# Fe Question...



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Hey gang,

If I am dosing Iron Chelate 10% and 13% do I need to dose Ferrous Gluconate along with it? Newb question but even after almost 10 years, I'm still a newb.

Thanks!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Dempsey,

I dose both (on the same day). I dose approximately 0.2 ppm of chelate (CSM+B) and 0.3 ppm of Ferrous Gluconate. I read that gluconate was easier for plants to uptake and that excessive chelates can possibly be disadvantages to plants.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Dempsey,
> 
> 
> 
> I dose both (on the same day). I dose approximately 0.2 ppm of chelate (CSM+B) and 0.3 ppm of Ferrous Gluconate. I read that gluconate was easier for plants to uptake and that excessive chelates can possibly be disadvantages to plants.




Is seachem iron the only one that is ferrous gluconate?

And how large is your tank?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Need to? No 

Is it possibly advantageous to dose both? Short term, Probably so. Long term? Well the jury is still out on that one. 

The main question in my opinion is, will it make any real difference? In my experience and tinkering. Not really. 

Honestly, I think iron is the most over rated nutrient in our arsenal. Years ago it was unknown how much iron (and type) was needed (terrestrially speaking) . We have grown past that. It's simply not the panacea most make it out to be. Dose either and you would be hard pressed to notice any real difference. 

I will say that in light of my recent discovery about EDTA and DTPA having a negative impact, I would opt for all gluconate despite the need to dose on a daily basis. Until we can source better chelates we should all consider simple chelates such as gluconate or other basic acids. I find it ridiculous that we add something several times a week to our tanks that does not biodegrade. Couple that with the fact that gluconate chelate is easier for plants to use and it seems a clear choice. Until we can get biodegradable chelates such as EDDS or IDHA I would recommend sticking with weaker yet safer chelates such as gluconate.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

clownplanted said:


> Is seachem iron the only one that is ferrous gluconate?
> 
> And how large is your tank?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi @clownplanted,

I dose those ppm levels for all of my tanks, 75 gallon through 10 gallon.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Dempsey,
> 
> I dose both (on the same day). I dose approximately 0.2 ppm of chelate (CSM+B) and 0.3 ppm of Ferrous Gluconate. I read that gluconate was easier for plants to uptake and that excessive chelates can possibly be disadvantages to plants.





Zorfox said:


> Need to? No
> 
> Is it possibly advantageous to dose both? Short term, Probably so. Long term? Well the jury is still out on that one.
> 
> ...


I add 1tbsp of CSM+B, 1/4tsp Iron Chelate 13% and 1/4tsp of 10% in a 500ml bottle along with 1/8tsp of MNSO4. I would then dose 30ml 3x per week(this was when my tank was heavily planted)75G. I have only been dosing 15ml 3x per week since I have been hearing about micro toxins from dosing too much micros.. This is something that I have never heard of until recently. For the most part I dose via EI but add a few extras...

Would you recommend dropping or halting the Fe Chelate and start dosing Ferrous Gluconate?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Clint,

What size tank so I can calculate the ppm levels? All I know right now is you are dosing about 4X more Fe via CSM+B than you are with the two Fe chalates combined.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Clint,
> 
> What size tank so I can calculate the ppm levels? All I know right now is you are dosing about 4X more Fe via CSM+B than you are with the two Fe chalates combined.


75 gallon. Notice that I fixed my mistake... I'm dosing 1/2tsp total of Fe. It still may be a lot though I guess?

Bump: I forgot to mention that I normally dose 30ml but have been dosing 15ml just the past couple weeks.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Dempsey said:


> 75 gallon. Notice that I fixed my mistake... I'm dosing 1/2tsp total of Fe. It still may be a lot though I guess?
> 
> Bump: I forgot to mention that I normally dose 30ml but have been dosing 15ml just the past couple weeks.



30 ml = 6 teaspoons = 2 tablespoons
1/2 teaspoon = 2.5 ml


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> 30 ml = 6 teaspoons = 2 tablespoons
> 1/2 teaspoon = 2.5 ml


So I should be dosing 2tbsp in the 500ml bottle? Of CSM+B that is..

I lost all of my old dosing measurements and have been going a little lean since my tank it still starting... Thought, now that I think about it, I am dosing very lean....


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Clint,

If you run about 3" of substrate as I do then you have about 60 gallons of water in that 75 gallon tank. If I calculated correctly a 15 ml dose of your formula in post #6 will provide:

CSM+B = 0.15 ppm Fe
10% Fe = 0.03 ppm Fe
13% Fe = 0.04 ppm Fe
Total = 0.22 ppm Fe


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Clint,
> 
> If you run about 3" of substrate as I do then you have about 60 gallons of water in that 75 gallon tank. If I calculated correctly a 15 ml dose of your formula in post #6 will provide:
> 
> ...


So I should be right on par if I go back to 2tbsp of CSM+B in the 500ml dosing bottle with 30ml doses. Thank you very much for your time! I have also ordered ferrous gluconate to add to my arsenal. 

Whoops, sorry, Just read your other post.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Clint,
> 
> If you run about 3" of substrate as I do then you have about 60 gallons of water in that 75 gallon tank. If I calculated correctly a 15 ml dose of your formula in post #6 will provide:
> 
> ...



Looks like I will have to lean back a bit on the Fe if I want to be able to be able to dose 30ml for other micros...


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Dempsey said:


> Looks like I will have to lean back a bit on the Fe if I want to be able to be able to dose 30ml for other micros...


Hi Dempsey,

It depends on what your target Fe ppm level is. I just recently removed some of the Iron Chelate I was dosing from my dosing schedule and added gluconate to replace it. I can't locate the post by Tom Barr but if I recall correctly he uses a mixture of CSM+B, ferrous gluconate; and a small amount of EDDHA.

I regularly have to remind myself that there is no "perfect" level for any of the nutrients I dose; each species I keep evolved a in different environment and what may be good for one is likely not ideal for another. I just strive to provide enough of each nutrient so the majority of my plants are growing well - sometimes I fail miserably!


----------



## Malakian (Aug 23, 2014)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Dempsey,
> 
> I depends on what your target Fe ppm level is. I just recently removed some of the Iron Chelate I was dosing from my dosing schedule and added gluconate to replace it. I can't locate the post by Tom Barr but if I recall correctly he uses a mixture of CSM+B, ferrous gluconate; and a small amount of EDDHA.
> 
> I regularly have to remind myself that there is no "perfect" level for any of the nutrients I dose; each species I keep evolved a in different environment and what may be good for one is likely not ideal for another. I just strive to provide enough of each nutrient so the majority of my plants are growing well - sometimes I fail miserably!


Just a side note, EDDHA will last pretty much forever, or however long it takes for the plants to uptake it. Very stable chelate in a wide range of PH. But it is almost like blood red food coloring, dosing anymore than 0.05ppm to the tank and you will get a slight pink tint to the water. My dosing solution has 200ppm of EDDHA, and it is a very opaque dark red color. Mixing EDDHA Fe with some water and a tad of Vegetable glycerin for thickness would make some cinema quality fake blood!

Also as Zorfox said, we don't really know what the chelates do in the aquarium, so I'm very lean on the EDDHA at 0.01ppm per day. I'm trying to source some Ferrous gluconate as I dose everyday anyways, and it seems like a better approach so you don't get accumulation of chelates.

And I think Barr uses DTPA, with a ratio of 3-1-1 CSM+B, Ferrous Gluconate and DPTA if he hasn't changed his Micro recipe recently.
I had some issues which seem to relate to the CSM+B (toxicity) but I can't say for sure what it is in the CSM+B that causes it, but AR minis would twist like crazy and melt away at EI levels for me. 
And looking at Burr740 journal, it would seem like plants need very little of CSM+B, it's called Trace elements for a reason. So I would rather go 1-3-1 CSM+b, Ferrous gluconate and DTPA. Skip the DTPA all together if you dose every day.
But thats just my personal view on the topic.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Malakian said:


> I'm trying to source some Ferrous gluconate as I dose everyday anyways, and it seems like a better approach so you don't get accumulation of chelates.


Ferrous Gluconate - NilocG Aquatics

"Shipping

We can ship to virtually any address in the world. Note that there are restrictions on some products, and some products cannot be shipped to international destinations.

Shipping is $7 to anywhere in the United States. International shipping will be determined at time of order."

Bump:


Malakian said:


> Also as Zorfox said, we don't really know what the chelates do in the aquarium, so I'm very lean on the EDDHA at 0.01ppm per day. I'm trying to source some Ferrous gluconate as I dose everyday anyways, and it seems like a better approach so you don't get accumulation of chelates.
> 
> I had some issues which seem to relate to the CSM+B (toxicity) but I can't say for sure what it is in the CSM+B that causes it, but AR minis would twist like crazy and melt away at EI levels for me.
> And looking at Burr740 journal, it would seem like plants need very little of CSM+B, it's called Trace elements for a reason. So I would rather go 1-3-1 CSM+b, Ferrous gluconate and DTPA. Skip the DTPA all together if you dose every day.
> But thats just my personal view on the topic.





Malakian said:


> Also as Zorfox said, we don't really know what the chelates do in the aquarium


We are getting a better idea thanks to those that have been testing this. This is a very good read and brings to light the very subject. It all relates to these high CEC substrates. Very glad that I never went with one like eco complete or the like. I have stuck with gravel and sand and have no such issues. Interesting no? Notice for the PPS pro they have reduced the micro levels. Eco complete and others really need to relook at their substrates. Not being able to control what it is holding onto like toxic metals is a big problem and will eventually cause issues.

https://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/te-too-low-high


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Malakian said:


> Just a side note, EDDHA will last pretty much forever, or however long it takes for the plants to uptake it. Very stable chelate in a wide range of PH. But it is almost like blood red food coloring, dosing anymore than 0.05ppm to the tank and you will get a slight pink tint to the water. My dosing solution has 200ppm of EDDHA, and it is a very opaque dark red color. Mixing EDDHA Fe with some water and a tad of Vegetable glycerin for thickness would make some cinema quality fake blood!
> 
> Also as Zorfox said, we don't really know what the chelates do in the aquarium, so I'm very lean on the EDDHA at 0.01ppm per day. I'm trying to source some Ferrous gluconate as I dose everyday anyways, and it seems like a better approach so you don't get accumulation of chelates.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply! I have been watching Burr's tanks.... Stunning. I may go that route. What's it going t hurt? I did order some Ferrous Gluconate also.

I will just have to keep an eye on everything.

Bump:


clownplanted said:


> Ferrous Gluconate - NilocG Aquatics
> 
> "Shipping
> 
> ...


Thanks! Good read. Food for thought for sure. And.... I have EC so that's great... lol I have been looking into the blasting sand and my go that route once I get the grow out tank setup.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Dempsey said:


> Thanks for the reply! I have been watching Burr's tanks.... Stunning. I may go that route. What's it going t hurt? I did order some Ferrous Gluconate also.
> 
> I will just have to keep an eye on everything.
> 
> ...


BDBS is my new favorite sub. I just setup a new 20 gallon long with it as the only substrate and absolutely love it. What is great is it does not stir as easy as I though it would given the grain size comparable to normal sand. It actually stays put very easy. And it washes very easy as well. Washed a whole 50lb bag of the stuff in 10 minutes. Then put in tank, filled up and tank was completely clear within an hour. And what is great is the plants really root well in it. What I heard anyway. its my new low tech setup that will be high tech in a couple weeks when I get the splitter and stuff to split my co2 to two tanks now.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

I will be doing a 20L also with the 30" 24/7 like yours for a "small" grow out tank can't wait. I like the fact that the tank is short and you can really blast that light.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Dempsey said:


> I will be doing a 20L also with the 30" 24/7 like yours for a "small" grow out tank can't wait. I like the fact that the tank is short and you can really blast that light.




For sure. Just hoping to get the co2 going on this tank before algae starts. This beamswork light I have on it is too powerful for low tech. Have to keep the hours limited now as it is. Once I get the co2 going will add the second beamswork fspec on it. 

Once it get co2 will do a pearlweed carpet. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Sorry for the slow reply Clint. I've been doing the work thing. Warning, most of what follows are my opinions with very little actual experimentation to support any claims. However, it's all based on sound science and many academic sources. I also stayed at a holiday inn express last night :hihi:.

I don't want to go out on a limb and say this will cure the issues like twisted leaves, stunted growth etc. Instead, I want to explain why I think we're dosing too much trace elements and why a simple reduction may not be the cure.

The macro fertilizers are pretty easy to figure out. They'll stay in the water column in a bio-available form pretty much indefinitely. We can also test two thirds of them, nitrate and phosphate. Trace elements are a horse of a different color. They don't behave well with others.

What I mean by that is they react with other "stuff" in the water. Combine the right two things and you get something new. Much like pregnancy. Without going into details a condom can prevent the two "elements" from creating a new substance.

I know it's a strange analogy, but if we compare the condom to chelates we can start to understand what these chemicals do. The chelates, such as EDTA, in our trace mixes bind with the element and protect it from reacting with others. Plants can utilize chelated trace element forms (remove the condom). The most common two chelates are EDTA followed by DTPA. Plantex uses EDTA. 

These "condoms" work pretty good under acidic conditions but lose their grip at higher PH ranges leaving elements unprotected. Some like weak acids last seconds to hours based on the PH of the water. EDTA/DTPA can hang onto the same element for days up to a week depending on PH. So they are a clear winner in regards to leaving enough nutrients in the water column. After all, Hydroponics and Terrestrial farmers have used it for years without issues.

If you were really paying attention in the paragraph above you would be asking yourself what happens to the "condom" after it falls off? 

Every chelate has a "preference" for individual elements. In addition, elements in large supply will be found in chelated form simply because there are more of them out there looking for a "dance". Calcium would be the most abundant element in the mix by far. Therefore, those lost condoms would end up wrapping around calcium forming a chelated form of calcium. 

Here's the problem. Those condoms made from EDTA and DTPA are not biodegradable. That means we either remove them from the water or they'll continue to bind all the trace elements making them bio-available. In fact, EDTA is used to flush heavy metals from soils and believe it or not humans.

Imagine you've been dosing Flourish comprehensive or trace for a few years. The chelate in Flourish is primarily gluconate which is rather weak and more important bio-degrades easily. Now all the trace elements react and fall into the substrate never to be heard from again. Some will be run through the bacteria mill and others re-chelated from organic acids. Other than that, they're safely stored in the ground. 

Right?

As I said above, chelates can be used to flush trace elements. What happens to the hobbyist above if he decides to try dry trace fertilizer?

If you add chelates, those trace elements safely stored in the substrate are about to fill every condom in the tank and fly around in the water in abundance. Simply put, poison the plants and inhabitants. Not only is EDTA a great chelate, it's also a gram negative antibiotic!

As you can already see, making a blanket statement that "1 teaspoon of this is right" would never work without considering the chelate used. A weak bio-degradable chelate such as gluconate would require higher doses more frequently than EDTA for example. 

The next problem we have is that we dose far too much trace elements to begin with. I could insert many more paragraphs about the origins of various methods and problems I've found, but that's not the point. I'm simply interested in the solution to a real problem. 

Let's compare the solution you've been using to EI as well as what I would recommend, which is a standard 10% hoagland solution. Yes, nothing advanced or revolutionary. *Hoagland solution* has been used by Hydroponic farmers and more importantly research scientists since 1938. 

Why reinvent the wheel?

Tom Barr has said EI is based on a *paper by Gerloff*. The EI macro levels suggested are very close to what they are in the paper as well as the trace elements. Here's the rub. The paper was about macro nutrients so the scientists didn't reduce trace elements to 20% of hoagland solution like they did for the macros. The result was what was hypothesized as trace toxicity. The scientists had to exclude two of the handful they tested... 



> Further work must be carried out to
> determine the reason for the less than optimum
> growth of the latter two plants. The
> relatively high concentrations of the trace
> ...


