# Recommended ppm??



## LondonDragon

What are the recommended ppm we should be dosing of each dry salt??

Just curious to know what we should be aiming at, I did some reading and I get various recommendations all over the place, what's the best way to calculate what ppm are we dosing into the tank??

KNO3 = 
K2SO4 =
KH2PO4 =
MgSO4 =
Calcium Ca =
Iron Fe = 

Thanks


----------



## tel

Hey LD, 
Clive's article, http://www.ukaps.org/EI.htm, lists Ei to be 

Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week
Magnesium (Mg) 10ppm per week
Iron (Fe) 0.5ppm per week

Which from my understanding is what is regarded as the maxium uptake of nutrients of plants (mind you I have only just started dosing EI).

However I do recall reading, and I can't remember where, that Clive dosed higher than 3ppm with PO4 and the plants really thrived(*note* I could be mistaken, I do a lot of reading and sometimes it gets a little blurry). I wish I could remeber as it was really interesting.
But if that is the case it then conflicts with maxium uptake which is where it gets confusing, at least for me.
Not sure whether that is a help or a hinderance.  
cheers, 
tel


----------



## LondonDragon

yeah just noticed that LOL where are my glasses!! thanks
So its the same values that Nutricalc uses to calculate amounts needed.


----------



## ceg4048

Hey Paulo,
              There's only one real way to determine ppm and that is to use the molar weights as percentages of the weights you are using. Just google for the molar weight of the compound. Start with KNO3 for example. You'll find the following;
*Element____# of Atoms____% by Weight*
Nitrogen________1______________14%
Oxygen_________3______________47%
Potassium_______1______________39%

So Nitrate is NO3 right? this means 14% + 47% = 61% of the total weight of KNO3 is made up of nitrate. 

So, if I add 1 gram of KNO3 to 1000 L of water that would give me 1ppm of KNO3, comprised of 0.6ppm of NO3 and 0.4ppm of K.

The concentrations are easier to manipulate if you work in multiples of 10. PPM is really 1/1,000,000th which is the same as milligrams of something dissolved into kilograms of something else. So 1 gram KNO3 to only 100 L of water gives me 10X the concentration (i.e. 10ppm KNO3) or 6ppm NO3 + 4ppm K.

If the numbers are not multiples of 10 then you have to use the brute force method and simply figure out how many miligrams you're adding to how many litres. Then divide the two, viola, instant ppm. The problem only becomes sticky for those wimpy people who dose pre-mixed solutions. They have to figure out what the ppms of their mixture is and then how much dilution is occurring based on adding the solution to the tank. But again, as long as you understand the concept, then this is only a minor annoyance. All dosing calculators, such as nutricalc as well as JamesC's Dosing Calculator have to use this same principle.

So lets say you made a macro solution using 33 grams KNO3 in 250ml water. 
We know that 33 grams is really 33,000 mg and that 250ml water is 0.25L (0.25Kg).
Therefore that mixture is 33,000mg/0.25kg which is 132,000ppm KNO3. We also know that of that 132,000ppm, 61% of it is NO3, so this macro mixture has more or less 82,500ppm NO3.

OK, so lets say I went postal and dumped all of this 250ml solution into a 100L tank (I'll just assume there's 100L of water in it). Can you see that it would be the same as dumping all 33 grams of powder into the tank? So the concentration of the tank would be 33,000mg/100Kg, or 330ppm KNO3 (201ppm NO3).

So for a 100L tank, since adding all 250ml of this solution would add 201ppm NO3 then each 1ml of the solution would 1/250th of this, i.e. 201ppm/250ml = 0.8 ppm per ml. EI standard dosing is on the order of 20-30 ppm NO3 per week. For a 3 dose per week schedule you could add 10 ml per dose which would be 10ml x 0.8ppm/ml = 8ppm per dose. Dosed 3X per week would give you 24ppm per week. If you dosed daily, I'd pick a number like 28ppm per week, which means 28ppm/7days = 4ppm per day. To get 4ppm per day you'll need to dose 5 ml per day (nice round numbers).

If your head is spinning by now then it's just as easy to use either nutricalc or James' calculator because it does the same gymnastics within 0.33 milliseconds. 

Cheers,


----------



## tel

Couldn't say about NutriCalc LD, I did try a link that George had on a thread, but I don't think it was Mac compatible or it was a pay for software, anyway it was something that I could not view it.

For dosing I am using James' Calc as I found it easy to understand .
cheers, tel


----------



## tel

Sorry LD, minor hijack.

Clive did I read correctly about dosing higher than 3ppm of phosphate ?
Cheers tel


----------



## ceg4048

*Re:*



			
				tel said:
			
		

> Sorry LD, minor hijack.


You Pirate! 



			
				tel said:
			
		

> Clive did I read correctly about dosing higher than 3ppm of phosphate ?
> Cheers tel


Yep, here is what 60ppm NO3 + 10ppm PO4  per week + excellent CO2 can do...
This is why you should not fear PO4. 



 



 



 



 

Cheers,


----------



## gratts

What amount of lighting was that dosing regime under, Clive?

Have you encountered any point at which overdosing EI has detrimental effects on plants/fish?

And even running nutrient levels at very high levels will have no effect on encouraging algae growth, providing CO2, flow and light are ample?

The reason I ask is that I'm running over 4WPG T5 on a 40L tank, and throwing in 2-3 times EI, so hopefully I'm not blindly walking into trouble further down the road!


----------



## plantbrain

I have been dosing 5ppm PO4 and 15ppm NO3 3x a week for about 2 years:













Bred fire shrimp, CRS, RCS
L011 red farowellas
Cory cats 
Tetras etc
Discus
Angels
Apistos

This year............

Light is about 40 micro mols, or about 1.7-2.0 w/gal at 90-100cm above the plants using T5 or PC lightings.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## frothhelmet

Hi LD. This thread over at Tom Barr's site may be interesting for you as well.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.ph ... sted-ppm-s


----------



## LondonDragon

Many thanks guys, feedback is really appreciated, I had an idea what was ok, since its been working in my tank for the last couple of years, just wanted to make sure everyone else's was the same, I am going to aim a little higher and see the effects.

Also my glosso is not doing so well, after some reading it states that glosso needs iron and soft water, my London water is hard so I brought some peat but it says that it tinges the water brownish so don't really want to use that, any other way?

Also purchased some Fe in the form of a powder 8% Chelat, what so I be starting with in terms of dosing it 3 times a week??

Cheers


----------



## tel

Methinks I shall amp up the PO4, thanks Clive, Tom  
cheers, tel


----------



## LondonDragon

tel said:
			
		

> Methinks I shall amp up the PO4, thanks Clive, Tom
> cheers, tel


I have told a few people to up their PO4 but they all are weary of doing it saying it will cause more algae!!


----------



## tel

As mentioned earlier I have only just started dosing, as in two days ago  .
But from everything I have read and from what I can understand, Nutrients/dry ferts do not cause algae.

My aim is to follow what Tom and I think also Clive has suggested, that being, go high and work back over a series of weeks until plant growth or plant deficiencies make themselves known.

The method is basically charting and decreasing the dosing every two - three weeks. The end result should be I have the correct dosing amounts for my tank.

If you look at the response from Clive and Tom, Clive was   60ppm NO3 + 10ppm PO4 per week and Tom was 5ppm PO4 and 15ppm NO3 3x a week.  So Clive is way over the suggested 20-30PPm for NO3, and Tom is well over the 20-30PPM, yet both have stunning tanks and plant growth as they have the right nutrients for the plant load.

The algae issues all seem to arise from light, Co2 and circulation /filtration/flow from what I can gather. 

So to me the logical solution is to provide constants so as to rule out as many variables a possible.

So if my dosing is at max uptake, Co2 about 30ppm, and algae starts I think I can assume that it would be a light or filter/flow issue. Change one of the variables only and monitor if the algae increases, I probably chose the wrong variable  


Having said all that I could be completely off track and have it all wrong :? 
cheers, tel


----------



## ceg4048

gratts said:
			
		

> What amount of lighting was that dosing regime under, Clive?


Well the PAR levels I used are probably a bit higher than Tom's. This was about 1/2 kilowatt Compact Fluorescent over 600L so that's over 3 WPG.



			
				gratts said:
			
		

> Have you encountered any point at which overdosing EI has detrimental effects on plants/fish?


Well biomass increase rate is so high that maintenance becomes tedious. Of course the CO2 levels required are so high that toxicity becomes an issue. There was never a point where the nutrient levels became toxic however. I've had Rams and Apistogrammas breed in the tank at various times. I use that behaviour as the ultimate test kit.



			
				gratts said:
			
		

> And even running nutrient levels at very high levels will have no effect on encouraging algae growth, providing CO2, flow and light are ample?


Correct! However, be very careful with your interpretation of this. The high nutrient levels cannot be "the cause" of algal blooms - but if you do induce algae for some other reason then yes, the high nutrient levels will encourage algae to grow faster just as it encourages the plants to grow faster. No surprise there. What the plant growing community has difficulty understanding is the subtleties of cause and effect versus exacerbation.



			
				gratts said:
			
		

> The reason I ask is that I'm running over 4WPG T5 on a 40L tank, and throwing in 2-3 times EI, so hopefully I'm not blindly walking into trouble further down the road!


Well, again, there really ought not to be a need to use 2X-3X dosing levels unilaterally. I do it basically because I'm a nutter, and to prove a point - to explore the boundaries of what is possible. Those poor souls trapped in The Matrix are programmed to believe that NO3/PO4 are bad things to be eliminated, when in fact these are critical components to plant health. This would the equivalent of eliminating pasta from Italy.

The real object lesson is to become comfortable with dosing the correct levels and to disassociate algal difficulties or toxicity from NO3/PO4. So, depending on the PAR levels, and depending on your objectives, your tank may need more or less than the standard levels. But knowing that you can use high levels without toxic or algal consequences is freedom. As Tel has deduced, understanding the relationship between nutrient levels and algae/toxicity also allows you to be a better troubleshooter so that you don't draw irrational conclusions. That's more liberating than you can imagine.  

Cheers,


----------



## zig

I dose 3x10ppm KNO3 and about 4ppm PO4 per week also dose Tropica plant nuitrition 5ml per 50 litre 3x per week, this is for a highlight tank.


----------



## tel

Following on, in a way...
What about increasing dosing amounts on micronutrients. Currently I am dosing a half teaspoon of chelated mix _and_ a half teaspoon of chelated iron mix three times a week on a 400 litre tank. Is there dangers by increasing dosing amounts to fish/plants?
cheers tel


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Tel,
        You could easily double those number without issues. The only component of the trace mix that anyone could argue about is possibly the Cu level, which is still very small. Any trace mix is mostly iron though, so why dose both iron mix and trace mix? A waste of money, especially on a large tank. Double the dose and see what effect you have over a three week period. If there are no detectable improvements then you are throwing money away.

Cheers,


----------



## tel

Thanks for the response Clive, 
The reason for both Chelated mixes stems from when I first began delving into EI. I wasn't sure which one I needed or whether I needed both, so opted for both to be on the safe side.

Effectively I could combine them in the one container, correct ?

With double the dose, do you mean 2 teaspoons as with the dosing at the moment both traces amount to one teaspoon.

cheers, much appreciated
tel


----------



## ceg4048

tel said:
			
		

> ...My aim is to follow what Tom and I think also Clive has suggested, that being, go high and work back over a series of weeks until plant growth or plant deficiencies make themselves known.
> 
> The method is basically charting and decreasing the dosing every two - three weeks. The end result should be I have the correct dosing amounts for my tank.


Yes this is Tom's suggested systematic approach I like to use, however, there is another nuance to this that you ought to be aware of; 

As time goes on and you are making downwards adjustment to the dosing levels, please remember that your plants are growing and increasing their mass at the same time, therefore, in six weeks you could have easily doubled the mass (both above and below the sediment). A doubling of the plant mass has several significant effects on your dosing scheme adjustment:

1) Higher plant mass requires more nutrition to maintain the same growth rate and health.
2) Higher plant mass blocks more flow and in a way, lowers the "effective" nutrient availability.
3) As the plants increase their height, they enter regimes of higher PAR (because they get closer to the light) which increases the nutrient uptake demand.

So while there is a natural tendency on the part of the hobbyist to try an lower the dosing levels in order to "zoom in" on so-called optimal ppm levels, the dosing requirements are actually on the rise. So this is like trying to descend to the next lower floor by walking down the up escalator. 

Naturally, this can be mitigated by constant trimming/pruning, but it's just something to be aware of. Also, you might be able to drop one nutrient by a certain percentage but not another. You can easily find for example, that if you unilaterally drop nutrient levels by 30% you get NO3 related algae but not PO4 related algae. You would have then found the "floor" for NO3 but still be able to continue dropping PO4. The following week, the situation could be reversed. These are not simple systems and they don't respond nice and neatly as we would fantasize. That's why EI is such a powerful tool, because of it's simplicity and it's ability to effectively "normalize" all these factors across the board. This is why I don't worry at all about determining optimal dosing levels. There are just too many biochemical variables to easily control. 

Jack Middleton asked about optimizing nutrient level in the thread ideal values for NPK Might be worth a read.



			
				tel said:
			
		

> ...With double the dose, do you mean 2 teaspoons as with the dosing at the moment both traces amount to one teaspoon.


Typically, Fe is used as the proxy for the other elements. So you'd have, say, a 7% Fe in a chelated trace mix. All the trace dosing is based on these relative vales. What I don't like about mixing an Fe mix with the trace is you now have a much smaller percentage of the other elements in the combined mix. This takes you further away from the other elements, possibly risking shortages so you wind up dosing even more to avoid this. I just don't like the mathematical redundancy of Fe there, although this is probably not too big a deal. I'd just skip the Fe mix and double the basic trace mix to one teaspoon, which I just think is a more useful mix in the first place (this is more emotional than scientific, sorry.  )

Cheers,


----------



## tel

Thanks Clive, I just need to have a bit of time to formulate a response which should be later today. It is almost there but a little muddled up in my head at the moment.
cheers tel


----------



## tel

Sorry Clive, I am struggling a bit with EI and dosing at the moment. 

The only thing I think I have learned from the reading and the comments from people like yourself is "dose till you get a result" be that a positive or negative result is irrelevant just a result, from there act.

As such I feel I am flying blind and slamming in ferts with no real understanding of the why's and wherefores etc. Possibly with where I am at it is too early for any results to be gained so I am a little stagnated with any further understanding of this method. I will get there but maybe patience is required for the interim

Apologies for not being able to add further to what I think has been a very interesting discussion.
cheers tel


----------



## ceg4048

tel said:
			
		

> Sorry Clive, I am struggling a bit with EI and dosing at the moment.
> 
> The only thing I think I have learned from the reading and the comments from people like yourself is "dose till you get a result" be that a positive or negative result is irrelevant just a result, from there act.


Hi tel,
   Umm...well you mustn't be discouraged or feel lost so early mate. I mean, "dose till you get a result" is fairly profound.   I wouldn't call the results irrelevant, because your future action depends on the result. Growing plants is an interactive procedure mediated by your long term goals. If I'm a farmer and my long term goal is to raise 100 kilos of sugar cane, I have to plant, water, fertilize, weed and some months later, harvest. I'll then weigh my harvest and the yield will determine my success. But that will be months from now, I'll not have my 100 kilos by tomorrow morning, that's for sure.



			
				tel said:
			
		

> As such I feel I am flying blind and slamming in ferts with no real understanding of the why's and wherefores etc....


Not true mate. As I mentioned to Jack in the thread I mentioned, change your sentence by substituting the words "plants" to "person" and "ferts" to "food". If my goal is to gain muscle, how soon should I expect this extra food to turn itself into muscle? if you've been reading, then you know more than you realize. Take this quick quiz to test your understanding:
1. What if a week from now you look at the tank and a dark green slimy mat covers an area of the tank. What would be your corrective action?
2. What would you conclude if you saw filamentous algae attached to the edges of some leaves and how would that impact your dosing?
3. What would be your corrective action if you saw the emergence of small green circular spots on the glass and on leaves?
4. What would be your reaction of you saw new leaves turning yellow?
5. What would be your reaction if some plants starter getting holes or if stems turned soft/mushy? How does that impact the dosing?



			
				tel said:
			
		

> Possibly with where I am at it is too early for any results to be gained so I am a little stagnated with any further understanding of this method. I will get there but maybe patience is required for the interim


Yep, definitely patience is needed. Our good friend Matt-Bull has a signature which reads something like "The only things that happen quickly in a planted tank are bad things..."

Plants typically either grow or die, there's hardly ever an in-between, so if your plants are not dying then you already have a result, it's a good result and it's most definitely relevant.  

Cheers,


----------



## tel

A quarter to seven in the morning and I am taking an exam  


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> if you've been reading, then you know more than you realize. Take this quick quiz to test your understanding:


_I know_ that I could nip over to James' site as he has a page on algae/plant issues. 
But without doing so and trying to work off what I have read( don't make me sit in the corner if I do badly),
so, 



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 1. What if a week from now you look at the tank and a dark green slimy mat covers an area of the tank. What would be your corrective action?


With this I would say there is a balance issue between my dosing vs light, filter/flow, and Co2 distribution.  Corrective action I would take is increase water changes and blackout on the tank for at least a week.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 2. What would you conclude if you saw filamentous algae attached to the edges of some leaves and how would that impact your dosing?


  Not really sure, my head keeps telling me that this is a flow issue


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 3. What would be your corrective action if you saw the emergence of small green circular spots on the glass and on leaves?


Look for dead spots of flow with in the tank, increase the flow.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 4.What would be your reaction of you saw new leaves turning yellow?


New leaves turning yellow could be an iron issue, however from memory you have stated and I think the term used was _for the record_ lack of Co2 is going to be the cause. So increase Co2 and check the distribution of.


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 5. What would be your reaction if some plants starter getting holes or if stems turned soft/mushy? How does that impact the dosing?


I would think it is suggestive of a lack of "food", so I would increase dosing of Nitrates and Phosphates.

that took a long time   

I am not feeling confident on this   
cheers,tel


----------



## ceg4048

Well, I'll give you partial credit on some of these. That way there's no need for sitting in the corner wearing the dunce cap (which always disturbed me greatly.) Go on and check James's page.


			
				tel said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What if a week from now you look at the tank and a dark green slimy mat covers an area of the tank. What would be your corrective action?
> 
> 
> 
> With this I would say there is a balance issue between my dosing vs light, filter/flow, and Co2 distribution.  Corrective action I would take is increase water changes and blackout on the tank for at least a week.
Click to expand...

No need to worry about CO2 in this case. The dark slimy stuff is BGA and this will ostensibly tell you that you don't have enough KNO3 or flow. Following your blackout, action number 1 would be to immediately double your KNO3 dosing - that's the relevance. Step number two would be to improve flow at nearest opportunity. In real life, since you are already dosing EI levels of KNO3 more than likely you'd see what I call a "nibble" of BGA, some small patches starting to develop on the floor (not great big mats of the stuff) meaning that you would be just below the NO3/flow limit. In this case just add more KNO3 and remove the patches by hand. No need for a blackout when you get the "nibble"



			
				tel said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. What would you conclude if you saw filamentous algae attached to the edges of some leaves and how would that impact your dosing?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure, my head keeps telling me that this is a flow issue
Click to expand...

OK, but remember that flow is a means to an end. At the very heart of the matter, filamentous algae arises due to poor CO2. As it turns out, better flow delivers more CO2, or you can deliver more CO2 by increasing the injection rate. We'd prefer to improve flow only because injection rate increase increases toxicity to the critters, whereas flow merely increases efficiency of uptake without the penalty of toxicity increase.



			
				tel said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. What would be your corrective action if you saw the emergence of small green circular spots on the glass and on leaves?
> 
> 
> 
> Look for dead spots of flow with in the tank, increase the flow.
Click to expand...

