Spezial N - Nitrogen Fertilizer

[Aquadream]

... so you are still dosing K+ from various sources other than KNO3, plus Tobi's Special N + traces etc.. The difference with EI being that K & NO3 are being tagged to different ions than K-NO3. With your method you are actually dosing extra Cl, SO4, and CO3 (which will disintegrate pretty fast). Maybe the SO4 and Cl ions are then tampering your pH, kH, or something else..? Have you checked (& compared with EI) this observation?

I am still confused (actually more now) since once in water these compounds get into ionic states, and how should this matter then on?

.. Oh I know: WAR OF THE IONS & survival of the fittest!

-niru

I have been checking not just this one case, but many other over the years and I am pretty sure that SO4 and Cl have nothing to deal with tampering KH, PH and so on. These parameters simply do not get tampered by those ions.

I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4.

If NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant.

For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources. Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?
The answer to those questions should provide more light to the debate of how important or unimportant the various sources are.

On the other hand it is well known that just KNO3 works fine for both K+ and NO3-.
In my case however the more complex sources for K+ and NO3- works a lot better, but I can not point my finger on what is the very reason for this outcome. Not without extensive research.

 

[plantbrain]

The second question is a bit more complicated, and really has 2 parts, the first is are high levels of potassium (K) a problem? and the second is is the unbalanced nature of the addition of K and NO3, from KNO3, (14N:39K) a problem?

Folks have made this claim going back to about 2002, and in EVERY CASE, I and other folks provide clear examples where this is not the case. I went to 50ppm and another guy went to 100ppm +. We chose the most sensitive species we could fine and had no issues developing nice healthy large stands without any fuss.

Tobi is convinced that this is true, he wrote this earlier in the thread:

If K+ gets much higher than NO3 you can (you do not need to) get problems.

Erik had it running at 100ppm K+ and the NO3 at 5-10ppm.
He added GH booster as a method to get it that high.(2 parts K2SO4: 1 part CaSO4 and 1 part MgSO4)
Tap water is low GH, maybe 35 ppm and mostly Ca++.

I think that's pretty high, my tanks tend to run higher NO3 10-25ppm and the K+ about 30ppm.
Due to my water changes, things do not fall out side this range though.

Other folks might run it differently (eg, do few water changes or tiny ones) and get way outside normalized ranges.
There's no reason that they CANNOT balance their tanks without water changes, but it takes more testing and fiddling, and many fail at that over time. Still, CO2 demand in each tank is different also and we all fiddle with that if it's an enriched tank.

Many ways to mess up and have confounding issues with a "test", but few ways to test it fairly to show and falsify the hypothesis. I've been unable to find support for the method personally.

Plants still do the same things.
Amano said this pretty much at one point years ago, ferts are not that critical as long as you do not go too far one way or the other.

If I forget(as I often do) to dose a day or two.........or leave for a week, the tanks are fine.

CO2? If that is messed up, not much I can do to fix that tank with ferts, but.....if I really limited say PO4, then perhaps.

If it's the K+ itself or something else interfering with. I really do not care and could of course be some correlation. Botanists and plant experts from Germany (and I know quite some, all have the same idea regarding K+ and NO3). If K+ gets way higher than NO3 it could lead to problems. Maybe you guys should get K+ test kits to get an idea how much K+ you have in your tanks.

Clive and Tom think that it is a red herring and nothing to do with the NO3:K ion ratio, and that high K+ levels aren't a problem. I think Tom and Clive are probably right, but I'm not totally discounting some effect.

Me either actually, that's why I tested it back a decade ago, I have a K+ test kit and reagents etc.
I have little need to fuss over ferts, I convinced my own skeptical mind otherwise a long time ago.
K+ was one of those issues, and varying NO3 and K+ is VERY easy to do.

All it takes is for someone to falsify your hypothesis and it is dead in the water.
Many speculate but never or very rarely attempt to falsify their own hypothesis :idea:

I wrote:

I'm not quite as sceptical as Clive, and I am really interested in your "magic mix", I don't think that it is impossible that there might be some synergistic effect of the varied nitrogen sources, although I'd need to be convinced.

Me too, so I...........actually...........tried it for 2 weeks. I'm just not seeing it.

So I think the jury is still out on this one, although all the scientific evidence we have tends to point towards both high K+ levels not being a problem, and them being fairly unlikely to occur even if you use KNO3 as your potassium and nitrogen source.

In the past, eg, more than a decade ago, many folks added K2SO4 very liberally, no one reported any issues.
This was based on the PMDD approach from 1995, Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin, they suggested using K2SO4 and KNO3 to drive down PO4 levels. There was a period within the club 1995-2001 or so where everyone added K+ to every tank and the more, the better.

I was/am skeptical because it was "larding" it on for no good reason.

Add more than limiting amounts obviously, but I do not go nuts and waste it either. If I add more light, I add more CO2, if I add more CO2, I add more ferts. If I add more K+, I add more NO3 etc. I add more of everything if I want higher rates of growth, or less if I want less growth rate. I've made mistakes and dosed too much of something etc, a dosing pump went bonkers, or someone made some comment that 3 ppm of PO4 induces algae, so I add more and then see. I spent plenty of time convincing myself none of this ratio business made a hill of beans, it's not hard to do.

The last 2 questions are conjoined in some ways, and are does it matter which compounds you use to achieve the levels of NO3-, K+ etc that you want? and is the obvious the success of Tobi's "Spezial N" down to increased levels of NH4+, Mg2+ etc? Again Tobi believes that the chemical compounds used are important, and that the results are not purely to do with increased nutrient levels. I'm moderately convinced that Tobi is wrong and that the source of an NO3- ion is irrelevant, but I do think that the enhanced magnesium (Mg) levels, the urea addition and possibly the low Mg:Ca ratio may be reasons for the undoubted success of "Spezial N".

cheers Darrel

Same here.

Mg was an issue for me a long time ago in the late 1990's, and when I figured it out, wow, the aquariums took off.
Then some folks suggested that over 10ppm of Mg is bad, toxic etc. Davis Ca Tap water has around 52ppm of stable Mg++ 800 meter well delivered tap water, I cut this in 1/2 with RO, giving about 25ppm.

Still, I gave it a try and to see.

Not hard to do. But..........I'm not seeing any difference.

In a planted marine tank, Ca++ is used up much more and NO3 is added to keep it from bottoming out.
Mg as well............but K+ is not a large factor, so I have no use for KNO3 other than NO3........so I already had the salts, this was easy to test for me. I also do not doubt some users claims that something happened, but if you cannot say why and explain it, belief is all you have and that's much more problematic.

Still, at the end of the day, none of this matters to the "faithful", and ADA , EI etc have this issue as well. But if got some folks off their duff and trying something new till something stuck on the wall. Mg/NH4 I can buy............but the counter to that is to dose just those alogn with the KNO3 and see if there's a difference, go back and repeat that a couple of times if you see it happen once, you need to repeat the test a few times.

I only tested Special N once for 2 weeks on one tank, maybe I got unlucky.........maybe not.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
Tom and I really aren't trying to be difficult, people are entitled to believe what-ever they like, but if you believe that the source of an ion, from the disassociation of a salt, makes any difference to that ion this is a "faith" position, like homoeopathy, because all of science and the physical rules of the universe tell you it isn't true.

I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4.

You can sort of do this, but you end up with either a strong acid (HNO3) or a strong base (KOH), but once these are in solution they disassociate fully to form H+ and NO3- ions (acids are defined as H+ ion donors, nitric acid is therefore an acid) or K+ and OH- ions. In the case of potassium (K) it is highly re-active and doesn't occur as an element at all naturally. This is the reaction between elemental potassium and water is:

2K + 2H2O -> 2K+ 2OH- + H2

which is also why potassium etc are called the "alkali metals".
Even these acid/alkali compounds are really just "salts" we give different names to: "salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge)."

If NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant. For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources.

Honestly they do, a NO3- ion is a NO3- ion, is a NO3- ion etc. they are exactly the same wherever they came from, the elements on earth have been here since the formation of the earth, they were formed in the nuclear furnace of a massive yellow giant star, before being flung across the universe in a huge supernova explosion. They don't have any memory of the compounds that they combined in.

Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?

This is just wrong, plants can only take up ions from solution, but it has nothing to do with bacteria, as soon as you add the KNO3 to the water it disassociates into K+ and NO3- ions. It is the same as adding salt (NaCl) to your soup, you don't have to wait for bacterial breakdown for your soup to get salty.

You could reach a point where the water was fully saturated with K+ and NO3- ions, but he solubility of KNO3 is 360g/l at 25oC, so I think we can ignore that.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquadream]

Hi all,
Tom and I really aren't trying to be difficult, people are entitled to believe what-ever they like, but if you believe that the source of an ion, from the disassociation of a salt, makes any difference to that ion this is a "faith" position, like homoeopathy, because all of science and the physical rules of the universe tell you it isn't true.

I also do not believe, not for a second that SO4, NO3 and similar stay just as free ions in the water for the taking. If that was the case why no one is actually manufacturing fret solutions that are simply NO3 dissolved in water or SO4 dissolved in water. I know the answer. Because it can not be done. But then some say that NO3 will end up as a free ion in the water and so will SO4.

You can sort of do this, but you end up with either a strong acid (HNO3) or a strong base (KOH), but once these are in solution they disassociate fully to form H+ and NO3- ions (acids are defined as H+ ion donors, nitric acid is therefore an acid) or K+ and OH- ions. In the case of potassium (K) it is highly re-active and doesn't occur as an element at all naturally. This is the reaction between elemental potassium and water is:

2K + 2H2O -> 2K+ 2OH- + H2

which is also why potassium etc are called the "alkali metals".
Even these acid/alkali compounds are really just "salts" we give different names to: "salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge)."

If NO3 and SO4 could just exist in water as free ions for long enough then their source would not have been important. But because that is not the case I believe the ion source still plays some role in the game and it is not all irrelevant. For example what have to be taken into account is how accessible the SO4 and NO3 ions are whan come from various cation sources.

Honestly they do, a NO3- ion is a NO3- ion, is a NO3- ion etc. they are exactly the same wherever they came from, the elements on earth have been here since the formation of the earth, they were formed in the nuclear furnace of a massive yellow giant star, before being flung across the universe in a huge supernova explosion. They don't have any memory of the compounds that they combined in.

Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?

This is just wrong, plants can only take up ions from solution, but it has nothing to do with bacteria, as soon as you add the KNO3 to the water it disassociates into K+ and NO3- ions. It is the same as adding salt (NaCl) to your soup, you don't have to wait for bacterial breakdown for your soup to get salty.

You could reach a point where the water was fully saturated with K+ and NO3- ions, but he solubility of KNO3 is 360g/l at 25oC, so I think we can ignore that.

cheers Darrel

That is fine. Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?
There is also a picture of what happen after I used the mixed K solution. The white line shows the extended new growth that did not happen before. I do not think that is my faith doing this, because I have no magic powers of any kind.

 

[Ady34]

Hi all,
and wow this thread seems to produce a lot of very detailed and passionate responses and i would simply say that most of what is being said is way over my head and level of understanding. I think really what can be deduced is that nitrogen comes in many more forms than i was aware and basically folk seem to argue that nitrogen is nitrogen in whatever form it is added. I for one can see the logic to the theory that this is the case and am in no position to argue for or against, having really tried neither. Also however what i can also say is that people, and not just inexperienced folk like myself, im talking about the George Farmers and Mark Evans, plant growers for many years, have stated that this fertiliser produces an improved growth rate. For me if a product works, im not going to become overly fixated with why, and just accept that it does. To some level i want to understand and expand my knowledge base, but for me the enjoyment is in seeing the tank develop and the plants grow strong and healthy. There are of course many factors and variables along the way, but im gonna suck it and see!
I in no way want to sound derogatory to the people who prove/disprove theories and reasons behind them, but for me as a hobbyist on a hobbyist level i don not need to question too much the hows and whys and only if a product works.

Many do not care, they dose whatever they dose that works..........same with EI, they might need only 1/4 th EI..but they keep dosing 4x as much. Others might need the full amount, if you do not try, you do not know.

Might get some folks on the right track either way though.

This is pretty much me. As a relitive newb to the hobby im trying to get to a point where i can conclusively eliminate fertilisation as a cause of poor growth. I have been using tpn+ and have no real idea how much i need to use to provide in excess. Ive never used EI and am not rating this product (special n) better than that system, im just gonna try this one first and see if it works for me. Mostly switching dosing techniques is a financial reason as salts are cheaper. Hopefully this will help me with finding the right balance of everything to have a successful tank.
Also Tom, how do you get your ppm figures? People say that you need to attain ??ppm of this and ???ppm of that. Is this a mathematical formulation or a water test result your using? Is their a definitive list anywhere for the required levels for providing in excess?

A couple of things still confuse me about this fertiliser,

but I do think that the enhanced magnesium (Mg) levels, the urea addition and possibly the low Mg:Ca ratio may be reasons for the undoubted success of "Spezial N".
cheers Darrel

i thought the Mg was relitively irrelevant as it was in the form of Magnesium nitrate, the nitrate being the more prevelant fertiliser? Also ive got a mix without urea.... ive heard of ill effects to fish with high levels of ammonia, so hope this wont reduce too much the effectiveness?
Also some have mentioned about problems associated with high K levels, its clear that Tom has evidence that this isnt the case, but for those who beleive this, what are the issues of high levels of K?
I am beginning to think that there is no strict hard and fast application of ferts, and while we can use EI to add in excess, some will have issues and others wont and each tank will have different needs for a number of different factors which i would never have the time, knowledge or patience to test.
My problem as a beginner is trying to diagnose fertiliser issues over c02 issues for example. I want to try to eliminate fertilising as a cause for poor growth so only leaving c02.
Cheerio,
Ady.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?

I can and I have, it is HNO3 (Nitric acid), that is an H+ ion and NO3- ion, I don't know what else you want? Nitric acid injection is widely used in commercial horticulture, partially as a nitrogen source.

I don't agree with all of Tom's (Plantbrain) conclusions, but he has done a great job in debunking a lot of pseudo-science, and making the, in some cases deliberately, obscure become transparent. In this case we need some evidence, and a plausible explanation for a mode of action, once/if these are in place then we can move forward.

i thought the Mg was relitively irrelevant as it was in the form of Magnesium nitrate, the nitrate being the more prevelant fertiliser? Also ive got a mix without urea.... ive heard of ill effects to fish with high levels of ammonia, so hope this wont reduce too much the effectiveness?

Urea would be converted to ammonia by micro-organisms with the enzyme urease, but it would be a lot safer than just adding ammonia.

The magnesium issue is slightly different, in the UK most of the dGH in the water supply is supplied by calcium, plants require more magnesium than calcium (the central atom of the chlorophyll molecule is an Mg atom). This isn't the case in other areas, and some of the assumptions about the calcium and magnesium content of tap water were made on the grounds that the tap water contained some magnesium. In the UK our hard water is typically devoid of magnesium, so you just need to add some extra.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquadream]

Hi all,

Can you please produce for me some pure NO3 solution in water? If yes I will be very happy. If no why?

I can and I have, it is HNO3 (Nitric acid), that is an H+ ion and NO3- ion, I don't know what else you want? Nitric acid injection is widely used in commercial horticulture, partially as a nitrogen source.

I did not ask for someone to repeat me. I did state earlier that I have used HNO3 in my tanks. Horticulture is one story, aquariums is another.
What I asked you for was just pure NO3 solution in H2O, not how it is calculated when some compound is added.
Now, HNO3 can be interpreted as H+ and NO3-, but that is hardly the case. H2O solution of HNO3 does not contain H+ and NO3-, but HNO3, no more no less. You see in the HNO3 the ions are H+ and NO3-, but in the water solution is HNO3 and H2O.
If NO3 was in independent state as just an ion in water solution then that solution would have been harmless to human touch, right. Well can you try and tell me how safe it is? And if it is not safe, in which I am certain, how can you talk about NO3- and H+?
What I am trying to say here is that the chemical balance interpretations are only explaining (or at least trying to) of what is reacting with what.
What the whole chemical theory can not tell for sure is which specific component reacts first or second in aquatic environment and exactly with what. The variables are so many that it is simply impossible to predict that with total accuracy.
That is why I do not believe in the relevance of the theoretical statement that ion is an ion, is an ion and so on and so forward, because we do not talk about pure solutions in the lab, but a battlefield of chemistry in the aquarium.

From the mentioned above should not be too difficult to see that the NO3 and SO4 source may not be all that insignificant, because if one is to say but ion is an ion, then they will also have to present irrefutable evidence of how does it work in the complex conditions of aquatic environment.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Now, HNO3 can be interpreted as H+ and NO3-, but that is hardly the case. H2O solution of HNO3 does not contain H+ and NO3-, but HNO3, no more no less. You see in the HNO3 the ions are H+ and NO3-, but in the water solution is HNO3 and H2O.

"Aquadream" you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change the rules of the physical world. I'm not expressing my opinion, these are facts, they aren't open to discussion. This is my last post, how unambiguous do you need a statement to be? it is there in black and white - nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions, if you don't accept this you might as well argue the world is flat.

Nitric acid is normally considered to be a strong acid at ambient temperatures. There is some disagreement over the value of the acid dissociation constant, though the pKa value is usually reported as less than –1. This means that the nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions.

from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_acid>.

What the whole chemical theory can not tell for sure is which specific component reacts first or second in aquatic environment and exactly with what. The variables are so many that it is simply impossible to predict that with total accuracy.
That is why I do not believe in the relevance of the theoretical statement that ion is an ion, is an ion and so on and so forward, because we do not talk about pure solutions in the lab, but a battlefield of chemistry in the aquarium.

I trained as botanist and I've worked for the last 20 years as an ecologist and on the biological remediation of landfill leachate, but we are not in realms of ecology or even organic chemistry here, we are talking about salts that disassociate into ions, and are then available to plants. It is no simpler or more complex than that.

Can we prove this? Yes we can. Solutions containing dissolved salts (e.g., potassium nitrate in water) are called electrolytes, as they are able to conduct electricity. Water is an electrical insulator, but as the salts form ions the "water" becomes an electrical conductor. No ions = no electricity.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquadream]

Hi all,
"Aquadream" you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change the rules of the physical world. I'm not expressing my opinion, these are facts, they aren't open to discussion. This is my last post, how unambiguous do you need a statement to be? it is there in black and white - nitric acid in solution is fully dissociated except in extremely acidic solutions, if you don't accept this you might as well argue the world is flat.

The question is what is considered to be extremely acidic conditions? I have tested with 2% HNO3 water solution and it reacts to anything just like any more concentrated solution I have also tested. And yet it is one of the ideal concentrations to be used as NO3 additive, because it is relatively safe if used carefully.
The point that I am making is in what concentration the HNO3 becomes fully dissociated in water? 0.1ppm, or 5ppm???
Instead of wikipedia statements please use exact digits.
I respect your education, but to tell me that these or those facts are not open for discussion is no different from telling me something like "But the Bible says so..."

I would like to see some evidence without resorting to “the Bible”.

Some guys here say ion is an ion, is an ion..... but have you ever been able to prove that you are right, because I have seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect.

You say the science stands for this and that theory. So far so good.
How can you explain the results that I have described in written statement and picture?

All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter.

And please no more 100 years experience gibberish, book statements and so on. Only scientific laboratory facts please.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
Aquadream has written:

The best and most concentrated and pure source of NO3 is HNO3. I used it a while ago in my tanks. Problem with this method is that it ends up with constant increase of GH and KH levels that comes as a direct result of HNO3 reacing with substrate particles, wood etc. more specifically the H+ from the acid.

Plants do not absorb KNO3. They absorb K+ and NO3- when the compound is disintegrated by the bacterial colonies. The question is how fast the bacteria in the water and sediment can decompose certain compounds? Is there any difference and if yes how it can be measured?

The point that I am making is in what concentration the HNO3 becomes fully dissociated in water? 0.1ppm, or 5ppm??? Instead of wikipedia statements please use exact digits.......I respect your education, but to tell me that these or those facts are not open for discussion is no different from telling me something like "But the Bible says so..." some guys here say ion is an ion, is an ion..... but have you ever been able to prove that you are right, because I have seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect....And please no more 100 years experience gibberish, book statements and so on. Only scientific laboratory facts please.

