Maq's experiment 23b

[MichaelJ]

I'm quite flexible with micros, esp. iron. Whenever I suspect iron deficiency, I increase dosing.
I'll try my best to avoid iron deficiency, the more so magnesium deficiency can be misinterpreted as iron deficit. I really don't want this to happen.
Yet my standing principle is that I dose ALL micros (each separately) always the same in all tanks at the same moment. To maintain compatibility. In that way, if p.e. iron deficiency occurs in one tank but not the others, we may deduce that something (higher pH, higher alkalinity, higher phosphates, ...) hindered iron uptake.
If pH gets close to or above 7.0 in any of the tanks (I'm not sure whether it may happen with mineralization like this), species like Bacopa lanigera or Tonina fluviatilis will probably die due iron deficiency - no matter how much iron I provide. Some species are simply unable to uptake/assimilate iron upon higher pH or alkalinity.
I should remind you that I don't use any chelates. FeCl3 is my iron fertilizer.

Hi @_Maq_ All this makes sense, my "beef" (on behalf of the EI purists) with the Fe in tank C is really that it is in such a tiny amount - far, far lower than EI range which is routinely 0.5 - 1.0 ppm/wk.

But otherwise I am with you, with very soft acidic water you're not going to need much of this stuff - and choice of chelates or not sort of becomes a moot point. (I believe Tropica Specialized is using FeCl3 as well?).

I expect the duration of this experiment to be between 60 to 120 days

120 days sounds reasonable. My own lean experiment is ongoing for +10 months now 🙂 Getting ready to reintroduce some more challenging stem plants after I see no ill side effects from the low K to Mg that I just started.


Again, thanks for doing all this work! It's very rare anyone in the hobby have the setup, aptitude and time to do this.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

Well, I've lived under an impression that Tom Barr repeatedly stated that the principle of his method is valid for low-tech, too.

The principle is the same, the quantities not. No one would be adding 30 : 4 : 30 [NO3 : P : K] in a low tech tank. That would simply be non sensical considering there is little to no CO2 and nutrients would be in very very large excess of what plants need.

However, do you think that the same amount of nutrients could harm plants kept in low-tech and be harmless to plants kept in hi-tech?
Seriously, dear colleagues, do you think it's possible?

I don't think it will harm plants per say but let's see what your experiment says. This said you are skewing results even before starting by deliberately dosing much less traces and Fe than what EI prescribes. Why, I don't know, but this looks like Experimenter Bias although you want to call it "senseless".

 

[MichaelJ]

The principle is the same, the quantities not. No one would be adding 30 : 4 : 30 [NO3 : P : K] in a low tech tank.

But it shouldn't matter, since its EI, everything in abundance, right? 😉 It's just way, way more than any low tech will ever need.

This said you are skewing results even before starting by deliberately dosing much less traces and Fe than what EI prescribes.

That is my concern too, but whether it matters in the end I do not know, but if Tank C is supposed to comply to EI it should do so in every respect IMO.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

But it shouldn't matter, since its EI, everything in abundance, right? 😉 It's just way, way more than any low tech will ever need.

😜 Well I’m no one to answer that question but I would guess everything has limits. Some excess has shown that it’s fine. Larding on fert like there is no tomorrow might have damaging consequences on plants, co2 or no co2 by the way.
I don’t believe that T. Barr has ever said you can add as much fert you find in your home to your tank without consequences, and that is what I am reading somewhat between the lines in some posts/threads, usually in those advocating leaness 😘

 

[_Maq_]

No one would be adding 30 : 4 : 30 [NO3 : P : K] in a low tech tank.

In my country, limit for nitrates is 50 mg/l. And indeed, 30 mg/l in tap water are not rare. Hobbyists have to cope somehow with that.
In tank C - EI, we have 4.5 mg/l ammonium, that is eq. 15.6 mg/l NO3.

This said you are skewing results even before starting by deliberately dosing much less traces and Fe than what EI prescribes. Why, I don't know, but this looks like Experimenter Bias although you want to call it "senseless".

Point taken. I'm perfectly willing to increase dosing iron to a level you tell. What about 0.5 mg/l Fe per 8-day period?
Now, I think I simply must elaborate on why I had called the discussion on micros senseless.
Of the amounts you routinely dose, majority gets lost. How much? That's very individual. Among the sources of losses belong alkalinity, phosphates, and filters. Metals precipitate in the form of oxides, hydroxides, carbonates or phosphates, and get trapped in filters.
Again, those who inject CO2 usually have alkalinity above 2 °dKH, usually dose plenty of phosphates, usually perform vigorous filtration. None of that occurs in my tanks. Even if metals precipitate, they end up in substrate and there, in reducing conditions, continue cycling. They don't get permanently lost.
In short, it's the losses which determine how much micros we have to dose. In my tanks, the losses are pushed to the minimum. I'm more concerned with accumulating metals than their deficit. Yet since trivalent iron is harmless, I'm willing to make an exception and dose iron in excess, to satisfy your opinion on how much iron is needed.

Larding on fert like there is no tomorrow might have damaging consequences on plants, co2 or no co2 by the way.

That's tank D. It's quite possible that plants will die there. Such a result is always possible and accepted when experimenting.
Let me remind you that one of the aims is to explore two theses of harmful effects of ammonium - ammonia burn and ammonium as a source of algae. I maintain that ammonium in moderate amounts does not inflict such effects; tanks A and B will hopefully demonstrate it. But what about if ammonium concentration is truly high? Enormous, insane? That is what the tank D would tell.

 

[PARAGUAY]

Good last point @_Maq_ the UK are pretty lazy to learn other languages in general, so l think a lot of knowledge is lost in translation

 

[Wookii]

So, we have 16 ppm NO3 equivalent, then potassium should be 24 ppm and magnesium 8 ppm. May I take it for your suggestion? And what about calcium?

It's not my suggestion @_Maq_ , they are the standard starting EI numbers (The Estimative Index (EI) Dosing with Dry Salts). All nutrients can be exactly what you want them to be, provided you have excess at the end of the dosing/water change cycle. However if you want to follow the standard numbers for this experiment, then those you have calculated should work fine, plus 2.4ppm PO4.

As far as calcium goes, that's not part of EI. EI is a prescriptive system designed largely as a fool proof methodology to help beginners sufficiently dose their planted tanks and try and avoid any deficiencies. With that in mind, I think the water hardness parameters are left out of it on the basis most will be using tap water and will have little control of calcium levels. As an RO user though, I would advocate having the water as soft as you can get away with. As @MichaelJ suggests 24ppm Ca is as good a place as any to set it.

Roughly 0.00837675 mg/l Fe, usually two days before WC. (You made me to calculate it, I'm using quite different units for micros.)

As others have pointed out, that is too to be considered part of an EI regime. Ignoring any debate on what level of micros we think a planted tank physically requires (particularly a low tech), the dosing regime calls for 0.5ppm iron (as a proxy for all micros), so you should be scaling it to match - so 0.4ppm. You also need to dose it on alternate days if you are strictly following EI (though personally I'd dose daily). Your choice of course, its you experiment, but I thought it worth pointing out for completeness, and the avoidance of anyone crying foul at the end of the experiment.

 

[Hanuman]

In my country, limit for nitrates is 50 mg/l. And indeed, 30 mg/l in tap water are not rare

Same in Thailand but here NO3's actual content in tap water is around 1-2ppm. Regardless, we are obviously talking about the user conscious decision to actually put that much N-P-K in the water. If you are using TAP water then obviously you have no choice, and I am sure there are people out there with low tech tanks with 30ppm++ of NO3. If I had the choice though, there is absolutely no way I would add that much in a low tech tank.

I'm perfectly willing to increase dosing iron to a level you tell. What about 0.5 mg/l Fe per 8-day period?

It's not the level I tell you. It's the level that EI tells you. If you chose to use the high EI level for that tank for NPK, perhaps you should stick to what EI tells you for Fe but also for Mg which is 10ppm. When I say "high" I am simply referring to the fact that these levels apply for high intensity/energy tanks, not for low or no-co2 tanks. For instance, if you look at RotalaButterfly for EI levels, the range is pretty wide. It goes as follows:
NO3: 5 ppm - 30ppm
PO4: 1 ppm - 3 ppm
K: 10 ppm - 30 ppm
Mg: 5 ppm - 10 ppm
Fe: 0.1 ppm - 0.5 ppm
The IFC calculator also provides similar ranges since we used similar sources.

In short, it's the losses which determine how much micros we have to dose. In my tanks, the losses are pushed to the minimum. I'm more concerned with accumulating metals than their deficit. Yet since trivalent iron is harmless, I'm willing to make an exception and dose iron in excess, to satisfy your opinion on how much iron is needed.

Yes BUT this applies as well to NKP when it comes to accumulation. If you want to run an experiment then why keep certain parameters intact and change others?
There is also something clear about the EI concept and that is WC. Big ones, 50% or more. The idea of EI goes hand in hand with large WC to prevent these accumulations that would happen if these WCs were not done. Many people even do 2 or even 3 WC per week to reset ferts in the water column.
In any case, feel free to use the levels you think are best, after all it's your experiment, your design. I was just pointing some inconsistencies since you decided to use the term EI and Barr for that tank.

 

[Ria95]

But it shouldn't matter, since its EI, everything in abundance, right? 😉

Right, for me I don‘t think it matters much at this point. To use Maq‘s words, " EI users never dose ammonium" than comes up with his own mix with NH4HCO3, KOH, random trace dosing, etc. and labels it " "Barr – Estimative Index". That is just deliberately misleading.
That only one of those setups has a person’s name attached to it is revealing to the motivation, the frame of mind, if you will, behind planning and running the experiment. It kind of reminds me of detergent commercials, only with a negative spin to it. That I don’t care to be involved with.

 

[MichaelJ]

" EI users never dose ammonium" than comes up with his own mix with NH4HCO3, KOH, random trace dosing, etc. and labels it " "Barr – Estimative Index". That is just deliberately misleading.

Yes, The EI tank (C) should be in line with more mainstream EI... whatever this experiment is going to show it will be argued that tank C was not really EI to begin with. I think the best way to do this experiment as far as C and possibly D are concerned is to make sure the skilled EI advocates around here are happy with the dosing protocol. @Hanuman already took a good shot at what EI levels (including Fe) etc. would be appropriate for a low-tech.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[John q]

Yes, The EI tank (C) should be in line with more mainstream EI... whatever this experiment is going to show

This experiment will show reduced fertiliser dosing brings better results than ei, it's set up this way. I think maq is genuine in his aims, but suggest adding co2 may well skew his results.
So bit like how us british folks would say "comparing apples to oranges" ...

 

[MichaelJ]

So bit like how us british folks would say "comparing apples to oranges" ...

In Czech it's míchat jablka s hruškami. (mixing apples with pears - according to Wikipedia).

Cheers,
Michael

 

[jaisol]

I look forward to following this.
My thoughts are Tanks A or B will work well, C & D will not work as well due to the lack of CO2.
It's all about balance, and optimisation, (sweet spot). There is no perfect growing conditions for many different plans grown together.
I'm not that bright... but my understanding is:-
1. if plants grow well and show signs of needing more micro's then he increases them, so that it is not a limiting factor.
2. Tank C LOL , Bar .. or call it 3 carrots (uk burnley carrots have doubled in price). I don't understand why there is an insistence to dose EI levels when there is no co2, my understanding ( I have porridge for brain cells) is that it will be excessive even when CO2 is added (EI). So whats excessive in non Hi Tec tanks.
3. Insane might be interesting if it is allowed to continue. I think fungus.

