# Cant figure out that deficiency .



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

What deficiency would resemble lack of Ca? My TDS reads about 300 and I would find it hard to believe that all of that would be Mg but my plants are looking horrible. Twisted wrinkly leaves. I also have algae issues. String perhaps and gsa/gda. I thought maybe my dosing was the problem but I have been doing 1.5x's the amount for a 40g tank (its a 37g btw).

37g
pressurized co2
3/4 tsp k2so4
3/4 tsp kno3
3/16 tsp kh2po4
3/16 tsp csm+b
5ml flourish
5ml flourish fe
4x24w t5ho (2x24 for 6 hours the other 2x24 for 4) Currently just running 2x24 for 6 hours.
82 degrees.

I will take some pics tomorrow but any help would be appreciated.

Before...









Now...


----------



## Jim Lockhart (Jan 27, 2004)

If you have CA and GH test kits you can get a Mg estimate, when I get into this kind of situation I test everything I can. That's usually TDS, Ph, KH, GH, NO3, PO4, Ca. These let me estimate Mg and CO2. I usually find something is out of whack, or not what I would have expected.

If you want to try something quick, try a 50% WC with RO or distilled water. And see how the plants respond. Usually when you get GSA/GDA your pretty close to having it together.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi Brandon,

I am thinking Magnesium. The reason I think that is it appears that you're are dosing a lot of potassium and that will result in first a Mg deficiency and then a Ca dificiency. I had the same problem when I was dosing K2SO4 and discontinued it because I kept running into Mg and Ca problems.

I would do a 50%+ water change to do a "reset" of the system, dose your ferts and add extra Mg and Ca. I used to use MgSO4 and CaCl but now I like Seachem Equilbrium because it is easy and has "extra" micronutrients as well.

Let us know how it goes!


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

You guys have me thinking your on the right track, I actually purchased a ro/di system because of the tanks condition and have done the last two water changes (two weeks) with 100% ro water. Before this mt tds were 700+ now they are 300 or so. That was causing me to believe I still had enough mg and ca. 

Now the problem is getting some mg and ca quickly.

Also should I dose less k? if so how do I go about that?


----------



## ibanezfrelon (Mar 1, 2010)

Are you sure it's not co2 deficency?


----------



## Dantra (May 15, 2007)

ibanezfrelon said:


> Are you sure it's not co2 deficency?


You are on the right track!

bsmith, one thing comes to mind. I believe that it is your CO2 that needs adjusting. Twisted and curled leaves where solved in my tank by adding more CO2. I thought it was my TDS because my GH read at 4˚, I raised it from 2˚. Then I got it up to 6˚-11˚. After about three weeks with raised GH the plants remained the same. The only thing I changed after that was the amount of CO2. I "upped" the CO2 as much as I can (my flow was more than adequate) and on the second day the plants started to straighten its leaves. The leaves started to "uncurl". Now everything is just fine.

I honestly thought that I was adding enough CO2 but to my surprise I wasn't.

Hope this helps
Dan


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

You dont need to dose potassium sulphate. There is enough K in the KNO3 and KH2PO4.
IMO you are dosing too much P and Fe.
What is your lighting and photoperiod?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi bsmith,

I agree with Newt, I stopped dosing the "extra" K by discontinuing the K2SO4. Let us know how things go!


----------



## Elohim_Meth (Nov 4, 2007)

I vote for lack of CO2. People are often thinking they blow enough CO2 but the plants are curled and stunted and nothing helps. In that case it is often enough to increase CO2 level in 1.5...2 times for situation to improve dramatically.


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

Everyone can put co2 off as the culprit. This is one thing (in my tank with as much light as I have) I cant skimp on, if I did it would have been algae farm months ago. . If it were only that easy this thread would have never been created. I have pushed my fish to the point of o2 deprivation a few times in the past months just to make sure my drop checker was not off. Again I have tested co2 that way and of course my drop checker being a pale yellow about 3" off the substrate in the area of the tank with weakest flow.


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi bsmith,
> 
> I agree with Newt, I stopped dosing the "extra" K by discontinuing the K2SO4. Let us know how things go!


So just stop the k2so4 all together and dose per ei dosing for a 40g?

If so ill do a 50% wc with 100% ro water tonight and see what happens tomorrow.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, stop potassium sulfate dosing.

Forget EI dosing. Read this thread: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/69737-method-controlled-imbalances-summary.html


----------



## Dantra (May 15, 2007)

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the "THE CONTROLLED IMBALANCE METHOD" is just a repackaged, rebranded form of PMDD and I will go on to say that extra K isn't going to hurt anything!

bsmith, if you have non-limiting nutrients including CO2 which you stated you saturated the tank with then the only thing it can be is your lighting. I know you said that you are using only two T5HO bulbs at a time however they are mounted right on the tank from what the photo shows.

Perhaps if you raise the lights 6"-12" above the tank that may very well solve your problems. The imbalance comes from not providing the nutrients the plants demand from the acceleration placed on them by the lights whether it be from macros, micros or CO2.

Also I have to ask you if there was ample surface agitation when you added more CO2, did you increase the O2 by adding more surface movement.

One more thing I would like to add, EI has served me very well. Contrary to what some believe, it isn't dumping a bunch of ferts in your tank and walking away (however if that's what you want to do then you can, great for you). Estimative Index allows you modify the ferts anyway you need to, hence the _"Estimative"_ part. You can add more of or use less of any nutrient your tank requires. EI is not written in stone. You can _"modify"_ it anyway you like, that's the beauty of it. You can customize it to suit your tanks needs. The flexibility of EI is limited by the user, not the method. If EI fails, it's user error. Estimating what to add to your tank and modifying it is not dumping but calculating.

Dan


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I dont know if you have tested your NO3 and PO4 levels as you havent mentioned it.
Here is a list of deficiencies and probable causes.
Potassium deficiency does not have the issues you have expressed.........and , yes, too much sulfate is not good for a tank.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

H bsmith,

I cannot validate Dantra's comment concerning excess Potassium. 


Dantra said:


> and I will go on to say that extra K isn't going to hurt anything!


My personal experience as well as research here "High imbalance of K will cause first Mg then Ca deficiency." and here "Excess potassium may cause deficiencies in magnesium and possibly calcium." definitely indicate that excess Potassium results in deficiencies of Mg and Ca.

My experience has been that leaves that are already deformed will show minimum if any improvement. I usually watch new leaves to see if the symptoms diminish.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Well said Roy:clap2:

Here is a good link to what Roy is talking about:
http://www.finostrom.com.gr/images/aqua/fertilizers/map.htm


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Now just out of curiosity, if you're already dosing non-limiting levels of K+ and other nutrients, with growth within the tank is light limited, how is it possible to have excess K+ causing Mg/Ca deficiencies? If it's a matter of luxury potassium somehow blocking uptake, how would a Hoagland solution not cause this issue?

It's the CO2. People hate hearing it, but it's the hardest thing to perfect. Most people walk away assuming a light green drop checker is all they needed, without ever having tried to improve their flow or testing the DC close to the substrate/in stands of plants. Even if these steps are taken, High light makes it much, much harder to distribute the CO2 properly or attain decent levels... the equivalent of 3.6wpg of T8 is completely excessive and offers no benefits outside of fast growth (with likely uglier morphology). If the fixture is new, it's going to be around 50% higher output for the first 3 months (I have links to PAR charts if you'd like). Turn the light down and watch the problem solve its self after a few extra WC's and algae scrubbing.

Incidentally, Ca deficiency is the favored scapegoat for Co2 issues... take your choice of Mg or K+ to be blamed when the holes appear. I've been one of those who has used it, and even tried to tell Tom he was wrong about my issues; probably one of my more embarrassing moments. Having to admit an expensive fixture wasn't worth the money isn't exactly easy either... it's like trying to tell someone their pH controller was a waste of time.

MCI admits to actually taking more work than EI and claims no better results. You have to chase algae around, rather than just not dealing with it. The method should've pretty much been scrapped by its own creator with this thread: http://www.drpez.net/panel/showthread.php?t=307546&page=2

I know he's got honest intentions, but his methods are clearly a long ways off being sound. As I've said before, he could take that research/experience and make a great guide for plant morphology. This hobby needs a morphology guide far more than another "for dummies" dosing system.


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

As I just stated to Tom in This thread, I have co2 as high as it can possibly go with out killing my fish. My tank looks horrible and I dont want to kill my fish too.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi bsmith,

I think you mean this thread!


----------



## Dantra (May 15, 2007)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> H bsmith,
> 
> I cannot validate Dantra's comment concerning excess Potassium.
> 
> ...





Newt said:


> Well said Roy:clap2:
> 
> Here is a good link to what Roy is talking about:
> http://www.finostrom.com.gr/images/aqua/fertilizers/map.htm


Nice chart however it doesn't state at what ppm the deficiency begins. Of course deficiency can occur but the amount of K+ that we dose in our tanks is no where near the amount needed to cause a deficiency. Does the deficiency happen at 25ppm, 50ppm, 100ppm, 200ppm, 300ppm?

