Will do. I guess they are just giving in to pressure. Always easier/less responsibility as a manufacturer/seller to aim lower. They provided afaik no studies to support this change
My concern is more about the belief that lots of traces are always bad. If you dose a lot and have success, then undoubtedly iron/traces were not available, but instead precipitated, etc. This is nonsense.
I do know serious people having great success with minimal traces, and they also say that too much traces were not beneficial to them. I have no issues with this. Check Burr740 journal for instance.
But this does not prove that "lots" of traces are bad. Some species, even some families (e.g. Lythraceae) are known to be picky about this, and do have a narrower optimal range. On the other hand we have a ton of studies displaying how hidrylla verticillata and egeria densa are used to clean contaminated lakes, by removing all the heavy metals. 5ppm of iron cleaned in days, and the dry matter exceeds 80ppm of iron. Same for copper, zinc, aluminium, manganese, etc
So, from my perspective it is very complicated to discuss toxicities in a tank. People think that chlorosis signs relates only to iron deficiency, when again and again studies show that the same signs can be induced by something else, as seen in very highly contaminated waters. So the whole borders of toxicity/deficiency is far from clear.
Maybe if people double on EI, skip water changes, then yes. But one must ask: dude, what are you doing?
TL;DR: You can have success with a lot or little traces. Those who dose a lot dont necessarily "lose" the traces to precipitation/etc. They might be there, and results are great also.
My concern is more about the belief that lots of traces are always bad. If you dose a lot and have success, then undoubtedly iron/traces were not available, but instead precipitated, etc. This is nonsense.
I do know serious people having great success with minimal traces, and they also say that too much traces were not beneficial to them. I have no issues with this. Check Burr740 journal for instance.
But this does not prove that "lots" of traces are bad. Some species, even some families (e.g. Lythraceae) are known to be picky about this, and do have a narrower optimal range. On the other hand we have a ton of studies displaying how hidrylla verticillata and egeria densa are used to clean contaminated lakes, by removing all the heavy metals. 5ppm of iron cleaned in days, and the dry matter exceeds 80ppm of iron. Same for copper, zinc, aluminium, manganese, etc
So, from my perspective it is very complicated to discuss toxicities in a tank. People think that chlorosis signs relates only to iron deficiency, when again and again studies show that the same signs can be induced by something else, as seen in very highly contaminated waters. So the whole borders of toxicity/deficiency is far from clear.
Maybe if people double on EI, skip water changes, then yes. But one must ask: dude, what are you doing?
TL;DR: You can have success with a lot or little traces. Those who dose a lot dont necessarily "lose" the traces to precipitation/etc. They might be there, and results are great also.
Last edited:
