# My plants still grow deformed



## kekon

As I wrote in previous posts about my "potassium problems" I still don't know what causes my plants to grow slowly and deformed. Most of my plants look like it is shown in the photo. Water parameters are as follows:

NO3 - 10 (from Ca(NO3)2 )
PO4 - 0.5..1
Ca - 22..30 (some Ca from CaCO3, some from CaSO4)
Mg - 6..7
Na - max. 6 (NaHCO3)
Cl - 5 (CaCl2)
K - dosed only during 50% WC (I dose 10 ppm NO3 from KNO3 to 50% water changed so it also adds 6.3 ppm K)
Lighting: 0.7W / L (3 x 30W 4000K + 2 x 30W 6000K + 2 x 6500K Philips bulbs)
PO4 dosed from KH2PO4; 0,25 ppm PO4 daily
NO3 2,5 ppm daily (NO3 test kit was calibrated)
Traces dosed from fertilizer which contens is similar to TMG but it contains 10 times less Molybdenum.

I tried different levels of Ca and MG but it didn't help. Each time K is more than 15..20 ppm I get severe leaves deforming and tips burning. Lover K levels (up to 10 ppm) improve the situation but only a little. In the past I used commercial NPK fertilizer containing N in urea form I didn't notice any issues with plants. The only drawback of using that NPK were thread-like algae. When switched to separate NO3, K, and PO4 dosing almost all the algae dissapeared but problems shown in the picture and stunted growth began. I'm almost giving up as I haven't managed to find what is causing the problems for many weeks  New Difformis leaves grow very light-green; some are almost yellow. This is not caused by Fe deficiency. I checked it. I had some concerns about manganese deficiency so I added extra manganese but one has to wait at least a week to see the difference. I'm about to commit suicide if it doesn't help  

plants that grow very well:

- cabomba caroliniana (very fast growth, deep green)
- glossostigma elatinoides (fast growth, good colors)
- zosterifolia

plants that grow very slow:

- Bacopa caroliniana (it has good colors though)
- Umbrosum (most affected as far as tips burning is concerned)
- Rotala Indica

plants that are most deformed (as shown in the photo)

- Alternatera Reineckii
- Rotala Indica


----------



## Bert H

What are your CO2 levels? I see thread algae in the pics you have provided here. I would suggest you first ascertain that your CO2 levels are adequate. After that, I would raise the NO3 to the 10-15 range, the PO4 to around 2-3. 

Why are you adding CaCl2? What is your water hardness out of the tap?


----------



## kekon

I forgot to add:

Water is pure RO reconstituded by means of CaCO3, NaHCO3, CaCl2, MgSO4 and CaSO4. KH = 3. I try to keep Na max. 6 ppm and Cl max. 5 ppm. The algae you see in the pictures no longer exitsts (it was in the past). Thanks to higher PO4 and NO3 lecels I got rid of almost all algae. But I stiil have the problems described above. CO2 20..30 ppm. pH usually at 6.6


----------



## MrSanders

I would look more into what Bert suggest and check out your CO2, I bet you are a lot lower than you think. I to have a KH of 3..... and can easily run my PH down into the mid 5's and am still working on adding MORE CO2 because my fish dont seem bothered by it..... however I dont like such low PH's and do plan to raise KH to get that PH up.... but at a PH of 6.6 I would be willing to guess you are low on CO2

Also is there a reason for using RO water? espically pure? seems like that probably isnt really needed and you could make things more simple and get to the bottom of the problem more easily if you have less variables that you need to keep in line with.


----------



## kekon

The problem with tap water is that I don't know its parameters. The only ones I know are Ca & Mg. I used only RO water in the past and commercial NPK fertilizer and had only 13 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg and plants grew very fast and healthy. CO2 was only 12 ppm. The problem was thread algae at that time. When I replaced the NPK fertilizer with separate KNO3 and KH2PO4 the growth was stunted and leaves got twisted and deformed. So I suppose it is not problem with CO2, Ca and Mg. Probably there is missing element that was in the NPK fertilizer but I don't know what it could be.


----------



## Bert H

> The problem with tap water is that I don't know its parameters.


 You really don't need to know everything that is in your tap water. Provide an excess of everything your plants need and you're ok. Stunted curling leaves can be caused by a variety of factors: Ca/Mg ratios being off, too little K, micro deficient. Some plants, the ones you mention in particular, are the ones where it manifests itself more often than not.

I agree with Mr Sanders, I'm not an RO fan either. Unless there's something terribly wrong with your tap water or you're trying to grow some soft water/acid loving plants, imo, it's not worth it. You end up adding back to the water a lot of what you're taking out of it.


----------



## kekon

Using only RO water has one additional advantage for me. I can learn what plants need and what amounts of particular elements are neccesary for them. It's very interesting experiment. Using only tap water in not good as its GH = 18 and KH = 10. I used to mix tap with RO in 1:1 ratio to lower GH and KH. I realize it causes problems at the beginning. I think my problems are not caused by too little Ca, Mg or K or even Ca/Mg K/Mg ration. There is something missing or it is something toxic. I've increased trace dosage recently which helped Didiplis Diandra to have rich red color on its tops.


----------



## Salt

You are not testing your water, you are only guessing. Without testing you really have no idea what your water parameters are.

Get some quality test kits.


----------



## kekon

Well, to reconstitute RO water I use known amounts of all the elements:
CaSO4, CaCl2, CaCO3, MgSO4, NaHCO3. I can easily control all of them so there isn't an error in calculations. To measure all the amounts I use precise scale. I EMPHASIZE that the problems I've described above appeared after stopping using commercial NPK fertilizer and changing it to separate KNO3 and KH2PO4. It was the only change I made.
So, once again, the fertilizer contained something that is now missing.


----------



## MrSanders

So swich back to that fert. if thats the problem.... if your so sure its not CO2, nor does it have anything to do with using RO water and having things like Ca, Mg or K unbalanced then it would appear that you already know the answer to the reason things arnt growing?

Seems the most simply way to fix it would be to simply swich back to what you were doing before.....


----------



## kekon

If I switch to that fertilizer I will have thread algae again  It cointains N in urea form.


----------



## fabry

So Kekon,
Fertilizing with urea doesn't give you the problems you have when switching to nitrogen-nitrate source.

One question:
Which micro is involved in trasformation of nitrates in a plant-usable form (that is not needed when you use nitrogen in urea or ammonium form)?

Regards.

Fabrizio.


----------



## kekon

Is it molybnenum ? As far as I know my trace fert consists only 1ppm of molybdenum. For example, TMG contains 10 times higher concentration of Mo.


----------



## kekon

I think it is Molybdenum.


----------



## fabry

Yes,
Molybdenum is needed in the first step of the conversion of nitrates into ammonium (the form of nitrogen used by plants).
If you supply nitrates without an adequate amount of molybdenum, nitrates accumulate in the leaves damaging them and giving symptoms similar to the ones you have.

Another question:
Did you notice anything strange on older leaves?


----------



## kekon

I did, but I thought it was due to K deficiency as I had dosed very small amounts of K - pinholes appeared in some leaves and some even decayed. Some older alternatera reineckii leaves have pinkish colors. I'll start dosing TMG this week and see what happens.


----------



## jude_uc

Did the commercial fertilizer you were using have an analysis of the trace elements in it? My guess is that the problem has to be in the traces. I've noticed that either by overdosing or underdosing traces, you can get serious problems. Plus, since it seems that you've check your primary and secondary nutrients, traces are really the only possiblility left. I would compare the trace element content of the commercial fertilizer with what you use now and see if there are any significant differences.

-Adam


----------



## kekon

Lately I've switched to TMG but I still have the issues. The symptomps appear on new leafs only so it can be immobile element (boron, calcium)


----------



## jude_uc

I'm sure you've already been there, but APC has a nutrient deficency gallery which could be useful for you. nutrient deficency gallery

I still imagine that traces are an issue.... You might try dosing TMG at slightly higher rates.

-Adam


----------



## kekon

Traces are not the issue. I used a fert that had 5 times more traces than TMG and it ended up with slower growth (the only good thing was little more redder colors on Didiplis Diandra). I think it can be sort of toxicity but I can find out where it comes from. Maybe it is boron deficiency but I'm completely confused...


----------



## defdac

We are two guys in Sweden with the same symptoms and we've tried everything from Borax/Crayons by the roots/CaCl2/MgSO4/*alot* of trace/Insane CO2-levels/misting you name it.

I constantly scan the forums on this issue and noone knows what it is.

Some are helped by adding more MgSO4, some are helped by backing off with K, some are helped by adding more Calcuim via Turbo Calcium/CaCl2, some hare helped by putting the plant in the shade (me personally), some are helped by backing of with lighting or lowering the PO4 to limit growthrates (I've done this but I dont like GSA).

Here is what our A. reineckii looks like:
http://www.bluesboy.se/viewimage.php?id=121
http://www.defblog.se/picture/1542.html

We both trigger this by adding Chuck Gadds rekommended Mg-levels each dose (5-10 ppm 3 times a week or more often).

So you will probably get a bunch of tips about Boron/calcium/potassium/magnesium and now molybdenum 8)

It would be nice to know exactly what is going on though. Most other plants grow insanely fast and pretty, but not A. reineckii.

It's a mystery not solved by any community so far.

Hit me with ideas.


----------



## kekon

Well, I tried different levels of Ca, Mg and K but it didn't help much. Lowering K down to about 4..5 ppm helped the most but K deficiency occured on other plants (pinholes, rotting leafs) I can't imagine how people are able to grow plants in high K levels - sometimes over 40 ppm with no issues. The problems began when I stopped dosing nitrogen in urea form (commercial NPK fertilizer). Those days (when using that NPK fert) I also had only 13 ppm Ca and 4 ppm with only occasional tip stunting on a few Rotalas only. All the plants grew like crazy. The main problem was thread-like algae os some plants (including Alternatera). The NPK fert consisted also biostimulators but they are a mistery and noone knows what it is (apart from a company that produces it of course). Maybe the biostimulators allow to have high K levels without any negative effects on plants. Anyway, people have beautiful tanks using TMG, KNO3, KH2PO4 with no issues concerning K. I will try to reconstitute RO water in order for it to have only 3..4 ppm Mg and about 30 ppm of Ca ans see what happens.


----------



## kekon

defdac said:


> some are helped by backing of with lighting or lowering the PO4 to limit growthrates


It may suggest that by lowering these factors also the uptake of other nutrient/nutrients is lower and it doesn't cause its deficiency then. The problem is what nutrinet it could be.


----------



## defdac

My take on that is that Calcium is the hardest nutrient for plants to transport inside the plant. It takes time and it was Calcium that in the end always limited how fast a plant can grow as shown by NASA.

With EI, high-light and unlimited CO2 I think we hit that upper limit on growthrates. The Calciumuptake can't keep up. In some plants. 

This can to some extent be triggered by adding MgSO4 that *antagonize* Calciumuptake, like K to some limited extent. Or one can add more Calcium so Mg+K doesn't antagonize as much. Or one can limit growthrates by putting the plant in shade or limit light, or limit PO4 a tad not totally.


----------



## defdac

Hm.. If copper antagonizes Molybdenum and Molybdenum has anything to do with Calcium deficient like leaves, high Copper levels would be somewhat far fetched idea to what is going on. I do my big wc:s with warm water, but I don't know what copper levels I have out from the tap. 

Out from the water company it's 1 microgram per litre, but that can change dramatically if the water goes throuh copper pipes I guess.

All I know is that I've killed of all my corys/shrimp and snails and have really poor pearling and have low KH (which makes copper more toxic).

Ahwell. Will be using cold water from now on instead and see if I can see any difference.


----------



## banderbe

kekon said:


> Using only RO water has one additional advantage for me. I can learn what plants need and what amounts of particular elements are neccesary for them. It's very interesting experiment. Using only tap water in not good as its GH = 18 and KH = 10. I used to mix tap with RO in 1:1 ratio to lower GH and KH. I realize it causes problems at the beginning. I think my problems are not caused by too little Ca, Mg or K or even Ca/Mg K/Mg ration. There is something missing or it is something toxic. I've increased trace dosage recently which helped Didiplis Diandra to have rich red color on its tops.


I'd like to add that I'm a huge RO fan, especially in cases where someone is having trouble growing plants in their current tap water.

I use 100% RO, reconstituted with Barr's Poor Man's GH Booster sold by Greg Watson, and baking soda for KH. My target is a GH of 5 and a KH of 3. I think that's your first problem, the way you are reconstituting the GH. Get Barr's GH Builder, and then you won't even have to worry about K, especially if your N and P sources have a little K in them. I don't dose K by itself at all.

Works like a charm, plants are growing wonderfully, and things are just all around better than they ever were when I grew in tap water (which had plenty of Mg and Ca). I can't prove it but I suspect many folks have tap water that has impurities in it that aren't tested for in the city water report but that none the less have a negative impact on plant health. Another thing that can happen in some areas is that your tap water changes from week to week or month to month. Not saying it's your problem, but don't let people dissuade you from using RO.

I do it, I like it, and I perfer it to tap water and frankly it's just easier to keep RO than it is to keep tap water (much easier to keep an RO unit hooked to a reservoir than to keep hooking up to the sink), plus you know *exactly* what is in your water.


----------



## kekon

I can't get GH Booster because I'm not living in the USA. I reconstituted RO using MgSO4, CaCl2, CaSO4 and baking soda and I had the same results 
I don't know why GH Booster contains manganese and iron. I dose them from TMG so I don't thing I need more as I don't notice any Mn and Fe deficiency.


----------



## Zapins

I doubt that was the problem. Its more likely that your plants took a few weeks to finish their stores of nutrients and only now are starting to show signs of trouble. Nutrient problems do not occur over night, they take weeks to show up even in a high tech tank where growth is very much accelerated. 

You need to do titration tests of your water. You cannot rely on calculated values since plants uptake different amounts of nutrients every day, and change their intakes unpredictably under different situations. If you calculate your fertilizers, especially when you calculate them to just barely meet the plants needs (i.e. only 10ppm K, 32ppm Ca, and 6 or 7ppm Mg, kH 3) then you will almost definitely have growth problems. Which you are experiencing now.

Buy some test kits and do the water tests, calculations are one thing, but observational data is what really is happening. I urge you to do real tests and not rely on your calculations even if they may appear to be mathematically sound. After all life cannot be quantified down to maths so why should their food requirements be calculable? 

In fact, i doubt that there is any toxic effect going on in your tank. It seems the most simply answer to me that your problems result from adding the bare minimum to the tank, and then calculating the values. Why are we looking into this so deeply? I mean molybdinum messing up the photosystems? Ok its pheasable but seriously dont you think that its more likely that the problem here is that the values you assume are in your tank are in fact not what is actually in there anymore, and that your problems are due to simple and easy to fix nutrient deficiencies?


----------



## banderbe

Zapins said:


> Nutrient problems do not occur over night


That has not been my experience.

If any nutrient bottoms out in my tank the plants show it almost immediately in stunted growth and the algae takes hold.

This happens in about 12 to 24 hours.


----------



## defdac

Zapins said:


> I doubt that was the problem. Its more likely that your plants took a few weeks to finish their stores of nutrients and only now are starting to show signs of trouble. Nutrient problems do not occur over night, they take weeks to show up even in a high tech tank where growth is very much accelerated.


How about your copper-toxicity antagonizing Molybden (which in turn causing nitrate buildup and in turn curly new growth)? Couldn't that apply here if kekon uses RO+tap and have really bad tap water? (I know you're investigating that yourself Zapins..)


----------



## kekon

Some time ago I stopped dosing traces and the first deficiences appeared in 4 days (brown dead new leafs on umbrosum, white new leafs on Zosterifolia). Macro uptake is quite high in my tank: about 15 ppm NO3 per week and about 2 ppm PO4 per week.


----------



## Zapins

defdac:
I am not denying the possibility that more complicated things are afoot here. All i am saying is that since kekon no longer uses tap water and reconstitutes his RO water that this eliminates most of the complications like copper. My situation is quite rare as i understand it and it is definitely not the norm. It could be that something is poisoning kekon's plants but it is best to eliminate the more simple problems systematically and then move on to the more rare ones. 

banderbe: 
"If any nutrient bottoms out in my tank the plants show it almost immediately in stunted growth and the algae takes hold.

This happens in about 12 to 24 hours."

This depends greatly on which nutrient you are talking about, for example. Plants can store 1000x as much carbon as they need, nitrogen, potassium and iron are also stored about 1000x as much as is needed to grow during a day. Plants store other nutrients like calcium and magnesium at only about 10x as much as they need to grow. In addition, Tom Barr mentioned that the daily uptake of potassium is usually in the range of 2-5ppm per day.

As you can see plants do store vastly more then they need to grow, a stock pile if you will. If your plants are running out within a day or two then that shows their stocks were not full to begin with.

If you feed just enough then you will be walking a knife's edge. You must always hope that it is just enough to meet their daily needs, if it ever dips under then you have a problem.

Personally i think that kekon's problem does not look too severe from what i see in the photos. I think there might be something going on in the middle picture, but hey that is to be expected if you try to use the bare minimum levels of very important nutrients. I am not claiming it is potassium deficiency, but 10 ppm of K is not a safe value to maintain. Say your plants use the full 5ppm every day. How often do you dose K, every 2 days? It is much more likely that the plants have to dip into their stores to meet daily requirements for nutrients like this and other nutrients. It would be much more safe if you were to raise the levels to around 20ppm. You will not burn your plants with potassium. The kH is also risky to keep at 3. It would be more stable at 4 or 5, and why not add that much? It will not harm your plants, in fact it will stabilize the water and allow more Co2 to dissolve. 

Anyway, i dont mean to sound antagonistic, just throwing in my 2c


----------



## kekon

The plants you see in the pics looked so horribly just when K was 27 ppm...
A friend of mine measured K uptake and it turned out it was only a few ppm per day. I don't know what species he had at that time, probably he had slow growing plants and that's why K uptake wasn't high. As far as I know, Mg "fights" with Ca and K. I will carry out an experiment as Edward did in the past: 20 ppm Ca and 2 ppm Mg and see what effects it will have on my plants. Now I have about 7 ppm Mg.


----------



## banderbe

Zapins said:


> The kH is also risky to keep at 3. It would be more stable at 4 or 5, and why not add that much? It will not harm your plants, in fact it will stabilize the water and allow more Co2 to dissolve.


I find that statement interesting! What do you base that on? I have never heard that a higher KH makes it easier to dissolve CO2. In fact I have read the opposite:

Author Hans Baensch in Aquarium Atlas Vol. 2 says:



> _Quantitative CO2 content is not a reference for deficient or sufficient values because its effectiveness is bound to carbonate hardness. In soft water, about 10 mg/l free CO2 usually is sufficient for good plant growth. In hard water the same content is more or less deficient. Therefore, carbon dioxide will need to be added more frequently at higher carbonate hardnesses._


----------



## Zapins

banderbe: 
A kH that is low for example say... 0 will drop the pH immediately with any addition of Co2. So when using a pH controller the controller will immediately stop the flow of co2 into the tank as the pH hits the specified mark. However, the amount of co2 needed to get it to this point is literally a few bubbles which is far too little for plants to grow. If no pH controller is used, then the pH will keep falling and the inhabitants will have to deal with highly acidic water which is not really what we want.

If your kH is 1, 2 or even 3 then you require slightly more co2 to wear away at the buffer (which is the kH) before you run into the same situation as described above where you get the pH falling to very low levels. 

Having a higher kH allows you to pump co2 into the water without getting the immediate pH dropping effect that you get with very low kH, so you can actually grow plants well without having low pH. This does not mean that you get a superior amount of Co2 in the water, it just means you can do it safely without worrying about adding too much co2.

In fact, i found out first hand how dangerous a low kH of 1 could be. The water in my new home has very little kH, so the co2 i added to the water via pH controller dropped the pH to 4 over night, my plants suffered with co2 deficiency symptoms for a week before i realized what was happening and added baking soda which buffered the water and allowed co2 to actually linger in the tank in a large enough quantity to do good. 

While what you say about a lower kH being easier to dissolve more co2 into the water may be true, it does not help in planted tanks since having a kH of 0 by your way of thinking would be the easiest thing to do to dissolve co2 into the water faster. But from my example you can see that that isn’t practical, and indeed nobody grows plants with a kH of 0, 1 or even 2 with injected co2. So in essence, yes what you say is correct but it isn’t practical for planted tanks.


----------



## banderbe

Hi Zapins.

I don't think I or anyone else would recommend a KH of less than 3. However, Amano's tanks have routinely had a KH of 2 and were CO2 injected.

I keep my tank at KH 3 and bubble 3 bubbles per second into a 29 gallon tank. No problems. pH sits around 6.0.

Anyway I see what you meant about a higher KH making it _safer_ to bubble more CO2, but I think above a KH of ~3 there's not much difference in terms of safety. Agree?


----------



## kekon

I think KH=3 is pretty good. I don't even have any pH controller and my pH is stable all the day 6.6-6.8. At night it drops to 6.5.


----------



## Zapins

Hmm, probably, never tried below 4.5 ish except that one time with 0 kH. Probably explains my aversion to lower kH eh?


----------



## BryceM

For the record, the relationship between KH, CO2, and pH is pretty simple. Think of it this way:

The KH sets the starting pH, or the pH if the water is allowed to come to equilibrium with room air. A tank with a very low KH will have an equilibrium pH of say 6.5. A tank with a very high KH might have a resting pH of 8.5.

Any addition of CO2 will drop the pH of the water. This effect is independent of the starting pH. Assume the equilibrium (resting) concentration of CO2 in water is about 3 ppm (there is some debate about this). If you add enough CO2 to drop the pH by 1.0 units, there will be 30 ppm of CO2 in the tank. The first tank in the example would need to drop to pH 5.5 to get this, while the second tank would drop to 7.5.

If you want a final pH of 6.5 and you want to have 30 ppm of CO2, you need to add enough carbonate (KH) to get the equilibrium pH up to 7.5. Then, crank up the CO2 until you arrive at 6.5. This is why controllers only work well if you keep an eye on the KH.

The relationship betwen pH drop and CO2 concentration isn't linear:

pH drop / CO2 concentration (ppm):

2.0 / 300
1.5 / 95
1.4 / 75
1.3 / 60
1.2 / 48
1.1 / 38
1.0 / 30
0.9 / 24
0.8 / 19
0.7 / 15
0.6 / 12
0.5 / 9.5
0.4 / 7.5
0.3 / 6.0
0.2 / 4.8
0.1 / 3.8

You can see that you need an accurate way to measure pH, since a difference of a couple tenths makes a big difference in CO2 concentration when you get above 30 ppm.


----------



## imhandy2

defdac said:


> Ahwell. Will be using cold water from now on instead and see if I can see any difference.


Food for thought, a hot water tank can grow bacterias. By keeping your tank temp set to 140 degrees F will iliminate that. Ontario's(Toronto) plumbing code states that the hw tank must be set to 140 and then be tempered down to 120 with a mixing valve. Food for thought about using hot water.

regards,

Terry.


----------



## imhandy2

I had the same problem with my Alternatera Reineckii, I went through the same process as you. I even contacted Tropica and I suggested that it might be a Ca deficiency, they agreed, but they were useless, they didn't know. I even had my Ca(CaCl2) up to 100ppm. However I was able to rectify my situation by tossing that messy stem plant out and didn't have to deal with it any longer. It was a balance of sanity and insanity........I chose sanity for now!

regards,

Terry.


----------



## kekon

My Alternatera looks better now as I increased Ca up to 35 ppm. In the next few days I'm going to carry out an Edward's experiment with very low Mg and high Ca (Ca 25, Mg 3). These plants grew very well when using NPK fertilizer when N was in urea form. You you used only CaCl2 as a source of Ca you probably had exceptionally high level of Cl. When I dosed Ca only from CaCl2 (20 ppm Ca, 35 ppm Cl) I had problems with withering leafs after every water change.


----------



## imhandy2

kekon said:


> I used only RO water in the past and commercial NPK fertilizer and had only 13 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg and plants grew very fast and healthy. CO2 was only 12 ppm. The problem was thread algae at that time. When I replaced the NPK fertilizer with separate KNO3 and KH2PO4 the growth was stunted and leaves got twisted and deformed. So I suppose it is not problem with CO2, Ca and Mg. Probably there is missing element that was in the NPK fertilizer but I don't know what it could be.


Now as you said that when you used the NPK fert the only issue you had was thread algae. If you go back to square one and use the NPK and try to deal with the issue of thread algae by increasing your C02 from 12 to around 35ppm and align your N and P to 10:1 ratio. I find that for me by keeping my N @ 20, P @ 2, and C02 @35 I seem to get way more pearling then if I keep my P @ 1ppm.

I do agree with your choice and reasoning for using RO water. Municipal water is so unstable expecially in the spring time.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Terry.


----------



## SuRje1976

kekon said:


> very low Mg and high Ca (Ca 25, Mg 3)


I just got my Ca and Mg to these levels today. I was having similar growth issues with my hygros. I'm hoping this will correct them. I'll watch for a few days and post observations.


----------



## imhandy2

kekon said:


> You you used only CaCl2 as a source of Ca you probably had exceptionally high level of Cl. When I dosed Ca only from CaCl2 (20 ppm Ca, 35 ppm Cl) I had problems with withering leafs after every water change.


Right now in my 75g I dose CaCl2 to give me me 100mg/l Ca. How do I calculate the amount of cloride and what does it do, is it too much?

I recently was told that if there is a deficiency symptom in new leaves it is a micro and in the older leaves it is a macro deficiency. I am testing that theory out now.

Terry.


----------



## kekon

If you dose 100ppm Ca from CaCl2 only (assuming it is anhydrous CaCl2) you dose also 177 ppm Cl ! It's terribly high amount. It's very strange that you don't have any issues with that... I had some issues at 35ppm Cl.



> I recently was told that if there is a deficiency symptom in new leaves it is a micro and in the older leaves it is a macro deficiency. I am testing that theory out now.


Yes, it's true. But there can be Mn deficiency (which is micro nutrient) that appears on older leafs. Click the following link where you can read about different deficiencies:

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_nutrient.htm


----------



## imhandy2

Kekon,
I was using CaCl2 anhydrous via turbo calcium but changed to dihydrate(?) aka pool calcium hardener.......it was cheap.... $20/4kg container.

What kind of issues would I be experiencing at 177ppm of cloride and how did you calculate that figure?

Thanks,

Terry


----------



## banderbe

I think you guys are over-complicating things.


----------



## imhandy2

banderbe said:


> I think you guys are over-complicating things.


Not really, if I am overdosing on my cloride I would like to sort it out, how complicated is that.


----------



## kekon

banderbe said:


> I think you guys are over-complicating things.


Come on... I don't think we over-complicate anything. Maybe we go too deeply into details but every another experience can be very useful 

If you want to know how much of a given element you dose from salt first of all you must know atomic masses. You can find them in the periodic table.
For example, CaCl2 (anhydrous) goes as follows (atomic masses):

Ca: 40
Cl: 35.4

The total atomic mass of CaCl2 will be:

40 + 35.4 * 2 = 110.8

40/110.8 = 0.36 (so Ca represents 36% of CaCl2)
(35.4 * 2)/110.8 = 0.64 (so Cl represents 64% of CaCl2)

So, if you have, say 10g of CaCl2 there is 0.36 * 10 = 3.6g Ca 
and 0.64 * 10 = 6.4g Cl. If you dose 100g CaCl2 to 100 liters tank you 
will have: 6.4g / 100L = 0.064g / L = 64 ppm Cl
3.6g / 100L = 0.036g / L = 36 ppm Ca

So CaCl2 (anydrous) contains 36% Ca.

Anyway, I think you shouldn't dose so much Ca (100ppm) solely from CaCl2. 
50ppm Ca is enough. It's much safer do dose Ca from CaSO4 and CaCl2.


----------



## imhandy2

I realize that we are going off on a tangent from the origional thread but I need to get things straightened away.

Thanks for the math lesson, it will come in handy.

This confuses me some I hope that you can possible clear this up for me. Now according to the fertilator I am dosing 4tsp. CaCl2 based on 65g of water column that gives me 26ppm of Ca. However when I test for Ca with my test kit I get 100mg/l Ca?:???: 

What product is CaS04, greg watson doesn't seem to have it. Would it be considered for instance Seachems GH+ or Equilibrium? Now If I am dosing 
K2S04 and CaS04, is there a limit of S04 that should be dosed?

Thanks,

Terry.


----------



## kekon

The best way to avoid problems with high readings is to dose Ca only to changed water. The high readings you get form you Ca test kit may be caused by the fact that you dose Ca too often or you have hard water. The best way is to dose Ca only during water chages. Could you write some more about changed water ? (I mean GH, KH)


----------



## banderbe

I don't know guys. I fly as blind as a bat in my tank and things are great.

I use 100% RO, reconstitute with GH Booster and NaCO3, dose KNO3 and KH2PO4, TMG, Flourish Excel, Flourish Iron.

Easy cheesy. I don't use test kits except to make sure the GH and KH are at acceptable values after water changes.

It seems like you are making it harder on yourself than it needs to be, but I am also a noob so what do I know?


----------



## MrSanders

banderbe What you need to realize is that eveyones water is different.... everones tank is different. And what works well for one may not work at all for another. Sure there are basic general ideas out there that grow great plants with little effort at all..... EI comes to mind here.... it has worked great for MANY. Though there are some cases that for some odd unknown reason simple, or complicated plants just dont seem to do well no matter what you do. I know the frustrations of this first hand and am still fighting with a tank I have been trying to balance out for over a year now. At some points things get better..... only to turn around and crash. I have asked for advice and followed it from many expierenced on this forum and others..... Bottom line is that there are always those cases where there is no "basic" way to do it that is going to work out very well. rare but they are out there......


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## kekon

Well, Tom, my plants are going better and better but it is rather very slow progress. Anyway, thanks to decent PO4 and NO3 (at least 1 and 10 respectively) I got rid of 99% of algae. I can't see even a "single algae thread". But I still have issues with Rotala, Umbrosum and twisted leaves on Alternatera and can't manage that. There is probably missing element or bad ratios etc. but I can't find it. Pearling is not intense despite high NO3, PO4, CO2 and 150% TMG dose.


----------



## John P.

Are you runnning a UV sterilizer? I've had stunted rotala ever since I began using one. I'm turning it off to see if that makes a difference.


----------



## kekon

Yes, I have one but it's switched off. I used it only in case of green water but it is no longer used. I thought about UV influence on plants; maybe some UV comes from my flourescent bulbs. I use 3 x 4000K and 2 x 6000K bulbs, each 30W. Here one can see its spectrum chart (sorry for not English language on that site) just click on the small chart there:

4000K:

http://www.aqva-light.pl/shop.php?UID_c=c7f360b44320&UID_p=f4d8a4b2d81a&UID=52be4d287436

6000K:

http://www.aqva-light.pl/shop.php?UID_c=ab1ab85753d7&UID_p=0938cde47cc8&UID=52be4d287436

Anyway it seems that if we had had too much UV and if it had desteroyed chaltors in our ferts we would have had Fe, Zn, and Cu deficiency. Maybe burned tips and twisted leaves are a sign of that but I'm not sure.


----------



## imhandy2

Well, I realize that I have a few issues and I don't want to keep going on off on a tangent with this thread so I started my own thread. I hope you guys will check it out and help me get my ferts on track.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/science-of-fertilizing/26815-ironing-out-my-ferts.html#post196619

Thanks,

Terry.


----------



## banderbe

MrSanders said:


> banderbe What you need to realize is that eveyones water is different.... everones tank is different. And what works well for one may not work at all for another. Sure there are basic general ideas out there that grow great plants with little effort at all..... EI comes to mind here.... it has worked great for MANY. Though there are some cases that for some odd unknown reason simple, or complicated plants just dont seem to do well no matter what you do. I know the frustrations of this first hand and am still fighting with a tank I have been trying to balance out for over a year now. At some points things get better..... only to turn around and crash. I have asked for advice and followed it from many expierenced on this forum and others..... Bottom line is that there are always those cases where there is no "basic" way to do it that is going to work out very well. rare but they are out there......


My point was that people who have on-going struggles should eliminate as many variables as possible and the way to do this starts with using RO water. From there the only differences are biomass and fert regime.


----------



## kekon

banderbe said:


> My point was that people who have on-going struggles should eliminate as many variables as possible and the way to do this starts with using RO water. From there the only differences are biomass and fert regime.


I agree, and that's why I'm RO fan as well. Tap water can consist other elements that are not necessary for plants such as Fluorine and heavy metals. So I disagree with saying: "we can miss important element using RO". Good ferts consist all the necessary traces. Yesterday I did WC and reconstitued RO using Ca & Mg in ratios based on Discus Mix and baking soda to make KH = 3. If this helps my plants to grow healthy I'll be the happiest guy in the world. If not... I'll throw my tank through the window (unless I have much patience)


----------



## banderbe

Kekon, what's your GH after you reconstitute with Ca and Mg?

I still think you should consider GH booster, it takes care of worry about ratios and the like.. although now I recall you can't get it in Poland?

Wonder what it would cost for Greg to ship it to you?


----------



## kekon

Normally I dose 25 ppm Ca and 5 ppm Mg and it gives me GH 4..5.
I suppose GH Booster is made of CaSO4, CaCl2 and MgSO4. It additionally has Iron Sulphate and manganese Sulphate but I don't think they are necessary. I use the same salts to reconstitute RO water. Unfortunately I can't get GH Booster in my country... If it was available in the shops I'd surely buy it.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Zapins

Thank you for re-enforcing my previous posts about the K+, Gh and most importantly testing your ferts rather then calculating them. Its nice to know that what i said was not completely insane and wrong.


----------



## kekon

The NO3 test kit i use (JBL) was calibrated. I made "reference solution" of known NO3: 10 ppm and 5 ppm and tested it. The test showed the same results. I ran this several times (using Ca(NO3)2 and KNO3) and it always showed exactly 10 and 5 ppm. Maybe 10 ppm is too low i can easily increase it up to, say, 20 ppm.



> How are you arriving at this static 10ppm level of NO3?


I dose 10 ppm NO3 to changed water every week. The rest comes from CaNO3 and KNO3 during the week: 2.5 ppm NO3 daily. At the end of the week NO3 stays at 10 ppm. So i calculated the daily NO3 uptake is about 2.5 ppm (of course i may be wrong). My Didiplis diandra tops are almost red like beetroot; maybe it's a sign of low NO3 or my NO3 test kit fails to work correctly.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## kekon

I will raise NO3. Anyway, i'm tempted to add some more boron because deformed tips and curled leaves look like as if it was boron deficiency.


----------



## kekon

Well, I've just raised NO3 some, and added 0.06 ppm of boron (H3BO3). A person I know solved the problem with tip stunting by adding some more zinc. If the boron dose i've just added doesn't help, the next step will be adding zinc. One can easily buy single micronutrients in Poland in chelated form such as zinc, copper, iron etc. so one can also make it's own ferts if one wishes. I was told phosphorus excess caused zinc deficiency... but we'll see.


----------



## fabry

Hi Kekon,
Could you tell us the recipe you use for your micros?

In my experience the problems you are having are *always* related to a deficiency in one (or more) of the following micros:

Boron
Zinc
Copper 
Molybdenum

With the most likely being Boron and zinc (expecially if you see some stem plants producing chlorotic very small leaves with reduced internodes lenght).
Molybdenum and Copper secondarily and less likely.

Consider that adequate ratios should be something like the following:

Iron: 100
Mn: 50
B: 30
Zn: 30
Cu: 10
Mo: 1

Forget about Potassium and other macros.

In the nutrient solutions used to grow aquarium plants emersed the ratios between K, Ca and Mg are usually in the following range:

K: 250
Ca: 150
Mg: 30

So Potassium is not an issue at the levels you keep.

Let us know.

My best regards.

Fabrizio.


----------



## kekon

As far as micros are concerned I've just started to add 200% TMG dose because I've noticed Fe deficiency (it's not severe but young leaves turned pale when i dosed recommended TMG doses). Yes, new leaves grow very small, deformed and look as if they were burned (especially un umbrosum). Additionally the ovarall growth is quite slow despite decent PO4 and NO3. 
Some weeks ago i dosed other fert which had only 1ppm Mo as opposed to TMG which has 20 ppm Mo. That's why i switched to TMG thinking it was Mo deficiency but it's seems it is not. I agree with you that it can be B, Zn or Cu. Yesterday i added 0.06 ppm B and i'm waiting for plants response. So far i've done the following things to find what is the culprit in my tank:

- increased Ca from 13 ppm to 30 ppm: some inprovement, fewer burned tips
- dosed Ca mainly from CaCl2: failed, withered leaves appeared on 
Altarnatera (Cl over 5 ppm); burning still exists, growth stunted
- limited Cl to max. 5 ppm, more CaSo4: no more withered leaves; burning 
still exists, growth stunted
- limited SO4 to 40ppm (CaCO3 was introduced in place of MgSO4); no effect
burning still exists, growth stunted;
- started heavy micro dosing; 6ml per 200L of fert wich is:
Fe: 2100 ppm
Mn: 1000 ppm
B: 150 ppm
Cu: 80ppm
Zn: 150 ppm
Mo: 1 ppm
effect - growth stunted even further (probably because all the micros were
increased at the same time; only one or two micros should have been 
changed probably, but i didn't know which one/ones)

- added more Mn - no effect, burning still exists, growth stunted
- increased Mg from 5 to 10; no effect, burning still exists, growth stunted
- setting Mg to 3 and Ca to 25; slight Mg deficiency appeared on 
some anubias leaves (intreveinal chlorosis in older leaves); burning still 
exists, growth stunted;
- added 0.06 ppm of boron - waiting for plants response

If more boron doesn't improve anything i'll have to raise the elements you've told about; Zn, Cu. So, now i'm waiting to see if more added boron will chabge the situation...


----------



## fabry

Hi kekon,
considering the ratios between the single elements in your micros it is not odd that under heavy dosing your troubles are increasing even further.

The ratio between Fe and Mn is correct, but both are too high in comparison to Zinc and others.

The young pale leaves you see are not necessarily related to a Fe deficiency.

Consider that Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu antagonize each other so the excess of one leads to a deficiency in another one.

The B concentration is also too low.
But this is also related to Calcium levels in your water (which are not so hight), and this allows you to stay a little bit lower in Boron before seeing deficiencies.

The Cu is not that bad.

I would rise Mo also.

Do not go too far from the ratios I gave you in my previous mail, in particular for the Zn at about 1/4 of Fe.

Regards.

Fabrizio.


----------



## Zapins

Fe: 2100 ppm
Mn: 1000 ppm
B: 150 ppm
Cu: 80ppm
Zn: 150 ppm
Mo: 1 ppm

You must be off with these ppm values. If your copper was that high in the water column then very bad things would happen. At .7ppm copper begins to actively kill plants, at 80ppm your fish would die and all your plants would die too within hours.


----------



## banderbe

Why do you feel the need to be so concerned with micro-nutrients? I have absolutely no idea how much of any micros I have. I dose 6 ml TMG daily and supplement with 3 ml Flourish Fe daily. That's it. I could care less how much boron I have. The simple fact that there are virtually no posts discussing boron tells you how unimportant it is, and how easy it must be for virtually everyone to obtain acceptable levels of it. I think you are on a wild goose chase, but it looks like you are having fun so knock yourself out. I will bet my family jewels that you will not solve your problem using your current strategy of trying to micro-manage down to the ppm your micronutrients.


----------



## Zapins

Would have to agree w/ banderbe. Give it some time with the higher nitrates/calcium/potassium and then assess from there.


----------



## fabry

Zapins said:


> Fe: 2100 ppm
> Mn: 1000 ppm
> B: 150 ppm
> Cu: 80ppm
> Zn: 150 ppm
> Mo: 1 ppm
> 
> You must be off with these ppm values. If your copper was that high in the water column then very bad things would happen. At .7ppm copper begins to actively kill plants, at 80ppm your fish would die and all your plants would die too within hours.


Zapins,
I don't think Kekon is sayng he is keeping 80 ppm of Copper in his tank.
I think he is sayng that he is using 6 ml per 200l of a fert. with the following composition: 
Fe: 2100 ppm
Mn: 1000 ppm
B: 150 ppm
Cu: 80ppm
Zn: 150 ppm
Mo: 1 ppm


----------



## kekon

Zapins said:


> Fe: 2100 ppm
> Mn: 1000 ppm
> B: 150 ppm
> Cu: 80ppm
> Zn: 150 ppm
> Mo: 1 ppm
> 
> You must be off with these ppm values. If your copper was that high in the water column then very bad things would happen. At .7ppm copper begins to actively kill plants, at 80ppm your fish would die and all your plants would die too within hours.


The values i've shown don't concern concentrations of those elements in my tank. They present concetrations of micros in 1L liquid of the fert I used ! 
I should have added there "per liter" ("Fe: 2100 ppm/L") - my mistake

 My problems are NOT caused by K, NO3, PO4, CO2. I checked all these parameters many times; i have decent levels of those and still i have problems... I also doubled TMG dose but it doesn't seem to help much. So i agree with Fabry that it may be something wrong with B, Zn, Mo. Anyway switching to TMG helped my alternatera a bit. The strange thing is that my Nesea started to grow healthy...  It is said this plant is very demanding but whilst most of my plants suffer it grows very well ! Nesea started to grow well after setting Mg to 3, Ca to 25 and K = 10 (as far as i know it doesn't like too much K)



> I would rise Mo also.


Yes, i think it is too low as well. That's why i no longer use this fert. 
I found another fert on the market which has better ratios. If adding more B or Zn helps, i will probably purchase this fert. (it's very cheap - $18 for 5L bottle)

Fe: 2.00 %
Mn: 0.83 % 
B: 0.23 %
Cu: 0.12 %
Zn: 0.30 %
Mo: 0.05 %

Assuming Fe is "100" it would be:

Fe: 100
Mn: 41.5
B: 11.5
Cu: 6 
Zn: 15
Mo: 2.5


----------



## Elkmor

kekon said:


> - added 0.06 ppm of boron - waiting for plants response
> 
> If more boron doesn't improve anything i'll have to raise the elements you've told about; Zn, Cu. So, now i'm waiting to see if more added boron will chabge the situation...


Please, continue. Your problems are very near to my. I use pure RO water, TMG and NPK too. I reconstitute my water with Discus Mix (results with Sera Mineral Salts was the same).
Some of my plants have curly tips, and Ludwigia shows pimples sometimes.

I've tried:
Mg up-down - doesn't help
NPK manipulations - can't help
Ca - failure
TMG - still curly leafs problem
Fe+EDTA - no result
DIY micros - miss
SERA fertilizer - no result
Pet - became covered with algaу 
High CO2 - error

May be the problem lies somewhere in biofilter? Gravel? May be some sort of bacteria should do something for plants? Viruses? Questions... No answers.


----------



## kekon

I think it may another nutrient deficiency whcih we don't know... It seems it may be nickel deficiency. I raised boron but plant growth was stunted even further. Some plants stopped to grow completely.
Read this thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...izing/27673-nickel-deficiency.html#post202848


----------



## kekon

I had 12ppm Mg and 24 ppm Ca.... but i wanted to have 5ppm Mg and 25ppm Ca. The problem was dolomite put in one chamber of my RO. I thought it was pure CaCO3 but it was MgCO3 * CaCO3 ! (dolomite). I removed it from RO and used CaSO4 and MgSO4 only. Umbrosum bagan to sprout healthy tips in a week but i will have to wait at least 2 weeks to confirm the changes i've made give positive results.


----------



## helgymatt

Were there any conclusions to this problem? I have the exact same problem in my tank with alternathera, rotala macranda, and ludwigia (which is since removed because it looked sooo bad). Funny thing that the ludwidgia grew so well in the first 5 months of my tank and then crashed???


----------



## defdac

It looks like it could be that limiting nitrogen from KNO3 limits the problem.

That said I would like to discuss the possibility that this is a kind of way for some plants to propagate themself very rapidly and become much more bushy.

The plants I've had this stunting och deformation of new tips throws out an insanely amount of side shoots directly aftwards the deformation. These shoots often develop to their full pride and looks very nice.

I know stunting Eusteralis stellata was discussed quite a bit over att the APD years ago. The stellata forms a stunted tip and then throws out many side shoots. And I recently noticed the exact same behaviour in L. arcuata and L. glandulosa too.

What is your thoughts that this could be a "natural" form of vegetative propagation?


----------



## helgymatt

defdac said:


> It looks like it could be that limiting nitrogen from KNO3 limits the problem.
> 
> What is your thoughts that this could be a "natural" form of vegetative propagation?


Hmm...this is interesting. My Rotala macranda actually has LOTS of small sideshoots and I think the Alternanthera does to, but I'll have to look more closely.

I do not, however, think this is a "natural" form of propagation. Lots of people seem to grow these plants beautifully without any problems. I think if it were natural we would see it more often. It is suprising to me that so many (ok several) people have had this same problem and nobody has pinpointed the solution! Maybe they have, but not concluded this thread! I hope they will chime in


----------



## helgymatt

What exactly do you mean by limiting nitrogen from KNO3? Are you suggesting to use a different form of Nitrogen?


----------



## Bert H

I've noticed the same thing, defdac, with P. palustris. Most stems will grow normal, but every so often one will stunt/deform and them send out about 3 stems from the area just below the deformation. As to its physiological significance, I don't know.


----------



## helgymatt

I dont think this is much suprise....woody plants will do this all the time. Once the apical meristem gets damaged it sends a signal to the plant to that the subapical buds should start to grow. This is so the plant does not just become stunted "forever". It could be something as simple as a fish taking a nip out of the growing point, or hiting it with a scissors, or whatever that causes the lower buds to grow. I don't think a plant would naturally deform to become more bushy!


----------



## kekon

The main cause of stunting and deformations *is excess NO3* (or NH4 is someone uses it as a source of N). This is not due to Ca deficiency. Also, if there is less than 10 ppm K in the water column deformations will be more severe. Depending on water hardness (GH) one needs to adjust NO3. From what i experienced when GH is very low (3..5) 5 ppm NO3 is enough. When GH is higger it's possible to add more NO3.

_"Some plants can however react with growth disturbances even with a minimal nitrate content of just over 10 mg/l, and so therefore this value needs not to be and should not be in any case exceeded."_

Here you can find some good info about N:

http://www.drak.de/shop/eudrakon-bottle-p-119.html?osCsid=e3723b0a27b7baa8d1bf01cf731afb90
http://www.drak.de/en/products/fertilizer/eudrakon-n.html


----------



## hoppycalif

kekon said:


> The main cause of stunting and deformations *is excess NO3* (or NH4 is someone uses it as a source of N). This is not due to Ca deficiency. Also, if there is less than 10 ppm K in the water column deformations will be more severe. Depending on water hardness (GH) one needs to adjust NO3. From what i experienced when GH is very low (3..5) 5 ppm NO3 is enough. When GH is higger it's possible to add more NO3.
> 
> _"Some plants can however react with growth disturbances even with a minimal nitrate content of just over 10 mg/l, and so therefore this value needs not to be and should not be in any case exceeded."_
> 
> Here you can find some good info about N:
> 
> http://www.drak.de/shop/eudrakon-bottle-p-119.html?osCsid=e3723b0a27b7baa8d1bf01cf731afb90
> http://www.drak.de/en/products/fertilizer/eudrakon-n.html


I know you have done a lot of testing to come to this conclusion, so I can't dispute it, but I'm bothered by the fact that so many of us use the EI fertilizing method, and have greater than 10 ppm of NO3 in the water routinely, but don't get stunting and deformation of plants. And, before beginning to promote the EI method Tom Barr did a lot of testing with very high levels of NO3 and had no ill effects. Even now he occasionally uses high levels of NO3 while doing some testing, but he has never suggested that we should limit NO3 to 10 ppm to avoid stunting and deformations. Why are his results, and the results of the large group using EI, so different from yours? We should all experience stunting if you are correct.


----------



## suaojan

hoppycalif said:


> I know you have done a lot of testing to come to this conclusion, so I can't dispute it, but I'm bothered by the fact that so many of us use the EI fertilizing method, and have greater than 10 ppm of NO3 in the water routinely, but don't get stunting and deformation of plants. And, before beginning to promote the EI method Tom Barr did a lot of testing with very high levels of NO3 and had no ill effects. Even now he occasionally uses high levels of NO3 while doing some testing, but he has never suggested that we should limit NO3 to 10 ppm to avoid stunting and deformations. Why are his results, and the results of the large group using EI, so different from yours? We should all experience stunting if you are correct.


I think Kekon's point is limit NO3 in "very soft water". 
Growing Rotala Macrandra in GH < 5 water can be an example.


----------



## helgymatt

My GH has been high...around 11. Is this to say that I should not shoot for a low NO3? I think I may be walking on thin ice trying to keep my NO3 below 5. I imagine that would require LOTS of testing and just asking for algae problem if my nitrogen shorts out! Hoppy, what can you suggest for us who do experience this stunting deformed leaves on certain plants? 

My next attempt to fix my poor growth in macranda and alternathera is to try to lower my GH. My tap is 11 so I'm going to go back back to using 50/50 RO and tap (after a few months of only tap) to get my pH down from the 11 range to around 6 or 7. I think my macranda and wallichii will be much happier at this pH. People agree? In the end if I cant figure out the solution I may just tear out the plants that don't grow well and replace them with plants that do!


----------



## kekon

Why is Tom Barr unable to tell what causes stunting when i push NO3 high ? I've always been told that this was caused by too low CO2 but it's not true, i added so much CO2 that some fish died but i didn't notice any improvement on my plants ! I also was told by EI lovers "add more KNO3, add more KNO3, add more KNO3", "add more PO4, PO4, PO4 and PO4" over and over again. It always had negative effects - the more NO3 i added the slower the growth was noticed and most plants had malformed leaves. 

I must say that not all the plants are stunted in high NO3. The plants that are affected are mostly stem species (mine were Umbrosum, Alternatera, Polysperma). Those who use EI have typically hard water and this should be mentioned when we say about EI - this is very important thing that ensures your plants are not stunted.
As far as i know T.Barr (i read on his website where he wrote about water parameters he uses in his tank) uses water with GH of 8 and this prevents plants from being deformed.
What i'm trying to emphasize is the fact that the more NO3 one wishes to add one also must raise GH. That's all. Those who use water hard as "liquid rock" may add tons of KNO3 and it will work perfectly.


----------



## helgymatt

I have hard water and I have stunted, deformed leaves...


----------



## kekon

How much K do you add ?


----------



## Bert H

> Those who use water hard as "liquid rock" may add tons of KNO3 and it will work perfectly.


 In a word, NO! I have semi-liquid rock (kh10, gh13) and stunting in Alternathera is a common occurrence for me. I know my CO2 is fine, and it doesn't matter if I have NO3 at 5 or at 30. The only thing which has seemed to ameliorate the condition for me, has been Mg dosing, as most of my gh comes from Ca.

I have never done any scientific tests on my tanks, so I cannot speak in relation to any verifiable evidence. I only can relate to what I have observed. I definitely _believe_, without scientific proof, that with harder waters one needs higher levels of ferts. IMO, generalizations in this field need to be used as guidelines only. Everyone's tanks are going to be different.

I started using EI as per sticky type instructions long ago. Over time, I found out that my nitrate levels just kept going up and up. One time I recall having over 80ppm NO3 (and yes the kit was calibrated with known solutions). So I started tweaking things, with no particular scientific type planning. I now add macros once a week, micros 3x a week and do weekly water changes. Sometimes I don't see stunting for weeks then all of a sudden some stems get all deformed. Once new growth comes around the stunting, I don't see it again for another few weeks. I don't know why it happens, but I've learned to live with it, and only certain plants are affected. My 2 cents.


----------



## helgymatt

Bert, How much Mg do you add? I think most of my GH comes from calcium also. 

Kekon, the K I add comes from my regular KNO3 and KH2PO4 dosing. I don't know the exact ppm I'm adding, but I could find out. Maybe I should be adding more, from K2SO4??


----------



## kekon

Recently i've noticed some stunting which was due to... boron deficiency (i use RO only). NO3 was 5 ppm, K about 30..40 ppm. Adding more boron helped affected plants. I added only 0.008 ppm weekly (as 200% TMG dose). Boron deficiency appeared when much K was added.


----------



## kekon

> Kekon, the K I add comes from my regular KNO3 and KH2PO4 dosing.


KH2PO4 adds very little K so it can be neglected. I recommend you added about 10 ppm from K2SO4 directly into the tank. If K is deficienct in 3..4 days you should see the improvement.
Mg deficiency can also be the cause of stunting but adding it without the knowledge how much Ca is already in the water can be somewhat dangerous as excess Mg can also make curly leaves.


----------



## Bert H

> Bert, How much Mg do you add? I think most of my GH comes from calcium also.


One tablespoon weekly for 50gal. I have well water from a limestone aquifer - lots of calcium carbonates.


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

kekon said:


> KH2PO4 adds very little K so it can be neglected. I recommend you added about 10 ppm from K2SO4 directly into the tank. If K is deficienct in 3..4 days you should see the improvement.
> Mg deficiency can also be the cause of stunting but adding it without the knowledge how much Ca is already in the water can be somewhat dangerous as excess Mg can also make curly leaves.


Have you not realized yet that insufficient C02 can cause 
the same problems and many more without having to add 
more salt to the tank? to much light, to little C02 causes 
more problems for folk than they think, use less light to see.

N-P-K-Te is the simple part. light/C02 not so simple for many.

It does not matter how much N-P-K is in the water, as long as you have some.

helgymatt: re-evaluate you're C02, add some Excel to compensate for a time.


----------



## kekon

> Have you not realized yet that insufficient C02 can cause
> the same problems and many more without having to add
> more salt to the tank? to much light, to little C02 causes
> more problems for folk than they think, use less light to see.


Please read my previous posts. I have written about CO2 issues already.


----------



## helgymatt

I have plenty of CO2! My drop checker is yellow by the end of the day! People keep telling me..."it must be the CO2, keep tweaking your CO2" I have over 5 bps of CO2 in my 55. I don't think more CO2 is going to do anything but kill my fish. 

I am running 10 hr. photoperiod with ~4wpg (2 watt 55 Power compacts and a 2 T8's overdriven 2x) Maybe decreasing my photoperiod to 8 or 9 would be good? 

Heres what I'm going to do...


1. Continue adding about 1tsp of MgSO4 3x a week. 

2. Add some K2SO4

3. Decrease my photoperiod to 8 or 9 hrs. 

4. Use enough RO water to drop my GH from 11 to 6 or 7. 

How does this sound?


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

Kekon, I read enough.

helgymatt, You should be adding K2S04 along with 
KN03 and KH2P04 with that much light, why John 
has not added that to the sticky is beyond me.

Now, you are torching the plants with that much 
light for that long, the stunted plants are from to 
much light, a drop checker is just a simple contraption
it is not fool proof or the absolute gospel, the plants 
will tell the truth.
Turn your lighting down, it is okay to burn 4wpg-ish 
but not for a full 10hrs.
If you wish to burn that much do it for only 4-5 hrs, 
2 wpg +/- for the remainder.

Good flow, good C02 with plenty of Te/Fe, then 
the plants will start to rebound and grow as they should.

Plants simply do not need that much light for that long, 
1-2 or even 3 days out of the week burning half that
would be fine, while still maintaining C02 and ferts.
That will make things much more simple and easy 
for you and easier on the tank/plants.

_Distorted growth=stress_.

RO water is always good, plants like a low/er TDS
For your 55g?
do this:

50%H20 change-weekly
+/-1/2Tsp-KN03 3x a week
+/-1/8Tsp-KH2P04 3x a week
+/-1/8Tsp-K2S04 3x a week
+/-10ml or 1/8Tsp-Trace 3x a week
+/-2-4ml-Fe/Iron 3x a week

The rest is light management and C02 simply put.


----------



## helgymatt

helgymatt said:


> I have plenty of CO2! My drop checker is yellow by the end of the day! People keep telling me..."it must be the CO2, keep tweaking your CO2" I have over 5 bps of CO2 in my 55. I don't think more CO2 is going to do anything but kill my fish.
> 
> I am running 10 hr. photoperiod with ~4wpg (2 watt 55 Power compacts and a 2 T8's overdriven 2x) Maybe decreasing my photoperiod to 8 or 9 would be good?
> 
> Heres what I'm going to do...
> 
> 1. Continue adding about 1tsp of MgSO4 3x a week.
> 
> 2. Add some K2SO4
> 
> 3. Decrease my photoperiod to 8 or 9 hrs.
> 
> 4. Use enough RO water to drop my GH from 11 to 6 or 7.
> 
> How does this sound?


Note that this is all in my 55 gallon! Do your comments above realize this? Just want to make sure...because you started talking about my 29 gallon. I have no problems in my 29 gallon tank, only my 55.


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

Okay I adjusted the dosing for a 55g, you had a 29g in signature, everything else still the same.


----------



## helgymatt

Am I still torching with my light or is it now not so bad considering its a 55?

I don't have a signature for my 55 because some of the plants won't grow


----------



## Brilliant

kekon said:


> I tried different levels of Ca and MG but it didn't help.


That's good to know. I found the same thing. Calcium deficiency is very hard to come by.



Bert H said:


> What are your CO2 levels? I see thread algae in the pics you have provided here. I would suggest you first ascertain that your CO2 levels are adequate.


Couldn't have said it better myself. If only you would have listened it would have ended this wild goose chase two years ago and you would hopefully be onto something enjoyable?! 

Fast forward two years&#8230;.In the mean time you're basing results of experiments on bad data such as this:


kekon said:


> Recently i've noticed some stunting which was due to... boron deficiency (i use RO only). NO3 was 5 ppm, K about 30..40 ppm. Adding more boron helped affected plants. I added only 0.008 ppm weekly (as 200% TMG dose). Boron deficiency appeared when much K was added.


How in the world did you isolate Boron deficiency when using TMG?!? For those who are unsure of my point here are the nutrients which are available in TMG.

From http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/tropica-fert.html
_It is no secret! We tell it in the declaration on the bottle
(K 0.79%, Mg 0.39%, S 1.01%, B 0.004%, Cu 0.006%, Fe 0.07%,
Mn 0.04%, Mo 0.002% Zn 0.002%. HEEDTA and DTPA as celators).
We have the idea: "aquarium owners have the right to know what
they put into their aquarium"!

Claus Christensen (Tropica)_



kekon said:


> Why is Tom Barr unable to tell what causes stunting when i push NO3 high ? I've always been told that this was caused by too low CO2 but it's not true, i added so much CO2 that some fish died but i didn't notice any improvement on my plants ! I also was told by EI lovers "add more KNO3, add more KNO3, add more KNO3", "add more PO4, PO4, PO4 and PO4" over and over again. It always had negative effects - the more NO3 i added the slower the growth was noticed and most plants had malformed leaves.


It has been apparent to me that your results are biased from day one. Comments like the one above prove this and I could site further examples. You may have gained popularity here because of your comments like this but popularity surely shouldn't be because of your skewed results. I have never met Tom Barr, I've only communicated with him a few times. I am not the first to say EI is excessive and wasteful but I don't want to see more folks join this wild goose chase. I commend you for your efforts&#8230;I think this sort of conversation provokes progress and interesting communication  I just hope this can shed some sort of light on how important flow is even if you're pumping in co2 deadly enough to kill your fish.

If you are overdriving your tank with light you need to provide the extra requirements that follow suit. First and foremost is CO2. I run soft water with low GH/KH, I once dosed full EI and can't say I notice a difference in excess. Its official now that I do not run EI&#8230;&#8230;I just use the EI solutions from Wö£fëñxXx. I mix the dry fertilizers with water and automatically dose with AquaMedic Reefdoser. I can dial up my dosing of EI solution with no negative results except a more frequent water change needed. However if I mess with co2 levels and/or flow then chaos erupts. If the amount of micro nutrients is not increased with macro nutrients then a deficiency shows but not curling leaves. I have seen co2 issues even when same amount of co2 is being added with only a change in flow. This co2 issue is stunted leaves.

Calcium, magnesium and iron deficiencies are show by lack of coloration. Not stunting or curling. Low calcium produces white leaves lack of overall coloration. Magnesium deficiency is shown by washed out color and almost brittle appearance. Iron deficiency is loss of green color. It would almost appear that severely unbalanced ratio of calcium and magnesium causes other issues and requires dosing of one or another...something I am not interested in finding&#8230;since I am keeping soft water cichlids in my tanks. I don't intend on stating that I have all the answers but I want to express that I have found these nutrient deficiencies are shown by these characteristics not stunting. I have soft water. I can isolate my nutrient levels because of 0 ppm TDS source water. I have found that increasing KNO3 does not cause twisting or curling leaves and that loss of co2 or flow does.

Thanks again for your input, it has certainly sparked my interest. I hope that you realize that your results have been discredited due to bias. Try to understand this and move forward without such spiteful content.


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

Howdy Frank. long time no see. Not seen you at 
TPT much these days. You and your's doing well I hope.



helgymatt said:


> Am I still torching with my light


Yes
To much light is to much, 4wpg is 4wpg.
Assuming a 29g was a very slight over sight on my part
I corrected the dosing, everything else written still stands.


----------



## kekon

> How in the world did you isolate Boron deficiency when using TMG?!? For those who are unsure of my point here are the nutrients which are available in TMG.


I don't use TMG; i make my own fert and i can examine each micronutrient and its influence on plants. By using TMG and tap water you can't do it. I know how each micronutrient deficiency looks like because i managed to eliminate many of them by adding more of particular nutrient (i use RO because tap water in my region is not good quality) 
When i said "as 200% TMG dose" i meant the same amount of boron as when using 200% TMG which gives you 0.008 ppm a week; so it was 0.004% B in mt fert. I had the same dose of boron added from my own fertilizer.



> Calcium, magnesium and iron deficiencies are show by lack of coloration. Not stunting or curling.


The first sentence is true but lack of Ca causes curling if leaves in many cases as well:

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/min-def/tomatoes.htm
http://4e.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=t&id=289

Look at the photo here:

http://web.mac.com/roslonp/AKWARIUM_HOLENDERSKIE/Moje_albumy/strony/Akwarium_2005_03.html#2

That guy uses only plain gravel wihout any addidtions; NO3 is barely detectable (2 ppm); very low PO4 and GH = 4 and he has great plants. Recently he switched to ADA substrate and it spoiled everything (i don't mean ADA is bad however)



> First and foremost is CO2


It's like saying that aspirin will cure each illness; i agree than too low CO2 causes problems but how many times people say that they have very high CO2 and it doesn't help ? Don't you listen what they say ? Or maybe they should take you to high quality laboratory to prove that ? 
Some EI lovers behave like chineese government that wants to behead everyone who opposes it.


----------



## helgymatt

kekon said:


> Some EI lovers behave like chineese government that wants to behead everyone who opposes it.


Agreed...I know a professional plant grower who uses CO2 in the 15ppm range. If he does this for a career, I don't think its fair to say one HAS to have 30 ppm CO2! But still, I go by what everyone else does and shoot for 30ppm. I guess I am guilty of being ordered by the chinese gov't too.

Turns out he just made a comment about this on his website...lol
http://www.freshwateraquariumplants.com/aquariumplantsnotes.html
http://freshwateraquariumplants.com/carbondioxidechart.html

This ought to start a whorl of discussion!!!


----------



## Brilliant

Wö£fëñxXx said:


> Howdy Frank. long time no see. Not seen you at
> TPT much these days. You and your's doing well I hope.


Hello Craig,

Its been way too long. Things gotta change. Everything is going good, I hope the same for you. I'll send you a message I don't think my last one went though. 



kekon said:


> I don't use TMG; i make my own fert and i can examine each micronutrient and its influence on plants. By using TMG and tap water you can't do it. I know how each micronutrient deficiency looks like because i managed to eliminate many of them by adding more of particular nutrient (i use RO because tap water in my region is not good quality)
> When i said "as 200% TMG dose" i meant the same amount of boron as when using 200% TMG which gives you 0.008 ppm a week; so it was 0.004% B in mt fert. I had the same dose of boron added from my own fertilizer.
> 
> The first sentence is true but lack of Ca causes curling if leaves in many cases as well:
> 
> http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/min-def/tomatoes.htm
> http://4e.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=t&id=289
> 
> Look at the photo here:
> 
> http://web.mac.com/roslonp/AKWARIUM_...2005_03.html#2
> 
> That guy uses only plain gravel wihout any addidtions; NO3 is barely detectable (2 ppm); very low PO4 and GH = 4 and he has great plants. Recently he switched to ADA substrate and it spoiled everything (i don't mean ADA is bad however)
> 
> It's like saying that aspirin will cure each illness; i agree than too low CO2 causes problems but how many times people say that they have very high CO2 and it doesn't help ? Don't you listen what they say ? Or maybe they should take you to high quality laboratory to prove that ?
> Some EI lovers behave like chineese government that wants to behead everyone who opposes it.


Well done! I find TMG to be an excellent trace nutrient souce including mg and did not bother with anything else because I have not found a reason to. The new price may change things. Likewise with ratio of macro fertilizers in the dosage instructions I mentioned. I am all into trying new stuff, I tried other dosing solutions with no success.

Those studies are on terrestrial plants.

Thats a nice tank. Its hard to believe its inert substrate. I didnt see anything about AquaSoil. I would not dose water column with macros like EI if I run AquaSoil. I just use TMG.

With high light tank CO2/flow is first and foremost because all other nutrients are good per governments orders. 



helgymatt said:


> Agreed...I know a professional plant grower who uses CO2 in the 15ppm range. If he does this for a career, I don't think its fair to say one HAS to have 30 ppm CO2! But still, I go by what everyone else does and shoot for 30ppm. I guess I am guilty of being ordered by the chinese gov't too.
> 
> Turns out he just made a comment about this on his website...lol
> http://www.freshwateraquariumplants.com/aquariumplantsnotes.html
> http://freshwateraquariumplants.com/carbondioxidechart.html
> 
> This ought to start a whorl of discussion!!!


I do not recall anyone mentioning certain level of co2. I have never measured my co2 with a meter or chart I measure it with my eyes. Fish and safety come first so no danger.

Id follow the advice about the lighting.


----------



## helgymatt

Wö£fëñxXx said:


> Turn your lighting down, it is okay to burn 4wpg-ish
> but not for a full 10hrs.
> If you wish to burn that much do it for only 4-5 hrs,
> 2 wpg +/- for the remainder.


So I have the two 55 watt compacts (from ahsupply in the front) in the front and then a shoplight in the back with two 2x overdriven t8's. Which would you suggest I run for the 2wpg +/- of the remainder? The compacts in the front for my low growing HC or the shoplight in the back for my stemies? Or can I just run all lamps for like 7hrs, period? I want to try to get it right, because my crypts don't like all these changes in lighting I finally got them looking nice and now they will hate me again.


----------



## hoppycalif

helgymatt said:


> My GH has been high...around 11. Is this to say that I should not shoot for a low NO3? I think I may be walking on thin ice trying to keep my NO3 below 5. I imagine that would require LOTS of testing and just asking for algae problem if my nitrogen shorts out! Hoppy, what can you suggest for us who do experience this stunting deformed leaves on certain plants?


I can't suggest anything because I don't do the kind of testing that is needed to resolve this kind of issues. Kekon does that king of testing. That is why I won't challenge his results. I am just puzzled anytime I see different people, all of whom I respect, get such different results while doing similar testing. I have learned that there is a lot more that I don't know about this hobby than that I do know. So, I keep trying to learn.


----------



## hoppycalif

helgymatt said:


> Agreed...I know a professional plant grower who uses CO2 in the 15ppm range. If he does this for a career, I don't think its fair to say one HAS to have 30 ppm CO2! But still, I go by what everyone else does and shoot for 30ppm. I guess I am guilty of being ordered by the chinese gov't too.


I agree 100% that you don't need 30 ppm of CO2 to successfully grow aquatic plants. Too many people do it with much lower levels to ever believe that 30 ppm is essential. But, if you are driving the plants to grow as fast as you can, by using high light intensity, the fastest they will grow is with the most CO2 you can give them. And, more than 30 ppm (given the inaccuracy we have to live with when measuring CO2) may harm the fish. So, 30 ppm is a good goal for those who want to make plants grow as fast as their high light intensity drives them to grow. Without spending a great deal of money, we can't measure how much CO2 we have any closer than a range of about 20 to 45 ppm, when we think we are at 30 ppm.


----------



## helgymatt

Nice explanation Hoppy.


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

helgymatt said:


> So I have the two 55 watt compacts (from ahsupply in the front) in the front and then a shoplight in the back with two 2x overdriven t8's. Which would you suggest I run for the 2wpg +/- of the remainder? The compacts in the front for my low growing HC or the shoplight in the back for my stemies? Or can I just run all lamps for like 7hrs, period? I want to try to get it right, because my crypts don't like all these changes in lighting I finally got them looking nice and now they will hate me again.


Run one set for a week and the other set the next week 
and see what works/looks better for/to you.

Honestly the Ah kit is more than enough light to grow anything 
on a 55. if you feel you want more regardless add the back set 
for a couple 2~3hrs
Or burn just the AH kit for 8 hrs for a week or two and see 
how things work like that, the plants will let you know how they like it.

If you want to burn all bulbs for 7hrs add some Excel to 
compensate for it really is amazing stuff but be cautious 
of the plants response to that much light.

Do you have the lights sitting on the tank?
AH supply kits sure are might strong for what they are
I have a 2x36 that is a tremendous amount of light and 
I have it built to hang, so adjusting up and down for intensity
is rather easy.
I you over do it with the light the plants will let you know
as you have discovered. I am not perfect and have had my 
fair share of distorted plants. dose NPK Te accordingly 
The rest is light and C02.


----------



## aquamaniac

Hi Kekon, 

I am a little bit confused because since I dose more KNO3 at night, after the lights turns off, my plants grow much better without deformed tips, their coloration is deeper and the fuzzy algae is dieing 
My water has very low Gh (3-4) and when I added the macros daytime the plants were suffered.
I didn't change anything CO2 is the same, traces the same, I only add every night a little more KNO3.
I can't explain why is this happen, but perhaps you can give a try if you have to low N levels.


----------



## kekon

Currently i'm not experiencing deformations and i have NO3 in 5..10 range. The key to solve the problem turned out to be adding more K and boron. GH is 4..5 now. But i think i added too much K for the last 3..4 months which caused white leaves on many plants so i will add less K.


----------



## Danielle

Craig

You said 4wpg is 4wpg regardless.. but isn't this not true for very small and very large tanks? I have 24w CF on a 5.5g for 9hrs a day (4.37wpg) and from everything I understand this is considered to be about medium-high light.

Compact Fluorescent
36W	VeryHigh
27W	High
18W	Moderate
9W	Low

Would you agree?

see also http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/science-aquatic-lighting/34149-proper-wattage-aquariums.html

Granted I agree that 4wpg on a 55 is considered very very high light


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

Hello Danielle,

In keeping with the context of the particular subject 
with Matt on "4WPG being just that regardless" is a lot of light
on a 55g very true.

The WPG guide only applies within a certain window of 
tank sizes. And of course the type of light and quality 
of reflectors will also be a factor.

If you take a one gallon tank and put a 4 watt bulb on it
you could not grow much of anything. 
it is not enough light.

A 24w bulb is not a tremendous amount 
of light either but take that 24w bulb and try to grow some 
plants in say a glass of water and see how well that works.
You will need C02 and salts.

I have a 5g hex tank with a 10w screw in 6700k bulb
that works very well without having to add C02-excel
and rarely any ferts, however I do add K+ and TE a
couple times a month, I grow moss, anubias and 
Suesswassertang very well in that.

Do you have to add nutrients and Carbon to the 5.5g
w/24w bulb to maintain stability? if so then you are in the
highlight range.

If someone is throwing salt/nutrients into the tank
3x a week and pumping C02 until the fish nearly 
choke and having stunting plants and uncontrolled
algae then once again, the problem is to much light
in this scenario.

Regards


----------



## Danielle

Wö£fëñxXx said:


> Hello Danielle,
> 
> Do you have to add nutrients and Carbon to the 5.5g
> w/24w bulb to maintain stability? if so then you are in the
> highlight range.
> 
> Regards


I'm not sure if I have to or not... I was just dosing excel and iron with a random small dose of flourish once a week and things were fine... dosing the full seachem line for 2 weeks and now I'm getting algae.. it's only one side of the tank affected though, the side that I was inadvertently giving a full days worth of indirect sunlight every day. I corrected that yesterday though.

When I read your post I was concerned that maybe I'd messed up getting the 24w... before I was using a 14w standard striplight and just had lowlight plants and not much was growing. I wanted to add stems etc that were mostly high-light plants, so I got the new light and started dosing. I'm a clueless noob though, so I have no idea what I'm doing 

I'm trying to learn best i can though


----------



## FobbyBobby23

Wö£fëñxXx , do you think the stunting/curling from high-light directly due to the fact that you are literally burning the plants with light or is it an indirect effect of over-driving the plants and causing deficiencies to become more evident. Basically, what I am asking is could you theoretically run a ridiculous amount of light for a longer period of time provided you have every nutrient available? Or is it the intensity of the light that is actually stressing out the plant and regardless of your nutrient levels it will stunt?

I guess the reason may not actually matter when the net effect is the same though! 

Recently I've encountered stunting after I raised my photoperiod from 6 hours to 7 hours in an attempt to bring out the red in plants in my 5.5 gallon tank (48 watts over it). Is that 1 hour difference enough to induce these type of effects? What complicates things is the fact that I increased overall iron dosing as well, so I don't know if it is the combination of the two, or one or the other, or the result of NO3 build-up or something like that. This tank is at school, so it has been running for only 7 months, but it has been running fine without any issue until now. Pressurized Co2 (mist method) and EI dosing of soley N, P, K, traces and iron. Water circulation isn't the issue either, since I'm running a 80 gph powerhead and a Zoomed 501 on the tank.


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

FB, 
You have said very well, good question, I like the way
you word that too.

Using that much light you shouldn't worry of nutrient 
build up even though you should be dosing heavy micros 
and macro under intense light.

Light determines growth rate.

Yes one hour is enough difference to cause an issue,
it seems that at some point within that last hour or two
the light crosses that threshold were plants have consumed
the C02 or it simply cannot keep up.

What do you mean by (mist method)?
C02 tubing into power head?

If so, that is only so so effective, with that much light
you will need a large/larger diffuser or-
Reduce the lighting at 6 hours and you should be set.

Plant observation will tell you everything you need to know
if you stay mindful of their growing conditions.

Regards


----------



## wantabe23

"Mindful of the plants growing conditions"= being one with your plants right, kind of like, "there is no spoon"


----------



## thefishmanlives

Salt said:


> You are not testing your water, you are only guessing. Without testing you really have no idea what your water parameters are.
> 
> Get some quality test kits.


Hes wasting his time with test kits. He already said he uses RO water so he knows exactly what his GH/KH is. ANd he adding plentky of NPK. So what would test kits do other then empty his pockets. Not to mention how inaccurate they are anyhow. Id bet its co2 related.


----------



## thefishmanlives

Wö£fëñxXx said:


> FB,
> You have said very well, good question, I like the way
> you word that too.
> 
> Using that much light you shouldn't worry of nutrient
> build up even though you should be dosing heavy micros
> and macro under intense light.
> 
> Light determines growth rate.
> 
> Yes one hour is enough difference to cause an issue,
> it seems that at some point within that last hour or two
> the light crosses that threshold were plants have consumed
> the C02 or it simply cannot keep up.
> 
> What do you mean by (mist method)?
> C02 tubing into power head?
> 
> If so, that is only so so effective, with that much light
> you will need a large/larger diffuser or-
> Reduce the lighting at 6 hours and you should be set.
> 
> Plant observation will tell you everything you need to know
> if you stay mindful of their growing conditions.
> 
> Regards


he means tom barr's method of blowing co2 mist around the tank.


----------



## kekon

> Plant observation will tell you everything you need to know
> if you stay mindful of their growing conditions.


Yes, they will tell but they won't necessary tell what particular nutrient is deficient. Most EI lovers will always tell there is NPK or CO2 deficiency despite of the fact there may be toxic concentration of some micronutrients from the tap (for example, boron, zinc or copper) which make plants stop growing completely and yellowing on young leaves. Plants really don't need so much nutrients levels which are dosed when using EI method.


----------

