# Which traces? What choice to make?



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm thinking about switching my trace mineral product. I ran across this chart that I thought was quite interesting.... I think I need some chemistry help. I'm sick of the cloudy water on trace days.... I do want to think about cost though I'm more concerned right this minute about increased plant health and precipitation issues. SO - what do you think?

http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/plants/Podio_Fertilizer_Comparison_Chart.html


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi Tex Gal,

I used to use Flourish Complete and I currently use CSM+B for my trace element requirements. I think that I had better results with Flourish Complete, especially with faster growing stem plants, however the CSM+B is much less expensive. We have very soft water here in Seattle, with very little mineral content; I believe I have more deficiency problems with CSM+B.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Drinda, are you adding iron separately as well? I'm surprised you have precipitation issues with your soft water. How much/often do you add it? It's much more common in harder waters. I switched over to an iron chelate that Greg used to sell. Its chelating agent was different and seemed to stop my problems on my water.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

recently I've been using a combination of Flourish and TMG 
I've been happy with the results. I also dose additional Fe in tanks that need it.

ditch the CSM+B for a while to see if its the cause of your cloudiness.
try something else for a month.


----------



## rich815 (Jun 27, 2007)

I've used Flourish, TMG and CSM+B (dosed dry) and could never tell any significant difference between the three.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I believe in trace rotation. I use CSM+B as a staple, but occasionally feed a little flourish for the sake of diversity in micros. I do this simply because I'm not sure of the more obscure elements in my tap water, or if the system I'm using has any unique requirements that I don't understand.

-Philosophos


----------



## deicide (Sep 1, 2009)

I suggest Flourish Trace (not Flourish Comp) & TMG. Try to find a DPTA Fe source for Iron dosing. Is this what Bert H is referring to? If it is then get some as it is much better than any EDTA FE based chelate no matter how high the Fe % 

If the water is cloudy after trace dosing this is due possibly to the chelate breaking down because of the UV sterilization....Drinda?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I'd have to disagree with using flourish trace.

It's actually over 99% nothing of value:
http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/FlourishTrace.html

Flourish has everything flourish trace has, and more of it:
http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Flourish.html

-Philosophos


----------



## deicide (Sep 1, 2009)

My suggestions were NOT based on guess work. If Flourish trace is dosed at correct amounts, along with her aquasoil substrate and TMG the outcome WILL be effective.

BTW I did not suggest Flourish for a reason 

Don't be fooled by my newb status either...I'm far from it.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

deicide said:


> I suggest Flourish Trace (not Flourish Comp) & TMG. Try to find a DPTA Fe source for Iron dosing.


I was talking with someone else the other day and they suggested 
the same thing (flourish trace and TMG) and a couple of collectors 
I know also use TMG / FL trace. I've squinted at the idea (without actually trying) 
and I think I'll give it a chance. I think TMG is great, but once I started 
adding Flourish (comp) to the rotation I notice performance that either of them 
alone do not produce.

very recent but not a great pic - my Rotala mexicana 'belem' (red rotala in center) 
likes the current regime. Color is hard to maintain on this one sometimes. 
But I'm inching towards consistency.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Yes, I have been dosing extra iron 2 days a week. I have been dosing the Flourish Iron. Flourish Iron is not an EDTA source, (according to their web site). In the 125 I dose 2 caps (I think that's 10 ml). If I don't dose more iron my I notice some plants suffer. 

My water is GH 3 and KH <1. That would suggest it's pretty soft. On the other hand out of my tap it is not soft. Maybe the ADA Aquasoil just continues to make it soft and the plants use the CA and MG that is in the water. I never dose those as some suggest (Equilibrium at a water change).

I ordered some TMG which is now TPN (Tropica Plant Nutrition). I just got a small amount to see if I notice a difference. SO... for those of you that mix it with the Flourish, are you dosing these in rotation or 1/2 doses of each?

I have read that a UV can cause issues. I was talking to others in my local plant club and they have had the same issue on tanks with or with a UV. I will turn off my UV for a week and see if that makes any difference.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Flourish iron is kind of pricey, and it'll blow off its chelating bond fast; it needs to be dosed quite regularly.

3GH won't even tell you if you have enough Mg; it's bad chemistry to assume that it will. Mg is not Ca, and not all Ca is bioavailable to plants. Lets say 100% of your GH is also KH from limestone; your plants will not get Mg. On the other hand, maybe it's solely from dolomite; CaMg(CO3)2. In this case you're getting about 3/8 Mg:Ca (Mg = ~24.3g/mol, Ca = 40g/mol), of which the Ca is still probably not unavailable (I'm assuming once the Mg is ripped out, it'll just turn back to CaCO3). Or maybe your tap water is passing through gypsum; CaSO4.2H2O. Maybe there's combination of all 3 

A water report for your city (if it doesn't have enough detail, call the water company; they do other tests) will help. I'm not sure about Ca/Mg test kits and their accuracy. Personally I dose to 46ppm from CaCl and MgSo4.7H2O alone. Despite the fact that I pour 125ppm GH out of the tap, only 2.5ppm of that is wrapped up in Mg.

Personally I just toss in some flourish every now and then, no real method. I do it mostly to round out what every may be missing from the tap water, and because I've got an extra bottle of it sitting around. I've never bothered to go 50/50 or anything.

There's some buzz on and off at thebarreport about the possibility of aquariumfertilizers.com selling a new micronutrient done up by Tom (made or designed, I can't remember). I'm hoping it'll be out soon; I can't imagine it doing less than an amazing job of things.

*edit* looks like you found the thread on the barr report before I made the post.

-Philosophos


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Something else comes to mind... could you post your current entire dosing schedule? Have you been adding anything for NPK?

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> 3GH won't even tell you if you have enough Mg; it's bad chemistry to assume that it will. Mg is not Ca, and not all Ca is bioavailable to plants. Lets say 100% of your GH is also KH from limestone; your plants will not get Mg. On the other hand, maybe it's solely from dolomite; CaMg(CO3)2. In this case you're getting about 3/8 Mg:Ca (Mg = ~24.3g/mol, Ca = 40g/mol), of which the Ca is still probably not unavailable (I'm assuming once the Mg is ripped out, it'll just turn back to CaCO3). Or maybe your tap water is passing through gypsum; CaSO4.2H2O. Maybe there's combination of all 3


that about sums it up. Some tap is fine and some is not.
long term in the aquarium, who knows what makes it up GH.. I dodge the whole thing and use RODI,
and reconstitute at water change time. I know its not for every one, but just saying..

good luck Tex Gal with the switch, make a big water change and re-dose if you really want to
start 'fresh'. Skip the UV except when you need it  and about my Flourish comp / TMG dosing - 
I'm alternating. So if the tank gets 30mL per week, then its 10mL of one and next dose its the other.
Don't know if I'll keep this pattern. I've also been adding more trace mix.. Since I've been asking around
and I find that for what spp I'm keeping vs light and growth rate I'm using less trace than others. 
so I'm up to about 50mL per week now.

theres a lot of ways to reach the goal, if the goal is plants at potential then dosing is something you get
your hands around at some point. And a lot of ideas can be dismissed as not necessary. 
In many cases, especially in the _short term_ they aren't.  
long term is what gets you, and a pattern develops that you cannot shake.
like deficiency, green dust or another nuisance algae, color problems etc.

I suffer from collectoritis, so it applies to me and I see the result - its a lot easier to maintain plants to their potential
when there are fewer spp in the tank. Especially if they are similar plants at least by requirements.


----------



## modster (Jun 16, 2007)

ashappard said:


> I dodge the whole thing and use RODI,
> and reconstitute at water change time.


Do you use anything besides the micro fert to reconstitute the RODI water? What about adjusting ph? I use RODI water myself, but I always get the right GH and then dose flourish complete.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

modster said:


> Do you use anything besides the micro fert to reconstitute the RODI water? What about adjusting ph? I use RODI water myself, but I always get the right GH and then dose flourish complete.


yes, I reconstitute with a GH booster. 
so I get CaSO4 / MgSO4 / FeSO4 / etc

pH - I dont adjust or measure it.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Philosophos said:


> Something else comes to mind... could you post your current entire dosing schedule? Have you been adding anything for NPK?
> 
> -Philosophos


I do dose Macros as well. I do EI dosing.

M,W,F - 2 tsp KN03, 1/2 tsp heaping KH2P04 
T,TH,S - ½ tsp (30ml) Trace Elements 3x a week, Flourish Iron on two of those days.
Sun - 50% weekly water change

When my plant mass gets very heavy, I increase all of these somewhat. I have on occassion added Mg (Epsom salts) but not on a regular basis.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the dosing. I do think Ashappard is right that it's much harder with many species in the tank. I am seeing a little light at the end of my foggy understanding tunnel. I think the water chemistry is the most difficult thing for me.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Ya, many species tend to fight in their own way. My new hydrocotyle isn't playing nice with other plants right now. It's harder to balance aesthetics as well. While it seems to be a lost skill (Amano has drilled it into our heads to use fewer species),one of the most skilled planted tank keepers I've seen can juggle a dozen species in a 60 gal cube. It makes for miserable photographs, but it's better looking in person than these minimalistic tanks.

Water chemistry is something that stumps most of us. I've put some effort in, but I still don't understand a lot of things. If I could suggest a next step, it'd be learning how to mix your own liquid ferts. Just for fun one day, I decided to weigh out various tbsp/tsp measures of different fertilizer compounds on their own. Since that day, when I found things like a +/- 20% margin of error, and a maximum +/- 5% accuracy once I'd trained my self using the scale, I went over to liquid and never went back.

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> one of the most skilled planted tank keepers I've seen can juggle a dozen species in a 60 gal cube. It makes for miserable photographs, but it's better looking in person than these minimalistic tanks


only a dozen? in all that space?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

All that space? 24x24 footprint with several large stems? I know I couldn't make that look so composed and deliberate that I'd be entering it into competition; he was winning them. I wish I could remember his name.

-Philosophos


----------



## orlando (Feb 14, 2007)

I dont know what your water out of the tap is like, but I would guess liquid rock in Texas.
Have you tested your tap water lately? Not tank water...
As deicide mentioned, get some DTPA Iron Chelate for dosing Iron.. 
Our Iron Chelate is chelated with DTPA and it may work better for your water chemistry.

Adam also mentioned TMG, that I believe has better chelates for some folks water chemistry(CSM=EDTA)
Flourish may also be a better alternative for you with your water perrams.

-O


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Orlando you should have made it clear on your website you carry DPTA  Most people who are not familiar with source would just overlook this due to the price, not knowing they are getting an *excellent* Fe source. I would proudly display DPTA 7% FE

I also suggest Flourish Trace along with TMG. What you are after is the right amounts of elements and Flourish with its higher % concentration of certain elements combined with TMG will work well if both are dosed at correct amounts. I used Flourish Comp for a while with fairly decent results but it's Fe base + some elements is lacking and I had to improvise.

DPTA is much better, so get some of this. Also, Flourish Trace is cheaper than Flourish Comp the last time I checked.

As deicide says Aquasoil is also nutrient rich in both Macros, Mn, Fe, Ca & Mg + traces so it shouldn't take a boat load of traces to get the job done. What you are trying to aim for is the right amounts of each, not too much of 1/any. What you might experience is too high a concentration of one element/elements creating a uptake issue for others or create a Toxicity situation, both of which can cause you to assume have deficiencies  *stunted growth, twisty leaves, droopy leaves, curling tips of leaves, death of the main stem, cupping leaves...etc* Forget NPK,CA, MG & once upon a time low Co2. These are easy and 98% of us got those covered these days, mostly way over covered. Why do you think all who used Aqua Soil noticed a huge improvement with their abilities to grow plants well, do think it's really because of NPK or because it eats KH? Yes its soft water making capabilities help greatly but this is mostly because it makes its rich deposit of minerals more available to the plants. It's easy to OD on traces so try a little until you find the sweet spot.

I also suggest a daily trace dose routine and not 3x week


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Hoagland was growing plants quite well in 10x what Sears-Conlin suggested. Akadama (AAS's base) being a sort of ion exchange resin, I'd think healthy column dosing (including trace) would help to maintain the nutrient load within the soil. 

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> Hoagland was growing plants quite well in 10x what Sears-Conlin suggested.


okay thats all well and good, but does 'quite well' mean increase in 
biomass per time unit or does it mean desired color and appearance?

trace discussions talking about what kind(s) to use, how to dose them, etc - 
are usually not about keeping the plants from dying, but how to get them 
to have the desired appearance and growth pattern in our little aquariums. 
Not wetlands management or weed control in nature.

in the OPs case, its precipitation when dosing traces.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

It definitely means growth speed, the issue is hitting non-limiting nutrients. If you want to drop out NO3 for red that's one thing, but this is toxicity we're talking about. Clearly toxicity is not an issue if higher yields are found at higher levels. If you're going to scale back from non-limiting nutrient levels, and give that advice to others, it'd be nice to know the specifics as to why.

Now in terms of precipitation, most of us don't have this issue. I'd think it'd be preferable to solve the issue by finding better nutrient sources rather than letting some very expensive substrate fail to re-load it's nutrients. Personally I'd rather have my AS find the end of its life by breaking down rather than losing its potency.

The Fe(III)DPTA advertising comment was good though. EDTA definitely gets frustrating, given its typical pH requirements.

-Philosophos


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Mrkookm- The entire point of dosing my traces every other day was to avoid the precipitation problem I'm having. Obviously it hasn't avoided this issue. Your suggestion to dose them everyday is interesting. I have seen some of the plant difformities you mentioned. (For one I was dosing too much K and stopped, seeing symptoms stop). Would I do this at opposite ends of the day from the macros? Would the phosphates not interfere with the iron, if I have the correct form of iron? (I did see Orlando's product.)

Does anyone know what form of Iron Flourish is? Their web site says this. It infers to me that this is not an EDTA Fe product.

_Why It's Different
Plants are able to much more easily derive a benefit from Flourish Iron™ than from EDTA-iron sources because all EDTA iron is in the ferric (Fe+3) state. Since plants require iron in the ferrous (Fe+2) state, additional physiological energy must be expended in order to extract the ferric iron from EDTA-iron and then convert it to the ferrous form._

Doesn't that sound like it's not EDTA? Doesn't that then mean it is DPTA?

My plans are:
1. Turn off my UV - check!
2. Look at water report from local water company to see mg and ca content/type.
3. Try to decide how to combine TNP and Flourish Traces
4. Use up my Flourish FE and get a Fe DPTA.
5. See what changes happen to my plants.
6. Work on dosing traces daily.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

I had wondered about dosing Fe and PO4 - but if I end up with both to do in the same day, I
just add them a couple hours apart. no problem. 

good luck!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Seachem uses iron gluconate. One of the best debates related to the hobby I've ever read is about the topic. Ever want to see Paul Seers and Greg Morin (plus some extras) go at it? Here's the link:

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/gluconate.html

It'll probably answer some of your questions, too.

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> It definitely means growth speed, the issue is hitting non-limiting nutrients. If you want to drop out NO3 for red that's one thing, but this is toxicity we're talking about. Clearly toxicity is not an issue if higher yields are found at higher levels. If you're going to scale back from non-limiting nutrient levels, and give that advice to others, it'd be nice to know the specifics as to why.


I dont think anybody is recommending dosing in limiting amounts. I hope that ship sailed long ago. but try a few spp. for an extended time and you will see that some respond better to more than just adding nutrients in the same amount all the time, only adjusting for biomass. try dosing PO4 / NO3 closer together / further apart etc. To tweak a plants appearance (ideally for the better) you can play with traces. not in limiting quantities, in different ratios relative to each other to make the plant look a certain way. You can bring out the 'narrow' in the narrow R.macrandras. Pull red from the crowns of Ludwigia 'cuba' and so on and so forth.


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Tex Gal

I used to use CSM for long while and had the same issue you are experiencing with the cloudiness, usually an hour or 2 after dosing. If i ran my UV (40 & 36watt) the cloudiness was even worse, so i know for a fact the UV do affect the trace, especially higher wattages.

With regards to daily trace dosing I've been doing this now for 2yrs and never had any issue with Fe. Precipitation will occur if the PO4 to Fe ratio is way off, but the way we dose nutes (Fe included) in our tanks this will not be an issue. So daily dosing will be fine.

Again I suggest you use up the Flourish Fe and get the DPTA its cheaper, lasts longer and is an excellent Fe source... better than Fourish Fe IME. Don't get me wrong Flourish Fe is a descent product but you have to use too much of it to get the job done...even Seachem suggests this  DPTA on the other hand a little goes a long way and your plants will respond if all else is in check.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

ashappard said:


> but try a few spp. for an extended time and you will see that some respond better to more than just adding nutrients in the same amount all the time, only adjusting for biomass. try dosing PO4 / NO3 closer together / further apart etc. To tweak a plants appearance (ideally for the better) you can play with traces. not in limiting quantities, in different ratios relative to each other to make the plant look a certain way. You can bring out the 'narrow' in the narrow R.macrandras. Pull red from the crowns of Ludwigia 'cuba' and so on and so forth.


In that case I agree, I've even played with that sort of thing, but that isn't what mrkookm was talking about. He was referring to pure toxicity issues from micros/trace. Now I'm not sure what your experience is, but personally haven't seen micronutrient toxicity from anything looking like standard dosing in combination with ADA AAS. I haven't seen plant appearances desirably manipulated by anything substantially contained in any standard trace bottles either, save perhaps high dosing Fe or Mn.

-Philosophos


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Since you do not know what scenarios can cause toxicity here are a few:

1) The trace source used
2) The user OD traces (as with most OD'ing trying to get colors)
3) User using tap water which has a an already high element content
4) User using a rich substrate, rootabs or both



> Now I'm not sure what your experience is, but personally haven't seen micronutrient toxicity from anything looking like standard dosing in combination with ADA AAS.


Define standard dosing? If you haven't seen toxicity issues in all your experience then I can tell you you do not know ANYTHING about growing plants well. You might have the book knowledge, pull quotes from from 40yrs ago but this means nothing is you do not know what to look for or understand what you are seeing. Not all plants are made equal and some are more tolerant to certain elements than others. Did you know this? Have you read this?

We are talking about aquatic plants here which differs from a terrestrial plant significantly with regards to their uptake & tolerance to the elements, so comparing both is ridiculous. Although we are trying to create a natural environment for our plants to mimic them in nature our tanks are far from it.



> I haven't seen plant appearances desirably manipulated by anything substantially contained in any standard trace bottles either, save perhaps high dosing Fe or Mn.


I know for a fact you absolutely don't have the slightest clue about what to look for from this statement or you are just (BS'ing the masses) . See the link the below for an example and their are tons out there (no offense to you Tex Gal really  ). I'm sure if I saw your tank I'll be able to enlighten you too.

Now if you believe the fix is to give this plant more non-limiting nutrients or increase her CA or MG or whatever else your book is telling you, you need to put more effort into understanding what you are reading and try for yourself.

I aim to get the most perfect define and growth I can possibly get from my plants and the reason why I make my own traces. I found the ones out there either gave me too much of one element or too little and I had to use several types with varied amounts to get the desired result. Have you ever seen my plants? Maybe you should do a search and try to find some of them.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3106005890_e1a074d8dc_b.jpg


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm sure I can learn a lot from everyone. I still have some twisted deformed leaves in my odd variety of Reneckii alternanthera. I think it's because of inconsistent dosing due to absence. The new growth seems to be perfect. It does suggest to me that frequency in dosing makes a difference, which is why I would like to try dosing traces everyday. It certainly can't hurt.

My water report (end of 2008, last one I have) says I have Ca 17.2ppm & Mg1.6 ppm. That would suggest that I need to be adding Mg to my water. Isn't the ratio supposed to be Mg 2:1 Ca? Today, my water tests out of the tap 6.72 GH and 3.36 KH (I need to call and get a more current water report.)

It also says that my total alkalinity as CaCO3 is 267ppm. Why can't plants use this form of Ca? I read that when the water is flushed with CO2 that the Ca becomes soluable. I am doing that since I have pressurized CO2. Wouldn't that make the Ca available to the plants? It doesn't seem like I would have to add Ca.

Mrkookm - tell me what I should see in the photo... I really want to learn this stuff....


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

mrkookm said:


> Define standard dosing?


Lets call conlin-sears levels a high standard, given that people still do lean dosing quite frequently.



mrkookm said:


> If you haven't seen toxicity issues in all your experience then I can tell you you do not know ANYTHING about growing plants well.


I've seen toxicity. I've also seen people more frequently mistake nutrient lockout or plain out deficiency for toxicity. For some reason 6ppm Fe makes them think their yellow foliage MUST be chlorosis from toxicity, when the fact that they aren't dosing NPK never occurs to them.



mrkookm said:


> You might have the book knowledge, pull quotes from from 40yrs ago but this means nothing is you do not know what to look for or understand what you are seeing.


Are you saying that I don't understand what I'm seeing when I look at a planted tank well enough to spot toxicity? I wasn't aware that you knew me that well. It seems you're making this call before even looking at what I have to say. Deal with the argument, but please don't attack me. I enjoy a good debate, and whether or not I'm an inobservant twit should not impact the validity of the actual argument I make or the conclusions that I draw. 



mrkookm said:


> Not all plants are made equal and some are more tolerant to certain elements than others. Did you know this? Have you read this?


Of course I have. What I haven't read is plants showing significant toxicity within dosing ranges typical to the hobby. If anything, I've seen evidence that they can be pushed higher.



mrkookm said:


> We are talking about aquatic plants here which differs from a terrestrial plant significantly with regards to their uptake & tolerance to the elements, so comparing both is ridiculous. Although we are trying to create a natural environment for our plants to mimic them in nature our tanks are far from it.


It has been proven though. Lets start with the two main sources for concentrated nutrient solutions, used in hydroponics:

(Source: Epstein 1972)

KNO3: 1M 6.0mls N 224ppm
Ca(NO3)2*4H2O 1M 4.0mls K 235ppm
NH4H2PO4 1M 2.0mls Ca 160ppm
MgSO4*7H2O 1M 1.0mls P 62ppm
S 32ppm
Mg 24ppm

(Hoagland and Snyder, 1933)

KNO3 1M 5.0mls N 210 ppm
Ca(NO3)2*4H20 1M 5.0mls K 235 ppm
MgSO4*7H20 1M 2.0mls Ca 200 ppm
KH2PO4 1M 1.0mls P 31 ppm
S 64 ppm
Mg 48 ppm

Both of these levels were taken by Gerloff, modified slightly while keeping the same relatively high concentrations, and used for aquatic plants. This is something posted by Tom Barr that I've taken the time to verify for my self.



mrkookm said:


> I know for a fact you absolutely don't have the slightest clue about what to look for from this statement or you are just (BS'ing the masses) . See the link the below for an example and their are tons out there (no offense to you Tex Gal really  ). I'm sure if I saw your tank I'll be able to enlighten you too.


I was referring to trace/micros, since that's the issue at hand. Notice I didn't include NPK ratios. If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, please explain why with a little detail. Ask why I think as I do, or ask for clarification. Support your argument, show why what I'm saying is untrue, and why that picture matters to this debate. If my line of thought is faulty, it should reveal its self just fine. Do not simply tell me that I am wrong, and brush my statement off. This wastes everyone's time.



mrkookm said:


> Now if you believe the fix is to give this plant more non-limiting nutrients or increase her CA or MG or whatever else your book is telling you, you need to put more effort into understanding what you are reading and try for yourself.


I have tried changing plant growth patterns with nutrients. I've played with NO3 limitation, dosing iron between .1-.6ppm, pushed calcium up and down to look for deficiencies, observed comparative effectiveness of various substrates, and so on. I don't know why you think I'm getting this from a book; I find it does no harm to increase Ca+ and Mg from CaCl2 or CaSO4 and MgSO4.7H2O respectively within a certain range. I know because I've done it, and I've gotten good growth. Many people have done it, and gotten excelent, healthy growth.

If you've been tinkering with manipulating growth patterns or algae through nutrients, you would probably agree that the first step is the capability to establish healthy growth, and then to start manipulating nutrients to test for desired effects.



mrkookm said:


> I aim to get the most perfect define and growth I can possibly get from my plants and the reason why I make my own traces. I found the ones out there either gave me too much of one element or too little and I had to use several types with varied amounts to get the desired result. Have you ever seen my plants? Maybe you should do a search and try to find some of them.


That's nice, but if you're going to make these claims, don't just show nice plant growth. This is not a world where post hoc ergo propter hoc is a valid statement. Your picture shows some nice red, but the stem looks lanky, and some of the new growth looks a bit stunted/twisted. This may be the result of your trace compound, it may be something else. To be honest, your ability or lack there of to grow plants does not invalidate other methods; this would be a false dilemma. The apparent success or lack there of in your growth also does not indicate an optimum balance in any one area, in and of its self.

To be honest, you could be incompetent at growing plants, but if you can make one sound argument backed by repeatable results, with a good justification for the entire thing, I'll respect your for it.

As it stands, you're playing, "I'll show you mine, you show me yours" mixed in with some ad homs. I would much rather not waste my time with that part of the discussion, and have a pure, honest debate about the science. Please try to set your emotions aside, and realize that who I am or who you are will not impact the truth of a debate that is not about either one of us as individuals.

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> I haven't seen plant appearances desirably manipulated by anything substantially contained in any standard trace bottles either, save perhaps high dosing Fe or Mn




Some plants require work to look their best, if thats the goal.
Many of them end up being 'rare' because not many people enjoy keeping them.
Because they can't duplicate the pic they saw that made them want to keep it.
Sometimes you figure out how to surpass the quality and appearance and it is an exciting thing.

if biomass in common plants is the goal then sure, crack open some dusty old wetlands paper.
Otherwise there is *always* much to learn, and new spp. give new challenges.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> As it stands, you're playing, "I'll show you mine, you show me yours" mixed in with some ad homs. I would much rather not waste my time with that part of the discussion, and have a pure, honest debate about the science.


in many cases the science isnt there. Papers are not written about maximizing the color of R.mexicana variants or changing the leaf shape of a macrandra. Papers about inducing splits on Erio type 3? So in the hobbyists world, pictures do tell the story of an accomplishment. Quotes from papers do not. 

that said, _civil_ debate is encouraged. 
less ruffled feathers, hopefully.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Sorry for the mess, Tex Gal, it seems there's a mild thread jacking going on. We'll try to keep it civil :biggrin:



Tex Gal said:


> My water report (end of 2008, last one I have) says I have Ca 17.2ppm & Mg1.6 ppm. That would suggest that I need to be adding Mg to my water. Isn't the ratio supposed to be Mg 2:1 Ca? Today, my water tests out of the tap 6.72 GH and 3.36 KH (I need to call and get a more current water report.)


Depending on who you talk to, you'll see anything from 1:1-4:1 Ca:Mg (not Mg:Ca). 1.6ppm is definitely low; both in my own experience and any papers I've read showing dry weight analysis of aquatic macrophytes, you won't be able to maintain non-limiting growth, or not very long. Lets say for the sake of argument that your existing Ca is all from a good source of bioavailability. You could try leaving it as is, but I'm betting you could dose another 10-15ppm in from a source you know will work, and not have to worry about whether you'll have healthy growth. Fine tuning can happen after.

It's easier to start out with extra Ca dosing and work on getting the CO2 right in the tank rather than wondering if seeing a bit of leaf transparency means Ca or CO2. I can't count the number of times I've had people dose 20-30ppm Ca from CaCl2 or CaSO4 and then say that they have Ca deficiencies while clearly running insufficient CO2 (green drop checker, DIY CO2 under high light, etc).



Tex Gal said:


> It also says that my total alkalinity as CaCO3 is 267ppm. Why can't plants use this form of Ca? I read that when the water is flushed with CO2 that the Ca becomes soluable. I am doing that since I have pressurized CO2. Wouldn't that make the Ca available to the plants? It doesn't seem like I would have to add Ca.


I haven't read anything of that sort. I wouldn't mind reading your source though; it'd save me money on ferts if it's true. If anything I'd think that a flood of CO2 would just add a larger source to convert any free Ca+ to CaCO3, but it'd be a welcome surprise if that were not so.

-Philosophos


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

ashappard said:


> in many cases the science isnt there. Papers are not written about maximizing the color of R.mexicana variants or changing the leaf shape of a macrandra. Papers about inducing splits on Erio type 3? So in the hobbyists world, pictures do tell the story of an accomplishment. Quotes from papers do not.


Maybe not papers, but something along the lines of... "I dosed ABC nutrients under XYZ conditions and this is how my R. macandra looks now, can someone verify?" At least there we have a method, and those of us who are curious can figure out why it works. It's better than, "here's my picture, it works, so the reason that I think it works is valid." Threads like this with stickies on a research-themed board would be really nice.

I guess I feel comfortable saying that I don't know quite frequently when it comes to growth quality issues. I've seen so much contradiction that I'd rather not misguide others, or encourage others to until things get figured out. If my underwear is missing, I'd better look behind my dresser before creating the grand unified theory of underpants gnomes. If I'm a quadriplegic, I'll just have to wait until someone else can help me look. Still, no underpants gnomes until I can snag one in a live trap. 

-Philosophos


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Want to see good debate... No fighting please 
I really want to learn this. 

The px. posted was of my poly sp. Kawagoeanum. I'm glad you told me what was wrong with it. I didn't realize it looked stunted or lanky. It's a fast grower and always has great color. As it grows out the leaves seem right, not stunted. Are you saying they should be longer?

I think I should start with increasing Mg to 2:1 first. It's the Mg that is 1.6, not the Ca. I'll have to find my source again. I will order the Fe and begin with it after I use up my flourish Fe. I am an iius to see what change I get from all these other products.

I really appreciate this information from you all. I think it's very helpful to understand these interactions.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> Maybe not papers, but something along the lines of... "I dosed ABC nutrients under XYZ conditions and this is how my R. macandra looks now, can someone verify?" At least there we have a method, and those of us who are curious can figure out why it works. It's better than, "here's my picture, it works, so the reason that I think it works is valid." Threads like this with stickies on a research-themed board would be really nice.
> 
> I guess I feel comfortable saying that I don't know quite frequently when it comes to growth quality issues. I've seen so much contradiction that I'd rather not misguide others, or encourage others to until things get figured out. If my underwear is missing, I'd better look behind my dresser before creating the grand unified theory of underpants gnomes. If I'm a quadriplegic, I'll just have to wait until someone else can help me look. Still, no underpants gnomes until I can snag one in a live trap.
> 
> -Philosophos


Some of the info you are looking for is actually in this thread, interleaved in puffery. Main reason these discussions rarely happen in public is that the turn this thread took (hopefully temporary) is all too common. One side claims : "Barr says this" -- "Sears-Conlin" -- numbers / figures / 'proof'. The other side says "you have no real experience, beyond just reading 50 year old papers and quoting them". Its not productive and many experienced growers avoid it and lurk instead.

I can say that when comparing notes, I find that another grower often has a _very_ different regime but with great success and I learn something from them every time. Its much more constructive that way. I've read plenty of papers.  They do little for me other than reinforce common sense strategies that exist in our regimes already. The biggest hurdle for many growers is to actually stick to a regime and to eliminate unknown quantities. Once those things are shaken off, it becomes so much easier. Then the work on performance can begin.

I wish more real discussions on plant performance would happen in public. I'll participate, and leave my preconceived notions of what is 'proper dosing' behind.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Ashappard, quoting you for my reply would be a bit tricky, so I'll just type out my opinion on the debate n' such. 

Personally, I like papers for a basis. I woudn't just go by Tom saying something when it comes to a debate; that'd be stupid on my part. One big argumentum ad verecundium. If he happened to mention it though, it's easy to look up similar posts by him since he's so prolific. I don't tend to quote any individual in debates without having verified it my self, by reading the papers. In some cases I can get away with abstracts only.

On the other hand, I appreciate it when I see something new that contradicts preconceived notions. I just don't find it rational to say that because someone owns a tank that is doing what they like, that it is necessarily doing what they like for the reasons that they believe. My argument is simply one against basing conclusions on inductive assertions rather than deductive testing.

Some good discussion comes up on thebarrreport.com now and then; we seem to be going back over NO3 limitation with some frequency. I've had some on AquaticQuotient, and I'm trying to get into UKAPS a little because some bright things come out of them. Around here I find a simple advice forum, and it does it's job well.

If you want a fun project to figure out, tell me why my R. rotundifolia in a little low tech 10 gal. is creeping almost like a ground cover, never getting over 3-4 inches at very most :wacko: I'd love to work with someone to figure that one out.

-Philosophos


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Tex Gal said:


> The px. posted was of my poly sp. Kawagoeanum. I'm glad you told me what was wrong with it. I didn't realize it looked stunted or lanky. It's a fast grower and always has great color. As it grows out the leaves seem right, not stunted. Are you saying they should be longer


Drinda, your plants look 'fine' which is a compliment 
but there is always an issue to be found if you have seen a healthier specimen.
the issues you face are not uncommon, but are solvable. 
You aren't in that bad of shape, honestly.

you are hopefully tackling your base water which is 50% of the battle. Next is sticking to a regime and having good CO2 which is the other 40%. I think those 2 things are less of a mystery to the hobby as a whole today. Especially CO2, as there are many options for injecting and managing it. Sticking to a regime, well no amount of study can fix that  and we all slide from time to time.

the last 10% is plant performance and if the plants are healthy and the tank is stable then its a much easier task.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Tex Gal said:


> The px. posted was of my poly sp. Kawagoeanum. I'm glad you told me what was wrong with it. I didn't realize it looked stunted or lanky. It's a fast grower and always has great color. As it grows out the leaves seem right, not stunted. Are you saying they should be longer?
> 
> I think I should start with increasing Mg to 2:1 first. It's the Mg that is 1.6, not the Ca. I'll have to find my source again. I will order the Fe and begin with it after I use up my flourish Fe. I am an iius to see what change I get from all these other products.
> 
> I really appreciate this information from you all. I think it's very helpful to understand these interactions.


I didn't realize it was your tank. It isn't a masterpiece yet, but it's certainly coming along well given that you're just figuring some of this out. The leaf distortion is classically attributed to Ca+ deficiency, but guess what else looks like that? Ya... CO2 deficiency looks like calcium deficiency. It takes a while to nail it all down.

If there's leaf loss, nitrogen would be the classic answer. Personally I'd get the CO2/Ca+ thing sorted out along with the magnesium then wait and see.

-Philosophos


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

hahhaha! Philosophos I think Tom Barr is rubbing off on you, you not only quote like he does, but you actually starting to write (you are better at it though) like him too. I like the guy, have fairly good rapport with him and he has bought several plants from me as well, so don't go running off with this..hahaha 

I'll not detract from the topic too much and my suggestions to Tex Gal still stands. If you have some better methods please feel free to post away; however, I can tell you this much, just looking over your methods and choice of some chemicals on re-mineralizing your changed water tells me enough about your knowledge. I'll leave it at that 

BTW that picture was not mine, it was Tex Gals. *Drinda I meant nothing I was only trying to show a minor problem that's all *

Philosophos sometimes pictures *are needed* to show ones skill/knowledge level, if I were in the other shoe it would only confirm that I can have confidence in the suggesters recommendations. Maybe if you showed some pictures of you plants it'll give me some and hopefully Drinda some confidence that you do indeed know what your talking about and show that your methods do work.

Here are the pics of *my* plants, all of which are grown in SMS/Turface. I have lots more but you get the point... I'm no newb to this


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

mrkookm said:


> just looking over your methods and choice of some chemicals on re-mineralizing your changed water tells me enough about your knowledge. I'll leave it at that


No, please don't leave it at that. If you're going to try to discredit a method, you need an argument. You can not simply decry someone elses methods and call them ignorant of the hobby and expect to be taken seriously. All you've done is insult me, because you aren't backing up your statements. If you got into a debate with a little bit of fact behind it, then it wouldn't be any real insult; it would be the truth.



mrkookm said:


> Philosophos sometimes pictures *are needed* to show ones skill/knowledge level, if I were in the other shoe it would only confirm that I can have confidence in the suggesters recommendations. Maybe if you showed some pictures of you plants it'll give me some and hopefully Drinda some confidence that you do indeed know what your talking about and show that your methods do work.


I have to claim the opposite based on experience. I see people getting into arguments based solely on how good each others tanks look. It gets even worse when you use that tank as an argument for who has a better understanding of planted tanks. Have you ever seen posts of VaughnH's tanks? His latest non-ripparium posts don't look pretty, but the man has an understanding of light within the planted tank far beyond what I'm guessing you know, and definitely beyond my capability. You can thank him and supercoley (who also isn't about to win awards for his tanks despite his knowledge) for a lot of how people are thinking of light in the planted tank right now.

Essentially what I'm doing here is refusing to be drawn in to what looks like a red herring and a non sequitor. I haven't posted pictures of my tanks because of these debates I get in to; they side track from actual knowledge. I don't want people thinking I'm any more or less valid in my arguments than someone because I keep better or worse plants than them. This is a statement I've made before to others, and I'll stand by it.

When you see my plants, they'll be under my real name in competitions or separate ID's, and I'm not going to be taking any credit for them with my existing screen name.

Others may like to post under their names, many do. I don't enjoy pissing competitions, or avoiding honest debate.

On the other hand, what I will do is post pictures of the effects of altering variables on plants from a standard solution. EI with neutral substrate with before, after and control is reasonable (*edit* or a standard sediment if that's the test, and so on; the point being controls; if the nicest tank were always right, Amano's PO4 limitation would have had us all bent over). Posting other people's tanks who use similar methods without drawing in those involved with the debate is another way to minimalize this constant problem I see in the hobby.

-Philosophos

*edit* I'm not seeing you online anymore, so I'll assume you've signed out for now. I've got other things to do right now, I'll check back tonight or tomorrow if you decide to continue this.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

whoa! you got Reasheed to post a ton of pics!
though there is still this thing about pics.. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

besides eye candy, the idea is to demonstrate skill in husbandry which is a very different thing than so called 'book knowledge'. You could say there 2 are different things that come out of or make up a hobby - knowledge and skill. Some people gravitate to one or the other but you need some of both to make certain goals.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Here is my source - It's wikipedia, (look under chemical properties).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate

_Calcium carbonate will react with water that is saturated with carbon dioxide to form the soluble calcium bicarbonate.
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2_

I know I did have CO2 issues. I have recently redone my CO2 line. I have plenty in the tank now.

Reasheed, thanks for the pxs. I just love your plants! Always have!!!! I aspire to understand this water chemistry thing. Some of mine have looked as nice. I am still working on it.

Philos and Reasheed, I'm picking out some things, in spite of your ongoing debate. I'm sure I'll learn in small doses anyway, (pardon the pun).

I really think we need more threads like this about dosing imbalances, types of traces, etc. I still don't understand by CaCO3 is not used by the plants. Perhaps I don't need to understand, just accept it? I hate to add anything to make my water harder. I will begin with the Mg. as I'm sure I don't have enough of that. One thing I know - I'm not going the R/O route with all the tanks I have. I need to work with the water I have.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

Tex Gal said:


> I still don't understand by CaCO3 is not used by the plants. Perhaps I don't need to understand, just accept it? I hate to add anything to make my water harder. I will begin with the Mg. as I'm sure I don't have enough of that. One thing I know - I'm not going the R/O route with all the tanks I have. I need to work with the water I have.


yeah, RO is not for everyone so no pressure to switch ( not too much  )
In my case, tapwater here is not friendly at all with softwater spp. so I have little choice. I obviously cant answer your question about CaCO3. But I can say its definitely something I wont add to my tanks because of the carbonates and their effect on some plants. Without carbonates I seem to do much better with all plants I keep.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Tex Gal said:


> Here is my source - It's wikipedia, (look under chemical properties).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
> 
> _Calcium carbonate will react with water that is saturated with carbon dioxide to form the soluble calcium bicarbonate.
> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2_


Nice to know that it changes forms. Now it's just a matter of finding out if Ca(HCO3)2 is bioavailable, and under what PPM of CO2 it takes place.



Tex Gal said:


> I know I did have CO2 issues. I have recently redone my CO2 line. I have plenty in the tank now.


It could just be some of the old issues working them selves out then; I find the leaf deformities don't work them selves out overnight.



Tex Gal said:


> I really think we need more threads like this about dosing imbalances, types of traces, etc. I still don't understand by CaCO3 is not used by the plants. Perhaps I don't need to understand, just accept it? I hate to add anything to make my water harder. I will begin with the Mg. as I'm sure I don't have enough of that. One thing I know - I'm not going the R/O route with all the tanks I have. I need to work with the water I have.


My understanding of CaCO3 didn't compensate for high levels of CO2 turning it in to something else. I'm glad you dug up the source for the entire issue; it gives me something new to look in to. I could potentially save my self a lot of money on CaCl2.

RO does get pricey after a while. It's instinctive sometimes though; we want our variables so precisely controlled that tap water seems like the end of the world.

-Philosophos


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

ashappard said:


> yeah, RO is not for everyone so no pressure to switch ( not too much  )
> In my case, tapwater here is not friendly at all with softwater spp. so I have little choice. I obviously cant answer your question about CaCO3. But I can say its definitely something I wont add to my tanks because of the carbonates and their effect on some plants. Without carbonates I seem to do much better with all plants I keep.


Since CaCO3 is already in my tap water, I can't seem to avoid it. (I know... R/O, lol).


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

my tap has so much that it melts even the easy Syngonanthus spp fairly quickly. 
If it helps, I have a lot less money in RODI systems and water bill than 
I do in lighting systems and electricity.


