# Spezial N - Nitrogen Fertilizer



## Tobias Coring

Hi Dan and of course all other Ukaps Members,

Dan and I've talked about the nitrogen fertilizer with calciumnitrate, magnesiumnitrate, potassiumnitrate and urea in Hannover.

Here you can find the original thread about it at flowgrow (rubbish translated by google...)

http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.flowgrow.de/naehrstoffe/diskussion-ar-makro-spezial-n-mikro-spezial-hybrid-t12464.html&act=url

To sum it up for all of you.

In Germany many people have problems with accumulating potassium in their tanks. Many of us aquarium hobbyists have potassium test kits with photometers and they can measure the potassium level very accurate. When fertilizing only with KNO3 many have problems after a while. Potassium rises and rises and you do not fertilize enough nitrogen in comparison to the potassium. If potassium is way higher than nitrogen it *could* lead to some problems. Only some plants suffer from this, the majority will still grow nice. And of course this does not happen in every tank. Makes it alot more confusing .
Especially with Heminathus callitrichoides you can get problems. Leaves getting smaller and smaller and the plant isn't growing as it should. Other plants show similar signs.

Using the new nitrogen fertilizer solves this problems. Somehow it works even more intense than using only organic nitrogen additives like ammonium or only urea (where you do not add potassium either). I have never seen such a dramatic reaction of my plants using a new fertilizer. You can see reactions of the plants very fast. In my case I've seen intense deficiency of micronutrients. It was a matter of days till my rotala sp. green for example showed nearly white tips and some necrotic holes. I needed to add a lot more micronutrient fertilizer and some more potassium too. So I needed to add some more potassiumnitrate besides the new nitrogen fertilizer to my tanks but it really depends on your tank. Some need more potassium some not. Some need much more micronutrients some not. But overall all testers had the same very good results regarding growth, when finetuning their systems with the new nitrogen fertilizer.
I had a bigger test running with around 30 people and I've used it in my own 4 tanks of my showroom too with success. Especially HC is growing intense in those tanks where it wasn't growing at all before.

I have 1 Iwagumi with minilandscaperocks. There the growth of HC was always good. In two other tanks HC wasn't growing that well. In those it changed dramatically.

Here are pictures of the iwagumi:

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstellungen/iwagumi-aquasabi-showroom-120x45x45-t11164.html

The other 3 showroomtanks:

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstellungen/240-liter-pflanzenbecken-aquasabi-showroom-t12011.html

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstellungen/360-liter-aquasabi-showroom-t12010.html

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvors...bis-kleines-schaubecken-t9849-45.html#p110853

From some other guys using the fertilizer:

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstell ... 12854.html

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstell ... 13636.html

http://www.flowgrow.de/aquarienvorstell ... 11923.html


I'm producing ferts commercially (Aqua Rebell and sell them through my shop "Aquasabi") for people who do not want to work with all those chemicals.
But here is the recipe for the new nitrogen fertilizer, i've posted it at my community http://www.flowgrow.de too:

For one litre of water add :
25.9 g potassium nitrate
29.5 g calcium nitrate
17.6 g magnesium nitrate
5 grams of urea..... ( Your tankwater pH should be <7 to avoid problems with ammonia)
That will add 1 ppm NO3, 0,2 ppm K, 0,1 ppm Ca and 0,033 ppm Mg.
 Dosing 1 ml per 50 litre of  tank water.

Nearly all German aquascapers are using my fertilizers for their tanks. For example all people won at Hannover "The Art of the Planted Aquarium" (Place 1-4 and Place 8 ) have used my ferts. Especially the lush Hemianthus callitrichoides from the winner tank used that new nitrogen fertilizer. The 3rd place used the "Spezial N" too. 
Alot of other customers from me had very good results with that nitrogen fertilizer too.

Of course they all are using not only my macronutrient ferts but I think with micronutrient fertilizers you will never see such a drastic reaction when changing from one company's fert to the other than with this macronutrient fertilizer.
The majority of the German aquascapers are using my micronutirent fertilizer "Aqua Rebell Mikro Spezial Flowgrow". Organic chelated iron mix with irongluconate and ironcitrate. Some are just using my normal blend micro fert "Mikro Basic Eisenvolldünger" a fully stabilized micro nutrient mix like alot of other ferts on the market with EDTA, DTPA and HEEDTA)

Maybe some of you want to give it a try and mix it up and test it . Of course you are also welcome to buy it from me . But the recipe is just some lines above.

Best regards
Tobi
=> admin/owner of http://www.flowgrow.de and owner of the aquascaping shop http://www.aquasabi.de <=


----------



## George Farmer

Great stuff, Tobi!  Thanks for sharing.   

Loved your Nature Aquarium visit lecture too, by the way.


----------



## LondonDragon

Thanks for sharing Tobi, something to try with the next mixture


----------



## andyh

Some very nice looking tanks there!   

so where can we all the ingredients in the uk?


----------



## George Farmer

andyh said:
			
		

> Some very nice looking tanks there!
> 
> so where can we all the ingredients in the uk?


My first call would be our sponsors - Fluid Sensor and Aquarium Plant Food UK.


----------



## LondonDragon

Tobi said:
			
		

> for one liter water add :
> 
> 25,9 g potassiumnitrate
> 29,5 g calciumnitrate
> 17,6 g magnesiumnitrate
> 5 g urea



Quick search on ebay! Sponsors mainly sell Sulphate and not Nitrate.

KNO3 From sponsors or ebay
CA(NO3)2 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1kg-Calcium-Nitra ... 4cf10fb7c8
Mg(NO3)2  http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1Kg-Soluble-Grade ... 23086080e9
NH2CONH2   http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/200-g-Urea-Carbam ... 5190069003

Might give this a go for the next setup.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

please remember that the recipe uses one type of calciumnitrate and magnesiumnitrate. Of course you can use any kind of calcium- / magnesiumnitrate but you have consider the crystalwater in the formula regarding the weight of the salt and than need to calculate a little bit to achieve the added nutrients from the recipe.


I'm using:

Ca(NO3)2*4(H2O) - Calciumnitrate
Mg(NO3)2x6H2O - Magnesiumnitrate

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## andyh

Clive - what do you reckon to this?


----------



## ceg4048

Well, I mean, the world hasn't changed overnight and the thousands of people who are dosing high levels of K and are not having any problems would completely disagree that excess K is a problem.

JamesC dosed with urea and got great results. Urea and ammonium salts have about a 4X higher Nitrogen yield so this part is reasonable, however NH3/NH4 is 700X more toxic to fish than NO3 so one has to be careful. So adding 5 grams of urea is almost like adding 20 grams of KNO3. My tanks are run with 60ppm K+ and I have no problems with the 70+ species so this conclusion of K+ toxicity simply can't be true. There must be some other factor at play.

The fact that there are inconsistent results indicates that there is a misdiagnosis of why some people are having difficulty growing plants and what the fix actually is. If some people's tanks were low in calcium or low in magnesium then it would make sense that adding more of these would result in an improvement. If people weren't adding enough nitrate this would also fix the problem. If you don't add enough PO4 this also stifles N uptake, so there are many scenarios that can cause this illusion.

Since we don't know the details of the experiment or the condition of the various peoples tanks prior to the experiment it's not possible to validate the results.

Cheers,


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Clive,

you can read the facts of the tanks at flowgrow. And I only said that those potassium levels could be the problem but not that they are for every one. At all I can say, that urea and ammonium do not work as the nitrogen fert with the different compounds of nitrate. 
With only ammonium and urea you can fertilize without potassium but I never had such tremendous growth with any of those. 

I've been fertilizing my tanks with any routine out there. Doing E.I., doing PMDD doing whatever else... po4 limited etc, organic nitrogen in any form etc. All worked, but with some I did not achieve the best results with every plant. 
One culprit was for example with EI that many plants looked like nitrogen shortage and with just KNO3 it isn't working at all. I've added KNO3 till 80 ppm. In other tanks EI is doing great... but somehow inconsistent.
Take my Iwagumi and my "planted tank" for example. Same setup. Identical tanks (120x45x45) with same ligh fixture (6x54 watt dimmable - Easy Life Paradiso), CO2 in excess (KH4 solution in drop checker light green), good flow with a JBL e1500 on both tanks. PO4 always non limited, KNO3 dosage of 3-5 ppm NO3 per day, a little bit Seachem Equilibrium at water changes (50% per week). Both tanks have aquasoil as a substrate.
In the iwagumi the HC growth intense and in the other tank it's nearly dying. Since the new nitrogen fertilizer I do not have problems with HC in the other tank.

I do not tell that this fert is some magic water that will solve all your problems, but I know that it has solved some of our problems in German tanks. 

I for example need to fertilize at least 3 ppm Nitrate to my tanks daily. If I do it only with potassiumnitrate it isn't working in all tanks. For example in my tank with minilandscape rocks it's working . In others not. Especially with very soft tap water I do get problems with only KNO3.

And clive.... 

"Thousands of people are dosing high amounts of K" that's exactly what Tom Barr is telling. Maybe right... but please show me 1000 superb running tanks with excellent plant growth. Maybe some of those 1000 have it, but the majority will only have descent growth. And that's still not the point. I do not need and do not want to prove anything. I really do not need it . In my community really alot of people are using my ferts and they have excellent grwoth effect with this combination of nitrates. Besides I really do not see those thousands (even more than 1000) great looking tanks on the planted tank communities and I've been reading all those planted tank communities for some years now. Here and there you see a jewel but all together those aren't thousands and especially there aren't thousands who dose potassium in excess and have best lush plant growth. Especially the asians are very conservative regarding big amounts of macronutrients. Look in the ADA gallery for example . ADA's system uses big amounts of potassium too... I've not seen one tank with good growth of HC in the NA Gallery. But of course it could be anything else that leads to that specific growthproblems.

But Calcium and Magnesium are not the case for any of those growth problems. It's not the small quantities of calcium and magnesium which are doing the trick. Could not be... because than you would achieve the same results with just adding calcium and magnesium. No one in my community could ever solve problems with just adding calcium. German tap water always has enough calcium and magnesium in only rare cases is not enough.We've tried all of that too . Adding huge amounts of calcium and magnesium.
CO2 it isn't either. We are all using drop checkers with KH4 solution in my community and we all know that flow is essential in our tanks. Big quantity of people in my community use ADA aquasoil as a substrate too. And we are all not scared of PO4 .

But to sum it up:

Maybe potassium could have something to do with some problems. Fact is that potassium isn't used 1:1 with nitrogen. You will nearly always get a build up of potassium when only using KNO3. 
Against the potassium thing is standing that you cannot achieve the same results with urea and ammonium alone as a nitrogen source. You maybe get good growth but you will not see such intense reactions of your plants than with the other nitrogen fertilizer (positive or negative, depends what else you are dosing).

- PO4 can be limited but is not needed to be limited. I for myself have around 0,1-1,0 ppm PO4 in my tanks.
- CO2 is always 30+ ppm with good flow in the tank
- substrate ADA Aquasoil
- micronutrient fertilizer in needed quantity.


There were not any scientific experiments regarding that ferilizer. Only subjective tests from people of my community. I've sent out around 30 bottles to people who are willing to test it and report back. Different setups to see how that fert is doing and if they experience the same results as I was. Now around 100 more people are using the fertilizer since I've started selling it too.

Thing is... I'm not here for discussion and I'm not here for selling . I'm here for sharing ... I know that it works somehow . Feel free to try it too and report. That's why I've posted the recipe. I would be very interested if you get similar results.
More a practical approach than a scientific one. And really I yet do not know why this fert is working that well and intense. 

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

This is really interesting.  Dan was talking about this on the way home from Hannover and I was fascinted.  You certainly cannot deny the results.  I've never seen such healthy HC in my life, and I consider my own carpets over the years as quite nice.

I don't understand the science too much, but look forward to trying this new recipe out for myself at some point.  

Are you running any tanks at the moment, Clive?  Is it worth trying it out for yourself, I wonder?

Thanks again for contributing, Tobi - and Clive, of course!


----------



## Mark Evans

I must admit it's interesting to read about.

This comment is interesting...



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> I've not seen one tank with good growth of HC in the NA Gallery.



and one i agree with. I've seen the odd picture from NAG, with HC not looking very well at all.



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> but please show me 1000 superb running tanks with excellent plant growth. Maybe some of those 1000 have it, but the majority will only have descent growth



wouldn't that be down to user error though?... So many people bang on about ADA this and that, but I've seen full ADA systems 'fail'...it's not the product, but rather the person in control of the product. 

I believe its the same issue with EI, wrong dosing, can give problems also. 

Whether the product is enough to make me change is yet to be seen, but i'm always willing to try new things.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I don't think there is anything wrong with using calcium / magnesium nitrate, as well as potassium nitrate, as an approach.  I also agree with Clive it doesn't matter where that N (or any other element) comes from "_a nitrate is a nitrate is a nitrate_". The reason people use KNO3 is not that it has some wonderful unique properties, but that it is easily obtainable, soluble and supplies both K and N. Same with magnesium from MgSO4.7H2O cheap, easily obtainable and soluble. If you were starting from scratch and formulating your "perfect mix" then you might use potassium, magnesium and calcium nitrates. 

In the plant growing fraternity it is only us that are worried about ammonium nitrate (NH3NO3), and that is  because of the problems of its toxicity to animals, and nothing to do with plants themselves. Because I dose nutrients to a much lower level than you would with EI, at present I'm using some remaindered "citrus fruit liquid feed" (complete with ammonium nitrate) as my occasional nutrient source, although I wouldn't recommend this as a method.

The magnesium nitrate hexahydrate is cheap in the link, so I would use that (and ignore the Ca(NO3)2.4H2O), although it doesn't contain very much N (about 10% N & 9%Mg). If people want to make up the suggested recipe you can buy 25Kg of fertiliser grade "Calcinit" for about £15, rather than paying that for 500g of anhydrous.

All nitrate compound are hygroscopic, so unless you keep them in a desiccator they will end as the hydrated forms any way.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

of course a plant should not care which form of NO3 it's getting but somehow the plants react much different when using this mixture.

I'Ve added CaNO3 alone for some weeks without that results, I've too used NH4NO3 for a long time and many other nitrogen sources. And for organic nitrogen compounds I do see the problem with toxity too. Give a beginner a NH4 solution and he maybe will kill all his stock. 

At all I do not deny that most of the systems like EI, PMDD or whatever work, but sometimes you struggle with your own tank. It's not always an easy solution like "more CO2, more KNO3, more KH2PO4, more flow or more this and that". This would even be to easy and we all would have the best looking plant tanks ever.

So we need some tweaked options to test and I've seen that for example this particular nitrogen fertilizer works very good. You have to be carefull and observe your tank, because it could be that you see intense micro nutrient shortages or potassium deficiency. But than you can react and finetune your system till perfection. I too use KNO3 for my tanks beside the new nitrogen fertilizer but with only KNO3 I do have some kind of problems with certain plants. Most of my plants are doing very fine, but some look not as good as I like to.
And of course I cannot say that this nitrogen mixture will work in every tank. You need to finetune. Some may not but most ofthe users of this fertilizer had to change something regarding their usual fertilizing routine.

Give it a shot.

@Mark Evans
It could be.... that the system itself does not fail, the user is doing, but especially the EI is that damn easy to understand that most of the people cannot fail in the application or the CO2 delivery or the flow. Some will, but if you are an advanced hobbyist you will not. But on some tanks you still have some problems. This should not be, if it is that easy. 
From my point of view you need to find the right micronutrient mix which is working good regarding chelatation and your tapwater. (pH => kind of chelators used in the micro nutrient mix, availability of the micronutrients during the time). Filtration is also an essential part. Do not "overfilter" your tank if it's a planted tank. Your filter could grab the nitrogen before your plants are able to. Regarding iron the same.

Always look first for enough CO2 and nitrogen and after that keep in mind that you need PO4 and K too to grow lush plants.

And of course do not think that the way you are maintaining your tank can work on every other tank on the planet . The person that would invent something like that would be rich .

And last but not least.... look at your plants. They will tell you what they need .

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Mark Evans

Tobi said:
			
		

> @Mark Evans
> It could be.... that the system itself does not fail, the user is doing, but especially the EI is that damn easy to understand that most of the people cannot fail in the application or the CO2 delivery or the flow. Some will, but if you are an advanced hobbyist you will not. But on some tanks you still have some problems. This should not be, if it is that easy.
> From my point of view you need to find the right micronutrient mix which is working good regarding chelatation and your tapwater. (pH => kind of chelators used in the micro nutrient mix, availability of the micronutrients during the time). Filtration is also an essential part. Do not "overfilter" your tank if it's a planted tank. Your filter could grab the nitrogen before your plants are able to. Regarding iron the same.
> 
> Always look first for enough CO2 and nitrogen and after that keep in mind that you need PO4 and K too to grow lush plants.
> 
> And of course do not think that the way you are maintaining your tank can work on every other tank on the planet . The person that would invent something like that would be rich .
> 
> And last but not least.... look at your plants. They will tell you what they need .



Thanks mate   i'll bare all of that in mind


----------



## tyrophagus

Can overfiltering remove npk from the tank?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Tobi,
           As I mentioned before, the benefits of using urea are well documented. Discussions have occurred both here and at APC as noted in the thread Dosing with Ammonia and Urea

There is little doubt that urea is an effective Nitrogen source, as I said, primarily because it is converted externally by the enzyme Urease to form ammonium which is then consumed by the plant. Ammonium is much less expensive for the plant to pull Nitrogen from. In fact, in order for the plant to use NO3 it must first be converted to NH4 and then stripped of the Nitrogen. That is the science of why it works better than NO3. Unfortunately, NH4 is as toxic to plants as it is to everything else and so if there is excess, the plant converts it to NO3 for storage.

This has nothing to do with Potassium. So I'm not arguing about whether urea works better or not, I'm already convinced of it's effectiveness, but what I am saying is that you are misdiagnosing the causal factors for poor performance  as K+ toxicity, which is an illusion. If the problem in the tank was poor Nitrogen uptake and you fixed it with a product that has a 400% greater Nitrogen efficiency, well, of course it will improve performance, but it is only a coincidence that the K+ levels dropped, because you substituted a non K+ Nitrogen source. Plants do fine with a vast range of K+. So, increased performance is due to increased N, NOT due to reduced K+.

In high light tank, improved N uptake efficiency has a tremendous effect, however, it is also possible to improve performance by radically increasing PO4. That is one of the functions of PO4. So, there a re many ways of achieving the goal. If the tank has sensitive species, using urea is not necessarily the best way forward. For those who have a plant-only tank, and need to get growth going, say, to meet a competition deadline, urea is an excellent alternative because there is no toxicity concern.

In James' case, he was having difficulty growing Althernanthera and the addition of urea had a positive impact, so yes Nitrogen hungry species can benefit, but there is a risk, so people need to be made aware of the risks as well as the benefits and they do not need more illusions about K+. There are enough myths.

Here is what I absolutely LOVE about your recipe:
People are always going on and on about how high GH makes it difficult to dissolve CO2 and how plants need soft water and all of that. I try to explain the best I can that this is another illusion but I get the feeling that folks just don't believe me. Well, here you go. That recipe is almost like adding GH Booster (Calcium + Magnesium)so now I can point to your recipe as further evidence that GH is irrelevant!

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048

*Re:*



			
				tyrophagus said:
			
		

> Can overfiltering remove npk from the tank?


No, but high levels of biomedia house high levels of nitrifying bacteria which will compete with the plants for ammonium, oxidizing it to NO2=>NO3 theoretically lowering the effectiveness of ammonium dosing.

Cheers,


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Clive,

sorry mate... I think you are not reading what I'm typing.

It's not the Urea part in the fertilizer. As I've said in Germany alot of people are dosing with NH4 or Urea or with a commercially available fert containing no3nh4, kno3 and urea (which is available for SOME years now... ) and they all do not get the same results as with using this recipe. Maybe here only James made some tests but in Germany we are aware of the positive effects of organic nitrogen for quite some years (decades) .
So please read what I'm telling. It's not the less energetic uptake approach that is working here.
You are getting quite a little bit to theoretically here. Theory is one thing... praxis the other. I cannot explain it scientificly beacause I do not understand why this fertilizer works that good. A plant should not care which NO3 form it's getting. As you've told the less energetic part of using NH4 for a plant should be considered, but not in this case. We only have very little Urea in this solution.

And regarding the GH Booster part... please do the math . When adding 3 ppm daily of NO3 with this fertilizer you are only adding 2 ppm Ca and 0,7 ppm Mg per week. I do not see the big GH boosting part of this fertilizer. You are adding around 0,44°dGH per week with a higher (EI like) NO3 dosage. If you fertilize only around 1 ppm NO3 per day you will only get ~0,15 °dGH. Sorry ... I really do not see the essential GH boosting part of this fert.
50% water changes are always made by the majority of people in my community, so you will not get a build up of the GH too.

Besides... I did not test it in an experimental setup, and I know how to setup experimental tests from university..., but for example if someone using this fert is again dosing high amounts of K+ to a tank formely running great he will again get exact those problems and this is repeatable again and again. All other variables kept unlimited only changing this one variable.
If K+ gets much higher than NO3 you *can* (you do not need to) get problems. If it's the K+ itself or something else interfering with. I really do not care and could of course be some correlation. Botanists and plant experts from Germany (and I know quite some, all have the same idea regarding K+ and NO3). If K+ gets way higher than NO3 it could lead to problems. Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks. I for myself am not the "water testing" guy... I look at my plants. But many in my community do tests with very precise testkits. They were all measuring skyhigh K+ levels when adding just KNO3.
As I've said earlier... could all be correlations...


Anyway I always doubted those experts... always preaching the same lines like you. 
Look thousands are dosing high amounts of K+. they only use KNO3, they have no trouble... but if it's K+ or not... with this nitrogen fertilizer it's working much better and it's NOT the urea part I'm talking about. Than all this should have worked with only NH4 or Urea too and believe me I have heavily used those organic nitrogen sources in some tanks and many mates of me too.

Regarding filtration... of course a high stocked filter with sinterglass or other high biological filtermedia can go anaerobobic and use alot of nitrogen (nitrate too). You can measure it in many tanks (thousands I would say ).


Best regards
Tobi


----------



## nayr88

I really haven't  got anywhere for this information in my brain, understanding alternating current theory on my electricle course gives me a head-ache... haha and I'm still new to the planted tank scene, however I did pick up on the words 'better” and 'HC'  and that's good enough for me  is there a online German shop that we can buy this stuff from premade? I'm sure its cheaper to mix yourself but plenty of UK based suppliers also offer premixed EI 'starter kits' containing all you need and dosing instructions.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

in Germany it isn't allowed to sell oxidizing nitrates in powder form . Due to that I can only offer those stuff in liquid form. As mentioned earlier I do offer those stuff for people who do not want to mix it up by themself. I'm willing to give all people from Ukaps intersted in this fertilizer a 20% discount to test it out and compensate a little bit for the high shipping costs. Drop me a pm.

http://www.aquasabi.de/Fluessigduenger/Aqua-Rebell/Makro-Spezial:::43_60_120.html

It's the Spezial N fertilizer. 

http://www.aquasabi.de/Fluessigduenger/Aqua-Rebell/Makro-Spezial/Makro-Spezial-N-500-ml::1512.html

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks. I for myself am not the "water testing" guy... I look at my plants. But many in my community do tests with very precise testkits. They were all measuring skyhigh K+ levels when adding just KNO3. As I've said earlier... could all be correlations...



I'm not sure about hobbiest kits, but there is no problem with testing accurately for K. It is not like  PO4, NO3 or NH3. You can do this very accurately in a lab. just using simple flame photometry directly on the sample of tank water, you don't need an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, or to use colorimetry or to run a 4 day BOD etc.  



> in Germany it isn't allowed to sell oxidizing nitrates in powder form


 We have very tight H&S guidelines now as well. It makes me laugh, if I want to get 50g of any nitrate out of the locked chemical store, I need to sign and date a record sheet and unlock the internal "flam vault" where we keep all the oxidising agents. This time of year, outside the local farmer will have piled up 50 x 25kg sacks (or a 1 tonne "builder bag") of ammonium nitrate fertiliser prills ready for the spring sowing season, but every-body ignores this.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Darrel,

here in Germany many water test enthusiasts use this test kits (including photometer) 

http://www.wasserpantscher.at/

It's very cheap and those tests are very accurate.

With that you can measure K+ easily. A DIY K+ test was introduced at flowgrow.de some time ago:

http://www.flowgrow.de/bastelanleitunge ... 13809.html

Natriumtetraphenylborat is used for measuring K+. It's cheap and easy too. You cannot measure very accurately but will do it for the aquarium.

