a week ago and trying out front loading macros and daily dosing micros following the Rotala Butterfly calculator.
> 
> *I reciently got this from @burr740:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ca, Mg and K are fine to front load 100% after a weekly water change
> 
> 
> 
> *He didn't mention NO3 or PO4. I didn't ask why. If you're front loading them you might want to.*
> 
> 
> Truth be told I gave up on the L repens and tore it all out today. The stems themselves were thick but the leaves would always turn shabby and shed. Adding more light seemed to help but it didn’t fix it. Replacing it with some pogostemon yatabeanus that should arrive on Monday from Bartohog. The plants seem to be responding well so far to the dosing regimen over all.
> 
> Sorry for the bubbly picture, just performed the water change. The stems of the AR lilacina are even growing new leaves rather than melting, but it seems kind of sparse, so once they grow a lot taller, I plan to top them, remove the bottoms, and replant the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

See Highlight in quote.


----------



## burr740

I only mentioned those 3 because that what you'd asked about with regards to GH booster (I think) 

NO3 and PO4 also work well front loaded


----------



## Cichlid-140

burr740 said:


> I only mentioned those 3 because that what you'd asked about with regards to GH booster (I think)
> 
> NO3 and PO4 also work well front loaded


It was for front loading K & Mg in my DIY APT Complete (ala. Dennis Wong). I wasn't sure but it seems I recalled Tom Barr making a comment (long in the past) about NO3 not being a great candidate for some reason. Might not have been him and I might be mistaken altogether.

Thanks for making it clear.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740, the Mn in your recipes are at 0.05ppm, how high can one increase Mn and still be beneficial to plants ?


----------



## lazy999

For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?


----------



## varanidguy

lazy999 said:


> For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?




I dose macros on water change day (Saturday) and micros Sunday-Friday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chayos00

lazy999 said:


> For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?


I dose daily for micro and macro, however with my auto doser, I do so 12hrs apart from each other. One as 12am and the other at 12pm. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Keating1

lazy999 said:


> For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?


I don't worry about it. I have a autodoser, micros and iron are dosed 5 times a day at 12:00-2:00-4:00-6:00-8:00PM and Macros get dosed once a day at 8:00 PM. I need to change the Marcros to upfront loading after a water change.


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> burr740, the Mn in your recipes are at 0.05ppm, how high can one increase Mn and still be beneficial to plants ?


There is a special relationship between Mn and Fe. Agriculture studies all seem to agree that 2:1-3:1 Fe:Mn ratio is best. Im finding that 2:1 is too much Mn, 3 or 4:1 works better.

So to answer your question it's gonna be relative to Fe. To find the limit you'll just have to try different levels and see



lazy999 said:


> For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?


Not as long as Fe has an adequate chelate (edta, dtpa, etc). And if it doesnt its going to react with PO4 in the water column anyway.

PPS folks have been dosing both daily for years.


----------



## Greggz

lazy999 said:


> For those who dose daily your micro mix, do you worry about the phosphate and iron precipitation? When you dose iron and phosphate on the same day?


No.

I've been daily dosing micros for over a year. 

And front loading macros for 7 months.

About a dozen things at least to worry about more.


----------



## MCFC

Greggz said:


> No.
> 
> I've been daily dosing micros for over a year.
> 
> And front loading macros for 7 months.
> 
> *About a dozen things at least to worry about more.*


Only a dozen? :grin2:


----------



## varanidguy

MCFC said:


> Only a dozen? :grin2:


Tell me about it...I'm still trying to figure out this black, hard algae that seems to have taken hold in my main display tank. I think it's "black spot algae" or I've called it the Black Plague.

It doesn't respond whatseover to H202 treatment or Excel or the 1-2 punch. However a bleach dip on one anubias seems to have eradicated it and Seachem Phosphate applied directly to another plant out of the water seems to have gotten it to actively decrease as well. Could it be related to GSA? Not sure. The good news is, I think what was causing it in the main display has been handled, but getting rid of what's already there has proven to be an exceptional challenge.

This next week I'm going to elevate phosphate levels (perhaps make a solution and apply it directly to the plants that are effected) to see if that helps eradicate some of it.


----------



## NightHedgie

burr740 said:


> There is a special relationship between Mn and Fe. Agriculture studies all seem to agree that 2:1-3:1 Fe:Mn ratio is best. Im finding that 2:1 is too much Mn, 3 or 4:1 works better.
> 
> So to answer your question it's gonna be relative to Fe. To find the limit you'll just have to try different levels and see


How do you tell that it is too much Mn?

Also do the other micros have special relationship with Fe?

:nerd:


----------



## burr740

NightHedgie said:


> How do you tell that it is too much Mn?


Initially there'll be an induced Fe deficiency



NightHedgie said:


> Also do the other micros have special relationship with Fe?


Everything has a relationship with everything.  Some things interact and compete for uptake by the plants more than others.

Google Mulder's Chart of nutrient interactions if you want to go further down this rabbit hole. Or scroll back through the thread, this is all discussed in various places


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Everything has a relationship with everything.


Ain't it the truth. 

Explains why I am dizzy most of the time, trying to figure it all out!:wink2:

And I mostly blame you Joe! Your dang tank sucked me into this crazy hobby.


----------



## DMtankd

Woah this thread's got legs! (for good reason).

How far backs's a guys gotta scroll to see the chart of everyone's current weekly dosing regimen?

Bump: Woah this thread's got legs! (for good reason).

How far backs's a guy gotta scroll to see the chart of everyone's current weekly dosing regimen?


----------



## varanidguy

DMtankd said:


> Woah this thread's got legs! (for good reason).
> 
> 
> 
> How far backs's a guys gotta scroll to see the chart of everyone's current weekly dosing regimen?
> 
> Bump: Woah this thread's got legs! (for good reason).
> 
> 
> 
> How far backs's a guy gotta scroll to see the chart of everyone's current weekly dosing regimen?




I’m front loading macros and daily dosing micros.

Today I skipped KNO3 because my nitrates were 40+. Instead I made up the lost K with Seachem Potassium that I already had. I also increased PO4 because I dose enough to get about 4 ppm on WC day and pre-WC it tested at .5 ppm...so plants are eating a lot!

Using Rotala Butterfly calculator to determine levels. Micros are CSM+B and DTPA iron, dosed at 235 milligrams and 70 milligrams respectively on a daily basis, targeting about .15 ppm iron daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

DMtankd said:


> Woah this thread's got legs! (for good reason).
> 
> How far backs's a guys gotta scroll to see the chart of everyone's current weekly dosing regimen?


You know, that might be a good topic for a new thread.

We have quite a few here now keeping similar information. And I know personally I take a close look every time someone posts their dosing and other tank information. 

Curious if anyone else thinks it might make a good thread, or just have everyone post them here?

FWIW, here's mine...............................always subject to change at a moments notice. And usually it's on a sheer whim or shot in the dark. But hey, what else are we supposed to do? This ain't really an exact science is it!:wink2:


----------



## Immortal1

Ya know @Greggz - A thread in the fertilizer section that is mostly just tables/graphs/details/Links to other threads - like you have above might be useful. 
I feel like yours above would also need a big box at the bottom for Notes / Comments - not sure what you would type in there but it always seems like there is a small novel that goes with the details of a specific tank.


----------



## varanidguy

Greggz said:


> You know, that might be a good topic for a new thread.
> 
> We have quite a few here now keeping similar information. And I know personally I take a close look every time someone posts their dosing and other tank information.
> 
> Curious if anyone else thinks it might make a good thread, or just have everyone post them here?
> 
> FWIW, here's mine...............................always subject to change at a moments notice. And usually it's on a sheer whim or shot in the dark. But hey, what else are we supposed to do? This ain't really an exact science is it!:wink2:




Hahaha damn! My journal is pathetic comparatively.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

varanidguy said:


> Hahaha damn! My journal is pathetic comparatively.


I've placed that spreadsheet into a Google Drive folder. Anyone can download it and customize it in any way they want. Does make it easier to post all tank parameters at one time.

The link is below in my signature.


----------



## lazy999

Guys, a quick check. 

My tank water now is ph 7. 

When Co2 on, within 2hrs its will drop to ph 6. Will i be better off to start use FE DTPA in the mix?

I read that EDTA is only good up to 6.5 after which DTPA is a better choice.

Is it true?

And those who use both edta + DTPA in their mix, care to share what is ratio you are using?

=)


----------



## slipfinger

lazy999 said:


> Guys, a quick check.
> 
> My tank water now is ph 7.
> 
> When Co2 on, within 2hrs its will drop to ph 6. Will i be better off to start use FE DTPA in the mix?
> 
> I read that EDTA is only good up to 6.5 after which DTPA is a better choice.
> 
> Is it true?
> 
> And those who use both edta + DTPA in their mix, care to share what is ratio you are using?
> 
> =)


Yes switch to DTPA. Fe stays bond to the DTPA chelate better in the pH range you listed above. 

nccm


----------



## lazy999

slipfinger said:


> Yes switch to DTPA. Fe stays bond to the DTPA chelate better in the pH range you listed above.
> 
> nccm





:grin2:. Got it.


----------



## Leaky Filter

Okay...
I see the dosing sheets and I feel pretty comfortable mixing up some solutions. The spreadsheets that I'm seeing are for tanks that are truly rolling. I have a question, though...

I'm adding a good number of stems to my tank in the coming week and I'm looking for an NPK starting point plus DIY/roll your own micros. In the beginning, what is a good target range for macros and micros before adjusting? This is an established tank with a good number of root feeders and some stems that are doing well. I am adding a good number of additional stems that will begin to grow, but need to acclimate.


----------



## Quagulator

Leaky Filter said:


> Okay...
> I see the dosing sheets and I feel pretty comfortable mixing up some solutions. The spreadsheets that I'm seeing are for tanks that are truly rolling. I have a question, though...
> 
> I'm adding a good number of stems to my tank in the coming week and I'm looking for an NPK starting point plus DIY/roll your own micros. In the beginning, what is a good target range for macros and micros before adjusting? This is an established tank with a good number of root feeders and some stems that are doing well. I am adding a good number of additional stems that will begin to grow, but need to acclimate.


If the tank is established with a "good" amount of plant biomass, go ahead and dose right up to what we all are running for macros. Maybe start a little lighter on the micros and work up over a few weeks if no issues are arising. 

This all assumes high light / co2 / rapid growth and large weekly water changes.


----------



## Leaky Filter

Quagulator said:


> If the tank is established with a "good" amount of plant biomass, go ahead and dose right up to what we all are running for macros. Maybe start a little lighter on the micros and work up over a few weeks if no issues are arising.
> 
> This all assumes high light / co2 / rapid growth and large weekly water changes.


Yes to all. High light, plenty of CO2, good water flow. I ordered some 500 ml bottles and graduated cylinders to help with micro dosing. It will be easy enough to make a full dose 10 ml and then dose 7 ml in the beginning.


----------



## Quagulator

Leaky Filter said:


> Yes to all. High light, plenty of CO2, good water flow. I ordered some 500 ml bottles and graduated cylinders to help with micro dosing. It will be easy enough to make a full dose 10 ml and then dose 7 ml in the beginning.


Or start with 3 x weekly micro doses, and slowly add a dose per week until you are dosing daily... If plants remain happy of course.


----------



## OVT

Hi @burr740, I switched a 60-P to your 0.15 micro mix about 2 months ago @ 3-4 ml of 1 packet per 500 ml solution x3 per week.
The tank bottoms out at 7.2 pH, kH and gH are constant at 7 and TDS at ~300.

Here are my observations:

*The Good:* (in order of impact, from highest to lowest)
- AR mini is growing healthy leaves with no algae. I was never able to achieve that before.

*Not so Good:*
- Blyxa Japonica: most of it died off - the crown splits into several branches, the new growth is deformed and is melting. This is my biggest concern.

- Hydrocotyle sp."Japan": stunned growth with new leaves at 1/2 size, the vigorous growth is gone.

- Ludwigia Cuba: crown splits, new deformed growth

- Limnophila Aromatica: stunned growth @ 1/3 of normal width, leaves are not deformed (Limno mini is doing OK)

No visible changes to the rest of the plants (Rotala macrandra, magenta, green, colorata, rotundifolia; Ludwigia Atlantis, mini red, and arcuata; Hygro kopmakt and Angustifolia, Bacopa colorata, Pearl Weed, Mayaca, Stargrass)

I would appreciate your insight on the above. Thanks!


----------



## burr740

OVT said:


> Hi @*burr740*, I switched a 60-P to your 0.15 micro mix about 2 months ago @ 3-4 ml of 1 packet per 500 ml solution x3 per week.
> The tank bottoms out at 7.2 pH, kH and gH are constant at 7 and TDS at ~300.
> 
> Here are my observations:
> 
> *The Good:* (in order of impact, from highest to lowest)
> - AR mini is growing healthy leaves with no algae. I was never able to achieve that before.
> 
> *Not so Good:*
> - Blyxa Japonica: most of it died off - the crown splits into several branches, the new growth is deformed and is melting. This is my biggest concern.
> 
> - Hydrocotyle sp."Japan": stunned growth with new leaves at 1/2 size, the vigorous growth is gone.
> 
> - Ludwigia Cuba: crown splits, new deformed growth
> 
> - Limnophila Aromatica: stunned growth @ 1/3 of normal width, leaves are not deformed (Limno mini is doing OK)
> 
> No visible changes to the rest of the plants (Rotala macrandra, magenta, green, colorata, rotundifolia; Ludwigia Atlantis, mini red, and arcuata; Hygro kopmakt and Angustifolia, Bacopa colorata, Pearl Weed, Mayaca, Stargrass)
> 
> I would appreciate your insight on the above. Thanks!


Hi

You know its really hard to say. A lot of people have had really good results with that particular recipe (v19.15) The current 'best', which is several recipes since, has only slightly more B and Zn than that one. We're talking 5-7 ppb. Everything else is basically the same

So I dont think its a problem with the micros, per se.

Also idk how big a 60-p is, but you told me once you were in the .15 Fe range? That's what the mix is made to target per dose

Are you still dosing very low macros? Remember I cautioned you that your low macro routine probably wouldnt work as well with better/more efficient micros.

The blyxa, trip and cuba symptoms to me scream low macros. The only way it could be "too much micros" is if more has now caused a shortage of something else. 

Could also be too little micros. Unless you have fresh soil .15 3x is pretty darn low

Personally Id look at macros first. Get NO3 up to at least 20 ppm per week, PO4 3-4, K around 25 - thats ppm dosed per week between 50% water changes.

You may be in those neighborhoods now. If so I would try raising macros about 25% and see what happens.

The alternative is raise or lower micros. Dose daily for a couple weeks and see what happens. If things get better, you probably dont need that much long term but it'll tell you that you need more than you're currently dosing. 

If things get worse, which should happen pretty quick if too much is the problem, then you'll know to dose less.

But I would make sure any tweak in micros is done against a background of plenty of macros. Even when micros are the only thing thats changed, problems usually come back to macros in one way or the other.

All those other rotalas you mentioned are known to thrive in low macro environments. Most Lythraceae do. The hygros can feed from the roots. The rest on the list arent exactly nutrient hogs either.

But L cuba is. Blyx and trip japan can go either way, but in a tank full of hungry plants (and your tanks are pretty darn full!) they may not be able to compete with some of these other species if nutrients are scarce.


----------



## OVT

@burr740, thank you for the reply. (BTW, mine was not intended as a negative post but in spirit of information sharing). That 60-P (17g) is my experimental tank and I have plenty of plants (some from you ) to replenish it with - no harm done.

My lean macro dosage combined with med light for that tank is my personal learning experiment and I feel that I have accomplished my personal goal with it. But I strive for ever better results, don't we all? We pretty much know what to expect from EI and I want to go from the opposite direction, taking the ideas behind PPM blended with "nitrogen starvation" and blended with Dennis's practices.

That said, my results with switching to more "potent" micros might just be the confirmation that csm+b is lacking and that we can still improve the macro uptake. That might be an obvious truth to you guys but I like to understand my mysteries in smaller chunks.

Given the speed of my thought process (you know, the slow one), I'll start by doubling my N dosing only to ~30 ppm per week and watch the plants' reaction and the residual levels (the tank is currently at < 10 ppm residual). Based on the results, I'll move to bumping up P/K.

Once again, Joe, thanks for your insight.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Interesting, I have similar plants and I had similar issues. I reset the mix design and the issues have gone away. @OVT or @burr740, can you post the ppm of the mix? I'll post mine shortly.


----------



## Ken Keating1

The Nov mix design is the one that gave me the below issues. The Dec mix design made the issues go away. The only mix changes I made are those in red cells.

Hydrocotyle sp Japan: Mine stopped growing and 80% died back.

Limnophila Aromatica: stunned growth, mine showed very little growth, leaves are not deformed, same size as normal.

It would be interesting to see what @OVT is dosing to see if there are similarities to my Nov mix recipe.


----------



## Greggz

OVT said:


> Given the speed of my thought process (you know, the slow one), I'll start by doubling my N dosing only to ~30 ppm per week and watch the plants' reaction and the residual levels (the tank is currently at < 10 ppm residual). Based on the results, I'll move to bumping up P/K.
> 
> Once again, Joe, thanks for your insight.


Just a thought.

As Joe suggested, higher micro dosing can induce a need for higher macro dosing. My guess is that's what you are seeing.

If you are going to increase N, I would also increase P & K, as Joe suggested. If you look at Dennis's tanks, his P dosing is very high in relation to everything else. He starves N but not P. 

And I do appreciate the experiments in this tank. Very interesting and great food for thought.


----------



## burr740

@OVT Im very glad you shared these results and questions. That's how we all learn and Im certainly still learning myself. Keep us posted what changes you make and what happens. 

