Consistency Deficiency

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Are most people ever going to get an Mn deficiency though unless they are mixing their own micros?

I'm going to guess they won't. In most cases tap water will also contain some manganese (Mn). That was why it is a case of sorting out the probable from the possible. Iron (Fe) deficiency is quite likely, and we see it a lot, manganese deficiency possible, but much less likely.

There are two scenarios where tap water might be manganese deficient, and they are:

• @Hufsa 's case where you have <"very old, very hard rock"> and a clean environment, so you are getting something close to RO out of the tap, and
• if you have hard, calcareous water from <"an aquifer with abundant manganese present">, in which case it may have been stripped from the water to avoid water taint <"and discoloration">.

edit:

Didnt we conclude in some other thread that many tap water sources will have been chemically stripped of Fe, Mn and Zn by the treatment plant (for boring human-centric reasons 😁) ?

We did.

cheers Darrel

 

[Wookii]

Well, how do we actually know that? 😁 Perhaps we have just assumed it?
Seems to me that its very common to say that premade micro mixes "dont give enough iron" / "iron is not chelated optimally" etc, but on what basis did we actually determine that?
Pale new leaves? That could be more than just Fe
Sometimes users report a complete resolution of problems after spiking with just Iron. Good, that means it was likely Iron.
But sometimes the problems dont seem to get much better, or actually seem a bit worse. In that case I think Mn should not be too far from our suspicions.
So, if Mn is almost always sufficient or not in premade blends, I think thats still up in the air.

Well we only know by virtue of their ingredients list, which all seem to include Mn - but I get your point, we don't know exactly how much Mn plants actually need - I'm guessing it's substantially less than Fe though?

How much Mn were you dosing per week when you got the chlorosis issue?

We also know about the oxidation of iron (and the performance of its various chelates) in differing pH points which affects it's availability. I've not read of Mn suffering the same issue? (@dw1305 ?)

 

[_Maq_]

With increased understanding of specific plant tolerance ranges, it would be simpler for the aquarist to either select plants that would be most likely to do well under their existing regime, or select a dosing regime and system setup based on which plants they desire the most. And perhaps a general awareness that some plant species are a little bit more difficult to keep happy in the same tank together.

I daresay I've been researching these specific differences among aquarium plants rather diligently. And I must admit it's far from easy. There are some more variables beyond nutrition which may influence the results very significantly. Only some of these are under our control. The more targeted experiments I do the more I tend to be modest in interpreting my results. "This species grew well in conditions such and such. Period."

I missed more detailed information on various species' keeping in Christel Kasselmann's book. At the same time I acknowledge that it's a very complex, difficult task, really.

Assuming or stating that "all aquarium plants need exactly the same" (which I have actually seen one or two "experts" claim), not only goes against all science knows about plants, but strikes me as willfully wishful thinking.

I believe that Marschner ratios are universally valid among higher plants, with relatively minor differences. There are good reasons to think so. Plants create the green matter in almost identical pattern, and nutrient demand is also almost identical.
However, what is important to keep in mind is that these ratios represent the amount of nutrients already in place, so to speak. Within the functioning organs of a plant. The way to get them there is the spot where plants differ much more significantly. In other words, it's the ability to uptake nutrients upon various conditions which often forces us to fertilize with much more iron than actually required, etc.
But then, you can reveal that a given species requires high iron in chelated form, while Maq or somebody else report that chelates are not required at all and that they have not observed any particular difficulty with iron feeding of the same species. pH, redox, temperature, CO2 content, bicarbonate content, microbe competition/collaboration and other variables may be at play.
Like I said, it's extremely difficult to make hard conclusions.

Even just one kind of wildflower that we get in the springtime in Norway, only ever grows in a particular kind of soil, never anywhere else.

Yes, but cultures behave differently than nature. Some habitats may be free of pines not because pines can't grow there at all but because they can't proliferate there. Par example, their seedlings can't stand the local competition. Bur if you re-plant a young pine there from elsewhere, it may live there quite happily.
Our tanks are cultured collections. Left without care, they would develop into monocultures or a collection of very few species. Yet with regular care, we can keep much broader assortment of plants together.

Those Easy plants are more likely to have wide tolerance ranges that most people will be able to stay within.

I think that 99 % of 'easy' plants are those which can uptake iron in basic and alkaline water.

I'm also going to guess that the ratio of Fe : Mn used by hydroponic mixes is about right.

Like I said above, the correct ratio depends on a list of conditions. A ratio 4 : 1 looks good to me for pH = 6.5, but not for 5.5. Of course, it's also species specific.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

We also know about the oxidation of iron (and the performance of its various chelates) in differing pH points which affects it's availability. I've not read of Mn suffering the same issue? (@dw1305 ?)

The simple answer is I don't know. Manganese (Mn) definitely has some soluble compounds, nitrate, chloride, sulphate etc. but the oxides, phosphate and carbonate are insoluble <"https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/npi/substances/fact-sheets/manganese-compounds">.

..... Solubility of manganese compounds in water ranges from poorly soluble (manganese dioxide, manganese tetroxide, manganese carbonate, and manganese sulfide) to soluble (manganese sulfate, manganese chloride, manganese nitrate, permanganate ion)......

I'd guess that would be the reason for using EDTA chelated in the microelement (trace) mix.


cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I think that 99 % of 'easy' plants are those which can uptake iron in basic and alkaline water.

I'd guess that is it, probably along with not requiring <"reef bright"> lighting.

Like I said above, the correct ratio depends on a list of conditions. A ratio 4 : 1 looks good to me for pH = 6.5, but not for 5.5. Of course, it's also species specific.

I would guess that pH ~ pH 5.5 - pH 6.5 is about what most crops would be grown at, you would definitely want to stay below pH 7. <"pH in Hydroponics: How to Maintain the pH Levels of Hydroponic Systems">

Solufeed have a specific mix for hydroponic Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum) <"Blueberry Special">, a plant that would be much happier at pH 5, or below. This has a Fe : Mn ratio of below 2 : 1.


cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I have wondered before whether even the likes of Tropica or TNC also simply buy an off the shelf micro mix to create their solutions - given the relatively low quantities they sell (compared to commercial fertilizer suppliers), I wonder if they really go to the effort of reinventing the wheel?

I'd be very, very surprised if they didn't buy a commercial trace element mix. I'm going to guess that the expense, in labour terms, of making up a microelement solution (from <"each of the constituent salts">) would far outweigh any cost savings.

The actual cost of the chemicals in a bottle of <"TNC Complete"> or <"Tropica Specialised"> is literally pennies. @Hanuman and @Zeus.'s <"IFC calculator"> just <"quantifies exactly"> what that mark-up is.

cheers Darrel

 

[Hufsa]

d be very, very surprised if they didn't buy a commercial trace element mix. I'm going to guess that the expense, in labour terms, of making up a microelement solution (from <"each of the constituent salts">) would far outweigh any cost savings.

Forgive me because im away from the computer and dont have the exact numbers at hand. Isnt Tropicas micro in somewhat different ratios than the commercial trace blends we're used to seeing?
If it is then that might suggest they make it or tweak it themselves 🤔
Maybe im misremembering, ill have to look it up when I get back on the computer

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

If it is then that might suggest they make it or tweak it themselves

They might do, I don't know and personally I usually follow the path of least resistance, so probably imagine others do as well. They may make up a fertiliser mix for plant production, and it could be that the "Tropica Specialised" is just a very dilute version of that,

<"Purely hypothetically"> if I was to make a fertiliser mix I would probably mix a commercial "all in one" with additional trace elements, in the way that @Happi does in <"Solufeed 2:1:4 and Solufeed Sodium Free TEC Combination">.

I'm guessing that a nice bottle (and some advertising) would be much more important than the contents of the <"aesthetically pleasing container">.

cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

Forgive me because im away from the computer and dont have the exact numbers at hand. Isnt Tropicas micro in somewhat different ratios than the commercial trace blends we're used to seeing?

I assume you are referring to Fe:Mn ?

The NilocG Plantex I'm using in one tank is 3.5:1. Tropica Specialized I'm use in my other tank is 1.78:1. So about twice the Mn from the same amount of Fe with Premium or Specialized.

I believe the NilocG blend is using fairly common ratios for trace blends, but I am not 100% sure. It's been a while since I looked into this and made the comparisons.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Happi]

Hi all,

They might do, I don't know and personally I usually follow the path of least resistance, so probably imagine others do as well. They may make up a fertiliser mix for plant production, and it could be that the "Tropica Specialised" is just a very dilute version of that,

<"Purely hypothetically"> if I was to make a fertiliser mix I would probably mix a commercial "all in one" with additional trace elements, in the way that @Happi does in <"Solufeed 2:1:4 and Solufeed Sodium Free TEC Combination">.

