Dilute solution credibility

[Soilwork]

So much focus on cost 😂

So the consensus is that we think the fertiliser ratio/concentrations are low because of the markup and profit margins involved. I get it. The question was is the science behind their ratio/concentrations and dosing guides valid for growing plants?they are so dilute but they still work in most applications? If not why are they being cloned in the first place?

Is it the ratio that matters or the amounts? Would they work better if they chucked any old salts in a best guess levels?

There must be a reason these companies chose to put a certain amount of X in and a bit more Y and a little less Z. Do they reduce certain ferts down so they can then sell the singular version of that product? For example Fe on it’s own or K on it’s own.

 

[Hanuman]

So the consensus is that we think the fertiliser ratio/concentrations are low

They are low comparatively to terrestrial plant fertilizers simply because plant don't need to be swimming in a soup of 13000ppm of NO3 or whatever the element.
There is a lot of discussions on the internet and elsewhere about ratios. Depending who you ask you will have a different answer.
If I am not wrong, to measure how much of an element a plant consumes involves testing of its dry mass with spectrometers. These tests are cumbersome and complex and perhaps expensive to carry. I doubt these companies do that but who knows.

The question was is the science behind their ratio/concentrations and dosing guides valid for growing plants?they are so dilute but they still work in most applications? If not why are they being cloned in the first place?

I think this has been answered in part before. Yes there is some science. They are dilute because of what I said above.
How you grow your plants (co2, no co2, low light) will impact plant uptake directly. What you dose in a low tech tank would need to be x3 or x4 in a high tech one. Yet we are still no where near what terrestrial plants are exposed to (~400ppm+++ CO2) hence why submersed plants don't need that much of each element comparatively.
They are cloned by people because it's far cheaper and I know that if my ppms are not exactly as the original product it won't matter a bit as long as I am close enough.

There must be a reason these companies chose to put a certain amount of X in and a bit more Y and a little less Z. Do they reduce certain ferts down so they can then sell the singular version of that product? For example Fe on it’s own or K on it’s own.

Companies make certain mixes because they believe it is the right one overall. If you note, there are all kind of formulas and receipts out there. Yet they are mostly in the same narrow ranges. If you think about it, between 2ppm NO3 and 30ppm NO3 that's not much difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Zeus.]

Plus we tend to feed our plants via the water column on a very regular basis, so a weak solution for relatively low volumes of water is ideal. For large tanks dry salts used frequently ideal again.
Farmers find it more economical to feed crops less often so feeding at higher rates work better for them.
Well that's my thoughts.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

The question was is the science behind their ratio/concentrations and dosing guides valid for growing plants?

The fertilisers <"developed for commercial horticulture"> definitely "work", if they didn't work those companies would have gone broke. They have also developed <"specific fertilisers for more unusual crops">, I'm pretty sure the demand for these was industry driven.

they are so dilute but they still work in most applications? If not why are they being cloned in the first place?

Aquatic fertilisers will be a much smaller market and I'd guess that the companies want to sell a product that isn't dangerous to livestock (unless you massively over-dose it) and which will show some benefit at the suggested dosing rate. I'd also suggest the number of people who both keep planted aquariums and are scientifically and / or horticulturally saavy* enough to understand all about fertilisers and ions is an even smaller market.

They are low comparatively to terrestrial plant fertilizers simply because plant don't need to be swimming in a soup of 13000ppm of NO3 or whatever the element.

Definitely true.

I doubt these companies do that but who knows.

During my extremely limited career as a <"horticultural substrate researcher"> companies were still using growth trials to assess alternative growing media and fertiliser regimes.

They are cloned by people because it's far cheaper and I know that if my ppms are not exactly as the original product it won't matter a bit as long as I am close enough.

That one.

Do they reduce certain ferts down so they can then sell the singular version of that product? For example Fe on it’s own or K on it’s own.

That is definitely what <"ADA"> and <"Seachem"> have done.
*For @Hufsa

cheers Darrel