Personally Ive never been able to recreate a successful low macro routine with inert sub. (I know you have soil) Ive tried many times and I keep on trying for some strange reason. Mainly because folks like Dennis, Edward and Marian Sterian have such nice tanks with low dosing routines

I do believe its possible. I think a big factor in my case is having 35-40 ppm Ca in the tap water. That's a value I cant change without doing something drastic. So to a certain degree other stuff has to be dosed around that much Ca. If I could start out with say 15 ppm Ca it might be a different story. Because we all know nutrients interact and Ca is a big one 

As for Dennis, in spite of the fact that he's a wizard and I suspect may not even be from this planet, it's important to note that he uses a VERY rich substrate. Potting soil, capped with Aquasoil, with some O+ thrown in for good measure. So not everyone is going to get the same results by exactly matching his water column dosing

@Ken Keating1 That's very interesting. 

Here's OVTs mix, 3x per week

Fe - .15 ppm
Mn - .06 ppm
B - .03 ppm
Zn - .042 ppm
Mo - .0015 ppm
Cu - .002 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

Here's my current recipe for the big tanks w/sand, 3x per week

Fe - .2 ppm
Mn - .06 ppm
B - .045 ppm
Zn - .05 ppm
Mo - .0015 ppm
Cu - .0024 ppm
Ni - .0005 ppm

NPK per week is 25/5/32


----------



## OVT

I am actually glad that some of us are getting 'negative' results as that is one cornerstone of research / experimentaion - helps to bracket the target. Getting the same response from certain plant spiecies but not others is even more interesting to me.

@Ken Keating1, my journal for that tank is here: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1261106-60-p-quest-reds-leds.html. If any info is missing, do shoot questions my way and I will oblige. That tank is a "scrap" tank and everything there, except the lifestock, is replacable and modifiable.

@burr740, my tank has 4-5 year old AS that has been washed and re-used at least 3 times. It is slowly breaking down, with more and more dust apparent.

I did read your thread on substrate fertilization vs column fertilization. That subject is another tangent in my too many areas of personal interest. My planted tanks span bare bottom, old AS, newer AS, old AS capped with 1 - 2 mm gravel, and unmixed 0.25 - 0.5 mm sand. The only thing I'm missing is potting soil / dirt from neighbors yard. I am still staying away from pool filter / BDBS, at least for now. My next large tank will be 0.5 - 1 mm sand over lava rock.

I was not aware that Dennis used soil / AS mix. His latest tank is apparently AS caped with sand in the back, sand only in front. But then his scape is mostly plants on hardscape.

Your Ca comment juggled my memory - I still need to calculate what mine is at. The calcium deposits in my tanks make me wish for less.

@Greggz, thank you Sir, a good point well taken. My engineering training tells me to change one variable at a time, in hopes of stumbling on a single culprit. That could be naive, given the web of interdependencies, but I am overdue for getting lucky. But you comment made me think on focusing on P first and see what happens.


----------



## Grobbins48

OVT said:


> @Greggz, thank you Sir, a good point well taken. My engineering training tells me to change one variable at a time, in hopes of stumbling on a single culprit. That could be naive, given the web of interdependencies, but I am overdue for getting lucky. But you comment made me think on focusing on P first and see what happens.


You could always try a Design of Experiments (DOE) ;-) Not sure how well we would be able to control everything and manage levels to realize interactions, but I suppose it is possible (though would likely take a while!). I know I would follow that thread! Ha!


----------



## burr740

OVT said:


> I was not aware that Dennis used soil / AS mix. His latest tank is apparently AS caped with sand in the back, sand only in front. But then his scape is mostly plants on hardscape.



Yeah I was pretty sure all his tanks have a potting soil base under the Aquasoil. This from a Facebook convo we were having earlier today about AS in general -


----------



## Willcooper

Hey there, quick question. 

What’s the reason around dosing macros once a week vs daily like the micros? 

Started to reread this to find but 1200 posts! [emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

Willcooper said:


> Hey there, quick question.
> 
> What’s the reason around dosing macros once a week vs daily like the micros?
> 
> Started to reread this to find but 1200 posts! [emoji15]


Basic theory is this. Let's say there is an optimum ppm of NO3 that plants like. With traditional EI dosing, you have water change, day of rest, then three doses every other day throughout the week. 

So tanks starts off with very low levels, then they slowly increase during the week. Could it be better to keep ppm's more stable? Well, at least that is my theory. 

To illustrate, take a look at the following. In the first one, typical EI dosing of 24pmm a week. Note the last line showing the daily ppm level. Then look at the second with front end loading. Notice how stable the front end loaded one is.


















Now I have a heavily stocked tank, so my fish are creating some N as well, and I take that into account. In a lightly stocked tank, 1/2 upfront and 2 additional doses might be better. 

I have these calculators up on my Google Drive in my sig if you want to play around with them.


----------



## burr740

Theoretically plants have an easier time when N and P levels are stable. Most everything else, plants can drink up one day and be good for a while as long as they have enough. (<-overly simplistic way of putting it)

Im not sure how much difference it actually makes in our aquariums. Ive been dosing 60% of weekly macro totals right after a water change, then two more 20% doses later in the week on alternating days. Cant say Ive really noticed much difference after several months but who knows...

Micros can be finicky as far as sticking around in an available state (although Im starting to think this idea is overblown) so the theory is smaller frequent doses are better than larger doses that are more spread out.

The counter theory to that is - since concentration affects absorption, meaning plants can more easily get the small amounts they need when ppm in the water are higher - that larger periodic doses could be better than adding small dribbles every day.

All I know for a fact is that for years now people have had good success with both methods, EI vs PPS for example.

For the last couple of months Ive gone back to dosing micros 3x per week. And just like macros I havent noticed any real difference.

Here pretty soon Im going back to 3 equal macro doses and see what happens. Dont expect much to change, I just find the EI routine easier to follow. Talking about the schedule, not necessarily the amounts


----------



## Ken Keating1

burr740 said:


> Micros can be finicky as far as sticking around in an available state (although Im starting to think this idea is overblown) so the theory is smaller frequent doses are better than larger doses that are more spread out.


I've read this before. Prior to July i was dosing iron 3X weekly. But in July i purchased an automatic doser and started dosing iron 5x/day, 7 days/Week. My daily iron dosing amount is 0.15ppm, so at 12, 2, 4, 6 and 8PM the tank gets dosed 0.03 ppm. So with the same weekly dosing amount, I definitely noticed improvement in my red colored plants when i change over to 5X/day. But to say this dosing period is the best way to go is hard to say, one would have to experiment more, under controlled conditions. And the experimenting would have to be with each micro. Maybe one micro could benefit with upfront dosing, whereas others could benefit with small doses throughout the week.


----------



## Willcooper

When you front end load macros for the week do you dry dose or just make a solution and dose a lot of ml? My concern would be solubility of a regular 10-15ml dose for a whole week of macros. Thanks for the responses to all three of you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OreoP

Ken Keating1 said:


> I've read this before. Prior to July i was dosing iron 3X weekly. But in July i purchased an automatic doser and started dosing iron 5x/day, 7 days/Week. My daily iron dosing amount is 0.15ppm, so at 12, 2, 4, 6 and 8PM the tank gets dosed 0.03 ppm. So with the same weekly dosing amount, I definitely noticed improvement in my red colored plants when i change over to 5X/day. But to say this dosing period is the best way to go is hard to say, one would have to experiment more, under controlled conditions. And the experimenting would have to be with each micro. Maybe one micro could benefit with upfront dosing, whereas others could benefit with small doses throughout the week.


Is this limited to Fe only or all mircros?


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Here pretty soon Im going back to 3 equal macro doses and see what happens. Dont expect much to change, I just find the EI routine easier to follow. Talking about the schedule, not necessarily the amounts


Joe for the most part agree with your thoughts. 

But here's where I differ. I am sitting here right now watching my tank fill back up. When it's done, I'll dry dose all macros. To me, measuring and dosing once is easier, but as always, to each his own.

Now as to daily micros, for some reason I find that easier too. I just know every morning when I finish my coffee I stop by and toss a dose in. Been doing that for quite awhile, so just part of my routine now. 

And right now my tank is better than ever. But like most things in this hobby, I can't be sure if it's because of front loading macros/daily dosing micros...........or in spite of it!:grin2: Probably dozens of other things more important in the long run.

And by the way, tossed an extra dose of N in the tank on Wed............Pantanal seems to have perked up. 

Now I wonder if those multiple flower heads that popped out will continue to grow into new plants. If so, just found another to propagate it!


----------



## Ken Keating1

OreoP said:


> Is this limited to Fe only or all mircros?


I'm currently dosing micros 5X day, 7 days/week.


----------



## varanidguy

For the others front loading macros: out of curiosity, how much P are you dosing and how much do you wind up with before your water change and re-dosing?

My plants seem to be consuming a ton of P so I wanted to compare other people’s results.

For instance I’m dosing roughly 5 ppm of P and on water change day only measuring about .5 ppm. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

varanidguy said:


> For the others front loading macros: out of curiosity, how much P are you dosing and how much do you wind up with before your water change and re-dosing?
> 
> My plants seem to be consuming a ton of P so I wanted to compare other people’s results.
> 
> For instance I’m dosing roughly 5 ppm of P and on water change day only measuring about .5 ppm.


I can only to speak to my tank, but I am dosing NPK 32/7/36. 

My P is somewhere around 5 before water change, so much more than you. Now my tank also produces some P with all the fish feeding.


----------



## varanidguy

Greggz said:


> I can only to speak to my tank, but I am dosing NPK 32/7/36.
> 
> 
> 
> My P is somewhere around 5 before water change, so much more than you. Now my tank also produces some P with all the fish feeding.




Interesting. Do you have a set target for P at the end of the week? I’m wondering if this is contributing to green algae if P is becoming limited by the end of the week. Is there a risk of a K overdose if I increase the dosage of KH2PO4?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pwilly07

I would love some help with my tank and getting my Micros finely tuned. I have a 40 gallon breeder with 2.5 to 3.5 inches of substrate (Carib sea eco-complete). I do not have root tabs but will soon made from osmocote plus in the next 3-4 weeks. Until then, here is my EI dry dosing: Macros: 1/8 tsp KNO3, 1/32 tsp of K2SO4 and KH2PO4. Macros are on sat, mon, and weds. Micros: 1/8 tsp CSM+B, 4mL of seachem flourish comprehensive, 4mL of seachem iron, and 3mL of metricide. I dose micros sun, tues, thurs. I know metricide is not a micro, but I dose with it to keep algae nearly nonexistent in tank. I also dose seachem equilibrium after a 50% water change 1 7/8 tsp. Water changes are every Friday. My pH is 6.8 after running CO2. I have a kH of 6 and gH of 8 from my tap water. After water change, I have a kH of 3, gH of 9 and my pH is 7.4. I have a 36" Finnex 24/7 planted + as my light and paintball CO2 if that helps. I see great growth, but also see some holes in plants as I was previously dosing too much KH2PO4 at 1/8tsp instead of 1/32tsp. It's helping, but I want better results so I will stop blabbering and listen to you experts. Thanks in advance!! This forum is wonderful!


----------



## Greggz

varanidguy said:


> Interesting. Do you have a set target for P at the end of the week? I’m wondering if this is contributing to green algae if P is becoming limited by the end of the week. Is there a risk of a K overdose if I increase the dosage of KH2PO4?


Sorry, missed this post.

No end of week target. The usual trial and error trying to find sweet spot.

Limited P can contribute to algae, but not in the way that most think. It doesn't so much "cause" algae, as it is unhappy plants inviting algae. Healthy happy plants are always the best defense against algae (can uber clean tank!).

No worries raising K by KH2PO4 dosing.


----------



## Greggz

Pwilly07 said:


> I would love some help with my tank and getting my Micros finely tuned. I have a 40 gallon breeder with 2.5 to 3.5 inches of substrate (Carib sea eco-complete). I do not have root tabs but will soon made from osmocote plus in the next 3-4 weeks. Until then, here is my EI dry dosing: Macros: 1/8 tsp KNO3, 1/32 tsp of K2SO4 and KH2PO4. Macros are on sat, mon, and weds. Micros: 1/8 tsp CSM+B, 4mL of seachem flourish comprehensive, 4mL of seachem iron, and 3mL of metricide. I dose micros sun, tues, thurs. I know metricide is not a micro, but I dose with it to keep algae nearly nonexistent in tank. I also dose seachem equilibrium after a 50% water change 1 7/8 tsp. Water changes are every Friday. My pH is 6.8 after running CO2. I have a kH of 6 and gH of 8 from my tap water. After water change, I have a kH of 3, gH of 9 and my pH is 7.4. I have a 36" Finnex 24/7 planted + as my light and paintball CO2 if that helps. I see great growth, but also see some holes in plants as I was previously dosing too much KH2PO4 at 1/8tsp instead of 1/32tsp. It's helping, but I want better results so I will stop blabbering and listen to you experts. Thanks in advance!! This forum is wonderful!


You've got a lot going on there in your post. 

If you want help, I will give you some advice. When you list dosing as tsp/tbs it's pretty meaningless. Someone would need to open a dosing calculator, and type in all your information to get levels of each nutrient. Doubt anyone is doing that, and know I'm not.

Start thinking in terms of ppm. It's the universal language here.

You mention root tabs? Why? Is there a successful tank you are trying to emulate that uses root tabs? Maybe there is, but all the ones I follow dose dry ferts.

You say your pH is 6.8 after running CO2? What is your degassed pH? Just saying it's 6.8 after CO2 means nothing. Can't tell if you your CO2 levels are high or low.

You say that you have some holes in plants, and that is was from too much KH2PO4? What makes you say that? I've seen too little P do that, but not too much. 

And the first thing you asked is "would love some help with my tank and getting my Micros finely tuned". Then you listed how much CSM+B/flourish/iron you are dosing. I'm not sure what the question is? I don't know of anyone who doses that combination, and fine tuning micros to me means custom micros. 

Don't think many are finely tuning CSM+B. That's pretty much what this whole thread is dedicated to.


----------



## slipfinger

Pwilly07 said:


> I also dose seachem equilibrium after a 50% water change 1 7/8 tsp. Water changes are every Friday. My pH is 6.8 after running CO2. I have a kH of 6 and gH of 8 from my tap water. After water change, I have a kH of 3, gH of 9 and my pH is 7.4.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does your tap water KH drop a by 3dH once you add it to the tank and you've mixed in Seachem Equilibrium?


----------



## Ken Keating1

@Pwilly07 : PM me with your email address, I'll send you a spreadsheet that you can fill out and post with your ppm parameters. You'll need to go onto Rotella Butterfly and determine the ppm, but it looks like you'er tech savvy already so it should be easy for you to determine the ppm. 

I'm not a root tab fan, and most are not either because there's too many unknowns with the breakdown rate of the tabs. It's impossible to know how fast their breaking down and the amount being released. I believe a lot are thinking root tabs are required because we're all experienced with land plants and they obtain almost all of their nutrients from roots, but aquatic plants, IMO, obtain nutrients via the water column via both leaves, stems and roots. On stem plants I've cut the tops off, planted them next the rooted stems, and the tops, without any roots, grow just as fast as the rooted stems. With micro dosing, we know exactly what's being dosed into the water column.

Also, it's highly recommended you start a Tank Journal with posted photos. Photos really helps seeing what plants you have and the condition they're in. Is it a heavily planted tank, slow growing plants, fast growing plants, etc, so photos provide a lot of useful information. It makes it much easier to obtain suggestions and recommendations if TPT folks can see what you have. And don't worry if you're tank is in dire condition, we've all been there, so post photos of what you have.


----------



## Pwilly07

slipfinger said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does your tap water KH drop a by 3dH once you add it to the tank and you've mixed in Seachem Equilibrium?


I will retest again when I am home. That does seem odd. I will test everything at least twice to make sure my numbers are correct. 



Ken Keating1 said:


> @Pwilly07 : PM me with your email address, I'll send you a spreadsheet that you can fill out and post with your ppm parameters. You'll need to go onto Rotella Butterfly and determine the ppm, but it looks like you'er tech savvy already so it should be easy for you to determine the ppm.
> 
> I'm not a root tab fan, and most are not either because there's too many unknowns with the breakdown rate of the tabs. It's impossible to know how fast their breaking down and the amount being released. I believe a lot are thinking root tabs are required because we're all experienced with land plants and they obtain almost all of their nutrients from roots, but aquatic plants, IMO, obtain nutrients via the water column via both leaves, stems and roots. On stem plants I've cut the tops off, planted them next the rooted stems, and the tops, without any roots, grow just as fast as the rooted stems. With micro dosing, we know exactly what's being dosed into the water column.
> 
> Also, it's highly recommended you start a Tank Journal with posted photos. Photos really helps seeing what plants you have and the condition they're in. Is it a heavily planted tank, slow growing plants, fast growing plants, etc, so photos provide a lot of useful information. It makes it much easier to obtain suggestions and recommendations if TPT folks can see what you have. And don't worry if you're tank is in dire condition, we've all been there, so post photos of what you have.



Thanks!! Will send you email shortly. Here is my tank journal and I'm happy to hear I don't need root tabs especially from reputable people on here. I've messed around with the Butterfly calculator so I'm pretty sure I can figure it out and fill in what's necessary. 

The Planted Tank Forum
First Dutch https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1281779


----------



## Greggz

Pwilly07 said:


> Thanks!! Will send you email shortly. Here is my tank journal and I'm happy to hear I don't need root tabs especially from reputable people on here. I've messed around with the Butterfly calculator so I'm pretty sure I can figure it out and fill in what's necessary.
> 
> The Planted Tank Forum
> First Dutch https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1281779


Once you get the spreadsheet filled out, you should post it to your journal. It will help people trying to help you there. 

And I took a look again at your journal. If your ambition is to create a Dutch tank, then you should really study up further on micros. The first few pages of this thread help lay out the case for custom micros vs. CSM+B. And it's a lot easier than you think, but I guess some of it depends on your goals and how involved you want to become. 

Burr740 sells a package with all the compounds you need. I went over the procedure earlier in this thread here. 

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1221018-custom-micro-mix-thread-63.html#post10937866

And I understand this is all a lot to take in. Everyone here started here as a newbie sometime, myself included. As was suggested to you, taking the time to study a few of the journals here can be a great deal of help. 

When I got started, I read several of them front to back several times over. At first I thought it was mostly gibberish and these guys were nuts. Then slowly things started to sink in.

IMO, the hardest part is not figuring out dosing, it's taking the holistic approach and taking every variable seriously. Dosing is only one piece of a larger pie.


----------



## Pwilly07

Greggz said:


> Once you get the spreadsheet filled out, you should post it to your journal. It will help people trying to help you there.
> 
> And I took a look again at your journal. If your ambition is to create a Dutch tank, then you should really study up further on micros. The first few pages of this thread help lay out the case for custom micros vs. CSM+B. And it's a lot easier than you think, but I guess some of it depends on your goals and how involved you want to become.
> 
> Burr740 sells a package with all the compounds you need. I went over the procedure earlier in this thread here.
> 
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...-custom-micro-mix-thread-63.html#post10937866
> 
> And I understand this is all a lot to take in. Everyone here started here as a newbie sometime, myself included. As was suggested to you, taking the time to study a few of the journals here can be a great deal of help.
> 
> When I got started, I read several of them front to back several times over. At first I thought it was mostly gibberish and these guys were nuts. Then slowly things started to sink in.
> 
> IMO, the hardest part is not figuring out dosing, it's taking the holistic approach and taking every variable seriously. Dosing is only one piece of a larger pie.


Thanks for the advice. I definitely am reading burr's 120 dutchy freestyle and this micro thread. I have looked at your journal too, so after burr's I'll read yours. I'm going to do what burr suggested and keep up with my liquid ferts and csm+b. I'll eventually get to the custom micro ferts that I can mix myself. I will post to my journal my spreadsheet hoping that I can get better feedback on all levels of dosing. This is a process and I'm trying to learn as much as I can but also knowing that nothing will happen overnight.


----------



## Immortal1

:grin2: I suppose that is one of the good things about our planted tanks - very little happens "over nite", good or bad. I was certainly a "newbie" not that long ago. As for custom micro mix - that was something I got good at just this year. One thing I have come to learn with the micros - they are easy to mix up. Understanding what the plants are telling you and figuring out what to change take a lot longer.


----------



## yusufsarac

The think I want to know first is -Maybe I could not see it in the comments Can we mix all the salts in one bottle ? or do we need to solve them seperately ? For example in my location, one seller sells them like (MnSO4, ZnSO4, H3BO3, sodium molybdate etc..) When I asked him if I mix them all together, he said that would be poisoned for plants because they interact with eachother. Is that true ?


----------



## Greggz

yusufsarac said:


> The think I want to know first is -Maybe I could not see it in the comments Can we mix all the salts in one bottle ? or do we need to solve them seperately ? For example in my location, one seller sells them like (MnSO4, ZnSO4, H3BO3, sodium molybdate etc..) When I asked him if I mix them all together, he said that would be poisoned for plants because they interact with eachother. Is that true ?


Yes they are mixed in one bottle. 

I run through the process here...........................
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-new-bows-12-27-18-a-77.html#post10937818

Hope that helps.


----------



## yusufsarac

Greggz said:


> Yes they are mixed in one bottle.
> 
> I run through the process here...........................
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-new-bows-12-27-18-a-77.html#post10937818
> 
> Hope that helps.


So the guy is incorrect, that is great  I just need to solve (Dtpa-Fe-11, MnSo4, ZnSo4, Na2Mo04, Cuso4, Niso4, h3BO3) in one 1000 ml bottle and I'm good to go. Thank you Greggz


----------



## Greggz

yusufsarac said:


> So the guy is incorrect, that is great  I just need to solve (Dtpa-Fe-11, MnSo4, ZnSo4, Na2Mo04, Cuso4, Niso4, h3BO3) in one 1000 ml bottle and I'm good to go. Thank you Greggz


Yes be sure to make distinction between gm and mg. Some have missed that the first time around.

For instance, in my mix I use 44mg of Nickel Sulfate. That's .044 grams. 

And yes, it is a VERY small amount.


----------



## chayos00

Greggz said:


> Yes be sure to make distinction between gm and mg. Some have missed that the first time around.
> 
> For instance, in my mix I use 44mg of Nickel Sulfate. That's .044 grams.
> 
> And yes, it is a VERY small amount.


Very important to notice that MG indication! LOL I wasn't even able to get anything to mix in that bottle I goofed on. Plus I seemed to have used up a TON of that chemical I goofed. Good thing the proper weight is so tiny that the rest of the bag left will last forever!


----------



## Quagulator

I was performing a respiration experiment in university using a population of soil microbes, measuring the decomposition rates of various organic materials (field corn residue, lawn clippings, coffee grounds and white sugar) via CO2 production. Well, I must have skipped my dose of coffee that morning, and instead of a few miligrams of coffee grounds, I loaded up my little jar of dirt with a few grams of coffee grounds... Needless to say, our university lab tools were not capable of measuring such a result... and wasn't able to for 4 weeks! My microbial friends were very well fed compared to the rest of my lab partner's populations whom "ran out" of food within the first week! 

I learnt my lesson... Good thing my professor was an easy going guy, he laughed and was generally interested in what happens to microbes when you feed them 1000x more than they should get!


----------



## Greggz

chayos00 said:


> Very important to notice that MG indication! LOL I wasn't even able to get anything to mix in that bottle I goofed on. Plus I seemed to have used up a TON of that chemical I goofed. Good thing the proper weight is so tiny that the rest of the bag left will last forever!


That's funny Chayosoo, I forgot who it was.

Thanks for turning yourself in!:wink2:


----------



## chayos00

Greggz said:


> That's funny Chayosoo, I forgot who it was.
> 
> Thanks for turning yourself in!:wink2:


We all learn by trial and error! I have no problem admitting it was me. If it saves someone from that same mistake, I'm all for sharing!


----------



## yusufsarac

Greggz said:


> Yes they are mixed in one bottle.
> 
> I run through the process here...........................
> https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1020497-greggz-120g-rainbow-fish-tank-new-bows-12-27-18-a-77.html#post10937818
> 
> Hope that helps.


this is really good explanation Greggz. Thank you so much. another question 

- do you still making your mix with the same amounts ? I mean percentage wise

- burr740 said in his journey that at first he is adding vinegar for each 500 ml bottle. am I correct on that ? if yess another question.

- I have citric acit. Can I make my own acid solution and use that instead of vinegar ?

Bump: By the way I never thought that micros are that important. I have a high-tech tank with diy macros (EI method) but no traces and having a lot of troubles with plants. I played the amounts of macros. I did allmost everything but no luck.

I hope starting to add micros can solve these problems


----------



## Greggz

yusufsarac said:


> this is really good explanation Greggz. Thank you so much. another question
> 
> - do you still making your mix with the same amounts ? I mean percentage wise


Below is my current mix. Now keep in mind, I am dosing 7 days per week, so look at the weekly totals. 

And some folks have different recipes. This one is working well for me, but maybe some others can post their current recipe???













yusufsarac said:


> - burr740 said in his journey that at first he is adding vinegar for each 500 ml bottle. am I correct on that ? if yess another question.
> 
> - I have citric acit. Can I make my own acid solution and use that instead of vinegar ?


Should work, as principal is the same. But I have no experience using it. 

I use distilled white vinegar, and dose 20ml into a 1000ml solution. Seems to keep it stable, and I have had no issues with storage. 



yusufsarac said:


> Bump: By the way I never thought that micros are that important. I have a high-tech tank with diy macros (EI method) but no traces and having a lot of troubles with plants. I played the amounts of macros. I did allmost everything but no luck.
> 
> I hope starting to add micros can solve these problems


IME, micros are important. And if you are driving the tank hard at all with light/CO2, then you should be dosing them.

That being said, there numerous things to get right to get good plant growth. In addition to ferts, lights/CO2/maintenance all deserve attention. 

You should start a journal, and list as many details as you can about the tank. IMO, you really need to look at the tank as a whole, and take the holistic approach. 

I see many here post questions about ferts, and then when you see and learn about their tank, they have other issues that need to be addressed first. Not saying that is your case. Just saying happens a lot.


----------



## yusufsarac

Greggz again really thank you for detailed answers..


----------



## burr740

yusufsarac said:


> - burr740 said in his journey that at first he is adding vinegar for each 500 ml bottle. am I correct on that ? if yess another question.
> 
> - I have citric acit. Can I make my own acid solution and use that instead of vinegar ?


Use distilled or RO water to make the stock solution.

*Step 1:* Fill the dosing container about 3/4 full (leaves room for the ferts)

*Step 2:* Add 10-15 ML vinegar per 500 ML. <or> Ascorbic acid at .5 gm per 500 ml. Swirl it around a little bit to mix 

*Note: Citric acid will work too but idk how much to add because Ive never tried it. Strictly speaking as an acid, citric is slightly stronger than ascorbic. My guess would be to use about the same or a little less. That'd be close enough, it's not all that important to nail an exact PH

*Step 3:* Add all of the individual micro compounds to the solution. It doesnt matter what order

*Step 4:* Shake vigorously. Finish filling the dosing container all the way up using distilled or RO water. Shake again very well. Let stand overnight before using.



yusufsarac said:


> Bump: By the way I never thought that micros are that important. I have a high-tech tank with diy macros (EI method) but no traces and having a lot of troubles with plants. I played the amounts of macros. I did allmost everything but no luck.
> 
> I hope starting to add micros can solve these problems


Micros are equally important as macros. Plants just use them in much smaller quantities.

It be like trying to grow a human with proteins and carbs but no vitamins.


----------



## yusufsarac

burr740 thank you very much for the great detailed answer.

in my location, it seems I do not have access to NICKEL SULFATE so I will have to prepare my traces without it. will it affect so much to plants ?


----------



## burr740

yusufsarac said:


> burr740 thank you very much for the great detailed answer.
> 
> in my location, it seems I do not have access to NICKEL SULFATE so I will have to prepare my traces without it. will it affect so much to plants ?



Should be fine. Ni is required by plants in order to process urea, it also helps utilize Fe. But it's not a required nutrient and most tap waters probably have enough


----------



## chayos00

Just to confirm, you guys use vinegar or citric acid to drop the pH to a point that nothing grows in the solution right? I've used Met14 for a similar reason. I put in 20 or 30 mL into my 1500mL mix and have nothing funky growing after a month of use.


----------



## natemcnutty

chayos00 said:


> Just to confirm, you guys use vinegar or citric acid to drop the pH to a point that nothing grows in the solution right? I've used Met14 for a similar reason. I put in 20 or 30 mL into my 1500mL mix and have nothing funky growing after a month of use.


That and to ensure pH is low enough to not have issues with chelating agents / precipitation.


----------



## chayos00

natemcnutty said:


> That and to ensure pH is low enough to not have issues with chelating agents / precipitation.


Thanks! Guess I must be doing good with what I have, as I've never seen the micro's precipitate out of solution or any weird growth in it.


----------



## natemcnutty

chayos00 said:


> Thanks! Guess I must be doing good with what I have, as I've never seen the micro's precipitate out of solution or any weird growth in it.


DTPA isn't as bad as EDTA for that. I think many of us doing custom micros are doing so because EDTA in CSM+B wasn't working for us


----------



## Ken Keating1

FWIW, I've was getting nasty looking green mold in my monthly 800 ml macro solution which included 30 ml of white distilled vinegar. The last batch I increased the vinegar amount to 40 ml and at two weeks nothing is showing up yet. 20 ml of vinegar in the micro solution seems to inhibit mold in that bottle.

Bump: Also, I've been heating the solution water up to 175 degrees with an electric kettle, pour it into the solution bottle, and then add the ingredients. All items dissolve within a few minutes.


----------



## Grobbins48

Ken Keating1 said:


> FWIW, I've was getting nasty looking green mold in my monthly 800 ml macro solution which included 30 ml of white distilled vinegar. The last batch I increased the vinegar amount to 40 ml and at two weeks nothing is showing up yet. 20 ml of vinegar in the micro solution seems to inhibit mold in that bottle.
> 
> Bump: Also, I've been heating the solution water up to 175 degrees with an electric kettle, pour it into the solution bottle, and then add the ingredients. All items dissolve within a few minutes.


Are you using and heating distilled water? I have only used distilled water for my micros with 30ish mL of distilled vinegar and so far no issues. Three or four batches to date.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Grobbins48 said:


> Are you using and heating distilled water? I have only used distilled water for my micros with 30ish mL of distilled vinegar and so far no issues. Three or four batches to date.


I'm using RODI water with 0 TDS. It appears the mold issue varies throughout the seasons. For some reason I had mold on top of the solution in December, but I've never had it previously.


----------



## burr740

Potassium sorbate is good if you have a stubborn mold problem, .25 gm per 500 ml


----------



## chayos00

Ken Keating1 said:


> Also, I've been heating the solution water up to 175 degrees with an electric kettle, pour it into the solution bottle, and then add the ingredients. All items dissolve within a few minutes.


I have always heated mine as when I first started doing the dry ferts I found the macros never wanted to mix well, so figured near boiling water ought to do the trick and it's something I've done since. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Keating1

burr740 said:


> Potassium sorbate is good if you have a stubborn mold problem, .25 gm per 500 ml


Funny, I purchase potassium sorbate and citrus acid with the plans on using it, but because of the shipping time I used the 40ml of vinegar and it's working. I plan on experimenting with the potassium sorbate and citrus acid with the next batch and see what happens.


----------



## Pwilly07

Here's what I am currently dosing. What do you think about my levels? I'm personally seeing good growth, but being in planted tanks for 6 months, I am not 100% sure my growth is the best it can be.

https://flic.kr/p/2dXBQ9B


----------



## burr740

Pwilly07 said:


> Here's what I am currently dosing. What do you think about my levels? I'm personally seeing good growth, but being in planted tanks for 6 months, I am not 100% sure my growth is the best it can be.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/2dXBQ9B


The best advice you're gonna get will come from the plants. If everything is looking good there's no need to mess with it.

But just off hand looking at the numbers I'd say you could do with less K. Something closer to NO3 levels works much better in mine

And you may not need the GH booster if Im reading correctly, your tap has a GH of 10? Any idea how much is Mg and how much is Ca, like a city's water quality report or something? 

Hard to say obviously but if 10 is correct that's surely enough Ca, might need an extra 5 Mg or so per week. That's *probably" the most likely scenario

Micros look fine

Again this is all from just looking on paper. If your plants are happy just keep doing what you're doing


----------



## Quagulator

burr740 said:


> And you may not need the GH booster if Im reading correctly, your tap has a GH of 10? Any idea how much is Mg and how much is Ca, like a city's water quality report or something?
> 
> Hard to say obviously but if 10 is correct that's surely enough Ca, might need an extra 5 Mg or so per week. That's *probably" the most likely scenario


I'll second this!

@Pwilly07
My tap has a gH of 17 degrees, of which 15-16 degrees is Ca according to my municipal water report + API Ca test "confirmed" this for me. 

After mixing tap + RO water, my plants were showing deficiencies, but my gH was roughly 8 degrees so I never thought about gH boosting. Only after I realizes my gH was basically all Ca I gave the tank a big shot of Mg and within a week I could see huge improvements. I continue to dose higher Mg to this day -- in the 2.3:1 range of Ca:Mg ppm .. or 35ppm Ca : 15 ppm Mg.


----------



## Cichlid-140

burr740 said:


> Potassium sorbate is good if you have a stubborn mold problem, .25 gm per 500 ml





Ken Keating1 said:


> Funny, I purchase potassium sorbate and citrus acid with the plans on using it, but because of the shipping time I used the 40ml of vinegar and it's working. I plan on experimenting with the potassium sorbate and citrus acid with the next batch and see what happens.


I'm using Potassium Sorbate and Ascorbic Acid per @burr740's advice and they're working great.


----------



## Edward

*Introducing Upgraded CSM+B EDTA and Micronutrient Mix EDTA+DTPA* 
Traditional CSM+B EDTA and Micronutrient Mix EDTA+DTPA by Plant-Prod available at GLA can be Upgraded for use with aquatic plants by increasing ZnSO4 and adding NiSO4. Present chelates will preserve additional Zn and Ni from oxidizing allowing longer bioavailability.

*Upgraded CSM+B EDTA / Micronutrient Mix EDTA+DTPA* 
1 ml / 10 gallon or 40 L, 0.1 ppm Fe(TE)
250 ml
14.2900 g CSM+B EDTA / Micronutrient Mix EDTA+DTPA
00.6300 g ZnSO4
00.0045 g NiSO4

ppm
0.10000 Fe
0.02860 Mn
0.01860 B
0.02000 Zn
0.00086 Mo
0.00142 Cu
0.00010 Ni


----------



## Ken Keating1

Cichlid-140 said:


> I'm using Potassium Sorbate and Ascorbic Acid per @burr740's advice and they're working great.


How many grams of Ascorbic Acid are folks using in their solutions, and what's the solution size?


----------



## Cichlid-140

Ken Keating1 said:


> How many grams of Ascorbic Acid are folks using in their solutions, and what's the solution size?


 @burr740 gave me 

Ascorbic Acid - 0.5g/500ml (Ascorbic Acid/solution volume)
Potassium Sorbate - 0.2g/500ml (Potassium Sorbate/solution volume)

Just this last Saturday I mixed up a 1 liter bottle and used 1g Ascorbic Acid and 0.4g Potassium Sorbate. I'm good till the first of April and my wife can easily dose the tank if I forget before I go to work (and has).


----------



## Pwilly07

burr740 said:


> The best advice you're gonna get will come from the plants. If everything is looking good there's no need to mess with it.
> 
> But just off hand looking at the numbers I'd say you could do with less K. Something closer to NO3 levels works much better in mine
> 
> And you may not need the GH booster if Im reading correctly, your tap has a GH of 10? Any idea how much is Mg and how much is Ca, like a city's water quality report or something?
> 
> Hard to say obviously but if 10 is correct that's surely enough Ca, might need an extra 5 Mg or so per week. That's *probably" the most likely scenario
> 
> Micros look fine
> 
> Again this is all from just looking on paper. If your plants are happy just keep doing what you're doing <a href="http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/smilie/icon_smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" ></a>


Thanks for your thoughts!! My kH from my tap is 5 and gH is 7. My kH is 3 and gH is 10 before 50% water change. After adding equilibrium, my kH is 4 and gH is 12. I checked it at least 5 times with same results. I will recheck what my water report says and post later today.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Evening All:

Haven't seen much activity here so thought to post my tank parameters today.
Sometimes this creates much enjoyable controversy.