I'm guessing that a nice bottle (and some advertising) would be much more important than the contents of the <"aesthetically pleasing container">.

cheers Darrel

The Solufeed combination version is rather for those who just want to keep it hassle free. It can be further enhance by adding Fe DTPA and Mn EDTA without much hassle. But most hobbyists doesnt want to go that route.

Far as Tropica Traces goes, it is far different from any commercial or premixed Traces in many areas. It's ratios, type of Chealted such as HEEDTA, DTPA. When some of us DIY to clone the Tropica, we are only cloning the ppm, we do not consider the HEEDTA or DTPA, the entire solution is chelated with Both chelate, while some of us, the closest we can come up is use HEEDTA Fe, Fe DTPA and EDTA chelated Trace or Non chelated Traces. So, you see we still don't have the perfect Tropica Clone, but it surely is better than Solufeed or other commercial products.

You can buy a DTPA chelate separately to make your own fully DTPA chelated Products but the cost of DTPA chelation itself is ridiculously high.

 

[Happi]

I assume you are referring to Fe:Mn ?

The NilocG Plantex I'm using in one tank is 3.5:1. Tropica Specialized I'm use in my other tank is 1.78:1. So about twice the Mn from the same amount of Fe with Premium or Specialized.

I believe the NilocG blend is using fairly common ratios for trace blends, but I am not 100% sure. It's been a while since I looked into this and made the comparisons.

Cheers,
Michael

Fe:Mn ratio is better when they are within 1:1 or 2:1, otherwise you will find yourself adding lot of Iron in your tank just to correct the Fe deficiency, when truly you are facing Mn deficiency.

 

[Hufsa]

Well we only know by virtue of their ingredients list, which all seem to include Mn

Sure, but including it doesnt mean its the optimal amount for our use.
Im finding myself starting to disagree more with @dw1305 when he says his customary line of ~ traces being down to the difference between "some" and "none".
In my experience that is much too diffuse and broad a range if one is looking for really nice plant growth.

- but I get your point, we don't know exactly how much Mn plants actually need - I'm guessing it's substantially less than Fe though?

I wouldnt say substantially less, Marschner has it as a 2:1 Fe:Mn ratio (which is of course not just a fashionable term but a serious source of in-depth knowledge of plant mineral requirements)
(Technically I think the numbers themselves are from Epstein, but thats not super important).
As Maq has pointed out, we have to remember that "what the plants need" and "what we need to dose to get the plants what they need", can be two different things.
Perhaps especially when dealing with a plant growing completely under water. They dont have to be different, but they could be.

How much Mn were you dosing per week when you got the chlorosis issue?

I will have to check and get back to you on that 🤔 I think the issue persisted over quite a range of different dosing regimes / amounts, which is why it took a long time to figure it out.
From my notorious memory just dosing full EI (0.5) of a typical trace blend was not working, and again I assume that has to do with there also being a lot of Iron present.
The standard thinking of "just dose more of everything" doesnt quite seem to apply here.

We also know about the oxidation of iron (and the performance of its various chelates) in differing pH points which affects it's availability. I've not read of Mn suffering the same issue?

Good point, MnEDTA should be pretty stable in higher PH, so for fully chelated mixtures we shouldnt need to worry too much about losses from that.
At least not nearly as much as FeEDTA might when its used in slightly higher* PH aquariums. (*Higher than common hydroponic practices it seems).
Im guessing most people are using chelated trace mixes, I think unchelated ones might be less common, but there are some who use it.
But if someone is already at a point where they are deciding whether or not to use chelates, they would hopefully already have an idea of the differences that will mean for the practical application.

I daresay I've been researching these specific differences among aquarium plants rather diligently. And I must admit it's far from easy. There are some more variables beyond nutrition which may influence the results very significantly. Only some of these are under our control. The more targeted experiments I do the more I tend to be modest in interpreting my results. "This species grew well in conditions such and such. Period."

Very wise I think.

I missed more detailed information on various species' keeping in Christel Kasselmann's book. At the same time I acknowledge that it's a very complex, difficult task, really.

