Water hardness observations

[daveedka]

Last night I stopped by reiverix's (John) house to exchange a couple of things. As always I looked at his tanks and we discussed some differnet issues.

As most of you Who have been around awhile are aware, we have some issue with Calcium and magnesium in our water here in Columbus. One thing that is certain is that reiverix's plants do much better than mine. He has the ability to do daily dosing, I dose once a week so I have always attributed the differences to that. We recently purchased some Rotala Macaranda (sp?) and both put it in our tanks. As usual we both saw growth, but Mine was not as good. As coincidence would have it we both tampered with caclium at about the same time. we both saw our Rotala wilt very quickly. I had had an issue with what I thought was excessive GH and John had issue with what he thought was unnecessary calcium levels. We both immediatly saw adverse rection to lowering levels even slightly. On a whim I asked John what his GH was. He was somewhere between 30-35 dGH. I have been trying to maintain roughly 25dGH , and lowered levels when I discovered it was above that. Since the 30-35 test that John did last night reflected his reduction in calcium. it would stand to reason that he normally runs somewhere above 35 dGH.

By all rights this seems very high to me. but we have both found that any time we reduce either magnesium or caclium dosing we see problems with our plants. when we keep those two components up (assuming proper levels of all other fertilizers) we see excellent growth. I plan to raise GH to 35 dGH with calcium at roughly 120-140 ppm over the next several days and see if my plants recover and or improve drastically. The one factor that has always intriuged me is that bolbitus which supposedly does not grow well in hard water will grow for me at a rapid pace while other plants such as Vals and Sag will not grow at all. John has been successful with both vals and Sag, but he has also been running slightly higher GH than I have. According to my plants, my tank does not have adequate GH. According to my tests and most circulated information I have too much GH. Since this all started with tap water GH of 12 degrees, and I worked up from there I am certain that significant softening is a bad thing for me. I have seen nothing but improvement from the time I started increasing things. I still worry about overkill with tose two elements though.

Any thoughts discussion, or additional information that anyone want to add to this is appreciated. It would be neat to see what what others have to say about Ca and Mg with their plants and also what the common GH levels of successful hobbyists are. My theories and Ideas in this realm come with very little knowledge and experience so all the help I can get would be appreciated.

Dave

[RTR]

Are you using German measures or US? Here we normally base degrees of GH or KH on equivalent of CaCO3, with a conversion of 17.86 ppm per degree.

There are some pretty rough rules of thumb on Ca:Mg proportions, and several on potential issues with large excess K present. I think the rule of thumb I used was 4:1.

[djlen]

I use, and have used the same number of tsps. in my 55s (about 3.85:1) as I do in my 40 (about 5.50:1).
The 40 'runs itself' as I like to put it, while there are more frequent issues with the 55s.
All three tanks are close with regard to plant mass and plant species.
Like Dave I've been leery of pushing these elements, but I am going to increase the 55s and see what kind of response I get. I've been tweaking the Macros, one at a time, with little change. Time to give Mg and Ca a boost.
I'm still learning the value of these two often overlooked elements, and have been amazed at their affect on Cryptocoryne in particular.
Thanks for raising this issue Dave. :)

Len

[daveedka]

Are you using German measures or US? Here we normally base degrees of GH or KH on equivalent of CaCO3, with a conversion of 17.86 ppm per degree.


If I understand my Ap test kit directions, the results are degrees (german style) my Calcium test reads in ppm so I track them that way. I have not standardized my notes to one or the other. I have found that anything less than 100 ppm calcium and my snails and shrimp suffer.

My Mg dosing I believe I derived from Chuck Gadds calculator it has been some eons ago that I set my dosing schedule up. Since I plan to increase, I will probably re-calculate everything and make sure my ratio's are still in proportion.

Dave

[Watcher74]

From all of my studies from Tom Barr and how he reinforces his original tutorials about dosing when answering my questions, there is no fear to plants or causing algae about overdosing anything in even relatively great amounts. This includes Potassium. The only thing you need to worry about adding to the tank is Ammonium.(I'm not saying dose bleach here, but you know what I mean. :rolleyes: )

From Tom Barr
You do not need to dose as much, but dosing excesses is not why you have algae.

I do not take the above quote from Tom Barr in isolation. He emphasizes repeatedly that dosing anything in excess not only does nothing but good for your plants(or nothing at all) and neither does it cause algae.

I have yet to witness Tom Barr say that someone is overdosing anything. This includes Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, Potassium,...any of the Macro or Micro-nutrients. He only says not to dose at all any Ammonium.

Of course, to not kill the fish you might need to show a little restraint.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert here on dosing or Tom Barr's research. So I might be overlooking something. I've only been studying his work for 10 months. And I have not conducted independent research on my own. So take it for what it's worth.

[reiverix]

My normal calcium dosing is at a cracking 80ppm during water change. It's been a long time since I came to the conclusion that this is the number I need to dose. I recall that white shelled snails and twisty java fern lead me on the calcium route.

At my last water change I dropped this to 60ppm. I've been thinking about this for a while because I'd also rather not be adding more to the tank than neccessary. All the new growth on my rotala macaranda is white and looks terrible after four days. Too early to say if snails are affected.

A few months ago I cut down on Mg from 15ppm to 7ppm. It took a few weeks for me to notice anything but my anubias eventually started yellowing. As soon as I increased Mg things started getting back to normal.

Potassium is dosed at a steady 20ppm. That's something I've never messed with.

Oddly enough even at those levels my black skirts and corys will frequently spawn. My amano shrimp recently berried and my cherry shrimp (in a 10g tank but same dosing ratios) breed like crazy. They do produce eggs in the 75g main tank but they don't survive the tetra patrol.

Is there an alternative to this? It seems overly excessive but the 75g has been running for 15 months now and I'm happy with the plant growth and health of the livestock.

[Aquabum]

reiverix,

Your tank looks amazing! What a creative setup.

Like you guys, I've also had problems with my plants whenever Ca & Mg are low. My test kit (Aquarium Pharm.) reads 4 out of the tap, but I have to raise it to 9 or higher, otherwise, I'm asking for trouble. All of my plants stop growing and they become pale and translucent.

It only takes a few days to show this deficiency.

Lissete

[reiverix]

Aquabum, I'm actually ordering some stellata after seeing your tank.

[Aquabum]

You should see the bunches that I throw away every two weeks. I wish I could send them to you (free of charge, of course), but I don't know how to go about shipping them.

I can't stand throwing out such beautiful plants. When I grow some more (I pruned them recently), you're more than welcome to them. Oh, I do have some snails (that I don't want). So you might want to get rid of them first before you put the plants in your tank.


Lissette

[reiverix]

yeeks I just placed the order.

Can't you take them to your LFS and get a few bucks for them?

[Aquabum]

I've thought of it.

I might just give Pacific a call and find out if they'll want them. A lot of the lfs around here are not into planted tanks. They wouldn't be able to give these plants the proper care that they need.

Lissette

[Aries]

Since I have GH issues I will post my thoughts...

In my tank:
My dGH = 25-27 dGH (German).
My calcium = 240-280 ppm
CO2 maintained close to 30ppm
Nitrates close to 20ppm
PO4 close to 1.5
Fe = .5ppm
KH = 18
PH = 7.2-7.4

My Tap dGH = 24-26dGH
Have not tested tap Calcium. Will do so here this weekend and post.

My source for water is a limestone aquafir which is processed by the small Dayton suburb I live in.

I can NOT grow any sag but vals grow like mad (they are coming out of my ears literally). Further, I am now just seeing shoots in my Lilaeopsis novae-zelandiae (Micro Sword) after 4 months of it doing nothing. This is in my 5.5G, not my 30G. I also had troubles growing Echinodorus tenellus (chain sword) and eventually pulled if from my tanks. Finally, green cambomba died within days.

My plants that flourish are Anubias Bateri (low Light), Anubias Coffeefolia (high Light), Asian Ambulia (Limnophila sesiliflora), Anacharis (so many roots), red Jugle Vals, green Jungle Vals, Red Tiger Lotus, Clover (Marsilea quadrifolia) and my Red Rubin Swords.

My plants that survive and grow but not as desired are Creeping Jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), Cardinal Temple (Alternanthera cardinalis), Amazon Sword, Onion Plant.

Just my tank issues

Aries

[RTR]

I don't think that the issue here is likely to be overdose as much as imbalance. Excess of one mineral ion out of "normal' proportion to another can give "deficiency" symptoms in the plants, likely due to uptake/transport competition or inhibition.

I don't have Ca/Mg issues as my water is moderately hard (GH ~9, or ~160ppm as CaCO3). Ages ago when I did ressearch it the Ca:Mg proportions were good, so my normal water changes keep the plants happy without additional supplement. As I don't do high light/rapid growth on any of the tanks, I don't worry about supplements between changes.

[daveedka]

I don't think that the issue here is likely to be overdose as much as imbalance. Excess of one mineral ion out of "normal' proportion to another can give "deficiency" symptoms in the plants, likely due to uptake/transport competition or inhibition.

This is something I had considered as a possible issue. I don't have much of an understanding at all of nutrient competition, I always worked from the premise that there was one limiting factor, and if other needs were in excess it would not matter. Is it possible that the lack of one thing essentially blocks the plants ability to use another?

I don't have Ca/Mg issues as my water is moderately hard (GH ~9, or ~160ppm as CaCO3) One of the thngs that led me to the idea of Tampering with GH was the hardness numbers I have seen you post elsewhere. My numbers (Unless I have grossly mis-understood my test kit) are much higher than yours after my additions. I do run very high light very high nutrient tanks, so there is some difference but I wouldn't think that much. When I switched from coral to aragonite I saw a rapid increase in GH and started backing down my dosing. As soon as I backed things down the plants went downhill.

The following has all taken place over the course of the last 16 months or so. one step at a time.

I first started dosing Mg Based on reccomendations from John, there was some improvement but I also began seeing more prominent symptoms of calcium defeciency. I then started upping my Ca, both through dosing of CaCL and through crushed coral in the substrate. I saw improvement with the calcium additions. I switched to Aragonite instead of or in addition to crushed coral primarily for more stability for shrimp and snails. The plants did O.K, but I still did not have the growth that I wanted, and could not even come close to the growth that John was getting. I then started searching for other missing links. I Purchased some of Tom Barr's GH booster from Gregg Watson, and read the ingredients. Manganese happened to be one of them so I checked with the local water company and they report 0 manganese in our water. since I don't use enriched substrates in most of my tanks, and Tom Barr felt manganeese was important enough to put in his GH booster I explored that. Light manganeese dosing did help as well. Iron is also removed from our tap water, and since I don't use enriched substrates, I dose heavy iron (have from the beggining) I am fearful of too much iron becaue of my shrimp and snails but honestly do not know how much is too much. I dose my traces via CSM+B+Fe from Gregg watson. one would think that would provide enough iron for my plants needs.
John uses eco-complete which contains manganeese and iron both but his tank now has enough age on it that I would think there is some limit to the benefit from the substrate.
I'll do an iron test today and see what I come up with. I've had a kit for a while but have been re-assured several times that testing wasn't needed and I probably had plenty of Fe.

Aside from Fe, Ca, Mg, and Mn what elements would be critical to plant balance. The trace mix is supposed to cover virtually everything else as I understand it.
Just an FYI, our water company uses alum to remove all metals. I don't fully understand the process but according to the tech I spoke to It essentially captures most if not all earth metals and removes them. They do this to produce water with 0 lead and 0 iron. Ca and Mg remain in trace quantities, but all other metals are gone. In the 9 years I've lived here I have never once seen an iron stain on anything that gets wet. Evaporated water barely leaves a spot on anything.
dave

[beviking]

Dave, you should get in touch with Gregg. I'm pretty sure (though not absolutely certain) that CSM+B is formulated with all ingredients in proportion so that dosing the required amount of iron with CSM+B also doses the traces in the correct amount.

On Mg/Ca, my water is GH ~11 and I had crinkled leaves. Suspected Ca. Measured 40ppm Ca and dosed 40ppm for a total of 80ppm. Things are nice and smooth. Now, I dose 1tsp Mg to 4tsp Ca at water changes even with the GH I have. It may be in my head, but the plants look better dosing the Mg. Maybe it's the SO4 (using epsom salts) and not Mg? Without a doubt though, the Ca helps. Snail shells are not pitted, no crinkled leaves, the kids even have fewer cavities from drinking the tank water...no wait...that's flouride! :duh:

[daveedka]

Dave, you should get in touch with Gregg. I'm pretty sure (though not absolutely certain) that CSM+B is formulated with all ingredients in proportion so that dosing the required amount of iron with CSM+B also doses the traces in the correct amount.

That has been my understanding as well. I bought the CSM+B+Fe because I previously had to add iron. I thought there would be ample in the trace mix with the extra Fe. Maybe iron is my key and not Ca and Mg. I do not know how much iron is n eco complete, or how much john doses on top of what is in his substrate. I do know that I have one tank with flourish, and the plants look better in that tank. The unfortunate thing is the tank with flourish is vastly different in lighting and suplementation, not to mention it is my only tank without co2 injection. I use excell in that tank, but I'm only home on weekends typically so there isn't any set routine.

CSM+B does not contain any manganese from what I've read I just wonder if there is anything else I'm missing. I still think I have way more Ca and Mg than I should need, but reducing either just send my plants to the bottom.
Dave

[RTR]

Everything can be critical for plants, and the higher the light/CO2/added ferts the faster the growth and the easier to get deficiency symptoms. The Ca/Mg ratios or levels I have not had to modify with my current water. On the old water supply I did not have to supplement K either, but on the current supply I do have to add plenty or I get holes, even with moderate light. When I did run some high light, I had to supplement Ca/Mg. Operating as beviking does would be my likely approach. I think that you have done this with single supplement boosting and then another while holding the first one stable - that is the only way I can read deciciency "cures", one supplement at a time. Otherwise it gets too complex. Ditto for high light verus moderate light - the former shows marginal levels or imbalances easily, the latter is less demanding - usually only major lacks (as with my water's vanishingly low potassium levels).

[Watcher74]

This is the best discussion that you can have. Good information exchange, no presumptions, plain scientific minded insight to see what is really the case.

I can grow in this environment. :cool2:

[reiverix]

I slowly reset my calcium level during yesterdays water change. I'll monitor my rotala and see how the new growth comes in.

[Jay]

Just tagging on to see this topic develop.

Jay

[daveedka]

John,
Have you ever tested iron levels in your tank??


I have re-set my Ca and Mg to waht was my standard dosing levels before the little upset. The iron thing has me thinking (probably not a good thing)

Most tap water comes with some iron, and then most folks with high light plants add more. I have been dosing all along at standard dosage based on the CSM+B+Fe, but If I had zero to begin with, no enriched substrate, and plants that demand iron, this could be my difficulty as well. I'll see how things respond to Ca and Mg this week and go from there next weekend.
My iron test is showing dead zero so far. it's anly been cooking for about 30 minutes as of yet but no color change at all. Since my biggest issue is with hard water plants, and deep red plants, maybe iron is the missing link. I'm still hesitant with invertibrates in the tank, but if the test comes up low I'll probably adjust things next week.

I'll keep going one step at a time and report as I go. Any additional thoughts would be appreciated.
Dave

[reiverix]

I've not checked Fe in a long, long time. I can't even vaguely remember what the results were except it hardly registered. I'll do a test tonight.

I dose Flourish Iron at 2.5mls twice per week.

[RTR]

I have little or no confidence in the hobby dissolved iron tests. I have given them up as unreliabe.

[beviking]

CSM+B does not contain any manganese from what I've read...
Dave

Sorry for the delayed post Dave. According to the label on my CSM+B bag, Manganese is 2.00%. I'm not at home atm but I can snap a pic of the label if you'd like later.
Are you hesitant to dose iron with inverts in the tank? I dose and have cherry shrimp, Amano shrimp, P. bridgesii, ramshorns, MTS.
I like to use H. polysperma "sunset" for a gauge of iron. If I dose iron, the tops get dark pink almost purple, don't dose and they fade. I can't tell with Red temple (A. reineckii) and my Rotala indica/rotundifolia seems to hold the pink better once it has it (slower growth is probably why).

RTR said "Everything" which sparked a thought I have had. Is it the ratios that are of more importance than if the amount of nutrients present? For simplicity sake, let's assume Ca/Mg HAS to be 4:1. If you have 100ppm Ca and only 20ppm Mg, that's not the correct ratio. While someone having only 40ppm Ca and 10ppm Mg has no deficiency. In this demo, more isn't necessarily better. And it's NOT just between two or three nutrients...ALL of them or is it some of them? There must be some leeway in ranges but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say/ask. :help:

[Aries]

I dose Iron heavily to get more red in plants. Usually on a 30G I dose Flourish Iron 10mL over two dosings. This tends to keep it logically around .5ppm. I do not have any invertibrates in my tanks. If I lapse on iron dosings, problems arise quickly like color loss, wilting plants and algae comes back. My tap water according to my test is 0ppm Fe. Further, the source has max level of Fe of 39 ppb (that is parts per billion). If I lived on the east side of my county, I would have much higher levels of Iron (up to 3900 ppb).

I did find out that my water can contain high levels of hydrogen sulfide content - as high as 84 ppm. Could this cause problems in plants in higher levels???

My tank CaCO3 levels are about 280ppm before water change (tap = 460ppm per water company) - from what I understand - this is fairly high. Dissolved Ca alone per the water company is 100 ppm. Dissolved Mg per the water company is 49 ppm. I do not have a test for Mg but I raise my ppm by 20 for my tank. This would make my dissolved Ca/Mg ratio about 1.45:1. Without the additional dosings, the plants do seem to do alot worse. Can anyone recommend a good test kit for Mg?

My guess in general is the RATIO of nutrients versus the AMOUNT. Even though my Ca and Mg are high, I can still grow most plants. Only a few of the ones I really wanted failed miserably. However, for those with uncontrollablely HIGH levels of nutrients, some plants may not be an option because they can not handle the large amounts of nutrients.

I will experiment in brining my Ca/Mg ratio closer to 1:1 and see if plants respond positively or negatively.

Just my unexperienced opinion is all

Aries

[daveedka]

Is it the ratios that are of more importance than if the amount of nutrients present? For simplicity sake, let's assume Ca/Mg HAS to be 4:1. If you have 100ppm Ca and only 20ppm Mg, that's not the correct ratio. While someone having only 40ppm Ca and 10ppm Mg has no deficiency. In this demo, more isn't necessarily better. And it's NOT just between two or three nutrients...ALL of them or is it some of them? There must be some leeway in ranges but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say/ask

I am convinced ratios play into it, but have also seen several different ratios suggested for these two elements. Everything from 2:1 to 6:1. In all cases Ca is reccomended above Mg. 4:1 and 5:1 seem to be the two most popular levels. Since my shrimp and snails were showing signs of Ca defeciaeny at the start of all this, my origoinal dosing of Ca and Mg was targeted at 4:1 with calcium target specifically at 100ppm. It has been so long since I actually did the calculations that I do not remember exactly how I derived my current dosage but did put the ratio into the figures. I also accounted for the levels from tap, which are both low but skewed heavily towards Calcium. The only variable is my crushed coral and aragonite that add some of each but predominantly Ca.
This is also my line of thought on iron levels. Since it always seems that one element allows the plants use another (in general terms) I have to wonder if there is a key I'm missing that will make everything else work. For instance back when I was Ca defecient I may have had plenty of iron, but when I raised the Ca things improved to a point and now I'm iron limited. Lots of intracasies. I can garantee one thing. when I find the right level of everything I will carve the numbers into my basement wall with a brick chisel (as soon as I do that the water company will change something)

Are you hesitant to dose iron with inverts in the tank? I dose and have cherry shrimp, Amano shrimp, P. bridgesii, ramshorns, MTS

Not so much hesitant to dose but hesitant to dose heavy, I don't want to run levels too high and cause other issues. I get mixed information on the dangers of high iron levels, but have been cautious because of my shrimp.

According to the label on my CSM+B bag, Manganese is 2.00%.
I got the manganese info second hand but I'm glad to hear there is some in there. I can work with that number and get an idea of whether or not I still need more. Of course the proof is often in just adding a bit and watching for changes. I did see some improvement with the manganese additions, but nothing phenominal. I have enough manganese to last for the rest of my life unless I set up 40 or so plant tanks.

I have little or no confidence in the hobby dissolved iron tests. I have given them up as unreliabe.

I bought the kit before I researched heavily, and never used it. Since I had it and assume it has a shelf life I figured to at least see if I could gain anything. According to my tests last night my iron levels are zilch. I saw no color change in the high or low range testing methods, and tested all tanks excpet the grow out tub. I did not have time to run a reference test last night but probably will this weekend just for grins. I certainly have no intentions of ever buying another iron kit unless something new and better hits the market.

[/QUOTE]Can anyone recommend a good test kit for Mg?
[QUOTE]

I haven't found one that will read low enough ranges for Freshwater. The calcium kit I use is a saltwater kit, but hits close enough for my purposes, and is consistant even if off slightly. I verified it by dosing specified amounts of CaCl and testing for accuracy (in test water not in my tanks). With Mg I just started with the tap water levels and added specified amounts based on Ghuck Gadds calculator.

Keep taling everyone :clap: :clap:
dave

[reiverix]

FWIW my Fe test came out at around 0.2mg/l.

[Roan Art]

I, too, follow this thread with great interest :dive:

Roan

[Aries]

For the "Ca/Mg Ratio"...Is this for CaCO3/Mg or is it Ca(alone)/Mg??? Our test kits measure CaCO3 but I can get Ca from water utility (unofficial tests every 3 months and release official tests 1 time year).

I am wondering because my post above I get 1.45:1 Ca/Mg and I get 4.05:1 CaCO3/Mg ratio - thus hitting the "correct" ratio of 4:1.

Aries

[RTR]

My understanding is that the suggested ratios are for the ions only, not the compounds which provide them when dissolved, so Ca++:Mg++

[reiverix]

So I'm assuming you mean if you add a 4:1 ratio of CaCl2:MgSO4

4 tsp CaCl2 in 100g raises Ca by ~17ppm
1 tsp MgSO4 in 100g raises Mg by ~3ppm

Giving an actual ratio of 5.67:1 Ca to Mg

[RTR]

You count only the ion of interest, or the atom of interest, not the raw material which you dissolved to get that ion/atom. Get the percentage of the CaCL2 which is Ca, and use that to determine your dose; get the percentage of MgSO4 which is Mg, and use that to determine your dose. You do not in this case give a rip about the Cl- or the SO4--. Net you want only the proportions of the ions of interest in solution (the water column), the chloride and sulfate are elsewhere in the solution in any case.

[daveedka]

You count only the ion of interest, or the atom of interest, not the raw material which you dissolved to get that ion/atom. Get the percentage of the CaCL2 which is Ca, and use that to determine your dose; get the percentage of MgSO4 which is Mg, and use that to determine your dose. You do not in this case give a rip about the Cl- or the SO4--. Net you want only the proportions of the ions of interest in solution (the water column), the chloride and sulfate are elsewhere in the solution in any case.

This is how I've always calculated things, so I'm on track in that respect.
I'm trying to dig up some of my old info from back when we discussed calcium and magnesium dosing the first time.

I do have one question pertaining to this quote:Our test kits measure CaCO3 but I can get Ca from water utility (unofficial tests every 3 months and release official tests 1 time year).

Do our test kits measure CaCo3 as a total? I was under the belief that GH measured Ca++ and Mg++ but did not measure carbonate. Kh measure Carbonate but did not measure the Ca and Mg ions. Is this correct?
dave

[Aries]

I could have sworn that my test used measures CaCO3 as total. This is a Ca test, not GH or KH test. But I could have easily misread. I will check this afternoon when I go home from work.

To convert CaCO3 to Ca, multiply CaCO3 by .4 (per several agricultural and fertilizer sites).

So, if my CaCO3 is close to 280 ppm, this will make my Ca 112 ppm and my Mg++ is close to 70 ppm (amount from source + what I add), I am WAY off in the ratio :rant: . However, it does NOT seem to be causing any side affects with having a 1.6:1 ratio.

I have done a water change and dosed close to a ratio of 1.15:1 to see if there are any negative side affects in my plants. I took pictures of my tank as a reference.

Aries

[RTR]

Standard GH test kits report as the equivalent of CaCO3 in this country. The more specialized kits will specify how they do read (all should so specify, but some do not). math may be required. :)

Aries - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you have no issues, what you are working with obviously works. If issues develop, then consider modifying the ratio.

[Aries]

My Ca tests for Ca++ and GH is CaCO3. I believe my Ca test is +-20ppm or so.

All in all, I am curious if there is actually a relation btw Ca and Mg which is why I experiment. Since my ratio is really low (1.6:1), I am guessing if there is a relation, it is not very strong. Now I am going even lower to

After H2O Change

My GH is CaCO3 (23 dGH or 411 ppm). My Ca is 140 ppm. According to the calculation my Ca should be about 160 ppm. Accounting for test error this sounds correct.

Before H2O Change

My GH is CaCO3 (28 dGH or 500 ppm). My Ca is 220 ppm. According to the calculation my Ca should be about 200 ppm. Accounting for test error this sounds correct. 1.15:1 to see if there is negative impact. My guess is there will not be. However, I will do the opposite later on (next month or so) and raise the ratio to 4:1 and see if the react positively.

I believe the reason my GH and Ca go up is because of the crushed coral in my tank. At least that is my idea. So, the crushed coral dissolves releasing Ca into the water.

FYI

Aries

[daveedka]

Well,
I returned home yesterday, and it seems that bringing my levels back to previous dosage did stop the wilting. growth is not extremely prevalent, but there is some on everything but the rotala. I will re-check numbers and do my water changes, then dose the same as previous except that I plan to increase iron dosing significantly in at least one tank. We'll see what iron does for the big picture.

[daveedka]

O.K. I have resurected this monster. Not an easy task with the search feature disabled, but I hope worth the time.

I have been working with this steadily, to try to find the missing factor for my plants. My iron levels were fine (The guy operating the test kit was not)

I recently spoke to JHJ about dosing, and he mentioned that he was told an excess of Pottasium would inhibit calcium uptake. The general consensus has been that pottasium is difficult to overdose, and high levels are not a concern. I have always dosed more pottassium than John and more than most folks I know. My annubias show holes with low dosing, so long ago I began dosing heavily to counteract that. The holes went away, but I never really paid much attention to the idea of overdosing, and it could be said that I have been pretty haphazard in my K levels all along. Based on the theory that Excess K inhibits calcium uptake, I have begun regulating my K down to specified levels and at the same time slowly lowering GH. Thus far My plants are responding very well. I will test today and get some accurate numbers posted as to where things are at now (Water change last night) But essentially I am targeting 10-15 ppm K weekly Total (Including what goes in with my KNO3) With the lower K dosing I will be watching for holes in the annubias, and if they do not appear I will continue at that level. Meanwhile I'll continue to drop my GH slowly and observe. I am also working on balancing out the Ca-MG ratio a little better, but time is not always available to do the constant testing needed.

Has anyone else seen or heard of issues with excessive K inhibiting CA and or maybe MG??

Dave

[plantbrain]

K+ does not inhibit Ca uptake in aquatic plants, there's absolutely no evidence in the research or otherwise that this was ever the case

It's that simple.

Furthermore, having done mulitiple test and having maintained 40-60ppm K+ ranges for a decade with 200 species of plants and dozens of local SF aquarist, we never saw anything we could attribute to excess K+.

Ever.

Erik Leung won the AGA contest with over 100ppm K+ and Ammannia gracilius stand was his main theme plant, one often touted as being sensitive to K+ and Ca issues.

This is plainly a myth, take note and do not suggest myths, they have a way of sending people off to bad path to nowhere and never resolve the real issue. It waste everyone's time.

Correlation does not imply causation. What you are seeing is not Ca inhibition nor excess K+.

That much is painly clear.
Note, I did not say what is was, merely what I know it is not.

Ca:Mg ratios, these would have to incredibly unbalanced for a negative growth pattern to occur. This is well known in terrestrial systems.
Generally, folks lack Mg if anything and attribute that to excess K+ for some odd reason. When you increase K+, that often increases uptake of other nutrients such as NO3/Mg/CO2/Traces etc.

You will never find the answer looking at K+ and assuming excess levels are bad. No one ever even thought of excess K+ issues till recently and only because of correlation, we have been dosing excess K+ and have been very successful for a decade prior. So if excess K+ was really the causative factor, we would have seen over 10-15 years ago but we didn't.

This means K+ is not the issue and some other thing is occuring that is giving you the issue.

I add excess K+ and have for 15 years yet I have never seen the symptoms. For the theory to hold true, I would have to be able to replicate the effect under similar Ca/Mg/K+ conditions but to date, I nor anyone here with both hard, med and soft water has not.

So bark up another tree.

This is precisely how myths get started.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[daveedka]

Thanks for the clarification Tom. That theory is now pretty much out, so On to the rest of my delimma.

[plantbrain]

It's hard to kill myths, but once someone causally mentions something like that, or PO4 causes algae, or plants require soft water.......then everyone jumps on the bandwagon............simply seeing someone else doing it with high K+, or high PO4, or hard water tells you that their notion is not correct.

You know what it is not at that point.........note, it does not say what it is, but you at least know you can look elsewhere at that point.

We can add and remove different things easily, especially add and we know within a pretty good range what we add and that can twell you a lot and answer these questions easily.

Better than chasing and testing and monitoring each nutrient.

Regards,
Tom Barr