So today I opted to test my large soil capped tank for everything.
Results:
GH = 5, KH = 3.5, Ca = 20ppm, NO2 = 0
It's been almost a year to get KH from 6 to 3.5
Minimal WC's and top off with RODI

NH3 = .25 as it almost always does.
Not sure how to speak to this, once in a great while it is zero.
Almost 2 weeks ago the corner foam was replaced with a previously cleaned piece.
Tank has never been cycled and foam is bleach & H2O2 treated every time it is removed.

NO3 < 10ppm & PO4 = .75ppm , TDS = 119
After a 1.5x dose of EI macros TDS was @ 131 several hours after dose.
4th macro dose in the last 8 days.

TDS did not warrant a WC so as usual skipped, but topped off.

Micros with Fe being an indicator measured .3ppm today.
Every 3-4 days I dose .3ppm based on the Fe.
Wait two days for a micro dose IMO.
Having two mixes of micros that I never correctly labeled it's a crap shoot.
One is modified CSM+B and the other a complete home brew version.
The quart bottles are getting low so new mixes very soon, hoping I saved the recipe in my Excel sheet.

Phish are still doing very well.
12 Corys, 8 rasboras, and 2 lonely flame tetras.
I only feed every other day or so, alternating between high end pelleted sinking food, filthy frozen cubes, and an occasional sprinkle of flakes.
Sometimes the treat of smashing the snails on the glass with a plastic button.


----------



## burr740

Maryland Guppy said:


> Evening All:
> 
> Haven't seen much activity here so thought to post my tank parameters today.
> Sometimes this creates much enjoyable controversy.
> 
> So today I opted to test my large soil capped tank for everything.
> Results:
> GH = 5, KH = 3.5, Ca = 20ppm, NO2 = 0
> It's been almost a year to get KH from 6 to 3.5
> Minimal WC's and top off with RODI
> 
> NH3 = .25 as it almost always does.
> Not sure how to speak to this, once in a great while it is zero.
> Almost 2 weeks ago the corner foam was replaced with a previously cleaned piece.
> Tank has never been cycled and foam is bleach & H2O2 treated every time it is removed.
> 
> NO3 < 10ppm & PO4 = .75ppm , TDS = 119
> After a 1.5x dose of EI macros TDS was @ 131 several hours after dose.
> 4th macro dose in the last 8 days.
> 
> TDS did not warrant a WC so as usual skipped, but topped off.
> 
> Micros with Fe being an indicator measured .3ppm today.
> Every 3-4 days I dose .3ppm based on the Fe.
> Wait two days for a micro dose IMO.
> Having two mixes of micros that I never correctly labeled it's a crap shoot.
> One is modified CSM+B and the other a complete home brew version.
> The quart bottles are getting low so new mixes very soon, hoping I saved the recipe in my Excel sheet.
> 
> Phish are still doing very well.
> 12 Corys, 8 rasboras, and 2 lonely flame tetras.
> I only feed every other day or so, alternating between high end pelleted sinking food, filthy frozen cubes, and an occasional sprinkle of flakes.
> Sometimes the treat of smashing the snails on the glass with a plastic button.



Very interesting. How low is Fe when you decide to dose again? Do you try to keep it .3 all the time or wait until it gets to a certain low point?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

burr740 said:


> Very interesting. How low is Fe when you decide to dose again? Do you try to keep it .3 all the time or wait until it gets to a certain low point?


Based on testing with a Hanna checker I dose every 3-4 days.
My intent is to maintain .3ppm water column at all times.
We all know a day goes by or we forget but WTH as long as I dose all is good.
Occasionally a test may show .1ppm and I tend to over indulge for the next dose.

My real issue is macros which for me seems to drop low in a moments notice.
I can't say I'm nitrogen deprived but @ times it's close.
Nitrogen deprivation has never been my goal mind you, not like some.
I have never wished to deprive plants of macros but sometimes life get in the way.


----------



## Edward

Green Brighty Mineral with Green Brighty Iron by ADA Nature Aquarium addition. 
Solution components are insoluble iron(III) oxide, manganese(II) oxide, zinc oxide, copper(II) oxide and molybdenum(IV) oxide. 

Reference:
http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/liquid/manuals/GreenBrighty_Series_MINERAL_S_WEB.pdf
http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/liquid/manuals/MINERAL_Label.pdf
http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/liquid/manuals/GreenBrighty_Series_IRON_S_WEB.pdf
http://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/support/liquid/manuals/IRON_Label_1.pdf


----------



## Ken Keating1

@Edward: I like your comparison chart. Is that chart developed from a Excel Spreadsheet? If so, would you mind sharing it? It would be nice to have to be able to compare my different mix solutions graphically.


----------



## Edward

Ken Keating1
Thank you. The chart is included in Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010. I select the colours I like and the above chart is what I usually use for this purpose. The chart is of course the end product of the calculations. I would love to share it, but it was not designed to be user friendly, it is in the middle of my gigantic spreadsheets. See, rather than rebuilding it it might be faster if you give me the numbers and I enter them in. I can replace one set with another one. The concentrations can be anything and Fe can be referenced to any value.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Edward said:


> Ken Keating1
> Thank you. The chart is included in Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010. I select the colours I like and the above chart is what I usually use for this purpose. The chart is of course the end product of the calculations. I would love to share it, but it was not designed to be user friendly, it is in the middle of my gigantic spreadsheets. See, rather than rebuilding it it might be faster if you give me the numbers and I enter them in. I can replace one set with another one. The concentrations can be anything and Fe can be referenced to any value.


Thanks Edward, that sounds good. Let me reorganize my ppms in Excel to match your rows so you can just copy and paste into your SS.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Well, here I go on an analytical analysis that may or not have merit.

One of the difficult aspects of this hobby is understanding the Mulder Chart. It gets posted quite a bit here on TPT. But the problem with the chart is it shows the interaction with other nutrients, but nothing about ratios, so I’ve always been in a quandary about how to apply it in dosing terms. To help me out I started to do some research, but almost all the research and good technical information is either applicable to soil/farming applications or hydroponics. To me, hydroponics is much closer to an aquarium environment, basically growing plants in an emersed form, so I then concentrated on researching nutrient ratios for hydroponics.

I came across this *paper* that I found interesting and gave me a better understanding of the interactions of the nutrients. The paper lists four hydroponic solutions that appear to be well know. I assumed that the authors performed research into determining the proper ratios between the elements. I took these solutions, entered them into a spreadsheet (Table 1). These solutions are at a much higher concentration than what we see in aquariums. So, my next step was to reduce the solutions to values that are more applicable to aquariums, so I developed Table 2. This table can be easily changed by varying the division value at the bottom of the table. Since I dose N at 26ppm/week, I chose a division number such that the average of all solutions was 26. I made a column in Table 2 that averaged out all solutions and another column that averaged the Cooper and Steiner solutions (I chose these two because they were the most recent ones in the chart). I also added columns that show the highest and lowest values of all the solutions for each of the nutrients. The final column is my 12/2/18 solution mix. From this table, I’ve able to compare my dosing to values and see if I’m close compared to these other solutions. I’m using N as the baseline for the comparisons. In other words, once my dosing N values matches the average of all solutions (Or any other column that I choose), then I compare the values of the other nutrients to the other solutions or averages of solutions, just to see if I’m in the same ballpark.
Table 3 calcs out proposed solution parameters based on either the Average of all Solutions or the Average of the Cooper-Steiner Solutions. And then Table 4 Calcs out the daily doses and weekly doses.

The intent of my exercise was a means to come up with a means of understanding what ratio ranges we maybe should be dosing with respect to the other nutrients. I revised my dosing last week based on what I developed in the spreadsheet and it appears all the plants are responding positively. The only nutrient that does not reflect what’s calculated is K as I wanted to reduce the value quite a bit more that what the SS shows.

I’d be interested to hear folks’ thoughts on this approach, or if you have some recommended reading on ratios of nutrients. If anyone wants the SS, PM your email address and I’ll send the file.


----------



## Edward

Hoagland & Arnon 1938, Hewitt 1966, Cooper 1979 and Steiner 1984 addition.


----------



## Ken Keating1

Thanks @Edward for adding these to the chart. I'll go through and look at the numbers. I'm noticing Fe for all the solutions peak at 0.1, is there a reason for this?


----------



## Edward

Ken Keating1
Fe is referenced to the same concentration on all trace element mixes for comparison reason. You see, this makes it easier numerically and visually. We could have chosen any other ion but Fe makes more sense to be the common denominator for this application.


----------



## Edward

Burr740

One theory says we need to be dosing chelated metals to protect them from oxidizing because it makes them insoluble and unavailable. 

Another theory says we need to be dosing un-chelated metals because it is more effective and freed chelates won’t interfere with unwanted ions. This theory states shorter availability due to oxidation and insolubility.

Another theory by ADA is dosing already oxidized insoluble particles. Interestingly, this is what the previous two theories are concerned about. 

Burr740, what is your take on these three contradicting theories?
Thanks


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Just to make sure, you're not confusing N for nitrate and P for phosphate? This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that created the EI suggested nitrate-nitrogen and phosphate-phosphorus dosing issues.

1mgl of N = 4.43mgl of nitrate (NO3)
So 3.7mgl of N = *16.4mgl of NO3 daily or 115mgl of nitrate weekly*

1mgl of P = 3.0mgl of phosphate
So 0.7mgl of P = *2.1mgl of phosphate daily or 15mgl of phosphate weekly.*

Bump:


Edward said:


> Burr740
> 
> One theory says we need to be dosing chelated metals to protect them from oxidizing because it makes them insoluble and unavailable.
> 
> Another theory says we need to be dosing un-chelated metals because it is more effective and freed chelates won’t interfere with unwanted ions. This theory states shorter availability due to oxidation and insolubility.
> 
> Another theory by ADA is dosing already oxidized insoluble particles. Interestingly, this is what the previous two theories are concerned about.
> 
> Burr740, what is your take on these three contradicting theories?
> Thanks


Metal nutrient availability is pH-dependent. Acidic solutions will break down the oxides while alkaline solutions will retain the oxide forms.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> Burr740
> 
> One theory says we need to be dosing chelated metals to protect them from oxidizing because it makes them insoluble and unavailable.
> 
> Another theory says we need to be dosing un-chelated metals because it is more effective and freed chelates won’t interfere with unwanted ions. This theory states shorter availability due to oxidation and insolubility.
> 
> Another theory by ADA is dosing already oxidized insoluble particles. Interestingly, this is what the previous two theories are concerned about.
> 
> Burr740, what is your take on these three contradicting theories?
> Thanks


I think for the non-Fe micros, chelation is more important in agriculture were you might fertilize every few weeks, or a couple times a season. I dont think it matters much dosing our aquariums several times per week. 

But Ive never ran a controlled test side by side to see if one produced better results than the other. I do know plants seem to respond much better using non-chelated compounds than using csmb, but that doesnt necessarily point strictly to chelation. And of course availability is PH related to an extent. Seachem uses all non-chelated compounds (the same ones we're using here)

Csmb is garbage for aquariums anyway, its made for agriculture/hydroponics treating 1000s of gallons at a time. Its not designed to dole out fractions of a tsp. Then only reason its popular in the hobby is because back in the day when EI became popular (and using dry salts in general) it was the only viable option that didnt cost a fortune to hit those ppms. 

Longevity vs ease of uptake brings up another interesting question: Which one needs the higher dose? On one hand it would seem like non-chelated should be dosed higher, because it goes away faster. But since plants can absorb non-chelated nutrients so quickly, maybe it doesnt take as much? Ive read where its easier to cause toxicity with unchelated nutrients. Makes sense in theory but never seen anything concrete to back it up.

Fe of course needs a strong chelator because it is so volatile otherwise, quick to precipitate or bind with something else.

That's an interesting take from ADA, never heard that. I wonder if it's because Aquasoil will absorb the oxidated compounds where they break down again into an available state. Essentially just keeping the nutrients in the soil rather than water. Because I mean something has to happen for the plants to be able to use it


----------



## Edward

Oliver Knott’s website recommends micronutrient products by Aqua Rebell. 

Mikro Basic for low light
Mikro Spezial Flowgrow for high light
Mikro Spezial Eisen for high light add-on extra

Reference:
https://www.oliverknott.com
Mikro Basic - Eisenvolldünger - Aqua Rebell
Mikro Spezial - Flowgrow - Aqua Rebell
Mikro Spezial - Eisen - Aqua Rebell



LRJ said:


> … since the quantities of the other micros in Aqua Rebell Mikro Spezial Flowgrow are so low as to not be seen in the top graph, that the non-Fe micros were each increased by a factor of 10 relative to Fe in the bottom graph, so that their relative proportions would be visibly discernible.


----------



## burr740

Good stuff @Edward , very interesting to see these all side by side.

In the bottom chart what does the arrow up top "Fe 1/10 to expose other traces" mean?


----------



## LRJ

burr740 said:


> Good stuff @Edward , very interesting to see these all side by side.
> 
> In the bottom chart what does the arrow up top "Fe 1/10 to expose other traces" mean?


I have the same question. Looks like maybe since the quantities of the other micros in Aqua Rebell Flowgrow are so low as to not be seen in the top graph, that the non-Fe micros were each increased by a factor of 10 relative to Fe in the bottom graph, so that their relative proportions would be visibly discernible.

Relative proportions of the non-Fe micros are much larger in their Mikro Basic. I suppose that's their chelated mix.


----------



## Deanna

@Edward: looking at the updated comparisons you provided, the other observation is that not even the big suppliers or renown biologists seem to know what the ideal trace mixes are. With so many of our tanks doing so well using all of these products, as well as our own mixing, it would seem that there is a lot of room for error in what we do. It's somewhat reassuring.


----------



## Edward

burr740 said:


> Good stuff @Edward , very interesting to see these all side by side.
> 
> In the bottom chart what does the arrow up top "Fe 1/10 to expose other traces" mean?


Thanks.
I think LRJ explains it better than I could.


LRJ said:


> … since the quantities of the other micros in Aqua Rebell Mikro Spezial Flowgrow are so low as to not be seen in the top graph, that the non-Fe micros were each increased by a factor of 10 relative to Fe in the bottom graph, so that their relative proportions would be visibly discernible.


Did you notice Flourish Comprehensive and Mikro Spezial Flowgrow are almost identical? Also funny part is Seachem says use it together with Flourish Trace, while Aqua Rebell says don’t use it with Mikro Basic. Completely opposing directions. 

I am wondering who stole the composition since they are identical. Maybe I may have the answer when I look at Aqua Rebell Makro Basic NPK being a copy of my PPS-Pro that I developed in 2004. 
Makro Basic - NPK - Aqua Rebell

Interesting are the massive differences in ratios to Fe between Mikro Spezial Flowgrow and common CSM+B or Micro 13.15. 

Mn 8 - 14 x lower
B 10 - 5 x lower
Zn 28 - 184 x lower
Mo 4 x lower
Cu 72 - 67 x lower

They must have very different experiences using this product. I can see problems like stunting growth with higher K because higher K drives higher demand for non-Fe traces which this product doesn’t have.


Deanna said:


> @Edward: looking at the updated comparisons you provided, the other observation is that not even the big suppliers or renown biologists seem to know what the ideal trace mixes are. With so many of our tanks doing so well using all of these products, as well as our own mixing, it would seem that there is a lot of room for error in what we do. It's somewhat reassuring.


 Yes agreed, more commercial trace element products I analyze, more clearly I see that only one or no one have it right.


----------



## Immortal1

Edward said:


> Thanks.
> I think LRJ explains it better than I could.
> Did you notice Flourish Comprehensive and Mikro Spezial Flowgrow are almost identical? Also funny part is Seachem says use it together with Flourish Trace, while Aqua Rebell says don’t use it with Mikro Basic. Completely opposing directions.
> 
> I am wondering who stole the composition since they are identical. Maybe I may have the answer when I look at Aqua Rebell Makro Basic NPK being a copy of my PPS-Pro that I developed in 2004.
> Makro Basic - NPK - Aqua Rebell
> 
> Interesting are the massive differences in ratios to Fe between Mikro Spezial Flowgrow and common CSM+B or Micro 13.15.
> 
> Mn 8 - 14 x lower
> B 10 - 5 x lower
> Zn 28 - 184 x lower
> Mo 4 x lower
> Cu 72 - 67 x lower
> 
> They must have very different experiences using this product. I can see problems like stunting growth with higher K because higher K drives higher demand for non-Fe traces which this product doesn’t have.
> Yes agreed, more commercial trace element products I analyze, more clearly I see that only one or no one have it right.



It does amaze me that there is such a large variance in micro vendors. I tried re-creating your graph in Excel but unfortunately for me my Excel graph skills are F- at best. I was curious how my micro mix compared. I can see the various numbers but it does look better with bar graphs. The one thing I did notice is that certain listed micros are much higher than I am using (Cu) and some (B)(Ni) are much lower or non existent. 


Fe-DTPA 11%________0.1000
Mn-MnSO4.H2O______0.0400
B-H3BO3___________0.0300
Zn-ZnSO4.7H2O_____0.0333
Mo-Na2MoO4.2H2O__0.0011
Cu-CuSO4.5H2O_____0.0013
Ni-NiSO4.6H2O______0.0003

Disregard - just noticed this info was in post 1291 above.


----------



## LRJ

Edward said:


> Did you notice Flourish Comprehensive and Mikro Spezial Flowgrow are almost identical? Also funny part is Seachem says use it together with Flourish Trace, while Aqua Rebell says don’t use it with Mikro Basic. Completely opposing directions.
> 
> I am wondering who stole the composition since they are identical. Maybe I may have the answer when I look at Aqua Rebell Makro Basic NPK being a copy of my PPS-Pro that I developed in 2004.
> Makro Basic - NPK - Aqua Rebell


Very interesting. I had noticed that Flourish Comp and Mikro Spezial Flowgrow were similar, but didn't recognize that they are basically identical. I'm currently using Flourish Comp + Trace for micros. If I want to try Aqua Rebell micros, guess I can just cut out the Flourish Trace.

And I did notice that Aqua Rebell's NPK was a PPS-Pro copy. Seems common for fert manufacturers to sell both EI and PPS-Pro systems. Unfortunately, not all of them attribute credit where it's due.


----------



## Edward

A. Aqua Rebell Mikro Spezial Flowgrow is almost identical to Seachem Flourish Comprehensive.
B. Aqua Rebell Makro Basic NPK is almost identical to PPS-Pro.
C. Aqua Rebell Mikro Basic is almost identical to trace element contents of Tropica Premium and Tropica Specialized. 

Who doesn’t see it?

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...-custom-micro-mix-thread-87.html#post11173639
Makro Basic - NPK - Aqua Rebell

Aqua Rebell Mikro Basic Fe modified to 0.0832, 0.0700, 0.1340, 0.0690 ppm.


----------



## Immortal1

Numbers don't lie....


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Edward said:


> Green Brighty Mineral with Green Brighty Iron by ADA Nature Aquarium addition.
> Solution components are insoluble iron(III) oxide, manganese(II) oxide, zinc oxide, copper(II) oxide and molybdenum(IV) oxide.


Bc the oxides are insoluble, an acid must be used in the solution. They use sulfuric acid to dissolve the oxides. 

As for why they don't just use sulfate salts, it's probably bc of lower cost.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Edward said:


> Yes agreed, more commercial trace element products I analyze, more clearly I see that only one or no one have it right.


Bc they don't do experiments to see how plants respond to individual nutrients. They likely take what's already sold, copy the nutrient analysis and make some modifications, test it a little bit, and if there isn't anything obviously wrong, they sell it. That's how one popular, relatively new to the market fert (that many ppl on this site have recommended) is sold when there was very little testing or research done. And yet many ppl who use this fert at recommended dosages experience the same problems as dosing EI - poor plant growth, toxicity, algae, dead shrimp, etc. The ones who don't seem to have obvious issues also have hard water.

In my experiments, I spent over a year just testing boron across multiple variables to observe the effects on plant growth. Then I spent more than a year and a half experimenting with zinc. I've spent the last several months experimenting with Cu and have just started testing the effects of Mn. At this rate, it will take more than 10 years just to learn the effects of each nutrient. I'm not interested in selling ferts so I'm in no rush. But for those who just want to make a quick buck, it's just easy to copy what seems to work, test to see if nothing is wrong, then sell/market it to the ignorant masses. They aren't going to spend 10+ years doing nutrient experiments when they can just copy what's already being sold and then sell it themselves.


----------



## Clappies

Interesting.. They added strontium and bromine, dont know what roles these elements play in photosynthesis?
















Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

8 ppm K per day? No thanks. Could always dose 3x week or 1/2 strength. Pretty strong blend. I like the Zn and B, little heavy on Mn imo


----------



## Clappies

Looks like the dosing instructions are half dose may be less at 4ml per 100L.

Still waiting for my custom micro mix ingredients to arrive and mg scale.

One thing i have noticed is, dosing micros everyday has increased my plant growth and less algae, i just dose macros in the morning and micros when lights are on and the ph is lower due to co2. About 10min after dosing micros pearling also increases. Personally i feel its better than dosing on separate days. 

Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

damn and i thought went pretty high on micros, but AquaForest lol


----------



## Clappies

February last year.









Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clappies

4months later.

My tank isn't stable currently, had to move last year june and now i need to move again.









Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

Clappies said:


> 4months later.
> 
> My tank isn't stable currently, had to move last year june and now i need to move again.


Very nice tank. Healthy looking plants and well presented.

Looks like a lot going right.

You should start a journal. I'm sure many would like to hear more about what you are doing, myself included.


----------



## Clappies

Greggz said:


> Very nice tank. Healthy looking plants and well presented.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot going right.
> 
> 
> 
> You should start a journal. I'm sure many would like to hear more about what you are doing, myself included.


Thanx, i will start a journal now, it will be a bit long. But i will give all the details from start to finish and photos aswell.

Thanx again for the compliment, I must actually thank you guys here, coz i have learned so much from you. My tank really took off when i started dosing micros everyday, but more details about that in my journal 

Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

I switched from daily to 3x a few months ago. Cant say I noticed any difference. But there were a lot of changes going on at the time, and it needs to be the only thing changed to really tell one way or the other.

Pretty soon when Im on a stable routine I plan to go back to daily and see if it makes any difference.


----------



## Edward

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> However, excess Pi will also result in -Zn, which CSM is already relatively low in.


 Increasing Zn in CSM+B 3.5x 350% completely solved my Lindernia rotundifolia leaf hooking and curling. The leaves now grow properly all the way up from substrate 22” deep, 200 PAR 12” deep and 1000 PAR 2” below water surface. 

I tried 0.1 and 0.2 ppm Fe(TE) daily but it did not help until the Zn addition. Now dosing 0.025 ppm Fe(TE) daily and all is fine. This is one of the reasons why I released the “Upgraded CSM+B”.


----------



## Deanna

Edward said:


> Increasing Zn in CSM+B 3.5x 350% completely solved my Lindernia rotundifolia leaf hooking and curling. The leaves now grow properly all the way up from substrate 22” deep, 200 PAR 12” deep and 1000 PAR 2” below water surface.
> 
> I tried 0.1 and 0.2 ppm Fe(TE) daily but it did not help until the Zn addition. Now dosing 0.025 ppm Fe(TE) daily and all is fine. This is one of the reasons why I released the “Upgraded CSM+B”.


Housekeeping suggestions for the charts:

- Note under the "Trace Elements" heading that these are daily doses.
- Change the "Upgraded CSM+B" heading to "PPS" (assuming that is what it is).


----------



## Edward

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> damn and i thought went pretty high on micros, but AquaForest lol


 The recommended daily dose is 0.0152 ppm Fe. https://aquaforest.eu/freshwater/en/products/af-micro/


----------



## Surf

> Yes agreed, more commercial trace element products I analyze, more clearly I see that only one or no one have it right.





> Bc they don't do experiments to see how plants respond to individual nutrients. They likely take what's already sold, copy the nutrient analysis and make some modifications, test it a little bit, and if there isn't anything obviously wrong, they sell it


Even if a company gets an aquarium fertilizer their results won't mean much. The reason for this is most testing would be done with tap water. The composition of the water is vastly different from place to place depending on the source. It may be low in minerals or rich in minerals. Also the pipes the water flows through can affect water chemistry

Many utilities today have galvanized Steel pipes for the mains. Corrosion of those pipes releases zinc into the water. Most homes made in the last 60 years use copper pipes. At my home I have tested my tap water and found it has 50ppb of copper.This might explain why many fertilizers have very low levels of zinc and copper. 

However if you have a very old home you won't have copper pipes. Instead you will likely have iron or lead pipes. Many cities today want all lead pipes removed due to the health effects of lead. But no one has figured out how to pay for it. Many new homes on the other hand are now using plastic pipes. And many new utility pipes probably use plastic or epoxy coated pipes.

So overall the best fertilizers are those that are customized to your tap water.. For a company to properly test a fertilizer they should use RO or distilled water. And once they have a good formula make several different blends for fertilizer for different types of water. However I don't see any evidence of that being done by companies.


----------



## Greggz

Deanna said:


> @Edward: looking at the updated comparisons you provided, the other observation is that not even the big suppliers or renown biologists seem to know what the ideal trace mixes are. With so many of our tanks doing so well using all of these products, as well as our own mixing, it would seem that there is a lot of room for error in what we do. It's somewhat reassuring.


Deanna I think this is a great point. 

IME, if you have many other things going right (light/CO2/maintenance) you have quite a bit of leeway with ferts. And if you don’t have the other things going right, all the fert dosing whack-a-mole in the world won’t help you.

And you need to put all these conversations in the context of goals. Most here keep a tank with a wide variety of species, with different substrate, different lighting, different source water, different fish loads, and pretty much different everything. I have not seen a one size fits all dosing scheme that works for everyone yet. 

And one important thing to keep in mind...........It's a hobby. I don't think most folks on this board are seeking absolute perfection, but a level of success that brings them the satisfaction of creating something they enjoy. I know my tank is not perfect, but I can tell you it brings a smile to my face every single day, and I enjoy the process of trying to bring out the best that I can. My wife and and I often sit right across from the tank, put on some music, grab a glass of wine, spend some quality time with each other, and enjoy the view. If she tells me it looks beautiful, well that's good enough for me, and why I spend the time on it.

I have seen lots of experiments with a single species in a bare bottom tank, searching for the holy grail. And while the information can be interesting, I find it hard to relate to the average hobbyist here. If one finds the absolute perfect mix of ferts for Rotala Wallachii in a very particular set up, what does that mean for the 20+ species in MY tank. IMO, very little. 

And I’ve done some experimenting myself. I once kept raising B in my micro mix to see what the upper limit was in my tank. Funny thing is, some plants loved more……..and others clearly hated it. Pantanal heads got huge with intense color, but Rotala Macranda Var. lost all of it’s color and nearly melted away. Took me months to nurse it back to health. So what did I learn? I can’t provide the perfect blend for every plant. Instead, I try to find the level that keeps the widest variety of species happy at one time. 

So my point is, I have yet to see a magic elixir for the typical planted tank here with a wide variety of species, and a wide variety of variables. The tricky part is finding the mix that works in YOUR tank. With your source water, with your fish load, with your PAR/PUR, with your CO2 management, with your attention to maintenance, etc.

IMO, even if you get YOUR tank absolutely perfect, that doesn’t mean your recipe will work for everyone else. Throw off just one of the many variables………..and well, as I like to say, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Immortal1

Well put @Greggz - just spent some time this past weekend discussing fertilizer dosing with a fairly new planted tank enthusiast. He lives in a different city with different water chemistry. It is pretty close to mine. But even if it was exact, that is no guarantee that my dosing would be perfect for his tank. Different lighting, different co2 dosing, different substrate, different number and type of plants. 

Yet, it amazes me with all the many variables, you can still keep a decent looking tank with typical amounts of fertilizers... as long as you don't push too hard. The harder you push (lights, etc.) the more you really have to pay attention to your tank and adjust things.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Yes, it is a hobby most of us enjoy despite the failures and success stories.
There are plants that some of us can't grow, all part of why we try different species.

The lab time would never be donated to study aquatic plants and determine their optimum growing environment.:|
Then once documented we would struggle to create that environment.:frown2:

Genetically engineered crops are another story altogether, this is not that story. :grin2:


----------



## Edward

burr740,
how long are you dosing it?


burr740 said:


> Micros 3x
> Fe -.18
> Mn - .05
> B - .035
> Zn . 04
> Mo - .0013
> Cu - .002
> Ni - .0003
> 
> Other tanks are on the same routine.
> Its working pretty good everywhere


Tenso Cocktail and Micro 33.18 additions.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> burr740,
> you have really great idea testing a clone of Upgraded CSM+B but using unchelated compounds instead. How long are you dosing it?


Its been a couple of weeks. Honestly I havent even looked at "upgraded csmb" other than to see you added some Zn and Ni. This latest is me reducing B and Zn from a previous mix based on plant reactions

I think it's fairer to say "upgraded csmb" (which was a great idea btw) is patterned after the custom mixes, not the other way around. Wouldnt you agree?


----------



## Edward

burr740
You could have said something like “it just happened” or “it is a coincident”, everybody would understand. But no, you lie and at the end you accuse me of copying your custom mixes pattern? Quite disappointing. 

I simply added Zn and Ni to CSM+B. Not “some” and not following your pattern. If you look at the chart, you will see how I did it. I added the same levels of Zn and Ni as is the Typical plant ratio analysis on the right side of the chart. Everybody knows the product is low on Zn and is missing Ni, not my invention. It was simple, that’s why I named it “Upgraded”.

What you lie about? 
You did not reduce B as you claim because it is the same in Micro 13.15 as is in Micro Upgraded CSM+B clone. Variation of +/- 1.5% is rounding. 

Zn you reduced, yes, from 0.0367 to 0.0222, and 0.0200 is in Upgraded CSM+B. Coincident? Maybe, why not.

What you conveniently forgot to mention?
You reduced Mn from 0.0500 to 0.0278, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.0286. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? Mo you reduced from 0.0010 to 0.0007, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.00086. You also reduced Cu. Ni you reduced from 0.000333 to 0.000167, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.000100.

Again, the pattern is obvious and it is nothing you mentioned. Numbers don’t lie.



burr740 said:


> Its been a couple of weeks. Honestly I havent even looked at "upgraded csmb" other than to see you added some Zn and Ni. This latest is me reducing B and Zn from a previous mix based on plant reactions
> 
> I think it's fairer to say "upgraded csmb" (which was a great idea btw) is patterned after the custom mixes, not the other way around. Wouldnt you agree?


----------



## ipkiss

Why so defensive? I could be wrong but I think he was just kidding.

You called his mix a clone --which basically accuses it as a copy just as you find him accusing u of a copy?


----------



## Edward

ipkiss said:


> You called his mix a clone --which basically accuses it as a copy just as you find him accusing u of a copy?


 Isn’t “clone” the later release simply because nobody can read the future? Also, how could I have copied ratios of already premixed product, except Zn and Ni, which is clearly taken from Tissue analysis on the same chart? 

I was honestly happy that he was testing the clone. Having one chelated and one unchelated with the same elemental ratios is interesting. I am not developing any trace element mix, I am a big fan of those who do and I am trying to offer my support.


----------



## burr740

Edward said:


> burr740
> You could have said something like “it just happened” or “it is a coincident”, everybody would understand. But no, you lie and at the end you accuse me of copying your custom mixes pattern? Quite disappointing.
> 
> I simply added Zn and Ni to CSM+B. Not “some” and not following your pattern. If you look at the chart, you will see how I did it. I added the same levels of Zn and Ni as is the Typical plant ratio analysis on the right side of the chart. Everybody knows the product is low on Zn and is missing Ni, not my invention. It was simple, that’s why I named it “Upgraded”.
> 
> What you lie about?
> You did not reduce B as you claim because it is the same in Micro 13.15 as is in Micro Upgraded CSM+B clone. Variation of +/- 1.5% is rounding.
> 
> Zn you reduced, yes, from 0.0367 to 0.0222, and 0.0200 is in Upgraded CSM+B. Coincident? Maybe, why not.
> 
> What you conveniently forgot to mention?
> You reduced Mn from 0.0500 to 0.0278, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.0286. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? Mo you reduced from 0.0010 to 0.0007, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.00086. You also reduced Cu. Ni you reduced from 0.000333 to 0.000167, Upgraded CSM+B has 0.000100.
> 
> Again, the pattern is obvious and it is nothing you mentioned. Numbers don’t lie.



Well since we're apparently having this same conversation in two different threads, I'll just quote my response from the other one 




burr740 said:


> OK well, it's just a coincidence then.
> 
> v13.15 was what, a year ago? There's been a dozen trial versions since then. Going slowly way up and then back down. The previous, latest recipe, v32.17
> 
> Fe - .17
> Mn - .05
> B - .045
> Zn - .06
> Mo - .0013
> Cu - .002
> Ni - .0003
> 
> From which I reduced B and Zn to the current levels.
> 
> Wasnt trying to "accuse" you of anything, lol. Just being perfectly clear that it's not a clone of something else.
> 
> I mean you could've said the same thing initially. Like "Oh hey that's about like my upgraded csmb recipe", but you chose to word it differently yourself....


----------



## Edward

What version is this, it doesn’t say. I will fix the chart.


burr740 said:


> Fe -.18
> Mn - .05
> B - .035
> Zn . 04
> Mo - .0013
> Cu - .002
> Ni - .0003


----------



## burr740

v33.18

The last number indicates Fe ppm, in case anyone didnt know


----------



## Edward

Tenso Cocktail and Micro 33.18 additions.
https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...-custom-micro-mix-thread-89.html#post11177499


----------



## Maryland Guppy

FWIW my one and only unchanged to date micro mix was a clone of CSM+B made on January 6th, 2018.
Made too much of it and still have yet to make more or change it.
Only chelated item was 10%DTPA Fe.

I've thought about changing it up but why be the guinea everyone else is testing things for me! :grin2::grin2::grin2:


----------



## Greggz

@Edward I was scratching my head, thinking what is “upgraded CSM+B”?? Then I went back a few pages and see where you mentioned it. Is there anyone you can point to with a successful multi species high tank using it? I’d like to see the results and learn more.

Although personally I don’t understand why one would modify CSM+B? If you are going to the trouble to add to CSM+B, why not just make your own micros? And use DTPA. And be able to adjust each individual micro. And know that every dose has exactly what you intended.

I would not trust CSM+B to have the same make up from bag to bag, or spoonful to spoonful. It was never intended to be dosed at the relatively tiny amounts that we use. And B is probably the wild card, which IMO may have caused many of the issues commonly called "micro tox".

Getting rid of CSM+B and going custom was a game changer for me (Thanks Burr!).

And really, every new dosing regime is a take off on others. PPMD led to EI, and PPS Pro is basically a copy of PPMD with more PO4. Call them what you will. I personally don't think what many of us are dosing is really EI anymore. It's evolved to some kind of hybrid lately, with more attention being paid to ratios. 

I follow quite a few folks who demonstrate success with planted tanks. When I see a healthy well presented tank, it intrigues me. I want to know to more about their methodology. It never occurs to me to call it something. I guess the closest would be the “Burr” method. It’s pretty much what most of the best tanks here have evolved to. But even then, I don't know of two that are dosing exactly the same.


----------



## OreoP

Greggz said:


> Getting rid of CSM+B and going custom was a game changer for me (Thanks Burr!).
> 
> When I see a healthy well presented tank, it intrigues me. I want to know to more about their methodology. It never occurs to me to call it something. I guess the closest would be the “Burr” method. It’s pretty much what most of the best tanks here have evolved to. But even then, I don't know of two that are dosing exactly the same.


Well said Gregg. To me this whole planted tank is a hobby and as such I tend to lean to peers who have displayed a tank that is to MY liking. That does not mean that everyone has to have the same taste as me. Do what appeals to you! Like you I follow several members because their set up appeals to me. One of them is Burr and why re-invent the wheel when Burr has developed it and is constantly modifying/improving it. And I am grateful to him for sharing his work in a detailed written thread with tons of pictures. His efforts and those of several other TPT members reflects in my tank. In the same manner your thread on rolling custom micros gave me the nudge to do the same. And for that I am grateful. Hopefully my thread, however small has contributed to this hobby and helped a fellow hobbyist. Call it Modified CSM-B, Upgraded CSM-B, Custom Rolled Micros or Bullcrap - I don't care as long as the dosing works towards getting me the look I want with healthy plants!!


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> Although personally I don’t understand why one would modify CSM+B? If you are going to the trouble to add to CSM+B, why not just make your own micros? And use DTPA.
> 
> I would not trust CSM+B to have the same make up from bag to bag, or spoonful to spoonful. It was never intended to be dosed at the relatively tiny amounts that we use. And B is probably the wild card, which IMO may have caused many of the issues commonly called "micro tox".
> 
> And really, every new dosing regime is a take off on others. PPMD led to EI, and PPS Pro is basically a copy of PPMD with more PO4. Call them what you will. I personally don't think what many of us are dosing is really EI anymore. It's evolved to some kind of hybrid lately, with more attention being paid to ratios.


The first time I ordered dry ferts I also included Fe DTPA 10% with my order.
The modified CSM+B I first made from day one included the DTPA Fe because I knew my higher pH was counter-productive.
This recipe is still dosed in my 80G tank, other tanks have the roll my own.

Then I began to add NiSO4 to aid in NH4 uptake.
Both of these changes showed plant improvement in the 80G.

The roll my own has only been applied to my 33G tank.
Plants compared to my 80G I'd say where equal in quality.
Some species better and some worse, but every tank is different.

In the beginning I was an advocate of the PPS Classic method.
Learn what your plants need and dose accordingly.
Over time the plant mass became horrific and I exceeded EI equivalents. 
All happened without the 50% water change theory due to no phish load.
Even now with a minimal phish load still no changes are detected, the phish may as well not exist.

I do think it is important to figure out what one's tank needs instead of just lathering it on!


----------



## Greggz

Maryland Guppy said:


> I do think it is important to figure out what one's tank needs instead of just lathering it on!


I think things have been evolving in this direction....slowly....but evolving.

But you have a wild card..........the new BDBS!!

I wonder how this will factor into your thinking? I have no idea but am looking forward to finding out!:grin2:


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Greggz said:


> But you have a wild card..........the new BDBS!!
> 
> I wonder how this will factor into your thinking? I have no idea but am looking forward to finding out!:grin2:


Not a wild card by any means.
I've grown in an inert quartz aggregate before so BDBS should be no different.

I'll test water parameters and see where it goes and establish the consumption amounts.

My only worry is the Ammannia Senegalensis.
I might add that even though it is in plugs right now it seems to be feeding from the water column.
Minimal roots have been detected when pulling any of this species.
Very unlike mermaid weed which extends a serious root system in any substrate.


----------



## super_smirky

I'm setting up my 75 gallon high tech after having to retire the 120 g. I'm in need of help determining my macros/micros based on the success that you guys have seen. I have all the dry fertz and will be dosing 1 weekly macro and 3x micro each week.

Micro's i plan on dosing the following 3 x week in ppm.

Fe	Iron	0.2 
Mn	Manganese Sulfate	0.06
B Boric Acid	0.05
Zn Zinc Sulfate Monohydrate	0.07
Mo Sodium Molybdate	0.0015
Cu Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate	0.0024
Ni Nickel Sulfate	0.0005

Macros - I'm not really sure what to do and the more i read the more i'm lost lol. Any suggestions? Does the Micros seem in line?

Do i need to do a regime of CA/MG?


----------



## Greggz

super_smirky said:


> I'm setting up my 75 gallon high tech after having to retire the 120 g. I'm in need of help determining my macros/micros based on the success that you guys have seen. I have all the dry fertz and will be dosing 1 weekly macro and 3x micro each week.
> 
> Micro's i plan on dosing the following 3 x week in ppm.
> 
> Fe	Iron	0.2
> Mn	Manganese Sulfate	0.06
> B Boric Acid	0.05
> Zn Zinc Sulfate Monohydrate	0.07
> Mo Sodium Molybdate	0.0015
> Cu Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate	0.0024
> Ni Nickel Sulfate	0.0005
> 
> Macros - I'm not really sure what to do and the more i read the more i'm lost lol. Any suggestions? Does the Micros seem in line?
> 
> Do i need to do a regime of CA/MG?


Micros all look to be in reasonable ranges, and a good place to start.

As to Ca/Mg, depends. Have you tested your GH? Ca? From GH and Ca we can figure out Mg.

And in general, best to post as much possible information about the tank as you can. Many of us have been using the same spreadsheet to post information. Here is my latest.










Now I am not recommending my particular dosing, it's just an example of the kind of information that helps others help you.

The spreadsheet is available at a shared Google Drive in my signature. You can download it and change it any way you want. I would try to fill out as much information as you can. Then take a screenshot so that you can post it here. 

You might even start your own journal. It's a great way to share your progress, and become more involved in the community. Many here like to follow along, and are happy to help with questions you may have.

Good luck and look forward to hearing more about your tank.


----------



## super_smirky

Thanks for the response. I've lurked around so long and now I feel like I'm ready to take planting seriously lol. I've read through so many of these posts and learned a lot of valuable information from you guys.

I'll get the form filled out and take a screen shot so it can help with the assistance. I've got a GH/KH kit but looks like i may need to get a CA kit as well. (Just ordered)


----------



## Immortal1

super_smirky said:


> Thanks for the response. I've lurked around so long and now I feel like I'm ready to take planting seriously lol. I've read through so many of these posts and learned a lot of valuable information from you guys.
> 
> I'll get the form filled out and take a screen shot so it can help with the assistance. I've got a GH/KH kit but looks like i may need to get a CA kit as well. (Just ordered)



Little FYI - if you get the API Ca kit the directions with the kit will only give you a resolution of 20ppm Ca per drop of solution #2.


A better way to go is the following;
Collect 20ml of tank water in a clear glass container (smaller diameter, deeper water works better than big diameter, shorter water).
Place container on a white paper towel
Add 5 drops of API Ca solution #1 - stir well
Now each drop of solution #2 is equal to 5ppm Ca.


The reason for the shape of the container and white paper towel - usually takes about 2 drops of solution #2 to turn the water pink. As you put in each drop of solution #2 look very closely and you will see the drop is actually blue/purple until you stir it. That blue/purple is the change color you are looking for. Kinda hard to see either color if you hold the container up to light - pretty easy on the paper towel. The deeper the water, the easier it is too see also.


----------



## burr740

@super_smirky you can also google your municipality's water report, it'll give you a good idea how much Ca and Mg you have in the tap. I would imagine Atlanta areas aren't hard to find


----------



## super_smirky

Good tips. 

ALso, you would think the Atlanta water report would be readily available but it's very basic and more about toxicity. I have to email for the full report to find out the mineral content.

I filled out what i could on this sheet










I'll try to get a journal started as well.

I just switched from LED's back to T5HO so not sure how the growth will compare or improve.


----------



## Edward

When reading Solcielo lawrencia post about Ca : B ratio and B not to be dosed with other trace elements, I remember Ken Keating1 asking me why is Fe the common denominator on my charts. I replied, because it makes more sense than let’s say Cu. But today I made a chart, where I switched from Fe to B. The common denominator is B. It completely changes perspective on how we see trace element products, so I thought I share it with everyone.


----------



## Immortal1

Very interesting @Edward


----------



## Ken Keating1

Edward said:


> I remembered about somebody asking me why is Fe the common denominator on my charts. I replied, because it makes more sense than let’s say Cu. But today I made a chart, where I switched from Fe to B. The common denominator is B. It completely changes perspective on how we see trace element products, so I thought I share it with everyone.


That was me asking why Fe was the same across the charts. I feel using one common denominator is misleading, because everything gets referenced to the chosen denominator. So if one mix design has a huge ratio difference with respect to the chosen denominator, it skews the results. I'd much prefer to see no common denominator but show the ppm values based on the manufacturers dosing recommendations. Thoughts? I'm asking as I may be missing something.


----------



## Edward

Ken Keating1 said:


> That was me asking why Fe was the same across the charts.


 Thank you, I added the missing information.


> I feel using one common denominator is misleading, because everything gets referenced to the chosen denominator.


Well, that is the whole point of common denominator. There cannot be more than one. Just like there cannot be more than one USD. 


> I'd much prefer to see no common denominator but show the ppm values based on the manufacturers dosing recommendations. Thoughts? I'm asking as I may be missing something.


 Not all manufacturers publish their recommended dosing. So, if you supply the data, I will create the chart.


----------



## rhiro

Edward said:


> Not all manufacturers publish their recommended dosing. So, if you supply the data, I will create the chart.


I have a spreadsheet created in LibreOffice that has information about a few different manufacture ferts with their recommended dosing and % of each nutrient. It is a little convoluted but you appear to have a great sense with numbers so I will leave intact . If there are other manufactures of interest I will be willing to look for the information.

If you are interested I will upload to google drive and message you with the url.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

Edward said:


> When reading Solcielo lawrencia post about Ca : B ratio and B not to be dosed with other trace elements, I remember Ken Keating1 asking me why is Fe the common denominator on my charts. I replied, because it makes more sense than let’s say Cu. But today I made a chart, where I switched from Fe to B. The common denominator is B. It completely changes perspective on how we see trace element products, so I thought I share it with everyone.


what was the Ca:B ratio? it wasn't 60:1 was it?


----------



## burr740

Optimum Ca:B is gonna be somewhat relevant to PH level, because they get more/less available in opposite directions. Its gonna be different for somebody with an PH of 6 than for someone in the high 7s. 

So you cant really prescribe an exact optimum ratio and say its best for everyone. Its what happens in the water column that matters, not what's in the dosing bottle

Thats not to say we cant strike a good general range that'll work for most people though...


----------



## super_smirky

so looks like i have high calcium content in my water. Water report shows 17 mg/l which equates to 17ppm if i understand it correctly. That being said, i've adjusted the CaS04 in the spreadsheet to show the existing 17ppm. If i understand correctly, that means i should dose 7ppm MgSo4 in order to get the 2:1 / 3:1 ratio. Is this correct?


Does the rest of my dosing seem to be all in line?










Edit...i had the wrong form posted...updated the spreadsheet screen shot


----------



## Greggz

super_smirky said:


> Does the rest of my dosing seem to be all in line?


Nice job on the spreadsheet.

Nothing looks way out of line at all.

K might be a little high. Some of us are experimenting with lower K levels, but jury is still out on that. 

Do you want your numbers posted in the Share Your Dosing thread??


----------



## super_smirky

Thanks for the review Greggz. Just when i read and think i know what i'm doing, i learn something else and makes everything else i thought i know seem like nothing. I'll see about reducing K and see what that does. 

With my tap water being low in KH/GH, i wasn't sure how to go about dosing but i feel better about it now. As for posting in the share your dosing, i'll go ahead and post my sheet over there so we can add it.

Thanks!


----------



## Edward

I was asked for manufacturer’s recommended dosing concentrations.


----------



## Chlorophile

Edward said:


> I was asked for manufacturer’s recommended dosing concentrations.


Interesting. 
I wonder how Thrive+ would look on here, even though it has more than just traces. 

I'm about to have gone through my second bottle of Thrive+ and I am gonna try the Tropica System next, just gonna go through one entire bottle and see what the results are, and then maybe if I'm feeling crazy I'll try the ADA system. 
Just out of curiosity, I've always had various plant issues no matter what I've been dosing, RO Water/Non RO, High KH Low KH, etc, etc. 

Maybe I'll learn something that will help me make a custom mix for my own personal tank..


----------



## Jeffww

Hi All. Just started making my micro mix. Right now I'm testing a 0.5% equivalent of Murashige & Skoog (MS) micronutrient solution. But instead of Cobalt, I'm adding Nickel at ~270nM. Also, I am not dosing additional iodine through potassium iodide. I suppose that you could dose it by dissolving some iodated table salt in to get the appx equivalent. Iron I'm providing using NilocG Fe solution instead of using chelated iron. I have not added preservative. I think approaches using ascorbic acid will not be successful because it's a strong reducing agent and will change the redox state of your salts in the mix. I might go to costco and get some vodka as a preservative. I think ~3-5% ethanol will be plenty.

Also going to dose this concurrently with Seachem Advance as an amino source as provided by MS media. I assume if one were motivated enough, you could do all of your dosing using a ~0.1-0.5% or less MS solution...which is readily purchaseable from a number of sources.


----------



## burr740

Jeffww said:


> Hi All. Just started making my micro mix. Right now I'm testing a 0.5% equivalent of Murashige & Skoog (MS) micronutrient solution. But instead of Cobalt, I'm adding Nickel at ~270nM. Also, I am not dosing additional iodine through potassium iodide. I suppose that you could dose it by dissolving some iodated table salt in to get the appx equivalent. Iron I'm providing using NilocG Fe solution instead of using chelated iron. I have not added preservative. I think approaches using ascorbic acid will not be successful because it's a strong reducing agent and will change the redox state of your salts in the mix. I might go to costco and get some vodka as a preservative. I think ~3-5% ethanol will be plenty.
> 
> Also going to dose this concurrently with Seachem Advance as an amino source as provided by MS media. I assume if one were motivated enough, you could do all of your dosing using a ~0.1-0.5% or less MS solution...which is readily purchaseable from a number of sources.


Tissue culture ratios? Im not sure thats the best recipe for aquarium plants.

Just at a glance Mo seems really high and Cu extremely low (might be good for a shrimp tank). Is tissue culture PH very low? That could explain it because Mo is unique in that it's strongest at higher PH, Cu is the opposite. Just speculating on the reason, dont know much about TC

Regardless, how these compounds behave, and how efficiently the plants can use them isnt going to be the same in our aquariums. 

I'd cut Mo in half and go 5-10x Cu. 

Lower Mn works better, in the 3-4:1 Fe:Mn range (in spite of what crop studies tell us. But hey we arent dosing a field) 

B and Zn is about right. Ludwigia sp would probably appreciate a little more B 

Im not knocking their ratios just commenting on how I think it would translate to our purposes. 

Very interested to hear how it works. Keep us posted!


----------



## Jeffww

burr740 said:


> Tissue culture ratios? Im not sure thats the best recipe for aquarium plants.
> 
> Just at a glance Mo seems really high and Cu extremely low (might be good for a shrimp tank). Is tissue culture PH very low? That could explain it because Mo is unique in that it's strongest at higher PH, Cu is the opposite. Just speculating on the reason, dont know much about TC
> 
> Regardless, how these compounds behave, and how efficiently the plants can use them isnt going to be the same in our aquariums.
> 
> I'd cut Mo in half and go 5-10x Cu.
> 
> Lower Mn works better, in the 3-4:1 Fe:Mn range (in spite of what crop studies tell us. But hey we arent dosing a field)
> 
> B and Zn is about right. Ludwigia sp would probably appreciate a little more B
> 
> Im not knocking their ratios just commenting on how I think it would translate to our purposes.
> 
> Very interested to hear how it works. Keep us posted!


pH is at around 6.0-6.5 for most tissue culture. Cu is very low, I agree. I forgot to mention that I modified to dose of 2x what's in MS which is still about 100x lower than usual. I'll let you all know how it goes. 

From a historical perspective a lot of the ratios were done empirically from what grew Murashige's model plants the best. I don't think there has been much additional optimization since then. But, to be fair most plants are seemingly able to grow well on MS media. Model plants like arabidopsis can even be brought to seed in it. Of course they are using 1x or 1/2x doses of MS. Not 0.5%.


----------



## LRJ

A question for those rolling their own micros: have you found that it's nearly impossible to obtain stable measurements? 

I made my first batch last night and it took over 4 hours to measure everything out, due to the inconsistency of the scale. It drifts even when nothing is placed on it, so that it never really zeros out. If I weigh the exact same object multiple times, I get a different measurement each time, sometimes differing by hundreds of milligrams. 

There seems to be a little more stability at higher weights at least, so I ended up placing some base weight on the scale and then measured differences, measuring each substance over and over and over again, recalibrating the scale each time, until some consistency emerged in the measurement. Even then, if measured later, or if a different base weight is used, or if the tare function is used, the measured net weight will be different. I do not have much confidence in accuracy of the resulting batch.

Is this a common experience, or do I need to invest in a more expensive scale? Any recommendations? The one I have was purchased for $20 online and had good reviews. Maybe just a bad unit?


----------



## Immortal1

LRJ said:


> A question for those rolling their own micros: have you found that it's nearly impossible to obtain stable measurements?
> 
> I made my first batch last night and it took over 4 hours to measure everything out, due to the inconsistency of the scale. It drifts even when nothing is placed on it, so that it never really zeros out. If I weigh the exact same object multiple times, I get a different measurement each time, sometimes differing by hundreds of milligrams.
> 
> There seems to be a little more stability at higher weights at least, so I ended up placing some base weight on the scale and then measured differences, measuring each substance over and over and over again, recalibrating the scale each time, until some consistency emerged in the measurement. Even then, if measured later, or if a different base weight is used, or if the tare function is used, the measured net weight will be different. I do not have much confidence in accuracy of the resulting batch.
> 
> Is this a common experience, or do I need to invest in a more expensive scale? Any recommendations? The one I have was purchased for $20 online and had good reviews. Maybe just a bad unit?



Not sure if this will help your situation or not, but, I have found that many scales have their best accuracy at the middle of their measurement range. As an example, my scale measures 0.000g to 20.000g. It came with a 10g calibration weight. If I am trying to measure a small amount of material (i.e. 0.034g), I place the container on the scale along with the 10g weight, then zero out the scale. The accuracy seems to improve enough that I can consistently get within 0.005g. Interesting part for me was even the dust left in the container matters at that small of a measurement.


----------



## Greggz

LRJ said:


> A question for those rolling their own micros: have you found that it's nearly impossible to obtain stable measurements?
> 
> I made my first batch last night and it took over 4 hours to measure everything out, due to the inconsistency of the scale. It drifts even when nothing is placed on it, so that it never really zeros out.


No way to be sure, but that sounds like a bad scale to me. Should not "drift" at all, and should be no issue to zero it out.

I have found mine to be quite accurate, and it's also one of the those $20.00 models. What if you weigh the calibration weight several times over? Different readings? 

When I did a little experiment a while back to see how tsp's actually measured out, that was a concern of mine. So I took the measured amount on and off the scale several times over to see if it was consistent. It was spot on.


----------



## burr740

@LRJ definitely sounds like a bad unit. My $20 job cant measure under 5 Mg, goes from 0-5 with no in between. Then trying to hit 6 or 7 can be a little dicey. Otherwise they are solid like Gregg described.

Have you guys noticed Ni has a little static in it or something? Using a plastic spoon to tap out those tiny little sprinkles, gotta raise the spoon away from the pile to get an accurate reading. If you leave the spoon down very close it's kinda like a magnet attracting the particles and wont read right. Gotta raise it up a few inches after each tap to let the pile settle.


----------



## OreoP

Like @Greggz and @burr740, no issues with my $20.00 scale. I do calibrate it every time I make a batch. But does get tricky with smaller measures like Ni. Instead of a spoon, I use a metal collar stay to sprinkle particles of Ni onto the plastic tray. Takes a few attempts to get it right but with patience, it is possible


----------



## LRJ

Thanks everyone for the responses.
@Greggz, the 50 g calibration weight will weigh out at exactly 50 g immediately after calibration. As soon as I remove the weight from the scale and then put it back on, it will measure a different weight. Each subsequent time after that, it will measure a different weight. 

Sounds like my experience is atypical and I have a bad unit. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeffww

Wanted to update that 0.05% MS caused my leaves to become very pale. I'm back on CSM +B for now, but after the plants recover I'm going to try 0.1% MS and see if that is any better.


----------



## cl3537

LRJ said:


> Thanks everyone for the responses.
> @Greggz, the 50 g calibration weight will weigh out at exactly 50 g immediately after calibration. As soon as I remove the weight from the scale and then put it back on, it will measure a different weight. Each subsequent time after that, it will measure a different weight.
> 
> Sounds like my experience is atypical and I have a bad unit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Leave the weight on the scale, either tare with it on, or just subtract 50g from your weight that should allow you to measure in the more accurate range of the scale.


----------



## LRJ

cl3537 said:


> Leave the weight on the scale, either tare with it on, or just subtract 50g from your weight that should allow you to measure in the more accurate range of the scale.


Thank you. The max weight of the scale is 50g, but I have done this method with objects in the 20g range. It helps a little, but not enough. I have a new scale arriving on Sunday.


----------



## chayos00

One other tip with scales of this low level weighing of things, make sure there is zero air current in the area. Even my ceiling fan set to low speed screws with an accurate weight. I also have two scales for use. A 2kg, that goes 0.0 decimals out and then a lower weight scale 20g with a decimal reading of 0.000 to read milligrams for me. Both are American Weight scales. Pretty stable with their readings. As mentioned static can screw with the readings, so I use metal teaspoons and a glass beaker to weigh out my fertilizers. Also once I hit the weight I lift it off and on a few times to confirm a stable reading. 

Hope the new one will be much better. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## LRJ

LRJ said:


> A question for those rolling their own micros: have you found that it's nearly impossible to obtain stable measurements?
> 
> I made my first batch last night and it took over 4 hours to measure everything out, due to the inconsistency of the scale. It drifts even when nothing is placed on it, so that it never really zeros out. If I weigh the exact same object multiple times, I get a different measurement each time, sometimes differing by hundreds of milligrams.
> 
> There seems to be a little more stability at higher weights at least, so I ended up placing some base weight on the scale and then measured differences, measuring each substance over and over and over again, recalibrating the scale each time, until some consistency emerged in the measurement. Even then, if measured later, or if a different base weight is used, or if the tare function is used, the measured net weight will be different. I do not have much confidence in accuracy of the resulting batch.
> 
> Is this a common experience, or do I need to invest in a more expensive scale? Any recommendations? The one I have was purchased for $20 online and had good reviews. Maybe just a bad unit?


Update: New scale arrived today, and it's confirmed now that the old scale was a piece of garbage (which is where it is now). Had good reviews, but I guess a bad unit every now and then is inevitable. Who knows...maybe it was dropped during shipping or something.

The new scale works like a charm - quick, consistent, no issues. I went with the American Weigh Scales Gemini-20 (hat tip to @chayos00).

Thanks again to everyone who chimed in. Made it an easy decision to buy a new one.


----------



## burr740

Figured this thread needed an update with the latest best recipe. After a lot more experimenting up and down with various elements, it's back to being very close to the v.15 several of us were using a year or two ago. 

I consider this the final version, nothing else I can find to improve on. It works great in both aquasoil and sand tanks, with nearly 100 different species of plants, KH ranging between 6 and 0, and PH levels from the mid 7s to the mid 5s 

Values are ppm per dose. This is for dosing 3x per week. Cut everything in half for a daily routine.

Fe - .15
Mn - .045
B - .030
Zn - .040
Cu - .0025
Mo - .0015
Ni - .0005

To dose more or less, ie .1 ppm Fe or .2 ppm per dose, I would suggest to raise/lower Fe, Mn, B, and Zn in proportion to keep the same ratio. 

Cu, Mo, and Ni - it's fine to go lower but probably dont need to go much higher than above regardless of what everything else is.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

My new GLA modified mix is very close to this.
For a .15ppm Fe dose I am here.

Fe - .15
Mn - .042
B - .019
Zn - .036
Cu - .002
Mo - .0011
Ni - .0004


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Values are ppm per dose. This is for dosing 3x per week. Cut everything in half for a daily routine.
> 
> Fe - .15
> Mn - .045
> B - .030
> Zn - .040
> Cu - .0025
> Mo - .0015
> Ni - .0005


Very interesting Joe. We haven't compared micro dosing for quite some time.

Here are our weekly totals. Pretty close. I am dosing 7 days, and you are dosing 3. If I was on a 3 day schedule would be almost identical. 

Burr Weekly Greggz Weekly

Fe - 0.45 0.525
Mn - 0.135 0.154
B - 0.09 0.105
Zn - 0.12 0. 14
Cu - 0.0075 0.0105
Mo - 0.0045 0.00525
Ni - 0.015 0.00175


----------



## varanidguy

Greggz said:


> Very interesting Joe. We haven't compared micro dosing for quite some time.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are our weekly totals. Pretty close. I am dosing 7 days, and you are dosing 3. If I was on a 3 day schedule would be almost identical.
> 
> 
> 
> Burr Weekly Greggz Weekly
> 
> 
> 
> Fe - 0.45 0.525
> 
> Mn - 0.135 0.154
> 
> B - 0.09 0.105
> 
> Zn - 0.12 0. 14
> 
> Cu - 0.0075 0.0105
> 
> Mo - 0.0045 0.00525
> 
> Ni - 0.015 0.00175




Do you use an auto doser or have a specific time during the day when you dose?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

varanidguy said:


> Do you use an auto doser or have a specific time during the day when you dose?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I dose daily every morning.

Have thought about an auto doser. But I front load all macros into my RO storage tanks, so I would only be auto dosing micros, so don't know if it would be worth the trouble.


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Very interesting Joe. We haven't compared micro dosing for quite some time.
> 
> Here are our weekly totals. Pretty close. I am dosing 7 days, and you are dosing 3. If I was on a 3 day schedule would be almost identical.
> 
> Burr Weekly Greggz Weekly
> 
> Fe - 0.45 0.525
> Mn - 0.135 0.154
> B - 0.09 0.105
> Zn - 0.12 0. 14
> Cu - 0.0075 0.0105
> Mo - 0.0045 0.00525
> Ni - 0.015 0.00175



Yeah I was looking at the daily dose on your spreadsheet. Cut mine in half and we're almost identical. Your 7th dose of the week puts you ahead by about 1/2 one of my doses for the weekly total


----------



## Ken Keating1

Auto dosing is great, I really like it. I make a month's solution and I don't have do anything afterward for a whole month, other than check the remaining amount every so often to make sure the dosing is occurring correctly.


----------



## ipkiss

burr740 said:


> Fe - .15
> Mn - .045
> B - .030
> Zn - .040
> Cu - .0025
> Mo - .0015
> Ni - .0005




B .035
Cu .002
Fe 0.1
Mn .08
Mo .0015
Ni .0005
Zn .05


Hmm interesting. I somehow latched onto roughly this version 15 from back then but.... i roughly dose daily! So, errm, i guess i've been inadvertently accumulating double burr's every week and due to a 2-3 week water change, i effectively have 4x by then ....


----------



## burr740

ipkiss said:


> B .035
> Cu .002
> Fe 0.1
> Mn .08
> Mo .0015
> Ni .0005
> Zn .05
> 
> 
> Hmm interesting. I somehow latched onto roughly this version 15 from back then but.... i roughly dose daily! So, errm, i guess i've been inadvertently accumulating double burr's every week and due to a 2-3 week water change, i effectively have 4x by then ....



Well, I dosed similar at .2 ppm Fe daily for several months about a year, year and a half ago. Probably 60-70% of species thrived...or at least didnt mind it. But there were several that did not tolerate it well at all. A few died out completely during that time.

Maybe the species you have are OK with it. If the plants are doing well I wouldnt worry about it. Or you could cut back a little and see what happens.


----------



## chayos00

Greggz said:


> I dose daily every morning.
> 
> Have thought about an auto doser. But I front load all macros into my RO storage tanks, so I would only be auto dosing micros, so don't know if it would be worth the trouble.





Ken Keating1 said:


> Auto dosing is great, I really like it. I make a month's solution and I don't have do anything afterward for a whole month, other than check the remaining amount every so often to make sure the dosing is occurring correctly.


I'm still using a mix that I used for comparing Greggz and Burrs mix from 11/2018. Using my auto doser sure does work well like ipkiss does! Looks like I've got a BUNCH more dosed than yall do in a week LOL 

-------x1---------------x7
Fe	0.15-------------1.05
dGH	0.020166118---0.141162826
Cu	0.002-----------0.014
B	0.045-----------0.315
Mn	0.05-------------0.35
Mo	0.0016----------0.0112
S	2.237439369---15.66207558
Zn	0.045------------0.315


----------



## ipkiss

burr740 said:


> Well, I dosed similar at .2 ppm Fe daily for several months about a year, year and a half ago. Probably 60-70% of species thrived...or at least didnt mind it. But there were several that did not tolerate it well at all. A few died out completely during that time.
> 
> Maybe the species you have are OK with it. If the plants are doing well I wouldnt worry about it. Or you could cut back a little and see what happens.


Hmm. there may be something here. My crypt flamingos are acting up again upon resumption of daily dosing after my experiment with front loading micros failed. During front loading, it oddly pushed up a ton of leaves (which never happened before), but curled unhappily. Now, it has just stopped putting out new leaves again. Just took out 100mls of the earlier formula and cut it with an equal amount of water. That ought to give me the .05 to be able to dose daily now and bring me much closer to the accumulation levels of your 3x dose. 

of course, it could also be the increase of my gh booster in attempts to unfurl those unhappy leaves 
or it could have just run out of steam from the jolt of osmocote pellets from a few months back

I'll try this reduction first. I'm more curious about this. Let's see what happens.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

This has been working pretty decently for me lately. Divide by 7 for the daily doses. 


might cut the PO4 down to like 1.4 or something later on. not sure if it's the excess nutrient that's causing GDA on my glass, on one hand i have the GDA = an EI disease mentality and on other hand I see Greggz dosing 10+ ppm PO4 weekly with no problems.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> Figured this thread needed an update with the latest best recipe. After a lot more experimenting up and down with various elements, it's back to being very close to the v.15 several of us were using a year or two ago.
> 
> I consider this the final version, nothing else I can find to improve on. It works great in both aquasoil and sand tanks, with nearly 100 different species of plants, KH ranging between 6 and 0, and PH levels from the mid 7s to the mid 5s
> 
> Values are ppm per dose. This is for dosing 3x per week. Cut everything in half for a daily routine.
> 
> Fe - .15
> Mn - .045
> B - .030
> Zn - .040
> Cu - .0025
> Mo - .0015
> Ni - .0005
> 
> To dose more or less, ie .1 ppm Fe or .2 ppm per dose, I would suggest to raise/lower Fe, Mn, B, and Zn in proportion to keep the same ratio.
> 
> Cu, Mo, and Ni - it's fine to go lower but probably dont need to go much higher than above regardless of what everything else is.


Joe what are your macros now? And are you still using urea?


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> Joe what are your macros now? And are you still using urea?


15 NO3, .9 N from urea, 5.1 PO4, 21 K

Thats weekly total, I divide it up in 3 equal doses


----------



## Clappies

I have a question, since everyone here uses ascorbic acid myself included. I did a bit of research on it, seems you can use ascorbic acid as a antichlor, it neutralizes chlorine and chloramine, so my question is if it neutralizes chloramine witch consists of chlorine and ammonia, what effect will this have on urea? Or do you mix the urea with the macros?

Just a side note 1g of acorbic acid will remove the cholrine from 100gallons of water. Sodium ascorbate will work better coz it doesn't change the ph.

Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grobbins48

Little revival here...

Where is everyone sitting right now with their Micro dosing? I will be making a new batch this week. Here is my current setup. Would be great to see where everyone is at!


----------



## Quagulator

Fe	0.696 (50 / 50 EDTA / DTPA)
Mn	0.1
Cu	0.005
Mg	0.075
Zn	0.02
Mo	0.003
B	0.043


Split into 2 doses per week, no CO2 (above average Met14 daily dosing), 25% weekly water changes, NKP front load ppm 5 - 0.5 - 6, estimating 50 PAR with am 80 PAR blast for 4 hours. 

pH - No idea (I'm guessing 7.8)
kH - 8
gH - no idea (, I'm guessing 3 or 4 - I dose some extra Ca into my source water)


----------



## Immortal1

Values are ppm per dose. Dosing 3x per week. 

Fe - .15
Mn - .06
B - .035
Zn - .050
Cu - .002
Mo - .0017
Ni - .0005


----------



## Greggz

Here's the latest......................just made a batch myself over the weekend.


----------



## Willcooper

Does anyone on here still sell the base micro ingredients so I can mix my own? Searching online I find it in pounds or smaller quantities for too much money. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## varanidguy

Willcooper said:


> Does anyone on here still sell the base micro ingredients so I can mix my own? Searching online I find it in pounds or smaller quantities for too much money.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I believe burr740 does.


----------



## Grobbins48

Willcooper said:


> Does anyone on here still sell the base micro ingredients so I can mix my own? Searching online I find it in pounds or smaller quantities for too much money.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You can get them from Burr here:

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/153-sale-trade/1300657-black-friday-sale-all-plants-20%-off.html


----------



## Greggz

Quagulator said:


>


Quad I have to tell you that is pretty impressive with no CO2.

Very, very interesting indeed. Don't see too many non CO2 tanks look like that. 

Well done!


----------



## Quagulator

Greggz said:


> Quad I have to tell you that is pretty impressive with no CO2.
> 
> Very, very interesting indeed. Don't see too many non CO2 tanks look like that.
> 
> Well done!


Might be some special light trickery playing with our eyes, but when the Sunblaster FloraSun comes on the reds really pop in the rotala. 

That blue in the picture is just from some viewing lights that are on a few ours each side of the main photo period, with the T5 only on for a 4 hour burst of the 7 hour total photoperiod length (Fluval 2.0 running @ 50-75% for the total 7 hours). 

Night and day difference from simply doing small water changes and dosing small amounts of ferts, turned this tank a full 180 degrees in 3 short weeks from being algae ridden, no growth, dying plant tissue, and just over all dirty. 

Working on getting dissolved organics down, TDS is slowly working it's way down. Source water front loaded macros and 50% loaded micros hovers around 300ppm. Tank is 100ppm higher or so as of now, drops about 25ppm with each water change. Haven't measured NO3 or PO4 in a while, I don't think I have any NO3 solution left anyway. I'll dabble in some Boxing Day sales on Salifert test kits. 

Oops, forgot this wasn't my tank journal, sorry fert nerds >


----------



## burr740

This is my recipe but Im dosing it around .1 - .12 ppm Fe, by just using less of it, 3x week

Fe DTPA - .15
Mn - .045
B - .030
Zn - .040
Cu - .0025
Mo - .0015
Ni - .0005



Greggz said:


> Here's the latest......................just made a batch myself over the weekend.


Have you recently raised Cu or have you been at that level for a while?


----------



## Greggz

burr740 said:


> Have you recently raised Cu or have you been at that level for a while?


Actually lowered it slightly about a year ago.

Has been the same since last December.

Keep in mind I am starting with RO water, so zero Cu.

Curious, you think lower is better? Noticed any plants sensitive to Cu? 

Looks like you are at about 0.006 weekly and I'm at 0.0105 weekly.

And what do you know, someone is actually reading this stuff!!:grin2:


----------



## varanidguy

Greggz said:


> Actually lowered it slightly about a year ago.
> 
> Has been the same since last December.
> 
> Keep in mind I am starting with RO water, so zero Cu.
> 
> Curious, you think lower is better? Noticed any plants sensitive to Cu?
> 
> Looks like you are at about 0.006 weekly and I'm at 0.0105 weekly.
> 
> And what do you know, someone is actually reading this stuff!!:grin2:


FWIW, I'm lurking in this thread, just don't have anything to contribute. It's great! I've been learning a lot!


----------



## burr740

Greggz said:


> Actually lowered it slightly about a year ago.
> 
> Has been the same since last December.
> 
> Keep in mind I am starting with RO water, so zero Cu.
> 
> Curious, you think lower is better? Noticed any plants sensitive to Cu?
> 
> Looks like you are at about 0.006 weekly and I'm at 0.0105 weekly.
> 
> And what do you know, someone is actually reading this stuff!!:grin2:



Im at .0075/week going by the full strength recipe. I havent tried much higher than that. About a year ago I noticed a rapid improvement in a few plants going from .0045/week to .0075. I didnt see that one coming, always looked at Cu like, as long as there's some present dont worry about it. But now I know that it can definitely run short.