So here we are. You've hung in there and really gave this a good read. Hopefully, you have a little more insight into why we dose what we do and why that can cause problems. 

Let's compare your solution with EI and my 10% hoagland solution. Notice the *type* in the chart below. My recommendations are the nutrient levels we want to maintain NOT each dose. Notice how close mine are to the others? Another coincidence or a misunderstanding about the difference between a dose and the nutrient level in the tank?


```
30ml = 30ml of your solution
15ml = 15ml of your solution
EI = Estimative Index, Full dose
10H = 10% Hoagland solution

PD (per dose)
AL (Average level)

	30ml	15ml	10H	EI 
Type	PD	PD	AL	PD
Fe	0.3	0.15	0.25	0.5 
Cu	0.0033	0.00165	0.002	0.007
B	0.030	0.015	0.05	0.06	
Mn	0.13	0.065	0.05	0.14	
Mo	0.0018	0.0009	0.001	0.0038	
Zn	0.013	0.0065	0.005	0.028
```
So let's assume we want my 10HS method. We have Plantex and DTPA iron. It sucks that it's EDTA but it is what it is. We need different chelates and some tweaks but that's for another thread. We want to know what to dose using what we have.

I have written a *planted tank calculato*r. In that Windows application there is a nutrient accumulation calculator. Basically you enter how much you dose, water changes, plant uptake and it gives a graph o the nutrient level. Mine also has an input for maximum peak or trough. Enter that and the other parameters and it will give you the dose to attain that level. 

If I use Mn as a proxy (dose according to that level) of 0.05 I get a dose every other day of 0.007 ppm. So we add enough Plantex to increase our Mn level 0.007. Yes, that's the thousands place!

Example,

For 60 gallons of water we would add 85 mg or approximately 1/32 teaspoons per dose! Way less than previously. Then we can dose iron independently doing the same math.

I wish I could give people a one solution recipe but there are many variables to consider. Perhaps we need to work on a calculator for that. Who knows. At the very least this can be a place to start and put this toxicity debate to bed once and for all!

That's it for now. Sorry the post was so long. There is actually a lot more to it but I hope this at least peaks some interest.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Man, great stuff @Zorfox . It's so nice to see rational explanations for <possibly> why my own tanks have always been so sensitive to micros/csmb.

You know, I didnt start out dosing uber low levels with some preconceived notions that it was better. I just happened to arrive at these levels after a couple of years of trying time and time again to dose more. Started way before "micro tox" even became a thing.

It's simply the only way I can grow nice plants. That much is a fact. What always remained a mystery is, why? Why are my tanks so sensitive when so many folks have great success "larding it on"?

This question has plagued me for a couple of years now. Its also the reason Ive never fully jumped on the whole "micro tox" bandwagon. I know what happens in my own tanks, but I also know what happens in Tom Barr's, and countless others dosing full EI traces.

Up until recently I thought it must be due to having inert sub. High CECs suck a lot of metals in, store some, release something else, whatever, innumerable processes that I dont begin to understand. 

But now I suspect PH is playing as big if not a bigger role.

My PH level at peak CO2 is around the mid 6.4s. That's the lowest it ever is, for about 6 hours a day. Fully degassed is ~7.75, and overnight, by the time co2 kicks back on the next day the tank has degassed up to ~7.4

You can see how this is a problem with edta, which starts to break loose in the mid 6s. For at least 16 hours a day my PH is too high for edta to remain stable.

Ive always known this, but figured well, no problem, the nutrient will just be free for a brief period of time, the plants can still get it, perhaps easier, and that's that.

But this new knowledge of what actually happens with chelates puts a whole different shine on things.

So I want to say thanks Zorfox for bringing all this to light in your recent postings on the subject. Its cleared some things up for me, and also caused me to research some things I wouldnt have known to look for otherwise.


Im about to ditch csmb and start rolling my own micros, using _so4 compounds for Mn, Mo and Zn, and Borax for B. The same elements in Flourish comp for the most part. I wont be adding Cu because there a little in my tap.

For Fe I'll continue using dtpa, which should remain stable since the tank itself never gets above 7.4 or so, which is just within dtpa's 7.5 threshold.

The plan is to start off with the same levels of everything Im dosing now and take it from there. 

If the edta doesnt hold up in my water in the first place, might as well go with non-chelated elements and eliminate edta entirely from the equation.

Also talking with @bcarl_10gal lately finally convinced me to try it. He recently did the same thing and saw a remarkable improvement. 


@Dempsey , my apologies for making such a long winded post here all about myself. Hopefully you might get a little insight how to best handle your own situation, and others reading might too.

On micros in general, I can say that for whatever reason, high CEC substrates seem to handle/need more micros and Fe than inert subs.

Ive seen a lot of people with high CEC subs try dosing the same micro levels as me, never seen anyone like it after the 2-3 week honeymoon period is over.

On the other hand I know several folks with inert subs who have good success with it, or something close.

So to anyone reading my journal thinking about mirroring my exact routine, consider your substrate first.

And now obviously, individual PH levels bring a whole other factor into the equation.

Anyway sorry again for the _War and Peace_ novel, hopefully this post will help somebody.

Cheers


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

Wow, this is very interesting. I have tried to copy Burr's setup in my 155 and have had mostly good results, but growth is slower and "less full" than I would like, and I have some nagging GDA. - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1145202-155-bowfront-high-tech.html

I also have the same pH range as he does, and wonder if a different trace element would help. My tank looks decent, but wonder if it could be better. I've only used CSM+B. I'm up for trying Flourish Comprehensive or a homemade version and having my tank be another data point in the BDBS high-tech/low trace experiment.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Zorfox said:


> Sorry for the slow reply Clint. I've been doing the work thing. Warning, most of what follows are my opinions with very little actual experimentation to support any claims. However, it's all based on sound science and many academic sources. I also stayed at a holiday inn express last night :hihi:.
> 
> I don't want to go out on a limb and say this will cure the issues like twisted leaves, stunted growth etc. Instead, I want to explain why I think we're dosing too much trace elements and why a simple reduction may not be the cure.
> 
> ...


First off, I would like to thank you for taking the time to post this!

This really helped me understand a little more about what what I had no idea about. 

I do have a little bit of everything and what I don't have, I just ordered from Colin :wink2: As you know, I am also using EC so knowing all of this now, will really help me going forward and may actually cause me to change my substrate. 

I will be giving your calc a shot this afternoon for sure.

Again, Thank You Very Much! 

Are you a professor or teacher? You should be...

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Man, great stuff @Zorfox . It's so nice to see rational explanations for <possibly> why my own tanks have always been so sensitive to micros/csmb.
> 
> You know, I didnt start out dosing uber low levels with some preconceived notions that it was better. I just happened to arrive at these levels after a couple of years of trying time and time again to dose more. Started way before "micro tox" even became a thing.
> 
> ...


No need to apologize! This is a forum and in any thread that I start or question I have, I am sure others have the same. The info Zorfox provided wasn't just for me but the whole community and I hope anyone with issues like you or I are trying to avoid and have question, chime in!

I know you already knew that but I just wanted to post it so others feel comfortable posting their question about the topic in this tread also. :smile2:


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

I really appreciate all the comments. It's nice to know that others can appreciate this type of information.

I want to start by saying that DTPA is also non-biodegradable. Most people come away thinking it's just the EDTA that has issues and it's not.

As interesting as the chelation subject can be I want to stress that it's not simply that issue alone. I see this change as a fundamental way that we look at dosing our tanks. Before this, we were only calculating for dose amount, plant uptake and loss due to water changes. We could spit out a pretty chart with peak and trough and we were happy as long as that level stayed in line with EI levels or any other range we decided was appropriate. This simple prediction method is no longer accurate for trace elements so we need another way of predicting or providing what is optimal under a specific condition.

The vast majority of serious hobbyists use dry fertilizers. Those fertilizers will contain either EDTA or DTPA as the chelate. Instead of dwelling on the fact it's non-biodegradable and can alter trace levels we should use this new information as a tool. While it's true EDTA/DTPA can drastically alter trace levels it's also true that these changes happen in a predictable manner.

If we decide to use "lemons" to make lemonade we need to understand the sour notes a little more.

My post above explains that PH influences the chelation bond of trace elements. The lower the PH the stronger that bond is. 

My analogy above seemed to be helpful so I'll try another. 

Imagine a high school dance. Most start out with the boys on one side and the girls on the other. Now picture the boys as the chelate and the girls being the trace elements.

Oddly enough, boys (chelates) have preferences for certain girls (elements) at the dance. Below is a chart from a paper that discusses multi-micro nutrient formulations. It compares the preference for one element over the other. As you can see, each chelate behaves differently with each element. The boys really do have a preference here! 



> *Reactivity and effectiveness of traditional and novel ligands for multi-micronutrient fertilization in a calcareous soil*


Notice how the chelate/PH relation determines the "amplitude" of each element? This is the type of information we would need to add to several others to attain trace element nirvana in our tanks. 

If you've hung in there without scratching your scalp off I commend you! I realize this is pretty "chewy" reading. However, gaining more insight by learning what's going on "under the hood" is vital if we ever want to optimize plant nutrition in planted aquariums.

I realize this may seem overwhelming to most. I've certainly had a learning curve when it comes to this. I also appreciate other like minded people acting as my sounding board. The simple act of explaining all of this helps me learn and connect more dots.

Okay, enough of that. Let's get back to the dance...

Let's assume we only have one boy type at the dance, all EDTA. The opposing wall is filled with every possible type of girl imaginable. We now know the EDTA (boys) like a certain type of element (girl). So we can predict who is dancing and those that aren't. 

If the temperature (PH) during the dance is low the boys and girls hold each other tightly for warmth. When the room starts to warm up the boys may lose interest in some types of girls and randomly dance with others. When the temperature gets very hot the boys and girls start to sweat. The grip during the dance becomes weak and they slip apart. Both spinning off into the crowd to find another partner.

Hopefully, you can see how bio-available trace element ratios and levels can change based on the chelate used and the PH of the tank. Instead of abandoning current methods, I think we should use this newfound knowledge to modify what we already do. What that may be I have no idea but I'll certainly enjoy investigation...


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

@Zorfox this is great information you are sharing here.
Makes me rethink micro dosing for sure.

Many previous threads turn into a dictatorship with certain individuals running off @ the mouth.

High temps at the Dance! Yeah! :grin2:


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Now that you understand the basics of chelation, lets discuss the impact that makes on dosing.

Let’s start with traditional chelates such as EDTA/DTPA/Gluconate. 

We can immediately separate gluconate from the others based on its stability in water. Since the chelate will rapidly degrade in either acidic or alkaline water, we can assume the trace elements will react with their environment. Typically, that means the original trace element has left the dance with god knows who! Nevertheless, they’re no longer at the dance (in the water column) and have most likely bonded with dance crashers from another school (“other stuff “and the water itself). 

EDTA/DTPA will remain in the water column with or without a dance partner. However, it’s a fairly aggressive chelate. It’ll almost always be found with a dance partner. Since it doesn’t degrade, we’ll eventually have two forms of chelates in the water column. Original dance pairs or random pair offs, i.e O and R.

Since EDTA/DTPA doesn’t degrade we can easily predict what the total chelate (O+R) level will be. Just enter the dose in an accumulation calculator and *POOF* the average level appears. 

For example, 

Follow standard EI parameters(dose every other day, 50% weekly WC, and 0 plant uptake) and the peak level will be ~7.3 times the dose and the trough will be ~3.6 times the dose. For illustrative purposes let’s use just one, the peak.

If we know the peak will be 7.3 times one dose we can say that we’ll have a minimum of 1:6 ratio of Original to Random chelates. There could be a little or a lot more of the O chelate based primarily on PH of the water.

Here’s the problem using chelates that basically have no half life. What comprises the Random chelates? We can make a lot of speculations but as you can see in the graph (in my post above) above, PH changes chelate preferences, (remember the boys and girls). In addition, the amount of available girls (chelateable elements) makes a big difference. If there are 100 blonde girls and 10 brown at the dance, chances are, there will be more blondes dancing. We essentially see this phenomenon in nature. EDTA pollution is primarily found in the chelated calcium form since there are more of “these girls” at the dance. 

If the EDTA pollution example is the same in our tanks does this mean we can basically ignore the random chelates?

Since nearly all the dry trace mixes contain EDTA/DTPA we’ll have to wing it until they’re gone. Why put effort into determining if the Random chelates play a role when we shouldn’t be using EDTA/DTPA in the future anyway?

If we make that assumption (yes I know about assumptions) then we would target a near “therapeutic” level with each dose. How often we dose would depend on the life of the Original chelates. Imagine our array of Original chelates lasting one week. We can make the conclusion that we should target a weekly level rather than an indefinite one as we do now.

Let’s make those calculations using the 10% Hoagland solution above. 

Instead of using iron as a proxy, I want to use Mn. Iron can be added alone, yet its often used to determine all the other trace levels.

So we want a minimum of 0.05 ppm of Mn. We’re going to use the full week “chelation period”. 










To degrade the chelate I divided the total by 7 and came up with 0.002. Adding this to plant uptake will degrade the Original chelate over a week.

Now our Mn level (Original chelate only) is between 0.1 and 0.05. That should work.

Run that through our calculator and we get this...

Plantex CSM+B 319 mg (approximately 1/16 teaspoons)

Cu	0.001010695
B	0.008983957 *
Mn	0.021
Mo	0.000561497
Zn	0.00415508

Everything is fairly close to 10% Hoagland solution except for boron which should be 0.05. Unless we add extra Boron I would say that’s as close as we can get using EDTA/DTPA. Doing the same as above with Fe and we end up with a dose of 0.186. That’s 480mg or approximately 1/8 tsp. for the same tank.

That's about it for now. More to come later.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Zorfox said:


> Why put effort into determining if the Random chelates play a role when we shouldn’t be using EDTA/DTPA in the future anyway?


I agree and thanks again @Zorfox for this great information. I for one am learning a great deal so thank you. There has to be a better way of dry dosing instead of using these non-biodegradable Chelates. I hope this forces the makers of these ferts to really look at a better way of doing this especially how more and more are realizing the problem especially long term that it is causing. I hope that you can figure this out @Zorfox :wink2:


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

clownplanted said:


> I agree and thanks again @Zorfox for this great information. I for one am learning a great deal so thank you. There has to be a better way of dry dosing instead of using these non-biodegradable Chelates. I hope this forces the makers of these ferts to really look at a better way of doing this especially how more and more are realizing the problem especially long term that it is causing. I hope that you can figure this out @Zorfox :wink2:


Thanks. Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud here. As I said in my first post, this is not a proven process. However, it is based on very sound science that has been proven. In addition, it helps me make new connections that I normally wouldn't see when I try and explain things. So that's what I call a win win situation.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

Zorfox said:


> Now that you understand the basics of chelation, lets discuss the impact that makes on dosing.
> 
> Let’s start with traditional chelates such as EDTA/DTPA/Gluconate.
> 
> ...


This is gold. Thank you sir! It's nice to see people sharing this well thought out info to us common folk :smile2:


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Dempsey said:


> This is gold. Thank you sir! It's nice to see people sharing this well thought out info to us common folk :smile2:


I'm happy you're enjoying it! 

As far as sharing info with the common folk, I am common folk! I remodel houses for a living now. I'm basically a retired Paramedic of 28 years that enjoys his job once again. 

One of the allures to planted tanks for me was the familiar chemistry. The chemical processes in the water column as well as plants are strikingly similar to the human body. So when I started learning it came very natural. 

The calculations came very easy to me. Imagine being a Paramedic that's just been woken to respond to a pediatric cardiac arrest. Three minutes later, the life of a child is thrust into your hands. Those calculations, algorithms, treatment modalities... they all simply flow. It's not just me. Any other Paramedic would tell you the same thing. It becomes second nature.

I suppose that core understanding makes me see things differently. I'm certainly not anymore trained than most hobbyists here. 