If we dose extra K+ and it puts us at 50ppm-75ppm it will not cause a deficiency of Mg and Ca. I doubt very much we are even close to that amount in our tanks but extra K+ will demand that you have all your ducks in a row. If your CO2 or lights aren't up to par (pardon the pun) as well as the other nutrients then yes you will suffer an imbalance and/or algae will occur and/or your plants may show stunting etc...

Limiting a nutrient like K+ will decrease the rates of growth of the plants so when we don't limit K+ the plants will increase the rate of nutrient uptake. I doubt very strongly that the amount of K+ bsmith is dosing in his take is causing a deficiency providing he isn't dosing at 200ppm or higher.

Showing that chart is useless without including at what range of ppm the deficiency starts to occur. As I stated above, adding extra K+ by ways of K2SO4 is not going to hurt anything however high light can cause poor plant growth and algae, CO2 is the hardest to determine that we have enough of and ferts can be ruled out pretty easily.

If you raise your lights, it will slow things down which means less demand of nutrients are required. Less CO2 and ferts. What bsmith tank shows to me is a CO2 issue. If he can't add more CO2 then raising the lights may very well solve the problem.

Dan


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Philosophos said:


> MCI admits to actually taking more work than EI and claims no better results. You have to chase algae around, rather than just not dealing with it.
> 
> 
> > EI is a disaster for many people and shows no relation to dosing and limiting algae. Its all emperical evidence whereas MCI proves the relationship. I think your words are rather harsh and uncalled for.
> ...


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

A point not explicitly made about EI v MCI is EI really plays the numbers well: using macro mass, there's a 40% chance your problem is CO2 and an even bigger chance it is either CO2 or N. And, as said, after that point there isn't much left. The detective work of something like MCI is good, but those who have done similar (found deficiencies after limiting or playing with individual nutrients/trail and error) may have different conclusions than the author. For example, I associate thread algae with N, for example. I can induce pearling with P addition even at ~3ppm every other day dosing. Etc. I think the spirit of the method and experimentation is excellent. I understand why it has its fans.

I hope this post is not noise and you have a lot of great posts here. I also very much appreciate Newt, Dantra, and others becoming more active in this forum and adding their wealth of experience to the pile. But if we agree that your tank isn't currently in the stage where there's a minor problem (say, a couple leafs curling or poor growth in one species), we have to assume there's something fundamentally wrong, and I think that points to light and macros. 

Really I just wanted to add the best piece of aquarium troubleshooting advice I think I've ever read:

"First thing, before you do anything else: Do a water change." - HeyPK

Then reset with your new targets. Minimum of two weeks between every change, but keep up the water changes and resets in-between.

Also suggest you lay down those stems that are hanging on. You want to propagate and judge off new growth anyway. Also agree with Seattle_Aquarists's points about trimming off those old lost leaves for this same reason: focus on new growth. It may take an extra week or two just to let the plants heal from these changes but better off for it.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Bsmith,

An overall high CO2 level, even perfectly distributed, does not mean a proper CO2:light ratio. If your light is too high then you can kill every fish in the tank with CO2 and the algae will go right on thriving. Making CO2 non-limiting with live fauna will become an impossibility. Turn down your lights and you will have a much happier, easier tank to keep. Your plants do not need massive quantities of light to live; no plant in the hobby that I'm aware of does. If anything, great morphology tends to be something that happens in lower lights. Good lighting spread is also important; you can blare light down from one source, but even saturation with smart bulb placement (or other methods of spreading the light) is far more valuable.



Newt said:


> EI is a disaster for many people and shows no relation to dosing and limiting algae. Its all emperical evidence whereas MCI proves the relationship. I think your words are rather harsh and uncalled for.


Saying EI is a disaster for many people is hardly quantified or qualified; it's not a serious statement. Many people have failed at every method of fish and plant keeping. That being said, I've never seen anyone follow EI to spec that still had issues related specifically to EI. When I say this, I mean the issue they have would be an issue with any other method; high NH4, poor substrate, bad lighting levels/source, etc.

Making an unqualified statement intended as a serious criticism through implication is rather harsh and uncalled for though. Perhaps I'm missing the intent behind your words?



Newt said:


> The author of the thread still hasnt given nutrient and mineral levels. Before and after readings would be helpful rather than grasping at straws and people shooting their mouths off.


I see EI dosing and the T8 equivalent of around 3.6wpg. I'm recommending changing the known incompatibility of over-lighting as an obvious first step. I'd hardly call that shooting my mouth off. Please do not accuse me of shooting my mouth off without asking for clarification, it's harsh and unfair.



Newt said:


> IMO, Tom Barr hasnt proved his EI is any better than PPS, PMDD or MCI. It works for some but not all. Many people still deal with algae issues.


People keep repeating that EI hasn't proven its self; I keep asking them what their definition of proof is. If it's in the results, go look at tanks run by experienced aquarists that are using EI compared to another method with compressed CO2 and mid to high lighting. If it's in the science, why not go to the creator and ask for his evidence/research about the specific questions you have? I keep telling people to do the later of these things, but I haven't seen anyone seriously demand hard evidence on TBR or offer a serious refutation of the related concepts.

If you haven't read the Tom/Christian debate I linked, please do. If you have, I'm not sure how you could come to the conclusion that MCI has decent foundations. Tom even pointed out that you could just add PO4 and you wouldn't have to tolerate the GSA implicit to the method and Christian agreed.

Once again, MCI and EI both claim to make a tank that grows healthy plants. MCI admits to requiring algae within its premise, as well as altering Ca levels for most of us. It goes on to talk about treatment of various algae through modifying dosing as you go along; EI classic doesn't require that beyond determining if you need the extra calcium and magnesium from GH booster based on your water supply. If both have results for individuals that are equally successful in setting out to achieve what they claim, then MCI must be inferior by this premise as a matter of conjunction. It requires more work, more expense, and more algae. For this not to be true, you must be claim that EI doesn't work as well as MCI. We both know where the burden of proof sits if anyone is going to make that claim.

As it stands, it seems like there are a few people who are trying to push the concept hard and basing it mostly around attacking other methods. I don't care much about those politics or their motives, but I figure it's worth saying that I've observed it. I also have no problem with people doing this; that's how life works. All the same, would be nice to see a serious refutation of every other related method, with a copy posted to the public forum (every method has one) of each method refuted. Until this happens, there's really nothing substantial going on that is worth paying attention to.

I'm not trying to attack anyone personally, I'm simply being honest. If MCI worked better than anything else out there, I'd be completely overjoyed. I like using EI, but I still look to El Natural for other concepts to consider; I wouldn't toss the method aside off hand. Because I do not adhere to any one method exclusively, I'm not going to support or stay silent on something I don't agree with for the sake of everyone's feelings. No personal offense is meant, and I hope none is taken.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

very true:


> Many people have failed at every method of fish and plant keeping.


no matter what the hobby or how many times people register success (however measured), some will fail and then the method is suspect. Thats fine, and the discussion should be a learning process. I remember good and not-so-good (angry!) discussions long ago about the value of limiting PO4 which was fashionable at the time. We all learn and adapt, and its a hobby here for most of us. Many of us wouldnt recognize a proper proof vs. a sketchy one. Let alone how to construct a proper one.

unfortunately dosing methods tend to gravitate disciples and detractors. I cant use any one method strictly in all situations. I have varying goals and light levels and spp mix. But I do try to pick up nuggets in fertilizing discussions and I particularly like to see myths debunked, old or new assertions challenged etc. as long as its productive. I think that kind of positive info adds value to APC and helps the people who hang out here no matter what the experience level.


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

I have been running half light and not adding k2so4 since my Sunday 50% water change. GDA and GSA has not shown back up yet. Plants still look like crap but that is going to be the case for a couple of weeks im sure. 

Obviously it is easy to "over dose" lighting. But is this the sole cause of my plants dieng here? I would think that excess light would still allow your plants to thrive like before but that algae would eventually take over and then strangle the plants to death. Not the case here. 

I will keep updating and hopefully get some decent testing equipment tomorrow. 

Thanks to everyone for their opinions.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

bsmith said:


> Obviously it is easy to "over dose" lighting. But is this the sole cause of my plants dieng here? I would think that excess light would still allow your plants to thrive like before but that algae would eventually take over and then strangle the plants to death. Not the case here.


with more light, the plants require more nutrients to avoid limitation - or at least thats my belief. Limitation becomes deficiency on a longer timeline and the plants suffer.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

bsmith said:


> I have been running half light and not adding k2so4 since my Sunday 50% water change. GDA and GSA has not shown back up yet. Plants still look like crap but that is going to be the case for a couple of weeks im sure.
> 
> Obviously it is easy to "over dose" lighting. But is this the sole cause of my plants dieng here? I would think that excess light would still allow your plants to thrive like before but that algae would eventually take over and then strangle the plants to death. Not the case here.
> 
> ...


I agree with ashappard's statements with this one. It's all about balance; stock aquarium kit lighting over most tanks isn't going to require more than a fertile substrate, maybe a little light dosing or heavy feeding, and a couple hours with the light off in the afternoon. Double or triple that, and suddenly you have a tank that demands CO2 and regular dosing. Growth goes from an inch per week to an inch per day in some cases; this is huge in terms of demands. CO2 is the big issue even once the dosing is right; it looks like multiple deficiencies, multiple types of algae pop up etc.


----------