Regarding the nitrates I do not understand it as well. We had major house raids in a hobby chemical forum and one guy from flowgrow.de was also raided during that time because he bought some stuff for his ferts (KNO3) at a chemistry shop. They came to his workplace and asked around for "a person suspicious of bomb building and maybe with terroristic background". Absolutely insane.
Since that time it got very strict regarding regulations. But if you want to get 25 kg sacks of KNO3 you just need to go to the next farmer's shop and buy one bag KNO3. You will get it. But nearly no chance in getting it from a pharmacy or in a chemnistry shop. Near all shops do not want to have the trouble with all the paperwork needed for selling that stuff.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> here in Germany many water test enthusiasts use this test kits (including photometer)


Thank you Tobi, now that is very interesting, I never seen anything like it in the UK, although I know that the hobby is much more scientifically advanced in Europe, and especially Germany. Lots of things you take for granted (like Poret foam and HMF scaffolds) are difficult to source in the UK. 

Natriumtetraphenylborat - C24H20BNa? 

Cheers Darrel


----------



## tyrophagus

What do you think of this analyser Darrel?  http://www.hannainst.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=1694_1730_1759&products_id=1854


----------



## tyrophagus

Actually this photometer looks interesting - NPK, Mg, Ca.  ok its pricey @£450.  Are these accurate and useful?http://www.hannainst.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=1207_1263&products_id=1863


----------



## ceg4048

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi Clive,
> 
> sorry mate... I think you are not reading what I'm typing.
> 
> It's not the Urea part in the fertilizer. As I've said in Germany alot of people are dosing with NH4 or Urea or with a commercially available fert containing no3nh4, kno3 and urea (which is available for SOME years now... ) and they all do not get the same results as with using this recipe. Maybe here only James made some tests but in Germany we are aware of the positive effects of organic nitrogen for quite some years (decades) .
> So please read what I'm telling. It's not the less energetic uptake approach that is working here.
> You are getting quite a little bit to theoretically here. Theory is one thing... praxis the other. I cannot explain it scientificly beacause I do not understand why this fertilizer works that good. A plant should not care which NO3 form it's getting. As you've told the less energetic part of using NH4 for a plant should be considered, but not in this case. We only have very little Urea in this solution.


Well I'm pretty sure I've read what you've written. And although you think that you're only using a small amount of Urea, you may be interested in the theoretical analysis that in fact, that's actually a significant amount of Urea.

I'm pretty sure you wrote something like this:
_________________________________________
25,9 g KNO3  [61.3% NO3]
29,5 g Ca(NO3)2  [(anhydrous) 75.6% NO3]
17,6 g Mg(NO3)2  [(anhydrous) 83.6% NO3]
5 g urea (NH2)2CO 

That will add 1 ppm NO3, 0,2 ppm K, 0,1 ppm Ca and 0,033 ppm Mg using 1 ml per 50 l tankwater.
__________________________________________

If in fact you are using the anhydrous forms as noted above, then in actuality, you will be adding somewhere around 1.4 milligram of NH3 for every 50L by the time the Urea is converted. Even though only about 6% of the recipe is urea, 10% of the total N is contributed by the NH3 due to urea conversion.

But the story doesn't end there. It's likely that you are not using the anhydrous form, as these powders are generally sold as hydrated, meaning that the crystalline structure of the powder has water in it. So there would be less NO3 contribution per gram from Calcium Nitrate (Tetrahydrate) and Magnesium Nitrate (Hexahydrate) than what you calculated.

If that is true then that means approximately 20% of the total Nitrogen from that recipe is actually coming from your small amount of urea. You might have mentioned it before, but what happens when you delete the urea from the recipe?

This is why you should not just ignore theory just because practice is more convenient or more comfortable. Because what you think might be happening may be an illusion. The reason something works must make sense. There may be an unknown factor or some unknown synergy. If you haven't actually confirmed why something works or why it doesn't work then there is no point claiming a supposed reason as being fact.



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> And regarding the GH Booster part... please do the math . When adding 3 ppm daily of NO3 with this fertilizer you are only adding 2 ppm Ca and 0,7 ppm Mg per week. I do not see the big GH boosting part of this fertilizer. You are adding around 0,44°dGH per week with a higher (EI like) NO3 dosage. If you fertilize only around 1 ppm NO3 per day you will only get ~0,15 °dGH. Sorry ... I really do not see the essential GH boosting part of this fert.
> 50% water changes are always made by the majority of people in my community, so you will not get a build up of the GH too.


The amount of GH that you add is a function of the amount of the fertilizer you are adding.  GH Booster is added in exactly the same way. I didn't say the amount you were increasing was big. The hard water your tanks have are a big enough GH and this adds more. GH Booster works the same way. You can add a lot or a little to raise the GH. My point was that your tanks have hard water and yet are spectacular, therefore the claim that soft water is necessary is not correct in all cases.



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> Besides... I did not test it in an experimental setup, and I know how to setup experimental tests from university..., but for example if someone using this fert is again dosing high amounts of K+ to a tank formely running great he will again get exact those problems and this is repeatable again and again. All other variables kept unlimited only changing this one variable.
> If K+ gets much higher than NO3 you *can* (you do not need to) get problems. If it's the K+ itself or something else interfering with. I really do not care and could of course be some correlation.


Yes that's fine but I care. The reason I care is because it's very easy to see something work and then use any explanation for why it works. The fact that it works cannot validate the explanation.



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> Botanists and plant experts from Germany (and I know quite some, all have the same idea regarding K+ and NO3). If K+ gets way higher than NO3 it could lead to problems. Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks. I for myself am not the "water testing" guy... I look at my plants. But many in my community do tests with very precise testkits. They were all measuring skyhigh K+ levels when adding just KNO3.
> As I've said earlier... could all be correlations...


I'm not a test kit guy either, but I also don't have any problems with sky high K+ so again, before just assuming that K+ is a problem it would be better for these Botanists to actually do the experiments, to confirm their ideas, and to present the information for review.

In any case, it's difficult to get K+ content much higher than NO3 when only dosing KNO3 and KH2PO4 unless the tap water is high in K+. I suppose fish food might have K in it. Many Botanist draw the conclusion about aquatic plants from what they know to be true in terrestrial plants and these conclusions are often incorrect.

There are just too many inconsistencies to automatically draw this conclusion that K+ is problematic, just because someone suspects it. It may well turn out to be true but there is insufficient evidence.

Cheers,


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Clive,

thanks for your reply. But at all... I've dosed my tanks before with alot more Urea and I've dosed with alot more NH4 fertilizer too. Adding just 3-5 ppm of NO3 coming from Urea or NH4. There wasn't that growth. And I've started with low Urea and NH4 dosages and have risen the level higher and higher to see at what level the growth would be better and better.

So Urea would not do the magic in this case. And many of my fellow hobbyists here in Germany can see the same in their tanks. Just adding Urea or NH4 isn't the trick.

And I'm not using the anhydrous forms of the salts and do not know why you assume that. I've clearly written that I'm using the hydrates and others should be aware of that when buying the salts. I'm using calcium-tetrahydrate and magnesium-hexahydrate. When we assume that all Urea will be mineralized (which will not happen, but to see it more clearly) we dose 0,2 ppm NO3 from Urea coming when adding 1 ml to 50 l tank water. 0,8 ppm NO3 are coming from calciumnitrate, magnesiumnitrate and potassiumnitrate.
So you are right... about 20% of the NO3 is coming from the Urea part. But if you just toss the Urea out of the recipe it will still be better than using just KNO3. The Urea of course gives an additional nitrogen source. And when just using Urea it will be better than just using KNO3 but put those two together and it will somehow be even better.

In Germany it is very normal to dose NH4 or Urea for example. For us it's no secret approach that maybe one guy here and there tries and the plant geeks chitchat about it in one thread. Especially in the German "normal" aquarium scene it's common to use nh4hco3 for nitrogen fertilizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker's_ammonia

You can get that stuff in nearly all supermarkets (especially during winter time). Many want to DIY and go cheap ... that's why it's so common. The majority has good results with it. But somehow not as good as this recipe. I've fertilized too a long time with NH4HCO3.

And I do not have hard water in my tanks. I do have in ONE tank, my others have very soft water (KH ~1°dKH and 4-5° dGH).

Regarding your conclusion about K+ and NO3 uptake you are totally wrong. Please get good test kits. Alot of people test K+ here in Germany very precise. We've always read that K+ would not accumulate, but this is not true. You have more an uptake of 5 parts NO3 to 1 part K and not around 1:1. If you dose only with KNO3 and KH2PO4 you will end up with skyhigh K+ levels. No matter what.
And besides we in Germany do have nearly nothing of K+ in our tapwater (1-3 ppm is normal). 

I think you have to get out of your books and get into some real testing . I wasn't believing it myself that K+ will accumulate just with KNO3 but many hobbyists here showed me how wrong I was. So we learn and consider that in our new approaches.



> Yes that's fine but I care. The reason I care is because it's very easy to see something work and then use any explanation for why it works. The fact that it works cannot validate the explanation.



That's right, but due to that I've told before that when you change ONE variable in the same setup you will again see the exact SAME results. And not in only one tank.
During the time we chitchat about this I think around 100+ persons are using this new fertilizer. They all have been using KNO3 before, some (~40%) have used Urea or NH4 or a combination of NH4, Urea and KNO3 before. But all have not had this growth.
That's the funny part . And the other commercially available nitrogen fertilizer which adds:    0,20 ppm Urea,  0,07 ppm NH4, 1,36 ppm NO3, 0,4 ppm K+ and 0,1 ppm Mg with 1 ml to 50 l does not work the same. Both recipes seem to be very similar. But he uses no magnesiumnitrate nor calciumnitrate. He just uses magnesiumsufate, nh4no3, urea and kno3.

And at all ... I've not said that K+ is the problem. I said K+ can possibly lead to problems. But I've also said that other nitrogen ferts with less K+ do not work the same as this fert. So I for myself am not sure that K+ is the problematic part. I know for sure that K+ accumulates when dosing just KNO3. Even in the best growing tanks.
And I know that when adding alot more K2SO4 to my tanks when using this fertilizer I'll again have some grow problems. No other variables changed again.
I wanted to falsify those people nagging about K+ be the problem, just added 30 ppm of K+ and *bam* ... same problems like before with just KNO3. 
Nitrates, PO4, CO2, micronutrients all unlimited during that time. Maybe even K+ was never limited in that tank... but after adding much more the problems occured again.

And when talking about botanists I mean those who are big into waterplants. Those who write books about waterplants and water chemnistry and whatever else. We have one meeting for example here in Göttingen, Germany, where some waterplant enthusiasts come together once a year and meet in the botanic garden of Göttingen. Claus Christensen from tropica for example is also attending this meeting regularly. 
For example some people coming or came to that meeting are Dr. Gerd Kassebeer (chemnist, invented the Dupla water tests for example), Hans-Georg Kramer (very well known waterplant enthusiast in Germany), Dr. Helmut Mühlberg (very well known botanist), Dr. Andreas Kremser (chemnist and also producer of waterplantfertilizer) and I can go on and on...
Very intersting speeches you can hear there and besides that you can chitchat after the presentations with a beer in a pub with them.

But ... I've made some preperations that some of you in the UK can test that fert and report back . So stay tuned. Even if I cannot say exactly why this fert works that well, I can show it repeatedly and many users of that fertilizer report back the same.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Darrel,

it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_tetraphenylborate.

@all interested in that photmeter with testkits
I can ask Anton Gabriel (he is the inventer of the cheap photometer) if it's possible to send out testkits+photometer to the UK. Of course you can ask him too. He is a fellow hobbyist too with much knowledge in this sector.
The testkit with photometet and NO3, PO4, K+, Fe and chloride tests cost 153 €. If you consider the accuracy of those tests it's really cheap.

I do not own one by myself, because I'm not the testing guy, but many in my community flowgrow.de own this thing and are very happy about it. Especially regarding K+ this tests opened our eyes. But of course you can use other testkits for K+ to see those false ideas we had in the past about the K+ uptake.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> What do you think of this analyser Darrel? http://www.hannainst.co.uk/product_info ... ts_id=1854


 I'm not sure at all they are a reputable company and I'm sure it will be a good bit of kit. In the lab. we have expensive analytical kit, but my suspicion would be that this meter wouldn't have the fine scale readings that we would want. The problem with kit designed for hydroponics is that they are working with solutions that are typically  c. x10 more concentrated than we are. According to the advert it will go down to 0ppm and has a low range for P etc., but you could try contacting the suppliers and asking what the low range is for each parameter it measures. In any case it would almost certainly be a lot more accurate than the test kits. 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_tetraphenylborate.


Thanks Tobi, that's what I thought and it would make sense. I'm not quite as sceptical as Clive, and I am really interested in your "magic mix", I don't think that it is impossible that there might be some synergistic effect of the varied nitrogen sources, although I'd need to be convinced.

But I still can't quite see why the K+ ions should build up to very high levels, they are entirely soluble so there isn't any buffering effect. Even if you have a substrate with a very high CEC, K+ ions will be preferentially exchanged for nearly all other cations:
Multivalent ions on the right displace the monovalent ions to the left: +>Al+++>Ca++>Mg++>K+>NH4+>Na+>Li+)

I can't see why the 50% EI water change doesn't keep removing 1/2 of any excess, add this to "luxury absorption" by the plants and surely it must take a very long time for K levels to build up?

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048

Tobi said:
			
		

> And I do not have hard water in my tanks. I do have in ONE tank, my others have very soft water (KH ~1°dKH and 4-5° dGH).


Well didn't you write in a previous post how hard the water in Germany was? That was the basis for my original argument that in a soft water tank, it's entirely possible to have either an Mg or Ca shortfall and therefore it would make sense that adding your Ca/Mg recipe would help. That may explain why some people, as you have said, do not see much of an improvement when using this mix. It's entirely possible that those using water already rich in Ca/Mg do not see improvements over their existing EI dosing.



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> Regarding your conclusion about K+ and NO3 uptake you are totally wrong. Please get good test kits.


 Yeah, right. I'm sure Germany has really good test kits and that the test kits always give accurate readings. 



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> I think you have to get out of your books and get into some real testing . I wasn't believing it myself that K+ will accumulate just with KNO3 but many hobbyists here showed me how wrong I was. So we learn and consider that in our new approaches.


Mate, listen to me. Getting out of books is never a good idea. You still have to explain WHY I don't have problems even with sky high K+.

Here is the result of my testing of sky high K+:
Do you see the plant (P. stelleta) in the foreground? It's over 20 centimeters across.





I can confirm that neither Echinodorous nor L. aromatica have a problem with sky high K+.





I also confirm, based on analysis and testing, that Althernanthera has no issues with sky high K+:





Here is a tank in the very early stages of development 4 months after first planting. Analysis confirms HC has absolutely no issues with sky high K+:










HC actually became a nuisance, requiring too much trimming. It was replaced with P. helferi, which also became a nuisance. P. helferi demonstrated absolutely no inhibitions due to sky high K+:





Now, these are not aquascaping contest worthy. The majority of people who dose high K+ have no reasons for telling you about it. They simply don't see it as an issue. Of the thousands of folks dosing high K+, very few of these users are worthy scapers, so you only hear about an issue if someone has a problem.

Far from "getting out of books" i suggest that you read more books until you find a reason why some have difficulties while others don't. No matter how much K I add I never have a problem. The growth rates in the tank simply accelerate. Therefore, based on these results the problem cannot be due to K+ alone but may involve some other factor.

So whether you think that K+ is a problem or think that K+ may lead to a problem, this is not corroborated in my tank. That's all I'm saying. I don't dose urea or any ammonia product. Strictly KNO3/KH2PO4. Whether the uptake rate of K+ low, medium or high, none of that can explain why neither I nor Mark Evans have problems. 

So we'll just have to agree to disagree, and actually I'm not even sure what we disagree about. I think there is enough information for folks to make up their own minds that if they have difficulty using standard high K+ EI dosing, then they can try the low K+ recipe which I'm absolutely sure will give excellent performance. No doubt whatsoever.  

Cheers,


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Darrel,

I do not get it either regarding the upbuild with 50% waterchanges. When we at flowgrow.de tell somebody the principles of a planted tank we always tell the people to do 50% water changes per week.
Of course somebody will always be out there only changing once a month, but those aren't the ones who have tested the K+ concentrations.

It could be possible that due to the uptake of the plants and the input of K+ you will settle down at a very high K+ level. Those "hobby photometer K+ testkit" does not measure very high levels. I think it stops around 30 or 40 ppm. After that it's guessing. But even after a 50% water change those people were still be able to max their testkits. NO3 was always very low under those circumstances. The problem was too, that those people suffered some kind of nitrogen shortage even if they dosed very high amounts of KNO3 (EI like amounts). NO3 was always not rising as wished. In Germany we also do big dosages of certain nutrients like NO3 or for example PO4 after the water change, that the plants will get enough from the start of the "new week". 
Even if adding 20+ ppm NO3 at once those people had problems with their plants .... looking a little bit like NO3 shortage or some other weird problem.

Hi Clive,



> Well didn't you write in a previous post how hard the water in Germany was?



ehm... no?! I've said that I have one Iwagumi tank with hard water (coming from the minilandscape rocks) and that the growth in that tank is very nice even when adding solely KNO3.



> that in a soft water tank, it's entirely possible to have either an Mg or Ca shortfall and therefore it would make sense that adding your Ca/Mg recipe would help.



Would make sense, but than it should be no problem to remove those shortages with epsom salt and gypsum (MgSO4x7H2O and CaSO4). But adding those even to a higher GH does not change anything. That's the problematic part.



> Getting out of books is never a good idea. You still have to explain WHY I don't have problems even with sky high K+



I really do not need to tell you why you had no problems... really I don't because I even do not know your K+ levels at that time . And as I've said in all previous posts. I do not doubt that higher K+ levels can work. I just said higher K+ levels *could * lead to problems under *some* situations. I do not generalize anything. And believe me... I've read some books and papers about nutrient uptake at my university library etc. But they only give hints and the theoretical background. They do not give real answers for us people in the aquarium hobby for every problem we have. Would be awesome if reading a book can solve all our problems. Really...
And would be awesome too, if there would be one system which fits all. Just put this and that in and enjoy your tank. I would love it... but it's not the easy thing, that the user always fails and the system not. There are always some individual circumstances that will maybe jeopardize your luck with the system. And somehow the nitrogen uptake of plants is somehow a little bit more tricky.

When looking at so many different tanks I've learned one thing. One is not like the other and all systems will fail in one particular tank. No matter what you do, you will not have success. That is why it's so great that there are so many approaches out there. One will fit your tank and you can enjoy the hobby. 



> Therefore, based on these results the problem cannot be due to K+ alone but may involve some other factor.



As I've said earlier too... K+ maybe even not the problem. I just know that switching the fert works very good in many tanks. And all those tanks used mainly KNO3 before. Some used Urea, NH4 KNO3 combinations too.

I can only repeat myself. Lights were good, CO2 & PO4 was good, micronutrients good and often substrate very good (with aquasoil) and even than switching to the other fert was working nicely.

To make a cut . We can discuss all night about this and that. And even with all the discussion we are very near to each other regarding our opinion. I do not doubt any system. It can work, but as told before... some still struggle and they need some more options. I had great looking tanks with skyhigh K+ too . Thus I'm sceptical regarding the whole K+ thing too. So it's only a hunch, but as explained earlier. Ca, Mg and only organic nitrogen could not be the solution to why it's working.










I think it's more that some of you need to test it by themself and make their own decision. . I'm excited about it.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Tobi is sending me some fert samples so I will report back soon...

The results will be anecdotal as I don't have control tanks etc. but I think I'm experienced enough with plants to notice any changes in growth etc.


----------



## a1Matt

First off, I appreciate you posting up your new recipe Tobi. I think it is great that you are making the effort to share this information with hobbyists outside of your social circle. Thank you.

Clive and Tobi's lively discussion touched on Tobi's recipe helping those with soft water because of it's GH raising properties. I think anyone interested in experimenting with ferts could look to this area. I have found improvements in my plants by adding equal amounts of Mg and Ca to my tank (epsom salts and gypsum). Ca is not in any of the EI recipes I have read, so I wonder if some people are suffering from a shortage.  I also wonder if simply adding higher levels of Mg and Ca will help some people. (I won't go into the details of how GH is mad eup, possible imbalances, etc. as Clive has covered that plenty of times before to more depth and far more eloquently than I could).

Just some more (plant)food for thought.  
Hopefully it has not strayed too far offtopic from Tobi's ferts.


----------



## George Farmer

Good points, Matt.   

I've often wondered about Mg and Ca qtys. / ratios and their effects on plant growth. 

The hard vs. soft water still really interests me.

I have to say the best plant growth I've ever had was when I used 50:50 RO/tap (giving me KH 3.5, GH 7).  Of course, there's so many other factors at play, simply correlating softer water with better plant growth is silly! 

I'm not a scientist by any stretch but I really do believe there's so much more to growing plants than simply bombarding them with too much of everything.  'Regular' EI works, no doubt, but perhaps it can be improved upon, as Tobi has alluded to.

I think different plants have different preferences in different conditions, and like Tobi says, there is no one simple method for all due to the almost infinite variables at play.

Sorry I can't back that up with any hard evidence - only lots of different set-up with lots of different plants!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> I also wonder if simply adding higher levels of Mg and Ca will help some people


 It is possible, but it is unlikely that calcium is limiting unless you have very soft water, you are more likely to get magnesium / calcium problems when the ratio of Ca:Mg rise above about 30:1, at this point calcium interferes with the uptake of magnesium in the majority of plants. 


> I think different plants have different preferences in different conditions, and like Tobi says, there is no one simple method for all due to the almost infinite variables at play.


I'm not sure about in fresh water, but in the soil it is possible to have soils which are both alkaline, and calcium poor, in the UK you get them on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall where they are derived from the volcanic rock "Serpentine". You get very strange arrangements of plants with calcicoles like _Filipendula vulgaris_ (Drop-wort) that you normally see on the Chalk downs growing with heathland calcifuges like _Calluna vulgaris_ (Ling heather). Some plants are naturally confined to the base rich, but calcium poor soils of the Lizard, Cornish Heath  _Erica vagans_ being the most famous example. <http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003305.pdf>

I'm really interested in the outcome of this, I definitely think Tobi's mix will work very well, finding out  whether it provides the synergistic effect will be trickier, but I don't think you can just discount it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## George Farmer

Thanks, Darrell.  

I have some questions for you clever folk, please. 

At the moment I'm using TPN+ exclusively, so the N is purely in the form of Ammonia Nitrate.  If I want high light, high CO2 etc. then the danger is too much toxic NH3/4 to deal with such high growth without risking deficiencies.

However, I do wonder how quickly my oversized filter and aquarium itself converts NH3/4 > NO2 > NO3.  

I aways dose first thing in the morning; 4 to 6hrs before the photoperiod starts.  

I assume that in the absence of plant growth, the filter and aquarium bacteria quickly converts the NH3/4 to NO3?

I wonder if dosing during the photoperiod would improve matters at all, as the plants will perhaps utitilise the NH3/4 before its converted to NO3.

Cheers,
George


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi George,

one thing in Germany we do also is that we do not "overfilter" our planted tanks. Many of us plant folks do not use hightech biofilter media (for example sinterglass etc.) for our planted tanks. We just use our tank itself as a filter. If you stock your tank "normally" and not like a fish tank it is not neccessary at all to use those hightech bio filter media. You often get into more trouble when using those filtermedia regarding NO3 or iron/po4.

Esepcially when someone has problems in our community flowgrow.de we look what he has in his canister filter. Often those people already dose alot of NO3 or fe to their tanks without luck. They still cannot get any higher no3 / fe readings from their tests and the plants show bad signs of nitrogen or fe deficiency.

When removing some (or all) of those hightech biofiltermedia problems often resolve by itself. Most use blue sponge filters in the canister. Some even to not use those and go total filterless, just using the canister for flow or just use a powerhead.

Even in those setups dosing NH4 or Urea is no problem at all. You need to have very hard water with nearly none co2 supply and a pH of >7 to have big problems with NH4/urea. In a planted tank in most cases this will not be the case.

Regarding your question.
When having a mild acid water like a pH of <7 you should not have big problems with adding NH4. Nearly all NH4 should be converted in a matter of hours to NO3. Never showing any buildup of NO2. If you can see a spike of NO2 you maybe have to reconsider a better filtration. But as told before... with "overfilterd" tanks... you should not see those spikes.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Mark Evans

I usually get bored of reading stuff like this, but I've got to say, i'm really intrigued by whats being said here.  8)


----------



## George Farmer

Hi Toby

Thanks for the info.

That's very interesting and I have observed that many very good aquascapes are not overfiltered.

We tend to take filtration and circulation very seriously over here.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11056

What is your opinion of circulation levels?  Do any of the Germans use powerheads etc. to improve circulation?  Many UK 'scapers use Koralia type powerheads to improve CO2 delivery etc.

What's the problem with NO3, PO4 and Fe with overfiltration?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi George,

some of us use Koralias too. They are very nice, especially the nanos. Flow is very essential and I think Tom Barr made it clear with his tests and his CO2 probe how essential flow is.
When having a near empty canister you get alot more flow out of it. That's the reason why only some use additional powerheads. But you can always improve the situation with a little bit more flow.

Normally biofiltermedia should only convert NH4 to NO2 and than to NO3. But when a filter is working "better and better" those hightechfiltermedia tend to consume nitrates too. They go anaerobic inside the filtermedia and tend to suck all NO3 up too. This of course can happen, but often isn't a problem. Eheim, Sera etc. are marketing their filtermedia especially regarding those effects of consuming nitrates, due to the reason that most of the aquarium industry is still thinking of the "bad nitrates".
You can often compensate those circumstances with adding a little bit more ferts. So the majority will be fine. 
Some people in Germany like to dose less ferts (=> cheaper  even when dosing from powders   ) and for them it's a conveniant way to use less fertilizer and having the same effects regarding effectiveness. The nitrifying bacteria settle down on everything in your tank and due to that you can think of a big filter when having a planted aquarium. 
The people who want not to go totally filterless use blue medium to big sized sponge filter in their canisters. I think the majority does. Only some go totally filterless. JBL for example has good filtermedia delivered with their canisters. Just blue sponge and a little bit ceramic at the bottom. No hightech filtermedia like Ehfimech, Sinterglass or whatever else.

Regarding Fe and PO4 you can observe (and measure) and explain that Fe can react with PO4 and this both elements 
tend to precipitate in the filter. If you measure the filter mud who will get ridiculous high amounts of Fe and PO4. With a little bit less filtrations you can reduce the amounts of Fe and PO4 need to be dosed.

Of course this whole "filter less approach" is widely discussed in Germany too. Their are many sceptics and I belief that the normal EI recipe works very good with big filtration. With nearly no filtration you will end up without enough nitrogen but with ALOT PO4 and way to high Fe amounts in your tank. With "normal filtration" everything is fine.
So this "less filtration" approach is also another option but has to be considered when adding nutrients. Many things will not be the same as when compared to a person "normally" filtering. It has upside but also downside effects .
With very good chelated micronutrientmixtures less filtration can be a problem too. As plants cannot uptake the whole complex of micronutrient + chelate they maybe get the needed micronutrient to late. You often have to dose a little bit more of those heavily stabilized micronutrient mixtures. With higher filterload your filter will split up the chelate + micronutrient complex leaving the micronutrients available for a short period before going into the "filter nirvana".
When using "organic stabilized" or weak stabilzed mixtures like flourish or my mixture "Flowgrow" you get way better results with the less filter approach and can dose only a small amount of those ferts. The plants will get enough Fe and micronutrients under those circumstances.

I think many of you will have those topics at APC in mind where people used to dose HIGH amounts of Seachem Iron and Flourish and the plants always loved it. Those guys were of course filtering "normally". You can reduce those high amounts of fertilzer when reducing your filtermedia.


Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Thanks, Tobi.

So for those that still overfilter, as long as you are adding plenty of nutrients every day, like most of us with hi-energy tanks, then these issues of NO3, PO4/Fe should be fine.  And the NO3 issue in particular will be effectively addressed by Spezial-N perhaps...?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

with good amounts of ferts you can compensate regarding the filter issue. I do not think that it needs to be a problem.

The Spezial N can help, but regardless of the filtration or we will see . In my forum flowgrow.de I do not have many people filtering heavily. That's why I'm so excited to see how the Spezial-N is doing in another community with other principles. 
I know for sure that even with good filtration you can benefit of a little bit more nitrogen coming from the Spezial N. Some have reported that already back, but the majority isn't filtering alot at flowgrow.de ... only some.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Yes, it will be very interesting!

Thanks, Tobi.  You've brought some refreshing discussions to UKAPS.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi George,

glad to hear. But as Clive said.... I do not want to get any new "myths" going around. Especially regarding K+. I do not know if the Spezial N is doing that great because of the K+ "issue". When reading some parts of the thread it could lead to maybe  false conclusions. I do not want a thread similar to the ones at APC where a big K+ bashing was introduced  once and big discussions came up. Parts of this here reminded me of those threads. The main intention was that there is some other nitrogen fert out, that you maybe should try and observe and reply back .

I just know that K+ accumulates in our tanks here in Germany when only fertilizing with KNO3. If this has also something todo with filtering less, I do not know. So... let's stay tuned how the Spezial N is doing in the UK .

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah, I totally agree with this. The focus should be on N uptake efficiency and not on K+ bashing. If subsequent data proves/disproves an issue with K+, then fair enough. It was not long ago we had to endure NO3 bashing, then later, PO4 bashing, remember? So tiresome.  

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> They go anaerobic inside the filtermedia


I've done some work with different filter media, this wasn't specifically aquarium related, but whilst we were doing the waste water work. One thing that became very clear was that often the theoretical bio-filtration potential of the media was entirely that "theoretical", because the "water" was quickly de-oxygenated in the filter. You could potentially get the conversion of NO3 to N2 (the plenum effect), but usually what happened was that de-oxygenated water with its load of ammonia and /or nitrite passed into the later stages of the bio-filter, often with fairly disastrous results. 

In our case we were dealing with "water" with a huge BOD, but even then when the planted biofilter was running at optimum capacity, it had the potential to fully clean up some fairly nasty landfill leachate. 

This is also why I like the PPI10 filter foams,  HMF filters and ceramic rings as bio-filter material, they don't tend to clog and inhibit water flow. It is also the reason why wet and dry trickle filters are so effective, the thin films of moving water are very effective at gas exchange, meaning that all the filtration media is utilised. Because of this a relatively small filter of the deBruyn type <http://www.aka.org/UserFiles/File/debruyn_filter.pdf> has a large filtration potential.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Mark Evans

I've been dosing this for about 2 or 3 days now, and i can say, without bias, that i've noticed a change in plant health in my nano. 

Somehow, my greens are much better. The acicularis seems to like it a lot.

so far i'm impressed. lets see what it's like 6 weeks down the road.


----------



## daniel19831123

Just out out curiosity, how is this special K differ in terms of it's chemical structure to other nitrate source such as for example urea in urine? Urine as far as I know has low potassium and high urea level.


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> you can read the facts of the tanks at flowgrow. And I only said that those potassium levels could be the problem but not that they are for every one. One culprit was for example with EI that many plants looked like nitrogen shortage and with just KNO3 it isn't working at all. I've added KNO3 till 80 ppm. In other tanks EI is doing great... but somehow inconsistent.Take my Iwagumi and my "planted tank" for example. Same setup. Identical tanks (120x45x45) with same ligh fixture (6x54 watt dimmable - Easy Life Paradiso), CO2 in excess (KH4 solution in drop checker light green), good flow with a JBL e1500 on both tanks. PO4 always non limited, KNO3 dosage of 3-5 ppm NO3 per day, a little bit Seachem Equilibrium at water changes (50% per week). Both tanks have aquasoil as a substrate.
> In the iwagumi the HC growth intense and in the other tank it's nearly dying. Since the new nitrogen fertilizer I do not have problems with HC in the other tank.
> 
> I for example need to fertilize at least 3 ppm Nitrate to my tanks daily. If I do it only with potassiumnitrate it isn't working in all tanks. For example in my tank with minilandscape rocks it's working . In others not. Especially with very soft tap water I do get problems with only KNO3.
> 
> "Thousands of people are dosing high amounts of K" that's exactly what Tom Barr is telling. Maybe right... but please show me 1000 superb running tanks with excellent plant growth. Maybe some of those 1000 have it, but the majority will only have descent growth.
> 
> And that's still not the point. I do not need and do not want to prove anything. I really do not need it . In my community really alot of people are using my ferts and they have excellent grwoth effect with this combination of nitrates.



Either they are a problem or they are not, *independent *of other factors/dependencies.
All it takes is for some folks to dose X amount of K+ ppm and not have an issue to falsify the myths surrounding K+.
Erik's winning scape from the AGA contest had well over 100ppm + of K+,  in the US, *many used very high K+ for about 5-6 years till I suggested we are not really getting much out of it *. 20-30ppm is plenty, but adding more never did anyone harm.

Do you use reference standard CO2 solutions for measuring CO2? How would you make one?
There are ways, but aquarist do not do them.


As I suggested and mention, I have a very precise method of measuring CO2 and calibrating it, Drop checkers are very very poor in terms of accuracy and do not offer useful data. I have tanks that would suggest good CO2 and that they are even, but no 2 aquariums are ever the the same. Measuring them with the CO2 meter, I ended up with 25-35 for the one with issues and the one without was 50ppm.
I raised the CO2 to 50ppm and the issues went away.
_pH and DC's suggested the tanks where equal however._

Same with various species of algae.
Dosing and PAR and brand and age of the bulbs are the same.
These are EASY to adjust and make certain they are the same.
But CO2?
Now there's an issue.

It can move around much faster than any nutrient might and at much larger absolute range.
Now that said, I actually have FISH in my tanks, not 10 tiny tetras.
I feed them well, I have several species breeding in my tanks.
So I do agree there is something to a balanced diet of NH4 and NO3.
You would expect more growth and better plant health. Those that do not, then adding some Urea or other source is an option. I agree with that.


So if as you say, everything is truly equal and without good verification of CO2.......why is it that some tanks do work(which would = your controls) and why might other tanks not? Methods methods and methods. 
If you cannot verify CO2 in any meaningful way, that is an unknown and you cannot verify it by simply guessing and assuming it to be correct.

Drop checkers are lousy.

You have 3 colors, green, blue and yellow and plenty of color blind people in between.
Change is slow and imprecise. Yet you place a large emphasis on something downstream, nutrients and critical measurement there.

Why is CO2 given a free pass but not nutrients?
Why photometers ans calibrated solutions for NO3, but not CO2?
KH is only part of it.
My own HC:




180-cm worth

There are an infinite no# of ways to screw a tank up or get less than max growth and health. 
But there are far fewer ways to make the method work correctly. A failure on the aquarist part does not imply there is an issue with the method. *As with EI, EVERY method has detractors that say the method caused algae or some other issue, but it is not the methods that failed, it is the user and their assumptions, methods etc.*

Maybe is was CO2?
Maybe they had a lot more light and not enough CO2 to mange things well?
Without testing those with the same critique, how can you say?

You cannot honesty.
I could not either.

All I can do is falsify a specific precise question. I cannot tet every possible alternative and possible cause. But if an aquarist can produce excellent growth under those conditions for K+, then the other factors are independent.
Now you have a "control" reference tank, whereas the other tank with issues using same dosing etc......is not a control. This other tank has confounding factors.

Then we let it go, reject it and move on to the next likely culprit.
IME, nutrients are VERY easy, CO2 is the hardest by far and light has come a long way in the last 2-4 years with PAR meters being used.

Correlation it does not prove that it is KNO3 that causes it.
Unlike an example where NO3 dosing is higher, and no effect is noted .......falsifies that hypothesis.
One says what something cannot be, the other just states there is a relationship, it implies nothing, there is a huge difference here in the logic and thinking as well as the certainty. 
This has nothing to do with belief/desire/semantics.



> Besides I really do not see those thousands (even more than 1000) great looking tanks on the planted tank communities and I've been reading all those planted tank communities for some years now. Here and there you see a jewel but all together those aren't thousands and especially there aren't thousands who dose potassium in excess and have best lush plant growth. Especially the asians are very conservative regarding big amounts of macronutrients. Look in the ADA gallery for example . ADA's system uses big amounts of potassium too... I've not seen one tank with good growth of HC in the NA Gallery. But of course it could be anything else that leads to that specific growthproblems.
> 
> But Calcium and Magnesium are not the case for any of those growth problems. It's not the small quantities of calcium and magnesium which are doing the trick. Could not be... because than you would achieve the same results with just adding calcium and magnesium. No one in my community could ever solve problems with just adding calcium. German tap water always has enough calcium and magnesium in only rare cases is not enough.We've tried all of that too . Adding huge amounts of calcium and magnesium.



I've done it just dandy, 180 cm worth, folks have dosed high K+ specifically for about 1995-2002/2003 or so.
Refer to the APD. I suggested that the K+ in KNO3 was more than enough to meet the demands, no K2SO4 was needed/required. But during that time, add more K+ was everyone's advice.
This was not my idea initially, it was Steve Dixon's.
I just follow up on several of his observations.

Adding 15 years of this and all the various hobbyists, 1000's is certainly the case, *but a method and scaping ability do not imply anything about the other either.* You can be a good grower and terrible scaper, or a good scaper and bad grower, as is very often the case IME. Same is true for photographers.
Many are very good with a camera and also good aquarist, but not always.

I wish you'd nag the USA people about this, they think Ca++ deficiencies are everywhere, under your bed like the boogie man monsters.  They love this myth in the USA.

CO2 is really your Achilles heel here(like the Ca++ myth in the USA folks).
Unfortunately this is no way to measure it critically for hobbyists.
This is a huge unknown for the hobby.

These Drop checker things have been off by 30-40ppm when I test using a CO2 meter calibrated using standard reference solutions with mix CO2 gas % solutions I made in sealed containers. The results blew my mind, I thought I had much less CO2 than I did, and yet fish are fine and breeding etc. Doing it a huge PITA for the calibrations. But then you know and have a standard curve for CO2. Then the meter is calibrated and you can test ad measure things like mad. :idea:  I have also critically measured O2 at the same time. Those 2 together offer interesting insight.



> CO2 it isn't either. We are all using drop checkers with KH4 solution in my community and we all know that flow is essential in our tanks. Big quantity of people in my community use ADA aquasoil as a substrate too. And we are all not scared of PO4 . Maybe potassium could have something to do with some problems. Fact is that potassium isn't used 1:1 with nitrogen. You will nearly always get a build up of potassium when only using KNO3.



CO2 is not?
Have you confirmed this using a known reference?
Not if you use a drop checker and no one I've met bothers with a pH probe and a referenced pure KH solution together in situ. You are assuming an unknown is actually a known.

Be more careful here, CO2 is a lot more tricky than this.

Agreed about plant usage and K+ ratios, but we *know* that excess K does not independently cause the issues.
I write this article some years ago, maybe 8 years ago concerning K+ from KNO3 and the ratios:

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.ph ... o-analysis

I think it was about 2002 or so when I posted it around other forums. Unless 75% of the N is from fish waste, you'd likely never run limiting with K+ from KNO3 dosing.

So yes, you are right about it being excess. But most all things are.



> Against the potassium thing is standing that you cannot achieve the same results with urea and ammonium alone as a nitrogen source. You maybe get good growth but you will not see such intense reactions of your plants than with the other nitrogen fertilizer (positive or negative, depends what else you are dosing).
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the sole source of N should not be either or, but rather, BOTH NH4 and NO3.
> 
> I prefer fish for NH4 and KNO3 for NO3.
> If you use the urea blend with Ca/Mg/K based cations and NO3, that's fine, but it does not imply the reasons speculated. See if you can prove and falsify your own hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - PO4 can be limited but is not needed to be limited. I for myself have around 0,1-1,0 ppm PO4 in my tanks.
> - CO2 is always 30+ ppm with good flow in the tank
> - substrate ADA Aquasoil
> - micronutrient fertilizer in needed quantity.
> There were not any scientific experiments regarding that ferilizer. Only subjective tests from people of my community. I've sent out around 30 bottles to people who are willing to test it and report back. Different setups to see how that fert is doing and if they experience the same results as I was. Now around 100 more people are using the fertilizer since I've started selling it too.
> 
> Thing is... I'm not here for discussion and I'm not here for selling . I'm here for sharing ... I know that it works somehow . Feel free to try it too and report. That's why I've posted the recipe. I would be very interested if you get similar results.
> More a practical approach than a scientific one. And really I yet do not know why this fert is working that well and intense.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with sharing or selling. I think there's no doubt of intent with you Tobi    .
Folks try it and if anyone fails, is it fair to imply that it is bad and causes algae?
The same approach is used above for EI :idea: 
Or ADA?
No, that is not fair, anymore than saying it about ADA or EI

Clearly these methods work.
The REAL question is WHY they work.
Folks can mess up any method, we all know that.
Therefore, that should not be the standard to judge the methods by, rather, the successes.
Only then do you have a *reference* that can be tested against.
This helps the hobby grow and learn, not just speculate(too much of that already).
Plants all grow for the same reasons, the only change is the rates of growth.

Cheers


----------



## plantbrain

I think overall, the product you suggets is good and wise for some folks that lack fish.
It might be best for people that dose daily vs 2-3 x a week also.

NH4=> NO3 is regulated by O2, same for Excel, easy carbo, these and Dechlorinatoers are all reducers and consume O2.
So good O2 data is interesting and applicable to fish.

O2 is also a good comparative measure of growth rates of aquatic plants.

Filterless tanks seem to lack one thing: a large fish population :idea: 

I think the correct chelator for each tap KH is wise for Fe.
That should resolve issues there with PO4.


Cheers.

Tom



			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> Normally biofiltermedia should only convert NH4 to NO2 and than to NO3. But when a filter is working "better and better" those hightechfiltermedia tend to consume nitrates too. They go anaerobic inside the filtermedia and tend to suck all NO3 up too. This of course can happen, but often isn't a problem. Eheim, Sera etc. are marketing their filtermedia especially regarding those effects of consuming nitrates, due to the reason that most of the aquarium industry is still thinking of the "bad nitrates".
> You can often compensate those circumstances with adding a little bit more ferts. So the majority will be fine.
> Some people in Germany like to dose less ferts (=> cheaper  even when dosing from powders   ) and for them it's a conveniant way to use less fertilizer and having the same effects regarding effectiveness. The nitrifying bacteria settle down on everything in your tank and due to that you can think of a big filter when having a planted aquarium.
> The people who want not to go totally filterless use blue medium to big sized sponge filter in their canisters. I think the majority does. Only some go totally filterless. JBL for example has good filtermedia delivered with their canisters. Just blue sponge and a little bit ceramic at the bottom. No hightech filtermedia like Ehfimech, Sinterglass or whatever else.
> 
> Regarding Fe and PO4 you can observe (and measure) and explain that Fe can react with PO4 and this both elements
> tend to precipitate in the filter. If you measure the filter mud who will get ridiculous high amounts of Fe and PO4. With a little bit less filtrations you can reduce the amounts of Fe and PO4 need to be dosed.
> 
> Of course this whole "filter less approach" is widely discussed in Germany too. Their are many sceptics and I belief that the normal EI recipe works very good with big filtration. With nearly no filtration you will end up without enough nitrogen but with ALOT PO4 and way to high Fe amounts in your tank. With "normal filtration" everything is fine.
> So this "less filtration" approach is also another option but has to be considered when adding nutrients. Many things will not be the same as when compared to a person "normally" filtering. It has upside but also downside effects .
> With very good chelated micronutrientmixtures less filtration can be a problem too. As plants cannot uptake the whole complex of micronutrient + chelate they maybe get the needed micronutrient to late. You often have to dose a little bit more of those heavily stabilized micronutrient mixtures. With higher filterload your filter will split up the chelate + micronutrient complex leaving the micronutrients available for a short period before going into the "filter nirvana".
> When using "organic stabilized" or weak stabilzed mixtures like flourish or my mixture "Flowgrow" you get way better results with the less filter approach and can dose only a small amount of those ferts. The plants will get enough Fe and micronutrients under those circumstances.
> 
> I think many of you will have those topics at APC in mind where people used to dose HIGH amounts of Seachem Iron and Flourish and the plants always loved it. Those guys were of course filtering "normally". You can reduce those high amounts of fertilzer when reducing your filtermedia.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi


----------



## plantbrain

I think Tobi's suggestion of a mix with some NH4, NO3 and Ca, Mg sources for NO3 is good in the same way as the GH booster hits several issues at once also: K+, SO4, Mg and Ca.

While many taps waters are high GH, often low Mg is an issue is some, but not all.
This alone can give very different results(Mg dosing) between users.
Likewise, with NH4+ NO3 dosing, you typically will find a better balance of plant growth and hit more preferences.
This is the same idea as both act synergistically vs each acting alone, say like with water column dosing vs sediment dosing, together they complement one another.

While this might target multiple issues folks have in their tanks, it does not state what those issues are.
So if you do not care about that, then it's a decent idea.

But if you care about why and not spreading myths as many are so prone to do, then  
But GH booster was a response to SeaChem Equilibrium, and DIY cheap version. Same here I think with Tropica's macro ferts solutions and folks adding some Urea.
Adding a little bit to cover the bases for more user error is the management goal here, and adding more is not going to do any harm as far as Ca, Mg.........or K+ as far as I can tell also.

What I do not understand is how many are getting such high K+ residuals in their tanks. It should not rise that high. Most tanks where we tested K+ where in the 20-40ppm ranges. I do not think tanks get reduced growth till you get well under 10ppm of K+, so the range where K+ is limiting is much less than any suggestions(ADA included).


----------



## ceg4048

plantbrain said:
			
		

> What I do not understand is how many are getting such high K+ residuals in their tanks. It should not rise that high. Most tanks where we tested K+ where in the 20-40ppm ranges. I do not think tanks get reduced growth till you get well under 10ppm of K+, so the range where K+ is limiting is much less than any suggestions(ADA included).


Tom,
     The reports of high K+ seem to be based on the results of test kits. Fundamentally, I don't trust any hobby grade test kit, but I've never used K+ kits so I cannot say whether these kits are any more trustworthy than say a NO3 or PO4 kit, which we know to exhibit poor reliability. Reviewing the discussion, it seems to have also been assumed that the uptake rate for K+ is significantly less than that of NO3 when dosing KNO3. It's not clear whether this is an assumption based on reported terrestrial plant uptake rates, or whether this was a conclusion based on the test kit readings.

The thing is that no one has suggested the mechanism by which excessive K+ would have an inhibitory effect. It seems to be an assumption strictly based on the performance of the mix compared to a strictly KNO3 dosing, i.e. "since we get improved results using less KNO3 then there might be some threshold K+ value beyond which causes issues". 

I agree that there is more likely to be a synergistic effect of the combination of NH4 from the urea, the NO3, as well as the Ca and Mg.  Since there is little difference in performance between K+ values throughout the range of medium to high, it would be an easy assumption to make.

Cheers,


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

i will not go into the details again guys . You can read everything in the posts before.
Especially regarding Clive I do not get you man. Have you read any sentence from my former posts? Is my English that bad?

The "assumptions" of the K+ uptake are based on the photmetric test kit readings. Those are test kits which are calibrated against reference solutions and are very precise. 

There have been tests with changing only one variable => KNO3 and the other mix. All other variables kept unlimited during that time. 

I have never said that any system fails ... i have only told that some people have problems with certain systems and maybe need other options.

And... I was never here for big discussions, just for sharing. Feel free to test the mix and make your own decision. Wheter it's related to K+ or some other synergetic effect.

But please remember that when using this mix that you maybe need to adjust the micronutrient dosage and/or the K+ dosage. There are some tanks that need more K+ than others. Especially when using the Spezial N for a longer time it maybe neccessary to dose a little bit more K+.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## nayr88

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> I've been dosing this for about 2 or 3 days now, and i can say, without bias, that i've noticed a change in plant health in my nano.
> 
> Somehow, my greens are much better. The acicularis seems to like it a lot.
> 
> so far i'm impressed. lets see what it's like 6 weeks down the road.



That's a nice little nano, what are your dosing regime? Are you only dosing Spazial N and Flowgrow?

Would really appreciate any info mate.


----------



## Mark Evans

I thought i'd share my 2 week experience with these ferts. 

I've done a fair few tanks over the last 4 years or so, and most have been pretty healthy. 

I can be the first to poo poo new ideas especially when it comes to things like ferts. I'm an EI snob, but i must say there's a marked improvement of my plant health. 

Maybe it could be the combination of both higher N and a strong trace mix, i'm not sure, but things are without doubt, on the up. 

Acicualris loves the stuff, much greener
Liliaeospsis, is healthier than normal

Everything, in general, is much much healthier.i dont know what else to say   ....meh, change the techy smilie for a...  

Nothing has changed in my regime except ferts. I'll be using these from now on. 

(pulls shield over head and awaits the bullet storm)


----------



## LondonDragon

Sounds good Mark, I will be trying these in my next scape also  what quantities you dosing in your tank? Whats the recommended dosage?


----------



## Tom

I had been putting 1ml in my 10 liter for the last week or so, and I did notice a slight acceleration with the HC growth. I did also change my water source around the same time though....


----------



## andyh

Mark Evans said:
			
		

> I've been dosing this for about 2 or 3 days now, and i can say, without bias, that i've noticed a change in plant health in my nano.
> 
> Somehow, my greens are much better. The acicularis seems to like it a lot.
> 
> so far i'm impressed. lets see what it's like 6 weeks down the road.



so which product/products you dosing? I have lost track :?


----------



## Tom

Probably Spezial N along with normal ferts, or at least that's what I'm doing. I also have Flowgrow.


----------



## George Farmer

These are the best ferts I've ever used (I've tried ADA, Dennerle, Tropica, Easy Life, Seachem, dry chemicals etc.)  

Greener plants, faster growth, less algae on rocks.  I've been using them for around 1 month now.  My hairgrass is trying to grow over the rocks - I didn't experience that with 6 months of growth using TPN+.

I've no idea why and I don't understand the science, but I've enough experience with growing plants to notice a marked improvement in plant health and growth rates when all other variables are relatively constant.

I'm dosing 6ml Spezial N and 6ml Flowgrow Mikro per day in my 60 litre.  I dose lots because I have an inert substrate.  I don't need extra P as my tap is loaded with it.

My only issue is that I can't get my Ludwigia arcuata to go red despite high light and good CO2!


----------



## andyh

George Farmer said:
			
		

> These are the best ferts I've ever used (I've tried ADA, Dennerle, Tropica, Easy Life, Seachem, dry chemicals etc.)
> 
> Greener plants, faster growth, less algae on rocks.  I've been using them for around 1 month now.  My hairgrass is trying to grow over the rocks - I didn't experience that with 6 months of growth using TPN+.
> 
> I've no idea why and I don't understand the science, but I've enough experience with growing plants to notice a marked improvement in plant health and growth rates when all other variables are relatively constant.
> 
> I'm dosing 6ml Spezial N and 6ml Flowgrow Mikro per day in my 60 litre.  I dose lots because I have an inert substrate.  I don't need extra P as my tap is loaded with it.
> 
> My only issue is that I can't get my Ludwigia arcuata to go red despite high light and good CO2!



sold! 

where can i get them?


----------



## Nelson

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I'm dosing 6ml Spezial N and 6ml Flowgrow Mikro per day in my 60 litre.


so you dose these both on the same day and not on alternate days ?.


----------



## George Farmer

nelson said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dosing 6ml Spezial N and 6ml Flowgrow Mikro per day in my 60 litre.
> 
> 
> 
> so you dose these both on the same day and not on alternate days ?.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm not sure if it's necessary to dose both together but it makes sense for all nutrients to be available together at the same time.

Andy - http://www.aquasabi.de/Fertilisers/Aqua ... 43_60.html


----------



## foxfish

andyh said:
			
		

> sold!
> 
> where can i get them?


Yeah come on George you cant tell us they are the best around & not expect all your mates to share in your success - where do we get them?


----------



## George Farmer

foxfish said:
			
		

> andyh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sold!
> 
> where can i get them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah come on George you cant tell us they are the best around & not expect all your mates to share in your success - where do we get them?
Click to expand...

Tobi sent me some samples that have been distributed amongst friends and UKAPS members.  Unfortunately I don't have any left to share.

You can buy them from Tobi's shop, linked in my previous post...


----------



## GHNelson

Hi George
Any chance of some pictures before and after?
hoggie


----------



## Mark Evans

I personally cant do before and after, and i'm not as competent as George at growing, but here's my nano, running on these ferts...

Acicularis just loves them.

Excuse the dirty drop checker


----------



## George Farmer

hogan53 said:
			
		

> Hi George
> Any chance of some pictures before and after?
> hoggie


Hi hoggie

You can see the 'before' in my "Evolution Scree" journal.  I will update it soon with some new shots, hopefully this weekend.


----------



## plantbrain

George Farmer said:
			
		

> These are the best ferts I've ever used (I've tried ADA, Dennerle, Tropica, Easy Life, Seachem, dry chemicals etc.)
> 
> Greener plants, faster growth, less algae on rocks.  I've been using them for around 1 month now.  My hairgrass is trying to grow over the rocks - I didn't experience that with 6 months of growth using TPN+.
> 
> I've no idea why and I don't understand the science, but I've enough experience with growing plants to notice a marked improvement in plant health and growth rates when all other variables are relatively constant.
> 
> I'm dosing 6ml Spezial N and 6ml Flowgrow Mikro per day in my 60 litre.  I dose lots because I have an inert substrate.  I don't need extra P as my tap is loaded with it.
> 
> My only issue is that I can't get my Ludwigia arcuata to go red despite high light and good CO2!



If you use other sediments, I think you will see more improvement than just with this alone.
Until you do, you really cannot say much :idea:


----------



## George Farmer

plantbrain said:
			
		

> If you use other sediments, I think you will see more improvement than just with this alone.
> Until you do, you really cannot say much :idea:


I don't think I understand.

If I'm growing some of the healthiest plants I've ever grown in sand alone, with these ferts, surely that's worth saying?

Have you considered trying them, Tom?


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> i will not go into the details again guys . You can read everything in the posts before.
> Especially regarding Clive I do not get you man. Have you read any sentence from my former posts? Is my English that bad?



HAHA  


Plenty of folks have long dosed poorly and not enough traces, if they try something, they often pay more attention and keep up on things more. This has little to do with the dosing, make up etc and is much more the general care and watching of the aquarist. Still, for anyone that is limiting something in their own tank, whether it's K+, traces, etc...NH4.............all you have to do is add more of that one thing and see the effects. Nutrients are VERY easy to test and manipulate. So folks can certain explore once they have a nice growth and a nice tank to begin with. Only when you have a nice tank to start with, can you have any sense of a control tank to test any treatment against, a semi poorly growign tank suddenly comes into full bloom.......maybe it was 5 different things that helped?

Hard to say or be sure.

But if you have a nice tank to start with, then do a treatment, and are left with the same tank after........then the treatment really had no effect. There is a big difference between the two cases above.


> I have never said that any system fails ... i have only told that some people have problems with certain systems and maybe need other options.



True........

I think why they fail and how to answer the question as to why something works, does not......... is much more important and useful knowledge than mere mechanistic "do this to cure your problem if A, B, C and D do not work".
Do you agree?

I do the same with GH booster.....maybe it was the CaSO4? Maybe it was the K2SO4? Maybe it was the MgSO4?
Maybe it was a general increase in TDS?

I cannot say either :silent: 
Still, when added, it rules out a few things.
Same here.

From there, more questions can be explored.
That's useful.



> And... I was never here for big discussions, just for sharing. Feel free to test the mix and make your own decision. Wheter it's related to K+ or some other synergetic effect.
> 
> But please remember that when using this mix that you maybe need to adjust the micronutrient dosage and/or the K+ dosage. There are some tanks that need more K+ than others. Especially when using the Spezial N for a longer time it maybe neccessary to dose a little bit more K+.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



True, we can always adjust any mix. Most do. ADA, you, me anyone pretty much, we all adjust and stweak.
Maybe it's something else, eg, they where limiting things to begin with, and now are paying more attention to the tank(human bais factors, of which, there are a great many), maybe it's a nicer balance between NH4 and NO3, maybe they did not add a complete dosing routine, hard to say.

Problem is, many try something and then make the leap and say far more than the evidence/results suggest, without 1st seeing if the alternatives are true as well.  Or if they can falsify them.......

Or we might also target the sediment also, and add a non limiting supply of ferts there as well for the roots.
Such methods, dosing etc..........all have one thing in common..........they provide excess nutrients so the plants are not limited. This hits a much larger target than say PMDD which limited PO4 and assume there was ample amounts in the tap, fish waste etc. Soils are easy also.  It might be just there are few folks using soil + water column ferts together in Europe?? Many that use soil often avoid the water column, thinking that it is the cause of all their woes........Many water column folks have issues using soils, so it's hard to make that leap and get folsk to do both methods. I believe that would cure more so called issues for plant growth, then folks could focus more on good CO2 management.

So.......have you considered a specific soil to be made?
Many do the MTS, worm casting etc here, or they go with commercial brands etc (ADA mostly in the USA, Up Aqua is popular in Oz, Asia etc). It would seem to be a wise NEXT move in development for fert routine.


----------



## plantbrain

George Farmer said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you use other sediments, I think you will see more improvement than just with this alone.
> Until you do, you really cannot say much :idea:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I understand.
> 
> If I'm growing some of the healthiest plants I've ever grown in sand alone, with these ferts, surely that's worth saying?
> 
> Have you considered trying them, Tom?
Click to expand...


Is it the ferts or is the concentration as well?
Eg, is it the Fe additions?

For many folks goals, plain sand is a useful thing aesthetically, and many have trouble making the leap to soil, commercial etc or DIY........so adding some more Traces would stand to reason and a source of NH4 if..........there are few fish and you do not feed much etc.

My question for you and Tobi is really what in soils might be available that is typically not in the water column, and how might you use that information to make a better water column dosing for plain old sands? Mostly traces and NH4, which are very available in soils all the time whereas in the water column, much less so typically.
Ponder that.

It might give you both some ideas and some methods to try further down the road or modifications individually. 
I do agree it is worth saying and it is has helped some improve growth. Hair grass is particularly responsive to trace mixes also and seems to need more than other species IME in plain sand. However, in rich soil, this effect is not strong at all. Chelator type might also help.

I do not seek answers, I seek questions.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Tom,

short answer regarding the soil. Nearly 80% of all people tried those ferts have ADA Aquasoil Amazonia in their tanks and they do have a big difference in growth. I also only use ADA Amazonia in all my tanks.
And those people have not used any limited approach. Many do "EI" like dosing. You should know... you have posted some EI threads at flowgrow.de too.

I for myself see that nitrogen fertilizer as some kind of fert for the advanced users. It's not a nitrogen fert that will cure everything. You have to observe your tank and see if you run into a micronutrient shortage or a potassium deficiency. But when you have a closer look at your plants you will see how to react.  

At all I can only say, that nearly all people using this nitrogen combination of the Spezial N had increased growth. Some needed to tweak the fert dosage after a while (see 2 lines above) and added some more KNO3 besides the Spezial N or some K2SO4 or more micronutrients.

And under those people using that new fert there was a good amount of people already using nitrogen ferts with urea & nh4 + kno3.

At all I'm just curious how those ferts are doing. That's why I've sent out alot of samples of those ferts. There will be people with problems with those ferts. I've seen that at flowgrow.de too. People who did not tweak the system after introducing the new ferts. But with some knowledge of what your plants need you will get good results.

I'm very happy about the first positive replies. 

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Hi George and Mark
Thats a fine tank and excellent colour as well.
I would like to put my 2 pennies worth, in my opinion plants don't need substrate or sediment as Tom would put it, but it helps.
What about hydroponics? You will see the best plants around using this method.
Also I can prove that some plants don't need gravel/sand/soil/sediment.
Unplanted Crypts



Look here a earlier photo  viewtopic.php?f=17&t=14159
hoggie


----------



## Fred Dulley

Could you dose the Calcium Nitrate Anhydrous with dosing spoons? Would it be roughly the same as dosing KNO3?
For example -

80-150 litre tank
Monday
1/4 tsp KNO3
1/16 tsp KH2PO4

So, on the next macro dosing day (Wednesday), could you add 1/4 tsp of Ca(NO3)2, instead of the KNO3?

This thread has been a really good read, thanks all.


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi Tom,
> 
> short answer regarding the soil. Nearly 80% of all people tried those ferts have ADA Aquasoil Amazonia in their tanks and they do have a big difference in growth. I also only use ADA Amazonia in all my tanks.
> And those people have not used any limited approach. Many do "EI" like dosing. You should know... you have posted some EI threads at flowgrow.de too.



Thanks for the response. 



> I for myself see that nitrogen fertilizer as some kind of fert for the advanced users. It's not a nitrogen fert that will cure everything. You have to observe your tank and see if you run into a micronutrient shortage or a potassium deficiency. But when you have a closer look at your plants you will see how to react.



Well this is a bit like saying it works, but we do not know why it works.
This does not offer any insight or rule out much.

If I sent out placebos and told folks to observe carefully, many would report back "improvements"
When I do any change to an aquarium, I watch it carefully.
Maybe I never noticed the growth prior?

If there is any issue with Micros or K+, that is easy to add plenty of. That makes the issue independent of those confounding factors in your hypothesis.

I do not believe that there is some very narrow fert range requirement.
It is only when there are other confounding factors that such observed correlations occur.
I have yet to see any evidence otherwise. NH4 vs NO3 perhaps a small amount, even here it is not dramatic.



> At all I can only say, that nearly all people using this nitrogen combination of the Spezial N had increased growth. Some needed to tweak the fert dosage after a while (see 2 lines above) and added some more KNO3 besides the Spezial N or some K2SO4 or more micronutrients.



Had to or just "decided" to?
So how do you isolate and quantify "better". 
I'm asking so you can think about this and answer it yourself.
Is it specific to certain plant species?

I'm very skeptical of "cause" because for the simple fact it is much more difficult to demonstrate, whereas falsifying something is much easier most times.

One method you can use to show "better" is close, accurate O2 measurements.
This is often used as a proxy for growth growth.
But........as plants biomass grow, so does the increase in O2.
So the times between treatments needs to be small. Even if I did not add the Special N, I'd still have higher O2 unless I trimmed the plants. So there's some assumptions there.
Still, you should see a noted difference if the growth is actually increased, eg more carbon is fixed.

A good O2 meter would do the trick.



> And under those people using that new fert there was a good amount of people already using nitrogen ferts with urea & nh4 + kno3. At all I'm just curious how those ferts are doing. That's why I've sent out alot of samples of those ferts. There will be people with problems with those ferts. I've seen that at flowgrow.de too. People who did not tweak the system after introducing the new ferts. But with some knowledge of what your plants need you will get good results.
> 
> I'm very happy about the first positive replies.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



Well, there are folks with ferts in EVERY method suggested, that does not distract from the positive aspects. Clearly the method works, why it works and how well to relative to say KNO3 alone is another matter.
The sediment seems to be independent, so that seems like something we could rule out.

"It works, I do not know why, but it does, trust me".
You need more information than this alone.


----------



## plantbrain

I re read the original post and the ingredients listing.

One thing that is evident is a lot more Mg.....
This is a macro nutrient.
I use MgSO4 in large amounts, as do many using GH booster. I also add some to CMS.

"Especially with Heminathus callitrichoides you can get problems. Leaves getting smaller and smaller and the plant isn't growing as it should. Other plants show similar signs."

I have never had any issues with this weed.




2 meters worth.

So what other plant species?

This might not have a thing to do at all with KNO3 or K+ and everything to do with Mg.
Why? SF folks also have very very soft GH water, we found a long time ago, adding plenty of GH from SeaChem Equilibrium helped a great deal.  Was it Ca? Maybe, but not likely. The water was absent of Mg in general, but rich in Ca, even if low.

K+? No correlations found, but there was plenty.
Erik's tank was well over 100+ppm. I'm in the 30-60ppm routinely.

Stop dosing the special N and try bumping up the Mg alone with the old routines.
Test it and then you can rule this variable out, or tentatively accept it.
This way you can isolate the issue. I do NOT think there is evidence that K+ at higher and higher concentrations is the cause for any of the so called plant issues. Hence my skepticism.

Much like GH booster, this is a similar approach to N by adding both Ca and Mg, you are not sure which of the two might be doing it, but I can say it is not K+ excess causing the issue, that's just correlation alone. You need to test this individually before you can say much more as to "why" you have the results you do.

If you add 10 things to pot and get better results, it does not imply all 10 are the cause, it might be only 1 thing.
Many hobbyist run lean on Mg, even with high GH, it might e mostly Ca++, not any Mg++.
So my basic question is have you ruled out Mg in the tanks where improvements where noted???


----------



## Tom

This would make sense as to why my last tank went so badly using the household water softener (it stripping Mg and Ca, replacing it with Na) and my HC really really struggled. Moss seemed fairly OK but not at it's best. I had completely overlooked Mg as being important until now. Maybe it's time to try some MgSO4 in my Mini M. The HC growth has become a lot smaller in some areas since flooding the tank. I am dosing Spezial N which as we're saying does contain Mg, but maybe not enough? P is the other thing I can see I may be lacking.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> Could you dose the Calcium Nitrate Anhydrous with dosing spoons? Would it be roughly the same as dosing KNO3?


 Not really, you need to find the percentage of NO3 in both compounds. The easiest option would be to use the dosing calculator from _"James Planted Tank"_ or similar site:
<http://www.jsctech.co.uk/theplantedtank/calculator.htm>.

You can work out the same values for any compound. You need to work out the RMM (Relative Molecular Mass) for KNO3 and Ca(NO3)2, to find the percentage of NO3 in both compounds. You need have a periodic table (or Wikipedia) to get the RAM of each element.

K = 39.1, Ca = 40.1, O=16, H=1, N=14.

KNO3        = 39 + 14 + (3 x 16) = 101,  N= 14/101 = 14% N or 62% NO3 (NO3 is 14/62 = 22.5% N)
Ca(NO3)2  = 40 + ((14 + 48)*2) = 164, N = (14+14) = 28/164 = 17% N

So in this case not much difference. But you also have to take into account that unless the calcium nitrate anhydrous has been stored in a desiccator? it will have gained water and now will now actually be the tetrahydrate form Ca(NO3)2.4H2O. I won't do all the addition again, but the RMM is 268.

Ca(NO3)2.4H2O = 268, 28/268 = 10.5% N.

So still not much difference in this particular case whether the calcium nitrate is anhydrous or the tetrahydrate.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I think Tom may well be right about the added magnesium, and I'm sure Fred is correct about his softener 





> This would make sense as to why my last tank went so badly using the household water softener (it stripping Mg and Ca, replacing it with Na) and my HC really really struggled.


 I'm still not discounting a synergistic effect in Tobi's "Spezial N", but I'm not sure how you could measure it without a really large replicated experimental trial. There are such a lot of variables that may effect growth, even in tanks that are "identical" in all parameters other than the nutrient source.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Fred Dulley

Thanks for working that out for me, Darrel. Much appreciated.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I've got a simple Excel spread-sheet, with the periodic table and a worked example - "calcium chloride hexahydrate". It has some simple formulae to allow you work work out ppm of an element supplied for a weight of compound and dilution, and the reverse calculation starting with the ppm and dilution you want and giving you the weight of compound you require. 

PM me your email address if you want a copy. I've got a few other ones written in Java etc. but I haven't got access to a server to put them onto, other than our VLE (which linked into our student data-base and not accessible).

cheers Darrel


----------



## George Farmer

dw1305 said:
			
		

> I've got a simple Excel spread-sheet, with the periodic table and a worked example - "calcium chloride hexahydrate". It has some simple formulae to allow you work work out ppm of an element supplied for a weight of compound and dilution, and the reverse calculation starting with the ppm and dilution you want and giving you the weight of compound you require.
> 
> PM me your email address if you want a copy.


That's brilliant.  Thanks, Darrell.


----------



## omen

I've been trying these ferts for the last week, and I must admit they certainly have improved the colouration of my plants, in particular my blyxa, which was previously a very light green nad looked washed out, has now gone a very vivid green. I'm surprised to see such dramatic changes in such a short period.

I was looking some advise however... 
I'm dosing 1ml per 10litres of tank water of this fert, and on the same day, dosing trace (made from 10g trace+ and 250ml water) at 1ml per 20L tank water. 
Should I only be dosing the trace every other day? And will it make any odds if I dose both mixes at the same time? 
So far I have been dosing both each day, however not sure if this is perhaps excessive micros, and in fact, if that would have any impact anyhow.

Conor


----------



## Fred Dulley

Couldn't these vivid green colours just be due to the increase in the magnesium? After all, it is magnesium that gives chorophyll it's green colouration (like iron gives in red blood cells their colour).
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious.


----------



## OllieNZ

Fred Dulley said:
			
		

> Couldn't these vivid green colours just be due to the increase in the magnesium? After all, it is magnesium that gives chorophyll it's green colouration (like iron gives in red blood cells their colour).
> Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious.



Interesting point Fred I dont know much about plant biology so not so obvious to me. Ive just checked my water report and the hardness seems to be all Ca with no Mg. I'm currently dosing standard ei and using easy carbo Im getting good growth but everything looks a little washed out. Would swapping half my kno3 dose for the magnesium nitrate work without leaving any deficincies?

Regards

Ollie


----------



## George Farmer

When I dosed EI a few years ago, I also dosed Epsom salts (MgSO4) to cover any potential lack of Mg (even though my water is hard).

I still maintain these ferts are the best I've used.  I'm using them in all three of my planted tanks now - two have soil-based substrates, one inert.  I'm seeing mentalist levels of pearling for the first time in years too.  Only thing I've changed is the ferts.

Of course, I cannot prove that these ferts are any better than EI + GH booster etc.  Just anecdotal observation.

Maybe I will try EI + Mg again, to see if this nice growth is maintained.


----------



## tyrophagus

I've just received some of these ferts to try.  I looks like the instructions which are german say that the nitrogen needs to be dosed at 1 ml per 50 l daily.  The micros are 1 ml per 20 l every week.   

Am I translating this correctly?  It seems you guys are dosing much higher levels. 

Would 5 mls. Nitrogen and 2mls micros be ok for a 200 l with co2 and good lighting be ok?

What about phosphate? Should I continue to dose that at normal ei levels?


----------



## Tom

Those doses would make it very lean! I'm dosing double N at the moment, and am considering more. I assumed the Micros were the same so it looks like I'm way overdoing it if that's right!


----------



## tyrophagus

So Tom how many mls of nitrogen would you add for a 200 l?    do I need to add phosphate?


----------



## Tom

I'm not an expert on this by any means!! I'm just adding 1ml daily after my water change in 25 liters because it's convenient. 1ml per 50l only adds 1ppm according to the first post in this thread, which doesn't seem like much comapared to EI levels.


----------



## George Farmer

I'm adding 10ml per day each of N and Mikro in my 240 litre. 2 x 54w HO T5 (PAR 30-50 at substrate), good CO2.  50% water change per week.

In my 60 litre I'm adding 6ml of each. High lighting (PAR 70-100 at substrate), good CO2, 2x 50% water change per week.

In my 25 litre I'm adding 2ml of each per day.  Low lighting (PAR 10-25 at substrate), good CO2, 50% water change per week.

I'm not adding P, but my tap water is off the scale (>5ppm), so with each 50% water change there's enough for me.

I've only been using these ferts of just over a month, so may need to refine the dosing, but currently I'm seeing no issues.  On the contrary - plant growth is wonderful in all three tanks.


----------



## tyrophagus

I see George is adding 6ml daily to 60 liters with an inert substrate.  

So for ei levels in a 200 l would I need 120 ml macros divided over a week with a 50 % water change once weekly to achieve 30 ppm N?


----------



## tyrophagus

Thanks George and Tom that's very helpful.  I'll start with 10 ml per day of each.


----------



## George Farmer

tyrophagus said:
			
		

> Thanks George and Tom that's very helpful.  I'll start with 10 ml per day of each.


Please let us know how you get on.  All the best.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,


the dosage instructions are very conservative/lean because somebody with no clue at all could buy those ferts.

When you do regular water changes etc. you can dose alot more.

I'm dosing around 3-5 ml per 50 l => 3-5 ppm NO3.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Tobi said:
			
		

> I'm dosing around 3-5 ml per 50 l => 3-5 ppm NO3.


Hi Tobi,

Is this daily?  It's very similar to my dosing, which makes sense.  Do you dose P, or any other ferts on top of the N and Mikro?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

that's what I'm dosing daily. And of course I dose PO4 too. Around 0,3 ppm daily, a little bit extra K+ at some tanks and enough micronutrients.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Thanks, Tobi.   

What Mikros are you dosing, and what source of K+?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

in some tanks I dose additional K2SO4 or some KNO3 besides the Spezial N. But not much additonal K+ for the tanks. Around 5 ppm more for the week.

Micros I use the AR Flowgrow. 

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> in some tanks I dose additional K2SO4 or some KNO3 besides the Spezial N. But not much additonal K+ for the tanks. Around 5 ppm more for the week.
> 
> Micros I use the AR Flowgrow.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi


Thanks, Tobi.   

What's your AR Flowgrow dosing rate?  5ml per day per 50 litre?


----------



## Tom

> I'm not adding P, but my tap water is off the scale (>5ppm), so with each 50% water change there's enough for me.



That's interesting George, I just looked mine up and there was a huge variable, but the average being 0.6ppm. Nitrate was also hugely variable, whereas K was consistantly quite high.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi George,

I dose it dependend of what the tank needs. In some tanks around 2-3 ml per 50l in others only 1 ml per 50l daily. I get bba when I dose to much of it. A good indicator in my tanks. CO2 optimization does not solve this completely. I need to dose a little bit less micronutrients and up the co2 a bit. Easy carbo for some days and bba is gone...

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi George,
> 
> I dose it dependend of what the tank needs. In some tanks around 2-3 ml per 50l in others only 1 ml per 50l daily. I get bba when I dose to much of it. A good indicator in my tanks. CO2 optimization does not solve this completely. I need to dose a little bit less micronutrients and up the co2 a bit. Easy carbo for some days and bba is gone...
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi


That's interesting, Tobi.  Sounds like I've been overdosing Micro relative to you.  BBA thankfully isn't an issue though.  I've stopped liquid carbon dosing altogether in all my tanks now.

Do you find folk need more micros with harder water?  Or is that not relevant?

Thanks for being so patient with all your answers too.  It's really appreciated - I understand how busy you must be...


----------



## Mark Evans

I cut back on the mikro a week ago or so. It just didn't feel right to put that much in. 

I've also been adding Kno3 and po4 in small amounts. My plants in the 60 have never looked better. C heferi looks wonderful.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

you have to dose as much as your tank needs . With good filtration it's possible that you need to dose alot more from the AR Flowgrow. It's an organic stabilized Micronutrientmix with Fe-gluconate and Fe-citrate and quite some ascorbate.

Some users at flowgrow experiment with the mixture without adding urea. They report back the same good growth. One recipe was:

1 Liter:

Mg(NO3)2x6H2O: 44 gr.
Ca(NO3)2x4H2O: 26 gr.
KNO3: 26 gr.

per 1ml/50l

NO3: 1,02 ppm
K: 0,20 ppm
Ca: 0,08 ppm
Mg: 0,09 ppm

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Brilliant!  Thanks, Tobi.

I've pinned this topic now.  Lots of great info and discussion in one thread.


----------



## George Farmer

Here's a simple idea.

Can we add KH2PO4 directly to a bottle of Spezial N, so we can dose N and P together?  

I assume the Spezial N isn't already at maximum solubility...

One for the maths boffs...

How much KH2PO4 would we need to add to a 500ml bottle to obtain 0.1ppm per 1ml solution in a 50 litre tank?


----------



## Tom

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Here's a simple idea.
> 
> Can we add KH2PO4 directly to a bottle of Spezial N, so we can dose N and P together?
> 
> I assume the Spezial N isn't already at maximum solubility...
> 
> One for the maths boffs...
> 
> How much KH2PO4 would we need to add to a 500ml bottle to obtain 0.1ppm per 1ml solution in a 50 litre tank?



James' calculator makes it 3.7g or so George. I will do this myself it it will work, and drop TPN+ on the cube


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

you can add PO4 to a Spezial N bottle. But you have to be carefull regarding the calcium and potassium. It can "stick together". Due to that I would mix up the Spezial N part first and than get some KH2PO4 into it. The solution will stay clear. I have a "All in one Mix" at the moment in testing.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## George Farmer

Thanks, Tom and Tobi!


----------



## foxfish

An all in one mix would be fantastic


----------



## Faijay

Very interesting guys.

I was just wondering if anyone knows. In a high tech heavily planted tank what would be the nominal uptake of no3, K, p04, ca and mg? I know fert regimes like EI are supposed to eliminate the need to know but I am intrigued.


----------



## George Farmer

Faijay said:
			
		

> Very interesting guys.
> 
> I was just wondering if anyone knows. In a high tech heavily planted tank what would be the nominal uptake of no3, K, p04, ca and mg? I know fert regimes like EI are supposed to eliminate the need to know but I am intrigued.


Lighting, CO2, substrate, circulation, plant type, biomass, fish load etc. etc. all impact on nutrient load and uptake.  Every tank will be different.

I've dosed 20ppm NO3 per day before now, to prevent BGA....   

Tom Barr will have done some tests.  Hopefully he will reply here...


----------



## Ian Holdich

I have just had an hour whilst the little one was asleep and read the whole thing. What a great read, and it is very interesting to see the results in peoples tanks. I have seen people referring to 'Toby's ferts'. Now i know! lol.


----------



## LondonDragon

I have been using this for a week now since I setup my Iwagumi and I must say that I have never seen plants grow so green before, they look so healthy that its totally amazing. Thumbs up from me.


----------



## Garuf

How much are you dosing, Paulo?


----------



## LondonDragon

Garuf said:
			
		

> How much are you dosing, Paulo?


I am dosing 10 pumps of each per day, I am not sure if they are 1ml each, the pumps look small for 1ml. (have not measured) doing water changes every two days at the moment.


----------



## Mark Evans

Here's my update with these ferts. 

I do add KNO3 and PO4 but in small amounts. Boy, i cant wait for my next stem scape.


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Mark or Tobi
Where are these on sale? Would they be any good for a non Co2 set-up?
I'm setting up a 30 litre Dennerle non Co2 for a pal with a hang on filter and small heater installed.
Will be using Dragon/Blue Stone or some wood....plants will be mostly crypts.
C/Flora base will be the substrate.
I'm concerned that there is urea/ammonia in the product......if I want to add some live stock later
hoggie


----------



## GHNelson

hogan53 said:
			
		

> Hi Mark or Tobi
> Where are these on sale? Would they be any good for a non Co2 set-up?
> I'm setting up a 30 litre Dennerle non Co2 for a pal with a hang on filter and small heater installed.
> Will be using Dragon/Blue Stone or some wood....plants will be mostly crypts.
> C/Flora base will be the substrate.
> I'm concerned that there is urea/ammonia in the product......if I want to add some live stock later
> hoggie


Found the products here http://www.aquasabi.de/Fertilisers/Aqua ... 43_60.html Seems to be no Urea in the product sold.

But this is the recipe that Tobi gave earlier in the Topic.

for one liter water add :

25,9 g potassiumnitrate
29,5 g calciumnitrate
17,6 g magnesiumnitrate
5 g urea So is there or isnt there that is the question :?: 
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

as I'm the manufacturer of the Aqua Rebell fertilizers I can say that Urea is included in the Spezial N .
For better understanding the amount of Urea is converted to NO3 in the dosing regime. 0,2 ppm of the NO3 come from the urea part.
On the bottle you will see that urea is in the ingredient list with the right concentration. 

In some weeks the bottles will have English dosing instructions etc. too. 

best regards
Tobi


----------



## danmil3s

thanks for sharing this tobi. seems to get the thumbs up. im going to give it a go my question is if i mix as your recipe. how much do i need to add to a 760l tank, is 45ml per day about right. will that give me 20ppm a week EI levels? don't want to get it wrong and poison my fish or starve my plants thanks for your help.


----------



## alzak

Hi

after reading most of this post I want to try make my own mix of this ferts if I can 

I just need some help how can I mix this 

25,9 g potassiumnitrate
29,5 g calciumnitrate
17,6 g magnesiumnitrate
5 g urea

just buy all this and add it to 1liter of water ?? is that simple or there some catch ??

all this will supply my tank with all needed ferts??


----------



## tyrophagus

I'm no expert but there is not enough potassium and no phosphate so these still need adding.  Obviously no micros either.   I'm not sure if you add it to a liter or not.


----------



## danmil3s

I'm just going to replace my kn03 with this and dose potassium phosphate and trace as before. then see what happens I've mixed it in one litre as the recipe definitely says to. still not 100% I'm adding the right amount but i re did my calculations and 45ml seems about right.


----------



## mdhardy01

Hi all 
Just mixed up my first batch of special N 
Am I right in thinking that you only add 1ml per 50l ?
So for my 500l I would just add 10ml?
seems rather lean
Matt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

you add as much "Spezial N" as your tank needs. 1 ml per 50 l only adds "1 ppm NO3".

And please remember => Spezial N is only a nitrogen fertilizer. It does not add any micronutrients and no phosphate. You need to add it additionally. If your tank needs more potassium => add more potassium too .

One small snapshot of one of my showtanks using the Spezial N, Mikro Spezial Flowgrow and Mikro Spezial Eisen and some additional Mikro Basic Phosphat:






Best regards
Tobi


----------



## mdhardy01

Hi tobi thanks for the reply
So how many ml would you recommend for a 500l? I'm hopeless at working out ppm and have just been adding 2 teaspoons of kno3 and 1 teaspoon kh2po4 as ei 
I did add some po4 to my mix and dose trace as well
Many thanks 
Matt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

I would add around 1-4 ppm of NO3 depending on plants/light etc.

The tank seen in my last post gets ~3 ppm daily (3 ml per 50 Liter).

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Claudio Cappelletti

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> you add as much "Spezial N" as your tank needs. 1 ml per 50 l only adds "1 ppm NO3".
> 
> And please remember => Spezial N is only a nitrogen fertilizer. It does not add any micronutrients and no phosphate. You need to add it additionally. If your tank needs more potassium => add more potassium too .
> 
> One small snapshot of one of my showtanks using the Spezial N, Mikro Spezial Flowgrow and Mikro Spezial Eisen and some additional Mikro Basic Phosphat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



Hi, Could you please tell us how much and how many times at week do you dose each one of the ferts in this tank? (Spezial N, Mikro Spetial Flowgrow, Mikro Spezial Eisen and Mikro Basic Phosphat)

Thank you for your answer

Best Regards


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

this was the daily routine:

Makro Spezial N - 22 ml
Mikro Spezial Flowgrow - 6 ml
Mikro Spezial Eisen - 3 ml
Makro Basic Phosphat - 10 ml

at the moment I'm experimenting at this tank with some other ferts:

Spezial GH Boost N (adds no Urea. Only CaNO3, MgNO3 and KNO3 - 2 ppm NO3 per 1 ml to 50 Litre tank water) - 15 ml
Mikro Spezial Hybrid (combination of my stronger stabilized Eisenvolldünger and the Flowgrow, has the chelators EDTA, DTPA, HEEDTA, Gluconat, Citrate and Ascorbat) - 5-10 ml
Spezial Eisen - 3 ml
Makro Basic Phosphat - 10 ml
After waterchange - 8 ppm potassium, 5 ppm magnesium.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Tobi
Can I add Phosphate and extra Potassium to the diy recipe  :arrow: 
25,9 g potassium nitrate
29,5 g calcium nitrate
17,6 g magnesium nitrate
5 g urea
.....or will both react will the other ingredients.
Regards
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Hoggie,

I have no problems with that mixture. I do test an All-in-one fert with those ingredients at the moment. But logically the calcium can precipitate with the phosphate. One DIY guy at flowgrow had some probs with it. You need to heat the solution... 

One other quick shot of one of my Showtanks, no real scape... more a planted tank with some rare species:


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Tobi
Thanks for the quick response.
Nice tank love the colours....Ive noticed that you don't keep many fish in some tanks.
Is that because of the dosing regime or its because of choice or other factors :?: 

Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

at the moment I do not have that many fish in some of my tanks. Mostly because I'm to lazy at the moment to get some new fish and decide what to get . 
And to tell the truth I love plants more than fish . So no need to rush..., but especially the last shown tank needs some more fish. I want some pseudomogil gertrudae for that one but had no time to pick them up/order them.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Tobi
Can you give us a run down off your lighting durations and the wattage you used and how you prevented algae issues.
Also any other factors tips on keeping a fresh and vibrant looking clean tank.
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

i have very powerful light fixtures above my tanks (Easy Life Paradiso) but they are all dimmable and I only run them on 100% 1 hour per day. The rest is around 50% (which is still ~0,65 Watt per liter) at my 240 liter tanks., The 360 liter tank has less light due to it's bigger dimensions.

The light is on for 10 hours.

Regarding a fresh and vibrant looking tank I use a normal dosing regime and in time of problems with algae I use some Easy Carbo. So I think I'm doing excactly what everyone is doing . I think it's essential to find out what your tank needs regarding fertilization. Try around with different nitrogen sources and keep a "higher" nitrogen level. I run my tanks at 25+ ppm NO3. I do not dose that much trace elements but more iron/manganese. But especially phosphate, iron and trace dosings depends on your filtration. The more you filter the more you need to add. If you have a very high bioload in your filter you have to dose more. If your filter is only stuffed with filter foam you maybe need to dose less.
Those are things everyone has to find out individually. There is no "one fits all solution" out there. You have to tweak the fertilization, regardless of the fert system you are using (EI, PMDD or whatever). Those systems are a good starting point and with some tweaking you'll find the right dosage for your tank.

Of course... never forget to change water . I'm a big fan of 50% waterchanges once per week. If I have problems I change the water 2-3 times a week.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Cheers Tobi
Excellent reply.A few  last questions do you use high lighting initially on a new set-up tank?
Is the tank fully planted? Do you use surface/floating plants.Do you use mature filter media from another filter?
Thanks again  
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

I do not start with high lightning. Normally with 6-8 hours and 50% or less of my wattage.

I start all my tanks as densly planted as possible regarding the layout. I do alot of water changes in the first weeks. I put in a lot of shrimp very fast to combat upcoming algae (red cherry shrimp, amano shrimp).

I do not stock my filters with biofilter media. I only use filter foam in my filter. Or better said..., the normal JBL filter media.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Cheers Tobi


----------



## Tobias Coring

ah... besides

I use Aqua Soil Amazonia in all my tanks.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## nayr88

hi tobi, are you developing an all in one?

i was dosing your ferts

spezial n
flowgrow
npk

2pumps of each per day on a 25l....do you think this is overkill? just seemed alot of people over here are dosing 1pump per 10liters of tank water.

your site is brilliant by the way, i find myself browsing the glassware all the time haha.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

an All in one is in testing... but it will take some months till it will be ready. 

The normal dosing instrauctions of those ferts recommend less dosing, but when your tank is doing fine => dose as you wish . 
You are addin from each fertilizer at the moment:

Aqua Rebell Makro Spezial N:

3,2 ppm NO3
0,4 ppm Urea (=> 0,82 ppm NO3)
0,13 ppm Mg
0,4 ppm Ca
0,8 ppm K+

Aqua Rebell  Makro Basic NPK:

2 ppm NO3
0,2 ppm PO4
0,2 ppm Mg
3 ppm K

Aqua Rebell Mikro Spezial Flowgrow:

0,24 ppm K+
0,328 ppm Fe


So you are dosing in excess. 1 pump per 10 liter is far far to much. 

At the moment you already add all together:

~6 ppm NO3
0,2 ppm PO4 (very lean compared to the NO3)
~4 ppm K+
~0,4 ppm Mg
~0,4 ppm Ca
0,328 ppm Fe

that's real excess... I would dose a little bit less. I recommend normally 1 ml per 50 litre of each fert. Only the NPK is dosed with 2 ml per 50 litre. Of course this is a conservative recommandation. I for example add around 2-4 ppm NO3 into my tanks daily. 

I hope you do big waterchanges once a week. Especially the guys with 1 pump per 10 litre.

Maybe this can help: Nutrient-Calculator
Here you can fiddle out how much you are adding regarding many ferts. I will add a multilanguage version in some weeks... so stay tuned.
But it's easy to use: Just add under "Volumen" your tank volume. Chosse the fert to add and below "Menge" (amount) you tell the calculator how much you like to add from the fert, for example "2" ml. After that click on "Berechnen" (calculate) and you will get the amount of nutrients you are adding to your tank.

All Aqua Rebell ferts are in that calculator and many more.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## nayr88

Hi Tobi thanks for the response

I did have good growth  yes very big waterchange haha

Cheers mate


----------



## plantbrain

I measured about a max sustained uptake of 4 ppm of NO3 per day.
NH4: about 0.8ppm per day.

Pulse uptake rates where up to 8-9ppm of NO3 per day.
NH4 remained unchanged in the pulse experiments. Likely limited by Nitrate reductase.

More biomass, closer to the lights = more CO2 demand more nutrient demand and more biomass= less mixing/dispersion. Getting that right is not easy if you wish to add just barely enough, better to add a little more.
I think in some cases, more than above rates are possible, but unlikely in 99% of aquariums.


----------



## niru

Hi Guys

I have been reading these posts with utmost interests (like everybody here).. There are a few points I keep on wondering though, perhaps they are wrong (incomplete??) observations and deductions from the posts: 

1. Is it correct that people who have dosed individual chemicals with separate combinations/concentrations have observed less growth/plant health than those who dose the Spezial N fert, plus phosphates, K+ etc separately. Or in more better language: that putting Spezial N shows much more greener growth than when done in other chemical-combinations. (Well, at least to the converts anyway  ).

2. What could be implied about the synergetics in this all. e.g. does it matter when (dosing frequency, days of Spezial N & micros feeding, etc) which ferts are added to the tank. In a GH booster for example, one typically increases the alkalinity AND the hardness both at same time. Usually since Ca & Mg are the only 2 contributors to the hardness, GH and Alkalinity go hand in hand. But they are different in principle. Plus adding KNO3 salt alone would increase the salinity/conductivity, but adding the other Ca(NO3)2 or Mg(NO3)2  would also tend to increase the hardness (NOT alkalinity). How do these relative differences in salinity, conductivity, hardness, etc affect the WATER AND nutrient ions exchange accross the plant cell boundaries? Or also affect the ion-dumping from water column to the ground & thereby the CEC of the soil/gravel?

3. Even though all salts in the list are ionic (by definition), in water do they have different strength weak bonds that affect the cellular level absorption of anions (NO3 -) in presence of the cations K+ or Ca++/Mg++. Chemically does it matter to the leaf, and if so, how much. Does it depend on the plant-type it it absorbs certain chems via leaf and/or via roots, etc..

4. Does substrate mulm, organic waste content and other de-oxigenating effects play any role at molecular levels for differing fert uptakes in presence of Spezial N like combinations, but arent seen in "other" type of brews? 

5. etc etc etc... 

.. Apologies for my loud musings, perhaps sounding like a wanna-be geeky. 

cheers
niru


----------



## mzm

Hi Tobi, very interesting post and I would definately like to try out your recipe. You state 1ml for 50l. How often do you dose this? Daily?

Regards,
Michael


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Michael
Yes i think Tobi doses daily.
http://www.aquasabi.de/Fluessigduenger/ ... :1512.html
Dosing regime instructions included.High and low light.
hoggie


----------



## mzm

hi hoggie thanks for your reply.

Luckily I can read German and indeed, for high light setups it is daily whilst for low light setups it is 2 - 3 times a week.


----------



## GHNelson

Cheers go well.


----------



## mzm

Hi Toby, I have been looking at some of the links you have posted and it seems that most of the users posting their ferts regime do not only stick to the Spezial N - Nitrogen Fertiliser on it own. Besides the Spezial N they add ferts such as ?AquaRebell Mikro Sepzial "Hybrid", ?Kaliumphosphat, ?Kaliumcarbonat, ?Seachem Equilibrium and others.

My question therefore would be, can you sustain a nice lush healthy tank like the ones in your links by only using the Spezail N - Nitrogen Fertiliser and a good iron mix, or does one also have to use this in conjunction with other ferts?

Regards,
Michael


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Michael,

those other ferts you have mentioned are no nitrogen fertilizers.
Of course people are adding the other essential nutrients too: They add a trace element mix like the Mikro Spezial Hybrid (but that one is not common... have never started to sell that fert). Most use the Spezial Flowgrow as a trace element mix. and Kaliumphosphat is monopotassiumphosphate... just the German spelling . kaliumcarbonat = potassiumcarbonate etc.

Please remember. The Makro Spezial N is ONLY a nitrogen fertilizer. It's no "all in one fertilizer"

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## plantbrain

Toby, 

I was re reading the thread.
The idea of a + charge on the N source and K+ which has a + charge as well may be why some folks have better growth.

NO3 is a negative charge.

The idea is that a mix of both NH4 and NO3 is BEST much like having a sediment type of source of Ferts (sediment does make a good long term source) and...a water column source.

Most every plant I know grows optimally with a ratio of NH4 to NO3.
This is research based and can be found in Plant Physiology textbooks. 

What varies for many hobbyists are the fish loads, feeding, sediment types and age.These are all sources for NH4 but offer virtually no K+. The plant cell's vacuole has mostly NO3 and K+. These are concentrations are governed by  enzymes which adapt to different ppm's in the environment. If K+ was stabilized in these aquariums, this should be an issue. Likewise, if the NH4 was stabilized, this also would not be an issue. 

If the aquarium lacks a good well feed fish load, then adding NH4 will most certainly be a positive benefit. Many top scapes lack significant fish loads as well have seen. But the NH4 to NO3 ratio is good regardless. And adding small amounts of NH4 will have no negative impact, and if anything, enhance the + ion uptake if at smaller ranges. ADA AS initially is quite rich in NH4, and then declines with a log curve over several months/1-2 years.

There is support for this in research.

But I still think there is something wrong with the methods, adding more K+ should not hinder any growth, there is not support for that. Balancing K+ and NH4+ cations relative to the negative anion ion needs for some hobbyists, might be the issue. Also, I'm not sure how low PO4 is in these systems, this might be a large factor.

If it is higher than 1ppm most of the time.........then it will be hard to say, if lower....then under stress/limiting PO4, adding NH4 will be helpful, actually, in most cases, eg non CO2 or limiting conditions..........NH4 will be preferred in higher amounts vs NO3.

But under non limiting conditions, the effect will not be as great.

Hope this helps.


----------



## bjorn

Any idea if using a combination of Mikro Spezial FlowGrow + Makro Spezial N  would cause any clouding or water getting a bit hazy/milkly? Should the macro and micro be used with time in-between dosing them?


----------



## Aquadream

Hi Tobi.

Thank you for sharing your tests.
Can you please tell us if anyone have tested the changes of General Hardness GH after using this fertilizer? I would expect that the GH will build up after some time if Ca++ and Mg++ are added every day even in small amounts.

In any case the recipe does make a lot of sense to me, because Mg++ and Ca++ are more accessible for the plants from these salts than from most other salts.

Another question that I have is what would be the counter part fertilizer for PO4? Similar mix of K+, Mg++ and Ca++ PO4 salts or what comes in handy?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

@Bjorn
Flowgrow is a Ferrousgluconate based fertilizer and can lead to some unproblematic clouding under very few conditions. If you have hard water and add alot PO4 simultanously it could lead to a bit hazy water. We recommend the Flowgrow mainly for soft tap water. Our Eisenvolldünger is made for hard tap water.
The Spezial N is not reacting with the Flowgrow when you dose them after each other to your tank. But you should not mix them in one bottle. 

If the clouding appears it should disappear in a short time and has no negative effects.

@Aquadream
The GH isn't increasing significantly over time, if you do your regular water changes. Ca and Mg are added only in very small quantities.
I think a mix of PO4 with Mg and Ca isn't needed like the Spezial N. Spezial N is a potassium reduced nitrogen fertilizer to maintain a good potassium:nitrate ratio. The little amount of urea helps some plants maybe too but the big advantage with this fertilizer is that you can easily achieve a higher nitrate level than your potassium level. 
In some sitautions a nitrate favoured ratio helps the plants to flourish. But as Tom pointed out... some tanks have absolutely no problem with higher potassium levels.
In my tanks a lower potassium level really helps the plants.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Aquadream

I am picking up the Ca++ and Mg++ nitrates next week. I already have KNO3. As soon as I see any results in my tanks I will report them here with pictures and measurements.


----------



## Aquadream

Hi Tobi.

I would like to report that this Nitrogen fertilizer does work. I am using it for about two weeks by now and the differences are definite. All plants grow bigger and look better. Especially HC and Staurogyne.
Unfortunately I do not have pictures from two weeks back, so I can not show the difference.
I am using currently ADA fert line and I find the addition of this Nitrogen fertilizer just great.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

I'm glad that you report back. It's kind of the same experience all users are doing when dosing with that nitrogen fertilizer.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## plantbrain

Have you tried it without the urea?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

yep... I'm using a recipe on my own tanks without urea for the past 3 months. Working fine too and I have good feedback from other testers with that recipe which had some problems with GDA with the urea in the fert.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Aquadream

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> yep... I'm using a recipe on my own tanks without urea for the past 3 months. Working fine too and I have good feedback from other testers with that recipe which had some problems with GDA with the urea in the fert.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi


No GDA in my tanks and HC is huge in size, just like hydroponics grown.
I believe what happens with this recipe is that Ca++ and Mg++ are more available to plants, because N is always in high demand and it comes from Ca(NO3)2 .4H2O, Mg(NO3)2. 6H2O. It is very likely to be the case especially in soft water tanks. It is only a theory. No proof.


----------



## plantbrain

Next test is to remove the Mg from the solution and test that one.

Urea and NH4 forms are a mixed bag, if the folks have few fish= big results, 10% better growth etc........with decent fish loads/feeding, this is less the case. 

I have run tanks on pure NO3 without any NH4 or fish, or sediment sources, plants did very well in those cases also. 

I'm not sure we can ascribe any relationship with NH4 and GDA, but maybe.

Mg can really change things if it's not dosed and is assumed to be okay.
Ca? Not so much, I've never been able to induce Ca++ stress in aquatic plants even with my super super soft Snow melt tap water, nor the SF folk's who have the same.

The other issue is that ca(NO3)2 is much easier to dissolve than say CaSO4..........but KNO3 is easy to dissolve also. So perhaps a faster slug of Ca++ helps somehow vs slow dissolving of CaSO4. Using CaCl2 could hep answer that if assume the Cl- has no effect.

I use Ca(NO3)2 but for my reef and seagrass tank.


----------



## plantbrain

Another slight modification might be this Toby if you do a trace mix in conjunction:

CMS + B or similar.....
DTPA
Fe gluconate 
Easy carb or Excel or generic at 1/4 strength

A PO4 with 
KH2PO4
1/4 distilled white vinegar in the solution prior to adding the KH2PO4.

The Vinegar will also do well in the Trace mix if you add it ahead of time in the tap water used to make the solution.


----------



## dundadundun

any updates? i'm curious how this is coming along or if there are any plans for subsequent formulas.


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Toby
Any news on all in-one fertilizer.
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Happi

am having a hard time finding the chemicals. cant find magnesium nitrate anywhere in USA, anyone help me find this.

i found calcium nitrate, can anyone check if this is the correct one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calcium-Nitrate ... 1c22be4d49


i already have potassium nitrate and Urea.


----------



## George Farmer

I have a custom mix now without urea and added KH2PO4. Works great!


----------



## Orlando

Happi said:
			
		

> am having a hard time finding the chemicals. cant find magnesium nitrate anywhere in USA, anyone help me find this.
> 
> i found calcium nitrate, can anyone check if this is the correct one.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calcium-Nitrate ... 1c22be4d49
> 
> 
> i already have potassium nitrate and Urea.



 I have magnesium nitrate and im in the us.


----------



## GHNelson

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I have a custom mix now without urea and added KH2PO4. Works great!



Hi George
I ditched the urea as it was affecting my fish.
Ive made a new batch up....did you prep the Kh2Po4 before mixing it with the other salts?
Whats your recipe?
Do you not think Toby's original is lean in comparison to what comes up on the calculator that Tom Barr/Wet uploaded?
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

I've not tested a new charge of "all in one" yet. The last one needed more nitrates in comparison to the micros and po4.

I do not think that the Spezial N is somehow "lean". You can add as much as you want. I prefer 3-4 ppm nitrates per day in my highlight tanks...

The urea does not seem to play an essential part in this fertilizer. I'm and many other testers are using one recipe without urea and with even less potassium in the mix. Works even better for some people.
The urea only gets problematic if your pH is >7. But some reported back GDA in combination with urea.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Hi Tobi
Thanks for replying
I was referring too the recipe in the solution.....not the dosing regime.
I removed the urea as a precaution as the fish became stressed.
I have a Ph of 7.4...7.6.  no GDA.
Dosing half EI....in a non Co2 set-up...led lighting. 
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

you can of course double the amount of salts. Should be no prob. The other recipe we are testing has the double amount in it.

With your pH you should stay away from urea.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Tobi said
With your pH you should stay away from urea.

Why is that...Im no chemist  
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

with your pH ammonia can form from urea. Ammonia can be deadful to fish.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Yea
I thought that was the answer....so i only added 3 grams of Urea in the first lot of solution i made up.

I think it would be best if you could edit the recipes to state :arrow:  do not use urea if you have fish stock.....to be on the cautious side.
What do you think.
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

on all my bottles is that warning sign and in the description too. I do not sell those recipe... everybody is free to change it. When using "recipes" you need to know  a little bit  what you are doing.

EDIT: I've added the warning to the first post.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## GHNelson

Cheers Tobi  
Better safe than sorry.
hoggie


----------



## Happi

kudos to Orlando (GLA), finally i could make this recipe now, thanks for the fertilizers.


----------



## Happi

question for Tobi

i use 100% RO water on my tank, you think this recipe will provide enough Ca and Mg ? or do i need to add more Mg and Ca, if so then how much? also your recipe does not have any Phosphate, do i also add this? or depend on fish food and other fish waste to produce this?


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

as explained before... Spezial N is ONLY a nitrogen fertilizer. You need to add everything else (PO4, trace elements etc.). The Ca and Mg amounts in this fert are not enough to supply your plants.
I would not add additional potassium or only if you see a deficiency.

Best regards
Tobias


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I've not tested a new charge of "all in one" yet. The last one needed more nitrates in comparison to the micros and po4.
> 
> I do not think that the Spezial N is somehow "lean". You can add as much as you want. I prefer 3-4 ppm nitrates per day in my highlight tanks...
> 
> The urea does not seem to play an essential part in this fertilizer. I'm and many other testers are using one recipe without urea and with even less potassium in the mix. Works even better for some people.
> The urea only gets problematic if your pH is >7. But some reported back GDA in combination with urea.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



I go through about 4ppm a day, but I cannot account for the plants entirely, the sediment may denitrify some.
I've had pulses up to 8ppm a day on a hungry tank, ADA claims 15ppm a day on some their tanks recently, I have grave doubts about that claim. That's a massive amount of NO3 removal.

For NH4 conversion to NO3, this would be about 0.8ppm per day vs 4ppm of NO3.
I've not had any issues with NH4 at that ppm daily dosing rate. I used NH4Cl for about 6 months on 2 tanks, no issues.   

I prefer NO3 however. Easier to measure and watch if ever need be.
NH4 does not last long, there's much less and bacteria attack it also.
Good fish loads add all the NH4 I need I think.


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> the urea only gets problematic if your pH is >7. But some reported back GDA in combination with urea.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



I also removed all the livestock and snails even to remove as many potential sources of NH4 as I could and then added KNO3 alone for the N source. I used flourite since it lacked any N, unlike ADA AS etc.

This produced amazingly good results.
Maybe it was due to good CO2 since there was no worry about gassing anything?

Anyway, the Erio setaceum I had at the time did amazingly well, as did a few other so called hard to grow stems.
I have heard plenty of folks claim the urea and the NH4 additions are better, produce better growth etc over the years.

I cannot say that is the case. I just have not seen evidence that supports it one vs the other.
But I still look


----------



## Aquadream

plantbrain said:
			
		

> ADA claims 15ppm a day on some their tanks recently, I have grave doubts about that claim. That's a massive amount of NO3 removal.



For what I have seen so far this is definitely not the case. If I even dare to use 15ppm of NO3 per day in my AS tanks everything will go to hell.
As a matter of fact I have never registered NO3 removal from AS in aquarium, but then I have not done much testing on the subject.


----------



## George Farmer

hogan53 said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a custom mix now without urea and added KH2PO4. Works great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi George
> I ditched the urea as it was affecting my fish.
> Ive made a new batch up....did you prep the Kh2Po4 before mixing it with the other salts?
> Whats your recipe?
> Do you not think Toby's original is lean in comparison to what comes up on the calculator that Tom Barr/Wet uploaded?
> Cheers
> hoggie
Click to expand...

Hi hoggie

Apologies for the delay in reply.

I had UKAPS Sponsor, John Whelan from Aquarium Plant Food UK make up a batch for me. I paid £10 for 1 litre worth of dry powder, and I simply added 1 litre of RO water. I believe it's the recipe stated at the start of this thread, just minus the urea with 15g of KH2PO4, but can't be sure.  Try contacting APFUK for the exact recipe.

I have no idea about comparison with EI calculators etc. 

Cheers,
George


----------



## GHNelson

Cheers George.


----------



## Happi

Tobi, any idea on how much Ca and Mg plant uses per day? is it ok to dose 5ppm of Mg and Ca during water change if using 100% RO water?


----------



## wet

This is cool and thank you for sharing this mix/formula, Tobi.  Congratulations also for shops cloning it for hobbyists.

Tobi's Spezial N is on http://calc.petalphile.com as a premixed fertilizer, per values in your first post, if you want it.  I had not read of Spezial N before on US forums.  Hope it spreads around. 

Thanks again.

* edited for spelling typo


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Wet,

can you please change the fert name to "Aqua Rebell Spezial N" that's the fertilizer name. 

But I hope that many will use that recipe too and finetune it for their needs. I think those kind of nitrate ferts are a big gain for the hobby. 


Best regards
Tobi


----------



## wet

Tobi -- you've got it.  Thanks again for sharing


----------



## Happi

here is my update, i made the recipe using Gram calc and been using the ferts for 3 days but there is no growth at all, ludwigia pantanal looses its bottom leafs/leafs fall off. also dosing some Phosphate along with the ferts.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

aren't you dosing any traceelements? Those are essential too.

And how much are you dosing from the Spezial N?

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Happi

yes i am dosing .4ppm of fe everyday, my solution was made similar to your flowgrow. 

solution made by mixng:

.20ppm fe from csm+b
.10 from edta
.10 from dtpa

total = .40 ppm of Fe

i am dosing 10ml everyday in my 50 gallon tank of spezial N.

running 2x rena xp2 filters without any sponge or medias. lights are 2x 54w t5ho


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

my Mikro Spezial Flowgrow is a tracemix with gluconate,citrate and ascorbat. More like Flourish than csm+b.

How much Spezial N are you dosing and how much PO4?

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Happi

10ml spezial N everyday and 1-2ppm P every couple days.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

the 10 ml to what tank dimnesions?

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Happi

Happi said:
			
		

> yes i am dosing .4ppm of fe everyday, my solution was made similar to your flowgrow.
> 
> solution made by mixng:
> 
> .20ppm fe from csm+b
> .10 from edta
> .10 from dtpa
> 
> total = .40 ppm of Fe
> 
> i am dosing 10ml everyday in my 50 gallon tank of spezial N.
> 
> running 2x rena xp2 filters without any sponge or medias. lights are 2x 54w t5ho




there


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

10 ml should be quite enough for that tank volume. I would keep it that way and observe.
3 days is a short timeframe. I would not expect to see a tremendous change in 3 days.


Best regards
Tobi


----------



## plantbrain

Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> 10 ml should be quite enough for that tank volume. I would keep it that way and observe.
> 3 days is a short timeframe. I would not expect to see a tremendous change in 3 days.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi



Tobi, if folks see no growth in 3 days etc, this tends to be CO2.......not the ferts.......many blame the ferts when it's a CO2, flow, trimming etc issue.


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi Tom,

yep you are right. CO2 is the first thing to check and adjust.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## Happi

plantbrain said:
			
		

> Tobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 10 ml should be quite enough for that tank volume. I would keep it that way and observe.
> 3 days is a short timeframe. I would not expect to see a tremendous change in 3 days.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tobi, if folks see no growth in 3 days etc, this tends to be CO2.......not the ferts.......many blame the ferts when it's a CO2, flow, trimming etc issue.
Click to expand...


last time i listened to you i ended up killing my fish with overdose of co2. even at that time plant did not show much improvement.


----------



## Aquadream

Happi said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 10 ml should be quite enough for that tank volume. I would keep it that way and observe.
> 3 days is a short timeframe. I would not expect to see a tremendous change in 3 days.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tobi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tobi, if folks see no growth in 3 days etc, this tends to be CO2.......not the ferts.......many blame the ferts when it's a CO2, flow, trimming etc issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> last time i listened to you i ended up killing my fish with overdose of co2. even at that time plant did not show much improvement.
Click to expand...

Listen may be, but did not hear. Looked at but did not see.
Your fish could not have died because you listen to Tom(plantbrain), but just the opposite. You did not listen.
When word comes about aquatics you have to pay attention to many aspects without taking out of context any particular parameter.
Aquatic system is a set of parameters that are interconnected and influenced by one another.


----------



## Happi

you sound just like Tom


----------



## geoffbark

I can't help but to post in this thread   

What a good read!

Tobi, its great that you would share you own recipes thanks.

I don't think that there will ever be a "one works for all" fert, there are too many paramaters that chenge from one tank to another.

As for Spezial N, people who use it say how much extra growth they have seen and how much more greener it is. For me this is the Mg content and NH4NO3.

Why?

NH4NO3 makes things grow and grow fast.
Mg makes things green.

This product/recipe works because it replaces nutrients that people are lacking.
Great work


----------



## geoffbark

Me Again!

This thread got me thinking! I have been dosing EI as per instructions from Barr Report and been doing so for 3 years. Therefore i have not done much testing of my water parameters.

I do not suffer from algae and have good growth.   

But Tobi and Clive you may be interested in my results for N,P,K just before a 50% weekly water change:

N03-N = 16ppm

P2o5 = 2ppm

K2O = 99ppm

"food" for thought chaps!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> NH4NO3 makes things grow and grow fast. Mg makes things green.


 I think that is probably the answer as well. If you foliar feed terrestrial plants with a dilute NH3NO3 and MgSO4.7H2O mix you get a pretty instant greening response.

More details here: <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17380>

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tobias Coring

Hi,

have you read the recipe at all? .

There is NO, absolutely NO NH4NO3 in the recipe.

A little bit Urea is in the mix, but the mix works without the Urea too.... but believe me. If you dose just NH4NO3 or Urea you will not get the same results.

Best regards
Tobi


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
Sorry Tobi, I did know that, and I should have referred to nitrogenous fertilizers more widely. 

Urea (CO(NH2)2) will have the same greening effect on terrestrial plants, but is much less toxic than ammonia (this is why terrestrial animals excrete it or uric acid (C5H4N4O3) rather than NH3), and won't cause leaf burn. 

In terms of NPK, urea has more nitrogen (46.7-0-0) even than NH3NO3 (35.4:0:0). I say in the linked thread 





> You have more options with emersed plants with regards to the combinations of fertilisers you can use, and whilst ammonium nitrate (NH3NO3) is likely to cause leaf scorch, urea (as an N source) or other low conductivity feeds wont.





> A little bit Urea is in the mix, but the mix works without the Urea too.... but believe me. If you dose just NH4NO3 or Urea you will not get the same results.


I'm still not convinced by this. I am convinced that "Spezial N" is a good formulation, but I'm not convinced that the same combination of ions from a different source wont give the same response.

If you want to look at the actual pathway which leads to a plant available nitrogen ion from urea, it is by microbes (that possess the urease enzyme), which catalyze the conversion of CO(NH2)2 to 2NH3 & CO2. 



> Although urea is usually present at ambient concentrations below 1 µM-N, it can contribute 50% or more of the total N used by planktonic communities. Urea may be produced intracellularly via purine catabolism and/or the urea cycle. In many bacteria and eukaryotes, urea in the cell can be broken down by urease into NH4+ and CO2.


 From the "_Role of urea in microbial metabolism in aquatic systems: a biochemical and molecular review_", open source and available from <http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/ame/v59/n1/p67-88/>

This is well worth a read.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantbrain

Happi said:
			
		

> you sound just like Tom



I know Tom Barr and he's always wrong.  
At least I think so


----------



## plantbrain

Happi said:
			
		

> you sound just like Tom



I know Tom Barr and he's always wrong.  
At least I think so

Much like EI, adding stuff that is lacking in large amounts in tap or of the fert routine often has large impacts.
This is provided you have good light/CO2 etc to begin with.

GH booster is not that common from what I've seen in most of EU.

Adding more Ca/Mg has never done any harm and has colored up more than a few folks tanks.
Adding a bit of NH4 is fine, regardless of the form, as long as you are not dosing more than say 0.6-0.8ppm per day......and for lower light/slower growth tanks, this might run at 0.2ppm or so. Tank should easily consume this, or simply feed fish and have good stocking levels.

While you can go with GH booster...or add it along with Ca and Mg cations.......and NO3.........I do not see any difference personally. I left out the NH4, I have that in the soil(ADA AS) and in the fish loading. I've used it for 2 weeks now.


----------



## Ady34

Hi Tobias,
Just ordered a special n type mix without urea and added KH2PO4 to try out (George Farmer uses one). 
I live in a softwater area and i may suffer an Mg and Ca deficiency. Im currently using TPN+ and adding 15ml per day and also adding K and Mg and Ca salts.


			
				Tobi said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> as explained before... Spezial N is ONLY a nitrogen fertilizer. You need to add everything else (PO4, trace elements etc.). The Ca and Mg amounts in this fert are not enough to supply your plants.
> I would not add additional potassium or only if you see a deficiency.
> 
> Best regards
> Tobias



newbie question, but if the Ca and Mg amounts arnt enough to supply the plants why are they there, or why arnt enough added to supply the plants? Im presuming i should continue to add my sera mineral salts alongside the special n type mix to ensure any deficiency is covered?

Also, i have a mature set up, heavily planted. Your initial dosage suggests 1ml/50l aquarium water daily, do you think given my current dosage of TPN+ and the plant mass id be ok doubling or even trebling your recommended dosage?
This is the tank:





Thanks,
Ady.


----------



## plantbrain

If.......it is ONLY a Nitrogen fert, then it's ONLY just that...........NO3 and/or NH4.

Bringing in various K+, Ca, Mg .....more/less etc.........should not matter if those are added from other sources and are non limiting. Those need addressed isolated and individually per each user.and each user/tank, tap water type can vary widely. If it is only about nitrogen, then it should not matter which source is it is from, KNO3 or Ca(NO3)2 etc.......

You cannot say that KNO3 is not as good as special N and also say that it is only a nitrogen fertilizer.
We(SFBAAPS) added SeaChem equilibrium to our soft tap water decades ago and saw dramatic improvement. Had little to do with nitrogen. Folks made DIY GH booster to address this. Not all tap water will need it, but most can see some improvement.

No one has shown, as far as I know.........that excess GH booster does harm. I've added a lot to my 120 Gal tank without any influence on growth. 

ADA AS has NH4 and I feed the fish about 2 grams of dry weight food at roughly 40% N. This is about 0.8 as N, assuming 10% is retained by the growth of the animals , bacteria etc, this is reduced to about 0.6ppm of NH4 per day.

This is a rough estimation of the NH4, some of it gets converted to NO3, some goes to the plants, some is exported as water changes etc.

This number can also vary widely tank to tank.


----------



## Ady34

Not sure i follow what your saying Tom... sorry. 
I get that its just a nitrogen fertiliser, but why does it have any Mg and Ca in it if its effectively useless (as far as the plants demands are concerned)... or is there another reason for it being there?
I think the confusion may lie in the fact that i failed to mention also that ive ordered a CSM+B micro mix ferts mix also to accompany the special n type macro mix.
I initially wanted a fert with Mg and Ca in to remedy a possible shortfall in my tap water to help as a possible remedy for repeated minor crypt melt.... most likely more to do with c02 as it happens, but thought there would be no harm in putting it in for peace of mind.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## Ady34

Or is it that ive totally missed the point as i dont know much about compounds and the Mg and Ca are in fact in the form of magnesium nitrate and calcium nitrate which are there more for nitrate fertilisation than either the Magnesium or Calcium benefits?   
I may be over complicating things in my head, i had considered a straightforward EI dosing regime, but thought id give this a go. Basically all i need to know is, if im wanting to ensure no shortfalls, what else except the Special n macro mix with potassium nitrate, and micro trace mix do i need? Or do i need nothing else and should just start dosing and see how i go? :? 
Thanks,
Ady.


----------



## plantbrain

Well, if....what Toby is saying above is true...then the Ca/Mg are not the factors, rather the NO3 is.

If you add Ca(NO3)2 to water of KNO3, they both completely disassociate, in otherwords, the base salt will not matter, the NO3 is still the NO3 no matter what.

Now some might argue adding NH4 is the cat's meow...........I'm more likely to agree with that, or the aquarist's prior dosing did not include say enough Mg......but adding MgSO4 to the trace mix is a common solution to that.
Then it isolates down to NO3 vs NH4. And folks have added one or the other with variable results for a long time.  
I could see there being something to NH4 vs NO3, however, this is small in terms of aquatic weeds. 

I have never, even with our insanely soft GH and KH's in this area, a Ca decidency in any aquarist tank. 
I've seen Mg often. In Lake Tahoe, never seen it either, these are pure alpine lakes and they have ample nutrients for lush plant growth.

You could do it I suppose under controlled conditions, but the tap and other sources are likely too high for this to be a limiting factor. Maybe if you never do water changes and dose and try and balance everything, then it could happen. 

I've used 

KNO3
KH2PO4
CMS+B and I might add a little MgSO4 to this
DTPA Fe to the CMS at 1: 3 ratio by volume
Then a GH booster, this tends to be 2: K2SO4: 1 part CaSO4, 1 part MgSO4.

I dissolve the trace mix CMS+B, DTPA Fe and the MgSO4 together in warm soft tap water. I dose this as a liquid.
The rest I dose as dry powder.

I cannot confirm that special N improves my growth.
2 weeks should be long enough. We use Ca(NO3)2 and Mg(NO3)2 for reef and planted marine tanks, so I had it on hand. I did not use the urea. But I have dosed NH4NNO3, NH4Cl, and urea in the past. Adding about 0.8ppm per day should meet the N demands for most any planted tank without much limitation. 3-4ppm for NO3 etc.

I add about 30 ppm a week for NO3.
About 3-4ppm of NH4 waste from fish.
I have excellent growth rates, color and form. This did not change subing the Special N, so it's not bad, but it did not do anything positive either. Since it adds some more N and Mg relative to other nutrients, this may help some folks, while doing no harm to most everyone else.

Dosing just one at a time, or specific groups might teach you more however about a particular tank or plant.
Many do not care, they dose whatever they dose that works..........same with EI, they might need only 1/4 th EI..but they keep dosing 4x as much. Others might need the full amount, if you do not try, you do not know.

Might get some folks on the right track either way though.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> If you add Ca(NO3)2 to water..... they both completely disassociate, in other words, the base salt will not matter, the NO3 is still the NO3 no matter what.


 & 





> I have never, even with our insanely soft GH and KH's in this area, a Ca deficiency in any aquarist tank. I've seen Mg often.


I'd agree with Tom on this one, I've just re-read the thread and I think you have to split it into three components. 

The first question is _"is Tobi's Spezial N a good fertiliser mix?_, and the answer to this seems to be unequivocally that it is very successful fertiliser mix.

The second question is a bit more complicated, and really has 2 parts, the first is _are high levels of potassium (K) a problem?_ and the second is  _is the unbalanced nature of the addition of K and NO3, from KNO3, (14N:39K) a problem?_ Tobi is convinced that this is true, he wrote this earlier in the thread: 





> If K+ gets much higher than NO3 you can (you do not need to) get problems. If it's the K+ itself or something else interfering with. I really do not care and could of course be some correlation. Botanists and plant experts from Germany (and I know quite some, all have the same idea regarding K+ and NO3). If K+ gets way higher than NO3 it could lead to problems. Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks.


 Clive and Tom think that it is a _red herring_ and nothing to do with the NO3:K ion ratio, and that high K+ levels aren't a problem. I think Tom and Clive are probably right, but I'm not totally discounting some effect. I wrote: 





> I'm not quite as sceptical as Clive, and I am really interested in your "magic mix", I don't think that it is impossible that there might be some synergistic effect of the varied nitrogen sources, although I'd need to be convinced. But I still can't quite see why the K+ ions should build up to very high levels, they are entirely soluble so there isn't any buffering effect. Even if you have a substrate with a very high CEC, K+ ions will be preferentially exchanged for nearly all other cations: Multivalent ions on the right displace the monovalent ions to the left: +>Al+++>Ca++>Mg++>K+>NH4+>Na+>Li+)  I can't see why the 50% EI water change doesn't keep removing 1/2 of any excess, add this to "luxury absorption" by the plants and surely it must take a very long time for K levels to build up?


So I think the jury is still out on this one, although all the scientific evidence we have tends to point towards both high K+ levels not being a problem, and them being fairly unlikely to occur even if you use KNO3 as your potassium and nitrogen source.

The last 2 questions are conjoined in some ways, and are _does it matter which compounds you use to achieve the levels of NO3-, K+ etc that you want?_ and _is the obvious the success of Tobi's "Spezial N" down to increased levels of NH4+, Mg2+ etc?_ Again Tobi believes that the chemical compounds used are important, and that the results are not purely to do with increased nutrient levels. I'm moderately convinced that Tobi is wrong and that the source of an NO3- ion is irrelevant, but I do think that the enhanced magnesium (Mg) levels, the urea addition and possibly the low Mg:Ca ratio may be reasons for the undoubted success of "Spezial N". 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

From my personal experience I am convinced that Tobi is not wrong in his believe that source compounds do matter.
Example.
The best and most concentrated and pure source of NO3 is HNO3. I used it a while ago in my tanks. Problem with this method is that it ends up with constant increase of GH and KH levels that comes as a direct result of HNO3 reacing with substrate particles, wood etc. more specifically the H+ from the acid.
Another example.
As a K+ source I have tried ADA Brighty K that is K2CO3, then I tried KCl, also I have tried K2SO4. They all work with possibly small side effects if overdosed, but nothing to worry about.
Growth in my tanks was always good with those salts. However the K2CO3 do tend to boost up the KH after long periods of use. KCl would top up too much Cl that is not so important element as other chemical elements. K2 SO4 will top up too much Sulphur in the form of SO4 that can precipitate other cations into inaccessible for the plants salts.
Needless to say too much Sulphur in aquatic environment could lead to acidification of the sediments.
So I was scratching my head what to do about those.
I decided to mix the 3 compounds in one solution as the ratios by weight are as follows.
K2CO3 25%, K2SO4 37.5%, KCl 37.5%.
The whole idea was to minimise the excess build up of any chemical element while supplying K+.
I made the solution and went on the road to Germany for 10 days. I instructed my wife to inject all ferts in the tank every day as every fret bottle was with a label stating how many pumps to squirt into the tank per day. Pretty simple.
You can not imagine my surprise when I got back from Germany and saw the double size of Ranunculus leafs compared to the growth from the past few months. And all that was different in the ferts regime was the K+ supply coming from mixed K+ salts solution rather than just plain simple KNO3 or K2SO4 or what ever.
The rest of ferts in the tank were Easy Life Profito and Tobi's Special N recipe that I am quite convinced that it works.
Providing that as a rule I always overdose I bit of all ferts to prevent shortage of anything it is unlikely that any of the chemical elements in my K+ solution would have done the miracle.

I do believe that various compounds as a source of the same component would in many cases (probably not all) do better job than one and the same compound.

But then what the hell. I probably tricked my self into some voodoo crap.


----------



## niru

Aquadream said:
			
		

> From my personal experience I am convinced that Tobi is not wrong in his believe that source compounds do matter.
> Example.
> The best and most concentrated and pure source of NO3 is HNO3. I used it a while ago in my tanks. Problem with this method is that it ends up with constant increase of GH and KH levels that comes as a direct result of HNO3 reacing with substrate particles, wood etc. more specifically the H+ from the acid.
> Another example.
> As a K+ source I have tried ADA Brighty K that is K2CO3, then I tried KCl, also I have tried K2SO4. They all work with possibly small side effects if overdosed, but nothing to worry about.
> Growth in my tanks was always good with those salts. However the K2CO3 do tend to boost up the KH after long periods of use. KCl would top up too much Cl that is not so important element as other chemical elements. K2 SO4 will top up too much Sulphur in the form of SO4 that can precipitate other cations into inaccessible for the plants salts.
> Needless to say too much Sulphur in aquatic environment could lead to acidification of the sediments.
> So I was scratching my head what to do about those.
> I decided to mix the 3 compounds in one solution as the ratios by weight are as follows.
> K2CO3 25%, K2SO4 37.5%, KCl 37.5%.
> The whole idea was to minimise the excess build up of any chemical element while supplying K+.
> I made the solution and went on the road to Germany for 10 days. I instructed my wife to inject all ferts in the tank every day as every fret bottle was with a label stating how many pumps to squirt into the tank per day. Pretty simple.
> You can not imagine my surprise when I got back from Germany and saw the double size of Ranunculus leafs compared to the growth from the past few months. And all that was different in the ferts regime was the K+ supply coming from mixed K+ salts solution rather than just plain simple KNO3 or K2SO4 or what ever.
> The rest of ferts in the tank were Easy Life Profito and Tobi's Special N recipe that I am quite convinced that it works.
> Providing that as a rule I always overdose I bit of all ferts to prevent shortage of anything it is unlikely that any of the chemical elements in my K+ solution would have done the miracle.
> 
> I do believe that various compounds as a source of the same component would in many cases (probably not all) do better job than one and the same compound.
> 
> But then what the hell. I probably tricked my self into some voodoo crap.



... so you are still dosing K+ from various sources other than KNO3, plus Tobi's Special N + traces etc.. The difference with EI being that K & NO3 are being tagged to different ions than K-NO3. With your method you are actually dosing extra Cl, SO4, and CO3 (which will disintegrate pretty fast). Maybe the SO4 and Cl ions are then tampering your pH, kH, or something else..? Have you checked (& compared with EI) this observation?

I am still confused (actually more now) since once in water these compounds get into ionic states, and how should this matter then on? 

.. Oh I know: WAR OF THE IONS & survival of the fittest!

-niru


----------



## Aquadream

niru said:
			
		

> ... so you are still dosing K+ from various sources other than KNO3, plus Tobi's Special N + traces etc.. The difference with EI being that K & NO3 are being tagged to different ions than K-NO3. With your method you are actually dosing extra Cl, SO4, and CO3 (which will disintegrate pretty fast). Maybe the SO4 and Cl ions are then tampering your pH, kH, or something else..? Have you checked (& compared with EI) this observation?
> 
> I am still confused (actually more now) since once in water these compounds get into ionic states, and how should this matter then on?
> 
> .. Oh I know: WAR OF THE IONS & survival of the fittest!
> 
> -niru


I have been checking not just this one case, but many other over the years and I am pretty sure that SO4 and Cl have nothing to deal with tampering KH, PH and so on. These parameters simply do not get tampered by those ions.

I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4. 

If  NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant.

For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources. Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?
The answer to those questions should provide more light to the debate of how important or unimportant the various sources are.

On the other hand it is well known that just KNO3 works fine for both K+ and NO3-. 
In my case however the more complex sources for K+ and NO3- works a lot better, but I can not point my finger on what is the very reason for this outcome. Not without extensive research.


----------



## plantbrain

dw1305 said:
			
		

> The second question is a bit more complicated, and really has 2 parts, the first is _are high levels of potassium (K) a problem?_ and the second is  _is the unbalanced nature of the addition of K and NO3, from KNO3, (14N:39K) a problem?_



Folks have made this claim going back to about 2002, and in EVERY CASE, I and other folks provide clear examples where this is not the case. I went to 50ppm and another guy went to 100ppm +. We chose the most sensitive species we could fine and had no issues developing nice healthy large stands without any fuss.



> Tobi is convinced that this is true, he wrote this earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If K+ gets much higher than NO3 you can (you do not need to) get problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erik had it running at 100ppm K+ and the NO3 at 5-10ppm.
> He added GH booster as a method to get it that high.(2 parts K2SO4: 1 part CaSO4 and 1 part MgSO4)
> Tap water is low GH, maybe 35 ppm and mostly Ca++.
> 
> I think that's pretty high, my tanks tend to run higher NO3 10-25ppm and the K+ about 30ppm.
> Due to my water changes, things do not fall out side this range though.
> 
> Other folks might run it differently (eg, do few water changes or tiny ones) and get way outside normalized ranges.
> There's no reason that they CANNOT balance their tanks without water changes, but it takes more testing and fiddling, and many fail at that over time. Still, CO2 demand in each tank is different also and we all fiddle with that if it's an enriched tank.
> 
> Many ways to mess up and have confounding issues with a "test", but few ways to test it fairly to show and falsify the hypothesis. I've been unable to find support for the method personally.
> 
> Plants still do the same things.
> Amano said this pretty much at one point years ago, ferts are not that critical as long as you do not go too far one way or the other.
> 
> If I forget(as I often do) to dose a day or two.........or leave for a week, the tanks are fine.
> 
> CO2? If that is messed up, not much I can do to fix that tank with ferts, but.....if I really limited say PO4, then perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's the K+ itself or something else interfering with. I really do not care and could of course be some correlation. Botanists and plant experts from Germany (and I know quite some, all have the same idea regarding K+ and NO3). If K+ gets way higher than NO3 it could lead to problems. Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clive and Tom think that it is a _red herring_ and nothing to do with the NO3:K ion ratio, and that high K+ levels aren't a problem. I think Tom and Clive are probably right, but I'm not totally discounting some effect.
Click to expand...


Me either actually, that's why I tested it back a decade ago, I have a K+ test kit and reagents etc.
I have little need to fuss over ferts, I convinced my own skeptical mind otherwise a long time ago.
K+ was one of those issues, and varying NO3 and K+ is VERY easy to do.

All it takes is for someone to falsify your hypothesis and it is dead in the water. 
Many speculate but never or very rarely attempt to falsify their own hypothesis :idea: 



> I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite as sceptical as Clive, and I am really interested in your "magic mix", I don't think that it is impossible that there might be some synergistic effect of the varied nitrogen sources, although I'd need to be convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, so I...........actually...........tried it for 2 weeks. I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I think the jury is still out on this one, although all the scientific evidence we have tends to point towards both high K+ levels not being a problem, and them being fairly unlikely to occur even if you use KNO3 as your potassium and nitrogen source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the past, eg, more than a decade ago, many folks added K2SO4 very liberally, no one reported any issues.
> This was based on the PMDD approach from 1995, Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin, they suggested using K2SO4 and KNO3 to drive down PO4 levels. There was a period within the club 1995-2001 or so where everyone added K+ to every tank and the more, the better.
> 
> I was/am skeptical because it was "larding" it on for no good reason.
> 
> Add more than limiting amounts obviously, but I do not go nuts and waste it either. If I add more light, I add more CO2, if I add more CO2, I add more ferts. If I add more K+, I add more NO3 etc. I add more of everything if I want higher rates of growth, or less if I want less growth rate. I've made mistakes and dosed too much of something etc, a dosing pump went bonkers, or someone made some comment that 3 ppm of PO4 induces algae, so I add more and then see. I spent plenty of time convincing myself none of this ratio business made a hill of beans, it's not hard to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last 2 questions are conjoined in some ways, and are _does it matter which compounds you use to achieve the levels of NO3-, K+ etc that you want?_ and _is the obvious the success of Tobi's "Spezial N" down to increased levels of NH4+, Mg2+ etc?_ Again Tobi believes that the chemical compounds used are important, and that the results are not purely to do with increased nutrient levels. I'm moderately convinced that Tobi is wrong and that the source of an NO3- ion is irrelevant, but I do think that the enhanced magnesium (Mg) levels, the urea addition and possibly the low Mg:Ca ratio may be reasons for the undoubted success of "Spezial N".
> 
> cheers Darrel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Same here.

Mg was an issue for me a long time ago in the late 1990's, and when I figured it out, wow, the aquariums took off.
Then some folks suggested that over 10ppm of Mg is bad, toxic etc.  Davis Ca Tap water has around 52ppm of stable Mg++ 800 meter well delivered tap water, I cut this in 1/2 with RO, giving about 25ppm.

Still, I gave it  a try and to see.

Not hard to do. But..........I'm not seeing any difference.

In a planted marine tank, Ca++ is used up much more and NO3 is added to keep it from bottoming out.
Mg as well............but K+ is not a large factor, so I have no use for KNO3 other than NO3........so I already had the salts, this was easy to test for me. I also do not doubt some users claims that something happened, but if you cannot say why and explain it, belief is all you have and that's much more problematic. 

Still, at the end of the day, none of this matters to the "faithful", and ADA , EI etc have this issue as well. But if got some folks off their duff and trying something new till something stuck on the wall. Mg/NH4 I can buy............but the counter to that is to dose just those alogn with the KNO3 and see if there's a difference, go back and repeat that a couple of times if you see it happen once, you need to repeat the test a few times.

I only tested Special N once for 2 weeks on one tank, maybe I got unlucky.........maybe not.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
Tom and I really aren't trying to be difficult, people are entitled to believe what-ever they like, but if you believe that the source of an ion, from the disassociation of a salt, makes any difference to that ion this is a "faith" position, like homoeopathy, because all of science and the physical rules of the universe tell you it isn't true.


> I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4.


You can sort of do this, but you end up with either a strong acid (HNO3) or a strong base (KOH), but once these are in solution they disassociate fully to form H+ and NO3- ions (acids are defined as H+ ion donors, nitric acid is therefore an acid) or K+ and OH- ions. In the case of potassium (K) it is highly re-active and doesn't occur as an element at all naturally. This is the reaction between elemental potassium and water is:


> 2K + 2H2O -> 2K+ 2OH- + H2


 which is also why potassium etc are called the "alkali metals".
Even these acid/alkali compounds are really just "salts" we give different names to: "_salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge)_." 


> If NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant. For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources.


Honestly they do, a NO3- ion is a NO3- ion, is a NO3- ion etc. they are exactly the same wherever they came from, the elements on earth have been here since the formation of the earth, they were formed in the nuclear furnace of a massive yellow giant star, before being flung across the universe in a huge supernova explosion. They don't have any memory of the compounds that they combined in.


> Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?


This is just wrong, plants can only take up ions from solution, but it has nothing to do with bacteria, as soon as you add the KNO3 to the water it disassociates into K+ and NO3- ions. It is the same as adding salt (NaCl) to your soup, you don't have to wait for bacterial breakdown for your soup to get salty.

You could reach a point where the water was fully saturated with K+ and NO3- ions, but he solubility of KNO3 is 360g/l at 25oC, so I think we can ignore that.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Tom and I really aren't trying to be difficult, people are entitled to believe what-ever they like, but if you believe that the source of an ion, from the disassociation of a salt, makes any difference to that ion this is a "faith" position, like homoeopathy, because all of science and the physical rules of the universe tell you it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4.
> 
> 
> 
> You can sort of do this, but you end up with either a strong acid (HNO3) or a strong base (KOH), but once these are in solution they disassociate fully to form H+ and NO3- ions (acids are defined as H+ ion donors, nitric acid is therefore an acid) or K+ and OH- ions. In the case of potassium (K) it is highly re-active and doesn't occur as an element at all naturally. This is the reaction between elemental potassium and water is:
> 
> 
> 
> 2K + 2H2O -> 2K+ 2OH- + H2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which is also why potassium etc are called the "alkali metals".
> Even these acid/alkali compounds are really just "salts" we give different names to: "_salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge)_."
> 
> 
> 
> If NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant. For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly they do, a NO3- ion is a NO3- ion, is a NO3- ion etc. they are exactly the same wherever they came from, the elements on earth have been here since the formation of the earth, they were formed in the nuclear furnace of a massive yellow giant star, before being flung across the universe in a huge supernova explosion. They don't have any memory of the compounds that they combined in.
> 
> 
> 
> Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just wrong, plants can only take up ions from solution, but it has nothing to do with bacteria, as soon as you add the KNO3 to the water it disassociates into K+ and NO3- ions. It is the same as adding salt (NaCl) to your soup, you don't have to wait for bacterial breakdown for your soup to get salty.
> 
> You could reach a point where the water was fully saturated with K+ and NO3- ions, but he solubility of KNO3 is 360g/l at 25oC, so I think we can ignore that.
> 
> cheers Darrel
Click to expand...

That is fine. Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?
There is also a picture of what happen after I used the mixed K solution. The white line shows the extended new growth that did not happen before. I do not think that is my faith doing this, because I have no magic powers of any kind.


----------



## Ady34

Hi all, 
and wow this thread seems to produce a lot of very detailed and passionate responses and i would simply say that most of what is being said is way over my head and level of understanding. I think really what can be deduced is that nitrogen comes in many more forms than i was aware and basically folk seem to argue that nitrogen is nitrogen in whatever form it is added. I for one can see the logic to the theory that this is the case and am in no position to argue for or against, having really tried neither. Also however what i can also say is that people, and not just inexperienced folk like myself, im talking about the George Farmers and Mark Evans, plant growers for many years, have stated that this fertiliser produces an improved growth rate. For me if a product works, im not going to become overly fixated with why, and just accept that it does. To some level i want to understand and expand my knowledge base, but for me the enjoyment is in seeing the tank develop and the plants grow strong and healthy. There are of course many factors and variables along the way, but im gonna suck it and see!
I in no way want to sound derogatory to the people who prove/disprove theories and reasons behind them, but for me as a hobbyist on a hobbyist level i don not need to question too much the hows and whys and only if a product works.


			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Many do not care, they dose whatever they dose that works..........same with EI, they might need only 1/4 th EI..but they keep dosing 4x as much. Others might need the full amount, if you do not try, you do not know.
> 
> Might get some folks on the right track either way though.


This is pretty much me. As a relitive newb to the hobby im trying to get to a point where i can conclusively eliminate fertilisation as a cause of poor growth. I have been using tpn+ and have no real idea how much i need to use to provide in excess. Ive never used EI and am not rating this product (special n) better than that system, im just gonna try this one first and see if it works for me. Mostly switching dosing techniques is a financial reason as salts are cheaper. Hopefully this will help me with finding the right balance of everything to have a successful tank.
Also Tom, how do you get your ppm figures? People say that you need to attain ??ppm of this and ???ppm of that. Is this a mathematical formulation or a water test result your using? Is their a definitive list anywhere for the required levels for providing in excess?

A couple of things still confuse me about this fertiliser,


			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> but I do think that the enhanced magnesium (Mg) levels, the urea addition and possibly the low Mg:Ca ratio may be reasons for the undoubted success of "Spezial N".
> cheers Darrel



i thought the Mg was relitively irrelevant as it was in the form of Magnesium nitrate, the nitrate being the more prevelant fertiliser? Also ive got a mix without urea.... ive heard of ill effects to fish with high levels of ammonia, so hope this wont reduce too much the effectiveness?
Also some have mentioned about problems associated with high K levels, its clear that Tom has evidence that this isnt the case, but for those who beleive this, what are the issues of high levels of K? 
I am beginning to think that there is no strict hard and fast application of ferts, and while we can use EI to add in excess, some will have issues and others wont and each tank will have different needs for a number of different factors which i would never have the time, knowledge or patience to test. 
My problem as a beginner is trying to diagnose fertiliser issues over c02 issues for example. I want to try to eliminate fertilising as a cause for poor growth so only leaving c02.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?


 I can and I have, it is HNO3 (Nitric acid), that is an H+ ion and NO3- ion, I don't know what else you want? Nitric acid injection is widely used in commercial horticulture, partially as a nitrogen source.

I don't agree with all of Tom's (Plantbrain) conclusions, but he has done a great job in debunking a lot of pseudo-science, and making the, in some cases deliberately, obscure become transparent. In this case we need some evidence, and a plausible explanation for a mode of action, once/if these are in place then we can move forward.


> i thought the Mg was relitively irrelevant as it was in the form of Magnesium nitrate, the nitrate being the more prevelant fertiliser? Also ive got a mix without urea.... ive heard of ill effects to fish with high levels of ammonia, so hope this wont reduce too much the effectiveness?


 Urea would be converted to ammonia by micro-organisms with the enzyme urease, but it would be a lot safer than just adding ammonia. 

The magnesium issue is slightly different, in the UK most of the dGH in the water supply  is supplied by calcium, plants require more magnesium than calcium (the central atom of the chlorophyll molecule is an Mg atom). This isn't the case in other areas, and some of the  assumptions about the calcium and magnesium content of tap water were made on the grounds that the tap water contained some magnesium. In the UK our hard water is typically devoid of magnesium, so you just need to add some extra.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I have, it is HNO3 (Nitric acid), that is an H+ ion and NO3- ion, I don't know what else you want? Nitric acid injection is widely used in commercial horticulture, partially as a nitrogen source.
Click to expand...

I did not ask for someone to repeat me. I did state earlier that I have used HNO3 in my tanks. Horticulture is one story, aquariums is another.
What I asked you for was just pure NO3 solution in H2O, not how it is calculated when some compound is added.
Now, HNO3 can be interpreted as H+ and NO3-, but that is hardly the case. H2O solution of HNO3 does not contain H+ and NO3-, but HNO3, no more no less. You see in the HNO3 the ions are H+ and NO3-, but in the water solution is HNO3 and H2O.
If NO3 was in independent state as just an ion in water solution then that solution would have been harmless to human touch, right. Well can you try and tell me how safe it is? And if it is not safe, in which I am certain, how can you talk about NO3- and H+?
What I am trying to say here is that the chemical balance interpretations are only explaining (or at least trying to) of what is reacting with what.
What the whole chemical theory can not tell for sure is which specific component reacts first or second in aquatic environment and exactly with what. The variables are so many that it is simply impossible to predict that with total accuracy.
That is why I do not believe in the relevance of the theoretical statement that ion is an ion, is an ion and so on and so forward, because we do not talk about pure solutions in the lab, but a battlefield of chemistry in the aquarium.

From the mentioned above should not be too difficult to see that the NO3 and SO4 source may not be all that insignificant, because if one is to say but ion is an ion, then they will also have to present irrefutable evidence of how does it work in the complex conditions of aquatic environment.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> Now, HNO3 can be interpreted as H+ and NO3-, but that is hardly the case. H2O solution of HNO3 does not contain H+ and NO3-, but HNO3, no more no less. You see in the HNO3 the ions are H+ and NO3-, but in the water solution is HNO3 and H2O.


"Aquadream" you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change the rules of the physical world. I'm not expressing my opinion, these are facts, they aren't open to discussion. This is my last post, how unambiguous do you need a statement to be? it is there in black and white - _nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions_, if you don't accept this you might as well argue the world is flat.


> Nitric acid is normally considered to be a strong acid at ambient temperatures. There is some disagreement over the value of the acid dissociation constant, though the pKa value is usually reported as less than –1. This means that the nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions.


 from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_acid>.


> What the whole chemical theory can not tell for sure is which specific component reacts first or second in aquatic environment and exactly with what. The variables are so many that it is simply impossible to predict that with total accuracy.
> That is why I do not believe in the relevance of the theoretical statement that ion is an ion, is an ion and so on and so forward, because we do not talk about pure solutions in the lab, but a battlefield of chemistry in the aquarium.


 I trained as botanist and  I've worked for the last 20 years as an ecologist and on the biological remediation of landfill leachate, but we are not in realms of ecology or even organic chemistry here, we are talking about salts that disassociate into ions, and are then available to plants. It is no simpler or more complex than that.

Can we prove this? Yes we can. Solutions containing dissolved salts (e.g., potassium nitrate in water) are called electrolytes, as they are able to conduct electricity. Water is an electrical insulator, but as the salts form ions the "water" becomes an electrical conductor. No ions = no electricity.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> "Aquadream" you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change the rules of the physical world. I'm not expressing my opinion, these are facts, they aren't open to discussion. This is my last post, how unambiguous do you need a statement to be? it is there in black and white - _nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions_, if you don't accept this you might as well argue the world is flat.


The question is what is considered to be extremely acidic conditions? I have tested with 2% HNO3 water solution and it reacts to anything just like any more concentrated solution I have also tested. And yet it is one of the ideal concentrations to be used as NO3 additive, because it is relatively safe if used carefully. 
The point that I am making is in what concentration the HNO3 becomes fully dissociated in water? 0.1ppm, or 5ppm???
Instead of wikipedia statements please use exact digits.
I respect your education, but to tell me that these or those facts are not open for discussion is no different from telling me something like "But the Bible says so..."

I would like to see some evidence without resorting to “the Bible”.

Some guys here say ion is an ion, is an ion..... but have you ever been able to prove that you are right, because I have seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect.

You say the science stands for this and that theory. So far so good.
How can you explain the results that I have described in written statement and picture?

All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter.

And please no more 100 years experience gibberish, book statements and so on. Only scientific laboratory facts please.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
Aquadream has written:


> The best and most concentrated and pure source of NO3 is HNO3. I used it a while ago in my tanks. Problem with this method is that it ends up with constant increase of GH and KH levels that comes as a direct result of HNO3 reacing with substrate particles, wood etc. more specifically the H+ from the acid.





> Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?





> The point that I am making is in what concentration the HNO3 becomes fully dissociated in water? 0.1ppm, or 5ppm??? Instead of wikipedia statements please use exact digits.......I respect your education, but to tell me that these or those facts are not open for discussion is no different from telling me something like "But the Bible says so..." some guys here say ion is an ion, is an ion..... but have you ever been able to prove that you are right, because I have seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect....And please no more 100 years experience gibberish, book statements and so on. Only scientific laboratory facts please.


"Gibberish" is an interesting way of putting it. You may be right, and the entire scientific establishment may have failed to understand the basic laws that underlie the physical universe. People will have to make up their own minds. But if you have 





> ..... seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect...


 you need to show us.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

dw1305 said:
			
		

> "Gibberish" is an interesting way of putting it. You may be right, and the entire scientific establishment may have failed to understand the basic laws that underlie the physical universe. People will have to make up their own minds. But if you have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect...
> 
> 
> 
> you need to show us.
> 
> cheers Darrel
Click to expand...

I did show evidence and i am showing it again.


[/quote]
The surrounded in white Ranunculus leafs did grow after I applied mixed K2CO3, K2SO4 and KCl solution instead of just any of the mentioned compounds.
The other evidence that the source does matter is the statement of at least 100 aquatic hobbyists that testify Tobi's Special N to work. I am definitely in that number, because I use it for months by now and simple KNO3 does not compare in my personal experience.

I will repeat my last questions.
All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter.

Now, can you answer comprehensively this questions or not?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter. Now, can you answer comprehensively this questions or not?


Yes I can, and I have, repeatedly in this thread:
*Salts disassociate into ions, and plants take up ions from solution*, this isn't a theory or a conjecture, it is a proven scientific fact. 

I don't understand what you hope to gain by your posting, all it has done is added an unintended comic interlude to a thread which had previously been both interesting and informative.

Scientists have known about ions for hundreds of years, they were named by Faraday in 1834. The mechanism of plant uptake of ions from solution has been known since the 1990's, and is published in. 

Gilroy, S & Jones, L. (2000) _Trends in Plant Science_, *5*:2, pp56–60.
Available at <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138599015514>


> _The driving force for most nutrient uptake in plants is the electrochemical gradient across the plasma membrane, a major proportion of which is generated by the H+-ATPase.._


 This work was carried out using  _Limnobium_.



*Abstract*


> _Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-_


cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquadream

dw1305 said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you hope to gain by your posting, all it has done is added an unintended comic interlude to a thread which had previously been both interesting and informative.



Some here say that the ion source does not matter.
Others including me say it does, because we see some evidence for that. Evidence that you choose to dismiss as inconclusive perhaps. No matter.
I am not trying to gain anything here, but real knowledge. Not scientific establishment theory.
The scientific conclusions are great to say at the least, but they do not explain why those complex salt solutions work.

The plants uptake ions. That is well known.
What is not clear is what happens before that. 

To dismiss certain facts you will have to provide reliable information on what happens in the entire process, not just the final ion uptake stage.

I believe that the correct answer to the question of does the ion source meters or not would be found in the answer of few other questions.
1. How much does a certain plant mass need as daily uptake of nutrients?
2. Is it necessary for that daily nutrient amount as a whole quantity to be available right from the beginning of the photoperiod or is it better if it is released slowly during the day time?
3. In case of the slower nutrient release been the preferred way, is it correct to assume that NO3 single source (KNO3 for example) will release the NO3 ions in the same time frame as solution made out of combined NO3 sources (Ca++, Mg++, K+, Fe+ etc).

Let me explain the source point of my questions.
We all use aquatic plants that are collected from various regions of the planet and then put them together in the same aquarium.
Is it possible that all those plant species coming from different environmental conditions could have been using different NO3 sources rather than just plain KNO3? I think the answer is more than apparent.

From this point of view is it a good idea to use different sources for the same ions (NO3 or what ever else) or not?

Regardless of established theory it is difficult to dismiss the possibility that complex source for the same ion will be less of a limiting factor than a single source.

I know that some here will scream this to be all baloney stuff, but Darrell there are too many people including me experiencing the other side of the coin.


----------



## Greg's Pea

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Some here say that the ion source does not matter.
> Others including me say it does, because we see some evidence for that. Evidence that you choose to dismiss as inconclusive perhaps. No matter.



I can see where you are coming from, but, you are not seeing evidence for the hypothesis you are providing. You have perceived better growth using the formula but nobody else can quantify this growth as evidence to anything, there are just too many variables. You are then making the link to it being due to the "ion source". I could equally say that it was due to how high you were dropping the salts into the tank from and use the same evidence that you have. (spaghetti monster/floating teacup etc..)



> I am not trying to gain anything here, but real knowledge. Not scientific establishment theory.



That makes the ex science teacher in my cry a little. (at least it's not in front of the children any more  )

Set up a test with controls, have all the same nutrients going into each tank but from different salts and then try to quantify the difference in plant growth.



> The plants uptake ions. That is well known.
> What is not clear is what happens before that.



But, it is clear. The science has been shown again and again, that salts disassociate into ions.




> Is it possible that all those plant species coming from different environmental conditions could have been using different NO3 sources rather than just plain KNO3? I think the answer is more than apparent.



The plants are using the disassociated ions, not the source salts.

Homoeopathy is the idea that water has a memory, are you inferring that the ions have a memory or that the plants can tell the origin?



> I know that some here will scream this to be all baloney stuff, but Darrell there are too many people including me experiencing the other side of the coin.



A lot of rednecks (no offence meant to any southern yanks about!) swear to experiencing abduction and probing (and warranted race hate :? ), yet are we to believe them without true evidence being shown?

I can totally appreciate that everyone wants a magic bullet, people want to sell things and folk will often ignore their own logic when buying products (just look at any advert for beauty/hair etc - "hear comes the science bit" - no it doesnt   ).

I'm all up for debate and advancing the hobby further, but it has to be done logically to have any positive bearing.

I am by no means a chemistry genius, my background is in microbiology, but I have taught up to A level chemistry so feel I know a small amount. Look through some of the links Darrel has been kind enough to share with you, or look through some GCSE chemistry sites to understand what he is trying to tell you.

I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.


----------



## Aquadream

Greg's Pea said:
			
		

> I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.



I am sorry to say it but you just did despite your intentions.
Academic slaps have no place in hobby forums.

If you can prove to me that all there is in nature as NO3 source is just plain and simple KNO3 and nothing else then I will believe you. Other wise is academic baloney, no more no less.

If you have paid more attention to my post with the picture you would have noticed that i do not talk there about the ion source on the first line, but about the benefit of having different salts for the same K+ rather than just any one of the mentioned salts.
I have been keeping this specific aquarium for 7 months. I think is more than enough time to eliminate great many variables.

You can not just dismiss all the people that have achieved better results as some bunch of lunatics.

And you know what? See one the Darrel’s links since you mention them.


			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> _Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-_
> 
> 
> 
> cheers Darrel
Click to expand...

I see there that the plants also uptake cations not just ions. If the source is all so irrelevant then all we need in aquarium is K+ and NO3-. The rest is rubbish, right?

Please before you make the trouble to talk to me like that see what my results are in growing plants. I am not a professional chemist or biologist, but also far from an absolute newbie.

I think it is time to cut the absolute super science and get closer to the reality.

This place here, it is a just a hobby forum. have you noticed?


----------



## somethingfishy

Aquadream said:
			
		

> Greg's Pea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry to say it but you just did despite your intentions.
> Academic slaps have no place in hobby forums.
> 
> If you can prove to me that all there is in nature as NO3 source is just plain and simple KNO3 and nothing else then I will believe you. Other wise is academic baloney, no more no less.
> 
> You can not just dismiss all the people that have achieved better results as some bunch lunatics.
> 
> And you know what? See one the Darrel’s links since you mention them.
> 
> 
> 
> dw1305 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cheers Darrel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see there that the plants also uptake cations not just ions. If the source is all so irrelevant then all we need in aquarium is K+ and NO3-. The rest is rubbish, right?
> 
> Please before you make the trouble to talk to me like that see what my results are in growing plants. I am not a professional chemist or biologist, but also far from an absolute newbie.
> 
> I think it is time to cut the absolute super science and get closer to the reality.
> 
> This place here, it is a just a hobby forum. have you noticed?
Click to expand...


What i love about UKAPS is that alot of people are so generous with there time and effort. That they are prepared in many cases to answer the same questions time and again, and even educate a numbskull like me   

luckily on UKAPs you dont get people acting like spoilt children with huge chips on their shoulders! Members take the time to listen and in the spirit of UKAPs pass their gained knowledge on.

It would be a real shame if suddenly there where posts where some members are quite frankly rude and obnoxious, thank god that does not happen here


----------



## niru

When I buy eating salt for cooking, sometimes it comes from sea, some other times from deep Alpine mines. But so long as it has same proportion of NaCl by weight in it, it tastes equally salty. 

I tried it over Asian, Indian, Italian, Moroccan, Spanish cuisines, and they all tasted equally salty. Funny that my taste buds or the dishes I cooked seem to have lost the memory of their origins on the planet. I even tasted the same food next day, and was equally salty!!!


----------



## Bhu

dw1305 said:


> I'm really interested in the outcome of this, I definitely think Tobi's mix will work very well, finding out  whether it provides the synergistic effect will be trickier, but I don't think you can just discount it.
> 
> cheers Darrel



I'm really new to all this EI and in the  process of researching to move on from pre-mixed off the shelf plant feeds. What is this synergistic effect that you speak of? Basically I'm contemplating whether to use the standard EI or try this new low K+ approach as my water is very soft I use 100% RO and my GH KH are both at 1 only from the test kits.


----------



## Bhu

Hi Darrel, just finished reading everything again what a fantastic posts you have added! You have a great job! I like what you have said and can relate to it from my A level chemistry days. I would really appreciate some help on this one...
Do all compunds ionise at the same time rate? i.e would the Mg and Ca forms of NO3 ionise at the same speed as the K compound of NO3?

At present I use off the shelf plant ferts and at the price I see why people are using salts and mixing their own. I just need to work out what I need. I use pure RO water at the moment. I started with no buffer and had good results then I was introduced to using an expensive liquid buffer product from my LFS which didn't produce as good results. I clearly will need to add a source of Mg and Ca on top of my NO3 source and micro nutrients. It's just a real challenge to work out all the salt compounds I'll need to keep my plants and fish happy. I will be about 50% stocked (so some natural urea) in a 150lt fully planted aquarium running pressurised CO2. I'm really happy with my current plant growth but not the price of the ferts  so need to create one as most here are doing. I really don't want to mess my water up though. Right now it's at a really good acidity from 6.4 down to 6 or slightly less. My fish are Amazon types so like the black water soft acidity.

Do I need to add a water buffer to my RO water? I understand that the PH changes due to the CO2 injection and this is fine. But some salts make water more alkaline which I don't want. I just want to feed my plants perfectly and not kill my fish 

Any help appreciated 

I can see this option

http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/fertilisers/dry-chemicals/ei-starter-kit.html

Would I need extra Mg, Ca and P with this? The other option being what started this thread that looks harder to work out as the sites in German.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Bhu said:


> I would really appreciate some help on this one... Do all compunds ionise at the same time rate? i.e would the Mg and Ca forms of NO3 ionise at the same speed as the K compound of NO3?


 No they don't, generally the more soluble a compound is the quicker it will go into solution. Temperature also makes a difference, and so does how salty the water is, although this isn't really relevant to us.

You can get the solubility constants from Wikipedia. This is <KNO3>: "_316 g/L (20 °C)_" and in the case of nitrates they are all very soluble so there isn't any practical difference for Ca(NO3)2.4H2O etc. 





Bhu said:


> I really don't want to mess my water up though. Right now it's at a really good acidity from 6.4 down to 6 or slightly less. My fish are Amazon types so like the black water soft acidity.


Depends upon your tap water, our tap is very good quality, but hard (about 17dKH), and I keep S. American fish so I use rain-water, and very occasionally DI water. 





Bhu said:


> I can see this option <http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/fertilisers/dry-chemicals/ei-starter-kit.html>. Would I need extra Mg, Ca and P with this?


. This should be fine. If you know your water is very soft you could add some CaCl, but you would only need a very small amount.

You can use the calculator at <"James' Planted Tank">

cheers Darrel


----------



## Bhu

Thanks Darrel that's great. I always use RO water so. Ever tap water. It is usually around 1ppm of what I'm not sure. But very soft and slightly acidic. I will check the calculator out.

Would I need extra Magnesium and Phosphate?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Bhu said:


> Would I need extra Magnesium and Phosphate?


 No you shouldn't, plants don't require much Mg (although there might be problems with Mg++ uptake where you have very high levels of Ca++ ions). The mix might be a bit nitrogen poor. 

Even though phosphorus is one of the macro-elements plants need a lot less of it than they do potassium (K) or nitrogen (N). 

I think calcium probably isn't included in the mix because a lot of UK tap water contains more than enough for plant growth. If you need to buy CaCl2.2H2O it is about £3 per kilo via home brew shops, ebay etc. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Bhu

Thank you


----------



## Ahmad

Hello,
First of all thank you for great information..

I couldn't find Magnesium Nitrate but I have the below:

Potassium Nitrate
Calcium Nitrate
Urea
Magnesium Sulfate
Mono Potassium Phosphate
Potassium Sulfate

My Question is, since I don't have Magnesium Nitrate can I increase the amount of P.N or C.N to match the amount of Nitrate in Tobias mix ?

If yes, how much I need to increase the amount of P.N or/and C.N ?

25,9 g potassium nitrate
29,5 g calcium nitrate
17,6 g magnesium nitrate
5 g urea

Thank you in advance


----------



## plantbrain

I still want someone to explain why I have never seen a single case of K+ excess causing a problem for ANY plant species?

Look, I've played this game with folks going back to 2001 now. Every single time someone claims to have a found a plant that is sensitive to K+ and/or EI, I grow it and it and it turned into this:



I want some details on these folk's tanks other than the ferts.
Because there's no correlation there and I'm adding liberal amounts of KNO3 as well as GH booster and KH2PO4. 
Eg, more than they are adding in most cases. 

HC? 

I can grow the snot out of that plant, it's a weed. Needs trimmed often. 
I grow 180 cm worth of it, a trimming headache. 

Ammannia? This was one of the 1st.

You do not need to understand the science here. 
 But you do need to be able to reproduce the issues to say it's K+.

And that clearly has never been done once to date, after almost 15 years, you'd think someone would have stepped up to the plate and proven me wrong. 
Name a plant I cannot grow at high K+, sat 20-80 ppm.

I've waited 14 years. 
Every case has been falsified. 
If you do not bother to falsify  your own hypothesis, you do not know enough about the topic.

NO3 and K+ inhibition and Ca++ are signaling cues at millimolar levels for the cell transporters, they are not external exogenous fertilizer levels.
Two very different things. But many aquarist have confused the two. 

Please, anyone, name a plant that has some negative effect with high K+.
See if you can stump me, I double dog dare you.


----------



## hard determinist

plantbrain said:


> Every case has been falsified.


I don't believe every case has been falsified. IMO you use a perverse logic in your reasoning.

_*According to your logic:*_
If someone claims that the algae growth is related to the eleveted levels of nutrients, it is sufficient to find just one tank where this claim does not hold true (i.e. tank with elevated levels of nutriens and no visible algae), and the claim is thus falsified.

_*According to the same logic:*_
If someone claims that the algae growth is not related to the eleveted levels of nutrients, it is sufficient to find just one tank where this claim does not hold true (i.e. tank with elevated levels of nutriens and a lot of visible algae), and the claim is thus falsified.

So based on the same perverse logic I can easily falsify most of your claims.
So if you are waiting for this kind of arguments I'm afraid you'll wait for ages, without seeing your error.


----------



## dmachado

Hello Tobi,

First of all, many thanks for sharing your recipe, it is leading me to a new path and helping me understand some things about my past successes and my present frustrations.

I have been "detoxing" my aquarium from what I  think was excess trace dosing, keeping mainly iron fertilization. I have been dosing EI for quite some time now, I have pressurized CO2, but this 300L aquarium turned out a lot worse than my previous 150L overstocked and without CO2 addition.

Funny thing, I think I found this weekend some kind of "tipping point", as I added some 12 fish on Saturday, increased feeding accordingly and by sunday night many plants started to look greener. So I bet that, at least in my case, its the Urea. This would explain to some extent why my 150L aquarium was so successful, and why this 300L aquarium is giving so much trouble.

So now I have all the ingredients and I will start dosing as per your instructions.

Once again, thanks for sharing.


----------



## roadmaster

hard determinist said:


> I don't believe every case has been falsified. IMO you use a perverse logic in your reasoning.
> 
> _*According to your logic:*_
> If someone claims that the algae growth is related to the eleveted levels of nutrients, it is sufficient to find just one tank where this claim does not hold true (i.e. tank with elevated levels of nutriens and no visible algae), and the claim is thus falsified.
> 
> _*According to the same logic:*_
> If someone claims that the algae growth is not related to the eleveted levels of nutrients, it is sufficient to find just one tank where this claim does not hold true (i.e. tank with elevated levels of nutriens and a lot of visible algae), and the claim is thus falsified.
> 
> So based on the same perverse logic I can easily falsify most of your claims.
> So if you are waiting for this kind of arguments I'm afraid you'll wait for ages, without seeing your error.



What if dozen's of people have also noted no correlation between elevated nutrient level's and algae?
Could there be some other factor to consider ? Excess Light energy,CO2 or lack thereof,poor maint ,poor filtration, overfeeding,or roll your own method of dosing other than what method call's for? (whatever method is chosen)
Am near certain that Tom has set up and grown plant's in more than one aquarium over his time in the hobby as have most of us.


----------



## GHNelson

Algae.....mostly contributed to poor flow plus lack of regular water changes!
Inadequate cleaning of plants and filter maintenance....just my opinion! 
hoggie


----------



## hard determinist

roadmaster said:


> What if dozen's of people have also noted no correlation between elevated nutrient level's and algae?


What if hundreds or thousands of people (+ great many scientists) have also noted clear correlation between elevated nutrient levels and algae?

_PS: I'm able to induce many kinds of algae in my test tanks using elevated nutrient levels. Quite easy task._


----------



## roadmaster

hard determinist said:


> What if hundreds or thousands of people (+ great many scientists) have also noted clear correlation between elevated nutrient levels and algae?



Perhaps their nutrient level's far exceed that which we add to our aquarium's .
Perhaps their nutrient level's are comprised of too much organic matter rather than inorganic mineral salt's we use.
Perhaps their bodies of nutrient rich water do not get removed and replaced with fresh water on weekly basis.
Perhaps they receive too much light,poor CO2 availablility.


----------



## GHNelson

hard determinist said:


> What if hundreds or thousands of people (+ great many scientists) have also noted clear correlation between elevated nutrient levels and algae?


Hundreds of thousands can grow algae through lack of maintenance!
Tom Barr can grow multitudes of healthy plants with elevated Potassium fertilizer's but he does constant and regular water changes,in depth cleaning and even more important scrutinises his tanks every day!!!


----------



## hard determinist

roadmaster said:


> Perhaps their nutrient level's far exceed that which we add to our aquarium's .
> Perhaps their nutrient level's are comprised of too much organic matter rather than inorganic mineral salt's we use.
> Perhaps their bodies of nutrient rich water do not get removed and replaced with fresh water on weekly basis.
> Perhaps they receive too much light,poor CO2 availablility.


Or perhaps your explanation of the "cause and consequence" is not correct.
I grow plants in my test tanks where I use high light and high CO2 levels + do 100% water change each week. I use different nutrient concentrations in each tank (from very low to EI levels). I hardly have any organic or NH4 build up there. Still I can have a lot of algae there if I wish to. The scientist grow algae in lab very often using just petri dish with the correct nutrient media, put under recommended light source. So who's falsifying what?


----------



## roadmaster

Perhaps it is easier to  be a scientist than for many to successfully run a planted tank sans algae.
You could/can take some people by the hand and show em,and they will still fail.


----------



## hard determinist

hogan53 said:


> Hundreds of thousands can grow algae through lack of maintenance!
> Tom Barr can grow multitudes of healthy plants with elevated Potassium fertilizer's but he does constant and regular water changes,in depth cleaning and even more important scrutinises his tanks every day!!!


Why are you so imperious here? It's no "life or death" issue so take it easy. Or do you have no solid arguments, so you are trying to shout your opinion out to make it more valid? I say that the logic Tom uses for the falsification is twisted. I used the same logic to get a totaly different results. You did not show me any valid argument that proves this logic is correct. Instead you try to convince me that the result is correct. But I say nothing against the result (which doesn't mean I agree with it). I just use your own arguments against you to show you that they are not valid.


----------



## hard determinist

roadmaster said:


> Perhaps it is easier to  be a scientist than for many to successfully run a planted tank sans algae.
> You could/can take some people by the hand and show em,and they will still fail.


Agree. You can take some people by the hand and show them how algae are formed in a tank with plants + light + nutrients, and they'll still fail to recognize it  and keep speculating why it should not be true (organics, NH4, low maintenance, low CO2 ... bad planet, wrong galaxy).


----------



## roadmaster

Maybe the question should be.."How come so many can grow the weed's without issues related to nutrient delivery in their aquarium's"?
But this would assume that which one might not be ready to accept.
How come their tank's aren't crawling with algae?
What is their secret?
Are they lying bout their tank's?(lighting.CO2,Nutrient addition)
Are their tank's presented in photo album's a mirage?
These are the question's I wondered about for a good while. 
I had no interest in attacking a particular method or it's creator, just wanted to know the secret.
Clearly there was evidence that it could be done.


----------



## aquascape1987

Hi guys. Been reading this thread a month now and I'm looking to give Spezial N a go. I was wondering if anyome could give a bit of advice on how best to intergrate this mix into my current reigime.Currently I'm using apfs ei starter kit. How would I integrate Spezial N into that..? 

Dose in addition to?

Replace the macro mix entirely with Spezial 
N and still use the trace mix?

Currently my macro contains potassium nitrate,potassium phosphate and magnesium sulphate.

Also wondered if anyone on here had continued using the formula and perhaps made any tweaks to the composition that worked well for them. It's been 5 years since this was first introduced on here , so I imagine if ukaps members are still using, they will have developed their own formula variations of this. I did see George had customised it at some point but again that was years ago now

Does anyone know how this Spezial N might affect my amano shrimp and ottos if at all??


----------



## EdwinK

Just ask yourself why you want to do that? What is wrong with your current setup? Do plants look in need of additional nitrogen? Do you have algae issues?


----------



## aquascape1987

Fully understand what your angling at,but I want to try it and see if I can improve my results. That's how the human race progresses, by not accepting it's current situation, even though it already works just fine, but we endeavor for further progress 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## EdwinK

Agree. But you need to know what goal you are trying to achieve, what are you trying to improve. If plants are in their top condition they wont become different.


----------



## Eduard18

I used Spezial N in my RIO 300 and it didn't affect the shrimps or the otos ; so you have green light 
And I currently use Mikrospezial Flowgrow in my nano - the force awakens post - doesn't affect shrimps and otos, either 

some exchanges in this thread makes it look like a matter of life and death ; and gave me some headaches 

Cheers

Envoyé de mon SM-G935F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## EdwinK

OK, somehow majority of folks did not notice that any ferts with urea or amonium nitrate require soft, acidic water and good biological filtration to be harmless. Don't forget to start dosing in small amounts and watch closely for inhabitants behaviour.


----------



## Eduard18

True, in both tanks KH 4-5 and pH around 6.4  

Envoyé de mon SM-G935F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## xandro007

I use it to with very good results 


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk


----------



## aquascape1987

OK so would I just replace my current macro with the spezial n or would I use this in addition?


----------



## aquascape1987

Edwin, my plants are in good quality at present but I wouldn't say the best that they could be. Especially my hc Cuba,  which reading through this I can see that some people have had particularly good results specifically with that plant. That's really what I'm testing this in the hope of achieving.


----------



## EdwinK

aquascape1987 said:


> OK so would I just replace my current macro with the spezial n or would I use this in addition?



You can replace your current macro but don't forget to dose phosphates as well.


----------



## aquascape1987

Would anyone know if there would be a problem in simply adding the spezial n (mixed separately) to my current ei dosing regime, WITHOUTstopping the ei macro. I.e dosing as a super EI and Spezial N combination reigime. That way I would assume that the plants would have an abundance of all nutrients, with a specific boost to the nitrogen available as well. I know some of the responses to this would be that it's not necessary, but I'm not interested in that for what it would cost... What I'm interested in is,whether or not this would have any negative effects on the plants or the fauna rather than just a positive on the plants? If no negative then the combination of both of these ferts dosed simultaneously would surely just provide a guaranteed abundance of all elements required... I am talking about the Spezial N minus the urea by the way plus standard EI


----------



## EdwinK

In case you are skipping the urea can't see the reason why you need Spezial N at all. I think that urea is the key ingredient in that traces because plants need less energy to withdraw the nitrogen and get additional source of carbon.


----------



## aquascape1987

Oh right...   some others posting on here are using the mix minus urea.. If so what's the point??


----------



## EdwinK

Perhaps they tap water is soft and they need additional calcium and magnesium.


----------



## aquascape1987

So what do you think of the concept of adding in addition to standard EI? Would there be any negative effects to the plants or fauna?


----------



## EdwinK

I'm not a on the side of EI so for me is very difficult to mention any positive effect of this method except maybe a fast increase of plant biomass. And I don't like too many nitrogen in the water column because it somehow blocks the plant's ability to achieve a deep red colour.


----------



## aquascape1987

So what regime so you use to achieve good results with red plants then?


----------



## EdwinK

As source of nitrogen I dose only urea and 2 ppm/week PO4. Duckweed index helps me to estimate if I'm not overdosing with nitrogen. Half the recommended dose of micro traces and 0,03 ppm/week iron. Don't take this regime as an absolute truth because with different soil and water I would choose absolutely different approach.


----------



## nayr88

Hi is any one using this currently? 
I'm dosing aqua rebel EI, Eisen and spezial N.

I'm dosing Co2 with the drop checker green and lights on and off 
I have 12 x turn over and am doing weekly 60% water change.
I have high light that's in for 8 hours a dayand have medium plant density(planted about a month ago) 

As per the website I'm dosing as per the website calculator around
1.2ml of N per day
1.8 of EI and 
0.6 of eisen Mikro

I'm not really getting any growth over the past 3 weeks and have tons of brown fuzzy algae,


----------



## Viet1357911

I found this topic too late. I have hard time try many fert approaches, only lowering K can help my plant become better. If my K go high i will got calcium deficiency sign. Lowering K and add more calcium help me solve it


----------

