• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Reconstituters....

The update to my 4 week waterchange plan was the day after my last post a Cherry Red Buce senesced a leaf and a few more leaves elsewhere curled and I wasn't going to chance testing the problem was the need to dose extra phosphate (still registered on a test) so I performed a 75% waterchange and things appear are all back to normal now (senescence has halted, curling halted although not yet recovered and a Theia blue is throwing up a flower (? Stress response)). Lesson learned - two weeks between water changes needs an extra dose of nitrate and phosphate if going for a longer water change period, end of third week perform a 75% water change, leave it longer and issues will appear.

:)
 
Trying to dose it directly will lead to issues, because the weight is so marginal for the dose and accuracy of weight is paramount it's easier to weigh a larger dose and prepare a solution that you can then decant a volume of liquid that would give you the ppm needed. I used 100ml bottles with the salt weighing enough to give me a solution that is dosed at 10ml - 5L for my target dose (1ml - 500ml is how much I use for traces that I make up and store).

44374959840_38d0507c0a_z_d.jpg


I could weigh out smaller amounts but I want accuracy and the scales become less accurate the lower the weight goes (the scale is 0.01g resolution with an accuracy of +/- 0.01g so larger amounts better accuracy).



I do but I haven't kept it up to date, you can access it through the link in my sig, I lost enthusiasm when the tank went bang.

:)


Yeah I thought as much - I was pleased to see Zorfox's fert calculator had it in the list and had a look at what amount (in wight) equated to different PPMs. It made me think of getting some Tanitas to really get it spot on.

I know how you feel about updates.... I'd like to give them more regularly but I have things come up where I miss a dose, and it just makes things worse but, I have made some observations still:

The below is a bit [TL;DR] - sorry. Skip to bottom for short version....

The week I documented here earlier was no ferts at all. Things looked good but at day three I felt things were going downhill. I knew I couldn't do without full spectrum fertilising but I wanted to see what true deficiencies looked like and I understand that at least a little better now from that week. So I went back to EI on micros and macros (7.5ppm NO3 1.3ppm PO4 day 1.3.5) and a close to EI micro dose day 2.4.6 using profito. Probably for about 0.3ppm Fe as a proxy. Well, that was a bad week to say the least. Water quality was again, terrible.... looked like milk. This is more than likely the suffering plants creating this problem. I thought it was algae bloom first but soon dismissed that. Also pretty sure it wasn't the Fe precipitating because I find in my tanks after a dose of iron it clouds a little but has a kind of blue tinge to it rather than being pure white, and, it soon clears in those tanks. In my high tech it doesn't. It also appeared on day 1 before any iron had been added.

I'm really convinced adding KNO3 as per EI causes me problems, or just adding any NO3 at all (although not when from urea). Cloudy water, K deficiency symptoms and degrading older leaves.... stunted growth, discolouration and the plants just sit in this stasis doing nothing.

Adding urea at around 0.5ppm and omitting KNO3 every day shows positive and noticeable effects like older leaves staying healthier for longer, yet still ultimately dying. Little growth spurts can be observed but they are short lived. I think I can use urea as the only form of N. I think maybe if the plants use the urea before it gets converted to N, like if I dose it at peak time of plant absorption that would limit the amount of N lingering at the end of the day as my plants really either don't like to consume nitrogen, or elevated levels make them not want it. Either way the NO3 just seems to be on the up and up throughout the week with EI except the times when I don't add KNO3, even the smallest amount.

Now - not adding PO4 = bad. Like REALLY bad. I think this has been the issue all along. But "you were adding 0.65ppm a day! That should be at least adequate?" I hear you say..... well yes, but with the 7.5ppm NO3 going in with it, I was showing PO4 deficiency symptoms (obviously induced) like darker old growth, green spot on glass and crypts, old leaves falling off despite maximum CO2 and flow. New growth (if any) was usually a normal shape but very small. I noticed leaves were pinker in hue with reddish veins. Stems between nodes especially on r. rotundifolia were deep purple. Anthocyanin production overload? Could it be linked to low P? I dunno - all I know is when I add P it's like switching on a growth switch.... but only when I don't add any NO3 as KNO3.

I used to suspect K but have put that one to bed now. I'm confident elevated levels of K causes no issues for me at least. In fact, I noticed that elevated levels of K seemed to alleviate the symptoms. Keeping the plants just holding on and not dying, but not growing either.

Traces - I think there are still issues with standard dosing them at recommended quantities in my tank for some strange reason (the softer water?). Obviously I again need "some", not least since I've been making up the water as discussed originally in this thread. Unlike tap water there is nothing being introduced that I don't know about. So I've decided to cut back hugely on them. I'm talking 1/20 the dose.

To recap, I am still doing the water recipe from X3n1th - I love it. I'm even making my own carbonated water. It is arduous and not for everyone for sure - but I enjoy the process and the peace of mind of what's exactly in my water. I believe this is a great help when you're trying to narrow an imbalance or deficiency of something. You can literally rule out a handful of nutrients in one swoop and concentrate on the others. I will therefore be doing this from now on, but maybe going to 2-3 week water changes, or, weekly partial (instead of 50%) water changes.

So here is the recipe I am using for the water

GH: 6 KH: 6.6 - POTASSIUM





CaCO3 - 6g in 75L = 32.04ppm Ca

4.47 dKH

4.47 dGH



MgCO3 - 0.75g in 75L = 2.88ppm Mg

0.66 dGH

0.83 dKH



KHCO3 – 2.67g in 75L = 1 dKH

14 K



MgCl2 - 0.93g in 75L = 0.35 dGH

1.5ppm Mg

4.37 Cl



MgSo4 - 2.8g in 75L = 0.6 dGH

3.12 Mg

4.05 S





dGH 6.08

dKH 6.65





Ca 32.04ppm

Mg 7.5ppm

S 4.05ppm

K 14ppm

Cl 4.37ppm



Ratio: 4.3/1


That's a good clean start to a week I think. Everything I need for the basic water chemistry, not too much, nor too little. I've not seen definitive numbers for optimal S and Cl for example. Something makes me think S in it's concentration and consumption rate is probably on a par with Mg. Whether equal amounts of S and Mg hold any benefits I don't know but I'd like to try.... I can do this quite easily now with this new water method. A true sulfur deficiency is something else I want to see first hand. This too is possible for me now.

I thought about what you do with front loading the macros. I did want to try that until I became wary of the KNO3 so scrapped that idea, albeit not totally. I get the 7ppm K (in tank total) from the WC water and have this last water change (17th) added about 6g of GH booster to bring hardness up a little more to about 8gh, plus the K it contains (what, 5-8 ppm?). The day after the WC and adding the booster, the water was crystal clear. I've never seen it so transparent. I can actually look down the length of the tank and not physically see anything in between. I'm sure this is something to do with the GH booster. I've noted it in other tanks a couple of times.... anyway, it was about this time I would start an EI week and slowly watch the tank deteriorate and watch my water cloud up etc plus black beard, cladro, green spot, a few specs of cyano on the sand line. Pfff, I'm not playing that game anymore.

And so my week continued as follows

17th 0.5ppm PO4 0.5ppm urea
18th same
19th same
20th same
21st same + 0.25ppm Fe (EDTA/DTPA) dosed 3 hours apart
22nd 2ppm PO4


On those days the plant health was like this

17 so so
18 some noticeable growth
19 same again
20 no change
21 quite a few leaves fell off my stellatus in one sitting - was quite strange
22 having done an NO3 test the night of the 21st (I know, I know... not calibrated either) it seemed high so I thought no urea today, just PO4 and not 0.5ppm, but 2ppm in one dose. That was this morning at 6am, I went out and came back just before lights off and there's been an explosion of growth. The leaves are noticeably much more massive than I've seen for a long long time. Rotala stems are losing that purple stem burn they had, sprouting new sprouts at each node, cardamine leaves looking like great progress, crypts, are always great but they look especially nice at the moment. Stauro, sunset, HC are not looking great but not dead. Stellatus is looking good at the top despite losing all lower leaves so quickly. The surface of the water and my skimmer was smothered with its leaves in the morning. Wisteria is looking bushier and old growth colour is holding well.

Tomorrow's dose (23rd) I think I will give it another little 1ppm of PO4 but no urea or iron etc. I have a hunch that what I need to be doing is adding 1ppm a day PO4 to maintain a level of 3-4ppm while keeping NO3 at around 10-15ppm dosing just urea to get a little N and letting the fish/feeding provide the rest.

I'm not saying NO3 is my problem. It's essential, but me adding more as KNO3 seems to cause me headaches and poor plant health.

Over xmas and the new year I'll be running this new regime while trying to integrate that super small dose of micros and maybe a tad supplementary iron (in the region of 0.02ppm per dose increasing slowly). In the last two days I've seen growth I used to see when I first started and everything was peachy. I hope that this is it finally!

I'll take and post pics tomorrow.


SHORT VERSION:

What I think I should be doing


Don't dose KNO3
Smidge of Fe every couple days
Drop of traces (not sure where yet)
PO4 EVERY DAY
K front loaded
Urea daily but - sparing. 0.3-0.5ppm
 
Here's a pic as it stands now.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_PHnZykcF2LuMjzEkLmLkkest6EOkWgd

I've trimmed back a couple times, raised the wood bit but that's about it.

I'm going to do 1 more week with a small amount of KNO3 because I can't believe I don't need any. Although growth was noticeably better health with no KNO3, it was also a lot slower . There's still a part of me that thinks just 1 more week of no micros will show yet morepositive results. Things seem to be getting better without them.

So this week what I'll do is:

3ppm NO3 (from KNO3)
0.6ppm urea
1ppm PO4
1ppm K (there's like 15ppm front loaded)

3 x over the week.
 
Sorry no photos. Will get some close ones up as the cardamine is going that weird tortoise shell pattern on old leaves again like when I stopped dosing Mg in the past with harder water. Repens is just static and pale.

I don't understand why these symptoms are showing again when I have what should be ample Mg for the week going in with the reconstituted water. Especially considering the mild Ca concentration.

I've added 5ppm Mg as MgSO4 tonight and will observe. I may add another 5 ppm the day after tomorrow which will see Mg levels at close to a 1/1 with Ca.

Maybe with lower Ca concentrations a tighter ratio to Mg might be beneficial/required. In very hard, Mg deficient water I only added 3ppm a week along with EI with great results.

Worth a go!
 
I don't understand why these symptoms are showing again when I have what should be ample Mg for the week going in with the reconstituted water. Especially considering the mild Ca concentration.

I observed the same thing and after reading up a whole lot more the apparent fix was fortifying my trace (was using FComp and FTrace at this point) with extra Manganese so that it was dosed at 0.05mg/L daily, a ratio of 3:1 Fe:Mn.
 
I observed the same thing and after reading up a whole lot more the apparent fix was fortifying my trace (was using FComp and FTrace at this point) with extra Manganese so that it was dosed at 0.05mg/L daily, a ratio of 3:1 Fe:Mn.

I read something similar somewhere - the relationship between Mg/Fe/Mn. I can't make heads or tails of it either way but did try more traces (daily in fact) and observed some slight improvements but nothing to write home about.

With hindsight in what we are discussing recently I think I'm barking up the wrong tree....

CO2 still appears to be an issue for me (which is really difficult for me to publicly admit to), it seems after each WC I need to up the BPS slightly to attain the same concentration of CO2 in the water.

Since I've been quiet on the thread I have been continuing with the water recipe (which I love by the way) except I have dropped the KHCO3 from the regime. I am compensating for the lost KH it gave with MgCO3 instead.

I've also kept NO3 at 10ppm and PO4 at 1ppm (with nothing added) and been adding profito (standard dose) broken up into 3 x a week. Flow was increased just to eliminate it as a factor. This along with increasing the CO2 only 2 days ago I reduced light intensity by 50%

Obviously it will be some days before I can see if progress is being made. I can see new shoots on every node of rotundifolia already, though they are a bit yellow looking. S. Repens is not happy, baby tears is hanging on for dear life but sometimes starts growing then stops. Wisteria is doing fine, sunset is looking better (no more rolling up leaves). Had some crypt melt which worries me as they are usually solid. f fontanus is doing quite well. Cardamine is stunted and deformed. Stellatus despite losing all its lower leaves is growing healthy up top. I doubt now the lower leaves problem was PO4, instead I believe CO2.

The long and short of all that's been discussed and tried here is that I am happy with the water I'm making - it has definitely helped not to push my trials over the edge where I would have long recovery times to rectify the damage - when I water change, I feel I start with a much cleaner slate than my tap. It takes a lot of the guess work out, which most of my experiments are really :/
 
CO2 still appears to be an issue for me (which is really difficult for me to publicly admit to), it seems after each WC I need to up the BPS slightly to attain the same concentration of CO2 in the water.

Which is precisely a tough nut to crack and why I use pH controllers to dispense CO₂ so that I can treat the gas as free and not be meagre with it. I know they get a lot of hate but personally I feel that is unjustifiable, accuracy of the actual pH reading is not wholly important with their use but what is desired is that they work consistently in a range that corresponds to the addition of CO₂ and this I have found to be the case. For me to eliminate CO₂ controller inaccuracy as a variable in poor plant health I needed absolute consistency in my water parameters to ensure the pH range the probes were detecting (super cheap probes, less than £10 each on eBay, calibrated with JBL pH4.1 and pH7.1 calibration kit) was similarly consistent and that there is always maximal fish safe CO₂ saturation by the time the lights come (that first hour or so I feel is really important), the ubiquitous drop checker is my correlation tool. The water recipe was partly designed to ensure good conductivity in the water to allow the controller to give consistent readings day in and day out. Currently the probes are still reading the exact same ranges and it's been at least four months since I last calibrated the probes.

I should also add that my tanks are nearly effectively sealed with only about a half inch aperture to allow gas exchange with the atmosphere during the day (aerated from an air pump plus O₂ generation from the DIY electrolysis/electrocoagulation thingimy I'm running at night to ensure maximal O₂ saturation to discount that as a factor in poor plant health (night suffocation)) so that the atmosphere above the surface of the tank water has a higher CO₂ concentration than the background to help with recirculation in the system. I mainly covered the tank to eliminate anthropogenic dust contaminants from entering the system and fouling the water surface reducing gas permeability (I don't use a surface skimmer but I do have a vigorous surface flow to keep it clear and also maximise surface area to promote gas exchange).

Generally speaking there is a need to turn variabilities into consistencies. I can say that CO₂ is one of my consistencies, consistently maximal even with a slow 0.1 variable every couple of hours (UP Aqua). Through observation this small variable is no great detriment to plants and it appears not to ensure algae thrives because of this, this even with a 0.2 variable (Weipro), maximal CO₂ within the first lit hour or two is what counts most.

:)
 
Which is precisely a tough nut to crack and why I use pH controllers to dispense CO₂ so that I can treat the gas as free and not be meagre with it. I know they get a lot of hate but personally I feel that is unjustifiable, accuracy of the actual pH reading is not wholly important with their use but what is desired is that they work consistently in a range that corresponds to the addition of CO₂ and this I have found to be the case. For me to eliminate CO₂ controller inaccuracy as a variable in poor plant health I needed absolute consistency in my water parameters to ensure the pH range the probes were detecting (super cheap probes, less than £10 each on eBay, calibrated with JBL pH4.1 and pH7.1 calibration kit) was similarly consistent and that there is always maximal fish safe CO₂ saturation by the time the lights come (that first hour or so I feel is really important), the ubiquitous drop checker is my correlation tool. The water recipe was partly designed to ensure good conductivity in the water to allow the controller to give consistent readings day in and day out. Currently the probes are still reading the exact same ranges and it's been at least four months since I last calibrated the probes.

I should also add that my tanks are nearly effectively sealed with only about a half inch aperture to allow gas exchange with the atmosphere during the day (aerated from an air pump plus O₂ generation from the DIY electrolysis/electrocoagulation thingimy I'm running at night to ensure maximal O₂ saturation to discount that as a factor in poor plant health (night suffocation)) so that the atmosphere above the surface of the tank water has a higher CO₂ concentration than the background to help with recirculation in the system. I mainly covered the tank to eliminate anthropogenic dust contaminants from entering the system and fouling the water surface reducing gas permeability (I don't use a surface skimmer but I do have a vigorous surface flow to keep it clear and also maximise surface area to promote gas exchange).

Generally speaking there is a need to turn variabilities into consistencies. I can say that CO₂ is one of my consistencies, consistently maximal even with a slow 0.1 variable every couple of hours (UP Aqua). Through observation this small variable is no great detriment to plants and it appears not to ensure algae thrives because of this, this even with a 0.2 variable (Weipro), maximal CO₂ within the first lit hour or two is what counts most.

:)

I wish I had't sold the PH controller I had last year. I never did try it because of things I'd read. Should have probably given it a go.... then again, with the big EI doses and all sorts of other stuff that was going in maybe it would have caused more problems than it solved? Either way, my CO2 was way off for my lighting. I noticed improvements within a few days but as the EI doses progressed through that week it started to go down hill, again.

It really seems to be a problem with macros. It's like I simply cannot have more than 10ppm NO3 without getting problems. PO4 I'm not sure about yet - I seem to be able to get away with lows of 0.5ppm but always feel the need to add some, so I usually do.

This week I'm only doing traces, no macro (including K) with this newly set CO2 level. I know I'm on the limit because my fish tend to hug the surface a little bit.

The last WC I didn't use the KHCO3 so there is literally no potassium going in the tank from any direction. I'm going to wait until I see true K deficiency then start at 1ppm a day.

It doesn't look too shabby - as soon as I reduce NO3 rotala goes from spindly to big lobes. Cardamine leaves much bigger, crypts go darker. I will nail this one day!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w4q3ThNoYR8uQAUoDo0P8Jvd3DK57b8R
 
I've been thinking about something, and that something is sulfur...

This reconstitution mix I'm doing gives me around 6ppm of S and I recall reading somewhere that adequate levels of S (which normally isn't an issue using tap water) has a relationship with N and its utilization.

If I shave off some CaCO3 and replace it with some CaSO4, where will I get the 2KH I've dropped from? I don't really want to use the KHCO3 because that will get me 27ppm of K. Nor do I want to increase it through MgSO4.

Any ideas?
 
Hi all, That is plenty of sulphur (S), you don't need to add any more.

cheers Darrel

Thanks Darrel - I figured S would be required in about the same amounts as Mg. Would this assumption hold any truth? I'm experimenting anyway up to around 25ppm to see if there is anything to observe.

As for today, I think I'm starting to piece together these problems. I did another water change without including KHCO3 (which would ultimately give me about 7ppm in tank) and this happened 12 hours later to my sunset:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dI4clFSn3Qd_BCsCXMSpybFRJt2wR-Mz

I've added just K today at 15ppm to see what happens over the next few days.

Everything right now is pointing to more N than K is a problem for me. If I keep N low and K high things seem to go a lot better. There's definitely some adjustment I can do to micros but I really need to sort out this apparent macro issue first.

The table below shows my intentions for next water change.
 

Attachments

  • params.jpg
    params.jpg
    121.7 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:
Hi all, Similar amounts, <"a bit less for sulphur (S)">.

On the photo as well as the leaf curling the new leaves <"look smaller and paler green">? If they are then that suggests iron (Fe) or manganese (Mn) deficiencies (they both cause chlorosis of new leaves, because <"they aren't mobile in the plant">).

I don't know what causes the leaf curling.

cheers Darrel

I've tried 3 different commercial micro ferts as well as APF traces, including extra Fe of various chelates. The more I lard on the worse it gets.

The leaves that are curled in the photo I would consider to be closer to "old" than "new" - they've been there a while not doing much until WC where they almost instantly rolled up. The new leaves have a more upwards cup shape to them which I'd be more inclined to think was Ca or a micro? Either way, I've always had older leaf problems before newer leaf problems if that makes sense.

Since dumping the K in, the whole tank is pearling like mad already. Could this really be a K deficiency? Something to do with osmotic pressure in the leaves not being maintained? I'll post a pic tomorrow side by side with the one I took today - see if it alleviates the roll.
 
No sure what I can add, but due to a timer failure I ran at 350ppm NO3 (as KNO3), 40ppm PO4 and 50ppm Mg for a while, with absolutely no observable effect on plants and fish. Only noticed when a week later heard whirring of dosing pump as timer had jammed on. Basically emptied a 1 litre container of EI mix into my tank the day after I filled it and only found this out a week later.

As nothing interesting appeared to be happening plants (or fish) just did a 50% water change (front lawn benefitted from liquid fertiliser) and ran the next week with 170ppm NO3, 20ppm PO4 and 25ppm Mg + my normal EI dosing regime. Eventually after many weeks the levels would have returned to EI levels.

Really disappointing really (and cost of wasted EI ferts) as nothing happened plant wise, they just grew at there normal high tech rate, clearly enough ferts provided. Bit worried about lack of Fe due to micro reaction with the phosphate but no yellowing seen everything carried on as if nothing had happened.

The timer jamming was one of the reasons I built my PLC controller.
 
No sure what I can add, but due to a timer failure I ran at 350ppm NO3 (as KNO3), 40ppm PO4 and 50ppm Mg for a while, with absolutely no observable effect on plants and fish. Only noticed when a week later heard whirring of dosing pump as timer had jammed on. Basically emptied a 1 litre container of EI mix into my tank the day after I filled it and only found this out a week later.

As nothing interesting appeared to be happening plants (or fish) just did a 50% water change (front lawn benefitted from liquid fertiliser) and ran the next week with 170ppm NO3, 20ppm PO4 and 25ppm Mg + my normal EI dosing regime. Eventually after many weeks the levels would have returned to EI levels.

Really disappointing really (and cost of wasted EI ferts) as nothing happened plant wise, they just grew at there normal high tech rate, clearly enough ferts provided. Bit worried about lack of Fe due to micro reaction with the phosphate but no yellowing seen everything carried on as if nothing had happened.

The timer jamming was one of the reasons I built my PLC controller.

I've never had a mishap like that happen but have intentionally run much higher levels of everything more or less. I've also experimented with not adding anything, or only very little and I still can't interpret where the problem lies. Even completely removing and limiting elements such as sodium, and sulfates, and chloride....

I'm flaky with documenting things - I just remember things (or try to) and how they were with a set dosing regime at that time. But I do remember in my early days of EI it was working great!

I think I'm on the right track now with magnesium. I'm certain this is the aggravator for me at least. In my early years of EI my water was hard at 14GH, and mostly calcium. My EI recipe had 3ppm of Mg going in a week and things were pretty good for about a year. Then I moved to cutting tap with RO and this is where the problems came. I kept the EI regime the same, as well as everything else from flow to co2 and light. The results were poor. Obvious iron deficiency and chlorosis, induced Ca deficiency symptoms and pin holes in leaves despite adding K at various concentrations - nothing was working.

I could have just gone back to tap but I really wanted to understand the problem rather than avoid it. I wanted to make it work. Yet I'm here like 3 years later still scratching my head. I'm ticking all the boxes and getting nothing.

SO - this week I done a sneaky 50% water change with JUST 32ppm CaSO4 and absolutely no magnesium any which way. I'll just have to get some calcium chloride to make up what the MgCl2 was giving me in Cl.

And the results are...... actually pretty good so far. Leaves are looking more pumped up and bigger with it. Also look a lot greener. Growth rate has increased dramatically.

There's something in this I'm sure - there's some guys in Sweden who seem to have the exact same issues as I whenever they dose Mg. Even a few ppm above whatever that evidently extremely low threshold for them is causing havoc with plant health.

I'm going to concentrate the next few weeks on completely getting whatever amount of Mg is in the tank, out, then go with 2ppm a week in the change water giving 1ppm in the tank and see where that goes. A 1/32 ratio of Ca:Mg will be interesting but thinking about it, that's where the ratio was more or less in the beginning when I was using tap water and having great growth.

I'll report back at some point either way with some observations.
 
Lowering Magnesium is on my list of things I could adjust, as an example the reasoning behind this is that the information I have seen on Fire Assay of Interstitial soils in Forrest over Limestone (Buce Habitat) is they have on average a Ca:Mg of 10:1. Trying to understand the levels retained in the soils presents a challenge (not considering the ratio in source water as that data didn't come along with the soil data), is the Mg content low because more is uptaken by plants or is it a naturalised ratio due to the increased solubility of Mg over Ca when stored in these soils due to CEC (in this case the CEC number is 210 m-equivalent per 100g dry weight at 105'c), I don't pretend to know exactly what that number means but it's a high number so the soil has a large CEC.

I am using a ratio of 3:1 because that is what is generally found in plant tissue after fire assay, it could be that this is not the most most synergistic ratio for soils or waters and that plant uptake of Ca and Mg doesn't necessarily correlate with the available ratio in the source. Uptake/Availability and Synergism/Antagonism conundrum, 3:1 Ca:Mg may be the Synergistic Uptake ratio on the plant side but may be Availably Antagonistic on the source side and it takes a ratio of 10:1 on the source side for Ca and Mg to be Synergistically Available and stored at a ratio of 3:1. And that's just considering one type of plant (Buce), these ratios could shift depending on the adaptability of other plants, the less adaptable a plant is the more precise conditions/ratios need to be for growth (without deficiency) for example Vallis needing harder water than say Moss does to thrive.

I'm sticking with 3:1 for the time being though in the offchance I'm overthinking all of the above.

:)
 
Lowering Magnesium is on my list of things I could adjust, as an example the reasoning behind this is that the information I have seen on Fire Assay of Interstitial soils in Forrest over Limestone (Buce Habitat) is they have on average a Ca:Mg of 10:1. Trying to understand the levels retained in the soils presents a challenge (not considering the ratio in source water as that data didn't come along with the soil data), is the Mg content low because more is uptaken by plants or is it a naturalised ratio due to the increased solubility of Mg over Ca when stored in these soils due to CEC (in this case the CEC number is 210 m-equivalent per 100g dry weight at 105'c), I don't pretend to know exactly what that number means but it's a high number so the soil has a large CEC.

I am using a ratio of 3:1 because that is what is generally found in plant tissue after fire assay, it could be that this is not the most most synergistic ratio for soils or waters and that plant uptake of Ca and Mg doesn't necessarily correlate with the available ratio in the source. Uptake/Availability and Synergism/Antagonism conundrum, 3:1 Ca:Mg may be the Synergistic Uptake ratio on the plant side but may be Availably Antagonistic on the source side and it takes a ratio of 10:1 on the source side for Ca and Mg to be Synergistically Available and stored at a ratio of 3:1. And that's just considering one type of plant (Buce), these ratios could shift depending on the adaptability of other plants, the less adaptable a plant is the more precise conditions/ratios need to be for growth (without deficiency) for example Vallis needing harder water than say Moss does to thrive.

I'm sticking with 3:1 for the time being though in the offchance I'm overthinking all of the above.

:)

Could it be that in terrestrial plant soils a tighter ratio, or more Mg can be tolerated as it is at the roots as opposed to touching every leaf in water. I saw a video where someone with a hydro setup sprayed the leaves with an MgSO4 mixture and they greened up real quick. He was suffering a deficiency but said something along the lines the Mg gets to work a lot quicker sprayed on leaves than if he adds it to just the water the root balls are in.

Since the last water change (about 3 days ago) with no Mg added the tank has hoovered up 25ppm of NO3 and 2ppm of PO4! By day 3 with the higher Mg content NO3 would rise and PO4 wouldn't budge.

I'm doing a water change tonight with the change water made up like this using CaCO3, CaCl2, CaSO4, MgCO3, KHCO3

Ca 40ppm
Mg 2.8ppm
S 9.6ppm
Cl 14ppm
K 13ppm

GH 6.1
KH 4.6

I will be double dosing macro too - 10ppm NO3 + 2.6ppm PO4 3 x week with traces as:

B 0.06
Cu 0.01
Fe 0.5
Mn 0.1
Mo 0.009
Zn 0.07

3 x week


Let's see how this goes......

It would be interesting if in the future you decide to bring the Mg down what results (if any) you may have.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
He was suffering a deficiency but said something along the lines the Mg gets to work a lot quicker sprayed on leaves than if he adds it to just the water the root balls are in.
You can foliar feed terrestrial plants with magnesium (Mg) and you get a <"quick greening response"> (if it was deficient), but I'm not sure it would make much difference in the tank, probably just a little bit quicker from the water column.
I have seen on Fire Assay of Interstitial soils in Forrest over Limestone (Buce Habitat) is they have on average a Ca:Mg of 10:1.
I'd be really surprised if the exact calcium:magnesium ratio was relevant.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi,
how are people measuring the amounts used? I can understand how you quantify what’s going in, but what is being used to measure the consumption?
Thanks
Ady.
 
Back
Top