Again, yes flow is the means to an end. In this case the end is to improve the efficiency of PO4 and CO2 uptake. The spots are GSA caused by poor PO4 and/or poor CO2. icreased flow will improve uptake of both of these or the other option is to increase the PO4 dosing level and/or increase the CO2 injection rate. Step number 1 therefore is to immediately double your PO4 dosing because that's the easiest thing to do. if that's only partially successful then up the CO2/flow.




			
				tel said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.What would be your reaction of you saw new leaves turning yellow?
> 
> 
> 
> New leaves turning yellow could be an iron issue, however from memory you have stated and I think the term used was _for the record_ lack of Co2 is going to be the cause. So increase Co2 and check the distribution of.
Click to expand...

Actually your first answer was right. If new leaves are yellow but old leaves are green the immediate suspicion is Fe. Iron is not very mobile so the plant cannot easily re-distribute from the old leaves which already have iron. The impact on your dosing should be to immediately double your trace dosing.



			
				tel said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. What would be your reaction if some plants starter getting holes or if stems turned soft/mushy? How does that impact the dosing?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think it is suggestive of a lack of "food", so I would increase dosing of Nitrates and Phosphates.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...no partial credit on this one mate. All structural failures or deformation should immediately arouse suspicion of CO2 failure, so action number one should be to look at CO2/flow. This should have zero impact on the dosing because Carbon makes structure. Carbon is what makes your wooden tables and chairs (and I guess chopsticks   ) strong. So when you lose structure carbon is being lost.

I'll give you a a passing score of 65%, somewhat anemic, so I suggest you take a few Iron tablets....  

Cheers,


----------



## Always Broke

This has been a great topic and explained some things I was totally unsure of. Thanks for putting it into simple words that even I can understand. I will bookmark this topic as I am sure some or all of these things will be coming my way soon

Simon


----------



## tel

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Well, I'll give you partial credit on some of these. That way there's no need for sitting in the corner wearing the dunce cap (which always disturbed me greatly.) Go on and check James's page.
> 
> I'll give you a a passing score of 65%, somewhat anemic, so I suggest you take a few Iron tablets....
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks Clive, and I appreciate the passing score albeit a tad generous. 
I must say it is a wee bit disconcerting exposing to a forum how little I know like this, but it has helped so that can only be good. 
cheers, tel


----------



## ceg4048

I think it was Mohandas K. Gandhi who reasoned that humility is the beginning of wisdom. You get a passing score because;
1. You're a "thinking" hobbyist, concerned with plant health first - the very best kind there is.
2. You're not overly concerned with throwing Gigawatts of ego-busting light at the tank as your top priority.
3. You are aware of the issues of flow/distribution within the tank. 

It's very difficult for people to believe and to focus on these things after being programmed by The Matrix since birth, so this gets a passing score in my book any day pal.    

Cheers,


----------



## LondonDragon

What ppm should we be aiming at for Calcium? just to get an idea of what I should be aiming for, thanks


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Paulo,
             Ca++ behavior is complicated and really not well understood and I've purposely dumped loads of GH booster into the tank to find upper limits but haven't really found a toxic level (it was only toxic to my wallet). Those folks using tap water rarely would even need to worry about it because most tap water has more Ca++ than needed. If the tap water is soft or if RO water is being used, then Barr typically suggests to add enough GH Booster , or other commercial re-mineralizer to get a GH of around 3 or 4. There are loads of different ways to increase the GH.

There's certainly no need to throw money away at a Calcium test kit and remember that GH is a measure of both Mg and Ca so lets say you measure your tap GH and it shows 10. We won't know the relative content. It could theoretically be all Mg and zero Ca or the reverse. Generally it's somewhere in between. An easy way to tell if you've got enough Ca is if you get hard water deposits on your kettle or kitchen/bathroom sinks.

I'm not actually sure I've ever seen a calcium deficiency in real life. One of the many roles of Calcium is to add structure, so the standard deficiency syndromes are described as being disintegration of cell walls and tissue collapse, however, 99.99% of the time, when this happens it's actually a Carbon deficiency because tissue collapse happens to be THE classic failure mode of Carbon limitation. Since many are in denial about CO2 they'll run away from it and look to Calcium for an explanation. 

