Toxicity of CSM+B - Page 3 - The Planted Tank Forum
 151Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 03:11 AM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Greggz's Avatar
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaylorTurner View Post
but I most enjoy reading those presented with a pleasant and discursive tone.
You hit the nail on the head there!


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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 03:33 AM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (3/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 315
I know Sol and Happi are well versed and have citations for their work. Sol shared a paper regarding Mn:Fe ratios, I cannot for the life of me find the link. I know I shared it with possibly Burr or it is in one of these threads. I'm sure someone has the link for the paper. I have added Mn to my trace mix to coincide with the paper and have had great success, I know Burr has as well. Here are some other links that discuss this.

How to make DIY Tropica Plant Nutrition (or, how to make the Good [censored][censored][censored][censored]) - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report[censored][censored][censored][censored]
TaylorTurner and TaylorTurner like this.
bcarl_10gal is offline  
post #33 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 03:54 AM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (3/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 315
bcarl_10gal is offline  
 
post #34 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 04:24 AM
Planted Tanker
 
burr740's Avatar
 
PTrader: (125/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bama
Posts: 5,686
Ive only been using it for about a month. Early results are somewhat encouraging. In the 75 I noticed an immediate increase in size (diameter) on some of the more finicky stems. But in the 50, with many of the same plants, nothing much changed. Still playing around with different amounts. I do suspect it's a big help though, especially if a person is dosing very low levels of csmb along with additional Fe

*Edit: not sure how I missed the previous post, here it is again anyway.

Cant find the link, it's in my journal a few pages back

Attached the PDF...
Attached Files
File Type: pdf FE-Mn Plant Phys 00290-0076.pdf (2.23 MB, 352 views)
TaylorTurner and TaylorTurner like this.


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





Last edited by burr740; 07-20-2016 at 09:27 PM. Reason: .
burr740 is online now  
post #35 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 12:00 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
Fissure's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sweden, Malmo
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by burr740 View Post
Ive only been using it for about a month. Early results are mildly encouraging. In the 75 I noticed an immediate increase in size (diameter) on some of the more finicky stems. But in the 50, with many of the same plants, nothing much changed. Still playing around with different amounts. I do suspect it's a big help though, especially if a person is dosing very low levels of csmb along with additional Fe

*Edit: not sure how I missed the previous post, here it is again anyway.

Cant find the link, it's in my journal a few pages back

Attached the PDF...

Read it, so what we can draw from this is that soybeans grow best when given E.I ratios of Fe (0.5ppm) when Fe:Mn ratios are at 2.0.
Larger amounts of Fe resulted in no apparent extra growth but as long as the ratio was maintained there was no toxicity issues.
Does anyone have a different opinion?

Dosing CSM+B will give you some form of tox issues with its Fe:Mn ratio being 3.5, on soybeans. It is reasonable to assume this effect could also be seen on some aquatic plants we more commonly grow in our tanks but we cannot be sure. Different plants may thrive at other ratios perhaps?

Using CSM+B will require addition of Mn to achieve a Fe:Mn ratio of 2.0
This is shown in the link to Wet;s DIY tropica nutrition. Though the ratios are a bit lower in that mix Fe:Mn 1.75.
Compared this to the Aqua Rebell stuff I bought, Fe:Mn ratio there is 2.1. Close enough I would think.


Now for the rest of all the metals in the traces...

Does anyone have the exact numbers for what the Tropica premium fert contains? In my world they would probably have it somewhat right considering all they do is growing aquatic plants on a large scale even though most are grown emersed. Having trouble finding any exact numbers. Wonder if there is anyway to get it analyzed :P


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.

Last edited by Fissure; 07-20-2016 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Typos
Fissure is offline  
post #36 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 01:43 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
roadmaster's Avatar
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Missouri united states
Posts: 5,576
Are we sure rather than assuming,,, that a direct correlation between studies on terrestrial plant's exist's with the hundred's of species of aquatic plant's ?
If a paper suggest's that some toxicity occurs with the use of CSM+B then what is the safe range for those hundred's of species of aquatic plant's?
Without number's, then all one can really say is.. The sky is high, and the Ocean deep.(No?)
I'm on board with expierimenting ,just need to know how much or how little to use with say half the over 400 species of aquatic weed's.
Is the author of second post in this thread really just unable to recognize toxicity issues despite his studies/contribution's and degree's in all thing's plant related as has been suggested by a few?
roadmaster is offline  
post #37 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 03:33 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maine
Posts: 521
That while I agree the study was using a terrestrial plant for it's conclusions, I believe there is some physiological coordination between all plants. By no means is a pig considered anatomically perfect to a human, but medical students and biologists use them to study human anatomy.

The biggest difference between a terrestrial plant and a macrophyte is submergence in water.

"Aquatic plants seem to greatly prefer water uptake of potassium (K). Thus, the shoots of Elodea occidentalis absorbed K over 5 times faster than it's roots (6). And Potamogeton pectinatus showed reduced growth and flowering when K was absent from the water, even though sediment contain ample K." (Ecology of the planted Aquarium)

What does this mean? It means many ions in the water (CO2(aq), HCO3, K, NO3, PO4, Fe, Mn....) interact with leaf surfaces of plants, sometimes being absorbed faster than even the roots.

Sure, the linked article can be thrown out the window and investigators (we are all investigators here, play nice....) can quickly refer to the differences between terrestrial nutrient level in soil, and mass flow in macrophytes, but what about the premise of the actual article?

"Investigation of the problem of iron availability (14, 20) has led to
general acceptance of the theory that it is the soluble form in the plant which
plays the important role in iron metabolism. It is evident that this element,
by being precipitated within the tissues, may become inactivated and therefore
unavailable to metabolic processes of the plant."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 1)

During the discussion portion of the report, the researcher expounds on how this could effect the plant. Why couldn't this happen to any plant, regardless of where it is? Perhaps some plants have better oxidating / reduction protections, and natural chelation to help offset this somewhat, but in the end, given enough of any heavy metal this will happen to any plant:

"As already indicated, if the ratio of soluble iron to soluble manganese in the plant is outside of the effective
range extending approximately from 1.5 to 2.5, pathological symptoms appear in the soybeans here employed as test plants. It is not to be expected,
however, that the same range of the iron-manganese ratio values which has proved effective for good growth and development of the soybean plant
would be effective for all species with reference to either the nutrient substrate or the metabolically active plant."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 15,16)

Note here: as planted aquarium hobbyists, we have another substrate to deal with: water.

And thus,

"The theoretical explanation of the important role which iron plays in the
plant processes in which manganese functions actively, centers around two
important facts: first, that metabolically reactive iron functions primarily
in the reduced state, that is, in the ferrous condition; and second, that the
oxidizing potential of manganese is higher than that of iron."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 17)

If you continue reading the precise method for these toxic effects based on ratios of Fe and Mn can be found. Once these substances are inside any plant, similar biological processes happen to convert Fe into usable and non usable states. And this is all regulated, at least partially by Mn.

Here's a picture of Blyxia from awhile ago when i was experimenting with Mn. This Blyxia is suffering from Mn toxicity and Fe deficiency. As the researcher has noted, they are one in the same:

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0474.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	103.3 KB
ID:	654265

This is a monocot plant so it's harder to see, but notice the "paper white" leaves and degenerated old growth that fits with the description of the report. The red areas are not typical anthromycin pigments, either. It's damaged tissue.
happi, happi, burr740 and 1 others like this.

Last edited by Positron; 07-20-2016 at 03:47 PM. Reason: pic
Positron is offline  
post #38 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 04:18 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
Fissure's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sweden, Malmo
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Positron View Post
That while I agree the study was using a terrestrial plant for it's conclusions, I believe there is some physiological coordination between all plants. By no means is a pig considered anatomically perfect to a human, but medical students and biologists use them to study human anatomy.

The biggest difference between a terrestrial plant and a macrophyte is submergence in water.

"Aquatic plants seem to greatly prefer water uptake of potassium (K). Thus, the shoots of Elodea occidentalis absorbed K over 5 times faster than it's roots (6). And Potamogeton pectinatus showed reduced growth and flowering when K was absent from the water, even though sediment contain ample K." (Ecology of the planted Aquarium)

What does this mean? It means many ions in the water (CO2(aq), HCO3, K, NO3, PO4, Fe, Mn....) interact with leaf surfaces of plants, sometimes being absorbed faster than even the roots.

Sure, the linked article can be thrown out the window and investigators (we are all investigators here, play nice....) can quickly refer to the differences between terrestrial nutrient level in soil, and mass flow in macrophytes, but what about the premise of the actual article?

"Investigation of the problem of iron availability (14, 20) has led to
general acceptance of the theory that it is the soluble form in the plant which
plays the important role in iron metabolism. It is evident that this element,
by being precipitated within the tissues, may become inactivated and therefore
unavailable to metabolic processes of the plant."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 1)

During the discussion portion of the report, the researcher expounds on how this could effect the plant. Why couldn't this happen to any plant, regardless of where it is? Perhaps some plants have better oxidating / reduction protections, and natural chelation to help offset this somewhat, but in the end, given enough of any heavy metal this will happen to any plant:

"As already indicated, if the ratio of soluble iron to soluble manganese in the plant is outside of the effective
range extending approximately from 1.5 to 2.5, pathological symptoms appear in the soybeans here employed as test plants. It is not to be expected,
however, that the same range of the iron-manganese ratio values which has proved effective for good growth and development of the soybean plant
would be effective for all species with reference to either the nutrient substrate or the metabolically active plant."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 15,16)

Note here: as planted aquarium hobbyists, we have another substrate to deal with: water.

And thus,

"The theoretical explanation of the important role which iron plays in the
plant processes in which manganese functions actively, centers around two
important facts: first, that metabolically reactive iron functions primarily
in the reduced state, that is, in the ferrous condition; and second, that the
oxidizing potential of manganese is higher than that of iron."
(SOMERS AND J. W. SHIVE, Pg 17)

If you continue reading the precise method for these toxic effects based on ratios of Fe and Mn can be found. Once these substances are inside any plant, similar biological processes happen to convert Fe into usable and non usable states. And this is all regulated, at least partially by Mn.

Here's a picture of Blyxia from awhile ago when i was experimenting with Mn. This Blyxia is suffering from Mn toxicity and Fe deficiency. As the researcher has noted, they are one in the same:

Attachment 654265

This is a monocot plant so it's harder to see, but notice the "paper white" leaves and degenerated old growth that fits with the description of the report. The red areas are not typical anthromycin pigments, either. It's damaged tissue.
What was your Fe:Mn ratio during this period?

end quote
-----------------------------------------------


My problem here is people stating things as pretty much fact, claiming to have proper research to back them up when that clearly is not the case. Since we cannot take one plant species (even worse a non aquatic plant) read a research paper on toxicity for this single plant and then present this as fact for our planted tanks.
We might at best be able to draw some assuumptions from that kind of research.

And I would be pretty certain noone here has the time, money or equipment to do some proper research for even a single aquatic plant species. Doing lab grade stuff is nothing you do at your home tank. Just getting frequent and reliable tace readings would be a daunting task.

I am all for progress and experiments but some here seriously need to stop acting like aquatic plant specialists/researchers. It's just confusing people (I was). Be honest please and if you claim something back it up with the source so we all can read it and discuss different opinions.


Edit: Have been looking around the net trying to find if there is any metals in the trace mixes we use that could inhibit the uptake of potassium in plants or make it immobile. Have failed to find any such thing, anyone else have any idea about 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.



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.

Last edited by Fissure; 07-20-2016 at 04:42 PM. Reason: added stuff
Fissure is offline  
post #39 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 05:15 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
Seattle_Aquarist's Avatar
 
PTrader: (65/100%)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Edit: Have been looking around the net trying to find if there is any metals in the trace mixes we use that could inhibit the uptake of potassium in plants or make it immobile. Have failed to find any such thing, anyone else have any idea about this?
Hi Fissure,

There is some belief that calcium excess impedes uptake of potassium cations.

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, 1X 59W Fluval Plant (3.0); 45 Gallon Tall, 1X 46W Fluval Plant (3.0); 30 Gallon Long; Fluval F&P 2.0; 20 Gallon, 1X26W AH Supply LED; all with CO2 & (Calcined) Montmorillonite Clay
Seattle_Aquarist is offline  
post #40 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 06:42 PM
Banned
 
PTrader: (15/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissure View Post
My problem here is people stating things as pretty much fact, claiming to have proper research to back them up when that clearly is not the case. Since we cannot take one plant species (even worse a non aquatic plant) read a research paper on toxicity for this single plant and then present this as fact for our planted tanks.
Yes, I agree with the idea of this statement very much. The suggested fertilization amounts and frequency, along with the rocket-high amounts of CO2, the idea of high light equally requiring high CO2, and many other claims made by some supposedly knowledgeable and experienced people have very little scientific support. In fact, some of the articles used to support some of these ideas don't actually support them. I suspect that they read something that sounds like what they believe, then interpret it in that light; i.e. confirmation bias. Then they dismiss everything else that runs counter to their ideas, including direct evidence from hundreds of aquarists who complain about problems when they are doing everything according to those recommendations. Marcel was right when he railed against the stupid ideas most people believe in this hobby. These ideas are so pervasive and insidious that they are often stickied topics, giving novices easy access to unsupported ideas. Then this information is repeated ad nauseam to other novices and the cycle perpetuates. And anything new, ideas that contradict that dogma (and it really is dogma) is immediately and forcefully derided. Then the persons providing that knowledge is attacked. Then these novices join in on the attacks because they don't like feeling ignorant, and think attacking those with that knowledge is a sure way to alleviate their ignorance. Ignorance, in many instances, is it's its own reward. So who would want to deny them?
Solcielo lawrencia is offline  
post #41 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 08:17 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maine
Posts: 521
@Fissure

"What was your Fe:Mn ratio during this period?"

It's hard to say for certain because of what is in fish food, and my water supply has about 0.008 ppm of Mn out of the tap, but I can tell you what the ratio was that I was adding. It was approximately 2:1 Fe:Mn. At this point in time I was adding only DTPA iron and Mn in the form of MnSO4. I suspect the unchelated Mn had a bit more of an impact than the chelated Fe.

Pertaining to the rest of your post:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. My mission has always been to find the truth of what was causing issues in my tank. To be quite honest I could care very little about the motivations of others, or how they present themselves. Even with extensive data given and logical explanations, there are some who would simply not even consider a different way of thinking about things. There will always be certain ways to dispute one scientific article for whatever reason. My point was not to say trace toxicity is always linked to some magical Fe:Mn ratio, or that all problems in every single aquatic plant is 95% of the time caused by toxic measures. I'm simply trying to open up this field to more neutral conversation on the topic. Less emotion, more quotes and data. When I see something I don't agree with I don't say, "This guy is nuts" I think, "Hmmm..interesting."

I'm in no way suggesting I'm in expert in anything. Far from it. What makes an expert? A doctorate in a given field? When it comes down to it we are all investigators. Looking in our own way for something meaningful behind the observations we see. Using this forum as an outlet for that is fantastic.

In fact, I think the serious investigators and researchers in this field don't visit these forums. They are happy fiddling with things in their own homes and labs. It beats trying to wade through an undercurrent of emotion that will never succeed into forging progress.

"Have been looking around the net trying to find if there is any metals in the trace mixes we use that could inhibit the uptake of potassium in plants or make it immobile. Have failed to find any such thing, anyone else have any idea about this?"

From what I know, all cations play antagonistic roles with each other at uptake sites inside and outside plant cells. Hardwater minerals have been shown to drastically reduce the metal toxicity for both fish and plants. For citations and proof of this statement you must read the data shown in "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium." From the same sub-chapter details other mitigating factors for metal toxicity including dissolved organic carbon.

If you are asking if there is a specific heavy metal that correlates to K+ uptake issues? I'm not sure of that, but any of them in high enough amounts will take over K+, Ca++, Mg ++ sites in the plant.
TaylorTurner and TaylorTurner like this.

Last edited by Positron; 07-20-2016 at 08:41 PM. Reason: more
Positron is offline  
post #42 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 08:24 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
Fissure's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sweden, Malmo
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solcielo lawrencia View Post
Yes, I agree with the idea of this statement very much. The suggested fertilization amounts and frequency, along with the rocket-high amounts of CO2, the idea of high light equally requiring high CO2, and many other claims made by some supposedly knowledgeable and experienced people have very little scientific support. In fact, some of the articles used to support some of these ideas don't actually support them. I suspect that they read something that sounds like what they believe, then interpret it in that light; i.e. confirmation bias. Then they dismiss everything else that runs counter to their ideas, including direct evidence from hundreds of aquarists who complain about problems when they are doing everything according to those recommendations. Marcel was right when he railed against the stupid ideas most people believe in this hobby. These ideas are so pervasive and insidious that they are often stickied topics, giving novices easy access to unsupported ideas. Then this information is repeated ad nauseam to other novices and the cycle perpetuates. And anything new, ideas that contradict that dogma (and it really is dogma) is immediately and forcefully derided. Then the persons providing that knowledge is attacked. Then these novices join in on the attacks because they don't like feeling ignorant, and think attacking those with that knowledge is a sure way to alleviate their ignorance. Ignorance, in many instances, is it's its own reward. So who would want to deny them?
I understand the point you are trying to make, yourself being the one with knowledge and me for example being the ignorant novice.
But I do not care much what you think of me personally.
I also do not ignore your advice or mock you like you like your are doing to others. I read what you have to say (type) and will use the advice in the future to some extent or another.

My only problem with you is that you are making statements without presenting your sources (not only in this thread) and any form of progress on the research. If you are a man of science and knowledge you must know that keeping this to yourself is somewhat counter-productive and pretty much what science is NOT about.
I am in no way regarding T.Bar as a god nor am I married with E.I.
I do not give a [censored][censored][censored][censored] what method of fertilization I use as long as it is relative easy and cheap.

You are once again speaking like you are sitting on a load of information about why EI is toxic for aquatic plants but you just refuse to share the resources for these claims. Where are the research. Let's get an discussion going and more people reading through the research you found.
It is really hard to take you seriously when you are so actively refusing to be transparent...

Bump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Positron View Post
@Fissure

"What was your Fe:Mn ratio during this period?"

It's hard to say for certain because of what is in fish food, and my water supply has about 0.008 ppm of Mn out of the tap, but I can tell you what the ratio was that I was adding. It was approximately 2:1 Fe:Mn. At this point in time I was adding only DTPA iron and Mn in the form of MnSO4. I suspect the unchelated Mn had a bit more of an impact than the chelated Fe.

Pertaining to the rest of your post:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. My mission has always been to find the truth of what was causing issues in my tank. To be quite honest I could care very little about the motivations of others, or how they present themselves. Even with extensive data given and logical explanations, there are some who would simply not even consider a different way of thinking about things. There will always be certain ways to dispute one scientific article for whatever reason. My point was not to say trace toxicity is always linked to some magical Fe:Mn ratio, or that all problems in every single aquatic plant is 95% of the time caused by toxic measures. I'm simply trying to open up this field to more neutral conversation on the topic. Less emotion, more quotes and data. When I see something I don't agree with I don't say, "This guy is nuts" I think, "Hmmm..interesting."

I'm in no way suggesting I'm in expert in anything. Far from it. What makes an expert? A doctorate in a given field? When it comes down to it we are all investigators. Looking in our own way for something meaningful behind the observations we see. Using this forum as an outlet for that is fantastic.

In fact, I think the serious investigators and researchers in this field don't visit these forums. They are happy fiddling with things in their own homes and labs. It beats trying to wade through an undercurrent of emotion that will never succeed into forging progress.
That post was in no way directed to you that's why I added the "----" after the question following your quote!

Kinda interesting you still got these issues while aprox. keeping the soybean optimum for Fe:Mn ratio.

I suspect the lack of research for our aquarium plants are mainly due to the fact that there is no interest in it.
The only ones that have any reason for ploughing any kind of dough into it would be the companys living on aquarium plants, like danish Tropica for example. I am guessing their nutritents would be a good reference point or so I would hope at the very least. Unless they want to kill our plants so we have to buy more :P
TaylorTurner and TaylorTurner 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.



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.

Last edited by Fissure; 07-20-2016 at 08:38 PM. Reason: added some stuff
Fissure is offline  
post #43 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 09:01 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maine
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissure View Post

That post was in no way directed to you that's why I added the "----" after the question following your quote!

Kinda interesting you still got these issues while aprox. keeping the soybean optimum for Fe:Mn ratio.

I suspect the lack of research for our aquarium plants are mainly due to the fact that there is no interest in it.
The only ones that have any reason for ploughing any kind of dough into it would be the companys living on aquarium plants, like danish Tropica for example. I am guessing their nutritents would be a good reference point or so I would hope at the very least. Unless they want to kill our plants so we have to buy more :P
Yes, and thank you for being here. The fact that you are here and passionate enough about how to fertilize explains more than words.

Yes, the ratio was supposed to be correct for soybeans, but obviously not correct for my aquatic environment. Since then I've found 8:1 Fe:Mn to be right for my tanks. Seems like alot of Fe, but it just works and I'm not sure why. I have a few ideas:

1)Build up of Mn from tapwater
2)Mn in ionic form is much stronger and shorter lasting then chelated Fe. Best effects for me is not to use much DTPA Fe at all. Fe Gluc seems powerful enough to compete with ionic Mn
3)Mn in my substrate. Perhaps much more than Fe
4)Mn is listed above Fe in my fish food. Who knows how much is added from this, but there is more Mn added.

And then....we have the other "lesser" micros: Zn, Cu, Mo. Could these be playing some part in this relationship?

Haha. More questions.

Looking back at your own created thread, I can understand why you think K+ is becoming an issue. Either K+ is deficient, or something is blocking it's uptake. I can't say that those conclusions are wrong. I can say I thought the same thing a few years ago. I was wrong.

I have heard nothing but good with about tropica. The only reason I haven't tried it is price and shipping costs.

EDIT: I have yet to look at your tank build. I will make some tea later and cruise through it. If you have the time, take a look at Burr's tank journal. It's a fun journey.

Last edited by Positron; 07-20-2016 at 09:04 PM. Reason: edit
Positron is offline  
post #44 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 09:04 PM
Banned
 
PTrader: (15/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,261
It would be very difficult to refute all the scientific evidence that shows that dosing toxic concentrations of fertilizers are safe... And adding so much CO2 to nearly suffocate fish and shrimp is also safe... That high light equally requires high CO2... because growing aquatic plants healthily requires all of the above and is irrefutable. With all the mountains of scientific evidence, nothing I present could ever surmount it.

But seriously, when those who advocate such things provide even some evidence that can be substantiated beyond scrutiny, then I will present substantial evidence (which can be easily found because internet) to the contrary.
Solcielo lawrencia is offline  
post #45 of 203 (permalink) Old 07-20-2016, 10:58 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
Fissure's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sweden, Malmo
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Positron View Post
Yes, and thank you for being here. The fact that you are here and passionate enough about how to fertilize explains more than words.

Yes, the ratio was supposed to be correct for soybeans, but obviously not correct for my aquatic environment. Since then I've found 8:1 Fe:Mn to be right for my tanks. Seems like alot of Fe, but it just works and I'm not sure why. I have a few ideas:

1)Build up of Mn from tapwater
2)Mn in ionic form is much stronger and shorter lasting then chelated Fe. Best effects for me is not to use much DTPA Fe at all. Fe Gluc seems powerful enough to compete with ionic Mn
3)Mn in my substrate. Perhaps much more than Fe
4)Mn is listed above Fe in my fish food. Who knows how much is added from this, but there is more Mn added.

And then....we have the other "lesser" micros: Zn, Cu, Mo. Could these be playing some part in this relationship?

Haha. More questions.

Looking back at your own created thread, I can understand why you think K+ is becoming an issue. Either K+ is deficient, or something is blocking it's uptake. I can't say that those conclusions are wrong. I can say I thought the same thing a few years ago. I was wrong.

I have heard nothing but good with about tropica. The only reason I haven't tried it is price and shipping costs.

EDIT: I have yet to look at your tank build. I will make some tea later and cruise through it. If you have the time, take a look at Burr's tank journal. It's a fun journey.
Yes the more you think about this the more questions there are and the more uncertain things become. Substrate is a whole other thing.
We usually measure in the water column but how much is released versus how much is the roots taking up. Just this can throw of any kind of measurement and can also change wildely depending a variety of things. Making assumptions on anything but a totally inert substrate could be very missleading as well.
Will take a look at his journal, thanks for the tip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solcielo lawrencia View Post
It would be very difficult to refute all the scientific evidence that shows that dosing toxic concentrations of fertilizers are safe... And adding so much CO2 to nearly suffocate fish and shrimp is also safe... That high light equally requires high CO2... because growing aquatic plants healthily requires all of the above and is irrefutable. With all the mountains of scientific evidence, nothing I present could ever surmount it.

But seriously, when those who advocate such things provide even some evidence that can be substantiated beyond scrutiny, then I will present substantial evidence (which can be easily found because internet) to the contrary.
Being sarcastic won't enlighten me or anyone. You seem more fixated on whining about EI then spreading any knowledge?

Anyways, I have no interest in arguing with you.
TaylorTurner and TaylorTurner 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.



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.
Fissure 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