Andy Ritter

New update time. Last night I did some more water testing and mixed up a new batch of Macro ferts.

The new reagents arrived for my LaMotte phosphate kit, and the water tested as having 3 ppm PO4 as "Orthophosphate". I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I need to look into it. It's too late and I'm too tired to do any more research tonight. I hope that it is the same thing that my Seachem kit was testing for. If so, I think that my levels are okay.

The nitrate is back up to 15 ppm, the potassium is still at around 30-35 ppm, and the iron is still at .2 ppm.

I noticed a little bit more BGA about three days after the last post, but haven't seen any since. I think that the increase in NO3 did the trick.

I looked into the subject of keeping ratios between certain elements correct and found that I was close, but that they are actually K, Na, Mg, and Ca. I located this, but then spent 3-4 more hours trying to find more information to back it up and further explain it, to no avail. I will see what else I can find later.

Since I am concerned about my Ca:Mg ratio, I decided when mixing up my new Macros to drop the MgSO4 to only 25% of the normal recipe in addition to having the KNO3 at only 25%. Since the nitrates and phosphates appear okay, my Macro mix now consists of K2SO4 at normal recipe amount, KNO3 at 25% of normal recipe amount, KH2PO4 at 200% of normal amount, and MGSO4 at 25% of normal amount.

Next I'll do a water change, wait a couple of weeks, and then check the Ca and Mg amounts again in addition to the other tests.

Andy

Andy Ritter

Did some more water testing last night. A water change was done on the tank on 1-24-10 of about 40-50% (using water straight out of the well).

NO3 - 18 ppm, K - 20 ppm, Fe - .15 ppm, PO4 - 2.5 ppm, Total hardness - 132 ppm (7.4 degrees), Calcium hardness - 80 ppm, Magnesium hardness - 52 ppm

I did some research and have determined that apparently "orthophosphate" is a fancy term for what most people refer to as simply phosphate, so hopefully both the Seachem kit and the LaMotte kit are testing for the same thing. I read about it here.

I mixed up a new batch of Macros using a little less nitrate and Epsom salt this time since the NO3 had risen since the last tests. I set the KNO3 and MgSO4 to 20% of normal, and left the rest the same as before (KH2PO4 200%, K2SO4 normal).

Andy

Andy Ritter

I'm overdue for an update (sorry, things have gotten really busy at work).

On February 21st I did some more water testing:
NO3 - 16 ppm
K - 40 ppm
Fe - .2 ppm
PO4 - 2 ppm
KH - 8 degrees
Total hardness - 152 ppm (8.5 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 80 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 72 ppm


On March 1st I did a waterchange (approximately 50%). I also inserted 10 Flourish tabs into the Flourite all around the tank. Filled the tank with water straight out of the well.

On March 3rd I mixed up some new Macro mix. I had a really difficult time determining which way I wanted to go this time. My first thought was since the Mg keeps going up, that maybe I should eliminate it altogether from the mix. However, I then read the "Method of controlled imbalances and gda..." thread by Christian rubilar, and he says that the 4:1 Ca to Mg ratio was derived from terrestrial plant studies, and that in his opinion the ratio should actually be reversed (1:4 Ca to Mg). He says that you'll end up with GDA (Green Dust Algae) if you aim for 4:1 and have too much PO4 in the water. I'm not having an algae problem currently (knock on wood), other than the rather persistent BBA, but at least it has gotten to the point of just holding steady. Therefore, I decided that since I don't really want to try and raise the Mg up as high as what he says, maybe I should just leave it alone for now.

Christian also has some suggestions about potassium, but they are difficult for me to understand. He specifically says that he doesn't recommend using "potassium sulfate (KHSO4)" (although I looked it up and found that KHSO4 should be referred to as Potassium hydrogen sulfate or Potassium bisulfate, so I'm not sure if he goofed up the name or the molecular formula). He says that "NO3 will be uptaken and as soon as you reach zero you will have algae issues", "it is better to do not add sulfur when we can avoid it", and something about Hygrophila polysperma and potassium which makes no sense. I guess that I should ask him what he meant about all of that, but the point is, I used his thread to make my decision about what to do next with my macro mix.

One of the main reasons that I am playing with the recipe at all is because my Hygro species are suffering. Before I started PPS pro, I grew Hygro polysperma and corymbosa so well they were almost annoying I was having to trim so much. Now the corymbosa only has a few stunted and twisted leaves, which according to the deficiency chart could be calcium deficiency or it could be potassium or magnesium overdose. I can't find any more of the regular polysperma. I still have the polysperma "sunset" that I added back in December, but it has been doing poorly. The stems get very brittle and will snap in two with just the slightest amount of handling. Plus, it keeps losing the lowest leaves on the stems. The chart leads me to think that it is phosphate deficiency, but I can't imagine how that could be with as much as I'm adding and with the levels that I'm testing.

So, since I only wanted to change one thing at a time in order to be able to tell what the problem might be, I decided to drop the potassium levels down and see what happens. My new macro mix ended up having 20% of the K2SO4, 20% of the KNO3, 20% of the MgSO4, and 200% of the KH2PO4, as compared to the original recipe. In case you're wondering why and how I came up with these ratios, it's because I'm trying to use up the remaining amount of macro mix that I have had since before I started experimenting. I've just been mixing up new batches without some of the ingredients and then mixing the two solutions together, and then adding more KH2PO4.

By the way, I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has had a hard time using PPS pro with the regular recipes. If anyone else has something that they would like to add, then please do.

Andy

plamski

I have problems too. There are no more red in plants. I tried to add seachem iron in 200% to 400% to requirements but it rice Iron from 0.1 to 0.3.in my tank.
Christian Rubilar doesn’t like to mix KH2PO4 and Iron in one day because they react together and plants can't use them.
I did tried different micro and macro % rate but result is always BBA or BGA especially when I go more than 20-30% of original PPS-PRO dosing.
I mention that after pruning I have to lower macros and micros by 30-40% in order to be algae clean.
I upgrade my WPG from 2.5 to 4WPG in order to stop high light plants from melting. Now I have 5 xT8 1x8000k,2x6700K,1x14000K,1x6500.
Morning 1h 3 tubes,2h 5 tubes, 1h 3 tubes. Evening 1.5h 3 tubes,3h 5 tubes,1h 3 tubes.
I’m mixing my ferts 10 times less stronger and now I’m adding 1ml per gal. Ferts solution stay clear for at least 10 days under aquarium.
Probably is good idea to have picture attached in order to compare how busy are our tanks, what plants we have, to compare how are doing different plants with different % ferts ratios. To post our light WPG,K rating and how long is our photo period. Probably there are people who like to hide their “sicrets” but in general we have to work together in order to solve the problems and to have more fun with our hobby.

Andy Ritter

Hey plamski,

That's interesting that your plants no longer are growing red. I haven't really noticed that with my tank. However, I also don't really have many plants that grow red anyway. I have an Echinodorus hormani that is really red, and I think that it is just as red now as it was before I started using PPS pro (and then started modifying the recipe). I'm not really sure what to tell you about what to do. I have read so many different opinions about what it takes to get good reds (plenty of iron, high light, just good overall health, etc.), that I'm not really sure what to believe. Good luck getting them to do better.

I know that a lot of people say you shouldn't dose iron and phosphate on the same day because iron phosphate will precipitate from solution, but I don't worry about that with my tank. I am dosing continuously 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but it goes in so slowly that I would be willing to bet that I am not having any precipitate problems at all. The macros are going in at .6 ml per hour, and the micros at .1 ml per hour, and on top of that they are dripping in at opposite ends of the tank. It would be different if you were pouring in the doses for a whole day (or multiple days) all at the same time.

I am having issues with some Black Brush Algae, but it seems to be getting better (I am refusing to use Excel or Hydrogen Peroxide unless I absolutely have to for fear of killing any of my fish, even though many others have used them before without any problems). Besides, I was having issues with the BBA before I started with PPS pro and feel that it was caused mostly from the way that I had been fertilizing before I switched. However, the only times I have had issues with Blue Green Algae (cyanobacteria) is when the nitrate level went low from dropping the dose down too much. All I had to do to get rid of it was increase the amount of KNO3 dosed and the problem was solved. I hope that you are able to get them under control.

Comparing pictures sounds like a good idea. The best way to check out my tank would be to check out my journal (see the link in my signature). In it I also have detailed explanations of my system including lights, filters, etc. I also recently answered a survey posted by Neil Frank (nfrank) that lists much of this information that you can check out here. I definitely don't feel that what I'm doing is something that I should be secretive about, or I wouldn't be posting all of this information for the whole world to see. I agree that together, all of us should be able to enjoy our planted aquariums more. Without APC, I wouldn't be enjoying mine as much as I am, because it is definitely doing the best now that it ever has.

On March 15th, I tested the water parameters again.

NO3 - 12 ppm
K - 35-40 ppm
Fe - .15 ppm
PO4 - 2.5 ppm
KH - 7 degrees
Total hardness - 132 ppm (7.4 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 84 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 48 ppm

Based on these test results, I changed the ratios of my macro mix on March 16th to 23% of the K2SO4, 23% of the KNO3, 23% of the MgSO4, and 200% of the KH2PO4, as compared to the original recipe. The reason for the slight increase was to try and keep the NO3 from dropping too much and allowing for BGA to return.

Andy

Andy Ritter

Update time.

On 4-5-10 I tested the water again:

NO3 - 8 ppm
K - 35 ppm
Fe - .15 ppm
PO4 - 3 ppm
KH - 8 degrees
Total hardness - 156 ppm (8.7 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 92 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 64 ppm

I also decided to check on the accuracy of my Seachem Nitrate test kit again. Using the included reference solution, I confirmed that the kit is indeed indicating correctly...sort of. I've had more than one of these kits over the years, and I tend to hang on to stuff that I think that I might be able to use again. When I bought my current kit back in November of 2008, I labeled the color chart as being the new one, but also kept the color chart from an older version that I had used in the late nineties. I didn't pay that much attention to whether they were exactly the same colors or not. I just figured that in case I messed one of them up, I would have a back-up. However, I stuck both of them in the box, and am not positive as to which one I have been using for these tests (could have been using one or the other all along). The point is, when I checked to see if the kit was measuring the reference solution accurately, I discovered that using the newer color chart that came with the kit, that it didn't match up correctly. However, the older chart did match. I didn't realize that they weren't identical until this time. That being said, using the older chart the NO3 tested to be 8 ppm, but using the newer chart it showed as 15 ppm. Since I have no idea whether I have been using the older or newer charts all this time, I am very frustrated that my data could be skewed. Therefore, I went ahead and bit the bullet and ordered a reagent refill for my LaMotte Nitrate test kit. I'm tired of messing around with these cheap hobbyist grade kits and feel that if I'm going to go to all of the trouble to test the water, I want to actually get a result that I can trust (imagine that?).

Since I'm unsure as to the exact NO3 amount, I decided to leave the fertilization percentages the same for now.

Andy

Andy Ritter

Well, I'm way overdue for an update now.

I haven't really done anything over the last couple of months to change things as far as fertilization. In fact, I've been dosing at the exact same ratios since March 16th. All I've really done is trim the plants and add some more fish. However, the tank seems to be doing really well and I don't have any complaints right now.

When I updated last time I mentioned that I was aggravated with my Seachem Nitrate test kit and that I had ordered a refill for my LaMotte one. It arrived and on April 16th I used it and the Seachem one for comparisson.

The Seachem kit gave a result of 14 ppm using the older color chart, but a result of 17 ppm when using the newer color chart.

The LaMotte kit gave a result of 17.6 ppm. I guess that the best thing for me to do would be to mix up a reference solution to check the accuracy of the kit, but since I have been very busy lately, I haven't found the time. I'm just putting my faith in LaMotte that the result is at least close.

On May 16th I tested the water again:

NO3 - 17.6 ppm
K - 30 ppm
Fe - .2 ppm
PO4 - 3.0 ppm
KH - 8 degrees
Total hardness - 152 ppm (8.5 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 108 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 44 ppm

Also, regarding the calcium and magnesium hardness, I happened to read the instructions a little more thoroughly, and noticed that LaMotte gives conversions for changing the units to other forms. With me not being a chemist, I hadn't really thought too much about what all of that meant, but decided to do some research to figure out which unit I should be concerned about. For instance, when checking for calcium hardness, the instructions say to record as "ppm Calcium Hardness as (CaCO3)". For magnesium hardness, the instructions simply said to subtract the calcium hardness from the total hardness and record as "ppm Magnesium Hardness as CaCO3". Well, these have been the numbers that I've been giving since January 3rd. However, according to the research that I've done, it appears that for the ratio of calcium to magnesium, I'm actually supposed to be looking at the actual ppm of the elements themselves. The instructions say to convert calcium carbonate to calcium that I should multiply by .4 and then record as ppm calcium, and to convert magnesium hardness to magnesium, to multiply by .24 and record as ppm magnesium. Therefore, I went back and did the math and came up with these new numbers:

1-3-10: Calcium hardness - 88 ppm as CaCO3 - 35.2 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 72 ppm as CaCO3 - 17.28 ppm Mg; ratio of 2:1

2-2-10: Calcium hardness - 80 ppm as CaCO3 - 32 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 52 ppm as CaCO3 - 12.48 ppm Mg; ratio of 2.6:1

2-21-10: Calcium hardness - 80 ppm as CaCO3 - 32 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 72 ppm as CaCO3 - 17.28 ppm Mg; ratio of 1.9:1

3-15-10: Calcium hardness - 84 ppm as CaCO3 - 33.6 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 48 ppm as CaCO3 - 11.52 ppm Mg; ratio of 2.9:1

4-5-10: Calcium hardness - 92 ppm as CaCO3 - 36.8 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 64 ppm as CaCO3 - 15.36 ppm Mg; ratio of 2.4:1

5-16-10: Calcium hardness - 108 ppm as CaCO3 - 43.2 ppm Ca; Magnesium hardness - 44 ppm as CaCO3 - 10.56 ppm Mg; ratio of 4.1:1

I've been too busy lately to interpret what all of this means, but I find it interesting that I initially dropped the MgSO4 down to only 25% of the recommended amount back on January 20th, and it has taken quite awhile for the levels to drop. I've played around with the ratios a few times since then, and have done monthly waterchanges, but it is still interesting to me that it really has taken awhile to see a difference.

The tank is due for a waterchange now, so I'll wait a few weeks before I test again.

Andy

wet

I agree with what's been said: You are an expert, Andy. Excellent thread and documentation. Proof that getting your hands wet is the best way to learn.

As you isolate Ca and Mg from CaCO3 and GH, also think about N as N -- not NO3 -- and P as P -- not PO4. I think you'll find some interesting trends in your past dosing while you remember common guidelines for ratios between those elements. However, I type this with the hope of imparting my philosophy that ratios do not matter, and while perhaps we can see trends at certain ranges (your 4:1 Ca and Mg ratio, for example), that's not necessarily important. I don't think plants think in terms of GH but whether they have too little or (arguably) too much of the micronutrients Ca and Mg. A ratio is only useful in terms of convenience for the source of nutrients, whether that be mineralizing or making some mix of soil or our water column dosing. And I'm wondering what you think about that philosophy.

For what it's worth, I think your most recent posted numbers after adjusting Mg suggest you were dosing the correct amount of Mg before -- correct being matching plant uptake to Perpetually Preserve the target -- and if you would like to drop that number because you prefer some ratio or target, best may be to eliminate Mg entirely, let the level drop to your target, then resume with your old dosing to maintain that target. If you continued at your reduced dosing, I think Mg will progressively lower then need adjustment anyway. I do appreciate the concept of gradual decrease and understand if you've taken this all into account, of course.

Andy Ritter

Hello wet,

First of all, thank you very much for the very kind words. I definitely don't feel like an expert, but I do appreciate you saying so. In fact, I would imagine that there are a lot of others out there that think that I'm a fool to do all of this water testing and experimenting (that's actually sort of been said already). I feel that I'm just an average hobbyist playing around with ferts, test kits, and plants, watching what happens, and then documenting it all for everyone to see, hopefully to either help someone else, or so someone that's a lot smarter than me can point out what I'm not seeing.

Secondly, I wouldn't know where to begin on how to calculate the actual amount of nitrogen versus nitrate, and phosphorus versus phosphate. Plus, I don't know what the common guidelines for ratios are between these elements. I've just been targeting different ppms for each and then waiting to see what happens. I have found that many different people have considerably different opinions on what these levels should be, so I have just played around with it to try and get the plants in my tank to do well. For the most part I'm pleased with the results, but I'm still not happy with the growth of Hygrophila polysperma. After all of my research, it seemed to me that I had plenty of each of the various elements, so I couldn't understand why that plant wouldn't do well. That's when I started thinking that maybe the ratios might be off, possibly causing an overabundance of one element to keep the plants from properly consuming another element. One of these days I'll figure it out, or I'll give up and just be happy that my other plants seem to be doing good.

I'm not really sure what to think about my recent numbers. The levels seem to bounce around too much for me to come to any kind of conclusion. I understand what you mean about how I might possibly cause the Mg to go too low if I continue to dose at the current rate. I'll try to stay on top of the situation both by testing and observing the plants and alter the recipe again if that is indeed the case.

Thanks again for your input,

Andy

wet

Heh. Well, people will always complain and call other people names in this hobby. But -- and this is between you and me, Andy -- when I read such posts I can't help but notice those folks hardly if ever post pictures of their plants. And, well, I kind of wish there was an ignore button on APC for fools with no pics who waste space dissing proven gardeners.

I think the majority of us gardeners have an open mind, the calmness that comes from maintaining a planted aquarium, and the curiosity to figure out why things work as they work. Those are the folks whose posts and teaching I value most in this hobby. And it's always rewarding to see an analytically minded gardener such as yourself take a requirement (in your case, stability in the water column while, from your pics, growing a diverse group of plants that may not be suited for El Natural) and turn it into a great tank. It's why we hang out here.

Anyway, the process of isolating phosphorous from phosphate or nitrogen from nitrate is exactly the same as you've done to isolate calcium from calcium carbonate. Let's do NO3 together and, if you'd like to or find this interesting, you can do PO4 and we can help with any gotchas or look over your math.

So, we want to figure out how much of NO3 is N.
We know that NO3 has one N part and three O parts.
Per the Periodic Table, we know each N part weighs about 14grams (per mol -- for our purposes these units will cancel out anyway) and each O part weighs 16grams.

How much N in NO3 = N grams/mol / NO3 grams/mol

How much N in NO3 = 14 grams/mol / (14 grams/mol + (3 * 16 grams/mol) )
* that's N at 14 grams and 3 O's at 16 grams.

How much N in NO3 = 14 / ( 14 + 48 ) = 14 / 62 = 0.2258

Next, we'll apply this to your most recent readings.
On May 16th you measured 17.6ppm NO3. The amount of N will be:
17.6ppm NO3 * 0.2258 N / NO3 = 3.97ppm N

Make sense?

So why is this important? Well, as you know I don't think it really is, but in your past research you've likely run across the idea of N and P ratios, just as you have Ca and Mg ratios. We'll see anywhere from 10:1 to 3:1 N:P, and those numbers are backed up by many a (terrestrial) plant study. But, many hobbyists will apply those ratios as NO3 and PO4 and, well, as you've already found, that can lead to some WTF or weirdness. If you do find trends between N and P with your past dosing, I think it will help you think in terms of limitation (as you've already throught about) and help with understanding why your current input ensures neither is limiting. I think the extra bonus of something like your automated PPS-Pro dosing is that by subtracting your test results from your known input you can also isolate plant uptake instead of caring what's in the water; therefore, with enough data and your maintaining plant mass/uptake, you could ideally run your tank at whatever targets you choose to Perpetually Preserve.

(Though that's not important in most cases. Perhaps interesting to you as well, though, and the type of thing I personally love looking at when checking out other folks's numbers while appreciating their tanks.)

I hope this tangent was at least a little interesting.