By process of elimination, if your GH is known to be nonexistent (i.e. using pure unadjusted RO or confirmed tap with zero GH) and if your CO2 is known to be excellent and if your flow/distribution is known to be outstanding and if you are still getting tissue collapse then yes, Ca deficiency would be a likely culprit.

I appreciate that this sounds vague, but for all intents and purposes, and to simplify life, I never ever measure Ca++ ppm and just consider the recommended ppm value anything higher than zero. And that's very easy to accomplish. Only those operating their tank in a fringe regime ever need to think about Ca++ ppm. 8) 

Cheers,


----------



## LondonDragon

Many thanks Clive, I will not worry about it for now then haha thanks for your long explanation


----------



## Alastair

Just had a re read of all this. Very indepth 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Diogo Reis

ceg4048 said:


> Hi Paulo,
> Ca++ behavior is complicated and really not well understood and I've purposely dumped loads of GH booster into the tank to find upper limits but haven't really found a toxic level (it was only toxic to my wallet). Those folks using tap water rarely would even need to worry about it because most tap water has more Ca++ than needed. If the tap water is soft or if RO water is being used, then Barr typically suggests to add enough GH Booster , or other commercial re-mineralizer to get a GH of around 3 or 4. There are loads of different ways to increase the GH.
> 
> There's certainly no need to throw money away at a Calcium test kit and remember that GH is a measure of both Mg and Ca so lets say you measure your tap GH and it shows 10. We won't know the relative content. It could theoretically be all Mg and zero Ca or the reverse. Generally it's somewhere in between. An easy way to tell if you've got enough Ca is if you get hard water deposits on your kettle or kitchen/bathroom sinks.
> 
> I'm not actually sure I've ever seen a calcium deficiency in real life. One of the many roles of Calcium is to add structure, so the standard deficiency syndromes are described as being disintegration of cell walls and tissue collapse, however, 99.99% of the time, when this happens it's actually a Carbon deficiency because tissue collapse happens to be THE classic failure mode of Carbon limitation. Since many are in denial about CO2 they'll run away from it and look to Calcium for an explanation.
> 
> By process of elimination, if your GH is known to be nonexistent (i.e. using pure unadjusted RO or confirmed tap with zero GH) and if your CO2 is known to be excellent and if your flow/distribution is known to be outstanding and if you are still getting tissue collapse then yes, Ca deficiency would be a likely culprit.
> 
> I appreciate that this sounds vague, but for all intents and purposes, and to simplify life, I never ever measure Ca++ ppm and just consider the recommended ppm value anything higher than zero. And that's very easy to accomplish. Only those operating their tank in a fringe regime ever need to think about Ca++ ppm. 8)
> 
> Cheers,




hi ppl..sorry to continue this post but i have a ca question.
i have 1.3mg/L of ca and 1.3mg/L of mg in my tap water. It is necessary to dose mg or ca?

thank you


----------



## ian_m

Diogo Reis said:


> is necessary to dose mg or ca?


Yes always dose Mg as MgSO4 is cheap and extra in the water isn't a problem.

For Ca as Ceg says 


ceg4048 said:


> Those folks using tap water rarely would even need to worry about it because most tap water has more Ca++ than needed


----------



## Diogo Reis

But its not suppost ca to be 4 times more than mg? I think that is 4(ca):1(mg)
If i dose just mg i will have much more mg than ca


----------



## ian_m

Diogo Reis said:


> But its not supposed ca to be 4 times more than mg? I think that is 4(ca):1(mg)


Never heard of that before. Ca is normally never worried about as most tap water contains enough. So unless you have extremely soft water, are using rain water or using RO water then no need to worry.

As Ceg notes....


ceg4048 said:


> I'm not actually sure I've ever seen a calcium deficiency in real life


----------



## GlassWalker

Edit: sorry, posted in wrong thread!


----------



## ceg4048

Diogo Reis said:


> But its not suppost ca to be 4 times more than mg?


No.

Cheers,


----------



## Diogo Reis

Okok. I will try not to add ca. With 1.30mg/l of magnesium in tap water. how much i addof extra magnesium? 
Ceg, can you just give your opinion about this deficiency?