I admire MAQ he has motivation to try these things 10/10 🙂 Lets see where NH3 goes........ that is /was the Question

 

[_Maq_]

To use Maq‘s words, " EI users never dose ammonium" than comes up with his own mix with NH4HCO3, KOH, random trace dosing, etc. and labels it " "Barr – Estimative Index". That is just deliberately misleading.

I must admit you're right. It shouldn't be named like this.
I'll resume my motivation: Mr Barr insists that ammonium should never be used for fertilization as it causes algae. I think differently. So, I want to check what happens if we emulate his methods as close as possible with the one exception - ammonium instead of nitrates.
Beside that, there's the drawback that I don't inject CO2. That is atypical, but not forbidden. Mr Barr repeatedly stated that his method applies to low-tech tanks as well. And the core of his method is dosing about everything in excess, and while doing that, ratios are secondary.
Again, I think differently, I think that ratios matter even if all nutrients are provided in excess.
So, tank C is designed to provide all nutrients in excess, replace nitrates with ammonium, and maintain ratios among nutrients roughly corresponding to common EI practice.
It's definitely not Mr Barr neither EI and I'm fully willing to rename it. Any ideas, dear colleagues?

@Hanuman already took a good shot at what EI levels (including Fe) etc.

I've been thinking about micros. My dosing is usually on the low side. That's because I've minimized the losses. But, thinking about it, tanks C and D feature high alkalinity and high phosphates. That's different from my normal practice. Obviously, I'll have to dose much more Fe, probably Mn, and possibly Zn and Cu.
So, I've prepared FeCl3 stock solution tailored to dose 0.5 mg/l Fe. About 30 times more than my normal practice. Now, there are two more questions to solve: Should I maintain my principle to dose the same amounts of micros in all tanks? And secondly, what about other micros?
I repeat, this experiment is not meant to study dosing of micros. Ideally, there should be no issues with them - nor lack, neither excess.
Suggestions welcome.

 

[Andy Pierce]

I'll resume my motivation: Mr Barr insists that ammonium should never be used for fertilization as it causes algae. I think differently. So, I want to check what happens if we emulate his methods as close as possible with the one exception - ammonium instead of nitrates.

This is a great idea, but you'll need a control to compare to. You could have tank C be 'vanilla EI' and have tank D be the ammonium version of EI.
Tank C:

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​

Tank D:

Ammonium (NH4) 20ppm per week​

Potassium (K) 30ppm per week​

Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week​

Magnesium (Mg) 10ppm per week​

Iron (Fe) 0.5ppm per week​

 

[_Maq_]

This is a great idea, but you'll need a control to compare to. You could have tank C be 'vanilla EI' and have tank D be the ammonium version of EI.

Well, yes, in a perfect world, it ought to be like that. But I've got only four tanks and one Maq, he's not a perfect guy, either...
I'll regret it, maybe, but let it be. It's already running... a few hours.

 

[Happi]

THANK YOU. So, at least one suggestion to C - Tom Barr tank:

• decrease ammonium to 3 mg/l (which is eq. 10.3 mg/l NO3)
• increase potassium to 11 mg/l.

What do you think about it?
PLEASE, I beg you all, esp. Estimative Index performers - do suggest what concentrations you find "true" EI.

Maq,

I suggest you use the standard Classic EI levels while using the simple salts such as KNO3, Kh2PO4 for N P K. I think many people would be more interested in this test when comparing with the other one. Marcel Experiment was done while using higher nutrients in some of the test tanks and some people thought the higher nutrients automatically meant EI. the main difference was Nutrient ratios, chemical being used etc. on those experiments.

so, i strongly suggest you Test the standard EI even if the N is all coming from NO3 and ratios are off, especially where K is much higher.

if you ever get a chance, I do have few recommendation:

can you target Ca, Mg and K to your best ratio but while using CaNO3, MgNO3, KHCO3 ? this may result in high NO3 levels, but lets see if plant would show negative response to it. also add S and Cl in lower range using CaCl, MgSo4 etc, lower range of 1-2 ppm Cl, 1-2 ppm S. do the same test on another setup while using the same setting except this time adding some NH4 with CaNO3, MgNO3, KHCO3. The P, Fe/Micros to your desired levels or as you wish.

 

[Happi]

View attachment 201983
So, I've tried to meet your suggestions concerning tank C. I've also re-balanced Mg and Ca in other tanks, for convenience (stock solutions) and to meet your 1:3 ratio.
Now, don't tell me that I didn't warn you: Your potassium dose for tank C is a killer. Tonina, Ammannia and Rotala wallichii won't grow, Hygrophila corymbosa will demonstrate "beautiful" chlorosis. Other species may suffer, too. Yet I'm full ready to go for it. You'll see with your own eyes.
Can we settle on this?

Go for it @_Maq_

Regarding my previous post, it was just an request and doesn't need to be fulfilled during this time.

But, I would like to add that when NH4 is added to the picture, it can greatly benefit the plants weather the ratios are off or Nutrients are excess. I strongly believe when ratios are more accurate and NH4 is used for N, the results are even better.

you should also create a Poll where you could list "Under each tank what to Expect" describing what's likely to happen and we can Vote on it and you will also get an idea what the community thinks so far.

Thank you for sharing and am looking forward to your experiments with strong interest. I have always admired your and Marcels work.

 

[_Maq_]

Marcel Experiment was done

I remember that experiment very well. Back then, Marcel was my guide, my source of inspiration. Yet since I've got much more free time (I'm retired), I'd been faster in learning, studying Marschner etc.
When we ran this test, the formulas were actually prepared by me. While Marcel performed the test - I didn't have the necessary stuff back then.
Before this test, Marcel repeatedly struggled with keeping Rotala wallichii. His formulas were full of sodium and bicarbonates (to avoid a pH way too low).
Unfortunately, before long after that, Marcel left the hobby.
Since then, I believe I've advanced a bit farther.

if you ever get a chance, I do have few recommendation:

Making formulas is not a completely simple job. Fortunately, once you dissolve p.e. K2SO4 and Mg(NO3)2, it's absolutely the same solution as if you used KNO3 and MgSO4. So I begin my work not with compounds, but with ions. If I want to have 5 mg/l K, I don't care for accompanying anion - that's only the last step, maintaining ionic balance. It usually ends with sulfates and chlorides which seem to be quite benign (as long as required minimum is present).
I'm not sure whether I quite understand the core of your suggestions. Perfect ratios are perhaps a sort of Holy Grail, and I'm advancing step by step in a search for it. Yet in fact, it's not my prime focus.

The greatest mystery of a planted tank are microbes (incl. algae). Many times I keep successfully plant species which are considered demanding even among hi-tech hobbyists. Everything seems to go well, albeit slowly, and then 'something' happens, algae appear, or snails' feces don't disappear, my beloved plants are struggling... And what is most depressing is the fact that many months of work can be lost within a week or two (in low-tech). How can I avoid such deviations? I know way too little about that. THAT is the Question.

 

[Happi]

Making formulas is not a completely simple job. Fortunately, once you dissolve p.e. K2SO4 and Mg(NO3)2, it's absolutely the same solution as if you used KNO3 and MgSO4. So I begin my work not with compounds, but with ions. If I want to have 5 mg/l K, I don't care for accompanying anion - that's only the last step, maintaining ionic balance. It usually ends with sulfates and chlorides which seem to be quite benign (as long as required minimum is present).
I'm not sure whether I quite understand the core of your suggestions. Perfect ratios are perhaps a sort of Holy Grail, and I'm advancing step by step in a search for it. Yet in fact, it's not my prime focus.

certainly you can achieve the ions with different chemicals or salts. I just wanted to see if you were just willing to test CaNO3, MgNO3, KHCO3 or K2CO3 to maintain your suggest Ca, Mg, K rather than using other salts that usually contain high amount of Chloride or Sulphates. I hope that make sense?