# Hard Water and phosphate troubles -HELP PLEASE-



## d_scherrer (26 Oct 2011)

I'll try to make this quick.
76 gallon bowfront
Filtered (Fluval 405), CO2 injected, recommended flow rate achieved with a hydor circulating pump.
CO2 at approx 30 ppm, dosing EI method.
Pretty heavily planted.
PH pretty steady at 6.8 ish to 7.1 ish.


FIRST:
My GH is 23 and my KH is 26, I've tested with two different kits and have gotten very similar results with both kits.  One of the kits is a Hagen.  So, how hard is to hard and should I be looking into an RO system?
SECOND:
My tap water has no phosphate in it from the tap, but even after several water changes the phosphate levels in the tank are still 5.0 mg/L or above.  I have regular ol' pea gravel and fluorite as substrate, but I do have a LARGE piece of driftwood in the tank.  Here's the issue, the tank was purchased used, so I guess in hindsight, I should have been more concerned as to what was the chem make up of the tank prior to me acquiring it was.  It WAS freshwater, not salt, so I didn't make that mistake....
Any ideas as to where all this phosphate is coming from?
I feed twice a day and I strongly doubt those levels are from the food.  Can I use fluval phosphate remover in my canister filter, or does this not really work well?  I am hoping I won't have to tear everything out and start over...  
Could the Mono phosphate be contributing to these high readings?
Thank you in advance for your help....


----------



## hotweldfire (27 Oct 2011)

Wow. Those are astonishing hardness readings. Where on earth do you live?

RE: phosphate readings, I'm not entirely sure how accurate the test kits are (I've never entirely trusted them). Also, what is your stocking level?


----------



## d_scherrer (27 Oct 2011)

I live in Michigan, on the west side of the state, and yes, I also agree that they are 'ASTONISHINGLY' high levels.  I do have a water softner, but as we all know, you can't use that water in a planted tank.  My stocking levels right now are pretty low for a 76 gal tank.  Currently living in harmony are 3 angels (ONE REAL BIG GRANDPA ANGEL), 2 blue and 1 Pearl Gourami, 3 bristlenose and 1 fantail pleco, 7 or so otto's (lost count a while ago), 2 koli loaches, 2 cory's, and 3 simease AE's.  (all the AE's in the tank are prety small, under 2 inches.)
I plan to add about a dozen or so swordtails, along with a plethra of neons, and that should be it for what I want to keep as fish for now, but I am just slowly working my way up to those levels.
I went ahead and added the phosphate remover last night, so now, I watch with baited breath to see what the phosphate levels are going to do.


----------



## Fred Dulley (5 Nov 2011)

I don't understand.
You're adding Mono potassium phosphate and then wondering why you are getting a phosphate reading of 5mgl or more? If you are adding it and you dont want it that high then decrease the dosing rather than adding a remover.
There's nothing wrong with having phosphate that high anyway.
Btw, phosphate test kits are generally awful and give wacky readings.
Sorry if I've misunderstood.


----------



## Aquadream (5 Nov 2011)

The tests results for GH and KH suggest that it is the hardness that is the reason for the high phosphate levels, not so much the added amounts.
In this high GH/KH conditions it is likely that non of the plants can propagate well and also the CO2 that would be required for aquarium with such hard water would be tremendous amount, which I am not sure that can be added fast enough.

Get RO as soon as you can. Drop the GH to 6-8 and the KH to 2-4. Add enough CO2 for the amount of light that you use and the phosphate problem should stabilize. Make sure that the starting amount of PO4 is not higher than 1mg/L.

The hobby test kits are not too accurate, but they are not too wrong either. They can give you close enough idea of the situation.


----------



## dw1305 (6 Nov 2011)

Hi all,


> Btw, phosphate test kits are generally awful and give wacky readings.


You can totally ignore the phosphate reading, phosphate is really difficult to measure, even in the lab. 

The main problem is totally the opposite of what you think it is, that the calcium in your water will mop up any PO4- ions and precipitate them out of solution calcium phosphate complexes, this will make any phosphate unavailable to your plants. 

I don't know what kit is measuring, but it definitely isn't measuring phosphate in the water column. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2011)

Aquadream said:
			
		

> ...The tests results for GH and KH suggest that it is the hardness that is the reason for the high phosphate levels...