Anyway, I just thought I'd make sure everyone realizes I'm just another hobbyist. I do and always have enjoyed reading academic papers, maybe that helps. I welcome comments, suggestions, throw downs whatever. lol


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

I really wish I had some good before pictures for my tank but I do not. Overall my tank was growing okay, had some BBA and random melts that I still could never explain. I recreated CSM+B without copper and using DPTA iron. I dosed in the the exact same amount as CSM. I have done this for four weeks. I have yet to see a melt, my Erio is flowering for the first time since September, and the leaves are getting larger each day. I really wish I had a good comparison pic but unfortunately all I have is the after. Excuse the poor pruning on the background plants I had just gave them a big hack.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

bcarl_10gal said:


> I really wish I had some good before pictures for my tank but I do not. Overall my tank was growing okay, had some BBA and random melts that I still could never explain. I recreated CSM+B without copper and using DPTA iron. I dosed in the the exact same amount as CSM. I have done this for four weeks. I have yet to see a melt, my Erio is flowering for the first time since September, and the leaves are getting larger each day. I really wish I had a good comparison pic but unfortunately all I have is the after. Excuse the poor pruning on the background plants I had just gave them a big hack.



Out of curiosity, can you share your CSM recipe?


----------



## Saxa Tilly (Apr 7, 2015)

bcarl_10gal said:


> I really wish I had some good before pictures for my tank but I do not. Overall my tank was growing okay, had some BBA and random melts that I still could never explain. I recreated CSM+B without copper and using DPTA iron. I dosed in the the exact same amount as CSM. I have done this for four weeks. I have yet to see a melt, my Erio is flowering for the first time since September, and the leaves are getting larger each day. I really wish I had a good comparison pic but unfortunately all I have is the after. Excuse the poor pruning on the background plants I had just gave them a big hack.


Look at that AR Mini! Big, flat leaves. Wow. Like you take the plant out and use an ironing board to straighten out those leaves. That's a sure sign of healthy growth. 

So the only chelator is DTPA iron? 

I've been using a home-brew that I call '3X Burr.' As the nickname suggests, it is 3X the strength of what Burr doses, so 0.045 ppm Fe from CSM+B. To that, I add 0.045 Fe DTPA and I add enough unchelated Mn to get the Fe:Mn ratio to 2:1. I've been doing this for a month or so and the tank is doing OK. The 2:1 thing is not based on any published evidence on aquatic plants, but rather old agricultural data. 

But reading Zorfox and seeing your pic, I wonder if I should roll my own. FWIW, I just ordered Thrive S (shrimp focused, copper-free and with DTPA iron), which almost sounds like what you made yourself. Thrive S also has 2:1 Fe to Mn ratio. Regular Thrive+ has 11:1 ratio, I believe. Tropica Specialised is also a 2:1 formula but they have HEEDTA, DTPA and E123 (food coloring!!).


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

@bcarl_10gal, 

I'm glad your tank is doing so well. The new growth looks clean and fresh. However, DTPA is also non-biodegradable. Basically, EDTA has been the "roudy" boys at the dance. What I mean by that is that EDTA has gotten a lot of press where DTPA (and others) have not. The bans on EDTA in other countries have brought a media spotlight on EDTA moving it to the forefront of science (media). 

DTPA does have a different PH tolerance and many other differences. I would suspect it's a combination of lowering your micro dosing, eliminating EDTA, and simply watching things to figure it out.

I don't want to come off as an alarmist claiming a cure for "cancer". Whether it's a completely natural chelate such as humic acid or EDTA, they both have an impact on trace element bio-availability. That's something we need to consider. 

Is EDTA/DTPA bad for our tanks? Maybe. It depends on it's use. 

Is ibuprofen bad for our children? Maybe. It depends on it's use.


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

I am going to hold off on stating my exact recipe on forums until some other people try it and have the same success and I have a longer time period to test it over. I do not want to jump to such conclusions and publish prematurely until I am confident it is repeatable. 

I agree that DPTA is still a chleator and it is not perfect, but in my opinion more stable in an aquarium application. Based on the research that I have done I found that DPTA makes a lot more sense in our application. There is much less research on toxicity of DPTA as compared to EDTA. To clarify one thing I did not change any dosing levels. I used ferts to replicate CSM+B at the exact same dosing levels with the exception of omitting Cu.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

The main reason Im not too worried about dtpa, yet, is because my PH levels are within the range where it should stay bound to the Fe.

I suspect in my case the problem is more to do with edta wreaking havoc on other nutrients as it breaks free/rebinds/breaks free again, and so on as the PH rises and falls - rather than a toxicity itself. 

Primarily because Im dosing 10-50 times less csmb than most folks already. Where is their toxicity? Where is Tom Barr's?

It's the age old question that's been used to refute micro toxicity since it was first suggested. And it's hard to argue with imho

The two main players being PH and the substrate CEC, lots of unknowns with the latter of course. But if a person's PH stays below 6.4-6.5, they may not see the same problems from edta as those with higher PHs, like myself. Pure speculation of course.

@Zorfox Ive been wondering about something, would a bound chelate be any less toxic than a free one?


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

bcarl_10gal said:


> I am going to hold off on stating my exact recipe on forums until some other people try it and have the same success and I have a longer time period to test it over. I do not want to jump to such conclusions and publish prematurely until I am confident it is repeatable.


I totally respect that. However, please reserve judgment until I finish my rant here. 