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Drinda, I have a few questions sorry if i missed it:

1)Do you use Aquasoil.
2)Which Trace do you use.
3)Do you use root tabs and if yes, which kind/s.
4)What size tank do you have, how much gallons * guesstimate actual volume*
5)Do you have your water report


----------



## dmastin (Jun 27, 2009)

I've really enjoyed this thread, thanks!
Science is a powerful tool for providing answers.
Science begins with personal experience, anecdotal evidence, and case studies.
However, it is the implementation of the scientific method that provides data to support hypotheses (or not).
Scientific papers from the early 1900s were not always peer reviewed.
Not all "scientific papers", even today, are peer reviewed. You gotta check.
Some papers contain methodological flaws that are overlooked.
Some results cannot be duplicated and are therefore discredited.
The scientific method and records of its utilization in books and papers are how science gets done.
Observations and examples, even "clear", dramatic, or repeated are not good evidence.
People will believe anything. Just about literally. Correlations can be very convincing. It's human nature to search for answers and look for patterns. We're pretty clever critters, but it wasn't until we began using empirical methodologies that humans really began to get good at answering questions (e.g. alchemy vs. chemistry).
I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way, other than to say that unless observations (i.e. pictures) are placed in the context of the scientific method, they don't really tell us too much.
For example, perfect plants and procedure X are shown to go together again and again and again. That's a correlation. We don't really know much until we vary procedure X systematically, record the results, and replicate.
From http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/: 
1.We prefer stories to statistics.
2.We seek to confirm, not to question, our ideas.
3.We rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence in shaping events.
4.We sometimes misperceive the world around us.
5.We tend to oversimplify our thinking.
6.Our memories are often inaccurate.

PS A hobby forum can be a "scientific journal" in the sense it can serve the same role.



Philosophos said:


> No, please don't leave it at that. If you're going to try to discredit a method, you need an argument. You can not simply decry someone elses methods and call them ignorant of the hobby and expect to be taken seriously. All you've done is insult me, because you aren't backing up your statements. If you got into a debate with a little bit of fact behind it, then it wouldn't be any real insult; it would be the truth.
> 
> I have to claim the opposite based on experience. I see people getting into arguments based solely on how good each others tanks look. It gets even worse when you use that tank as an argument for who has a better understanding of planted tanks. Have you ever seen posts of VaughnH's tanks? His latest non-ripparium posts don't look pretty, but the man has an understanding of light within the planted tank far beyond what I'm guessing you know, and definitely beyond my capability. You can thank him and supercoley (who also isn't about to win awards for his tanks despite his knowledge) for a lot of how people are thinking of light in the planted tank right now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

mrkookm said:


> Drinda, I have a few questions sorry if i missed it:
> 
> 1)Do you use Aquasoil. Yes, in 125g. In smaller tanks I have a mixture of flourite and ADA A.S.
> 2)Which Trace do you use. CMS+b at present
> ...


Responses in purple!


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

dmastin - well said. you sound like my old stats prof. 
"correlation is not causation" - I try to remember that, but correlation is so convenient sometimes. 



philosophos said:


> When you see my plants, they'll be under my real name in competitions or separate ID's, and I'm not going to be taking any credit for them with my existing screen name.
> Others may like to post under their names, many do.


if you post pics of your plants I dont anybody would think less of your husbandry skills, currently they are an unknown quantity. But to each his own. You are not forced to share. I can name some very prolific posters who rarely if ever have shown a pic of their work.

[plug] speaking of competitions, dont forget the upcoming TOTY contest at APC [/plug]


----------



## dmastin (Jun 27, 2009)

Ha, ha, I barely avoided teaching stats in grad school, but my wife does.
OMG, I think it's kinda strange to NOT show pics of your plants.
I think it's fun to look at pics. The first I ever posted here were of health checks of my first plants looking poorly. They are doing better, but my husbandry skills are for snot!  
I'm learning though. See my tag, I'm at day 79 of my first planted tank.



ashappard said:


> dmastin - well said. you sound like my old stats prof.
> "correlation is not causation" - I try to remember that, but correlation is so convenient sometimes.
> 
> if you post pics of your plants I dont anybody would think less of your husbandry skills, currently they are an unknown quantity. But to each his own. You are not forced to share. I can name some very prolific posters who rarely if ever have shown a pic of their work.
> ...


----------



## Bryeman (Aug 24, 2009)

Fantastic thread... All of you! I enjoyed reading this for the last 45 mintues (I read all of it more than once). Whether you want to admit it or not, everyone made valid arguments at times, and I appreciated the chance to read that. I loved the pictures because I'm in this hobby and love to see good plants being grown regardless if it "means" anything or not.

Seriously though, thanks everyone! I just got a ton of education for free that would normally have taken 1 year in college.

The only thing that I'll add is, in my 10 year experience, deficiency is much easier to acheive than toxicity. In fact, the one almost always causes the other. Just my experience though, so I wouldn't take that theory to your science prof.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Great post, David. What you've said about peer review is something a lot of people need to hear. I think this is sort of an issue that's not just a part of the hobby, but part of our society. Journals come up on search results whether we like it or not, and words from mass media like, "this study shows" are starting to become, "According to this paper I read the other day." more than ever.

My reasons for not showing my tanks is something I've posted on, and maybe I'll get in depth later on some sort of philosophy spewing thread or similar. There's a boatload of my outlook on life and society, as well as a bunch of other messy things that go with it.

ashappard, I'm kicking my self right now for not having my 48 gal done months ago. I've been carefully planning it for probably about 4 months now, the plants are still all growing out in holding tanks, but I still need to go for a drive to pickup some of the hardscape from a little deposit I found. I'd have loved to post it under a pseudonym in the TOTY competition.

Bryeman, I know what you mean. Some of this thread goes beyond the hobby and into personal philosophy; everyone had decent points with this one at some time or other. mrkookm's pictures showed some good, healthy growth. I won't deny for a minute that he knows how to grow plants beautifully, and that's always nice to see, but everything else I say still stands.

-Philosophos


----------



## Andy Ritter (Nov 26, 2008)

mrkookm said:


> Here are the pics of *my* plants, all of which are grown in SMS/Turface. I have lots more but you get the point... I'm no newb to this


Well, I'm not going to get in the middle of you guys and your *** **** contest, but I have to say that if those pictures are indeed of your aquarium, then I'm blown away! I love reading the posts here on APC because they are helping me understand better what I should do in order to have a tank to come home to and enjoy after a long day at work. I won't pretend to actually know what all is going on at all times, but by reading threads such as this one, hopefully I'll be better educated and can somehow manage to have a nicer looking aquarium of my own.


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

1)*Do you use Aquasoil.*


> Yes, in 125g. In smaller tanks I have a mixture of flourite and ADA A.S.


Well as you know this is good stuff and it doesn't get any better than this. Aquasoil has MN, FE, traces, Mg and NPK if you didn't already know this  The substrate has high CEC so it will grab and store of some of the elements and make it available to the plants, so there is no need to go crazy with adding a bunch of K or MG. As a matter of fact I highly doubt you have an Mg issue as the aquasoil already contains a fair amount of it. When adding K add 25ppm at WC & if you feel the need to add Mg I would only suggest 3ppm worth...nothing more.

2)*Which Trace do you use.*


> CMS+b at present


When you get the TMG and flourish trace if you decide to do so let me know, we can then figure out something using both or all.

**edit** I would do a 80~90% WC before trying new params

In 500ml add 20g CSM+B. From this mix dose your tanks daily.
Add *13ml* Trace + *10ml* Flourish Iron in your 125gal.
Add *3ml* Trace + *2ml *Fe in 29gal
Add *1ml* Trace + *1ml* Fe in 10gal

I know this is differs significantly from what you're accustomed to but how I see is if you already add high trace and the problems aren't fixed, do you think adding more will do it?  What we need it the right elements so the plants can respond that's why its better to have multiple sources so you can dial in the dose. If you rely on one (depending on the brand and its element content) you will have a difficult time achieving the right kind of growth. You have aquasoil and it helps so there's no need to go crazy.

3)*Do you use root tabs and if yes, which kind/s*.


> I have placed a few under my Madagascar Lace and Cyrpt Willisii x lucens They are aquarium.com complete root tabs.


ok sounds good

4)*What size tank do you have, how much gallons * guesstimate actual volume**


> I have several. 125g - 80% volume = 100g, 29g - 80% = 23g, 10g - 80% = 8g


Good to know once we get the trace on hand.

5)*Do you have your water report?*


> Yes, I just found it from 2008. They publish once a year. I called the place and got Ca at average of 157 ppm or 8.79 gdh for this year.


There are more useful info on that report than just GH and KH, remember those are real easy params to adjust if needed. Far too many put emphasis on K, GH & Mg because they assume when they see a curl or twist its easy to say add CA, add MG or add K, only to find out that didn't fix the problem because it never was.

I would like to know the other elements that may be in your water, we might need to alter the trace or you never know you might need RO for healthy growth 

BTW Tex Gal all the Pics you've seen tonight were grown reconstituting RO/DI water to 0KH, 2½GH from CA (CASO4), 1GH (MGSO4) Mg and 40~60ppm K thats after NPK is added.

Wait! OMG the K and MG is not in that 4:1 RATIO!! What shall i do!! My plants are gonna suffer from MGlockoutitis! ...had to throw that in there...it's all fun.

Don't get caught up into the ratio thing, whats more important is having the right amounts of the elements to not cause a deficiency and where the plants are happy


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

For CSM+B you'll see dosing ranges of 5-10g:1L dosing 1ml/2L column or equivalent. The idea is basically to lead with the strong iron content; add .15-.3ppm a week. Some of us are pushing higher now; I've been doing .3ppm dose for a .6ppm max on EI, Tom Barr has headed up to 1-2ppm dosing. some of the newer papers are showing hydrilla sure loves the stuff:
Absorption of iron and growth of Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle

Crypts seem to suck the stuff up, as well as other plants. When I've looked at the LC/LD50's for the fauna, I can't see any harm coming to them at elevated levels from the usual .1ppm suggestion given in older dosing methods, and the sort of Fe you can expect out of TMG/TPN or Flourish.

The down side of course is getting shorted on some of the other micros/traces that are hard to get in a water report. That, how ever, seems to be covered with your trace rotation 

mrkookm, I find it interesting that you've been the one advising leaner Ca/Mg dosing through the threads we've overlapped on; I keep my Ca/Mg/K+ about 20% lighter, but in reasonably similar ratios. What gives?

-Philosophos


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Texgal I suggest that you also relax on the N&P dose. Try 1tsp 3x week & the PO4 to 6~8ppm for the week. You do not need 40+ppm N + 12ppm PO4 using aquasoil + fish load 



> mrkookm, I find it interesting that you've been the one advising leaner Ca/Mg dosing through the threads we've overlapped on; I keep my Ca/Mg/K+ about 20% lighter, but in reasonably similar ratios. What gives?


Leaner CA/MG as you call it I found out a long time ago worked well for all the plants that I keep even at 0~.5KH, so i just stuck to what worked. Plus I also like knowing TDS is on the low side.

I put little emphasis on the optimal 'ratio' but rather the optimal level where my plants are happy. I essentially tried varying CA levels starting from 1GH up until all my plants were happy + some just to see how far I could go, the same with Mg. So when I suggest I am not guessing ...I'm sure you did the same thing


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

When I dose leaner N&P I get melting Erio III and stunted growth in Ludwigia senagalensis. My red root floater stops growing. It might be my imagination but I believe the my Rotala sunset and Nesea pedicilata, gold begins to have issues as well. I really think I need to keep the macros where they are.


----------



## mrkookm (Oct 25, 2006)

Disregard my previous suggestion maintain your current NPK routine.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I began dosing my traces everyday as suggested by Reasheed. I haven't switched to different traces yet. I didn't mix them yet. All I did was take my original dose of CSM+b and cut it in half dosing it every day. Along with that I am dosing the Flourish Fe 10 ml everyday. 

What a difference!! I see no stunting in any plants. I have the largest leaves on my L. senagalensis I've every seen. My P. Kawagoeanum leaves are longer (now I see the difference). I'm getting even deeper color. My L. glandulosa has taken off! (There's more but I'll stop there.) I'm amazed!

I'm going to change one thing at a time so that I can learn cause and effect. I did get the iron from Orlando and TNP. I'm trying to finish up the Flourish Fe first.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

So let me understand this - what you did was take the full amount of micros you were dosing throughout the week, and divide it up so that it would be added daily instead? 

You're adding these on the same days as you add your macros as well? Different times of the day, I assume???


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Bert H said:


> So let me understand this - what you did was take the full amount of micros you were dosing throughout the week, and divide it up so that it would be added daily instead?
> 
> You're adding these on the same days as you add your macros as well? Different times of the day, I assume???


Almost.... I took the EI dosage the CSM+b for T,TH,S and cut a daily dose in half and am dosing that every day. So that means I'm actually increasing the weekly amount by 1/2 of a daily dose since I am now dosing on Sunday too. For the Fe, I'm adding the full dose every day. I add the macros in the am and the traces in the evening.


----------



## Bryeman (Aug 24, 2009)

I do almost the same on my 125g now, but I still dose 1/2 tsp CSM+B 3x a week, plus 20ml of TPN 1x per week on the off day. Traces in the morning, N,K at night. I'm still finding I have enough P where I only have to add once per week. I expect that to change shortly though as the tank is really starting to "get into shape" since I've increased my traces. Getting a new light Monday, and I suspect my HC and Glosso problem will be cured as well (growing, but more up than anything).


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I stopped dosing extra K about 2 months ago. I found that I was getting stunting on some plants. When I stopped the extra K those plants' stunting stopped.


----------



## Bryeman (Aug 24, 2009)

Not me, basically because I'm not having to add P yet (or not often anyway). I'll stop when I add both N and P on a regular basis. I still have a few plants with pin holes yet. I'm not over doing it either though. Just replacing what I would be putting in the tank if I dosed KH2PO4 more often. Plus, my Cabomba is growing 2" or more a day. Stunted growth may not be a bad thing!


----------