There is little relationship between GH/KH and PO4. GH is a measure of the combination of Magnesium (Mg++) and Calcium (Ca++) ions in the water, while KH is a measure of the Carbonate (CO3--) and Bi-Carbonate (HCO3-). While the Phosphate ion (PO4---) is famous (or infamous) for combining with metal ions and precipitating them out of the water, it is unlikely that PO4 would combine with Carbonate/Bicaobonate, and if by some miracle it did, this would serve to lower the KH by preciptating these species out of solution. The same would go for Mg/Ca. Phosphate is a highly reactive substance and thats why it is highly prized by plants and animals alike. Phosphate is so important that it is normally the limiting substance in an ecological system. Phosphate pollution in the environment is a serious issue because it changes the balance of species in a system. Those species which are better adapted to uptaking PO4 excel while those less capable soon falter and disappear.

Having said that however, high PO4 levels do contribute to a high water conductivity (TDS), but if you are not planning on doing any breeding then this isn't much of an issue either.

Furthermore, there is very little impact of water hardness on the ability to dissolve CO2. Tis is yet another myth of The Matrix spawned to separate the unwary from their hard earned cash. One should have a very good reason for going through the trouble of using RO. Plant growth performance is not one of those reasons.

In our tank PO4 is super important for plant growth, especially in a high light, CO2 injected tank. PO4 is not something to fear and it NEVER causes problems in a tank. It makes plants healthier, stronger, and more able to resist attacks by algal species such as GSA. You exclude PO4 from your tank at your plants peril. If you are an ecologist concerned with natural systems then yes, PO4 introduction into a low PO4 system is a scourge.


			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> Get RO as soon as you can. Drop the GH to 6-8 and the KH to 2-4.


Why? Unless you plan to grow a tank full of Tonina there is no need for concern. Here is an example of a tank with KH 15 and GH 25+:







I had no trouble whatsoever growing plants with that level of hardness. problems with planted tanks are not related to water hardness, they are related to poor execution by the hobbyist of fundamental plant husbandry issues such too much light, poor flow, poor nutrition and poor implementation of CO2 distribution. You would be better served paying attention to these issues and to forget about hardness.

Cheers,


----------



## Aquadream (6 Nov 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am well aware of what is what. Here we are not talking about pure chemistry in a glass can, but relationship between water chemistry and how plants respond to it.
If the water is as hard as the man suggested then no plants will do well in there and nothing will absorb the PO4, which inevitably will lead to build up.

Also in very hard water the amount of CO2 that is required is way much greater than in soft water cases.

In your aquariums the GH and KH may be high, but also the list of plant species that you can grow will be limited.

I have seen many folks that would go their own way just to prove a point, but I wish all those plants and fish had the way to say something about it and see if the high GH and KH you suggest is to their liking.

The fact that it can work some how does not make it right.

You can probably survive long enough in very cold environment, but do you really want to live there for you entire life span?

Those creatures in the fish tanks also would like good and as close as possible to their natural habitats conditions.

Those super high GH and KH that you talk about are not natural to any of the plants that you show on your pics and it is wrong to give others this kind of advise.


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2011)

Aquadream said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think you are aware of what's what. I just showed you evidence that the majority of plants do not care about GH. These plants had no difficulty whatsoever absorbing PO4. In fact, we are talking about pure chemistry in a glass can. Everything happening in the tank is chemistry. I have run planted tanks with everything between pure RO to very hard and I don't see a difference except, as I noted, with a handful of species. The vast majority don't have issues.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> Also in very hard water the amount of CO2 that is required is way much greater than in soft water cases.


Again, this is pure fantasy. Where is your evidence? Do you even have the capability to measure CO2? Without a CO2 meter any conclusion you draw is speculation. The solubility of gases in water has only to do with pressure, temperature, and salinity. The effect of hardness is actually very minor. But because people have this dreamy personal vision of how life should be the idea of reduced solubility in hard water is a convenient self hypnosis. I don't have any trouble dissolving CO2 or growing plants in hard water, but I have plenty of trouble processing and storing RO water, not to mention high water bills because the rejection rate of RO units is typically something like 5 to 1, so you need 6 liters of water to produce 1 liter of RO.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> In your aquariums the GH and KH may be high, but also the list of plant species that you can grow will be limited.


Well why don't you give me a list and I'll check to see if I've grown them?



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> I have seen many folks that would go their own way just to prove a point,


So what are you saying? Isn't proving a point the path to truth? Are you saying that people should just accept lies. The point that I am proving is that you don't need RO water to grow plants. I am not saying that you shouldn't use RO, only that you don't need to because there will not be a significant performance improvement in plant growth for the majority of popular plants.

There a a lot of other areas in plant husbandry that people should focus on first before deciding to use RO, but using RO does not make you a better plant grower.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> ...but I wish all those plants and fish had the way to say something about it and see if the high GH and KH you suggest is to their liking.


Surely you can't be seriously thinking this, can you? I'm pretty sure that if you give plants and fish the chance to say something, they would say get me the hell out this stupid glass box and let me live free in my natural habitat. They would not limit their choice to GH/KH but would want to get as far away from incompetence and mismanagement as possible.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> The fact that it can work some how does not make it right.


 So what makes right? All the things that you choose? If something works then it works. I don't think I should have to apologize because I can demonstrate an easier way of doing something. You need to be asking why it works. You need to understand real advantages as well as the disadvantages. This is the only way we can arrive at the truth of the matter, not by spewing out dogma.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> You can probably survive long enough in very cold environment, but do you really want to live there for you entire life span?


Why don't you ask that question to Eskimos, penguins and polar bears? Then we might have some real data.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> Those super high GH and KH that you talk about are not natural to any of the plants that you show on your pics and it is wrong to give others this kind of advise...Those creatures in the fish tanks also would like good and as close as possible to their natural habitats conditions...


Have you ever heard of the concept of adaptation? It's a skill that plants, animals and humans possess. Have you considered the possibility that plants and fish are not bothered too much about hard water? Hard water doesn't kill fish but dirty water annihilates more fish than anything else. It's wrong for you to ignore this fact.

Cheers,


----------



## spyder (6 Nov 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## roadmaster (7 Nov 2011)

While I agree with Clive that hardwater does not kill large number's of fish outright, (improper application of CO2 kills many more).My own expieriences with some softwater species suggest's that they would prefer to live in more acidic water over the long haul.(don't know enough about plant's to comment)
I fully expect to hear from those who claim to keep softwater species in Portland cement ,but wonder why? 
I prefer to keep fishes under my care in condition's that are not too far removed from that which they might be found in in the wild, and in water that is most easily re-produced by me without the use of R/O or buffering agent's (ie) Tapwater.
For me,, it has often been the difference between fishes that lived to ripe old age, or those that live but a few months.
Opinion's vary, but I take comfort that I am not alone in my beliefs.


----------



## Aquadream (7 Nov 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you explain to me My Lord how so different is high GH from salinity? GH is formed by salts not by your cool management of your tank and if those salts are in high amounts there will be many problems for most aquatic plants. You are twisting your self so much in what seem to be academic gibberish that it is impossible for you to see how contradictive is your talk.
Also you lack proper information regarding RO systems. ?he typical ratio is 4:1. If you have heard about permeate pumps those are designed to reduce that ratio to 0.8:1. It means for one liter of RO 0.8 liters of water lost in the canals.




			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Isn't proving a point the path to truth? Are you saying that people should just accept lies. The point that I am proving is that you don't need RO water to grow plants. I am not saying that you shouldn't use RO, only that you don't need to because there will not be a significant performance improvement in plant growth for the majority of popular plants.


Your truth is very subjective, design to serve your purpose. But let me tell you something. The world was here long before you and will be long after you. Nature works in ways that do not match your theories and it always going to be that way.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very well said, but you seriously need to look at your self here.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are many things that were discovered by chance, but this is not science. It is only a chance.
If you call the balance in nature dogma then you are in serious need of professional help.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are we talking here about natural habitats or you put all those in there and it just happen to work?


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aquadream said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The best and wisest thing for you to do is to adapt to nature, not to try to adapt nature to you. It is not going to work, not for long anyway.

Cheers,[/quote]


----------



## ceg4048 (9 Nov 2011)

Aquadream said:
			
		

> ...Can you explain to me My Lord how so different is high GH from salinity?


Err..Well I'll explain this  my unrepentant subject. It's clear to me that you're missing some very basic clues about chemical processes and definitions occurring in a tank. that explains why you are limited to regurgitation of the rubbish on websites brimming with ignorance.

GH by definition is the measure of Calcium (Ca++) and Magnesium (Mg++) ion content only. Salinity is the measure of Sodium (Na+) content only. This is of a profound difference and has such significance that bodies of water the world are defined fundamentally by whether they are saline or fresh. I mean, I would have thought that obvious by now. Do you think all salts are the same? Do you imagine, for example, that a fish from  seawater can survive in lake Malawi, which is high in Magnesium and Calcium salts? Each of these chemical have unique properties and behaviors, and while they may share some similarities you cannot assume that the effect of one ion species is identical to another. When an ionic salt like NaCl is added to water, the ions from the salt introduced will attract the water. This has the tendency to decrease the weak affinity of non-polar CO2 molecules to water and drive the CO2 out of the polar water. So really this is an sort of an electrolytic effect , and the Na+ ionic strength has a much greater influence than Magnesium or Calcium. of course, seawater does contain salts other than NaCl, however, their influence in the lowered CO2 solubility is dwarfed by that of NaCl. Even so, the solubility coefficient, K(o) of water at 26 deg.C, which has 40% salinity is .02771 moles per liter*atm while at the same temperature, the solubility of freshwater is .03307 moles per liter*atm - a 16% solubility loss from the freshwater value. At a 10% salinity K(o) rises to .03164 which is only a 4% falloff from freshwater.

The solubility of CO2 in tank water therefore is hugely influenced by pressure and temperature. The ionic strength of Magnesium and Calcium have a minuscule effect on CO2's solubility.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> GH is formed by salts not by your cool management of your tank and if those salts are in high amounts there will be many problems for most aquatic plants.


See the previous response. GH is only a direct measurement of Ca/Mg, nothing more and nothing less. Solubility of CO2 has be measured and determined by people who get paid to know this stuff. You will not change reallity by wishing it were otherwise.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> You are twisting your self so much in what seem to be academic gibberish that it is impossible for you to see how contradictive is your talk.


What I find twisted is that we live in 21st century, with access to information superhighway, where you yourself could easily find this information, but instead you choose willful ignorance.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> Also you lack proper information regarding RO systems. ?he typical ratio is 4:1. If you have heard about permeate pumps those are designed to reduce that ratio to 0.8:1. It means for one liter of RO 0.8 liters of water lost in the canals.


I listed typical and generic rejection rates of off-the-shelf RO units. Is 4:1 an acceptable rejection rate? lowering the rejection rate then required a more complicated and expensive adaptation. this is a petty argument.




			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This sounds like more new age gibberish. How can my truth be subjective if I demonstrate specifically the cause and effect? How can it be subjective if I can disprove the things that you are saying and by showing positive results by doing the exact opposite of your theory? You need to get off you buttocks, read a few "academic" books and learn to understand as many aspects of nature as you can. It's the only way we are going to be able to save what's left of it, not by parroting new-age prattle.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> Very well said, but you seriously need to look at your self here.


I have no idea what this means. I'm looking at my tank and it's just fine, thanks.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> There are many things that were discovered by chance, but this is not science. It is only a chance. If you call the balance in nature dogma then you are in serious need of professional help.


More prattle. Show me data, facts and figures.



			
				Aquadream said:
			
		

> The best and wisest thing for you to do is to adapt to nature, not to try to adapt nature to you. It is not going to work, not for long anyway.


This is also meaningless prattle. If you don't understand the fundamentals of nature, like simple chemistry, how can you possible hope to copy it? You, like so many other deluded hobbyists focus on the wrong things. nature is infinitely complex and what you think might be an obvious fact may actually be an illusion. Only by studying the fundamentals can you possibly hope to make sense of even a small portion of it all. my tanks are healthy and clean, my fish feed well and sometimes breed in these waters and I can grow just about any plant you can grow (I'm still waiting for your list of plants that can't grow in hard water by the way) and i don't have algae.  I haven't seen GDA, Rhizo, Clado, or Spyrogyra in 10 years. So what more proof do you want? How can it be "chance" if i can do this consistently? i don't have high water bills, i don't have complicated storage solutions for RO water. And I certainly do not have any difficulty dissolving CO2, that's for damn sure mate. So you'll need to come up with better arguments than "Nature knows best", or "how long can it last?"

As I mentioned, if the OP want to get RO I am not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that the OP doe not need to make RO a priority because there are lots of things he can do to improve his tank and to get good growth which have nothing to do with GH. There is also no need to fear PO4 and as stated by others, PO4 test kits aren't capable of telling you anything, least of all how much PO4 is in the water. So all of these things are false prophets and are unnecessary.

Cheers,


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

Hi ceg and evryone else. Sorry to open up this thread again. My water has a KH18/19 due to underwater limestone aquifers. Do you think plants like Althernanthera Reinecki are doing poorly due to this?
I can see some tanks that just use a crappy diffuser and yet get awsome plant growth whilst I have an inline atomizer, great flow, and a constant ph drop of 1 unit during photoperiod, yet I see this problem. I will run a simple test and add some ro water and see how plants respond.
Is there a slight chance ceg that you are overdosing to the point that you can get away with very hard water. You might be eliminating any precipitation of nutrients this way.
Also how come most great aquascapes/tanks are done with very soft water? Do people just like ro water work?
I understand that you are just saying that its possible, but then again, is it easier with softer water?


----------



## ian_m (25 Mar 2015)

Ok this is mine, I think it was Alternanthera reineckii, (looks like it)  http://tropica.com/en/plants/plantdetails/Alternantherareineckii'Purple'(023B)/4438 pearling away in 22KH water supplied from the limestone aquifers of Shawford. Was doing fine, attempting to grow out of the tank, until I snapped it during water change and it never recovered.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (25 Mar 2015)

Does anyone know why aquatic plants don't react in the same way as terrestrial plants sensitive to hard water… or are the plants for our tanks chosen to be more robust and adaptable?


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

ian_m said:


> Ok this is mine, I think it was Alternanthera reineckii, (looks like it) http://tropica.com/en/plants/plantdetails/Alternantherareineckii'Purple'(023B)/4438 pearling away in 22KH water supplied from the limestone aquifers of Shawford. Was doing fine, attempting to grow out of the tank, until I snapped it during water change and it never recovered.



Mine grew fine for the first few weeks. Even co2 was worse then. But maybe I was using 50% bottled water, but cant really remember.
This is a really interesting topic for me because if I could just use tap water it would be great. But on the other hand I dont want to just fail with a plant and throw it away.
I think it might be ok if light is very low but I think in hard water and high light it has a very difficult time.


----------



## ian_m (25 Mar 2015)

Jose said:


> I think it might be ok if light is very low but I think in hard water and high light it has a very difficult time.


Mine is definitely hard water, high CO2 and high light, no problem until "I broke the plant"....


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...-rotala-macrandra-to-look-like-the-pros/page2

100% recommended link. 
At least its not black or white.


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

ian_m said:


> Mine is definitely hard water, high CO2 and high light, no problem until "I broke the plant"....



But why wouldnt it recover?
It might be possible to grow it, but maybe it looks better, grows faster etc in lower khs.
Also do you dose normal EI? or more?

We can show examples yes, but still the question remains. Many places specially in UK have hard water. Why dont we see such great tanks from those places? and if we do they are done with RO.

Why do so many hobbiests use RO? This is no theory, they just watch and select what they like most.


----------



## parotet (25 Mar 2015)

Hi all

I think this issue has been directly or indirectly discussed in different threads. IMO the problem is that most of the times it is difficult to tell if the hobbyist has perfectly tuned his tank before blaming his water hardness.

We've seen in this forum (and in other ones) great planted tanks using liquid rock. But we also have heard many times from very good and experienced aquascapers that 'it is much easier to grow plants on soft water-low KH'. It seems that the classic/popular arguments to justify this (lower CO2 solubility on hard water or nutrient precipitation) are not consistent with scientific evidence. So I guess that, if it is really easier as some experienced aquascapers say, other options should be taken into account. 

I've read many times that hard water makes more difficult the stem regrowth once trimmed. Scientific evidence? Don't think so/I don't have enough knowledge, but it may be a path to explore. I've also read that plants simply 'grow better', it is frequently stated for mosses. Not sure if there can be any equivalence with terrestrial plants but with my hard water some species of plants and mosses grow but do not do well until they fade and die. It reminds me that botanists sometimes explain that there are no acidic or alkaline loving plants, but just plants that cannot stand alkaline conditions. Any scientist out there?

Jordi

Edit: I don't have the knowledge but I'm trying to have the experience. One week ago I set up my first soft water tank (nano tank with mixed RO and hard water)... Let's see what happens


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

The problem is that even scientists are many times biased. Look back a few years into the hobby and youll see.

This are Tom Barrs words:
"If that's the case, then just live with other plant species options, I mean there's only about 20-40 species that do poorly in hard KH's, so......with 300-400 species, this is still a massive no#."

If you consider red species which are normally the pickiest, then its probably a big percentage of them that prefer soft water.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (25 Mar 2015)

If it contributes to the debate, I found this part explanation to my question about ericaceous terrestrial plants on the google: 

_"It is not the presence of carbonate or hydroxide ions per se that these plants cannot tolerate, but the fact that under alkaline conditions, iron becomes less soluble."_

Could very hard water make it difficult for iron and other nutrients to be available?


----------



## parotet (25 Mar 2015)

But that's again the same old debate. The point is not yes/no (use these/those species), but how better/how worse plants grow. I agree in that sense with Tom Barr or Clive that it is much easier to blame your water than sorting out the real problems. In other words, if you are a good aquatic plant keeper you should be able to grow plants in whatever conditions. The point is what makes this supposed slight difference, and obviously it is more difficult to demonstrate as it is very difficult to assess better/worse than survival/death. Muddy waters for objective arguments.



Mr. Teapot said:


> Could very hard water make it difficult for iron and other nutrients to be available?


I don't think so, just add more iron or in with other quelates...


----------



## ian_m (25 Mar 2015)

I suspect under high kH conditions people cock up their CO2 levels and plants suffer and they then blame it on the kH rather than poor CO2.



parotet said:


> I've read many times that hard water makes more difficult the stem regrowth once trimmed


This could have been my experience, though I cannot write off I had cocked up CO2 levels of course. Was dosing full EI. The replanted stem "just stalled", no new roots, unlike other plants I have cut & replanted, older leaves started getting covered in green algae and virtually no new growth on the crown so it had to go and fertilise the front lawn...


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

ian_m said:


> I suspect under high kH conditions people cock up their CO2 levels and plants suffer and they then blame it on the kH rather than poor CO2.



This is one of the problems. CO2 is always a possibility when your plants arent growing. So KH might be overlooked as its very easy to show 1 example and say it cannot be KH. Well one example doesnt falsify the theory that the plant might not be growing as it should due to KH.

For example: If we take a Discus and ask the same question? Yes maybe you can find a couple of Discus surviving in very hard water. Does this mean most will do well in it? Many will dye in hard water or have a shortened life span but most will blame it on ammonia, temperature etc. This is whats happening with plants I think (not with discus so maybe a bad example).


----------



## Mr. Teapot (25 Mar 2015)

parotet said:


> I don't think so, just add more iron or in with other quelates...


I'm really out of my depth, and apologies to the scientists, but a quick google comes up with Fe-EDDHA is stable at pH levels as high a 11 but a lot of the EI dry salts sold only use Fe-EDTA which is stable at pH below 6. Above 6.5, nearly 50% of the iron is unavailable - also this chelate has a high affinity to calcium… all the usual caveats to the above as its just my amateur glances on google.\


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

Mr. Teapot said:


> I'm really out of my depth, and apologies to the scientists, but a quick google comes up with Fe-EDDHA is stable at pH levels as high a 11 but a lot of the EI dry salts sold only use Fe-EDTA which is stable at pH below 6. Above 6.5, nearly 50% of the iron is unavailable - also this chelate has a high affinity to calcium… all the usual caveats to the above as its just my amateur glances on google.\



I wouldnt discard this either. There are really few really high KH tanks that look very good so its really hard to find this out.

Although plants at high KH would show micronutrient defficiencies? and this is not often the case. More common are CO2 defficiency symptons?


----------



## dw1305 (25 Mar 2015)

Hi all,





Mr. Teapot said:


> Could very hard water make it difficult for iron and other nutrients to be available?


 Phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) will all be less available in hard, calcareous water.

Some of this relates to interference by Ca++ ions, but much of it is to do with insoluble compounds, like iron hydroxides and calcium phosphate complexes, being formed and taking the nutrient out of solution.

This is a particular problem with iron, which is why chelators like EDTA were originally developed for hydroponics.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Ghosty (25 Mar 2015)

I think some of you are poor minded, people come in here for advice not for you to spit bullshit at each other, everyone has differant opinions and experiance in a given subject, what some of you need to realise is what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for others, and that's more true when talking about water chemistry and experiance, we all have differant water and plants from differant places grown under differant lights with differant ferts, so the variables as to a problem are vast, and any given person can only speculate and tick of given things in order to come to a solution so please for some of the new people like myself, stop arguing and love each other's wisdom or you will not further your knowledge   Rant over

One love


----------



## Ghosty (25 Mar 2015)

To original poster

I have hard water and when I started out I found this artical useful
http://freshwateraquariumplants.com/aquariumwaterchemistry.html

Whether it's 100% accurate I have no idea, as Im im a newbie to planted tank I p try to follow a general guideline and fupigure things out as they arise

I do howerever have hard water, how hard I dont know

My bad to comment above, never checked dates, was pretty baked too

My apologies lol


----------



## Jose (25 Mar 2015)

Haha no worries Ghosty.


----------