----------



## ceg4048

Diogo Reis said:


> Ceg, can you just give your opinion about this deficiency?


Poor CO2 mate.
People always waste time and energy searching for exotic causes for their problems, when 95% of the time the answer is poor CO2.



Diogo Reis said:


> Okok. I will try not to add ca. With 1.30mg/l of magnesium in tap water. how much i addof extra magnesium?


Just add a few teaspoons of Epsom Salts at water change time. This is a micronutrient. That means you only need microscopic amounts. 

See what I mean? Spend you energy on solving the riddle of CO2 in your tank first and foremost.

Cheers,


----------



## Diogo Reis

Ok, thank you! 2,5ppm of mgso4? Can i add this?


----------



## Diogo Reis

This is co2 dificiency?


----------



## Christos Ioannou

As this tread already talks about ppm, here is my question:

I have been getting pinhole sized holes on *alternanthera reineckii *and *staurogyne repens* (in a lesser extend). Collected feedback suggests *this relates to K deficiency*.
I am following  http://calc.petalphile.com/ to create my macro solution. 
Macro solution is KNO3 and KH2PO4 in 500ml of water; dosing about 50ml three times a week.

*Dosing regime*
Micros:   Mon, Wed, Fri
Macros: Tue, Thu, Sat

Below are screenshots of the calculations:
*KNO3*


 
*KH2PO4*
*

 
*
Macro dosing three times a week. This will yield
*NO3: *7.50 X 3 = 22.5 ppm weekly dosing
*PO4: *1.3 X 3 = 3.9 ppm weekly dosing
*K:* (4.73 + 0.54) x 3 = 15.81 ppm weekly dosing

According to EI the target ppm values are
*Nitrate (NO3): *20ppm per week (22.5 ppm per week in above calculations, OK)
*Phosphate (PO4): *3ppm per week (3.9 ppm per week in above calculations, OK)
*Potassium (K): *30ppm per week (15.81 ppm in above calculation, *almost 50% off!*)

1.  Am I doing something wrong in my calculations?
2.  Is there another salt I could add in this equation to raise the K ppm to the expected value?
3.  Do these calculations explain the K deficiency and the effect it has on my plants?

Thank you


----------



## Diogo Reis

What is your light watts?
What substrate do you use?


----------



## Christos Ioannou

Diogo Reis said:


> What is your light watts?


3 x 23W CFL hanging above the tank, total 69W


Diogo Reis said:


> What substrate do you use?


Inert substrate


----------



## Diogo Reis

What tipe of substrate?


----------



## ceg4048

Diogo Reis said:


> 2,5ppm of mgso4? Can i add this?


Yes, add however much you want.



Christos Ioannou said:


> Collected feedback suggests this relates to K deficiency.


Collective feedback is wrong. Fix your CO2 and stop wasting time worrying about K.




Diogo Reis said:


> This is co2 dificiency?


I cannot see the problem from this photograph. Please describe the fault.

Cheers,


----------



## Christos Ioannou

Diogo Reis said:


> What tipe of substrate?


Its cat litter. The one below.


 


ceg4048 said:


> Collective feedback is wrong. Fix your CO2 and stop wasting time worrying about K.


Ok. Will revisit my CO2. Still, how about the 15ppm/week compared to 30ppm suggested for K? How does that reflect on plant healthiness?


----------



## Diogo Reis

Ok.. I use akadama. Akadama absorvs nutrients. At least when is new.. This absorvs to...so i think that uou have this problem.


----------



## Diogo Reis

the top of ammania bonsai, the end of the leaves are brown. This is not normal....


----------



## ceg4048

Diogo Reis said:


> bonsai, the end of the leaves are brown. This is not normal....


CO2.



Christos Ioannou said:


> Ok. Will revisit my CO2. Still, how about the 15ppm/week compared to 30ppm suggested for K? How does that reflect on plant healthiness?


No problem. 15ppm is fine, so is 30ppm, so is 130ppm.
As I mentioned many times, if you are dosing and still incur nutrient deficiency then you need to look at your flow/distribution. Just be certain that there is in fact a nutrient deficiency and not a CO2 deficiency.

Cheers,


----------