It just dawned on me that maybe I should make a thread, Zorfox's Chelate Rant :icon_idea ?



bcarl_10gal said:


> I agree that DPTA is still a chleator and it is not perfect, but in my opinion more stable in an aquarium application. Based on the research that I have done I found that DPTA makes a lot more sense in our application. There is much less research on toxicity of DPTA as compared to EDTA. To clarify one thing I did not change any dosing levels. I used ferts to replicate CSM+B at the exact same dosing levels with the exception of omitting Cu.


I'm not trying to beat you up here. Trust me. I'm going out on a limb theorizing here. I suppose it takes one person to start the ball rolling. I don't think I'm crazy.?! lol


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

burr740 said:


> @Zorfox Ive been wondering about something, would a bound chelate be any less toxic than a free one?


Sorry, we posted about the same time. 

Not really. 

Either way, free or chelated, plants have access to them in the water column. The problem is with the excess chelates. EI was a 1:6 ratio of "original" : "random" dancers. That's a lot of doubt if you ask me. Couple that with the micro toxicity debate? It's just something I'm "spitballing" in public about. The science behind my wild claims seems sound but I'm more than open for comments. It just seems basic once we realize how the chelates work.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Does carbon clean up chelates? Wonder if something as simple as running a carbon source after lights out would help with these excess chelates helping to clear out by morning?

If someone came up with a "chelate filter" could possibly strike it rich if it solved the toxic chelate issue. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

I would be willing to mix up a small batch of ferts to send to someone who has a well growing tank and is fighting with this "toxicity" to try it. I am striving to achieve repeatable conditions across multiple tanks.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

bcarl_10gal said:


> I really wish I had some good before pictures for my tank but I do not. Overall my tank was growing okay, had some BBA and random melts that I still could never explain. I recreated CSM+B without copper and using DPTA iron. I dosed in the the exact same amount as CSM. I have done this for four weeks. I have yet to see a melt, my Erio is flowering for the first time since September, and the leaves are getting larger each day. I really wish I had a good comparison pic but unfortunately all I have is the after. Excuse the poor pruning on the background plants I had just gave them a big hack.




Fantastic testimonial, and if all this new idea is going to be proven true, could revolutionize the hobby a great deal. Great job Zorfox, indeed.

Bcarl, can I ask what's your pH and used substrate?


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

Dempsey said:


> Out of curiosity, can you share your CSM recipe?





fablau said:


> Fantastic testimonial, and if all this new idea is going to be proven true, could revolutionize the hobby a great deal. Great job Zorfox, indeed.
> 
> Bcarl, can I ask what's your pH and used substrate?


I use RO/DI water 75%/25% mix with tap. pH stays around 6.2 or 6.1ish. substrate is ADA aquasoil since the tanks inception (September 2016). No substrate ferts used.


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

clownplanted said:


> Does carbon clean up chelates?


Yup. I didn't know that it did until you asked. How much, how fast, etc. I'm not sure. I've glanced at a few abstracts and it seems not only does AC remove EDTA it prefers the chelated form, i.e. EDTA-Cu, over unbound EDTA. This is actually pretty interesting.


If you think about that, then you'll realize that we've been partially wrong about AC removing fertilizers all these years. The accepted idea is that it removes few trace elements and to a very small degree. That would only be true if no chelate was being utilized. Using EDTA? Well your guess is as good as mine. 



clownplanted said:


> Wonder if something as simple as running a carbon source after lights out would help with these excess chelates helping to clear out by morning?


Unfortunately, as I said above, if we do this we'll also remove the trace elements that have become chelated.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Zorfox said:


> Yup. I didn't know that it did until you asked. How much, how fast, etc. I'm not sure. I've glanced at a few abstracts and it seems not only does AC remove EDTA it prefers the chelated form, i.e. EDTA-Cu, over unbound EDTA. This is actually pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> If you think about that, then you'll realize that we've been partially wrong about AC removing fertilizers all these years. The accepted idea is that it removes few trace elements and to a very small degree. That would only be true if no chelate was being utilized. Using EDTA? Well your guess is as good as mine.
> ...




Guys, are you talking about activated carbon? If so, it shouldn't touch trace elements. Am I correct?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

fablau said:


> Guys, are you talking about activated carbon? If so, it shouldn't touch trace elements. Am I correct?


At least in the very beginning when it's fresh, it can. Have a look at this

Activated Carbon and Aquatic Nutrients - I


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

burr740 said:


> At least in the very beginning when it's fresh, it can. Have a look at this
> 
> Activated Carbon and Aquatic Nutrients - I




Very good find. Very interesting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

So it would seem that after about 36 hours according to the test that about half of the tested micros were gone due to the AC. I just wish there was a test showing the un-bound EDTA/DPTA and AC if they too are being greatly reduced. If so then would not the answer to be daily dose micros and macros and turn on AC after lights out to clean up the leftovers? That seems like a possible solution in regards to at least reducing possible toxicity due to EDTA/DPTA sticking around for a while and just collecting and binding to other stuff. @Zorfox what are your thoughts?


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

burr740 said:


> At least in the very beginning when it's fresh, it can. Have a look at this
> 
> Activated Carbon and Aquatic Nutrients - I




Wow, that really revolutionizes my own knowledge on AC and what I have read around for the past 30 years! I think many more people should be aware of this fact and that AC absorption is not limited to organic molecules as it is commonly known. Thank you for he link!


----------

