# Magnesium in tap water



## Aeropars

Hi guys,

I was reading an interesting threat on using epson salts as part of the EI regiem and that Gh of tap water may not be a mix of calcium and magnesium.

So I did some digging on Severn Trent's webpage and found that magnese is 1.1 parts per BILLION. I can't find anything relating to calcium.

I'm guessing thats not much and therefor I'd need to buffer with epson salts but my question is: What should I be aiming for with this?

All plants apart from H. Pinnafitida are growing well with the the former starting to shop signs of spots of leafs.I'm wondering if this could be some form of cause.

Thanks


----------



## Zeus.

Aeropars said:


> All plants apart from H. Pinnafitida are growing well with the the former starting to shop signs of spots of leafs.I'm wondering if this could be some form of cause.



H. Pinnafitida can be a tricky one to keep IMO still have yet to master it and had it in my tank over a year  . Hygrophila pinnatifida -very sensitive to lack of kalium in the water worth a read


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Aeropars said:


> that Gh of tap water may not be a mix of calcium and magnesium.


Usually there isn't much magnesium in the water in the UK, <"for geological reasons">. 





Aeropars said:


> that magnese is 1.1 parts per BILLION


Same applies plants just need a little bit, but that is  definitely too little. 

Any trace element mix will contain manganese (Mn). You can also get iron chelates with added manganese, I've bought "Chempak sequestered iron" in Wilkos etc. .





Aeropars said:


> I can't find anything relating to calcium.


It will be all the dGH, if there isn't a quoted value for calcium Ca. I'd be really surprised if you tap water wasn't "hard" (above 200 mg/L CaCO3).

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aeropars

Zeus. said:


> H. Pinnafitida can be a tricky one to keep IMO still have yet to master it and had it in my tank over a year  . Hygrophila pinnatifida -very sensitive to lack of kalium in the water worth a read


Funnily enough I had read that article. With EI dosing, what would you say is the target value for it?


----------



## Aeropars

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, Usually there isn't much magnesium in the water in the UK, <"for geological reasons">. Same applies plants just need a little bit, but that is  definitely too little.
> 
> Any trace element mix will contain manganese (Mn). You can also get iron chelates with added manganese, I've bought "Chempak sequestered iron" in Wilkos etc. .It will be all the dGH, if there isn't a quoted value for calcium Ca. I'd be really surprised if you tap water wasn't "hard" (above 200 mg/L CaCO3).
> 
> cheers Darrel



Thanks Darrel. So based on that, is it worth me adding Epson Salts or would my trace mix be enough? I have been adding but i guess by doing so I'm hardening my already hard water. Is that right?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Aeropars said:


> is it worth me adding Epson Salts


Add some, there isn't really a downside.





Aeropars said:


> magnese is 1.1 parts per BILLION


That in manganese (Mn), there should be enough in the trace mix.


Aeropars said:


> I have been adding but i guess by doing so I'm hardening my already hard water. Is that right?


Yes, magnesium is (Mg) and the element in "Epsom Salts" (MgSO4.7H2O) that contributes to dGH. If the water is already hard then it won't meaningfully make it any harder, but it will help your plants grow.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus.

Aeropars said:


> With EI dosing, what would you say is the target value for it?



Six million dollar question and lots to consider, I was chatting with @Tim Harrison who also has hard water like me and im pretty sure he said he has issues with H pin. also!
Yet to find the sweat spot but thinking of doing a RO/tap water mix in my 50l to see if that helps.

D Wong 2hr guide usefull IMO






My current EI dose as off 20/7/19 is


----------



## micheljq

In the pages of Mr. Wong (the shown pages), which i read many times.  He mentions that tap water has seldom magnesium, no potassium most of the time.  Magnesium and potassium are quite important, especially hygrophila can require a lot of them.  Calcium is often found in tap water, but best verify.  Mine in Quebec, has 30ppm calcium, but very few magnesium, i do add epsom salts.

Michel.


----------



## Zeus.

micheljq said:


> Mine in Quebec, has 30ppm calcium, but very few magnesium, i do add epsom salts.



mine has quite a bit




to quote a wiser man



dw1305 said:


> Yes, magnesium is (Mg) and the element in "Epsom Salts" (MgSO4.7H2O) that contributes to dGH. If the water is already hard then it won't meaningfully make it any harder, but it will help your plants grow.



so my tap water has 5.4ppm Mg yet I still add another 10ppm Mg - its probably a bit OTT, yet it should do no harm that I'm aware. Plus Epsom Salts cost peanuts

Hard water is complex from what I understand as there lots of Ionic interactions and the water is alkaline also which messes up which Fe to use also .

with your water only having 30ppm Calcium I suspect your water is relatively soft which should make your life easier IMO so I would add some Epsom salts


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Zeus. said:


> Hard water is complex from what I understand as there lots of Ionic interactions and the water is alkaline also which messes up which Fe to use also........with your water only having 30ppm Calcium I suspect your water is relatively soft which should make your life easier IMO so I would add some Epsom salts


Yes that is it. @micheljq's water is unlikely to have much magnesium, and may not have any. If you have soft water you are unlikely to have more than trace magnesium levels.

High levels of calcium (Ca) can interfere with the uptake of both iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg). Hard water is likely to have <"some magnesium"> in it (my guess would be that <"1 - 5 ppm" is fairly typical>), but in the UK it won't have very much, <"away from NE England">. Most of SE England has tap water <"abstracted"> from <"chalk aquifers">.

Where you have hard rocks, hills and high rainfall (mainly to the N. and W.) you are going to get soft water from reservoirs (Elan Valley, Lake Vyrnwy, Thirlmere etc.)






Zeus. said:


> so my tap water has 5.4ppm Mg yet I still add another 10ppm Mg - its probably a bit OTT, yet it should do no harm that I'm aware. Plus Epsom Salts cost peanuts


I don't see any downside to adding some "Epsom Salts" (~ 10% Mg), you are unlikely to have much magnesium in your water in the UK, it doesn't matter whether you have hard or soft water.

Hard ground water in the <"Central USA, or around the Mediterranean">, derived <"from dolomite">  will naturally be rich in magnesium, as well as calcium.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aeropars

dw1305 said:


> High levels of calcium (Ca) can interfere with the uptake of both iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg).



Is there a way to combat this outside of RO water? I was tempted to give RO a go but then its just another expense.

Are you saying that magnesium isn't something we get much of over the UK in tap water?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Aeropars said:


> Are you saying that magnesium isn't something we get much of over the UK in tap water?


Yes, if you are outside of the zone of magnesian limestone aquifers (approximately from<" Nottingham to Durham">) then you are unlikely to have much magnesium in your tap water. 





Aeropars said:


> Is there a way to combat this outside of RO water? I was tempted to give RO a go but then its just another expense.


I've used <"rain-water"> since the 1970's without any problem.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

FWIW, magnesium in my tap water ranged from 4.00 - 5.90 mg/l last year. My water supplier is South East Water.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





jaypeecee said:


> magnesium in my tap water ranged from 4.00 - 5.90 mg/l last year. My water supplier is South East Water.


They would be the sort of values you'd expect if you have hard water. There is (relatively) quite a lot of magnesium in sea water, so you tend to get a little bit dissolved in water from limestone aquifers (limestones are laid down in tropical seas). 

Problems with plant uptake often occur because of the calcium: magnesium ratio. Basically it is just a numbers game, if you have a very high calcium to magnesium ratio, the ion crossing the cell wall into the plant is almost always a Ca++ ion, not an Mg++ one.  

To get raised magnesium level you need a deposit laid down in an <"evaporite basin"> (like at Droitwich, nr. Epsom, N. America or the Mediterranean) or one with ultramafic rocks from deep in the mantle (like the Lizard peninsula).

You tend to get even less magnesium  in water that comes from reservoirs on Granite (SW England) or Millstone grit (Pennines etc).

cheers Darrel


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> I don't see any downside to adding some "Epsom Salts" (~ 10% Mg), you are unlikely to have much magnesium in your water in the UK, it doesn't matter whether you have hard or soft water.



This is something that has been going round my head but in specific relation to shrimp.....

My tap water is relatively hard GH 12/13 and KH 5.  I believe this comes from a ground water source nearby.  Fish and plants and generally OK but I have always had issues with my cherry shrimp.   Now I always hear that these are bullet proof and like hard water but I have had a constant stream of failed molts (I have lost 30+ shrimp and I am down to the last two in this batch).  

I am now cutting my tap with about 1/3 Deionised water which get the GH down to 8 and I am seeing less failed molts but I am still seeing them.  I have wondered whether a lack of magnesium is playing a part?  I am reluctant to just add more Epsom salts (a little does go in as part of my roll your own all in one mix) as this surely must raise GH and higher GH seemed to be causing the shrimps molting issues.

If the GH was mainly calcium would I not expect to see you a lot more limescale in my kettle???


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





jameson_uk said:


> My tap water is relatively hard GH 12/13 and KH 5.


Do you know why the dGH and dKH differ so much? Usually they would be pretty much the same because the hardness (both dGH & dKH) comes from calcium carbonate (CaCO3).





jameson_uk said:


> Now I always hear that these are bullet proof and like hard water but I have had a constant stream of failed molts (I have lost 30+ shrimp and I am down to the last two in this batch).


