ferts - which dosing method?

angyles

angyles

AC Members
Nov 4, 2002
966
0
16
46
Tacoma, WA
Visit site
So I finally have my tank coming back together, all new plants, and I just setup my CO2 last night. My dry ferts should be arriving tomorrow, along with even more new plants :dance:

So here's what I'm working with
150G, 350W regular flourescents
need to get a drop checker, don't know about co2 levels yet
not DENSE plants, but hoping to be there SOON (that's the point of the ferts/co2 right?)

so using chucks dosing calculator, here's what I came up with:

Potassium Nitrate KNO3
28tbsp in 500ml of water yields
nitrate: 1ppm/ml with a target level of 5ppm
potassium: .6ppm/ml with a target level of 15ppm

Potassium Sulfate K2SO4
32tbsp in 500ml of water yields
potassium: 1ppm/ml with a target level of 15ppm

Phosphate KH2PO4
15tbsp in 500ml of water yields
phosphate: .5ppm/ml with a target level of .5-1ppm

and then I'm not sure about the trace. couldn't calculate that.
The problem with this method is I then have to buy a potassium test kit and and a phosphate test kit and be testing my water params every other day or so to know how much to dose.

The estimated Index theory says:

1.5 tsp KNO3
.5 tsp KH2P04
.5 tsp K2SO4
mon, wed, frid

.5 tsp trace
tue, thur, sat

50% WC sun

I'm torn on which way to go. I don't have high light or dense plants but supposedly it will work anyway, just lower your doses. Well these numbers are for a 100-125G so I think that would be appropriate.

Which method sounds best here?
 
I do not think the targets really matter that much, they are low and I assume you are going to add some fish and feed well?

CO2 is the main issue, not higher nutrient levels.
So those targets can be over a much wider range than most assume and we see this in a wide range of tanks as well.

light seem fair for the system and good CO2/flow is the main issue for 90% of the issues folks might have, maybe 95%.

Dosing is easy, a bit like feeding fish, after you have done it a few times, it's the same old thing.......

Focus more on CO2.

Since I'm the guy that came up with the EI support, I know how, what and why I did.

You can modify it to suit anything you want.
It's not written in stone.

Never was meant to be that way.

For your tank, the dosing you mention is good, maybe 2-3x a week like that(start with 2x a week), I'd use GH booster, not K2SO4.
Gh booster has K2SO4(about 50% by weight), and Mg/Ca as well.

That covers most things.

Traces/Fe, about 20mls 2-3x a week is fine using say Tropica or Seachem etc brands.

You can test if you wish, there's another way to add "just enough" for any unique tank if you want however and I explained this a decade ago, but people still make up myths and BS..............

Suggesting waste etc(I guess since the first garbage about inducing algae and toxicity to fish never stuck, they had to come with some other thing to cry about) is a pretty weak argument really.

However, there's a simple method to do this and researchers to farmers do the same thing:

You start with non limiting levels, then you slowly adjust each one progressively down in the amount you add each time over say 3 weeks.
Note plant growth and health, Watch carefully.

When you see negative growth and responses, you bump the dosing back up to the next highest level. That is the min level for non limiting growth for that tank for that nutrient. This is precisely how I arrived at virtually all the ranges listed for higher light tanks with wimpy hard to keep plants.

Then you move on to the next nutrient. since you are simply adding a little less each time and watching the plants, the plants become the test kit.

While this takes some experience and skill, so does a test kit and then inferring the test kit to the plant health is far more tricky, this is direct since the plant is the test kit.

No chemistry, no ppm's etc, just volumes of ferts added over time.

Now many do not care about a few extra ppm's of KNO3 added, so what? Cost me 21 cents per year.............

So they add a bit more for a nice buffer zone.
If waste is honestly a real issue, then using less light is the best solution since it cost the most and is the most stable of the 3 main things that drive growth: light, CO2 and nutrients.

Light cost the most economically and environmentally as well. CO2 drives rates of growth much faster, so adding ferts vs fish waste alone becomes requred much more.

So it's hardly a model for reduction of waste in the hobby.
Test kits as well, are they envioronmentally friendly? Do folks dump the spent reagents down the drain or dispose of them in a bottle and take to the hazmat landfill?

whatever your moral compass there, looking at the trade offs for each step, not just narrow minded focusing, ratherm the bigger larger picture that drives plants growth, needs consider.

If your being honest about any of that...........and even there, aquariums are luxury items, so no one needs them to begin with.

So we rationalize this stuff.

Do not fall for baloney though, use things that work well for you and your habits that give you decent results and management. I've yet to have met anyone to date that got into this hobby to test for NO3/PO4 in water.
And most do not test right and calibrate their test kits and make standard curve etc, then base everything that those poorly tested results.

I'd rather folks focus on CO2, plants and algae as indicators.

Low to Moderate light intensity and CO2 are where folks should focus.......if dosing is key .........why folks have problems often time with any and every method of dosing? Every method has example sof bad failures and successes, so it's not just dosing, it's CO2 and light etc.

Dosing is just one part of this.
And each person and their habits and how they read an article is unique also, this strongly influences how the aquarium is cared for.
So there's a human factor and helping people each step of the way.

You did well with the light.
Now the focus is CO2.
Dosing is easy.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 
Thank you so much, Tom. You helped put this into perspective a bit. I've ordered a drop checker so hopefully that will be here next week and I can get my CO2 dialed in. I feel comfortable with my light, given the plant selections I make. From what I've experienced so far, CO2 has been my limiting factor and of course once I get the CO2 worked out, there will be a need for more nutrients. I'm going to go ahead and use the EI method and see how it goes.

It's funny, I'm an avid gardener. I create gorgeous gardens full of huge healthy plants. and I've never put as much brain power into how much nitrate vs. potassium I should be giving them LOL. I just go with the feel of it to determine how much and when to water, fertalize, thin, etc. based on growth and recent conditions. Why does this seem so much more complicated? because of potential algae? There are more variables that are 100% in our control in this little glass box, but it still comes down to the same basic principals, plus the CO2 factor.

thanks again :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom