Water hardness observations

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom