saulat

Well I was wondering what to supplement my potassium with either the KCl or the K2CO3.

I obtained a water report however my test results do not line up with theirs, I found a different pH and Hardness. They also only listed hardness not GH or KH, or too much I found useful. I really wish I had gone with the High Output T-5 bulbs but I have four 48 inch T5 bulbs 28 watts a piece for 112 total for a 55 gallon with about 20-22 inches of depth. Most of my plants are mid to low light and I am going for a heavy density of plants. Maybe I'll hold off on the Magnesium but pick up the other and see how things go from there.

http://www.fairfield-city.org/utilit..._CCR09_FNL.pdf

Co2 I am still deciding on a reactor or method and trying to get the bubble rate stabilized. 2-3 bubbles per second turns into 1 bubble per second an hour later. I have no surface tension and just have the CO2 running through a powerhead. Is the KH pH method reliable to determine CO2 levels?

Philosophos

112w of T5 over 55 gal? Do individual reflectors if you haven't and it'll be approaching overkill. My 48 gal runs 108w of T5HO and to be honest, I regret watting it that way without even having set it up. Too much light. At the light level you're talking about, I'd consider just putting in the K2SO4 and MgSO4 right off the start, given that you're doing heavy planting.

I've got no experience with KCl. I've heard it works, but that's about all I know.

I'm not sure why anyone would worry about high GH unless it's pretty insanely high... I dose mine up into the 20's when tap is accounted for, and I've got some very happy fish. Tom Barr has a tank sitting around with GH in the 20's and discus getting along fine. It's not GH that causes issues for fish, it's the KH. Some KH is GH, but not all GH is KH. It also doesn't matter what your GH isl if you don't have enough Mg, the plants will not be happy.

KH/pH method has something like a 200% margin of error. Get a drop checker, use 4KH solution with it, and you'll have something more like a 50% margin of error, which can be meaningful.

-Philosophos

saulat

Thanks, that sounds like a plan. I'll have to look into reflectors, I really know very little about them. Back when I was looking at lighting options I picked up a T5 HO and it kept shutting off on me. I ended up taking it back and found these regular T5 coralife fixtures and got twice as many for the same price. The lighting still does not seem as intense but the coloration seems better with the different bulbs. When the T5 HO was on I believe it was 108 watts and it was pretty intense, I can believe you regret it a little. After having people tell me my lighting is only ~moderate I was a little upset. I've even thought about selling these T5 and going for the HO.

Philosophos

One inch per day of growth in some stems is just downright overkill. I don't like having to trim once or twice a week; the plants get disturbed, and the tank doesn't look as good compared to slow growth. I have to drive CO2 higher to keep the algae out, and that gets in to fish stressing zones quite frequently. If you're running the double tube coralife fixtures, then that's probably where you're losing some of your light; one reflector, two bulbs, high restrike.

I'm not sure why people obsess over high light so much. More light does not create better looking plants; better spread does. Plants need all of 50mmol PAR at most; not 150, not 200. Dumping all the light down from one source does no favors to the plant; light from only one source only provides one angle for the light to come from.

A well made LED system proves this theory; reef keepers dismissed LED systems at first thinking they weren't high enough light, when in actuality their coral was getting fried. 1-1.5wpg of LED is more like running 3-4wpg of more typical lighting sources, and it's not because of better spectrum. The better distribution of light points with individual reflectors over each creates more distributed lighting than anything else around.

-Philosophos

mrkookm

I suggest not to add any MGSO4 to the water unless you start seeing any Mg issues. Even if his Mg is at a 2.5ppm that is still a enough for the type of plants he is planning on keeping and his light level. The most Mg anyone needs in their tank is 5ppm to grow any plants with super light level so there is no need to go crazy even if you had to add.

Add K2SO4 at WC as suggested, leave Ca & Mg and increase your Co2.

Philosophos

Looks like I forgot to post in reply to your nutrient levels. If you're hitting 120ppm of GH not from KH, odds are you won't need to add either. Get a water quality report though, if you can figure out your ppm of calcium and magnesium, you've got less to wonder about.

At the same time, Mg levels are better off in ratios lower than 4:1 K+:Mg. I believe this is stated in the American Journal of Botany. 2003;90:143-152, and if nothing else thebarrreport.com newsletter, Dec. 2005. There are also numerous other sources if you care to read on the subject of potassium lockouts in relation to magnesium.

For some of us, or in some of our tanks, this means 2.5ppm. In my case (and that of most doing EI), 10ppm assures that I won't end up with a lockout in my main tank, meanwhile some of the smaller ones only ever get what tap water provides.

-Philosophos

saulat

I didn't realize you had added another post philosophos. I wish I knew my ratios but my water report omits that information. I put a link to it a few replies back. I think my LFS can test for calcium so maybe I can determine it from that. I am taking anatomy and physiology right now and the parallels are pretty interesting just between the main chemicals used in fertilizers and for our bodies and then the CO2 and H2O stuff. Also took chem last semester. Here are all or most of my plants

Flame Moss, Java Fern, Moneywort, Hornwort, Anacharis, some other stem plant, something that I think is star grass (it hitched a ride and took off like a weed), Amazon swords, Dwarf anubias nana, banana plant, Straight Vallis, a few others I think.

My 2 stem plants really don't do well. They may have some small vibrant green growth and then the rest of the plant withers and rots breaking off. They are really an inch high at most or just stem with no leaf.

Oh, and if I go the K2CO3 route would that provide sufficient K and would I need to worry about the CO3? I think I read that the CO3 would actually through hydrolysis become extra CO2 in the water.

Philosophos

Call them up. They do more research than what they publish; far more. If they don't parks and wildlife or a similar organization probably has.

Your LFS, unless it's uniquely good, will probably have a master test kit from API, Red Sea, Hagen, etc. I'm not sure how well those sources test for calcium. I'd expect something in the higher range (hatch/lamotte have a good reputation) would be more accurate, but that gets expensive. If you can't call any government group that has the research done, maybe you can convince some sort of drinking water related company to do it. I've stopped by a couple places that do RO/DI water that would stop at nothing to make a sale with me; might be the same where you are.

You know, I've got a fair amount of family in medicine, so it's an interest for me on the side. What sort of similarities are you seeing?

K2CO3? I'd opt out on that one unless you want to raise your alkalinity/KH by 15ppm+ depending on your target level. Personally I haven't had any problems with the SO4 from K2SO4; it's pretty established in its use as a K+ supplement for the part that the KNO3 and KH2PO4 doesn't take care of.

-Philosophos

saulat

Yes I may do that. I spoke to someone and they told me the person to talk to was in the field and I never bothered to call back.

-Exactly right. Should I invest in one of these like I am planning?

About to go to bed but real quick the similarities I have been noticing are basically from the first few chapters on anatomy and physiology for this semester. We have talked about homeostasis and the regulation of pH in regards to the H+ and HO- compounds in the body as well as buffers in the form of electrolytes or ions. We also talked about CO2 in the lungs H2O and the formation of carbonic acid which is H2CO3 which breaks apart easily into H and CO3. The HCO3 soaks up the H+ ions acting as a buffer to prevent the body becoming too acidic. The body has something like 20x more HCO3 that it does H+. Exercise burns up CO2 from the HCO3 which causes quicker breathing in order to respirate the CO2. Still trying to get my needle valve working on my tank lol.

The other similarities I've been noticing are that the main biologically important molecules we have been studying are the lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. Carbs are composed of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Lipids are also composed of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, however phospholipids have a phosphate group and a nitrogen compound on one end. Proteins have oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. And last the nucleic acids have a sugar, nitrogenous base, and a phosphate group. I can't claim to know a whole lot more but seeing the similarities same chemicals used by the body ie the phosphate, nitrogen, co2, oxygen, ect is kind of neat. Also, been looking at the periodic table and the valence electrons, of course the fertilizers match up right with full outer shells. All the cellular stuff and chemical stuff is somewhat relevant. I am tired too so if any of this is wrong feel free to correct me.

I am trying to fix up the fish tank in the lab tomorrow they have 2 small 10 gallon tanks. One has an angel fish and one has some guppies, both completely empty aside from a cheap filter and airstone. The owner put 3 guppies in with the angel fish, the guppies died and she asked me my opinion. Not sure but I think she needs some gravel or something for bacteria to grow on, that and some hiding places. She complained of algae growth before with gravel but I'll figure it out for her lol.

Philosophos

Heh, seems like a common answer. At times I've had to resort to weird things like studies done by orthodontists on drinking water to get my answers because of all that, "time in the field."

I buy individual tests with things like that. Co2, K+ and Fe tests from most of these places can usually go right in the trash. API impresses me as putting out decent test kits for the price; they've always calibrated well for me. I can't say I'm nuts about the stoppers for their test tubes though; you may want to grab a couple of your own if you're around lab equipment much. There's that or leaving your fingers stained from leaky caps that fit around the outside of the tube.

A lot of your biochem sounds like overlapping basics in organic chemistry. It's interesting how some reactions remain the same regardless of vast changes in the system surrounding them. I really need to hit the books again to bulk up on my chemistry; it's fascinating stuff.

A substrate and/or (usually and) filter media, as well as either a very good commercial bacteria culture, seeding from another source, or 1-2 months of letting the bacteria cultures build up enough for NH4->NO2->NO3 to happen (careful with the NH4/NO2 toxicity levels). With enough plants you can ignore this issue somewhat and just pull more water changes until the plant biomass sucks up most of the NH4, the cycle kicks off, and the algae leves are kept down. It's not so easy when you don't have nutrient sponges around like in a heavily planted tank.

-Philosophos