# Iron deficiency with EI



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Hi

I have noticed lately that some of my plants turn white like stayrogen repens and monte carlo. I am double dosing macros and micros. Is there a chance that Iron can become low even with EI?

Thanks.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> Is there a chance that Iron can become low even with EI?


Nope. Not with correct dosing EI, especially double dosing.

99.99999% of issues when people use EI, is poor/insufficient CO2 for your light level, which why you dose EI, to completely 100% exclude lack of nutrients being an issue.

What is your tank size, lighting and CO2 regime, please ?


----------



## Marcel G (22 Jan 2015)

That's nice reply, but did you hear about precipitation issues or other problems with PO4 and Fe? Why do you place blame on CO2 all the time? Right now I suffer strong PO4 deficiency in two of my plants in my tank where I add more then 3 ppm PO4 each week. But I'm quite sure you would explain it as CO2 problem.


----------



## Paulo Soares (22 Jan 2015)

Guys.. .there you go again..i think you both are right. Light and Co2 are the essencials in order for the plants aborve all other nutrients. Right? This two factor are ignition for plants do the rest. So i read over and over.

So.. if Co2 is not in good level that could be the cause for plants not absorving PO4 or another specific nutrient. 

Did i say something stupid?


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

ardjuna said:


> That's nice reply, but did you hear about precipitation issues or other problems with PO4 and Fe? Why do you place blame on CO2 all the time? Right now I suffer strong PO4 deficiency in two of my plants in my tank where I add more then 3 ppm PO4 each week. But I'm quite sure you would explain it as CO2 problem.



Ok Ill go ahead and say it although this isnt the thread to do so.

In my opinion the plant problems (the so called defficiencies, not algae problems) can be overcome in two ways. One is adding more CO2 and the other is adding more nutrients. i dont think its a one variable thing.

More CO2-> Plant does better at picking up nutrients
More Nutrients-> its easier for the plant to pick up nutrients and probably no need for so much CO2.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

ardjuna said:


> but did you hear about precipitation issues or other problems with PO4 and Fe


This why you dose macro & micro alternate days. If you mix macro and micro in a bottle you will get a precipitate (assuming pH is right), but due to dilution and alternate days this generally won't happen in the tank. This has been researched and measured and is not an issue in a tank.

The EI dosing levels were derived from actual measured nutrient consumption with plants exposed to over 5W/gallon and max CO2, so I seriously doubt that if you are dosing EI (especially double EI) you are having nutrient (PO4) deficiency issues.

Again all points to CO2 issues for the level of light you are using.

This is the original EI research from 2008 (and earlier).
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/estimative-index/5053-confusion-about-ei-and-other-myths


----------



## Paulo Soares (22 Jan 2015)

Is there a problem of dosing the tank with macro and micro on the same day on a daily basis?
They´re not mixed in the bottle.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

As you say Ian this was done at perfect CO2 levels. Maybe if CO2 is low and you up the the nutrient, then the deficiency does not happen.

Tom Barr is suggesting that you can forget about nutrients, but is this right? I dont think it is black or white, and maybe with higher nutrients you dont need such high CO2. Of course I am no scientist and know nothing on the matter.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> Tom Barr is suggesting that you can forget about nutrients, but is this right?


Yes. He measured the maximum possible nutrient uptake of plants and EI is based on providing more than this, thus you can forget about nutrient levels and concentrate on important controllable and measurable things like CO2 (and light).


----------



## Marcel G (22 Jan 2015)

_*Jose, *_my previous post was rather sarcastic => I was a form of criticism of some EI people who IMO much too often blame low CO2 for every other issue in our planted tanks.

As to what _*ian_m *_said: Do you know that EI is not any non-limiting method at all? A couple of days ago T.Barr admited this in discussion with me on barrreport.com (see post #22). Also, I would recommend you reading what Paul Krombholz said about PO4 turnover rates in freshwater (you would find many papers on this on web elsewhere from different authors also). According to my experiences plants are able to remove P from water in just few hours after you add it there. And do you think that all plants are able to absorb phosphates (or other nutrients) with the same speed? So you seriously doubt that I can have PO4 deficiency in my tank, although you don't even know what my tank look like! That's strange.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

I dont think people are getting my point. Im suggesting that defficiencies are a function of the relationship nutrients+CO2, so they can be fixed in two ways. Adding more CO2 or adding more nutrients (even more than EI)

So for example: If you have 15 ppm CO2 and 1 ppm PO4 then say you get GSA. You can fix this problem by adding more PO4 (and keeping CO2 the same) or by adding more CO2 (and keeping PO4 the same). And the same for all other defficiencies.

So if you have 15 ppm CO2 in your tank then maybe if you add 2xEI or 3xEI then your might not run into the problems that you might run into if you only dose1xEI.

Many people Im sure have got to the conclusion and are adding more than EI specially PO4.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

ardjuna said:


> So you seriously doubt that I can have PO4 deficiency in my tank, although you don't even know what my tank look like


Yes. The EI values are nutrient levels beyond what a plant needs.

However EI is not set in stone, if you think you need PO4, there is absolutely no harm in adding excess, won't cause algae, but it is probably a waste of good PO4. Try it, watch the plants.



Jose said:


> Im suggesting that defficiencies are a function of the relation nutrients+CO2


It can't be lack of nutrients causing deficiencies as you are dosing values beyond any that a plant can use, thus it only leaves CO2 to be the issue.

I had a pump failure once and dosed 1litre of double strength macro into 180litres, giving NO3 at over 300ppm and PO4...well high... for a couple of days before I realise what had happened. No algae, no extra plant growth, fish not concerned only issue was me in having wasted 1litre of solution...


----------



## Marcel G (22 Jan 2015)

Sorry, but you're right. I don't get your point ... I don't believe it can be true. According to your theory if I have too low PO4 and some of my plants begin to suffer a lot from P deficiency, then I can solve it just by raising the CO2 level? And what level do you suggest? My dropchecker is yellow-green right now ... my CO2 concentration should be much higher then 15 ppm. What can more CO2 solve in PO4 deficiency? Do you think plants can substitude P element by C element in their metabolism? Also, it seems strange to me how you separate CO2 and nutrients. CO2 is also a nutrient, in the first place! Or do you think CO2 is some supernatural nutrient? Carbon is a nutrient which plants need in much bigger supply then other nutrients, but still it's a nutrient.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> It can't be lack of nutrients causing deficiencies as you are dosing values beyond any that a plant can use, thus it only leaves CO2 to be the issue.
> I had a pump failure once and dosed 1litre of double strength macro into 180litres, giving NO3 at over 300ppm and PO4...well high... for a couple of days before I realise what had happened. No algae, no extra plant growth, fish not concerned only issue was me in having wasted 1litre of solution...



This doesnt proof my theory wrong still. One thing is how much plants consume. Another thing is the levels at which they do better, and this Im sure depends on other things like CO2.


----------



## Paulo Soares (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> Another thing is the levels at which they do better, and this Im sure depends on other things like CO2.



If in "Ei" all levels are beyond plants necessities i dont get your point... (?)


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

Ok never mind. We can get to the next thing.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

ardjuna said:


> According to your theory if I have too low PO4


Whose theory ? How do you know you have low PO4, have you measured levels using laboratory grade tests ? You are dosing EI, you cannot have low PO4, there will always be sufficient, thus plant issues are not due to macro ferts, just leaving CO2 (and light) as the cause of the issues.

As I said, there is no reason why you could not add more PO4 if you want to, but I doubt you are having a PO4 deficiency issue.


----------



## Marcel G (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> Yes. The EI values are nutrient levels beyond what a plant needs.


No. The EI values are maybe half of what a fast-growing plant may really need for maximum growth.



> Try it, watch the plants.


I'm not any newbie in EI. Do you think I'm a 



> It can't be lack of nutrients causing deficiencies as you are dosing values beyond any that a plant can use, thus it only leaves CO2 to be the issue.


That's the biggest cliché being repeated again and again without any scientific evidence ... or I would say contrary to all scientific evidences. I can show you many scientific papers stating that for most fast-growing aquatic plants (which tend to have the biggest demands on nutrient uptake) the non-limiting level of CO2 is somewhere around 20-40 ppm (0.5-1 mM) under full sunlight (1500-2000 µmol.m.s.). There's a lot of scientific evidence for this. So contrary to what EI people (or T.Barr) say no one probably needs more then 30 ppm CO2 for non-limiting growth of his plants. And even when you have 10 ppm CO2, most aquatic plants will do just fine.



> I had a pump failure once and dosed 1litre of double strength macro into 180litres, giving NO3 at over 300ppm and PO4...well high...


I have another experience: Once I added by mistake nearly 30 ppm PO4 into my tank. The next day I measured only about 5 ppm PO4, and the third day the concentration droped to zero! You may never be sure you have enough nutrients in your tank ... especially with regard to PO4.

PS: Do I need laboratory grade test kit to find out whether I have zero PO4 in my water? When I use some ordinary PO4 test kit, and add a little KH2PO4 in the water sample, and the color turn purple, then I know it works. When I use water sample from my tank, and the color doesn't change, then I know there's no PO4. That's all I need to know. No need to use lab grade tests for this simple test as I don't need to know the exact PO4 concentration ... I just need to know if I have any phosphates in my tank. But it seems you're not able to admit that there can be something in our tanks which can cause some nutrients to change their form (availability). You probably think that if we add nutrients into our tank water, all must obediently remain in available form until the next water change or until our plants use them.


----------



## Marcel G (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> This doesnt proof my theory wrong still. One thing is how much plants consume. Another thing is the levels at which they do better, and this Im sure depends on other things like CO2.


Jose, I don't know if I got it yet, but the above comment reminds me of something. Few months ago I did some tests with nutrient uptake, and find out that when the external nutrient concentration in water was 30 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4 etc. my plants were able to use up 7 ppm NO3, 0.4 ppm PO4 etc. per week. But when the external concentration was lower (15 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4) my plants were able to use up only 4 ppm NO3 and 0.2 ppm PO4 per week. So I agree that the real nutrient uptake by plants depens to a great extent on the external concentration of nutrients. Also I read that plants are able to somehow rearrange their uptake mechanisms according to the nutrients which are in least supply. They are not able to do it for all nutrients, only for some of them, but if some of these nutrients are in short supply, the plants can activate some mechanisms for better uptake of these nutrients (for example they can build some enzymes which can extract the nutrients from dissolved or particulate organic matter also). So the Liebig law of the minimum doesn't apply here, because when some nutrient becomes the most limiting, the plants do their best to improve the mechanisms of its uptake, and also they do their best to lower the need for other nutrients! So the plants are actually working hard so that all the nutrients were in some kind of equilibrium. In other words, if they have enough NO3, K, Ca, Mg etc. but too little PO4, they lower the uptake of NO3, K, Ca ... but improve the uptake of PO4. So in the end the plants adapt themselves for optimal uptake rates under given conditions.


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> I have noticed lately that some of my plants turn white like stayrogen repens and monte carlo. I am double dosing macros and micros. Is there a chance that Iron can become low even with EI?


Yes but I have also heard dosing liquid carbon at high levels can cause some plants to turn white.

As for dosing higher levels of iron I would be careful of adding too much Plantex as your sole source of iron. You can add Fe DTPA and Fe Gluconate to Plantex CSM+B, i.e., CMS+B, Fe Gluconate and DTPA Fe at 4:1:1 ratio by volume or make a solution of say Fe DTPA and Fe Gluconate for daily dosing.

The post ardjuna is referring to is an amazing realization worth reading. I am glad that you and Tom finally got it right regarding non-limiting nutrients. If nothing else, those who always say it's CO2 should take the time to find out more information before they mouth off. As an example, If Jaap would tell us if he doses liquid carbon or not, this might be the problem - not CO2 or EI. That's not to say CO2 isn't vital to plant growth or that there aren't a lot of people that need to improve on their CO2. Because EI can no longer be considered non-limiting under every condition, each situation needs to be considered individually.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

Lets see:
Ardjuna. You are saying that you have noticed the same as me but you give a different explanation/s.
We have both noticed this: If we see what looks like a PO4 deficiency we add more PO4 and solve it. We have seen that EI levels arent always enough.
Now where we differ is in our explanation of why.
You say that this is due to precipitation of PO4 or you also suggest that plants can consume more than EI levels. This could be the case but I dont think so. Precipitation doesnt happen to a huge extent normally for PO4 and most of our tanks dont consume more than EI.
My explanation is that by adding more PO4 (even than EI levels) your plants have easier acces to it and thus the deficiency disappears without touching the CO2. This is because deficiencies are due to a relationship Nutrients-CO2. Both of you are seeing the deficiency as a function of only 1 thing (CO2 for Ian and PO4 for Ardjuna). Both of you are right but not totally since I dont think you explain the whole pictur just half of it. You can solve the deficiency by modifying each of the two variables (PO4 and CO2)  separately or at the same time. The point is the defficieny is a function of how much PO4 is in the water for the level of CO2 (relationship CO2-PO4). You could see it the other way around as well but its still a relationship.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

This could be another way to see it:

For Tom Barrs experiments:
CO2->50ppm (not sure but its just to make a point)
2 ppm of PO4 is enough so as not to get deficiencies
X ammount of light


For another tank
CO2->30 ppm (this is what the person thinks maybe in reality its at 20ppm)
Maybe this person needs 5ppm of PO4 so as not to see deficiencies
same X ammount of light

Im not talking in any case about nutrient uptake here. Just water nutrient levels and plants responses.

Can Ceg take a second to make me stop toying with this idea?


----------



## Paulo Soares (22 Jan 2015)

> Because EI can no longer be considered non-limiting under every condition





> you also suggest that plants can consume more than EI levels



I´m reading all this with very attention and i´m starting to get a bit insurgent.. cause when i started in this hobby i was defending too exaclty what Ardjuna and Tug and others are saying.. (more or less).
From the beggining, I never really accept the "marvelous Ei fairy tail" that everybody was claiming about. I was always reticent, and have some difficult to accept Ei theorys as so simple it was presented.

After a couple of years reading and reading lot´s and amounts of information, and disturbing so many people gathering opinions, (some of you also) i finnaly acepted the fact of Ei be what was being told..
And now ... really.. after reading all this i don´t know what to think. I guess i´ve had enough of this Ei controversial stuff. I only find funny the gentleman in the root of Ei never came to public clarify once and for all this doubts of milions. Cause talking to the guy in his B. Report is not an easy task..
But he is aware of the controversial.

So.. never mind this is me pouring..
I´m going to focus in my tank´s observation and self understanding as i always did since i remember being in this hobby.

A big hug


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> I have noticed lately that some of my plants turn white like stayrogen repens and monte carlo. I am double dosing macros and micros. Is there a chance that Iron can become low even with EI?


There are several situations that can cause a plant to grow white/yellow leaves. Iron deficiency, carbon deficiency, nitrogen and even Calcium deficiency. I have also heard that overdosing excel can cause a bleached effect on some plants, stem plants mostly. Without asking Jaap a few questions, I fail to understand how we can help answer the OP.


tug said:


> If Jaap would tell us if he doses liquid carbon or not, this might be the problem - not CO2 or EI.



If you did not read this post concerning EI, then you really should. EI is less likely limiting, not non-limiting.
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/barr-report/estimative-index/5053-confusion-about-ei-and-other-myths
CO2 will always be limited when plants are grown in tanks of water containing fish.
The relationship between PO4 and CO2 while important to understand, fails to answer the question of the OP.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

Paulo Soares said:


> I´m reading all this with very attention and i´m starting to get a bit insurgent.. cause when i started in this hobby i was defending too exaclty what Ardjuna and Tug and others are saying.. (more or less).
> From the beggining, I never really accept the "marvelous Ei fairy tail" that everybody was claiming about. I was always reticent, and have some difficult to accept Ei theorys as so simple it was presented.
> After a couple of years reading and reading lot´s and amounts of information, and disturboing so many people gathering opinnions, (some of you also) i finnaly acepted the fact of Ei be what was being told..
> And now ... really.. after reading all this i don´t know what to think. I guess i´ve had enough of this Ei controversial stuff. I only find funny the gentleman in the root of Ei never came to public clarify once and for all this doubts of milions. Cause talking to the guy in his B. Report is not an easy task..
> ...



EI does work and is great. But some people want to know more. You shouldnt have doubts about it. Its made many nice high tech tanks. Its designed to apply it with your eyes closed and thats whats great really.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

tug said:


> The relationship between PO4 and CO2 while important to understand, fails to answer the question of the OP.


No it doesnt. It could actually be a defficiency (CO2 or whatever nutrient). We dont know. Although I agree thats its gone out of track.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

ardjuna said:


> When I use water sample from my tank, and the color doesn't change, then I know there's no PO4


This could be you problem. Hobby PO4 test kits are heavily influenced by other chemicals (both natural and EI) in your tank water, which is why lab grade kits must be used (as per Tom Barr) if you want to get any meaningful reading of actual PO4 in your tank. I think hobby PO4 tests tend to grossly under read in presence of other ions (NO3 tests over read I think) present in tank water, so much so hobby grade test kits will often read zero regardless of actual PO4 levels.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

You are dosing Mg ? I have seen numerous cases, with "whiting" & "yellowing" plants, where people have invented their own version of dosing with no MgSO4, as they have incorrectly assumed there water supply was supplying Mg. Just added powered MgSO4 sent the plants back to green in a couple of days.


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Hobby PO4 test kits are heavily influenced by the hobbits through misuse, IMHO. I do not think ardjuna is one of those hobbyists.
Plants having a Mg deficiency would  have dark veins with lighter leaf tissue but it's worth asking - a picture would be helpful too.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> This could be you problem. Hobby PO4 test kits are heavily influenced by other chemicals (both natural and EI) in your tank water, which is why lab grade kits must be used (as per Tom Barr) if you want to get any meaningful reading of actual PO4 in your tank.



As Ardjuna has said they are no good if you need to know absolute values with low error. But they can be useful to measure a quantitative change in concentration. Say if your water has gone from 5ppm PO4 to 1ppm Im sure youll notice it with many test kits.


----------



## dw1305 (22 Jan 2015)

Hi all,


ardjuna said:


> Do I need laboratory grade test kit to find out whether I have zero PO4 in my water? When I use some ordinary PO4 test kit, and add a little KH2PO4 in the water sample, and the color turn purple, then I know it works. When I use water sample from my tank, and the color doesn't change, then I know there's no PO4. That's all I need to know. No need to use lab grade tests for this simple test as I don't need to know the exact PO4 concentration


 You've got  to be a little bit careful. Nearly all test kits will work with the added ions from the dissolution of added salts, but like "ian_m" says, the problem comes when you have a solution (tank water) with a range of anions present. 





ian_m said:


> Hobby PO4 test kits are heavily influenced by other chemicals (both natural and EI) in your tank water, which is why lab grade kits must be used (as per Tom Barr) if you want to get any meaningful reading of actual PO4 in your tank. I think hobby PO4 tests tend to grossly under read in presence of other ions (NO3 tests over read I think) present in tank water, so much so hobby grade test kits will often read zero regardless of actual PO4 levels


 Tests are better for multivalent ions like PO4--- than they are for monovalent ones, like NO3-, but there are still problems.

You can also get deficiency problems due to the ratio between ions, where you may have non-limiting values of an element, but  its uptake is blocked by high levels of another element. This is what you get when you have a large excess of calcium (Ca) ions, blocking the uptake of magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe), .

Both phosphorus (P) and iron (Fe) deficiencies can occur in solution, mainly because the majority of compounds they form are insoluble.

This is a particular problem in hard water, where you get iron hydroxide, iron phosphate  and insoluble calcium phosphate complexes formed. This was the original reason for the development of chelators like FeEDTA for hydroponics, these "trickle" iron ions out over time as the FeEDTA is photo-degraded.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> ardjuna said: ↑
> Do I need laboratory grade test kit to find out whether I have zero PO4 in my water? When I use some ordinary PO4 test kit, and add a little KH2PO4 in the water sample, and the color turn purple, then I know it works. When I use water sample from my tank, and the color doesn't change, then I know there's no PO4. That's all I need to know. No need to use lab grade tests for this simple test as I don't need to know the exact PO4 concentration
> You've got to be a little bit careful. Nearly all test kits will work with the added ions from the dissolution of added salts, but like "ian_m" says, the problem comes when you have a solution (tank water) with a range of anions present.
> ...



Hi Darrel. This is the problem that Tom Barr says hes never encountered any of this problems even in hard water and he says its always due to CO2. Although he sometimes admits that very few people might have this as a minor problem.