I'm not sure. Hopefully some-one else will be able to comment. 

Our tap water is ~18 dGH/dKH and they did fine in that, but I would have added some magnesium as well.





jameson_uk said:


> I have wondered whether a lack of magnesium is playing a part?


I think more more magnesium isn't going to do any harm. I might try giving them some more vegetables in their diet,  I expect diet is at least as important as the mineral content of the water. 





jameson_uk said:


> If the GH was mainly calcium would I not expect to see you a lot more limescale in my kettle???


You would, if you don't get much lime-scale that suggests that there isn't a lot of CaCO3 (as HCO3- and Ca++) in the water. Magnesium carbonate (MgCO3.nH2O) is even less soluble than calcium carbonate, so it would still form white "scale".

cheers Darrel


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,Do you know why the dGH and dKH differ so much? Usually they would be pretty much the same because the hardness (both dGH & dKH) comes from calcium carbonate (CaCO3).


No idea.  I remember looking into it when I first setup the tank and assumed it was slightly unusual but never actually thought about the chemistry behind it.   South Staffs do list some averages for hardness and plenty of measurements of how this is made up
View attachment water-hardness-ssw-2018.pdf

I can't quite figure out whether we come under Barr Beacon or (most likely) Sutton Coldfield as we seem on the border.   The numbers look in the same ball park either way.

The only thing I do know is that the treatment plant I think out water comes from (borehole) had a new ion exchange treatment stage added about 20 years ago which was apparently a first at the time.   (There are some articles that are way over my head if you search for Little Hay Ion Exchange).   My understanding is that this extra treatment was to reduce nitrate levels (presumably from farm run off).  I would have thought this would if anything reduce GH not KH?

We don't actually get much limescale which now seems odd?   The house is coming up for 100 years old and there is no softener or anything installed so now I am more confused as to what is in my water.....



> Our tap water is ~18 dGH/dKH and they did fine in that, but I would have added some magnesium as well.I think more more magnesium isn't going to do any harm. I might try giving them some more vegetables in their diet,  I expect diet is at least as important as the mineral content of the water.


I have tried all sorts...  They always seem to enjoy courgette (which I tend to offer once a week) but I couldn't get them to touch broccoli, kale or spinach (despite numerous attempts).  I do out mulberry leaves in which I believe are relatively high in calcium.  I also put in the odd one of these (https://www.garnelenhaus.com/glasgarten/mineral-junkie-pearls-50g) which supposedly have all the nutrients a shrimp might need.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





jameson_uk said:


> Staffs do list some averages for hardness and plenty of measurements of how this is made up


Interesting, slightly more magnesium (Mg) and less calcium (Ca) than you might expect, and not fully saturated with carbonates. 


jameson_uk said:


> we come under Barr Beacon or (most likely) Sutton Coldfield as we seem on the border. The numbers look in the same ball park either way.


The only one that really differs is "Winshill". I had to look up where it is, and it is at Burton-on-Trent  so presumably has more input from the magnesian limestone immediately to the N. and E. of Burton.





jameson_uk said:


> I think out water comes from (borehole) had a new ion exchange treatment stage added about 20 years ago which was apparently a first at the time. (There are some articles that are way over my head if you search for Little Hay Ion Exchange). My understanding is that this extra treatment was to reduce nitrate levels (presumably from farm run off). I would have thought this would if anything reduce GH not KH?


It shouldn't effect the cations that make up the dGH. Originally the ion exchange unit may have used a non-selective anion exchange resin, which would have removed all anions (including HCO3-) and replaced them with a chlorine (Cl-) ion. More recently it definitely would have used a  nitrate (NO3-) selective resin.





jameson_uk said:


> We don't actually get much limescale which now seems odd? The house is coming up for 100 years old and there is no softener or anything installed so now I am more confused as to what is in my water...


That is a strange one, do you have a TDS meter? That would give us a bit more idea, even if it doesn't tells any of the specifics. 





jameson_uk said:


> They always seem to enjoy courgette


Mine liked Courgette as well.

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15

I never have the need to dose Mg and Ca, as I use dolomite gravel.  Dolomite is CaMg(CO3)2, low in solubility, and unlike calcite or crushed coral, will not turn the water super hard..  It provides the right ratio of Ca and Mg, eliminating the guessing game of dosing each mineral individually.  I am not sure why no one mentioned using it.

The dolomite I use is made for aquarium, not crushed garden dolomite which is dusty and may dissolve too fast.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





tiger15 said:


> It provides the right ratio of Ca and Mg, eliminating the guessing game of dosing each mineral individually. I am not sure why no one mentions it.


It is mainly geology. You can get it in the UK, but we don't have <"large quarriable reserves"> of it like you do in the USA. It is a slower release source of calcium (and magnesium) compared to aragonite and (most) calcite limestones.

I used to buy <"powdered dolomitic limestone"> when I made up my own potting composts, and it is pretty widely used in commercial horticulture.  I haven't bought any for a while, but it sells for about £1 per kilogram.

I think the other reason is just that "Epsom salts" (MgSO4.7H2O), approx. 10% Mg, are both cheap and readily available. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15

You have chalk formation in England, which is calcite with no Mg.  So dosing epsom to supplement Mg makes sense.  Do your garden shops sell crushed dolomite from import.  Washing the dust out and keep the large grains should work.  Decorative marble chips from garden shops is the next closest thing to dolomite.


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> That is a strange one, do you have a TDS meter? That would give us a bit more idea, even if it doesn't tells any of the specifics.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Yes TDS out the tap is consistently about 310.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





tiger15 said:


> Do your garden shops sell crushed dolomite from import.


Possibly. 

I don't know where we import our dolomitic limestone from, might be Italy, Turkey or even the USA. I've only ever seen it as a fine pink powder. 

There are three or four dolomitic limestone quarries still open in the UK, but I assume just as local aggregate quarries.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





jameson_uk said:


> Yes TDS out the tap is consistently about 310


OK, that is quite interesting. I was expecting the TDS reading to be lower than that. A reading of 310ppm TDS is about 485 microS conductivity. 

This means that there are some other ions (unspecified) in the water. It might be sulphate (SO4--) or chloride (Cl-). 

We know quite a lot about the water in Burton on Trent from its use in brewing, this is from <"All about Beer">





> Burton water also has the highest calcium content of any major brewing region, the highest magnesium, and low levels of sodium and bicarbonate.


So I would assume that your water shows some similarity with this, and that also accounts for the lack of lime-scale. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, OK, that is quite interesting. I was expecting the TDS reading to be lower than that. A reading of 310ppm TDS is about 485 microS conductivity.
> 
> This means that there are some other ions (unspecified) in the water. It might be sulphate (SO4--) or chloride (Cl-).
> 
> We know quite a lot about the water in Burton on Trent from its use in brewing, this is from <"All about Beer">So I would assume that your water shows some similarity with this, and that also accounts for the lack of lime-scale.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Burton is 15/20 miles north of here and I kind of assumed it would be different as it is sat in the Trent Valley.  

[OT]
The brewing stuff is partly historic but there is an actual process called Burtonisation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewing_methods#Burtonisation) which is effectively making the water like they had in Burton.  My understanding is that these sources became unfit for brewing a long time ago and even Carling (if you call it beer )  _burtonises_ tap water as part of the brewing process, which must mean the tap water is different to these old sources.
[/OT]

Would this composition of water potentially cause me issues?  Other then the shrimp molting I have always had issues growing Java Fern, Rotala and Bacopa which are apparently easy to grow....   The java Fern just exists and never seems to really grow and the stems just tend to look a bit unhealthy but never show any obvious nutrient deficiency.   I did try lots of different combinations of light and flow without success so ended up giving up on them.  The crypts, limnophilia sessiflora and Hyrophila siamensis all seem pretty rampant.

Is there anything I ought to look in terms of tweaking ferts (I dose http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/allinone.htm weekly)


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> Problems with plant uptake often occur because of the calcium: magnesium ratio. Basically it is just a numbers game, if you have a very high calcium to magnesium ratio, the ion crossing the cell wall into the plant is almost always a Ca++ ion, not an Mg++ one.



Hi Darrel,

Thanks for that.

Ca++:Mg++ ratio in my tap water is 121.16 mg/l:4.45 mg/l (mean values) = 27:1. That's pretty high, I guess. What would be the visible effects of this on the plants?

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





jameson_uk said:


> Burton is 15/20 miles north of here and I kind of assumed it would be different as it is sat in the Trent Valley.


I don't know enough about the Geology to really say, I think there might be enough evaporite minerals (like Gypsum) in the whole area to effect the water. Droitwich has salt deposits and Barr Beacon ridge etc are Triassic age sandstones laid down in a desert. 





jaypeecee said:


> Ca++:Mg++ ratio in my tap water is 121.16 mg/l:4.45 mg/l (mean values) = 27:1. That's pretty high, I guess. What would be the visible effects of this on the plants?


Yes, it is quite high, but pretty standard for most of the hard water in the S. UK. Any plants that are naturally adapted to hard water probably won't show any signs of deficiency. Have a look at @Akwascape's <"_Cryptocoryne parva_ carpet"> thread for some suggestions.