So nah I dont think you're dosing too much. Just didnt remember you being that high with it.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I am dosing now @ these levels once per 8 days average.
Fe CSM+B Canada Mix(modified) - .133
Mn - .038
B - .0163
Zn - .03229
Cu - .00183
Mo - .00102
Ni - .00033

NO3 - 10ppm
PO4 - 2ppm
K - 7ppm

Colin's GH Booster to keep 20ppm Ca in water column every 2 weeks based on Ca test.
TDS around 220 and always dropping.

Approximately 4 gallon WC per week only for the sake of keeping the trimming tray deep enough so I can walk away for an hour.
Maybe 3 gallons more to accommodate evaporation.
Next week I will begin 4ppm of CL2 added every 2 weeks.

90% of plants have never looked better.
Of course there are 57 mini-solo cups filled with "hot soil" in the tank! :grin2:

On one occasion TDS was not dropping so I opted for an additional 5 gallon water change in the 80G.

Phish are still fed once every 4-5 days.


----------



## Surf

> Does anyone on here still sell the base micro ingredients so I can mix my own? Searching online I find it in pounds or smaller quantities for too much money.


Try https://www.loudwolf.com/store/

Most of what they sell is sold in 4oz bottles. Most of the bottles cost between 5 and $15. You can get all the micros except molybdenum and iron on this site and most of the macros you need. Only issue is that for the macros the 4 oz bottles would not last long for a big tank. lBut you can easily get your iron and macros from Nilocg.com or amazon.com 

LoudWolf has promptly mailed my orders and they don't have excessive shipping fees.


----------



## Quagulator

Ever thought about updating our sigs to show weekly dosing amounts, water changes, PAR and photoperiod? Could be a quick snap shot to what we are all doing as long as we remember to update them when we change a few things...

I'll start and any who wants to follow certainly can...

Edit: You'll have to get fancy with the layout, the forum doesn't like too long of a signature lol, completely understandable.


----------



## Greggz

Quagulator said:


> Ever thought about updating our sigs to show weekly dosing amounts, water changes, PAR and photoperiod? Could be a quick snap shot to what we are all doing as long as we remember to update them when we change a few things...


I like the idea.

I am always curious to see what others are doing.

My tank parameters sheet is uploaded to a Google Drive, and the link is in my signature. 

I'd say whatever way works to make it easier to find is good.


----------



## chayos00

Quagulator said:


> Ever thought about updating our sigs to show weekly dosing amounts, water changes, PAR and photoperiod? Could be a quick snap shot to what we are all doing as long as we remember to update them when we change a few things...


I certainly like your idea!


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Now I'm not sure if I should change my signature to a disclaimer statement or my water parameters.
This would eliminate my bright red stems from my signature though? :frown2:

Maybe I'll give this a go and arrive @ something more colorful! >


----------



## Grobbins48

Looking to place an order for some more macros, and stated to think about iron in my micros.

Who is using an iron mix in their micros, with both ferrous gluconate and DTPA? Anyone think it may be worth it to add both into my custom micros that run on a daily autodoser?


----------



## burr740

Grobbins48 said:


> Looking to place an order for some more macros, and stated to think about iron in my micros.
> 
> Who is using an iron mix in their micros, with both ferrous gluconate and DTPA? Anyone think it may be worth it to add both into my custom micros that run on a daily autodoser?


This is actually what Ive been tinkering with lately. Been using both for about 3 months. Most plants dont notice but it seemed to really help a couple species. 

3x per week

Fe dtpa - .1
Fe gluconate - .06
Mn - .045
B - .037
Zn - .035
Cu - .0025
Mo - .0013
Ni - .0003


----------



## Grobbins48

burr740 said:


> This is actually what Ive been tinkering with lately. Been using both for about 3 months. Most plants dont notice but it seemed to really help a couple species.
> 
> 3x per week
> 
> Fe dtpa - .1
> Fe gluconate - .06
> Mn - .045
> B - .037
> Zn - .035
> Cu - .0025
> Mo - .0013
> Ni - .0003


Well, that is enough for me to give it a try. Added it to the cart!


----------



## Ken Keating1

Grobbins48 said:


> Looking to place an order for some more macros, and stated to think about iron in my micros.
> 
> Who is using an iron mix in their micros, with both ferrous gluconate and DTPA? Anyone think it may be worth it to add both into my custom micros that run on a daily autodoser?


I'm running both:

Ferrous Gluconate via SeaChem Iron: 0.02 ppm daily
DTPA Fe(11%): 0.07 ppm daily

Seems to be working out well.


----------



## Sam the Slayer

What scales are you all using? I’m finding it difficult to find a scale that will accurately measure .003g of zinc for a 500ml solution. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator

Sam the Slayer said:


> What scales are you all using? I’m finding it difficult to find a scale that will accurately measure .003g of zinc for a 500ml solution.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Either increase your container size, or place a small weight on the scale, tare it, and then measure out 0.003g.


----------



## Sam the Slayer

So if I make a gallon it’s a lot easier to manage. Will ascorbic acid keep the solution usable for 6-7 months? (I have potassium sorbate as well for fungal control) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740

Sam the Slayer said:


> So if I make a gallon it’s a lot easier to manage. Will ascorbic acid keep the solution usable for 6-7 months? (I have potassium sorbate as well for fungal control)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It should fine that long with ascorbic acid and probably a lot longer as long as you're using distilled/RO water and keep it away from very much light.

Im curious what recipe you're using that would call for 3 mg of Zn, did I understand that correctly? 

And if the recipe only calls for that much Zn how in the world are you measuring the smaller stuff like Mo Cu and Ni?? Sure you didnt miss a zero or two somewhere?


----------



## Sam the Slayer

I may have I will double check with Rotala again. It’s just your recipe that you sent me for a 500 mL bottle 20 ml dose at .1 fe so maybe I did miss it. Do you have a scale that measures accurately at the 1 mg level? Are you making larger solutions yourself?

Edit:
Wow screwed that up after rechecking I converted 243mg to 2.43mg and rounded up to 3mg lol. This should be easier now lol.


----------



## zivvel

I was dosing this "micros" recipe 3x/week:



Code:


In 500ml soln where 10ml treats 30 gallon tank:
        PPM   Grams  Source
citric acid   0.45
Fe EDTA .1    42.37  AFMM: CSM+B
Fe Gluc .096  54.6ml Flourish Iron
B       .037  .6     H3BO3 (supplement AFMM CSM+B)
Cu      .0014   -    AFMM: CSM+B
Mn      .029    -    AFMM: CSM+B
Mo      .0008   -    AFMM: CSM+B
Ni      .0003 .0075  NiSO4.6H2O (10x, sample)
Zn      .0057 .38    ZnSO4.H2O
NO3     1.13    -    AFMM: KNO3
K       1.74    -    AFMM: K2SO4
Mg      0.2     -    AFMM: MgSO4

I made this recipe when trying to "make it work" with what I had -- a pound of AFMM which contains CSM+B, according to the AF site. Neither Zorfox nor Rotala Butterfly list B when calculating results of AFMM, so I reverse-engineered that number somehow to tell me to add only 0.6g H3BO3.

I say "10x, sample" for Ni because I don't have a way to accurately measure .0075g of anything. I measure (about) .075, dissolve it in RO water, and add 1/10 of that to my bottle.

I had read quite a bit about the potential inconsistencies about CSM+B, and it had been in the back of my head for some time. Last week, I read this excerpt from @Immortal1 which summarized all the other things I've read/thought about it, and it sealed the deal for me:


Immortal1 said:


> ... imaging mixing up a dump truck size container of dry nutrients for industrial use. Then, stir it up and scoop out 1 cup of dry mix. And guarantee you have exactly the correct amount of each item. Just can't believe they get it right every time. Yes, the CSM+B has worked better than nothing for many years. But, we can certainly do better.


I completed my collection of micros thanks to @burr740 of course, and this week I started dosing this recipe. I only made 200ml because I really love measuring tiny quantities of Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate almost as much as I love saying Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate:



Code:


In 200ml soln where 10ml treats 30 gallon tank:
        PPM   Grams  Source
citric acid   .45
Fe DTPA .11   2.27   Fe DTPA 11%
Fe Gluc .07   15.9ml Flourish Iron
B       .037  .48    Boric acid H3BO3
Cu      .0034 .03    CuSO4.5H2O
Mn      .051  .356   MnSO4.H2O
Mo      .0017 .0097  Na2MoO4.H2O
Ni      .0007 .0071  NiSO4.6H2O (10x, sample)
Zn      .04   .256   ZnSO4.H2O

I run the same micros in my 3 tanks: a 10 with Landen soil, 20L with Fluval Stratum & too much Seiryu stone, and a 36BF with Flourite black over dirt (soon to be Landen, but the price went up another $4 per bag today).

I was originally trying to get close to one of the many micros recipes that burr threw down because that's the journal I was reading at the time, and I'm impulsive. But I think that was a mistake because I'm using RO water while he uses tap. This time, I looked through this thread and the Share your dosing thread, and I worked out something closer to fellow RO users @Greggz / @Ken Keating1 bottle than a burr bottle.

It's a new start for me (the real reason I only made 200ml). I'm 3 days in, and I haven't killed all of burr's plants yet -- I've only melted a few Lud Reds, and the others are throwing down roots and looking good.

Thanks all of you for sharing your recipes and lessons learned!


----------



## burr740

Sam the Slayer said:


> I may have I will double check with Rotala again. It’s just your recipe that you sent me for a 500 mL bottle 20 ml dose at .1 fe so maybe I did miss it. Do you have a scale that measures accurately at the 1 mg level? Are you making larger solutions yourself?
> 
> Edit:
> Wow screwed that up after rechecking I converted 243mg to 2.43mg and rounded up to 3mg lol. This should be easier now lol.



lolol, it happens to the best of us


----------



## Sam the Slayer

...


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing

burr740 said:


> This is actually what Ive been tinkering with lately. Been using both for about 3 months.* Most plants dont notice but it seemed to really help a couple species. *
> 
> 3x per week
> 
> Fe dtpa - .1
> Fe gluconate - .06
> Mn - .045
> B - .037
> Zn - .035
> Cu - .0025
> Mo - .0013
> Ni - .0003


would you happen to have a list of which plants prefer the gluconate? I have a sneaking suspicion that glandulosa might be one but I haven't used that plant in a long time


----------



## burr740

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> would you happen to have a list of which plants prefer the gluconate? I have a sneaking suspicion that glandulosa might be one but I haven't used that plant in a long time



Dont have a list but it seemed to particularly help some of the typical Fe indicator plants, limno sp for example. They can get right with lower overall levels. But I also tweaked B Mn and Zn down a little in the process. I'd done similar levels in the past with all dtpa, not a whole lot of difference really. I just suspect its more efficient, seems to work a little better but I havent tested stringently enough to say that for sure.


----------



## megaagressor

Hello, very interesting branch. I learned a lot thanks to this topic.


----------



## megaagressor

Hello. I want to mix my own micromix, which reference ratio can be used in the mix? Micro will be doing on HEDP C2H8O7P2. I wonder if you've encountered it?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

megaagressor said:


> Hello. I want to mix my own micromix, which reference ratio can be used in the mix? Micro will be doing on HEDP C2H8O7P2. I wonder if you've encountered it?


This is used as an anti-scalant and inhibitor in water treatment systems.
So basically an acid for cleaning.

You are trying to preserve your micro mix?


----------



## megaagressor

Maryland Guppy said:


> This is used as an anti-scalant and inhibitor in water treatment systems.
> So basically an acid for cleaning.
> 
> You are trying to preserve your micro mix?


 Yes, I wanted to keep my micro mix. At certain concentrations of PO4, there was a problem with the zn. Didiplis began to turn black trunk. Maybe I don't think it right, but I want to try


----------



## zivvel

Yesterday, I mixed up a new batch because I realized the last batch had precipitated something. I had added the ascorbic acid and 6.74g of CaCl2 a day after everything else due to a shipping problem. This time, I cut CaCl2 in half, to .325ppm, total 3.37g in 500ml. Still, 18 hrs or so later, the CaCl2 doesn't want to dissolve. Is there a trick to this? I'll keep shaking it up occasionally and see what happens.



Code:


In 500ml solution:

    10ml treats 35 gallons
    4.4ml treats 15.25 gallons
    2.6ml treats 9.25 gallons

         PPM    Grams  Source
acid     --     0.5    citric or ascorbic acid
Fe DTPA  .1     6.022  Fe DTPA 11%
Fe Gluc  .05    33.1ml Flourish Iron
B        .037   1.402  Boric acid H3BO3
Cl       .325   3.37   CaCl2 (+0.18ppm Ca)
Cu       .0025  0.065  CuSO4.5H2O
Mn       .045   0.917  MnSO4.H2O
Mo       .0017  0.028  Na2MoO4.H2O
Ni       .0007  0.021  NiSO4.6H2O
Zn       .04    0.746  ZnSO4.H2O


----------



## Edward

zivvel said:


> Yesterday, I mixed up a new batch because I realized the last batch had precipitated something. I had added the ascorbic acid and 6.74g of CaCl2 a day after everything else due to a shipping problem. This time, I cut CaCl2 in half, to .325ppm, total 3.37g in 500ml. Still, 18 hrs or so later, the CaCl2 doesn't want to dissolve. Is there a trick to this? I'll keep shaking it up occasionally and see what happens.


 The CaCl2 ion did dissolve, but its Ca atom precipitated to CaSO4. Molecule CaSO4 has very low solubility. Try kitchen salt NaCl instead.


----------



## zivvel

Edward said:


> The CaCl2 ion did dissolve, but its Ca atom precipitated to CaSO4. Molecule CaSO4 has very low solubility. Try kitchen salt NaCl instead.


I dissolve CaSO4 every week without issues. Maybe you are thinking of CaCO3? CaCl2 is supposed to dissolve easily in water, according to the Internet. Also, zorfox didn't complain about solubility when I made my calculations.


----------



## megaagressor

zivvel said:


> I dissolve CaSO4 every week without issues. Maybe you are thinking of CaCO3? CaCl2 is supposed to dissolve easily in water, according to the Internet. Also, zorfox didn't complain about solubility when I made my calculations.


Hey, why add chlorine?


----------



## zivvel

megaagressor said:


> Hey, why add chlorine?


That started over here in Hendy8888's journal.

And it still hasn't dissolved. I should make some time to experiment.


----------



## Deanna

zivvel said:


> I dissolve CaSO4 every week without issues. Maybe you are thinking of CaCO3? CaCl2 is supposed to dissolve easily in water, according to the Internet. Also, zorfox didn't complain about solubility when I made my calculations.



Expanding upon @Edward’s comment, you are creating an insoluble level of CaSO4 in your mix. When you add CaCl, it dissolves quickly, which will free the Ca to bind with any SO4 in the mixture. Most of your metals have SO4 and the free Ca ion now binds to it, forming CaSO4, which quickly reaches an insoluble level. The result is CaSO4 precipitate. 

You can test this by starting with your neat water (I assume you are using distilled or RO water) and add just the CaCl. Then, one-by-one, add the metal compounds containing SO4 and give them a few minutes between to check for precipitation. 

It is better to not mix CaCl with any non-CaSO4 compounds.



megaagressor said:


> Hey, why add chlorine?


The “Cl” in CaCl is the anion: chloride (Cl-), not chlorine. It is safe, unlike the chlorine element and plants benefit from it in low levels. I use a guideline of maintaining 3-7ppm chloride.


----------



## zivvel

Deanna said:


> Expanding upon @Edward’s comment, you are creating an insoluble level of CaSO4 in your mix. When you add CaCl, it dissolves quickly, which will free the Ca to bind with any SO4 in the mixture. Most of your metals have SO4 and the free Ca ion now binds to it, forming CaSO4, which quickly reaches an insoluble level. The result is CaSO4 precipitate.
> 
> You can test this by starting with your neat water (I assume you are using distilled or RO water) and add just the CaCl. Then, one-by-one, add the metal compounds containing SO4 and give them a few minutes between to check for precipitation.
> 
> It is better to not mix CaCl with any non-CaSO4 compounds.
> 
> The “Cl” in CaCl is the anion: chloride (Cl-), not chlorine. It is safe, unlike the chlorine element and plants benefit from it in low levels. I use a guideline of maintaining 3-7ppm chloride.


Thank you, @Deanna, this is the hard-hitting analysis I came to this thread for!

Now I have new questions:

1. It seems like all my other metal-sulfates were added in such small quantities that there wouldn't be enough free SO4 for all this Ca. Wrong? I haven't done actual chemistry braining in a lot of years.

2. What happens to the other metals now that Ca has stolen their SO4?

3. (or 2B) Is this bad? Can I just ignore the precipitated CaSO4 and move along?


----------



## Deanna

zivvel said:


> Thank you, @Deanna, this is the hard-hitting analysis I came to this thread for!
> 
> Now I have new questions:
> 
> 1. It seems like all my other metal-sulfates were added in such small quantities that there wouldn't be enough free SO4 for all this Ca. Wrong? I haven't done actual chemistry braining in a lot of years.
> 
> 2. What happens to the other metals now that Ca has stolen their SO4?
> 
> 3. (or 2B) Is this bad? Can I just ignore the precipitated CaSO4 and move along?


Without doing the math, it’s hard to say - correctly - at what point there will be enough SO4 to combine with Ca to cause precipitation. It is, obviously, happening. By conducting the test I mentioned, you can see where the cutoff roughly exists.

Once the ions dissociate, the plants will, hopefully, consume them before they can oxidize. This is why we dose small quantities frequently (usually daily) of the DIY mixes, which are not chelated. If they were chelated, we wouldn’t have these concerns.

Since you are getting the Ca and SO4 elsewhere, then you can ignore the CaSO4 that has precipitated. If you are using a doser, it may accumulate and clog the line. If it is put into the tank, it will dissolve.

I also see that I may have misled on the Cl issue. When the CaCl dissolves the Cl2 actually dissociates into the two chloride ions and does not remain as elemental chlorine.


----------



## beson1984

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHARING 
This recipe has been used for a year


----------



## Jasper302

beson1984 said:


> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHARING
> This recipe has been used for a year


Which recipe?


----------