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> Say if your water has gone from 5ppm PO4 to 1ppm Im sure youll notice it with many test kits


No you wont, as pointed out there are other ions in solution other than PO4 that could change as well and affect the result.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> No you wont, as pointed out there are other ions in solution other than PO4 that could change as well and affect the result.


You are measuring a change. The rest of ions were there when you did test 1 and are still there when you do test 2. You have more or less the same ammount of "noise" in both experiments.


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Sorry, I posted the wrong link. 


> I could say that EI is (much) LESS limiting than most other methods.
> That would be a much more accurate statement.


http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...growth-optimal-test-from-paul-krombholz/page2


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> The rest of ions were there when you did test 1 and are still there when you do test 2


How do you know, the other ions will have changed as well, giving a false result. You are trying to get one result, the PO4 level, from two unknowns, PO4 and other ions, not possible to get a single reading.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> How do you know, the other ions will have changed as well, giving a false result.


Wed have to know what ions interfere with PO4. but chances are their conc doesnt change alot. Unless its NO3 or K



ian_m said:


> You are trying to get one result, the PO4 level, from two unknowns, PO4 and other ions, not possible to get a single reading.


You dont need an absolute number. You will see the difference (plant uptake).


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> Wed have to know what ions interfere with PO4. but chances are their conc doesnt change alot. Unless its NO3 or K


Loads of false assumptions here.
1. We don't know what ions in the tank interfere with the PO4 test, but we know they do.
2. How do you know the other ion concentration doesn't change ? The pH of your tank may vary hourly with say CO2 and light, this will certainly change ion concentrations which will affect test results.
3. NO3 & K may or may not change and may or may not affect the PO4 reading.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

Anyway this is far from the point of the tread. Im not going to keep defending test kits since I myself dont use them.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

A bit more info about my 40 litre tank...

1. A TMC GroBeam 1500 Ultima tile, 40cm from substrate and at 60% intensity
2. Substrate is JBL manado
3. My kH is around 9
4. I am pumping CO2 at such a high rate which is not measurable by bubbles per second. It is connected onto an inline diffuser which is connected on the inlet of the filter. Because the CO2 pumped inside the filter is not dissolved completely, CO2 bubbles are blown out of the filter every 5 minutes or so. CO2 system has no leaks, triple checked it. It is impossible to pump more CO2 into this tank. Drop checker is yellow and pH drops by 1.2 units in an hour!
5.The filter is 1000 L per hour and has only sponges and ceramic media
6. Filter is connected to a spray bar along the length of the back of the tank. Spraybar points directly straight towards the front glass and it is situated 1-2 cm below water level
7. In my macro solution I have KNO3, KH2PO4 and Epsom Salts so yes I also dose Mg
8. I do not dose Excel

Could Hydrogen Peroxide cause this whitening? I added 4ml with a syringe on a few plants including the stayrogyne repens and montecarlo.

Thanks


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> Could Hydrogen Peroxide cause this whitening


Yes, it will kill plants, some seem to die even at quite low doses.

Definitely sounds like you have a CO2 issue, pumping that much in for so little effect in the tank.

Try weighing your CO2 equipment before CO2 on after CO2 off to see how much you are using per day. 

I have a set of these and despite stating max is 5Kg, will read my 5.380Kg of an FE with attached regulator.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/8426473.htm#pdpFullProductInformation

I measure about 20gr per day in an 180l tank, with yellow drop checker and in line diffuser. You should therefore be 40/180 * 20 -> 4.5gr per day, so 2Kg FE lasting 2000/4 days -> 444 days.


----------



## foxfish (22 Jan 2015)

I would move your atomiser to the filter outlet, I am sure you will see a big improvement (and a lot of mist of course!)
If your filter is burping as much as you say then you are just wasteing gas......


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Please help me understand....how can I have a CO2 problem if my drop checker is yellow and my pH drop is 1.2 in an hour and my circulation is more than enough? Why is the CO2 the problem? The effects might be the same of that of low CO2 but surely with the facts a gave above then CO2 is being dissolved in the twater, however I am pumping more than the filter can dissolve and that why is blowing out bubbles but still the dissolved CO2 should be more than enough...right?


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

The fact that you are having to pump monster amounts of CO2 into such a small tank to get drop checker to change indicates a CO2 issue somewhere.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Maybe the drop checker becomes yellow with less co2...havent tried that...maybe the pH drop of 1 or 0.8 is still sufficient and a drop of 1.2 is too much...right?


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Next issue I assume you are using a digital pH meter, not a test kit that as we know can be hopelessly influenced by other things in the tank water ?


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Yeap digital...anyone still thinks its a co2 issue?


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> A TMC GroBeam 1500 Ultima tile, 40cm from substrate and at 60% intensity


I think this may be the issue. You are "burning" the plants with too much light.

Read this, had to run 60% BUT 50cm above water surface not substrate.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/grobeam-1500.26199/

There are other threads about using these at only 20% level as any higher damaged the plants.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

ian_m said:


> I think this may be the issue. You are "burning" the plants with too much light.
> 
> Read this, had to run 60% BUT 50cm above water surface not substrate.
> http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/grobeam-1500.26199/
> ...


Mr Teapot has this light at 40cm and at 100% intensity and it looks good...

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?threads/27575/

This is from his journal:
Tank height: 30cm. Grobeam 600 was at 50-100% @ about 10cm from surface (dependent on what stage the tank was at. Current tile is at about 40-45cm @ 100%


----------



## ian_m (22 Jan 2015)

ok not light level then. Just a thought as quite a few people have vaped their plants with monsterous light levels despite spot in CO2 and EI.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Hehe...looks like I am screwed...light is ok, co2 is ok, circulation is ok...its either nutrients or I burned my plants with h2o2...


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

I'm not a big proponent of filters as reactors but it does sound as if your CO2 is above 30ppm most the day.
I did not look into your light, though it sounds sufficient.

As far as adding additional iron, at 2-3 x EI, using various types of chelated Fe at the 4:1:1 ratio is a safe move. Is it enough? Maybe not. So, what's next, NO3? Try 15ppm NO3 and 5ppm PO4, twice a week, if that's more. H2O2? Maybe not so much.


----------



## X3NiTH (22 Jan 2015)

Anymore re-occurrence of the fungi you had growing in there.

Aquatic Fungi - some are parasitic.

Just something else to throw in the mix if all else has been eliminated.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

I removed the flame moss and fixed everything


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> Maybe the drop checker becomes yellow with less co2...havent tried that...maybe the pH drop of 1 or 0.8 is still sufficient and a drop of 1.2 is too much...right?


Drop checkers do have a lag time, often an hour or so but the drop in pH your providing sounds excellent, if your sure of your surface water clarity. Adding H2O2 is a little like a drug dependency - find a way to kick it. If it bleached your plants, look for new green growth.

If this all happened after the moss left the room it might still make for an interesting tail.


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

You can do simple test. Try adding 2xEI or even 3xEI. There shouldnt be any problems with this. And you should really convince yourself about nutrients.


----------



## Jaap (22 Jan 2015)

Is it ok to add both macros and micros 5 minutes appart sometimes or do they react together?


----------



## Jose (22 Jan 2015)

They can react. Dose on alternate days.


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Jaap said:


> Is it ok to add both macros and micros 5 minutes appart sometimes or do they react together?


With your KH what it is, the chelates will have a tendency to break off soon after they are dosed but I don't think it matters. The Fe EDTA in Plantex lasts for 36 hours or so - remaining available to the plants. You might try using more DTPA Fe relative to ETDA Fe but it has more to do with the KH not what day you dose.

I wonder if this might all get better if you backed off on the light but that might be construed as cheating and would only slow down growth on average.


----------



## tug (22 Jan 2015)

Jose said:


> More Nutrients-> its easier for the plant to pick up nutrients and probably no need for so much CO2.


I'm not sure I would agree. More NPK+Fe -> higher uptake of NPK+Fe seems to be correct.
PO4 and CO2 do have a relationship. It may have more to do with increasing efficiency - not what is a needed CO2 level. Something that always helps me is to remember that plant growth will increase in low light when CO2 is provided - the compensation point for light in plants seems to change w/out an increase in PAR. I believe the same is true if you do it the other way around but for us that will only bring heartache.


----------

