[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Tom Barr wrote:
> I use lots of TMG as a source since it is well used and observed by such
> folks as Claus/Neil/Karen/Kasselmann etc and they know what deficiencies
> look like. I figured awhile back that it would allow me to have "some degree
> of standardization" comparing notes with other plant folks. There's not
> much "Free iron" by any means but using TMG and using a pricey Hach test
> Kit, I think the data plus the combined observations of others lends itself
> the support for this. I have a hard time telling the big guy from Tropica,
> the largest aquarium plant producer, he's nuts :) I'll take his word on it
> for now.
Fortunately it isn't a matter of telling anybody they're nuts. I don't
dispute that TMG works or that an improvement was observed when the dosage
was increased. My point was about how to translate that into a more
generally useful observation -- useful to those not using TMG as their
iron source, for instance.
> >2. The observed change is not in response to iron, but in response to
> >some trace nutrient that accompanies the iron, perhaps even as a
> If this were the case, with Hach ""water testing"" equipment that is
> designed specifically for water testing, I think basic elemental
> interferences would be accounted fer!
Hmm. I'm not sure we connected here. What I meant to say is that maybe
the additional greening that happened when the iron level was increased
came from something else added along with the iron, like manganese,
copper, zinc or molybdenum (assuming those are in TMG).
> Well, each case is different but how do we standardize things? A special kit
> for a special type of fertilizer? A different set up for Flourite or
> laterite based tanks? Different levels?
There are so many possible variations that I think a standard is of
> Perhaps a super test kit and all the testing will not make up for the
> discerning watchful eye of the aquarist?