# Packing my own ferts



## FerdinandPorsche (27 Feb 2014)

Hi guys, new not long here. I am trying to get this puzzle solved on getting the dry ferts. I found out the suggested sponsor do not deliver outside of Europe. Hence I recalled a website that I was first introduced.

aquariumfertilizer.com

My guess the mandatory is to prepare the standard NPK which is the macro nutrient.
For the micro nutrients, Planted CSM + B.
I am not sure about magnesium sulfate, does it fall under micro or macro. I did refer to *here*. Is magnesium sulfate a compulsory composition then or what is the purpose of it?


According to the dry salt article, a complete list of nutrients include KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate), KH2PO4 (Monopotassium Phosphate), MgSO4 (Magnesium Sulfate), and also CSM + B



> Sunday – 50% or more Water Change then dose [3/16 teaspoon KNO3] + [1/16 teaspoon KH2PO4] + [½ teaspoon MgSO4]
> Monday – 1/16 teaspoon CSM+B
> Tuesday - [3/16 teaspoon KNO3] + [1/16 teaspoon KH2PO4] + [½ teaspoon MgSO4]
> Wednesday - 1/16 teaspoon CSM+B
> ...



If I ordered KNO3, KH2PO4, MgSO4 and CSM+B and I mix these into bottles. Can I break them into (or am I doing it wrongly?) :

i. KNO3 and KH2PO4
ii. CSM+B and MgSO4

The above mix based on the sponsors *guide*. Can I assume that chelated trace refers to CSM+B?


----------



## Vazkez (27 Feb 2014)

Hello there,

I am not expert but I think I could answer few bits...
You do not need MgSO4. MgSO4 is used if you have high Ca in your water but low Mg to bring it on good level. Also if you use RO water you will need MG. If your water has enough MG you will not need it.FYI it fall under Macro.
If you want to mix it DO NOT MIX MACRO + MICRO.
One bottle for macro - NPK and one for micro.

Vaz


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Feb 2014)

Vazkez said:


> You do not need MgSO4. MgSO4 is used if you have high Ca in your water but low Mg to bring it on good level.


This is completely untrue. The need for Magnesium has nothing to do with Calcium. Magnesium is of primary importance for the molecular structure of Chlorophyll, which is probably the most important pigment in the world. Please review the thread About Magnesium | UK Aquatic Plant Society

MgSO4 is a micronutrient, however, it can be mixed either with the CSM+B or with the KNO3/KH2PO4 bottle, or you can put a little in both bottles.

The only time you don't need to add Magnesium is when you have Magnesium already present in your water supply.

Cheers,


----------



## parotet (27 Feb 2014)

I only use tap water and my water company says that the Mg content is 37 ppm... I have always assumed that this was enough, especially because I haven't noticed any problem. Can this amount be considered as an unlimited source of mg for the plants? 

Cheers,
Jordi


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Feb 2014)

If the plants confirm this, yes. What I mean by that is that if they do not suffer Mg deficiency and if you are not adding Mg then the plants themselves have confirmed that there is high Mg content.

Cheers,


----------



## Vazkez (27 Feb 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Vazkez said: ↑
> You do not need MgSO4. MgSO4 is used if you have high Ca in your water but low Mg to bring it on good level.
> This is completely untrue. The need for Magnesium has nothing to do with Calcium



Hi ceg,

what I mean with this is:



ceg4048 said:


> The only time you don't need to add Magnesium is when you have Magnesium already present in your water supply.



I am not expert as I always say but I do not recomened to suply Mg before you can see a Mg deficiency. As if you are not cerefull you can end up with Ca deficiency....




ceg4048 said:


> If the plants confirm this, yes. What I mean by that is that if they do not suffer Mg deficiency and if you are not adding Mg then the plants themselves have confirmed that there is high Mg content.



^^^ this




ceg4048 said:


> About Magnesium | UK Aquatic Plant Society



Thank you for this very nice reading 

Vaz


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (28 Feb 2014)

Vazkez said:


> Hello there,
> 
> I am not expert but I think I could answer few bits...
> You do not need MgSO4. MgSO4 is used if you have high Ca in your water but low Mg to bring it on good level. Also if you use RO water you will need MG. If your water has enough MG you will not need it.FYI it fall under Macro.
> ...



Thanks Vaz, I do understand the rule MACRO does not mix with MICRO, but please see below.



ceg4048 said:


> This is completely untrue. The need for Magnesium has nothing to do with Calcium. Magnesium is of primary importance for the molecular structure of Chlorophyll, which is probably the most important pigment in the world. Please review the thread About Magnesium | UK Aquatic Plant Society
> 
> MgSO4 is a micronutrient, however, it can be mixed either with the CSM+B or with the KNO3/KH2PO4 bottle, or you can put a little in both bottles.
> 
> ...



How can I know if there is magnesium deficiency from my plants? Chlorophyll is basically used for photosynthesis if I recall my science basics properly. If I can see my plants pearling, can I say that magnesium is sufficient?

Why is it a micro and yet it can be mixed with macro?

How do I know if magnesium is already present in the water supply? What tests should I perform for this? Not like parotet, I don't think I can get these accurate information from the water supplier.



ceg4048 said:


> If the plants confirm this, yes. What I mean by that is that if they do not suffer Mg deficiency and if you are not adding Mg then the plants themselves have confirmed that there is high Mg content.
> 
> Cheers,



Back to this question again, how does the plants confirm this? Photosynthesis?


----------



## Vazkez (28 Feb 2014)

Hello again,

hopefully I can help you a bit more...

Optimal levels of magnesium (Mg): 5 – 10 ppm

Magnesium deficiency is usually similar to iron deficiency because lack of magnesium prevents to absorb iron.

All old and new leaves are thus pale, there is a strong chlorosis. In contrast to a potassium deficiency,veins of leaves remain the same. Chlorosis is only on
 the leaf tissue.

This is just a small guide....

I am sure ppl with better EN will explain It to you more.

Only Macro which should not be mixed with Micro Is PO4 as P react wit Fe.

Do not buy any test kits. Waste of money and test kits which measure Mg are expensive. 

You will have Mg in water the question is if it's in good amount.

Vaz


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Feb 2014)

FerdinandPorsche said:


> How can I know if there is magnesium deficiency from my plants? Chlorophyll is basically used for photosynthesis if I recall my science basics properly. If I can see my plants pearling, can I say that magnesium is sufficient?


No. You need to forget about pearling as an indicator for anything. Pearling is a phenomenon that has to do with a lot of different variables. Both healthy and unhealthy plants can pearl. Magnesium deficiency can often be seen by a yellowing of the leaves, however, yellowing can also be caused by shortages in Nitrogen as well as shortages in Iron.

In general, the best way to ensure that there are no Mg deficiency is to simply add it for a few weeks and see if there is a difference in the appearance of the plants. If not then delete it and carry on.

As mentioned, you don't need to do any tests or become stressed about this at all.

Magnesium is a micronutrient. That means although it is a critical element, the plant does not need very much of it at all. It just has to be present. 



Vazkez said:


> I am not expert as I always say but I do not recomened to suply Mg before you can see a Mg deficiency. As if you are not cerefull you can end up with Ca deficiency....


No, this cannot happen. It may occur in terrestrial plants but absolutely not in aquatic plants.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (28 Feb 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Magnesium deficiency can often be seen by a yellowing of the leaves, however, yellowing can also be caused by shortages in Nitrogen as well as shortages in Iron.



Well I do face yellowing of leaves currently on my anubias. Even my hairgrass and flame moss are yellowish. After an increase on NPK for a week, no improvements on my hairgrass at all. Maybe my anubias are turning slightly greener, but at the same time, new leaves are turning pale yellow. Perhaps I can increase on magnesium.


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Feb 2014)

As I mentioned, yellowing is also caused by poor Iron as well so add more of both. 

Since I don't know how much of anything you are adding, or how often, it's not possible for me to say exactly which of the three main causes it is. Some people dose such low values that even when the increase the dosing, it's still too low. If this is a CO2 injected tank then NPK should be dosed 3X per week at sufficient values, otherwise there is the risk of onset of algae and poor performance. 

Plants need 100X more Nitrogen than they Magnesium or Iron.So I always suspect Nitrogen shortages first, however, if old leaves are green and new leaves are pale then this does suggest a mcronutrient fault, so adding more Fe and Mg should solve the problem.

Also, poor distribution of flow and/or low values of flow can have a negative effect on nutrient/CO2 uptake so this is actually at least as important the the amounts being dosed.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (28 Feb 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Some people dose such low values that even when the increase the dosing, it's still too low.



I totally understand this, hence I had tried increasing the suggested dose up to 3x before.



ceg4048 said:


> if old leaves are green and new leaves are pale then this does suggest a mcronutrient fault, so adding more Fe and Mg should solve the problem.



This is the exact problem I have. Old leaves are green and growing BBA while new leaves are yellow.



ceg4048 said:


> Also, poor distribution of flow and/or low values of flow can have a negative effect on nutrient/CO2 uptake so this is actually at least as important the the amounts being dosed.



I tested my affected area by moving the dropchecker there. Seems it is also co2 sufficient over there. But the BBA is particular over there.


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Feb 2014)

If you have BBA then that means that the CO2 is not sufficient. This is the last time I will warn you not to put faith in your DC.

Cheers,


----------



## GHNelson (28 Feb 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> This is the last time I will warn you not to put faith in your DC.


You naughty boy


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (3 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> If you have BBA then that means that the CO2 is not sufficient. This is the last time I will warn you not to put faith in your DC.
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks. I get what you mean. BBA is now growing on annubias on the left side of the tank. Using the duckweed index, the plant does not have discoloring / yellowing like the plants under water. Maybe slightly, but it seems like it is already like that when it came. Probably this confirms the co2 insufficiency. But I am not sure how can I increase my co2 any more. I am planning to get a new inline diffuser to replace this faulty one. Misty bubbles should do it!


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Mar 2014)

There are lots of ways to improve CO2.
The first and best way is to reduce the DEMAND for CO2 by restricting the light intensity.
Flow rate can be improved by increasing the filter output or by supplementing the flow with powerheads.
Distribution can be improved by optimizing the filter and pump output orientation.
CO2 dissolution can be improved by porting the gas directly into the filter inlet.
The timing of the gas can be improved so that the water is saturated with CO2 prior to lights going on.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (4 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> The first and best way is to reduce the DEMAND for CO2 by restricting the light intensity.



Yea, but sadly, my LED has no controller to reduce the intensity and I don't have a hanging stand for the light fixture.



ceg4048 said:


> Flow rate can be improved by increasing the filter output or by supplementing the flow with powerheads.



I'm not sure about this, but what I think is powerheads are supplemented where there are deadspots. My plants in the open are also yellowing.



ceg4048 said:


> Distribution can be improved by optimizing the filter and pump output orientation.



The output is placed strategically.



ceg4048 said:


> CO2 dissolution can be improved by porting the gas directly into the filter inlet.



I have read somewhere in UKAPS that bacteria in the filter likes oxygen and not co2? Is this a myth? It is also mentioned that the gasses will be trapped or clogging the filter system. Not to mention the noise due to airlock.



ceg4048 said:


> The timing of the gas can be improved so that the water is saturated with CO2 prior to lights going on.



I have made the timing turned on 3hours earlier. However, with the checking of pH level, I suspect the problem is with the diffuser.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Mar 2014)

FerdinandPorsche said:


> The output is placed strategically.


Sorry, I have no idea what this means. Might want to check the strategy to see if uniform flow is achieved between the various pump outputs.



FerdinandPorsche said:


> I have read somewhere in UKAPS that bacteria in the filter likes oxygen and not co2? Is this a myth? It is also mentioned that the gasses will be trapped or clogging the filter system. Not to mention the noise due to airlock.


Liking oxygen has nothing to do with CO2. Bacteria also like CO2. Airlock, bubbling and noise issues can be solved.

Cheers,


----------



## ian_m (4 Mar 2014)

FerdinandPorsche said:


> Yea, but sadly, my LED has no controller to reduce the intensity and I don't have a hanging stand for the light fixture.


Loads of ways to reduce the light level.
- Sheet of darkened plastic under the light.
- Stick insulation tape strips to the light.
- If it has a reflector, angle it upwards slightly.
- Wrap foil loops around the light.
- Wrap stockings around the light 
- Buy a LED controller


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (4 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Sorry, I have no idea what this means. Might want to check the strategy to see if uniform flow is achieved between the various pump outputs.



I'm sorry, I might have understood correctly. I thought you meant by the location of the output pipe.



ceg4048 said:


> Liking oxygen has nothing to do with CO2. Bacteria also like CO2. Airlock, bubbling and noise issues can be solved.



I have modified the inline diffuser to point to the intake pipe. Basically co2 travels through my filter into my chiller, I can see the bubbles travelling through the hose (between filter to chiller). The outlet contains finer bubbles but I face gas hiccups every 10 minutes,  probably stuck co2 in the chiller are being pumped out altogether once the airlock gets big.

Any advise on this? Planning to get the Intense Bazooka diffuser.


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (4 Mar 2014)

Although there are hiccups, it rarely happens after half an hour. Even with the hiccup, I think the fine bubbles are much better than the normally diffused larger bubbles. These finer bubbles are all sticking onto the plants. I can't tell for sure if the plants are pearling, or the co2 are stuck to it.






That having said, I suppose connecting the inline diffuser to the inlet is far better than the outlet with the only issue being airlock and my vomiting sound from my chiller?

I do realize plants are pearling more than usual around half an hour after the change was made. Would this be possible or maybe I am thinking too much.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Mar 2014)

It's definitely possible, but you can look closely at the leaf and determine whether the bubbles are coming from inside the plant or whether they are attaching themselves to the leaf.

You can improve flow rate and reduce the burping by increasing the filter throughput. Remove some filter media in order to accomplish that.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (5 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> It's definitely possible, but you can look closely at the leaf and determine whether the bubbles are coming from inside the plant or whether they are attaching themselves to the leaf.
> 
> You can improve flow rate and reduce the burping by increasing the filter throughput. Remove some filter media in order to accomplish that.
> 
> Cheers,



I do notice bubbles at spots that are more hidden from the open and these plants are pearling. Even the fissiden wrapped in a plastic sphere has bubbles from the inside. I doubt the co2 can reach in.

Thank you for sharing so much.

I am told that air going through the external filter will damage the impeller in the long run, is this true?

I will try to make room in the filter and see whether there are improvements.


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (5 Mar 2014)

I am reading the following thread, and seems dangerous to place the inline diffuser in the inlet.

Inline diffuser on the inlet to or outlet from filter? | UK Aquatic Plant Society



CeeJay said:


> Some have used them on the inlet, but the *CO2 will also attack the seals/O rings on your filter* and you could end up with a living room full of water .



Is this statement true? Though George Farmer and Andy has contradicted .

Is it possible to merge all this post into another thread? Seems I am more on my own journal than the title.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Mar 2014)

FerdinandPorsche said:


> I am told that air going through the external filter will damage the impeller in the long run, is this true?


If the impeller spends a lot of it's time "cavitating", i.e. without being in contact with the water then it is not being lubricated and will suffer wear at a greater rate. You would always hear the cavitation so it will not be a hidden problem. The idea is to reduce or eliminate the cavitation. This can be done, as mentioned, by improving the filter throughput. There are other methods which are more complicated and which involves modification of the impeller blade, such as drilling a series of small holes in the blades or cutting patterns in the blades to chop up the bubbles more effectively, essentially turning it into a blender.

Placing the diffuser on the inlet side also has the drawback of increasing the maintenance of the diffuser, because, of course, that's where the dirt is entering the filter, so you just have to clean it more often. I wouldn't describe any of these disadvantages as "dangerous", simply less convenient, but if they improve the CO2 dissolution and distribution then it's only a small price to pay.

Regarding the seals, lets think about this for a second. Do you imagine that the water that is in contact with the seals in a tank that has CO2 injection is not also laden with CO2? When you inject CO2 and when it is dissolved in the water, any thing that the water makes contact with will also make contact with CO2. So why would it make a difference whether you inject into the filter or into the tank. The water will still have CO2 dissolved in it and will still make contact with the seals. Do a search and see if you can find many reports of filter seals being damaged by CO2. You'll find leaking filters due to misfit seals being pinched, or seals drying out, or not being lubricated but you'll not find many reports of degradation attributable to CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (5 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> If the impeller spends a lot of it's time "cavitating", i.e. without being in contact with the water then it is not being lubricated and will suffer wear at a greater rate. You would always hear the cavitation so it will not be a hidden problem. The idea is to reduce or eliminate the cavitation. This can be done, as mentioned, by improving the filter throughput. There are other methods which are more complicated and which involves modification of the impeller blade, such as drilling a series of small holes in the blades or cutting patterns in the blades to chop up the bubbles more effectively, essentially turning it into a blender.



Gosh, I would not imagine doing a mod on my filter! That would get my aquarium heart into trouble. Never encountered this 'cativating' experience before, and not sure about it, but since it is obvious if it happens then I can always face that when it comes.



ceg4048 said:


> Placing the diffuser on the inlet side also has the drawback of increasing the maintenance of the diffuser, because, of course, that's where the dirt is entering the filter, so you just have to clean it more often. I wouldn't describe any of these disadvantages as "dangerous", simply less convenient, but if they improve the CO2 dissolution and distribution then it's only a small price to pay.



As long as 'dangerous' is not the key, I will keep it this way. Today I came back and realized no noise totally coming from the bubbles travelling. As the co2 is diffused into the inlet, it goes into the filter and stays there. Unlike yesterday when I changed it with lots of co2 travelling into the chiller, today it stays in the filter. I can assume it is fully dissolved in the filter.

However, the pH shown is still bluish; and this is after 8 hours of co2 on. I have further increased the co2 rate.



ceg4048 said:


> Regarding the seals, lets think about this for a second. Do you imagine that the water that is in contact with the seals in a tank that has CO2 injection is not also laden with CO2? When you inject CO2 and when it is dissolved in the water, any thing that the water makes contact with will also make contact with CO2. So why would it make a difference whether you inject into the filter or into the tank. The water will still have CO2 dissolved in it and will still make contact with the seals. Do a search and see if you can find many reports of filter seals being damaged by CO2. You'll find leaking filters due to misfit seals being pinched, or seals drying out, or not being lubricated but you'll not find many reports of degradation attributable to CO2.



True enough, I'm very much inclined to agree with this. Confirmation is always comforting.

Can you also point out this problem I have here: My second attempt | Page 2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Mar 2014)

Yes, curling leaves and browning and decaying is caused by poor CO2. If the rest of the plants have responded positively to your CO2 injection while others suffer then it might be that the light intensity at the location of the suffering plant may be too high and it might help to move the plant to a more shaded area to help it recover.

If you DC is not turning green then it indicates you need an injection rate increase. This assumes that there is 4dKH distilled water in the DC and NOT tap water. If the pH samples is directly from the tank water, and if you confirmed that the reagent is in good shape and that the KH of the tank water is not high then it must be an injection rate issue.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (6 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Yes, curling leaves and browning and decaying is caused by poor CO2.



But this curled up leave is the one that is on top of the water. I don't know what you call this plant.



ceg4048 said:


> If the rest of the plants have responded positively to your CO2 injection while others suffer then it might be that the light intensity at the location of the suffering plant may be too high and it might help to move the plant to a more shaded area to help it recover.



Many of the roots of the hydrocotyles are brown. Well, I was told my light it 'too high', and the plants are in sitting in the middle of the tank, so the light equation is not the factor here.



ceg4048 said:


> If you DC is not turning green then it indicates you need an injection rate increase. This assumes that there is 4dKH distilled water in the DC and NOT tap water. If the pH samples is directly from the tank water, and if you confirmed that the reagent is in good shape and that the KH of the tank water is not high then it must be an injection rate issue.



DC is on 4dKH. I believe it must be the co2 injection rate, but I still can't find out why there are no differences although I have increased the bps. Even if the co2 are stucked in the filter, it must come out no matter what. After I have changed the inline diffuser to the inlet, no bubbles are coming out of the outlet. This should be a good sign that indicates co2 are fully dissolved. But then again, the DC color isn't as yellowish as before. I tested for leakage around the bubble checker onwards to the inline, nothing.


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Mar 2014)

FerdinandPorsche said:


> But this curled up leave is the one that is on top of the water.


Isn't the light intensity at the top also higher than at the bottom?



FerdinandPorsche said:


> Many of the roots of the hydrocotyles are brown. Well, I was told my light it 'too high', and the plants are in sitting in the middle of the tank, so the light equation is not the factor here.


Well then that means the CO2 is poor at that location.

As I told you, there is a relationship between light intensity and required CO2. If the intensity is high the the CO2 must also be high. How much higher the CO2 needs to be is determined by the plant, not by you. Just because CO2 is also higher at the top it does not automatically mean it's high enough. Just because the light intensity is lower at the bottom it does not automatically mean that it is low enough.

I don't understand what is preventing you from maxing out the CO2 injection rate. There are no fish in the tank right? So why is this so problematic? turn up the injection rate until the pH indicator or the DC turns yellow.

Cheers,


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (7 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> I don't understand what is preventing you from maxing out the CO2 injection rate. There are no fish in the tank right? So why is this so problematic? turn up the injection rate until the pH indicator or the DC turns yellow.



Maybe my so called MAX co2 injection rate is actually LOW. My basis of saying it is high is because the rate of bps being pushed out is very fast. It is like constant bubble pushing out the bubble counter. How much would a HIGH bps be to you? I have cherry shrimps and otto cats. I suppose your suggestion is to inject co2 UNTIL the pH test turns yellow.



ceg4048 said:


> Isn't the light intensity at the top also higher than at the bottom?



But the plant that is above water should not be factoring in the co2 injection based on the 'duckweed index'. Please correct me again if I am wrong.


----------



## dw1305 (7 Mar 2014)

Hi all,


> But the plant that is above water should not be factoring in the co2 injection based on the 'duckweed index'.


 That is right, as soon as a plant has emergent, or floating leaves, these have access to ~400ppm CO2. That was the reason for using a floating plant, it took CO2 deficiency out of the equation.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## FerdinandPorsche (7 Mar 2014)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> That is right, as soon as a plant has emergent, or floating leaves, these have access to ~400ppm CO2. That was the reason for using a floating plant, it took CO2 deficiency out of the equation.
> 
> Cheers Darrel



And the curling of the floating plant must have something to do with nutrient deficiency I believe.


----------