I bet if there were any, you would be disagreeing with it anyway 😘

Yes, but cultures behave differently than nature. Some habitats may be free of pines not because pines can't grow there at all but because they can't proliferate there. Par example, their seedlings can't stand the local competition. Bur if you re-plant a young pine there from elsewhere, it may live there quite happily.
Our tanks are cultured collections. Left without care, they would develop into monocultures or a collection of very few species. Yet with regular care, we can keep much broader assortment of plants together.

True. I think my tank would become 100% Hydrocotyle tripartita quite rapidly, that is if the Rotalas dont beat it to the finish line first

Like I said above, the correct ratio depends on a list of conditions. A ratio 4 : 1 looks good to me for pH = 6.5, but not for 5.5. Of course, it's also species specific.

I really love this insight, thats such a good point. With Darrel's link to the Blueberry fertilizer it just drives the point home completely. Definitely something I will keep in mind.

 

[Hufsa]

I assume you are referring to Fe:Mn ?

No I was referring to all of the traces, there are some like Cu which are a bit unusual in the Tropica mix compared to some others.
(All scaled to 0.1 Fe)
Tropica:
0.1 Fe
0.0565 Mn
0.0057 B
0.0028 Zn
0.0086 Cu
0.0028 Mo

Compared to;

Spoiler: Marschner

0.1 Fe
0.05 Mn
0.02 B
0.02 Zn
0.006 Cu
0.0001 Mo
0.0001 Ni

Spoiler: Solufeed SF TEC

0.1 Fe
0.024 Mn
0.011 B
0.014 Zn
0.0027 Cu
0.0018 Mo

Spoiler: Yara Rexolin APN

0.1 Fe
0.04 Mn
0.018 B
0.022 Zn
0.004 Cu
0.0042 Mo

Spoiler: AquaPlantsCare UK

0.1 Fe
0.026 Mn
0.018 B
0.005 Zn
0.001 Cu
0.0008 Mo

Spoiler: Plantex CSM+B

0.1 Fe
0.028 Mn
0.011 B
0.0057 Zn
0.0014 Cu
0.00085 Mo

Just for fun:

Spoiler: Hoagland

0.1 Fe
0.00172 Mn
0.00172 B
0.000172 Zn
0.0000689 Cu
0.000172 Mo
Now, im not a professional Hoaglandologist but I do think this one betrays somewhat how they expect the Iron to behave in solution 🤭 Anyone wanna bet if this one was originally designed with or without chelation?😁

 

[Hufsa]

Far as Tropica Traces goes, it is far different from any commercial or premixed Traces in many areas.

Do you know why that is?

It's ratios, type of Chealted such as HEEDTA, DTPA. When some of us DIY to clone the Tropica, we are only cloning the ppm, we do not consider the HEEDTA or DTPA, the entire solution is chelated with Both chelate,

Huh, I thought the HEEDTA and DTPA on the label was only for Iron, but I think I just assumed. How do you know this?

So, you see we still don't have the perfect Tropica Clone, but it surely is better than Solufeed or other commercial products.

Is it though? Why so? All I can think of is that when I tried the Tropica clone as instructed by you, it didnt perform well.
And the same with when I used Tropica Specialized, it didnt perform well in my tank. Do you think I was just not dosing enough?

 

[Happi]

Do you know why that is?

I believe they wanted to make is more stable in wide range of PH, DTPA alone cover wide range of PH. That is why you can dose once a week without much issues. DTPA chelation is very stable, even if you were to dose the DTPA Fe once a week.

Huh, I thought the HEEDTA on the label was only for Iron, but I think I just assumed. How do you know this?

I Dont work for Tropica 😆 but based on my understanding if true, it would suggest that they use non chelated salts and chelate them by using both DTPA and HEEDTA to finish the final product. Some elements cannot be chelated but most of them are. In the final solution Micros and Fe are grabbing on to either chelate or switching between DTPA or HEEDTA. Depending on the ratio of DTPA and HEEDTA, if more DTPA was used, then most of the elements will form chelation with DTPA, if more HEEDTA was used, those elements will try to attach themselves with HEEDTA. I do not have a evidence to support my claim, This is pure speculation and I could be wrong, but this is likely how they do it. In the worse case scenario. They might be only chelating the Fe with DTPA and HEEDTA while keeping rest of the traces in non chelated form, but if true then I would suspect that you could dose once a week without seeing deficiencies. The Mn deficiency will appear rather quickly.

Is it though? Why so? All I can think of is that when I tried the Tropica clone as instructed by you, it didnt perform well.
And the same with when I used Tropica Specialized, it didnt perform well in my tank. Do you think I was just not dosing enough?

Not sure why it didn't work, if the original tropica didn't work for you, then I doubt the clone version would work. Maybe we will try again with different salts to see if that would make a difference in your case.

 

[Hufsa]

I Dont work for Tropica 😆

You dont!!?? 😱

but based on my understanding if true, it would suggest that they use non chelated salts and chelate them by using both DTPA and HEEDTA to finish the final product. Some elements cannot be chelated but most of them are. In the final solution Micros and Fe are grabbing on to either chelate or switching between DTPA or HEEDTA. Depending on the ratio of DTPA and HEEDTA, if more DTPA was used, then most of the elements will form chelation with DTPA, if more HEEDTA was useful, those elements will try to attach themselves with HEEDTA. I do not have a evidence to support my claim, This is pure speculation and I could be wrong, but this is likely how they do it. In the worse case scenario. They might be only chelating the Fe with DTPA and HEEDTA while keeping rest of the traces in non chelated form, but if true then I would suspect that you could dose once a week without seeing deficiencies. The Mn deficiency will appear rather quickly.

Ah so its a guess of sorts, I thought perhaps you had some knowledge about the composition that the rest of us dont.
Yes the matter of "is everything chelated" or "is the iron chelated" in the Tropica fertilizer is what I was getting at.

the entire solution is chelated with Both chelate

The way you wrote this gave the impression that you know for sure

Not sure why it didn't work, if the original tropica didn't work for you, then I doubt the clone version would work. Maybe we will try again with different salts to see if that would make a difference in your case.

I bet it will come back to bite me in the *ss at some point but: Nah man ill make my own micros - with blackjack and hookers 😎
I dont need Tropica I just need some frogbit and a bit of time 👌😁

 

[Happi]

The way you wrote this gave the impression that you know for sure

Tropica isn't that generous to reveal everything. But all my speculation points toward that and the way tropica dosing works also gives us some hint that is likely the case. Maybe somone can contact them and ask them the same questions?

 

[Wookii]

DTPA chelation is very stable, even if you were to dose the DTPA Fe once a week.

I thought DTPA was rather rapidly broken down by exposure to light?

 

[Hufsa]

New FTS after another smidge of trimming and some internal glass scraping. No cleaning the outside of the glass though, I dont want you guys getting spoiled 😤
The Pantanal and Meta are grumpy in the mornings, can you see the tops looking sort of frowny 😅
In the picture its most visible on the Meta, the Pantanal was looking angrier when I woke up about an hour ago, but has come around a little since then.
Ludwigia inclinata var. verticillata types are such strange plants

Ammannia pedicellata "Golden" still hates me btw. Even if the majority of the plant species in the tank are growing pretty satisfactory, Golden is still incredibly puckered and angry. Its down in the center foreground, glooming at me.
I think my tank is very far from what Golden prefers. It appears to have very specific preferences, and whatever they are, im not it apparently
I have many other lovely plants so im not too fussed if Golden wants to grow or not. Im reintroducing it to the tank periodically just to see what happens


Freshly squeezed "Frogbit Index" too, right off the press 😊
The Frogbit has increased in size, im guessing it likes something about the longer interval between water changes.
New growth still coming out a little bit pale, you can see it most clearly in the top center and right side of the first picture.

One of them has made a very funky looking leaf, pale, deformed, and with reddish stripes 😅 Methinks its been hanging around dramatic stemplants for too long!
Still seeing some stuff on older leaves as well. But nothing critical, which is nice. It gives me time to observe when things dont need to be adjusted immediately.

Ill be measuring some accumulated water values tomorrow, and then sunday is a water change.
Might be interesting to see how they grow before and after the WC

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Im finding myself starting to disagree more with @dw1305 when he says his customary line of ~ traces being down to the difference between "some" and "none".

But that is just because you are now trying to actually work out the <"interactions between nutrients">.

I'm going to stick with "some" or "none", mainly because I'm happy with <"bumping along the bottom"> and I'm never going to see the <"sunlit uplands"> that @Roland etc <"inhabit">.

cheers Darrel