"Gibberish" is an interesting way of putting it. You may be right, and the entire scientific establishment may have failed to understand the basic laws that underlie the physical universe. People will have to make up their own minds. But if you have

..... seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect...

you need to show us.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquadream]

"Gibberish" is an interesting way of putting it. You may be right, and the entire scientific establishment may have failed to understand the basic laws that underlie the physical universe. People will have to make up their own minds. But if you have

..... seen some evidence that the pure ion theory is not all that perfect...

you need to show us.

cheers Darrel

I did show evidence and i am showing it again.
[/quote]
The surrounded in white Ranunculus leafs did grow after I applied mixed K2CO3, K2SO4 and KCl solution instead of just any of the mentioned compounds.
The other evidence that the source does matter is the statement of at least 100 aquatic hobbyists that testify Tobi's Special N to work. I am definitely in that number, because I use it for months by now and simple KNO3 does not compare in my personal experience.

I will repeat my last questions.
All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter.

Now, can you answer comprehensively this questions or not?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

All I am trying to establish here is does the NO3 and SO4 source matters or not? All I want to see is a reliable calculation method as demonstration of how things work or test equipment that can prove that source does not or does matter. Now, can you answer comprehensively this questions or not?

Yes I can, and I have, repeatedly in this thread:
Salts disassociate into ions, and plants take up ions from solution, this isn't a theory or a conjecture, it is a proven scientific fact.

I don't understand what you hope to gain by your posting, all it has done is added an unintended comic interlude to a thread which had previously been both interesting and informative.

Scientists have known about ions for hundreds of years, they were named by Faraday in 1834. The mechanism of plant uptake of ions from solution has been known since the 1990's, and is published in.

Gilroy, S & Jones, L. (2000) Trends in Plant Science, 5:2, pp56–60.
Available at <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138599015514>

The driving force for most nutrient uptake in plants is the electrochemical gradient across the plasma membrane, a major proportion of which is generated by the H+-ATPase..

This work was carried out using Limnobium.

Abstract

Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquadream]

I don't understand what you hope to gain by your posting, all it has done is added an unintended comic interlude to a thread which had previously been both interesting and informative.

Some here say that the ion source does not matter.
Others including me say it does, because we see some evidence for that. Evidence that you choose to dismiss as inconclusive perhaps. No matter.
I am not trying to gain anything here, but real knowledge. Not scientific establishment theory.
The scientific conclusions are great to say at the least, but they do not explain why those complex salt solutions work.

The plants uptake ions. That is well known.
What is not clear is what happens before that.

To dismiss certain facts you will have to provide reliable information on what happens in the entire process, not just the final ion uptake stage.

I believe that the correct answer to the question of does the ion source meters or not would be found in the answer of few other questions.
1. How much does a certain plant mass need as daily uptake of nutrients?
2. Is it necessary for that daily nutrient amount as a whole quantity to be available right from the beginning of the photoperiod or is it better if it is released slowly during the day time?
3. In case of the slower nutrient release been the preferred way, is it correct to assume that NO3 single source (KNO3 for example) will release the NO3 ions in the same time frame as solution made out of combined NO3 sources (Ca++, Mg++, K+, Fe+ etc).

Let me explain the source point of my questions.
We all use aquatic plants that are collected from various regions of the planet and then put them together in the same aquarium.
Is it possible that all those plant species coming from different environmental conditions could have been using different NO3 sources rather than just plain KNO3? I think the answer is more than apparent.

From this point of view is it a good idea to use different sources for the same ions (NO3 or what ever else) or not?

Regardless of established theory it is difficult to dismiss the possibility that complex source for the same ion will be less of a limiting factor than a single source.

I know that some here will scream this to be all baloney stuff, but Darrell there are too many people including me experiencing the other side of the coin.

 

[Greg's Pea]

Some here say that the ion source does not matter.
Others including me say it does, because we see some evidence for that. Evidence that you choose to dismiss as inconclusive perhaps. No matter.

I can see where you are coming from, but, you are not seeing evidence for the hypothesis you are providing. You have perceived better growth using the formula but nobody else can quantify this growth as evidence to anything, there are just too many variables. You are then making the link to it being due to the "ion source". I could equally say that it was due to how high you were dropping the salts into the tank from and use the same evidence that you have. (spaghetti monster/floating teacup etc..)

I am not trying to gain anything here, but real knowledge. Not scientific establishment theory.

That makes the ex science teacher in my cry a little. (at least it's not in front of the children any more )

Set up a test with controls, have all the same nutrients going into each tank but from different salts and then try to quantify the difference in plant growth.

The plants uptake ions. That is well known.
What is not clear is what happens before that.

But, it is clear. The science has been shown again and again, that salts disassociate into ions.

Is it possible that all those plant species coming from different environmental conditions could have been using different NO3 sources rather than just plain KNO3? I think the answer is more than apparent.

The plants are using the disassociated ions, not the source salts.

Homoeopathy is the idea that water has a memory, are you inferring that the ions have a memory or that the plants can tell the origin?

I know that some here will scream this to be all baloney stuff, but Darrell there are too many people including me experiencing the other side of the coin.

A lot of rednecks (no offence meant to any southern yanks about!) swear to experiencing abduction and probing (and warranted race hate :? ), yet are we to believe them without true evidence being shown?

I can totally appreciate that everyone wants a magic bullet, people want to sell things and folk will often ignore their own logic when buying products (just look at any advert for beauty/hair etc - "hear comes the science bit" - no it doesnt 😉 ).

I'm all up for debate and advancing the hobby further, but it has to be done logically to have any positive bearing.

I am by no means a chemistry genius, my background is in microbiology, but I have taught up to A level chemistry so feel I know a small amount. Look through some of the links Darrel has been kind enough to share with you, or look through some GCSE chemistry sites to understand what he is trying to tell you.

I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.

 

[Aquadream]

I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.

I am sorry to say it but you just did despite your intentions.
Academic slaps have no place in hobby forums.

If you can prove to me that all there is in nature as NO3 source is just plain and simple KNO3 and nothing else then I will believe you. Other wise is academic baloney, no more no less.

If you have paid more attention to my post with the picture you would have noticed that i do not talk there about the ion source on the first line, but about the benefit of having different salts for the same K+ rather than just any one of the mentioned salts.
I have been keeping this specific aquarium for 7 months. I think is more than enough time to eliminate great many variables.

You can not just dismiss all the people that have achieved better results as some bunch of lunatics.

And you know what? See one the Darrel’s links since you mention them.

Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-

cheers Darrel

I see there that the plants also uptake cations not just ions. If the source is all so irrelevant then all we need in aquarium is K+ and NO3-. The rest is rubbish, right?

Please before you make the trouble to talk to me like that see what my results are in growing plants. I am not a professional chemist or biologist, but also far from an absolute newbie.

I think it is time to cut the absolute super science and get closer to the reality.

This place here, it is a just a hobby forum. have you noticed?

 

[somethingfishy]

I have no intention to come across superior or snotty here (as I am neither!! more of a drooler than anything) Just have an unbiased look mate.

I am sorry to say it but you just did despite your intentions.
Academic slaps have no place in hobby forums.

If you can prove to me that all there is in nature as NO3 source is just plain and simple KNO3 and nothing else then I will believe you. Other wise is academic baloney, no more no less.

You can not just dismiss all the people that have achieved better results as some bunch lunatics.

And you know what? See one the Darrel’s links since you mention them.

Root hairs project from the surface of the root to aid nutrient and water uptake and to anchor the plant in the soil. Their formation involves the precise control of cell fate and localized cell growth. We are now beginning to unravel the complexities of the molecular interactions that underlie this developmental regulation. In addition, after years of speculation, nutrient transport by roothairs has been demonstrated clearly at the physiological and molecular level, with evidence for roothairs being intense sites of H+-ATPase activity and involved in the uptake of Ca2+, K+, NH4+, NO3-, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cl- and H2PO4-

cheers Darrel

I see there that the plants also uptake cations not just ions. If the source is all so irrelevant then all we need in aquarium is K+ and NO3-. The rest is rubbish, right?

Please before you make the trouble to talk to me like that see what my results are in growing plants. I am not a professional chemist or biologist, but also far from an absolute newbie.