Plants that are naturally form softer water may show signs of magnesium (Mg)/and or iron (Fe) deficiency. Both deficiencies cause chlorosis (see _Bucephalandra_ below), if it is in older leaves then magnesium deficiency is likely, if it is in new leaves iron is a more probable cause..







jameson_uk said:


> Would this composition of water potentially cause me issues? Other then the shrimp molting I have always had issues growing Java Fern, Rotala and Bacopa which are apparently easy to grow.... The java Fern just exists and never seems to really grow and the stems just tend to look a bit unhealthy but never show any obvious nutrient deficiency.


Unfortunately I don't know. 

Does <"your Amazon Frogbit"> still look healthy?

cheers Darrel


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> Does <"your Amazon Frogbit"> still look healthy?
> 
> cheers Darrel



On the whole yes..  This is from Betta tank which is within reach but the same in main tank plus other poor leaves but I am not sure how much of that is down to humidity and mechanical damage.  I have kind of resigned myself to weekly pruning of leaves.  I removed all leaves like this at the weekend so these leaves are since then.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





jameson_uk said:


> On the whole yes.


Not too bad at all, so nothing major. 





jameson_uk said:


> I removed all leaves like this at the weekend so these leaves are since then.


The only thing I'd say is they look a bit paler than they would for optimal growth and the older leaves are definitely senscing more quickly than you would expect. 

I might try a little bit more potassium nitrate (KNO3) and Epsom Salts (MgSO4.7H2O), it doesn't need to be very much of each. If you are sub-optimal in K+ NO3- or Mg++ that should give you fairly rapid greening. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





dw1305 said:


> I might try a little bit more potassium nitrate (KNO3) and Epsom Salts (MgSO4.7H2O), it doesn't need to be very much of each. If you are sub-optimal in K+ NO3- or Mg++ that should give you fairly rapid greening


Hi @jameson_uk as we have a few threads on <"nutrient availability in harder water ">, and you have another <"Frogbit thread">, can I ask whether you added the Epsom Salts etc? and if you did? what happened?

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,Hi @jameson_uk as we have a few threads on <"nutrient availability in harder water ">, and you have another <"Frogbit thread">, can I ask whether you added the Epsom Salts etc? and if you did? what happened?
> 
> cheers Darrel



I believe he did get his hands on some Fe EDDHA


----------



## jameson_uk

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,Hi @jameson_uk as we have a few threads on <"nutrient availability in harder water ">, and you have another <"Frogbit thread">, can I ask whether you added the Epsom Salts etc? and if you did? what happened?
> 
> cheers Darrel


I add Epsom Salts as part of my all in one solution anyway.  I think we figured out my water is abnormally high in mg for UK.

I ended up putting loads of ferts in when the frogbit started to turn but it didn't really seem to make a lot of difference.  I got hold of some EDDHA mix from @Zeus. And have been adding that which does seem to have made things a bit greener but I was still seeing issues with the frogbit (odd shaped leaves, the lace effect, what appeared to be leaves melting etc.)

I think there are / were a number of issues so in order to work out what is going on I have removed all the frogbit and only put back healthy plants topped up with some from my Betta and shrimp tanks.  This has reduced the number of plants by about 60% (I think some of the issues were down to overcrowding).  I have also adjusted the spray bar a little as I think this had crept higher and higher over time and was causing a bit more surface agitation and also drops splashing onto the plants.

I am going to monitor things now as I know everything was healthy looking a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## jameson_uk

A few pics.  This is the main tank which looks on the whole pretty healthy




There are however a couple of plants not looking great








I do wonder whether some of this is snail related... 

Interestingly the plans either seem fine or poor.  The poor ones also seem to be sending off plantlets (sometimes two it three which I haven't seen before)


----------



## Craig Matthews

Sorry to hijack the thread  but I have been reading about the calcium,magnesium ratio and all info points towards a 4:1 - 3:1 calcium - magnesium ratio. Other source's say it doesn't matter about ratios? I have hard as nails water @Zeus. We share the lovely Yorkshire water. My calcium is 121.5mg/l and magnesium 8mg/l. According to James planted tank calculator using magnesium sulphate I'd need to add 8 tea spoons magnesium on water change day to achieve the 3:1 ratio it just seems excessive? 
My maths is poor I won't lie,
So 121.5 / 3 = 40 ( there abouts )
- 8ppm magnesium already in tap water = 32ppm to make up to the 3:1 ratio?


----------



## Sammy Islam

I've always wondered about these ratios too, as theres a lot of contradictory statements floating about the net regarding the ratio between k/mg/ca.

Do i think ratios matter? I'm not sure, but having 100+ppm of ca compared to other nutrients surely can effect the uptake of things? I dose full EI, apart from full mg at 10ppm, i dose about 2tsp in my AS900 which should give me about 6ppm when doing a water change.

In my experience, so far things are going very well on my new scape and i can't really see any deficiencies yet as i'm only a month in so far.

In my old tank if i dosed too much mg, 10+ppm some of my hygrophila polysperma leaves began to curl, maybe this had something to do with the ratio between mg & k, i don't know.

Also what about people (like me) who use hard water, have seiryu stone and do daily top ups with tap water? They are increasing the CA, which is already high, on a daily basis compared to the other nutrients. How does this effect things? If high CA interferes with the uptake of other nutrients, is the answer to dose a little bit more of everything? Even if we already dose EI...

Here is a thread i started a while ago:
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/100-ppm-calcium-and-nutrient-uptake.59115/


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





jameson_uk said:


> A few pics.  This is the main tank which looks on the whole pretty healthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are however a couple of plants not looking great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do wonder whether some of this is snail related...
> 
> Interestingly the plans either seem fine or poor.  The poor ones also seem to be sending off plantlets (sometimes two it three which I haven't seen before)


That looks like iron issues.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Craig Matthews said:


> I have hard as nails water @Zeus. We share the lovely Yorkshire water. My calcium is 121.5mg/l and magnesium 8mg/l.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @Craig Matthews
> 
> Your comment above caught my attention. When I used to live in West Yorkshire, I considered the tap water to be soft. Could easily get a nice lather when washing my hands with soap. By comparison, I now live in Berkshire where I consider the tap water to be hard. But, here's the interesting bit - the _mean_ calcium content of my tap water in 2018, for example, was 121.16 mg/l and magnesium was 4.45 mg/l. So, something doesn't stack up. Your calcium content and mine are almost identical! Or, maybe I'm overlooking something?
> 
> JPC
Click to expand...


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

Quite why my reply to @Craig Matthews above got embedded in the way that it has, I'm not sure. No doubt my mistake. Sorry for the confusion! Yet another 'senior moment' on my part.

JPC


----------



## Craig Matthews

Well its the first week of trying the 4:1 ratio so I shall let you know how it goes. I've had to add extra K2SO4 as my hygrohila Compacta is showing sighns of defiency and I don't want to add k in the form of kNO3 as I have enough nitrate ( 20ppm per week). I will report back and let you know how it goes.


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> High levels of calcium (Ca) can interfere with the uptake of both iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg). Hard water is likely to have <"some magnesium"> in it (my guess would be that <"1 - 5 ppm" is fairly typical>),



@dw1305 So for folks like myself living in the NE should we be adding up the Mg. in our tap water?

My water company reports an average of 5mg/L Mg. So after a 50% WC that would add 2.5ppm Mg so therefore is all this Mg. available to plants ? If so should we therefore adjust our dosing of MgSO4.7H2O to reach our target Mg ppm

e.g. So after a 50% WC in 500L tank we have added 2.5ppm Mg. Then if we add 5 teaspoons of Epsom salts(MgSO4.7H2O) to tank which yields 5ppm Mg. In a 500L tank we have 7.5ppm Mg. with the WC and the salts added


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Zeus. said:


> @dw1305 So for folks like myself living in the NE should we be adding up the Mg. in our tap water?
> 
> My water company reports an average of 5mg/L Mg. So after a 50% WC that would add 2.5ppm Mg so therefore is all this Mg. available to plants ? If so should we therefore adjust our dosing of MgSO4.7H2O to reach our target Mg ppm
> 
> e.g. So after a 50% WC in 500L tank we have added 2.5ppm Mg. Then if we add 5 teaspoons of Epsom salts(MgSO4.7H2O) to tank which yields 5ppm Mg. In a 500L tank we have 7.5ppm Mg. with the WC and the salts added


It should be plant available, how much the plants take up is really a numbers game.

If you have hard water adding some more magnesium isn’t going to hurt. You could have limestones which naturally supply a lot more Mg++ ions than you are going to add.

When you have a lot of Ca++ ions the next “taxi” on the rank is much more likely to be a Ca++ ion, rather than a Mg++ ion, which is why people have talked about the Ca:Mg ratio, rather than just ppm values.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## Craig Matthews

@Zeus. This is what I'm trying to get a verdict on but also the CA/ mg/ K relationship and if the ratios are indeed important to counter the high CA. My tap water has 121.5mg/l CA and 8mg/l MG and the 3:1 ratio I've had to add 8tsp of MGSO4 to a 125ltr tank? MG has no I'll affects on livestock etc so I've just jumped in and added it, its the second week and my plants seem abit greener I must say but I was having a K defiency and also added K2SO4 so it could be this also.


----------



## jaypeecee

Craig Matthews said:


> ...I was having a K defiency and also added K2SO4 so it could be this also.



Hi @Craig Matthews 

How did you determine the K deficiency? Was it by measurement or by observation?

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> When you have a lot of Ca++ ions the next “taxi” on the rank is much more likely to be a Ca++ ion, rather than a Mg++ ion, which is why people have talked about the Ca:Mg ratio, rather than just ppm values.





So reminds me of the Rime of the Ancient Mariner -water water everywhere and not a drop to drink. This and my issues are starting to make a lot of sense to me,  as Mg. deficiency looks very much like Fe deficiency - thinks it is as Mg plays a part in the synthesis of Chlorophyll. hence pale leaves dark veins.



Craig Matthews said:


> This is what I'm trying to get a verdict on but also the CA/ mg/ K relationship and if the ratios are indeed important to counter the high CA.



Yes OFC

Only had time for a quick read after the penny has dropped, but dumpped 100g of MgSO4.7H2O in 500l tank this morning.



jaypeecee said:


> How did you determine the K deficiency?



Think it may have something to do with the Ca:Mg:K ratio !!!! only had a quick google ATM


----------



## Craig Matthews

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Craig Matthews
> 
> How did you determine the K deficiency? Was it by measurement or by observation?
> 
> JPC[/QUOTE
> My hygrohila 53b and hygrohila Compacta started gaining many holes in old leaves outlined bye black,yellow colouring and the growth slowed rapidly until it didn't grow at all then staghorn crept in. I tried adding more kno3 and kh2po4  but it wasn't working and I'm guessing because the extra nitrates and phosphate was also accelerating growth so the ratio was always at the end of the tunnel now I've started adding k2so4 so hopefully I'm on to a winner. I have noticed that staghorn has disappeared but again I've also blacked my tank out during lights off as it was getting hit bye natural light a little. So I've done the classic to many remedies at once to know for sure the cause but the holes in leaves was a sure sighn. I also get new growth basically green but transparent in my hygrohila compact. Its early days adding the k2so4 and trying the 3:1 CA/mg ratio so I'll give it a few weeks and report back.
> My tap water has 121.5mgl CA and 8mgl MG.
> So 50% water change leaves 4mgl mg.
> I need to make 36mgl in mg so I add 8 TSP to get the 3:1 ratio and I now add 30ppm per week k so that a ratio of 1:1 although I add this in 3 doses of 10ppm which would mean the 1:1 mg/k ratio is only at the end of the week before water change. So many variables trial and error I think.


----------



## Craig Matthews

No idea why my reply is like that


----------



## Craig Matthews

I also discovered that my EI mix method that comes with Aquariam plant food UK salts has a a guide of adding...
500ml water
4 TSP kno3
1 TSP kh2po4
6 TSP of mg.
This mix only gave me 15ppm of k per week. 5.5ppm per dose and trusty Clive's ei salts thread recommends 30ppm per week with 20ppm of nitrate and 3ppm of po4 per week.


----------



## jameson_uk

Craig Matthews said:


> No idea why my reply is like that


Edit it and put an extra ] after [/QUOTE


----------



## Craig Matthews

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Craig Matthews
> 
> How did you determine the K deficiency? Was it by measurement or by observation?
> 
> JPC


Its also worth considering that K is a hierarchy to magnesium, iron etc so my plant symptoms was probably a mixture of many as they probably was not using inferior nutrients and as @dw1305 stated with a high CA content the next taxi will probably be a CA ion and my ratios was all over the place.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Craig Matthews 

It looks like I'm being a bit thick here. In post #42 above, you said "its the second week and my plants seem abit greener I must say but I was having a K defiency and also added K2SO4 so it could be this also". How did you know that you had a potassium deficiency?

JPC


----------



## Craig Matthews

Because I was getting lots and lots of holes in older leafs, I had a mass of leafs dropping, growing stopped and plants were pale. I read up on the ratios and dosed accordingly. I checked my fertilising regime and found that in my mixes I was only adding 15ppm of pottasium per week and it should be 30ppm per week.


----------



## jaypeecee

Craig Matthews said:


> Because I was getting lots and lots of holes in older leafs, I had a mass of leafs dropping, growing stopped and plants were pale. I read up on the ratios and dosed accordingly. I checked my fertilising regime and found that in my mixes I was only adding 15ppm of pottasium per week and it should be 30ppm per week.



Thanks for that. Now I understand. I am reminded of a similar thread to this one in which a member, @Thumper talked about the optimum ratio of Ca:Mg:K. Here it is:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/excess-potassium-problems.52216/page-3#post-580230

JPC


----------



## Craig Matthews

No problem jpc That's a cool thread thanks, so from what thumper was saying if he has more magnesium than pottasium his plants would do ok but opposite way around then he would get problems and it all comes back to these ratio's. Hopefully we have some luck. Cheers


----------



## Zeus.

Interesting read on Ca:Mg:K ratio



Craig Matthews said:


> I also discovered that my EI mix method that comes with Aquariam plant food UK salts has a a guide of adding...
> 500ml water
> 4 TSP kno3
> 1 TSP kh2po4
> 6 TSP of mg.
> This mix only gave me 15ppm of k per week. 5.5ppm per dose and trusty Clive's ei salts thread recommends 30ppm per week with 20ppm of nitrate and 3ppm of po4 per week.



APFUK is  a starter guide which doesn't account for the various different water supplies and light intensities etc we use

Clive's EI salts is based on the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10 which Tom Barr suggested. Plus his tank was very high light and very high [CO2]

Maybe we should be working backwards with our hard water-  Calculate the Calcium we add each week with our WC, what Ca:Mg:K ratio we are going to use, then when we have our [Mg] per week we will have our target [K] and from there apply the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10, kinda makes some sense in a way!!


----------



## Zeus.

Zeus. said:


> Maybe we should be working backwards with our hard water- Calculate the Calcium we add each week with our WC, what Ca:Mg:K ratio we are going to use, then when we have our [Mg] per week we will have our target [K] and from there apply the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10



Then it follows on if we are after increasing our NO3 dose we will have to add more Ca and so on......


----------



## Craig Matthews

Wow all this maths is way above my punching level, I'm getting a head ache lol. So at present my ca is 121.5, I've added mg to make 40ppm = 3:1 and my k at the end of a full dosing week would be 30ppm.
So I have a ratio of CA/mg/k  4:1:1.3 is my maths really that bad lol?


----------



## Zeus.

Craig Matthews said:


> Wow all this maths is way above my punching level, I'm getting a head ache lol. So at present my ca is 121.5, I've added mg to make 40ppm = 3:1 and my k at the end of a full dosing week would be 30ppm.


----------



## Zeus.

Craig Matthews said:


> I'm getting a head ache lol



Then when you have your Ca : Mg : K ratio you have to work backwards to get the N:K ratio  even with a spreadsheet that does all the Calculations its being a PITA - the joys of hard water


----------



## jameson_uk

Zeus. said:


> the joys of hard water


Just a shame that living on the edge of Birmingham I daren't use rain water but after using deionised water in my shrimp tank I have considered switching all my tanks to RO and remineralising.....


----------



## Sammy Islam

Zeus. said:


> Interesting read on Ca:Mg:K ratio
> 
> APFUK is  a starter guide which doesn't account for the various different water supplies and light intensities etc we use
> 
> Clive's EI salts is based on the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10 which Tom Barr suggested. Plus his tank was very high light and very high [CO2]
> 
> Maybe we should be working backwards with our hard water-  Calculate the Calcium we add each week with our WC, what Ca:Mg:K ratio we are going to use, then when we have our [Mg] per week we will have our target [K] and from there apply the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10, kinda makes some sense in a way!!



Thanks for that, i've always wanted to know a rough number for my waters MG content. According to that calculator MG is about 16ppm if my CA is 130ppm. I usually add 2tsp mgso4 every water change to give me an extra 6 - 7ppm, might bump it up to 4tsp and observe.


----------



## Alex C

Being following this with a bit of interest. A question I have is how do increasing levels of SO4 impact life (plants and fish) in the aquarium, if at all? 

It seems the most common compound to get Mg into the ferts is using MgSO4 so bumping up the Mg value to reach the desired Ca:Mg ratio will, if using MgSO4, mean a rise in SO4 too.

I know we need sulphur in there although I've not come across any 'target' amounts as is the case for NO3 etc.


----------



## Witcher

hey @Alex C it doesn't necessarily needs to be mgso4, but Epsom Salts (mgso4) are easy available, you can also use mgno3, mgcl, mghpo4 mghco3 - you just need the easiest available form of mg - and that's it.
I personally prefer to keep sulphates (so4) and chlorides (cl) very very low - | think they are more close to micro than macro in terms of amount we need them.


----------



## Maxplantinstitute

I am also interested in this topic. 
It seems like I need to add intolerable amounts of Mgso4 to my tank. Or else some plants will suffer and this might be the reason some other plants are stunted. 
Not 100% sure about this yet, but trying out different solutions for this.
There are other sources for magnesium available. 
Rotala butterfly calc. Lists magnesium gluconate, and on eBay there Are a lot of sellers offering magnesium glycinate.

Could one of these two be a better alternative for magnesium in a planted aquarium?  
I am a total noob when it comes to chemistry and I have no idea what glycinate means...... Or does.


----------



## Craig Matthews

@Zeus.  So we have our ca/mg ratio sorted bye adding the mg sulphate after water change to make a 3:1 ratio but the pottasium is not at mg-k  1: 0.75 ratio so are we adding the k at water change also achieve a 3:1:0.75 CA/mg/k ratio to create our baseline and nutrient taxi service then adding the 7:1:10 npk ratio on top via macro and micro days as normal, this is what my thoughts are.Alot of consideration but we maswell lay all out on the table and thanks for the maths help I divided mg/k rather than k/mg


----------



## Zeus.

Alex C said:


> A question I have is how do increasing levels of SO4 impact life (plants and fish) in the aquarium, if at all?



As far as I'm aware none but @dw1305 may have a better answer



Maxplantinstitute said:


> It seems like I need to add intolerable amounts of Mgso4 to my tank. Or else some plants will suffer and this might be the reason some other plants are stunted.
> Not 100% sure about this yet, but trying out different solutions for this.



Been struggling with my plants for some time and have come across this ratios a few times, but unfortunately didn't do the relevant reading 



Maxplantinstitute said:


> Could one of these two be a better alternative for magnesium in a planted aquarium?



Dunnu @dw1305 again - but think Epsom salts are fine.



Craig Matthews said:


> @Zeus.  So we have our ca/mg ratio sorted bye adding the mg sulphate after water change to make a 3:1 ratio but the pottasium is not at mg-k  1: 0.75 ratio so are we adding the k at water change also achieve a 3:1:0.75 CA/mg/k ratio to create our baseline and nutrient taxi service then adding the 7:1:10 npk ratio on top via macro and micro days as normal, this is what my thoughts are.Alot of consideration but we maswell lay all out on the table and thanks for the maths help I divided mg/k rather than k/mg



Well still in the working 'stuff' out phase but my initial plan is

1.Use the Ca added per WC and a Mg to suit ratio of Ca:Mg of 2:1 taking the taps waters [Mg] and corresponding Mg added to tank at WC.

2. Ignore the ppm of all elements left in tank after draining water for WC as long term it will be irrelevant a few WC down the road and the Ca:Mg ratio will be between 3:1 and 2:1

3. Then for the adjust the Mg ppm of tank after water change- add epsom salts (for my 500L its about 150g Epsom salts) to suit Ca:Mg ratio.

4. use Half the tank Mg ppm for baseline K ppm and play with salts for macros to get the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10

5. dose the K three times a week with other macros

I have done the initial maths for macros ( just need to recheck a few times) and it works out to about 1/3 of what Clive advises. Not that Clives is wrong OFC its a case of what works and he did have high light.
Plan to set new fert regime off on Sunday and watch the plants.


----------



## Sammy Islam

I use to have a problem with my hygrophila polysperma leaves rolling up when i dosed mgso4 and k2so4 together. As in i use to dose the APF recipe and realised it wasn't "full" EI and needed to up my k. So instead of adding extra k to my solution i added a little bit during water change.

I think i use to add 2.5tsp mgso4 to my 125l tank that would give me 10ppm MG, 13ppm S. Also for the extra k i got some k2so4 and would dose just under 0.5tsp to get about 10ppm K, 4ppm S. The polysperma leaves, mainly the upper nodes use to become all twisted or rolled up inwards. I don't know what was causing it, but it would happen pretty much overnight after a water change. Dosing a little bit less mgso4 and adding the k2so4 to my solution seemed to help. So no idea what it was, have always wondered about the S, from both.


----------



## jaypeecee

Zeus. said:


> Maybe we should be working backwards with our hard water-  Calculate the Calcium we add each week with our WC, what Ca:Mg:K ratio we are going to use, then when we have our [Mg] per week we will have our target [K] and from there apply the N: P :K ratio of 7:1:10, kinda makes some sense in a way!!



Hi @Zeus.

For my benefit (and maybe others), how does the Ca:Mg:K ratio relate to the Nitrogen : Phosphorus : Potassium ratio*? What's the connection?

* I've had to write it this way. If I use the element names - N, P and K - I get emoticons popping up!

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

Well first of all I am no expert OFC

But been struggling with some of my plants for some time and keep coming up with the ratios in my reading around and didn't do much about it 

But was about to implement T Barrs 7:1:10 [N : P :K] as hes is one of our peers as is D Wong who mentions the ratio in his 2hr Aquarist in the in depth Nutrient dosing

The Ca:Mg:K ratio I have heard about for a while but as above did little to implement it 

The connection is it applies to our 'plants' the two different ratios I have never seen linked before, but both have a common factor Potassium (K) so IMO they should be linked. As if one is to be used why shouldn't we be using the other and they have Potassium in conman

So why shouldn't we have






it just makes sense that plants take up nutrients in certain ratios, they may not be all the same but they will be similar, use other folks work/data/theroys and it it try!!!!

So the maths to link the ratios together with 'K' is




which results in





or




depending on which Ca:Mg ratio your aiming at.

Seeing that the [Ca] is high in folks with hard water start with that and work the other ppms out.

and if you need to increase say your [NO3] you also need to increase the rest of the elements ppm to keep the elements in the ratio.

There is an 'element' of a 'leap of faith' OFC but it just seems to make sense.



jaypeecee said:


> I've had to write it this way. If I use the element names - N, P and K - I get emoticons popping up!



 same here  hence Ive been posting [N : P :K]

If your using RO water there are lots of others who have the right fert mixes who get the plants to look great so you just copy their fert regime. 
Maybe with hard water it just needs another approach and maybe the ratios is a possible solution!


----------



## Zeus.

Done a bit more reading around 

and there isnt an NPK ratio that suits all plants its more of a guidelines and dosing Macro ferts in excess and what seems to work, which makes some sense as when I was working out some NPK ratios do you use the mass of N,P and K or the mass of NO3, PO4 and K as using the former gives a completely different ratio than the later, with the former making it very difficult to even achieve with the salts! and the resulting doses of NO3,PO4 and K not in the range to what our peers advise in the EI range

So was thinking I will apply the Ca:Mg:K ratio then apply the ratio  of Clives NO3: PO4:K macro mix with [K] being the link and see how it goes.

Then I read Balancing Calcium and Magnesium and T Barr had quite a few interesting posts - that I will be reading again tomorrow


----------



## Craig Matthews

I think I'll have a read of that to zeus at present I'm trying the CA,mg,k ratio with Clive's ei mix method on top which no matter how much light is sufficient we will not have a defiency. My plants look greener ,andcrisp and fresh also one of my plants have began to grow again which was dorment for sometime and my staghorn algae has not come back. I keep updating about my progression


----------



## Craig Matthews

@zeus I understand what you are implying about needing to add more calcium if we raise our no3,po4 etc but of we use Clive's ei mix then its its maximum our tank should ever need? Our plants need so little of CA that if the ratios were to favour npk then would it really matter as We are trying to tone down the CA ions with the ratios?


----------



## Witcher

Hey @Zeus. I'm sorry for overcomplicating you ratios but I think you'll also need to introduce C and H into your ratio calculations - for example (C)55 : (H)72 : (O)5 : (N)4 : (Mg)1 is the chlorophyll a ratio.


----------



## Alex C

Zeus. said:


> when I was working out some NPK ratios do you use the mass of N,P and K or the mass of NO3, PO4 and K as using the former gives a completely different ratio than the later, with the former making it very difficult to even achieve with the salts!



Surely the NPK ratio is the mass of NPK rather than NO3 etc. My understanding is we use NO3/PO4 as that's the form the plant can uptake the respective nutrients in (I may be very very wrong in which case I need to go back and reeducate myself!) so it just makes calculating dosing easier aiming for NO3 ppm rather than saying "we need x N, now what value of NO3 do we need..." etc etc. 

Per the EI article the max uptake PPM for NO3, PO4, and K was 20:3:30, which (if i've done my maths right) would translate to a NPK ratio (based on PPM) of 4.6:1:30.6. I'm at work at the moment but will put together a ratio by weight later.


----------



## Zeus.

Craig Matthews said:


> My plants look greener ,andcrisp and fresh also one of my plants have began to grow again which was dorment for sometime and my staghorn algae has not come back.



I think the results should speak louder than any ratios for any given tank 



Witcher said:


> I'm sorry for overcomplicating you ratios but I think you'll also need to introduce C and H into your ratio calculations - for example (C)55 : (H)72 : (O)5 : (N)4 : (Mg)1 is the chlorophyll a ratio.



Yes and No - as quoting a specific structure/compound in the plants is too specific, having a general ratio for all the plants components would be helpful, But all plants makeup is different OFC so there will be a range.



Alex C said:


> Surely the NPK ratio is the mass of NPK rather than NO3 etc



Thats what I thought and Rotala Butteryfly does give the results for each element. But when I tried to get the 7:1:10 ratio for NPK I was unable to as the [K] was always so high 



Alex C said:


> Per the EI article the max uptake PPM for NO3, PO4, and K was 20:3:30



which is approximately 7:1:10 OFC



Alex C said:


> which (if i've done my maths right) would translate to a NPK ratio (based on PPM) of 4.6:1:30.6.



yep large mass of K which results in [NO3: PO4: K] which dont fit in the EI range for my attempt at the maths  

Need more reading OFC as only just finished for the morning. But dont think we will get a Magic ratio that will work for all. Us with the high [Ca] in our tap waters will probalby just need to add extra Mg to compensate for the 24:1 [Ca:Mg] ratio we have to start with  and will need to check to what our resulting [Mg:K] ratios are after adding the extra Mg that the ratio is within acceptable limits. Kinda makes sense.


----------



## Zeus.

Balancing Calcium and Magnesium 

'Post #45 -T Barr'

*Quote*
Ratios themselves have nothing to do with it. This is Liebig's law, *the individual concentrations, NOT the ratios,* are the limiting growth factors.

1. I can have a perfect ratio and still be "limiting" for example. This goes back the Liebig's law.
2. I can have 25ppm Mg and 2 ppm Ca, no issues, same as above back to Liebig's law
3. I can have 2ppm of Mg and 25ppm of Ca++, no issues.
4. If the ratio is important, how can both cases work equally well?

As long as the nutrients levels are non limiting, they can easily be over a Extremely wide range.
I've had these types of tap water above.
It was only when the Mg was too low have I've ever seen issues.
There is also no research that supports this claim, in agriculture, ratios are use to reduce the COST of wasting expensive fertilizers on crops for specific crops.
Aquarist are not concerned with the small cost factor of dry fertilizer however.
NH4+ is not bad to add small amounts, but that's what the fish load is for.

In plant science, mineral nutrition textbooks also down play the roles of ratios being important, they use Liebig's law and analyze individual nutrients.
In Aquatic biology, they abuse the Redfield Ratio in Phycology and Limnology perhaps more than any other concept.

I think many see some correlation and assume that is meaningful, when they have not demonstrated and tested the alternatives.
Then they assume ratios are important, then this leads to myths.

I've done this for 20 years and falsified many claims about ratios. I've not found any ratios that do as claimed by aquarist.
Ever. Not saying there is not something to them, but I've never once been able to see it in my own tanks.
All it takes is for someone to have a ratio outside the claim and say 10x-100x difference, and the ratio claim is out the window.
This is not difficult to falsify.
*Unquote*

He does say in earlier posts about most issues being CO2 related and poor husbandry

Goes away to think and


----------



## Craig Matthews

I think we are on the right tracks but we do not need to over complicate things we arnt building space ships for NASA. The ratios obviously matter because of probability of any given ion crossing over a leaf so we need to correct/balance that aspect but with ratios being close enough I think the plants are quite broad in that aspect. Its all about trial and error.


----------



## Craig Matthews

Haha @Zeus. Well we cannot go against our feriors in this hobby but..... Since I've added more mg+k and adjusted to this ratio everything seems better or is it just I simply wasn't adding enough to satisfy my plants demands through means of light and CO2? since we only have hobby grade test kits
 ( speaking for myself ) we/I cannot test accurately how much is being consumed for each and every nutrient.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

If you haven't already seen the following thread on another forum, it makes for very interesting reading. I really like the very detailed account of everything that 'kekon' did. Very methodical. Note the date of the thread!

https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/41779-how-balance-npk-ca-mg-micros.html

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> If you haven't already seen the following thread on another forum, it makes for very interesting reading. I really like the very detailed account of everything that 'kekon' did. Very methodical. Note the date of the thread!
> 
> https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/41779-how-balance-npk-ca-mg-micros.html
> 
> JPC



Yes read that last night did you see when it was posted ? 07-01-2007

T Barrs Balancing Calcium and Magnesium last post was May 6, 2012



Zeus. said:


> Quote from T Barrs post-I think many see some correlation and assume that is meaningful, when they have not demonstrated and tested the alternatives.
> Then they assume ratios are important, then this leads to myths.






Craig Matthews said:


> Since I've added more mg+k and adjusted to this ratio everything seems better



I think it is the Mg that our tanks need (or was missing)

I do one Macro and trace mix and use them on two tanks 500l and 50l former dosed at 100ml and later 10ml per dose.

Started on APFUK ppm and no real issues for some time




then moved over to Clives guidelines with a Fert adjustment here and there at some time developed a deficiency which seemed to be Fe. So changed over to DIY Trace mic and using Fe EDDHA/DTPA

Was getting mixed results with symptoms coming and going but always struggling with Hygrophila pinnatifida

The only diferance lately is the 500l gets Fe EDDHA and the later gets Fe DTPA, but in the past its been a bit of a mix of both EDDHA and DTPA the light is more intense in the 50l. Both tanks have twinstars/chihiros doctors, Both DCs same colour Yellowish green and the 500l was getting LCO.

The plants always did better in the 50l and it has had me a little perplexed for some time. But things use to be better and there was no sudden change just gradual. So my AS was getting old and I had hard water etc etc......

Tanks was getting worse lately so checked my DIY trace mix and found an error my B and Mo calculations 4/2/2020 fix it, changed the trace mix and small tank has improved quite a bit and some of 500l tank has but Hygrophila pinnatifida, Blyxa Japonica and Ceratopteris thalictroides hasnt with Hygrophila pinnatifida still suffering the worse.

Thats when I revisited this thread earlier this week and checking my Macro mix I spotted another error! -When doing my [Mg] calculations when I was working though the results of my MgSO47H2O grams added to my dosing bottle must off selected MnSO4.H2O by mistake on the Roltala Butterfly page instead of MgSO47H2O which gave about one third less in grams needed to make the dosing solution.
 Not realising it made up the solution and dosed away so Mg ppm in tank was one third less than what was planned. Not sure when it happen but it was months ago.It wasn't till I worked though the calculations I spotted that the resultant weekly [Mg] in ppm didnt match the mass of MgSO47H2O added. But when MnSO4.H2O was selected it fitted the results. Result of making adjustments/calculations late at night or after a busy day at work 

Then another penny dropped

500L gets 50% WC weekly no top ups of tap water
50l gets 70 to 80% WC plus top up of tap water

So the 50L was getting more Mg from a bigger WC plus top ups   OFC not much but more Mg per week. It was still getting a Ca:Mg ration of 24:1 from the tap water I added 

So the extra Mg the smaller tank was getting was nothing to do with a better Ca:Mg ratio and it fits what T.Barr surgest about 'Liebig's law' i.e. Mg was the limiting element.

It will be interesting to see how my Hygrophila pinnatifida responds to the extra Mg in the 500l, the Hygrophila pinnatifida in the 50l looked better to start with and was improving after fixing the trace error fix but after adding some extra Mg a few days ago it does look better again, but is that the extra Mg or the better trace mix!!

For the time being I am with T Barr after all he has done many tanks with different Ca:Mg ratios and he reports that  'Liebig's law' fits the results he has seen, Plus some of his early post in various threads he does suggest a possible possible ratio for ferts, then years later he has dropped the ratio suggestions posting ''Then they assume ratios are important, then this leads to myths.'', so just add some extra Mg if you think its the limiting factor

Time will tell 

(Sorry for big post)


----------



## Craig Matthews

@Zeus.  If you recall my earlier posts ( maybe a different thread I cannot remember ) I was suffering problems with my hygrohila 53b, hygrohila Compacta and hygrohila araguaia suffering pin holes, pale colouration (N/mg/Fe/K defiency symptoms,) staghorn algae and to soon end up with no growth and leaf drop but the one species you keep mentioning is hygrohila and its the one species I've had problems with maybe its a coincidence?. My java fern was growing,HC was growing but these was still experiencing pale growth and staghorn. Since adding the extra mg and k ( K2SO4 ) all my plants have coloured up and all plants have began to grow again although slowly. Staghorn has gone and not reappeared but its early days. I tried adding extra Fe in the form EDDHA, extra no3,extra po4 but no joy only until I added extra magnesium and k adjusting to these ratio's.maybe its species related or maybe there is something that we and our inferiors are over looking?


----------



## Sammy Islam

So how much (more) mgso4 are you guys adding in total? I'm going to double my dose and see if that helps.


----------



## Zeus.

Craig Matthews said:


> @Zeus.  If you recall my earlier posts ( maybe a different thread I cannot remember ) I was suffering problems with my hygrohila 53b, hygrohila Compacta and hygrohila araguaia suffering pin holes, pale colouration (N/mg/Fe/K defiency symptoms,) staghorn algae and to soon end up with no growth and leaf drop but the one species you keep mentioning is hygrohila and its the one species I've had problems with maybe its a coincidence?. My java fern was growing,HC was growing but these was still experiencing pale growth and staghorn. Since adding the extra mg and k ( K2SO4 ) all my plants have coloured up and all plants have began to grow again although slowly. Staghorn has gone and not reappeared but its early days. I tried adding extra Fe in the form EDDHA, extra no3,extra po4 but no joy only until I added extra magnesium and k adjusting to these ratio's.maybe its species related or maybe there is something that we and our inferiors are over looking?



Your experiences also fit 'Liebig's law' also, the ratio link 'may be' just coincidental as T Barr surggests

Maybe Fe EDTA would be OK too in our tanks!!! but need to see recovery first before I try


----------



## Witcher

Sammy Islam said:


> So how much (more) mgso4 are you guys adding in total? I'm going to double my dose and see if that helps.



@Sammy Islam I keep/add approx. 1.6ppm  Mg either for the whole volume of the tank or for the volume of water changes and approx 5mg Ca (appr. 0.8 kH/1GH calculated). Generally I keep water hardness really low. Struggling with some algae but they are the effect of couple mistakes happened 2 months ago and don't seem to be related with my fertilization regime in general, actually they slowly disappear without almost any input from my side (however I keep PO4 quite high in relation to NO3: 1.5ppm PO4 to 5ppm NO3 weekly). Haven't seen any yellowing related to lack of Mg for months, occasionally I see stunted/deformed new leaves on A. Reineckii - usually after water change and also occasionally slight NO3 deficiencies (small melting of leaves etc.)



jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> If you haven't already seen the following thread on another forum, it makes for very interesting reading. I really like the very detailed account of everything that 'kekon' did. Very methodical. Note the date of the thread!
> 
> https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/41779-how-balance-npk-ca-mg-micros.html
> 
> JPC



Hey @jaypeecee I must admit that I'm surprised that after so many years someone still quotes kekon's experiments - it was always good, very detailed source of info for me.


----------



## jaypeecee

Witcher said:


> Hey @jaypeecee I must admit that I'm surprised that after so many years someone still quotes kekon's experiments - it was always good, very detailed source of info for me.



Hi @Witcher 

You've obviously seen kekon's experiments before. Pretty impressive, eh! It would be good to follow up on kekon. I wonder if s/he is still around on that forum. Will check that out later.

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> If you haven't already seen the following thread on another forum, it makes for very interesting reading. I really like the very detailed account of everything that 'kekon' did. Very methodical. Note the date of the thread!
> 
> https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/41779-how-balance-npk-ca-mg-micros.html
> 
> JPC



Had another read and his result fit the Liebig's law better than they fit the ratio IMO Plus he was adjusting the [Ca] as well as the [Mg] which happened to fit in the 4:1 ratio, he was also concerned about Mg excess so

Quote ' change: because of slight Mg excess i reduced it to 8 ppm. Also Ca was reduced to 32 ppm.' Unquote

So If I was to follow though on the ratio suggested Ca:Mg 4:1 with my tap water being 131ppm Ca I would need to add Mg to reach 32 ppm and he was concerned when his Mg was at 10ppm - would he of been concerned about a level of 32ppm Mg to fit with his Ca:Mg 4:1 ratio!!!!

This Ca:Mg:K may work fine with tanks with soft water to start with, but the maths and resulting ppms just end up being silly if you have hard water and conman sense tells you a 32ppm Mg is OTT 

Clive posted two replies in a pm some time back that gave his thoughts IMO to these related issue and advice from folks 'experimants'/advice/findings



ceg4048 said:


> Mate, whenever someone shows me a spreadsheet or some on-line calculator I always feel a wave of nausea. I mean, really, why all the calculations? For your size tank why not just dump 2 teaspoons KNO3, 1 teaspoon of KH2PO4 3X per week and 1 teaspoon trace 2X per week. End of story. Ifyou think you need Mg then just toss a couple teaspoons of the Epsom Salt in at water change. This is science, but it doesn't have to be Rocket Science. I just use the 2:1:1 rule and call it good. i don't even look at those stupid spreadsheets. It's just so energy sapping.





ceg4048 said:


> Yeah, coincidences happens a LOT in this hobby. That's what makes everyone so crazy...



So after



Zeus. said:


> but dumpped 100g of MgSO4.7H2O in 500l tank this morning.



Doing WC ATM to bring [Mg] down to EI suggested levels - as I 'think I went from not enough Mg to too much Mg  - what was I thinking


----------



## Oldguy

UK tap waters tend to be low in Mg compared to Ca but there are many local variations. The big water companies tend to blend water to reduce hardness and maintain supply to a growing customer base. [My home town was liquid rock from bore holes but is now blended with river water and is much softer]

For amusement I have been looking at the labels on bottled water [typical analysis]
S.Pellegrino                      Ca 164ppm, Mg 49.5ppm, K 2ppm, Sr 2.7ppm.
Harrogate Spring Water   Ca 45ppm,   Mg 14ppm.
Chase Spring Water        Ca 37ppm,   Mg 11ppm,    K 2.5ppm. (Aldi small bottles)
Chase Spring Water        Ca 38ppm,   Mg 12ppm.                      (Asda 17p for 2 litres) its my favorite*.

High Mg content is a laxative and has caused jipy tummy to holiday makers avoiding local tap water and drinking bottled 'spa' water. It also founded health resorts/spas.

As plant growers we jack up nitrates, phosphates and potassium and trace elements together with carbon dioxide but tend to forget about magnesium. (gardeners throw it about as the sulphate with gay abandon). I do not believe that tight ratios of this to that really matter, unless its about dry martinis. Commercial fertilizers are in ratio to give good growth at minimum cost to most plants in most situations.

I am wary of high levels of Ca and Mg ions on the stability of iron and trace element chelates. Therefore I run a 'soft water' tank. Where I now live the tap water is moderately soft and I mix this with rain water and bring the hardness back up to moderately soft with magnesium sulphate. I assume there is little or no Mg present before I make my addition. I also boost the potassium level at water change. After that its IE till the next water change

* also add Asda fizz at water change time to quickly bring the dissolved CO2 back up to the level it was before the weekly 50% change. Always watch the fish.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Oldguy 

Isn't it interesting that the Ca to Mg ratios for all the bottled waters you have listed are very close to the oft-quoted figure of 3:1? Coincidence? Maybe. Also, to what concentration do you "boost the potassium level at water change"? And, forgive me, what is "IE"?

JPC


----------



## Oldguy

jaypeecee said:


> Ca to Mg ratios



Yes the ratios are a very good fit. I use this ratio with regard to water analysis in general, however tap water can be lower. Bottled water typically comes out of dolomitic limestone. Potassium boost - about 10ppm. IE should be EI Estimated Index. Dyslexia lures KO.


----------



## jaypeecee

Oldguy said:


> Yes the ratios are a very good fit. I use this ratio with regard to water analysis in general, however tap water can be lower. Bottled water typically comes out of dolomitic limestone. Potassium boost - about 10ppm. IE should be EI Estimated Index. Dyslexia lures KO.



Hi @Oldguy 

Many thanks. 

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

Oldguy said:


> Yes the ratios are a very good fit. I use this ratio with regard to water analysis in general, however tap water can be lower. Bottled water typically comes out of dolomitic limestone. Potassium boost - about 10ppm. IE should be EI Estimated Index. Dyslexia lures KO.



Thing is I'm Dyslexic so I just read it as EI


----------



## jaypeecee

Zeus. said:


> Thing is I'm Dyslexic so I just read it as EI



Hi @Zeus. 



JPC


----------



## Zeus.

Came across one of @ceg4048 aka Clives posts *NPK what ratio
*
Quote
 EI dosing schemes are based on "infinite availability" of individual nutrients, not on ratios of nutrients. Each of the species and each specimen has it's optimum uptake based on current environmental conditions so that for example Alternanthera _may_ use more phosphates than Anubias simply because it's production of fuel requires more. HC _may_ uptake more Carbon than Java Moss simply because it's native environment may require it to a greater extent. There is no ratio or even uptake rate that can be unilaterally applied.
Unquote.

Shame he isn't active ATM as I for one would love to see his input on this Ca:Mg and Ca:Mg:K ratio 



dw1305 said:


> When you have a lot of Ca++ ions the next “taxi” on the rank is much more likely to be a Ca++ ion, rather than a Mg++ ion,



Which makes sense esp when the body of water is static as diffusion being x10000 slower in water, However with our turnover rates being X5 for low tech and x10 for high tech this should IMO help compensate things as the 'Taxis' are passing by so quick.


----------



## Witcher

Zeus. said:


> EI dosing schemes are based on "infinite availability" of individual nutrients



Does it means that we can pour 50 ppm of N, 50 ppm of K, 50 ppm of Fe, 50 ppm of B, 50 ppm of Mn and plants will selectively choose whatever they need?


----------



## Zeus.

Witcher said:


> Does it means that we can pour 50 ppm of N, 50 ppm of K, 50 ppm of Fe, 50 ppm of B, 50 ppm of Mn and plants will selectively choose whatever they need?



Yes/*NO *- IMO as some of those ppm would probably be fatal to the plants and livestock, but if you had chosen some sensible ppms for some of the elements YES

Liebig's law up to the toxic threshold for each element


----------



## Wookii

This is an interesting thread. I live in a relatively hard water area (Nottingham).

I am EI dosing using the APFUK salts, part of which is Magnesium Sulphate (MGSO4).

Are you guys saying that because of your hard water, you need to dose even more MgSO4 than the standard APFUK mix?


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Folks,

Now, I'm flummoxed! Are we now dismissing the idea of an optimum Ca:Mg:K ratio being provided in the aquarium water? 

JPC


----------



## Zeus.

Wookii said:


> Are you guys saying that because of your hard water, you need to dose even more MgSO4 than the standard APFUK mix?



Well seeing your using EI dosing the best person to ask is T Barr (who came up with EI Dosing) - I've spent some time over at the Barr report this week and in the posts I read about the Ca:Mg ratio Tom was very dismissive about a Ca:Mg ratio basically saying ignore the ratios and use Liebig's law so the range suggested for Mg in our tanks is 5 to 10 ppm per week and ignore your [Ca] as Calcium deficiency is very rarely seen.



jaypeecee said:


> Are we now dismissing the idea of an optimum Ca:Mg:K ratio being provided in the aquarium water?



Well I am dismissing the idea of an optimum Ca:Mg:K ratio - as I have seen little if anything to convince/support the idea that there is one.
Plus if I followed the Ca:Mg:K ratio 2:1:0.5 at my present weekly [K] of 30ppm I would need to increase my [Mg] to 60ppm to fit /suit my tap water being 121ppm Ca


----------



## jaypeecee

FWIW, I do know that Tropic Marin in their _Re-Mineral Tropic_ RO salts formulation uses three times more Ca than Mg.


----------



## Zeus.

jaypeecee said:


> FWIW, I do know that Tropic Marin in their _Re-Mineral Tropic_ RO salts formulation uses three times more Ca than Mg.



I take it its used for Remineralising water thats been though an RO unit ? and so the Ca:Mg ratio is 3:1 ! do they suggest to add enough to yield a [Ca] of 120ppm !  I doubt it so why should I follow the 3:1 ratio and get my Mg to 30ppm as my water has 121 ppm Ca  the EI range for Mg per week is 5 to 10ppm Mg


----------



## jaypeecee

Zeus. said:


> I take it its used for Remineralising water thats been though an RO unit ? and so the Ca:Mg ratio is 3:1 ! do they suggest to add enough to yield a [Ca] of 120ppm !  I doubt it so why should I follow the 3:1 ratio and get my Mg to 30ppm as my water has 121 ppm Ca  the EI range for Mg per week is 5 to 10ppm Mg



Hi @Zeus. 

Correct, it's a remineralizer for water that's been through an RO system. When made up according to their guidance notes, I get Mg = 8 - 10 ppm, K = 15 - 20 ppm and GH = 7.5 dH. Plugging these figures into the calculator at www.flowgrow.de/db/calculator/magnesium, I get Ca = 37 ppm. So, this would mean Ca:Mg:K is 4:1:2.  Very odd. Perhaps Tropic Marin (aka TMC) don't know how to formulate remineralizers for use with planted tanks? I haven't got back to them yet with my measurements but I'll do that soon. I know it's a contentious issue but I used JBL test kits to do the Mg and K measurements plus API test kit for the GH.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Witcher said:


> Does it means that we can pour 50 ppm of N, 50 ppm of K, 50 ppm of Fe, 50 ppm of B, 50 ppm of Mn and plants will selectively choose whatever they need?


They don’t ever actually ever choose, it always depends on the concentration of ions in solution, and valency, that is the “taxi on the rank” analogy.

Plants might have mechanisms to protect them from iron toxicity etc. but the problem with most trace elements (Cu, Zn etc.) is that they are always in short supply, so “unnatural”  amounts are often toxic.

My guess is that Liebig’s law of minimum is more important than ratios, but that they both are relevant to some degree.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## Maxplantinstitute

Maxplantinstitute said:


> I am also interested in this topic.
> It seems like I need to add intolerable amounts of Mgso4 to my tank. Or else some plants will suffer and this might be the reason some other plants are stunted.
> Not 100% sure about this yet, but trying out different solutions for this.
> There are other sources for magnesium available.
> Rotala butterfly calc. Lists magnesium gluconate, and on eBay there Are a lot of sellers offering magnesium glycinate.
> 
> Could one of these two be a better alternative for magnesium in a planted aquarium?
> I am a total noob when it comes to chemistry and I have no idea what glycinate means...... Or does.



@dw1305
Is magnesium gluconate possibly harmful in Any way? By itself or combined with other chemicals we use in our tanks?
I just wiped out my livestock one week after switching to magnesium gluconate and wonder if it was this switch is to blame....


----------



## jolt100

Was this an analytical grade of Magnesium gluconate or a commercial "food supplement". These appear to have other Additives which could be harmful.
Magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts)  is cheap and doesn't affect your livestock.
Cheers
John


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Maxplantinstitute said:


> I just wiped out my livestock one week after switching to magnesium gluconate and wonder if it was this switch is to blame..





Maxplantinstitute said:


> @dw1305 Is magnesium gluconate possibly harmful in Any way?


Sorry to hear that. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have thought there would be any problem as it is a small addition of organic matter (gluconate is C6H12O7), and would be similar to adding citric acid. 





jolt100 said:


> These appear to have other Additives which could be harmful. Magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts) is cheap and doesn't affect your livestock


I've only ever added "Epsom Salts" as a magnesium source.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy

My tap water is about 100pm hardness. I assume that it is mainly from calcium salts. (only small dolomitic inclusions in the local geology) I cut this approx 50:50 with rain water and add Epson Salts to give about 15ppm Mg in the water used for approx 50% weekly water change. (Also add to this water potassium sulphate to yield approx 10ppm.)

Ca to Mg ratio is about 3 to 1. This is by chance and not design. I want to run a soft water tank but with magnesium for plant growth. Mg is often overlooked as it is assumed to be in tap water, it may not be. Why use rain water, well its free and I have to find a use for it.

People have beautiful planted tanks with hard water, but they may be adding more CO2 and different chelates than myself. Each to their own.


----------



## Maxplantinstitute

jolt100 said:


> Was this an analytical grade of Magnesium gluconate or a commercial "food supplement". These appear to have other Additives which could be harmful.
> Magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts)  is cheap and doesn't affect your livestock.
> Cheers
> John


It was supposedly 100% pure but I bought it from a seller who also sells a lot of nutritional supplements so who knows.

I don't know who the perp is, but I have a few "suspects".
I add 1 gram of k2co3 to the 100l of new water. This might have caused some wild pH swing or depleted the  oxygen levels in combination the co2 in this new tap water and the pressurised co2 added thru my reactor.
It happened the night after water change sunday. 
I have seen a bit cloudy gray haze in the water the day after w.c before,  but it has passed.
My tap water is so soft that I need to add something to raise the kh or else the pH in the tank falls to under 6. 
I have measured 5.8 and that seems a little low.
I will change kh source from k2co3 to khco3 and have another look my routine for mixing up and adding water to the tank.

I asked my water supplier for a report on what it contains and got a very detailed description for just about anything you think of.  Except calcium and magnesium.  It listed a bunch of pesticides and even bacteria numbers but not the two elements I was really interested in. 
So I am just going to assume the little gh in the water is all calcium and no magnesium. 
When "reconstitution" the new water, I have targeted Mg levels from 5ppm and up to 16ppm with mgso4.
I have not been able to draw any conclusion by reading the plants response to these changes. And i have no way of measuring in Mg in water , so I can not say how much ppm (if any)Mg falls in a week.
How much Mg can a high tech tank with high plant volume of mostly fast growers consume in 7 days??? 

And while I am trying to figure out Mg, something is stunting my A.R pink and making it shrivel and curl. Maybe it is Mg. Maybe it is micro related.


----------



## Oldguy

Maxplantinstitute said:


> Except calcium and magnesium



I requested Mg in ppm from my water company and got a reply in degrees Clark of CaCO3 equivalent. Very useful I don't think. As my posting above I assumed nil and added Epson salts to about 15pmm Mg.

Depending on how serious you are to find the amount of Mg in your tap water and as an extension the deletion rate in your tank there are 'wet' methods of analysis given in detail on line, but you will need a burette and pipette and other odds and sods of lab equipment. Do an internet search for Ca and Mg with EDTA and Eriochrome Black. It looks complicated but it depends on your back ground. In the UK it would be about 'A' level chemistry and first term, first year undergraduate 'catch up' level.

The real killer is access to equipment and reagents, but with eBay, not that expensive to buy. Oh and the end point needs a bit of practice.

Deletion rates would be interesting but difficult to generalize. EI assumes an excess and plants take what they need.

Good luck.


----------



## Witcher

Maxplantinstitute said:


> something is stunting my A.R pink and making it shrivel and curl. Maybe it is Mg. Maybe it is micro related.


I can bet it's not enough Ca with relation to Mg and K. My A.R. mini was always burning its tips when I was playing with water hardness (using different Ca/Mg ratios) and amount of K - it happened usually at too low level of Ca.


----------



## Maxplantinstitute

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, Sorry to hear that. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have thought there would be any problem as it is a small addition of organic matter (gluconate is C6H12O7), and would be similar to adding citric acid. I've only ever added "Epsom Salts" as a magnesium source.
> 
> cheers Darrel


This is from Wikipedia :
In aqueous solution at neutral pH, gluconic acid forms the *gluconate ion*. The salts of gluconic acid are known as "gluconates". Gluconic acid, gluconate salts, and gluconate esters occur widely in nature because such species arise from the oxidation of glucose

Glucose is fruit sugar right? 
Could adding 10grams of Mg gluconate in 160 liters of water possibly cause a bacteria bloom or other issues?
I am experiencing melting and stem rot on hygrophila compact and A.r pink despite a couple of extra water changes this week.

Another possible cause is the Miller's microplex I have been using for 2 weeks. 
I have only Dosed this very sparingly and just twise a week to get a little extra Manganese. This had a positive effect at first so I really hope it is not to blame for the mess in my tank. I am aware that it contains ridiculous amounts of copper.


----------



## Zeus.

Maxplantinstitute said:


> Glucose is fruit sugar right?



Glucose is a sugar (its origin is irrelevant) and yes bacteria like sugars as they are simple carbohydrates so easy to digest for them.


----------



## Simon Cole

Seachem Flourish Iron is a ferrous *gluconate* fertlizer. It works for me and many others without causing algae. The actual quantities are so small I doubt you'll have a bloom, but yes I'd put sugars as a major point of conjecture in terms of algal blooms.


----------

