Aquatic Plant Forum banner
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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. :frusty:](*,) 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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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. :D

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.
 
Wow. That was really, really cool.

I have gotten so used to having to do lots of research to find out the answer to something, that I am just blown away at all of the information that you just gave me. Thank you very much! :supz:

Well, it has been twenty years since I've even thought about mols and trying to do calculations using the Periodic Table of Elements, but that made sense.

So let me see if I can use your example to figure out the amount of phosphorus in phosphate.

P weighs about 31 grams per mol

How much P in PO4 = P grams/mol / PO4 grams/mol

How much P in PO4 = 31 grams/mol / (31 grams/mol + (4 * 16 grams/mol) )

How much P in PO4 = 31 / ( 31 + 64 ) = 31 / 95 = 0.326

On May 16th I measured 3 ppm PO4

3 ppm PO4 * .326 ppm P / PO4 = .978 ppm P

Comparing that to the 3.97 ppm N gives me a ratio of about 4.1:1 nitrogen to phosphorus, which falls in towards the low end of the ranges that you said are often used.

Since I haven't looked into what this ratio is typically supposed to be, I researched it a little and found lots of information (just as you said I would). One site in particular that I found most interesting was one referring to the Redfield ratio and the prevention of algae in aquariums. It has a chart and a calculator that supposedly will help you keep your aquarium algae free if you keep the nitrate to phosphate ratio correct. Then I found a thread on the TFH Magazine Forum (which coincidentally links to the same site listed above) where a very interesting discussion takes place between Tom Barr and someone named Cor. The chemistry that is discussed on these pages makes my head hurt, but that's because I'm really trying to understand. After reading all of it, I think that they are saying that the Redfield ratio should be 16:1 when comparing nitrate to phosphorus atomically (what does that mean?), 7.2:1 if we are comparing mass (is that what we just did with all of that math?), and 10:1 when comparing nitrate to phosphate.

Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what all of that means. In the end, Tom Barr basically said that the ratios really don't matter as long as nothing becomes limiting (which I think is what you were also saying). My point in doing all of this testing is to prevent the limiting, without having to do lots of water changes. I would prefer stability for both the plants and the fish.

It kind of looks to me like either my nitrates are too low or phosphates are too high when compared to these ratios. However, occasionally I have to scrape a small amount of green spot algae from the front glass, which it seems to me from all of the reading to be caused by too much nitrate. Also, when using the various charts for plant deficiencies, my Hygro. polysperma shows signs of phosphate deficiency (older leaves turn yellow, get dead patches and begin to be reabsorbed, and then fall off prematurely). I'm more confused as to which way to go now than I was before.

By the way, your post prodded me to finally update my journal. I've been meaning to do it for months, but have been procrastinating badly. I posted more pictures for all to enjoy (although technically they are from a month ago when I thought that I was going to update the journal, and then didn't, but the tank pretty much looks the same today).

Oh, and yes, this tangent was extremely interesting.

Thank you,

Andy
 
You've got it, Andy.

The ratios we've done are for mass conversions of the atomic mass of N and P. I think this use of mass is the most useful standard for our gardens: it's good that we think in ppm (mg/L), mg dosed (also true when using teaspoon conversions), and so on. Weight just works and is practical. I think this is also where things get tricky. Just now, I deleted a thought about how - by extension - we should probably measure how our plants are doing by measuring their mass. But that's silly because a) a lot of us aren't trying to grow plants as fast as possible (for more mass) and b) we could just look at our plants, and pretty plants is the whole point of gardening. And this is kind of why I don't care about ratios any more.

For example, I'm with you on Phosphorous, and my ratio to each other in my current dosing is about 2:1 N:p. That shouldn't be right, right? But I didn't get there because it helped reduce GSA (it doesn't for me), or because of a target ratio, or because of a target for P (though this took me a while to adjust to). I do it because every single time I dose KH2PO4 into one of my healthy high light/high uptake tanks during their photoperiod, my plants pearl. Every time, except after I dump for many days (I like gradual increases, too), it stops. For a while I wondered if that has anything to do with the H2, but I'm not a chemist either, and I don't get a ton of bubbles or anything in tests with water and old low light tanks. I just think plants like P that much. And I think there;s effects on our plants, too. I think colors are better with good P dosing, for example.

(I actually think of the effects of good P and good Fe dosing are similar: green plants are greener, red plants are redder.)

It departs from your way of thinking a little -- and if your tank was mine I'd let it hum for a while with what you're doing now, too -- but if you get around to it, I propose an extension of Cavan and niko's use of plants they mentioned earlier, and how you've described your tank just now. When you see the deficiencies you've described, and you think it has something to do with a certain element, just gradually increase that element for a while and don't let any number stop you. Just the plants and fish will stop you, and you should absolutely go gradually. Don't change your maintenance or water change routine or anything. And then measure the water column. I am super interested in the results and your thoughts from such an experiment.
 
Hey wet,

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Been really busy lately remodeling a bathroom and then busy with family over the holiday weekend.

Thanks again for your help with the mass conversions, as well as your experience with N versus P.

I haven't been doing a good job with my tank maintenance lately, either, but it hasn't really shown any signs of that being a problem (other than the plants have grown so much that the fish are having a hard time getting around). The last water change was on May 16th, so I can just imagine how bad the organics have built up. However, I'm going to go do a water change and plant trim here in a little while once the lights finish ramping up. The macro solution will need to be replenished in a couple of days, so based on what we have discussed, I think that I will increase the KH2PO4 a little more to see what happens. I've been such a slacker lately at water testing frequency that I'm not sure how scientific the overall results are, but I'll update with some more water column values once the tank has settled in.

Thanks again,

Andy
 
HI Andy, I am now half blind after reading 2 years worth of pages about your tank. I have just run into a major burn down on a beautiful tank that was ok for 2 years. What threw everything out of wack was the water company changed its composition and the PH dropped from 7.4 - 7.6 Rocks here in FL to 7.0 Medium to Softer Rocks. One of the things I didn't notice was your PH on your well water which looking at your KH was at 8. Some place along the paths of several different sites I learned to keep my GH at about 13 and my KH around 4-6 (I beleive when my GH went to 4 and KH 2 my tank went into ACID SHOCK) The CO-2 and my driftwood and some peat soften the water to PH 6.8 day 7.0 night KH 4-6 those ranges my CO-2 is just about the right amount. EVERTHING was coming up roses. UNTIL THE PLANTS used up ALL THE CALCIUM . Please let me know where you are at this point as you have done a lot of work. Me I'm an old snail brain at this point so you may be able to show me some new stuff. Save your money and use dry ferts you'll save a fortune. I got tired opf supporting SEACHEM and now do the same thing with Eds charts at 1/16 the price. I adjust my chems based on how the plants talk to me and EDS charts as a base. Please let me know I fell across this Calcium thing cause leaves were coming in wilted and whitish and small, all my N<P<K< were ok no one ever said CA & MG except when I looked at Eds charts. they're great. Please let me know your finals as I work my tanks back to health.

Watch out for the water in the well, never know whos been in there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Well Scrupie, I don't know what to say other than that I hope that you were able to get something out of all of that reading. I've just been experimenting and reporting, but I don't claim to actually have been doing anything worthwhile :lol: . Of course, I certainly hope that all of this turns out in the end to have been educational and useful, but we'll just have to wait and see about that.

I hate to hear that your tank has experienced some problems. I've noticed in reading other posts here on APC that changes in municipal water systems seem to be fairly common. I'm glad that I have a well with decent water, and I try to stay on top of the water parameters of the tank pretty good so if anything does happen to the well (not sure what you mean by your last statement) I hope that I would discover the problem before my tank had major issues.

I used to use the Seachem Flourish line as well, but then switched to PPS Pro, which is totally based on using dry ferts and then mixing them yourself. This entire thread is actually about me changing the recipe based on water test results and plant growth.

Now for an update on what's happened since my last post.

As previously mentioned, I performed a water change and plant trim on July 6th. On July 9th, I mixed up a new macro solution using the same ratios that I have been using since March 16th, except I increased the KH2PO4 a little more. Compared to the original recipe for PPS pro, I now am dosing 23% of the K2SO4, 23% of the KNO3, 23% of the MgSO4, and 250% of the KH2PO4.

Between July 18th and 25th I went out of town for a conference, so I had my mother-in-law feed the fish for me. However, I only gave her two small containers of food for her to feed with on two different days, so the tank didn't get the amount of food that it would normally get. The tank was fine when I returned, but I just thought that I should mention this since I would imagine that the test results could be skewed.

On July 30th I cleaned one of the canister filters and also trimmed the plants. I still had to scrape a little GSA from the glass (about the same as it has been).

Between July 31st and August 8th I was out of town on vacation. Again, I had my mother-in-law feed the fish for me the same way as before. When I returned, I found that my air conditioning system for the house wasn't working and the temperature in the house was about 90 degrees F! Unfortunately, the water temp in the tank was also 90 degrees, when it is normally around 80-82 degrees in the summer. Fortunately, other than the fish seemed to be a bit more active than normal, I couldn't tell that anything else was out of the ordinary. I topped off the tank with some cooler water, fixed the air conditioning, and after a couple of days the temp of the tank dropped back to normal.

On August 13th I mixed up some more macro solution using the same ratios that I used on July 9th. This finally used up all of the remaining macro solution that I had mixed up using the original recipe back on 7-30-09. Once this batch is gone, I think that I will start tweaking the recipe some more. I am really interested to see what I can do now since I won't have my hands tied with having to use a previously mixed solution.

On August 17th I finally performed some more water testing. Keep in mind that these results might not be very good for comparing to the others since the tank has seen some very different circumstances than normal. These should at least give me some kind of idea as to how it has been affected by these changes.

K - 20-25 ppm
Fe - .2-.3 ppm
NO3 - 26.4 ppm; N - 6 ppm
PO4 - 3 ppm; P - .978 ppm
N:p ratio - 6.1:1
KH - 8 degrees
Total Hardness/GH - 140 ppm (7.8 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 112 ppm; Ca - 44.8 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 28 ppm; Mg - 6.72 ppm
Ca:Mg ratio - 6.7:1

I'm not sure whether I can use these measurements very much in order to determine changes to the recipe because of how much differently the tank has been treated since the last water tests were done. I'm a little puzzled at the higher NO3 reading, especially since the tank had two weeks of limited feeding and a very high plant mass because of a lack of trimming. I would have thought that the NO3 would have been lower. It had been six weeks since the last water change, so that might explain it. I also find it interesting that the Mg has now started to go down. I originally dropped the amount of Mg dosed back on January 20th, but the test results really didn't show much of a change until now. I don't think that I will make any changes based on this test right now. What I find most interesting is that the PO4 didn't change, even though it had been over five weeks since the dosed amount had been increased by 25% over what it had been. I think that I will test again before I decide what to do about recipe changes.

On August 20th I cleaned the other canister filter and also trimmed the plants. Just like before, I still had to scrape a little GSA from the glass, but I think that it might have been a little less (I'm not sure though).

As far as the plants go, I have noticed over the last couple of months that the Echinodorus cordifolius is now growing larger leaves than it had been lately. Before I started using PPS pro, it was growing enormous leaves (probably 7-8" long, if my memory serves me correct), and the majority of them were breaking the water surface and ending up emersed. I didn't like this growth pattern, so when they started growing smaller after the switch to PPS pro, I was pleased. They have been growing about 3" long for quite awhile, and much slower than before PPS pro. Now the growth seems to have picked up, and the new leaves are about 5-6" long. Some of them are getting closer to the surface though, so I hope that it doesn't start trying to grow emersed ones again. The Echinodorus hormani hasn't really been affected during this entire transition. It still grows leaves very quickly and their size hasn't changed. However, I haven't had a flower stalk produced from either sword since February. I don't know if it is normal for these plants to rest for awhile between flower stalk production or not. I'm not sure when it started, but my Crinum calimastratum has really started to do well over the last few months. It hadn't really done too much since it was planted back on 11-16-08, but I had read that they don't like to be moved and that you have to wait awhile for them to get established. I just didn't realize that I'd have to wait about a year and a half! I'm not sure if the increased growth that I'm getting now is because it took that long for it to get used to it's new environment, or if it is because I've done something that it likes. I just dug up a Cryptocoryne balansae that had come up right next to it that I didn't want there, so I hope that me disturbing the roots of the Crinum won't upset it. Speaking of the Crypt. balansae; they are also doing really well now. For the longest time they just were kind of there. Now they are spreading all over the tank. I'm going to have to stay on top of them to make sure they don't take over. All of the rest of the plants seem to be doing fine, but unchanged. I just added a couple of pieces of Hygrophila corymbosa on August 22nd, and I am extremely curious to see how they do. This is one of the plants that I used to have grow like a weed before I switched to PPS pro, but once I made the switch, it slowly started growing poorly until it completely died off. I hope that I can figure out what caused that and keep it alive. The Black Brush Algae (BBA) that had really taken over before the switch to PPS pro is slowly disappearing. Between me scraping it off occasionally, adding fish that are supposed to eat it, and trying to keep the CO2 at 30 ppm continuously, I think that I will eventually get rid of it (at least I can hope, right).

Hopefully I can find the time to test again in the next couple of weeks and then determine whether I should make any more tweaks to the recipe.

Andy
 
Time for an update.

I tested the water parameters on September 18th and came up with these results:

K - 25 ppm
Fe - .2-.3 ppm
NO3 - 17.6 ppm; N - 4 ppm
PO4 - 3.3 ppm; P - 1.076 ppm
N:p ratio - 3.7:1
KH - 8 degrees
Total Hardness/GH - 128 ppm (7.2 degrees)
Calcium hardness - 88 ppm; Ca - 35.2 ppm
Magnesium hardness - 40 ppm; Mg - 9.6 ppm
Ca:Mg ratio - 3.7:1

I spent quite awhile comparing these figures with the past results in order to try and determine what changes I should make in order to get better results. Since this was the first time that I was able to make up a completely fresh batch of Macros, I knew that I could technically change every ingredient if I wanted to, but I don't like making a lot of changes at once. If you do, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to determine what change made the difference. I finally decided that I would like to increase the PO4 concentration a little more to see what happens. However, I also felt like I might ought to reduce the K some as well. Therefore, the recipe that I ended up with is 20% of the K2SO4, 23% of the KNO3, 22% of the MgSO4, and 300% of the KH2PO4, as compared to the original recipe. Some of the tweaks to the amounts were also just to make measuring out the ingredients easier.

In all reality, the tank is doing great right now, and I could have easily just left everything alone and not worried about it. However, I find it interesting, and even fun, to experiment and then see what happens. I might be just imagining things, but I think that the GSA isn't growing on the glass quite as much as it was before I bumped the KH2PO4 up to 250%, but it is still coming back after scraping. The two new pieces of Hygrophila corymbosa are growing, but have also lost some leaves. The Hygro polysperma is still doing about the same.

I mixed up enough of the macros for another month, so I'll have to see how things are going then and make a determination as to which way to go at that time.

Andy
 
Hello darkoon,

In the early stages of this thread, I was using the typical hobbyist grade test kits from Seachem and Aquarium Pharmaceuticals. However, I've switched over most of the kits to the higher quality LaMotte ones. In some cases, they have many different ones to pick from, so here are the ones that I'm using currently:

For Iron, I use the Code 7787 kit. It is an excellent kit and is very easy to read, even to very low levels. It is listed on LaMotte's website under "Aquarium & Fish Farming Individual Test Kits".

The Nitrate/Nitrite kit is Code 3519. It can be found on the page for "Water/Wastewater Individual Test Kits". Also very easy to use and interpret the readings.

There are a lot of Phosphate kits to pick from, and they are also listed on the Water/Wastewater page. I originally purchased the Code 3121 kit. It is a very good kit, but it only measures from 0 to 2 ppm. After doing some research, I figured out that the Code 3114 kit uses the exact same reagents, but comes with a comparator that gives you readings from .5 to 10 ppm. In fact, the procedures are also exactly the same. You just use a different comparator in each kit. Therefore, I bought just the Code 3115 comparator from the Code 3114 kit and use it with my Code 3121 kit anytime that I need to read a measurement that is higher than 2 ppm. In retrospect, the Code 3114 kit would have been sufficient for my needs. Both kits are just as easy to use as the Fe and NO3/NO2 kits.

The only (recommended) Potassium kit that I have found is the Code 3138 kit, which again, is listed on the Water/Wastewater page. This kit is a little trickier to use, but fortunately, the main thing that I'm checking for is just simply the presence of potassium. I'm not extremely concerned about getting the number exactly right, although I think that I've gotten pretty good at using it to where I feel comfortable with my readings. Ray-the-pilot actually mentioned earlier in this thread about how he uses this kit along with a spectrophotometer and gets results within +/- 1 ppm.

My newest kit is the Code 4824-DR-LT. This kit measures Total Hardness (GH), Calcium Hardness, and Magnesium Hardness. It is hands down the easiest kit for measuring out the reagents because they are simply little tablets, which eliminates the issue of measuring out with a little spoon. It also comes with a cool Titrator, which is like a little syringe, for measuring the amount of reagent added, that is very easy to use. It took awhile to determine the colors that the kit was looking for, but it is now easy to interpret. This kit is also one of the many Hardness kits on the Water/Wastewater page, but it is listed by itself on the Aquarium & Fish page, and it made the most sense to me for my needs.

As far as Carbonate Hardness (KH), I'm still using my Aquarium Pharmaceuticals KH Kit. It seems to work fine, but I have often wondered whether I should just bite the bullet and get one from LaMotte. I haven't done any research to determine which one that I would pick, but they have a lot available on the Water/Wastewater page.

I hope that this information has helped.

Andy
 
... As far as Carbonate Hardness (KH), I'm still using my Aquarium Pharmaceuticals KH Kit. It seems to work fine, but I have often wondered whether I should just bite the bullet and get one from LaMotte. I haven't done any research to determine which one that I would pick, but they have a lot available on the Water/Wastewater page.

I hope that this information has helped.

Andy
Hi Andy

Bite the bullet and get LaMotte's Alkalinity Test Kit Model WAT-DR Code 4491-DR. You will like this one too. It shows a green color when you first start titrating. The endpoint is a purple color and if you go past the endpoint, it turns a red color. These color changes occur over a small range rather abruptly which increases its accuracy. It measures in ppm or mg/L. The Direct Reading Titrator is graduated. It is one of the cheaper LaMotte kits too. http://www.lamotte.com/pages/common/pdf/instruct/4491-dr.pdf

Take care,
Left C
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top