I think it is time to cut the absolute super science and get closer to the reality.

This place here, it is a just a hobby forum. have you noticed?

What i love about UKAPS is that alot of people are so generous with there time and effort. That they are prepared in many cases to answer the same questions time and again, and even educate a numbskull like me 😀

luckily on UKAPs you dont get people acting like spoilt children with huge chips on their shoulders! Members take the time to listen and in the spirit of UKAPs pass their gained knowledge on.

It would be a real shame if suddenly there where posts where some members are quite frankly rude and obnoxious, thank god that does not happen here 😀

 

[niru]

When I buy eating salt for cooking, sometimes it comes from sea, some other times from deep Alpine mines. But so long as it has same proportion of NaCl by weight in it, it tastes equally salty.

I tried it over Asian, Indian, Italian, Moroccan, Spanish cuisines, and they all tasted equally salty. Funny that my taste buds or the dishes I cooked seem to have lost the memory of their origins on the planet. I even tasted the same food next day, and was equally salty!!!

 

[Bhu]

I'm really interested in the outcome of this, I definitely think Tobi's mix will work very well, finding out whether it provides the synergistic effect will be trickier, but I don't think you can just discount it.

cheers Darrel

I'm really new to all this EI and in the process of researching to move on from pre-mixed off the shelf plant feeds. What is this synergistic effect that you speak of? Basically I'm contemplating whether to use the standard EI or try this new low K+ approach as my water is very soft I use 100% RO and my GH KH are both at 1 only from the test kits.

 

[Bhu]

Hi Darrel, just finished reading everything again what a fantastic posts you have added! You have a great job! I like what you have said and can relate to it from my A level chemistry days. I would really appreciate some help on this one...
Do all compunds ionise at the same time rate? i.e would the Mg and Ca forms of NO3 ionise at the same speed as the K compound of NO3?

At present I use off the shelf plant ferts and at the price I see why people are using salts and mixing their own. I just need to work out what I need. I use pure RO water at the moment. I started with no buffer and had good results then I was introduced to using an expensive liquid buffer product from my LFS which didn't produce as good results. I clearly will need to add a source of Mg and Ca on top of my NO3 source and micro nutrients. It's just a real challenge to work out all the salt compounds I'll need to keep my plants and fish happy. I will be about 50% stocked (so some natural urea) in a 150lt fully planted aquarium running pressurised CO2. I'm really happy with my current plant growth but not the price of the ferts 😉 so need to create one as most here are doing. I really don't want to mess my water up though. Right now it's at a really good acidity from 6.4 down to 6 or slightly less. My fish are Amazon types so like the black water soft acidity.

Do I need to add a water buffer to my RO water? I understand that the PH changes due to the CO2 injection and this is fine. But some salts make water more alkaline which I don't want. I just want to feed my plants perfectly and not kill my fish 😉

Any help appreciated 🙂

I can see this option

http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/fertilisers/dry-chemicals/ei-starter-kit.html

Would I need extra Mg, Ca and P with this? The other option being what started this thread that looks harder to work out as the sites in German.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I would really appreciate some help on this one... Do all compunds ionise at the same time rate? i.e would the Mg and Ca forms of NO3 ionise at the same speed as the K compound of NO3?

No they don't, generally the more soluble a compound is the quicker it will go into solution. Temperature also makes a difference, and so does how salty the water is, although this isn't really relevant to us.

You can get the solubility constants from Wikipedia. This is <KNO3>: "316 g/L (20 °C)" and in the case of nitrates they are all very soluble so there isn't any practical difference for Ca(NO3)2.4H2O etc.

I really don't want to mess my water up though. Right now it's at a really good acidity from 6.4 down to 6 or slightly less. My fish are Amazon types so like the black water soft acidity.

Depends upon your tap water, our tap is very good quality, but hard (about 17dKH), and I keep S. American fish so I use rain-water, and very occasionally DI water.

I can see this option <http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/fertilisers/dry-chemicals/ei-starter-kit.html>. Would I need extra Mg, Ca and P with this?

. This should be fine. If you know your water is very soft you could add some CaCl, but you would only need a very small amount.

You can use the calculator at <"James' Planted Tank">

cheers Darrel