Too Much of Some Fert? - The Planted Tank Forum
 50Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-18-2018, 09:25 PM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 228
Too Much of Some Fert?

So, I seemed to grow plants fairly well up until January, when I ditched CSM+B and went to making my own traces:



Since then, I haven't noticed the dramatic improvement that so many of you have experienced. Ammania Senegalensis went downhill, so I traded notes with Vin (Saxa Tilly) and tried lowering P for a while - cold turkey for a few weeks then no more than 1 ppm per week. I never got bad GSA, nor was there much improvement in the Ammania. I believe it likes lower ferts in the water column.

About a month ago, after seeing Burr's and Greggz's success with higher macros, I ramped them up to 25/6/30 ppm per week, plus Burr's trace recipe at 0.2 ppm Fe 3-4 times per week. After three weeks of this, things look pretty bad. Keep in mind CO2 has been high - I've verified 1.3 pH drop in the worst location, and nearly gassed fish. Growth has stalled in most plants, and it seems like something is hindering nitrate and K uptake - I get leaf shedding and more pinholes in hygro than you would think with 30 ppm K per week, and the plant has hardly grown at all. And GDA is appearing on more and more plants, and also the glass. Worst it has been in ages. Here are some recent pics:

NOTE: Photos aren't loading on PlantedTank - see the recent pics here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/?

New stunting in AR:



Almost no growth in hygro corymbosa, with pinholes:



Pogo Erectus nubs just sit there and do nothing for weeks, next to scraggly Ammania Senegalensis:



Anubias covered in algae, in lowest light portion of the tank:



Almost all stems have slowed down - Bacopa, Acmella Repens, Ludwigia Repens, Persicaria Sao Paulo, Hygro. Over a month ago I put Ammania in a garden soil pot with plenty of Osmocote balls. It looks like this-it seems to get vertically taller but always looks awful:



GH is 5.5 from tap and I raise it 2 degrees with CaSO4 since ratio with Mg is about 1:1.
KH is 3.
Lights: One BML Dutch XB at 75%, one T8 strip with FloraSun, two T5HO (color max and FloraSun) bulbs on the front of the tank, over deliberately dirty glass covers. I'm not killing the tank with PAR.

I really don't know what the problem is. My guess is that I'm dosing more traces than I think, since AR got wavy and stunted. Maybe all the SO4 from the K and Ca addition over the weeks and months is adding up and causing trouble.

Today I did a 75% water change, added only 3 tsp CaSO4, 1.5 tsp KNO3, 1/2 tsp K2SO4, 1/4 tsp KH2PO4 and 0.1 ppm Fe/trace. It just looks like I can't dose anywhere near what Burr and Greggz do on their great tanks. Tank is 155 gallons with BDBS. Hoping that lower SO4 and traces will get things back on track.
Greggz likes this.

Last edited by aclaar877; 08-18-2018 at 09:52 PM. Reason: Add Text
aclaar877 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-20-2018, 08:13 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Seattle_Aquarist's Avatar
 
PTrader: (65/100%)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,446
Hi @aclaar877,

I downloaded one of your pictures, cropped it, enhanced it, and enlarged it.....this is what I saw in the first irmage on the left hand side.


What I see is interveinal chlorosis on the newer leaves (also on the older leaves which may mean it has been going on for a while). Also I am seeing some 'hooking' of leaf tips and scalloped leaf margins on other plants in the picture. The interveinal chlorosis is likely an iron (Fe) deficiency which could be due to insufficient Fe, high pH, or excessive potassium (K). If it were me, I would start by increasing my iron dosing to 4.0 ppm and see if the interveinal chlorosis disappears with new leaves as they emerge....the existing leaves will not change since iron is an immobile nutrient. If the hooked leave tips and scalloped leaf margins continue after correcting the iron deficiency we will address those next.

Roy_________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

75 Gallon, 2X55W AH Supply CF 8800K, 1XFluval F&P 2.0; 45 Gallon Tall, 96Watt AH Supply CF 6700K; 30 Gallon Long; Fluval F&P 2.0; 20 Gallon, 1X26W AH Supply LED; all with CO2 and (Calcined) Montmorillonite Clay
Seattle_Aquarist is offline  
post #3 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-20-2018, 09:44 PM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
PTrader: (123/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 5,563
This right here, something is bad wrong



Ive seen that before when I first switched from Flourish liquids to csmb at full EI (.5 3x) and a couple of times since

This isnt a deficiency, its too much of something or a severe imbalance

Can you post your exact micro recipe in ppm?
Greggz, Xiaozhuang and slipfinger like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




burr740 is offline  
 
post #4 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-20-2018, 10:21 PM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by burr740 View Post
This right here, something is bad wrong



Ive seen that before when I first switched from Flourish liquids to csmb at full EI (.5 3x) and a couple of times since

This isnt a deficiency, its too much of something or a severe imbalance

Can you post your exact micro recipe in ppm?
Thanks for weighing in - this particular photo was after Saturday's water change. I've seen it before when I don't use enough Seachem Prime/Safe. Maybe I didn't use enough. I think it could be related to chloramines in tap. I'm confident this leaf-droop will go away.

On Seattle Aquarist's point, I don't think it's Fe-related, as the past few week's I've dosed more than ever. Excess K, possibly, since I've ramped that up. Maybe jumping P from 1-2 ppm/week to six was too abrupt. As I look at Mulder's chart, it seems like K/NO3/Ca/P are all interfering with each other somehow - given the pinholes, random stunting, lack of growth all at the same time. I've tried fixing all the basics - double/triple check CO2, flow, clean filters, trim, manage light and so forth.

Micro breakdown is this, and dosed at 0.2 ppm Fe 3-4 times per week. Estimated tank volume at 140 gallons (out of 155). I don't have a scale, so I used tsp measurements, and made 500mL solutions of Mo and Cu and then took a fraction of those (5-10 mL) for the main trace mix. It's possible that my estimated 0.2 ppm dosed could have been higher, and I ran into problems that way. Ratios should be close, even if quantity was off.

Fe - .15 ppm
Mn - .06 ppm
B - .03 ppm
Zn - .042 ppm
Mo - .001 ppm
Cu - .001 ppm

I have added nickel since posting this thread.
Greggz likes this.
aclaar877 is offline  
post #5 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-20-2018, 10:44 PM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
PTrader: (123/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 5,563
Mo is directly involved in plants using nitrogen. Its deficiency looks like NO3 deficiency, which yours does too in a lot of ways. Its pretty low risk as far as toxicity goes, I'd double that up at least

A little more B wouldnt hurt either, get it up around Zn level
Greggz likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




burr740 is offline  
post #6 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-21-2018, 02:14 AM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Greggz's Avatar
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 4,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by aclaar877 View Post
Since then, I haven't noticed the dramatic improvement that so many of you have experienced. Ammania Senegalensis went downhill, so I traded notes with Vin (Saxa Tilly) and tried lowering P for a while - cold turkey for a few weeks then no more than 1 ppm per week. I never got bad GSA, nor was there much improvement in the Ammania. I believe it likes lower ferts in the water column.
I wouldn't base much on the Ammania. Neither Burr nor I have had much success with it, under our fairly similar conditions. Why? Not sure, but it's never loved what I provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aclaar877 View Post
Lights: One BML Dutch XB at 75%, one T8 strip with FloraSun, two T5HO (color max and FloraSun) bulbs on the front of the tank, over deliberately dirty glass covers. I'm not killing the tank with PAR.
Have you ever tested your PAR? Unusual mix of lights, and I really have no idea. Some of the pics remind me of my tank before I redid my lights and increased PAR quite a bit. Went from 40-50ish at substrate to over 100. It was a whole new ball game. Dosing high ferts/heavy CO2 without enough light can be an issue. Plants just not as happy as they could be.

For me, I could have made all the changes in the world, but it was enough light that I was missing.

And in general, more micros seems to increase the need for more macros. How much? Well that takes trial and error in every tank. And three weeks is really not much time in the scheme of things to figure out the best mix for your tank.

And I agree with Burr on adjusting micros. FWIW here is my latest. Going to up B even further. I would also add even MORE plants. High dosing seems to work best with a very heavily planted tank.

DTPA 11% 0.15
MnSO4*H2O 0.0375
ZnSO4*H2O 0.04
Na2MoO4*2H2O 0.0013
CuSO4*5H2O 0.002
NiSO4 6(H2O) 0.0005
H3BO3 0.055

And a question. What substrate are your using?

Looking forward to seeing where this goes.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
---
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
---
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greggz is online now  
post #7 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-21-2018, 09:41 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Micro breakdown is this, and dosed at 0.2 ppm Fe 3-4 times per week. Estimated tank volume at 140 gallons (out of 155). I don't have a scale, so I used tsp measurements, and made 500mL solutions of Mo and Cu and then took a fraction of those (5-10 mL) for the main trace mix. It's possible that my estimated 0.2 ppm dosed could have been higher, and I ran into problems that way. Ratios should be close, even if quantity was off.

Fe - .15 ppm
Mn - .06 ppm
B - .03 ppm
Zn - .042 ppm
Mo - .001 ppm
Cu - .001 ppm
It ism't clear to me if your mixing them all in liquid or just dry dosing everything but MO and Cu. IF you mix everything together in a solution that is stored for a time before use you need to make sure the water you put them in is acidic. If you don't the iron If you don't iron EDTA and iron DTPA would break down and the iron may not be available to plants. The other nutrients may also be adversely affected by the high PH in a storage bottle. When making a solution you should add some vinegar to the water before adding the other ingredients
Surf is offline  
post #8 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-21-2018, 09:45 PM Thread Starter
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greggz View Post
I wouldn't base much on the Ammania. Neither Burr nor I have had much success with it, under our fairly similar conditions. Why? Not sure, but it's never loved what I provide.


Have you ever tested your PAR? Unusual mix of lights, and I really have no idea. Some of the pics remind me of my tank before I redid my lights and increased PAR quite a bit. Went from 40-50ish at substrate to over 100. It was a whole new ball game. Dosing high ferts/heavy CO2 without enough light can be an issue. Plants just not as happy as they could be.

For me, I could have made all the changes in the world, but it was enough light that I was missing.

And in general, more micros seems to increase the need for more macros. How much? Well that takes trial and error in every tank. And three weeks is really not much time in the scheme of things to figure out the best mix for your tank.

And I agree with Burr on adjusting micros. FWIW here is my latest. Going to up B even further. I would also add even MORE plants. High dosing seems to work best with a very heavily planted tank.

DTPA 11% 0.15
MnSO4*H2O 0.0375
ZnSO4*H2O 0.04
Na2MoO4*2H2O 0.0013
CuSO4*5H2O 0.002
NiSO4 6(H2O) 0.0005
H3BO3 0.055

And a question. What substrate are your using?

Looking forward to seeing where this goes.
I've never tested PAR - based on the BML dimming, bulbs and reflectors I imagine I have less than 100 PAR. I get great pearling when I crank the BML, but if I dim to below 70% I don't get much. Using BDBS substrate. I have put Ludwigia Glandulosa and Ammania Senegalensis in pots of garden soil and plenty of O+ balls, and no improvement whatsoever. I'll probably need to find substitute plants for Ammania and Pogo Erectus, since I'm not really up for walking that kind of fert tightrope to make everything happy. I did have some decent AS and Pogo Erectus last year, though, in the low CSM+B and leaner macro dosing I was doing. But Ludwigia Palustris kind of sat there, doing nothing, until I ramped up NO3. Now it's usually my best plant.

Adding extra Mo makes sense - it sure looks like a NO3 deficiency - slowed growth, shedding and yellowing lower leaves and so forth. I never gave Mo much thought because in recent years tap reports said it had 0.001 ppm. But the most recent report says it has zero, and Fablau was kind enough to send me some so I didn't spend $20 on a 30,000 year supply or whatever that math came to! I added it to trace mix about a month ago, but may need more.

I'm leery of adding more Boron right away, since I think it might have contributed to stunting in the past. Previous water reports had up to 0.08 ppm, but now the company reports zero. It might be fine to add more but I want to see what extra Mo does the next week or two.

I'm really tempted to try RO - maybe tap report is just wrong, and it may be easier to balance Ca/Mg starting from scratch. Tap report states Mg is 2-28 ppm, and Ca is 12-38.
Greggz likes this.
aclaar877 is offline  
post #9 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-21-2018, 11:48 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,525
Thoughts/questions to all:

In addition to reconsidering my PO4 issues recently, I’ve been reconsidering my K:Ca:Mg balance, mainly as a result of re-reading the discussion on the Mulder’s reference that @burr740 provided some time ago (http://www.cannagardening.com/intera...ween_nutrients). In it they say that:

“Applying too much calcium and magnesium can cause a potassium deficiency; the K/Ca and K/Mg ratio should always be kept above 2 (but below 10, since too much K can hinder the absorption of calcium and magnesium). Too much potassium can also prevent the absorption of certain micro-elements, such as zinc. It is particularly important to take account of this interaction when using very hard water with a high calcium and magnesium content.”

As we all know Equilibrium works for many and for many years without the need for additional K, Ca or Mg (depending upon the GH desired). As a reminder, that ratio is ~K:Ca - 2.5:1 and Ca:Mg – 3:1.

At 30ppm K and a GH of >7, I wonder if those aren’t some of the problems here. I also wonder, without looking it up, what all of the other posters ratios are. I also wonder if the K ratios matter at all. I believe that, at least, the Ca:Mg ratio is important.
Deanna is offline  
post #10 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 12:23 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
Edward's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanna View Post
ďApplying too much calcium and magnesium can cause a potassium deficiency; the K/Ca and K/Mg ratio should always be kept above 2 (but below 10, since too much K can hinder the absorption of calcium and magnesium). Too much potassium can also prevent the absorption of certain micro-elements, such as zinc. It is particularly important to take account of this interaction when using very hard water with a high calcium and magnesium content.Ē

As we all know Equilibrium works for many and for many years without the need for additional K, Ca or Mg (depending upon the GH desired). As a reminder, that ratio is ~K:Ca - 2.5:1 and Ca:Mg Ė 3:1.

At 30ppm K and a GH of >7, I wonder if those arenít some of the problems here. I also wonder, without looking it up, what all of the other posters ratios are. I also wonder if the K ratios matter at all. I believe that, at least, the Ca:Mg ratio is important.
Excessive K creates N, Mg, Ca, Mn and B deficiency.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Edward is online now  
post #11 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 12:31 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
Excessive K creates N, Mg, Ca, Mn and B deficiency.
...and, according to those authors, too much Ca and Mg causes, at least, a K deficiency. Rhetorical (maybe) question: do the two statements (yours and theirs) mean that GH should be kept much lower and priority should be placed upon determining the optimal K level and then back into the Ca and Mg levels?
Deanna is offline  
post #12 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 12:42 AM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
PTrader: (123/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 5,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanna View Post
...and, according to those authors, too much Ca and Mg causes, at least, a K deficiency. Rhetorical (maybe) question: do the two statements (yours and theirs) mean that GH should be kept much lower and priority should be placed upon determining the optimal K level and then back into the Ca and Mg levels?
The "optimum" K level is somewhat dictated by the amounts of Ca and Mg, and visa versa. Not only Ca and mg but N and P too. (see Mulder's chart)

In other words, "optimum" K at 10/3 Ca/Mg wont be the same as 40/10

Someone who is reconstituting 100% RO can set the levels whatever they want.

But my case for example, using all tap with 35-40 ppm Ca, a value which isnt going to change, some of these other nutrients have to be adjusted based on that.

And by 'based on that' I mean observe plants and adjust accordingly. 20 ppm K may sound like plenty on paper, and for many tanks it is, but in a tank with a high GH it may not be, same with NO3, B, etc. Any nutrient that has an antagonistic relationship
Greggz likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




burr740 is offline  
post #13 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 01:35 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by burr740 View Post
The "optimum" K level is somewhat dictated by the amounts of Ca and Mg, and visa versa. Not only Ca and mg but N and P too. (see Mulder's chart)

In other words, "optimum" K at 10/3 Ca/Mg wont be the same as 40/10

Someone who is reconstituting 100% RO can set the levels whatever they want.

But my case for example, using all tap with 35-40 ppm Ca, a value which isnt going to change, some of these other nutrients have to be adjusted based on that.

And by 'based on that' I mean observe plants and adjust accordingly. 20 ppm K may sound like plenty on paper, and for many tanks it is, but in a tank with a high GH it may not be, same with NO3, B, etc. Any nutrient that has an antagonistic relationship
I'm with you on all of that. However, if that researcher is correct (granted they are terrestrial plants), your 35-40 ppm Ca level demands a K level of, at least, 70-80 ppm to avoid interfering with sufficient K uptake, i.e.; "optimum" K must be at that level ...unless the researcher and/or the terrestrial-to-aquatic connections are wrong. According to the write-up, you should be experiencing K deficiencies of some sort. I'm curious; at your given GH, have you ever run K at the referenced website or Flourish Equilibrium levels? Maybe our Ca and Mg levels need not be as high as most of us have them for plants, even though certain fish may need them high.

Now, I'm not saying that anything is incorrect, but is there an aquatic connection to those ratios and terrestrial studies or not? I generally haven't believed in most of the ratio issues, but am starting to think that there is an interference/enhancement aspect based upon the Mulder chart, personal experience and member comments. In fact, the Mulder chart implies that ratios/minimums exist even though there aren't any listed along those pathways. Too bad we can't build a baseline of ratios along those Mulder pathways. Individually, any of us could apply ratios to those pathways based upon our own level of each nutrient. i wonder if there would be a common theme.
Greggz likes this.
Deanna is offline  
post #14 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 02:13 AM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
PTrader: (123/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 5,563
Well keep in mind that's just a blog from a website selling products. The important takeaway is Mulder's Chart and the general idea of nutrients affecting one another

Here's a better one, easier to see what's doing what



And no we cannot translate those ratios to our aquariums. For one reason the availability of nutrients is strongly affected by PH levels.

Copying a post of mine from Barr Report in response to someone claiming a certain Ca:B ratio is best

https://barrreport.com/threads/r-mac...-3#post-154095

Quote:
Its hard to prescribe an optimum ratio for everyone because nutrients behave differently at different PH levels.

This chart gives a rough example of PH level's affect on nutrient availability



Ca starts to become less available as the PH drops below 6.5. From this point, Ca becomes less and less available the lower the PH goes.

We can think of this as being less potent, another way to put it is stronger or weaker.

B has a different optimum PH, it is most available in the 5-7 range. As the PH climbs above 7 it becomes less available, or "weaker"

So for example in a PH of 7.5 Ca will be at its strongest potency, B will be in a less potent state. In this circumstance B is more likely to be affected by high Ca levels and more will be required to compensate.

But if the PH 6 B is in a more potent state, Ca is not so potent. In this circumstance it wont take as much B in spite of high Ca.

That is why all these so-called "optimum ratios" cannot be applied across the board to everyone, because other factors of influence are not the same for everyone. This includes other things besides PH such as type of chelate, chelated vs non-chelated, inert vs high cec substrates, even things like tds and orp values can have an effect.

On top of all this, the level of other competing nutrients has a profound effect, such as K and Ca both competing for uptake with B. See Mulder's chart in the previous post.

So you really cant say 400:1 Ca:B is best for everyone. (or any other ratio for that matter) Because there's too many other factors involved.

Its what happens inside the aquarium that matters, not what's in the dosing bottle.

The best we can do is strike a good general range that works for the average hobbyist. Folks on on the far side of either end will have to adjust accordingly based on what their plants tell them.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




burr740 is offline  
post #15 of 63 (permalink) Old 08-22-2018, 03:00 AM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by burr740 View Post
Well keep in mind that's just a blog from a website selling products. The important takeaway is Mulder's Chart and the general idea of nutrients affecting one another

Here's a better one, easier to see what's doing what

And no we cannot translate those ratios to our aquariums. For one reason the availability of nutrients is strongly affected by PH levels.

Copying a post of mine from Barr Report in response to someone claiming a certain Ca:B ratio is best

https://barrreport.com/threads/r-mac...-3#post-154095
Thanks for clearer chart.

We could probably compensate for pH. The pH in terrestrial soil can vary as much as our water does. I'm not sure there is much of an impact by pH at our ranges. Example, during lights on, my pH is <5.5, yet my PO4 uptake is 4-5 ppm weekly. However, I agree on the broader implication that there are many, many variables that make precise alignment of nutrient levels difficult.

The Seachem Equilibrium is a conundrum to me and does support the author of that research. For a long time, it's been broadly used to great effect and the use of it will result in either very low Ca and Mg levels or very high K levels. I think I'm in the process of convincing myself to go off and try reducing my GH levels to fit the K ratio formula.
Deanna is offline  
Reply

Tags
None

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome