[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[APD] Re: Ca/K+



>Subject: [APD] Re: Ca/K+
>> > I believe  it is a clear relation with high K and some symptoms what
>> "looks
>> > like" Ca deficiency (or Boron). If the explanation is salt estress ¿why
>it
>> > improves "adding" mor salts (Ca ions)?. I do not know if "that" is
>> produced
>> > by interference with Ca, B or whatever else but "it is"

Several years ago i bought a K test kit to help determine why one of my
tanks was not doing as well as the others. Unfortunately, i cant remember
the exact symptoms. I learned that K was 50-60ppm in the "bad" tank
(125g)and 20-25ppm in the good tanks (50-75g).  The 125g is my higher light
tank (2.5wpg) and it was getting periodic dosing of KNO3. No PO4 at that
time. All the tanks get weekly TMG, but I am sure much less than most
folks. (e.g 25ml in the 125g, 15ml in the 75 and 10ml in my 1wpg 70g).  I
have very soft tap water (Alkalinity measured as CaCO3 = 30ppm, or
~1.5GH/KH.) I try to run the 125g at 3-4KH (by supplementing with lime),
but often i get lazy and forget to replenish the Ca and Mg that the plants
are consuming.

Although i did not check for other water chemistry differences, I decided
to do larger and more frequent water changes until I got the K
concentration down into the 20-30 level. Conditions gradually improved and
the tank restablized. I am assuming that the lowering K helped, but cant
rule out the other benefits of more frequent water changes. 

Like Tom said, plants dont need really high K. Because some plants might
replace K for Ca and because the conditions of aquariums are SO variable, I
rather be safe than sorry. Unlike Tom, I think the higher K with very low
Ca can be a factor in poor plant growth. Adding Ca was another route, but I
dont like the size my Echinodorus get when the mineral content is too high.

I believe that my K levels in the 125 were allowed to increase because I
generally dont give my tanks a lot of fish food.... so the ratio of N to K
from KNO3 is low compared to the requirements of plants. Now when I use
KNO3, I also include an equal amount of CaNO3 (~1/4t each per 100g) and a
much smaller but measured amount of KH2PO4. BTW, I dont dose macros
regularly. I prefer my plants to grow more slowly. It is less work!
Neil Frank

>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:06:40 -0800 (PST)
>From: John Wheeler <jcwheel76 at yahoo_com>
>Subject: [APD] RE: K+ measurement/minimum
>To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
>Hey gang,
>
>
>Tom Barr writes: 
>> Well minimum K+ relative to _what_?
>> The ratio relative to other nutrients is a good
>> adaptation.
>
>You're the king of "ranges"-- What's the bottom end? 
>Ratios are a fine answer to my question, but you're
>micro-management argument below makes them a little
>unpractical, no?
>
>> 
>> N:P ratios for aquatic macrophytes is 10:1.
>> A 1:1 ratio of N:K+ will lead to excess since most
>> plants are 1.5N:1 K+.
>
>Thanks-- This is what I wanted to know. My tanks'
>successes and failures make a great deal more sense
>now.
>
>
>> 
>> Mr Ghori suggested a 10:1:10, NPK ratio which is a
>> nice easy simple number
>> and seems like it should be adopted vs the older
>> 20-30ppm of K and the
>> range but this can be put into a context of a range
>> also, just another way
>> of saying it.
>
>So, with such a tight tolerance, how do we avoid
>micro-management? 
>
>Lemme see if I've got this right. If you add 5ppm N,
>and 5ppm K after a water change, would you need to add
>an additional 5ppm of K when (if) you replenish N? Or,
>would K+ only be dosed once per week: 10 total ppm of
>NO3 is dosed over the week-- 10ppm of K+ would be
>dosed at the beginning?
>
>...snip!
>
>
>> I think many folks seem to feel the minmum amounts
>> of nutrients is somehow
>> going to produce less algae.
>> Nope.Good plant growth will though.
>
>"Many Folks" weren't talking about algae-- Just plant
>growth. Really just K+. But since you brought it up...
>
>
>I believe that minimum amounts of macros do produce
>less algae in the omnipresence of CO2, Fe, and trace
>elements. Good plant growth alone is not enough to
>retard algae growth.  
>
>
>> It also is a PITA to micro mange your tank so much
>> attempting to outwit
>> algae a little by dosing daily, skirting the minimum
>> ranges with nutrients.
>
>It's all micro-management-- Ranges, ratios, whatever
>you'd like to call it. "Many folks" happen to think
>that daily dosing is superior to 2-3 times a week, but
>I'd hardly call that micromanagment. Further, daily
>dosing has nothing to do with algae control-- at least
>not for me. 
>
>Boy, this thread has wandered...
>
>> It can be done well using a balanced fish load, less
>> lighting or a non CO2
>> method quite well, but these variable need to be
>> taken into consideration
>> when the aquarist wants to do a certain
>> routine/method that is right for
>> them. 
>
>That's good advice.
>
>Best wishes,
>John Wheeler
>
>
>>   
>> Regards, 
>> Tom Barr 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:10:03 +0000
>From: "Andy Lavery" <wagoneer78 at hotmail_com>
>Subject: [APD] RE: Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 5, Issue 20
>To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:35:49 -0800
>>From: Wright Huntley <whuntley at verizon_net>
>>Subject: [APD] Re: LED lighting update
>>To: Aquatic Plants Digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
>>Some folks get high on the damndest substances! :-) [BTDTBTWW!]
>LOL yes... Yes I do :) what the heck does btdtbtww mean?
>
>>OK, so our new rule of thumb is 16 LEDs per 2G or 8 LEDs/G? :^) [A 55G
>>tank could get mighty expensive!]
>
>No - I used 12 LEDs for adequate coverage with the LEDs I had - then 4 Reds 
>to compensate for the super blue light output. As soon as I get the new LEDs 
>I'll be switching to probably 4-5 1w whites, Tho I may have another array of 
>red/blue to play with to see how plant growth compares.
>
>One of my next projects will be on a 10g to work out the whole WPG issue and 
>do some comparisons. Eventually we'll figured out some efficiency numbers - 
>in theory I could go super efficient and use 670nm 625nm and 470nm LEDs - 
>putting all the light in the plants light requirements; I could focus the 
>light exactly where its needed. Then the efficiency would be WAY beyond what 
>any current technology could manage - but that's not my goal.
>
>>Nothing says you can't immerse the ends of the plastic lenses in the
>>tank water. That should give a big spread, and increase efficiency a bit
>>in the process.
>
>Actually my whole array can be dunked - its totally encased in epoxy - It's 
>landed in the fish tank a few times now with no ill effects (I haven't been 
>worried about reaching in to grab it out either). I'll test out some dry vs 
>wet comparisons with a single LED.
>
>>One question: How much total power are you using, and what percentage of
>>that is being dissipated in the resistors? The resistive heat and power
>>could probably be saved with a simple switching, current-regulated
>>supply. I have a hunch that one of the real benefits of LEDs is that the
>>efficiency could eventually be higher than incandescent and that those
>>of us with warm summers might like the "cooler" lamps. That will
>>probably never happen with resistors as ballast (voltage-to-current
>>converters), and voltage-regulated power sources.
>>
>>[Almost as silly as buying 800psi CO2 when what we need is usually less
>>than 1 psi!]
>
>I don't have a clue as to how to work out what you're asking - I'm not a 
>tech geek - just a redneck with occasionally too much time on my hands 
>(Scared yet?) :) I'm using an old computer AT power supply for a 12v feed, 
>I'm going to have to rethink resistors today - came home to a burnt out 
>board (the other shows 4.1v drop at each led - 144ma total draw from the 
>board (6 LEDs) should be well within specs - since Vmax is 4.5v and If is 
>30mA). Tony's idea of running a 3v wall wart - and running all the LEDs in 
>parallel is sounding better - maybe I'll just blow some real cash and buy a 
>LED driver.
>
>Andy
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
>http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.ms
n.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:13:57 -0500
>From: Neil Frank <aquarian_subjects at mindspring.com>
>Subject: [APD] Re:Triple PO4 and Apatite solubility
>To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
>Comments on 2 posts
>(1)>From: Paul Krombholz <krombhol at teclink_net>
>>Subject: [APD] Re:Triple PO4 and Apatite solubility
>
>>I found a solubility value for Ca(H2PO4)2---1.8 grams per 100 ml.
>
>Hmm... that is much higher than I realized. Then why  does it not seem to
>dissolve at all when placed in water.  Is there a way to determine the rate
>of solubility at different temperatures?
>
>(2)>From: "Jim Seidman" <js5 at seidman_net>> 
>commenting on A. Kumar who wrote:
>>>        After some more number crunching, I end up
>>>with a value of .02mg/L, or .02ppm phosphate....... will be constantly
>maintained (by dissolution) even as the plants uptake phosphate.
>
>Seiman replys: "Unfortunately, this isn't really true. Remember that the Ca
>and F ions
>>aren't going anywhere, at least not quickly. This will inhibit future
>>dissolution.
>>
>>As you get more and more Ca++ and F- in solution, the phosphate
>>concentrations will just go down and down. Unless those other ions are
>>being consumed too, the phosphate won't stay at a current concentration.
>>
>>So it still seems that Triple PO4 is not a good solution for fertilizing.
>
>Jim, would any of the phosphate rock dissolve at all if there was a
>moderate amount of Ca already in solution. We are talking about an aquarium
>not distilled water?
>
>The utility of slow dissolving Triple PO4 is still open in my mind. This is
>not the same chemical as phosphate rock Ca5(PO4)3F.
>Neil Frank
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:17:21 -0800 (PST)
>From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
>Subject: Re: [APD] RE: Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 5, Issue 20
>To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
>I suggest, first work out adequate lighting then count the
>watts involved.  The wpg rule of thumb only evolved as an
>aproximation of wht folks were using successfully to grow
>plants.
>
>Coat the leads with insulating material and you can dunk
>the whole thing in water :-)
>
>Scott H.
>--- Andy Lavery <wagoneer78 at hotmail_com> wrote:
>> 
>> >OK, so our new rule of thumb is 16 LEDs per 2G or 8
>> LEDs/G? :^) [A 55G
>> >tank could get mighty expensive!]
>> 
>> No - I used 12 LEDs for adequate coverage with the LEDs I
>> had - then 4 Reds 
>> to compensate for the super blue light output. As soon as
>> I get the new LEDs 
>> I'll be switching to probably 4-5 1w whites, Tho I may
>> have another array of 
>> red/blue to play with to see how plant growth compares.
>> 
>> One of my next projects will be on a 10g to work out the
>> whole WPG issue and 
>> do some comparisons. Eventually we'll figured out some
>> efficiency numbers - 
>> in theory I could go super efficient and use 670nm 625nm
>> and 470nm LEDs - 
>> putting all the light in the plants light requirements; I
>> could focus the 
>> light exactly where its needed. Then the efficiency would
>> be WAY beyond what 
>> any current technology could manage - but that's not my
>> goal.
>> 
>> >Nothing says you can't immerse the ends of the plastic
>> lenses in the
>> >tank water. That should give a big spread, and increase
>> efficiency a bit
>> >in the process.
>> 
>> Actually my whole array can be dunked - its totally
>> encased in epoxy - It's 
>> landed in the fish tank a few times now with no ill
>> effects (I haven't been 
>> worried about reaching in to grab it out either). I'll
>> test out some dry vs 
>> wet comparisons with a single LED.
>> 
>
>
>=====
>S. Hieber
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:44:41 -0800
>From: Ed Dumas <eldumas at telus_net>
>Subject: [APD] RE: Ca/K+
>To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
>At the risk of sounding like a chemical moron, I am going to wade into 
>this discussion, if only to give some of my very recent observations on 
>just this topic. Some of you may remember that I was looking for a way 
>to add additional calcium to my tank, as I was finding that the shells 
>on my Red Ramshorn Snails were growing thin and often whitish. I believe 
>this was a sympton of not enough calcium.
>
>I was using calcium nitrate to try to add calcium, but was finding that 
>it was pushing the nitrates up higher than I wanted/needed. I was using 
>Potassium Carbonate to increase the carbonate hardness (and also the K 
>level), and Magnesium Sulphate & Calcium Chloride to raise the general 
>hardness level.
>
>Rex Grigg suggested I try some Calcium Carbonate to raise the calcium 
>level, and reduce the Potassium Carbonate equivalently so as to not 
>raise the kH too much. I found a cheap supply, tried it, and the results 
>have been AWESOME (Thanks Rex!).
>
>The new growth on the snails shells is Red/Brown as it should be, and 
>the snails are populating the tank very nicely now. I had some algae 
>before, but this is rapidly disappearing now. I would hesitate to say, 
>though, that it is due to more/less K or Ca, but rather the fact that my 
>algae-eating force is much happier! My plants, though, do seem to be 
>growing nicer than ever before, and they have even begun pearling again, 
>and that could also be due to the fact that they are not competing with 
>algae anymore.
>
>One final observation about chemistry. Someone a while back mentioned 
>that Shrimps did not seem to fair well when Calcium Chloride was used. 
>My observations would have to agree with that. I have never been able to 
>keep shrimp in my tank happy and healthy, and I have used Calcium 
>Chloride for a calcium source. I intend to remove the calcium chloride, 
>go with Calcium Carbonate, and then re-introduce some shrimps to see if 
>this works better. I expect it will.
>
>So the conclusion? I am not sure if there is a level of toxicity with 
>Potassium, but a minimum level of calcium seems to be important, 
>especially if you have snails, etc.
>
>Ed Dumas
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:04:55 -0500
>From: "Thomas Barr" <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
>Subject: [APD] RE: Ranges/ratios
>To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
>>> N:P ratios for aquatic macrophytes is 10:1.
>>> A 1:1 ratio of N:K+ will lead to excess since most
>>> plants are 1.5N:1 K+.
>
>>Thanks-- This is what I wanted to know. My tanks'
>>successes and failures make a great deal more sense
>>now.
>
>Don't bet on it:)
>I still scratch my head. 
>
>I think Ghori's approach using the ratios will allow for the ranges to be
>extended out further perhaps.
>At least that is my hope. It also might click in folk's heads easier
>hearing it a couple of different ways. 
>I think is some ways, it simplies things more and will modify the dosing
>routines to better match the plant's elemental make up.
>Luxury uptake can fool you with this though. 
>
>>So, with such a tight tolerance, how do we avoid
>>micro-management? 
>
>Well, I'm thinking of a decent KNO3 and KH2PO4 macro mix all in one.
>The traces dosed separately.
>
>I'll post another thread about this a bit later.
>
>Now we are down to dosing 2 things besides CO2 which is easy.
>With less light, 1.5 -2w'gal, you only would need to dose 2x a week, 2
>things at most.
>1.5 w/gal likely once a week depending on species.
>Heck, add 2 things, CO2, 50% weekly water change and then that's it?
>Yep.
>
>That's less management than before.
>That's also easier to explain and do.  
>That's also more likely to give you/a newbie a higher success rate.
>
>>Lemme see if I've got this right. If you add 5ppm N,
>>and 5ppm K after a water change, would you need to add
>>an additional 5ppm of K when (if) you replenish N?
>
>If you added 5ppm of N with KNO3, you would add an excess of K of about 4x
>more than the plant would use.  
>Using KNO3, the K+ will always be ahead of the N.
>
>> Or,
>>would K+ only be dosed once per week: 10 total ppm of
>>NO3 is dosed over the week-- 10ppm of K+ would be
>>dosed at the beginning?
>
>No, you don't _need any_ K+ separately dosed via K2SO4, KCl etc. All you
>need is su[pplied except in RARE CASES with high fish loads, high tap water
>NO3 levels, very low light, slow growth tanks etc. 
>Using KNO3 to dose the N, you'll never run out of K relative to N, you will
>always be N limited in the tank using KNO3.
>
>>"Many Folks" weren't talking about algae-- Just plant
>>growth. Really just K+. But since you brought it up...
>
>Well how is the bare minmum a good routine for plants then?
>If you run out for 3 days or more things can often go sour. 
>Having a little extra allows you to go a few days in between.
>If you combine that with lower light, weekly dosing is all that's needed.
>Higher lioghting will need more frequent dosing.  
>
>>I believe that minimum amounts of macros do produce
>>less algae in the omnipresence of CO2, Fe, and trace
>>elements. Good plant growth alone is not enough to
>>retard algae growth.  
>
>Well, it will retard __new__ growth of algae, but not what's there already.
>At some pouint you have to export what you add in the form of pruning,
>algae removal, water change.
>No way around that. 
>
>Why does high PO4 not cause algae?
>Why does high K+ not cause algae?
>Why does higher NO3 not cause algae? I went to 75ppm with NO3. I did not
>get an algae response over 3 weeks.
>No fish were present in this tank, 4 w/gal, CO2, inert substrate(RFUG). 
>I will say NO3 is the most problematic and will likely destablize a tank if
>you keep it up or if the bulk of the N nutrients comes from fish watse(NH4)
>etc.  
>Later, I'd like to revist this nutrient range and see what issues are
>involved with higher NO3 levels besides coloration of Red plants. 
>
>>It's all micro-management-- Ranges, ratios, whatever
>>you'd like to call it. "Many folks" happen to think
>>that daily dosing is superior to 2-3 times a week, but
>>I'd hardly call that micromanagment.
>
>I don't stay at home every day. Folks go away for the weekend etc.
>
>If you are trying to keep things at minmum, you have less leeway when it
>comes to errors, that is micromanagement and a PITA, you get burnt
>eventually, unless you want to invest in a dosing pump etc and even then.   
>
>It's very much like having a lot of light, it's fine if you keep up on
>things but if you don't, things crash harder.
>That's the point. That's too rigid. 
>
> Further, daily
>>dosing has nothing to do with algae control-- at least
>>not for me. 
>
>I certainly agree with you there.
>
>>Boy, this thread has wandered...
>
>I certainly agree with you there.
>
>>Best wishes,
>>John Wheeler
>
>Regards, 
>Tom Barr
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants
>
>
>End of Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 5, Issue 23
>*********************************************
>

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants