• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Alternative to CSM+B

edd98

New Member
Joined
22 Oct 2021
Messages
2
Location
Mexico
Hello!

I want to buy some dry trace elements but I can't find CSM+B here in Mexico. Searching I found three alternatives:


A.

Fe EDTA 7.5%
Mn EDTA 3.7%
B 0.4%
Zn EDTA 0.6%
Cu EDTA 0.3%
Mo 0.2%

B.

Fe EDTA 7.5%
Mn EDTA 4%
B 0.5%
Zn EDTA 0.5%
Cu EDTA 0.3%
Mo 0.2%

C.

Fe EDTA 6.25%
Mn EDTA 2%
B 0.4%
Zn EDTA 2%
Cu EDTA 0.15%
Mo 0.05%

What option should I buy?
Thanks for your help.
 
Hello!

I want to buy some dry trace elements but I can't find CSM+B here in Mexico. Searching I found three alternatives:


A.

Fe EDTA 7.5%
Mn EDTA 3.7%
B 0.4%
Zn EDTA 0.6%
Cu EDTA 0.3%
Mo 0.2%

B.

Fe EDTA 7.5%
Mn EDTA 4%
B 0.5%
Zn EDTA 0.5%
Cu EDTA 0.3%
Mo 0.2%

C.

Fe EDTA 6.25%
Mn EDTA 2%
B 0.4%
Zn EDTA 2%
Cu EDTA 0.15%
Mo 0.05%

What option should I buy?
Thanks for your help.

Probably option B because it got the most of everything overall, primarily the Fe,Mn,Mo,B bits, and you don't need as much Zinc as option C provides (If thats not a typo...). I believe you can get Nilocg Plantex CMS+B in Mexico? If so, I recommend using that.

Welcome to UKAPS! :)

Cheers,
Michael
 
I want to buy some dry trace elements but I can't find CSM+B here in Mexico. Searching I found three alternatives:
Hello,
Actually it does not really matter which of those options you use. There is no rule stating that ONLY CSM+B or that ONLY products having the same relative content of micronutrients as CSM+B should be used.
When EI was being developed CSM+B was the cheapest and most available micronutrient brand. It was a favorite of a lot of hydroponic plant growers at the time, so it was easy to find. Therefore, use any micronutrient brand with whatever relative content you can find that is both readily available and that is hopefully, cheap. Plants will never know the difference between brand A, B, or C. So buy the cheapest of the three because cheapness is as important, in the philosophy of EI, as any of it's other attributes (perhaps even the most important.)

Cheers,
 
Plants will never know the difference between brand A, B, or C
Hi @ceg4048 While that is true - I assume, as you know a gazillion times more about this than most, I would still go with the one that provides the most of everything per gram... I mean, why not? Price weren't part of the question, and traces are usually not that expensive anyway ( the $12 worth of Plantex CMS+B I recently bought will last for 2-3 years with my two 40G tanks). As a matter of curiosity I don't understand why these trace mixes are made the way they are. I understand that certain traces such as Cu are easily toxic to invertebrates in relatively small doses, but otherwise, why is Mn, Zn (and Mo I assume) always in such tiny amounts, if these compounds are just as important as Iron, as recently pointed out elsewhere ?

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
I’d pick option C because it has more Manganese and Zinc in relation to the Iron, also the Copper and Molybdenum levels are lower (safer for inverts if that is a consideration), Boron content is pretty much the same for all.

The reasoning for more Zinc is not that the plant actually requires that much but that it easily reacts almost as readily as Iron and becomes plant unavailable given the right circumstances, the fact that the above mixes are EDTA chelated helps substantially.

:)
 
I’d pick option C because it has more Manganese and Zinc in relation to the Iron, also the Copper and Molybdenum levels are lower (safer for inverts if that is a consideration), Boron content is pretty much the same for all.

The reasoning for more Zinc is not that the plant actually requires that much but that it easily reacts almost as readily as Iron and becomes plant unavailable given the right circumstances, the fact that the above mixes are EDTA chelated helps substantially.

:)
Hi @X3NiTH I suppose you might have meant option B as Manganese (Mn) content relative to Iron in option B (4/7.5 = 0.53)
is higher than option C (2/6.25 = 0.32) or option A (3.7/7.5 = 0.49).. I suspect the Zn contents of option C might be a typo... but I dont know, but still, yes, why not go with the one with the most of everything, as said.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Hi @ceg4048 While that is true - I assume, as you know a gazillion times more about this than most, I would still go with the one that provides the most of everything per gram... I mean, why not? Price weren't part of the question, and traces are usually not that expensive anyway ( the $12 worth of Plantex CMS+B I recently bought will last for 2-3 years with my two 40G tanks). As a matter of curiosity I don't understand why these trace mixes are made the way they are. I understand that certain traces such as Cu are easily toxic to invertebrates in relatively small doses, but otherwise, why is Mn, Zn (and Mo I assume) always in such tiny amounts, if these compounds are just as important as Iron, as recently pointed out elsewhere ?

Cheers,
Michael
Hi Michael,
Yes it's easy to pick the one that has more of everything unless that one is more expensive. Of all the powders, trace mix is usually the most expensive by far, perhaps not where you live, but around the world it can be expensive. What if your tank is 200 gallons instead of 40 gallons?
In any case, the difference between 2% by weight of, say Zinc, versus 4% is miniscule and, as I'm always having to point out, plants do not really need much of any of the micronutrients at all and that is why they are called MICRO-nutrients. They just have to be non-zero because they are always accumulating in the plants.

If the difference in price is significant in a certain country then they can always buy the cheapest and they can always just add more to the tank if it is necessary. which, it should never be necessary. Of all the micronutrients, Fe is used by the plant in much greater quantity. Yes, the other elements are just as important, but they are not used in the same quantity as Fe.

Again, this is my attempt to dissuade hobbyists from becoming addicted to numbers, like "30ppm" or "pH stability" and all the rubbish that The Matrix has programmed them to believe as Holy Grails. EI provides unlimited levels of nutrients, so you will not see any growth or health performance gains just because your trace mix has slightly higher amounts of this or of that. There is no need for any hand wringing over numbers in a product that won't make any difference at all. The idea is that the dosing program should be easy, cheap and effective. When questions relate to micronutrient deficiencies I'm opposed to giving folks instructions to use more of one micronutrient versus another. I believe this is the wrong path. A micronutrient mix should contain the basic ingredients and once the product is in hand you can always simply add more of everything. There is never a need to spend money buying a special Zinc or special Manganese product. These metals should all be in the same mix and it's therefore easy to add more of the mix.

Cheers,
 
Yes it's easy to pick the one that has more of everything unless that one is more expensive. Of all the powders, trace mix is usually the most expensive by far, perhaps not where you live, but around the world it can be expensive. What if your tank is 200 gallons instead of 40 gallons?
Thats true - for a 200Gl tank vs. 40Gl then the $12 bag of Plantex would only last 10-14 months :) ... but anyway, you are right! I think some of these products are (still) quite a bit cheaper here in the US and also not everyone have the time and will to do the dry dosing, mixing etc. which makes traces exponentially more expensive with the water based mixtures, as your mostly paying for water - took me quite a while to get there myself.

Again, this is my attempt to dissuade hobbyists from becoming addicted to numbers, like "30ppm" or "pH stability" and all the rubbish that The Matrix has programmed them to believe as Holy Grails.
Totally get it. And I agree with your broader educational approach here. Some of these discussion (as my posts above...) just get sidetracked on stuff that hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. However, that said, I always feel there is something to be learned from these discussions if I can get you experts to talk about the finer points.

EI provides unlimited levels of nutrients, so you will not see any growth or health performance gains just because you trace mix has slightly higher amounts of this or of that. There is no need for any hand wringing over numbers in a product that won't make any difference at all. The idea is that the dosing program should be easy, cheap and effective. When questions relate to micronutrient deficiencies I'm opposed to giving folks instructions to use more of one micronutrient versus another. I believe this is the wrong path. A micronutrient mix should contain the basic ingredients and once the product is in hand you can always simply add more of everything. There is never a need to spend money buying a special Zinc or special Manganese product. These metals should all be in the same mix and it's therefore easy to add more of the mix.

As always, thanks Clive / @ceg4048 for your insights!

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
The main reason I would go for C providing the 2% is correct for Zinc (also other than the higher Cu and Mo levels in the others) is that it’s closer to the ratio between Iron and Manganese I use in my own DIY mix Fe:Mn 3:1 or Targeting Fe 0.15ppm, Mn 0.05ppm and Zn 0.04ppm per dose. The reason I target Mn @ 0.05ppm is because that’s the amount typically found in water that makes it taste bad (along with Iron), Tap water is usually moderated to remove Iron, Manganese and Zinc (ok not everyone’s tap water but certainly here in the UK it’s remediated for because other than tasting bad it stains clothing upsetting launderers). If your tap water is replete with these elements then the fertiliser doesn’t need so much in it. The reason I want to add more Zinc and Manganese (unchelated) beyond the requirement for plants is because after Iron they are the next elements to eventually oxidise and become plant unavailable and having more to begin with ensures it never bottoms out below plant requirements resulting in deficiencies.

My Buce used to suffer badly from pinholes didn’t matter how high Co2 was (>30ppm) or K (>100ppm) it wasn’t until I went DIY and started supplementing extra Mn and Zn that pinholes went away, I have to say I was using remineralised RO water so all metals had to come from traces, despite saying this if I were to use my Tapwater which has a TDS of 35 and tastes like Champagne it’s Fe, Mn and Zn levels are also very low because they get stripped out so I would still need to dose extra.

Here’s the pH availability chart for unchelated trace elements -

69F5D288-4904-4D67-A38F-D1B648CE29DE.jpeg

As you can see both unchelated Manganese and Zinc have very low availability at the typical Aquarium pH range less so than Iron, chelating these metals increases this availability but depending on the chelate in use may not be extended by much also you have to take into consideration the longevity of the chelate because as soon as that bond with the metal is broken availability plummets, it’s easy to see how Manganese and Zinc levels could drop to levels below the requirement of plants even when dosed above the requirement level.

:)
 
Hi X3NiTH,
I'd have to suspect some strange combination of events as I've never experienced or anything like the symptoms described, regardless of my use of either tap or RO. My municipal tap water supplier when I was living in UK was Thames Water - notorious for their poor quality relative to tropical fish. I made no adjustments an simply purchased the cheapest mix I could find. Also, as I mentioned, the very small amounts needed means that in a very short time the plants should have all the metals they require. Your bio-availability chart is listed as being related to a hydroponic scenario, which is a terrestrial context, more applicable to the limitations of root-dominant uptake. The foliar uptake channels in an aquatic system allow a much quicker uptake in addition to root uptake. If the pinholes were appearing on the mature leaves then this is unlikely to have been a micronutrient fault.
In the analysis of deficiency syndromes of plants it's important to realize where the limits of functionality are of individual elements. So for example, Deficiencies of the micronutrient metals should not result in structural degradation because they are not used to build structure and have no role in the maintenance of structure. A typical function of Manganese, for example is used in the enzymes that are responsible for splitting the water molecule into it's constituents parts, Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses. The release of Oxygen is the function of The Oxygen Evolving Complex (OEC) and this is where Mn is used in the hydrolysis. Other uses of this metal is as an activator of many enzymes used in the metabolism of organic acids as well as the assimilation of some macronutrients such as Nitrogen leading to chlorophyll production. So although a deficiency in Mn can look identical to an Fe shortage, i.e. discoloration, paleness etc., and can certainly negatively affect growth due to it's importance in photosynthesis and the subsequent reduction in carbohydrate production, in no way should it's absence affect structure or be involved in any kind of necrotic symptoms.

The function of Zinc is even more esoteric. Zinc is an essential catalytic component of a few hundred enzymes. One of the more important enzymes is Carbonic Anhydrase. The active site of this enzyme usually contains a Zinc ion. In plant, Carbonic Anhydrase helps raise the concentration of CO2 within the chloroplast to increase the CO2 fixing rate of the enzyme Rubisco. Another important example; Zinc is essential for plant growth because it controls the synthesis of a hormone called indoleacetic acid, which regulates plant growth. So, as with Mn, Zn is involve primarily with growth functions, not in structural issues and it's deficiency results in lower growth rate and chlorosis as opposed to necrosis. Deficiency also will show in new growth, not in mature leaves.

Cheers,
 
The bioavailability chart is for hydroponic solutions but whether your solution is one inch deep or one hundred inches deep the chemistry and behaviour of the nutrients in question is exactly the same.

Very low plant available Manganese can lead to grey or brown Necrotic spots in leaf tissue. Increasing availability resulted in my Bucephalandra (the problem plant in question) never showing this symptom again. Bucephalandra may have an increased requirement for Mn due to how waxy their leaves are (it needs to be able to cope with being left high and dry).

Most off the shelf nutrients I’ve looked at for aquatics are generally pretty low in some micro levels, the assumption being that it’s an augment to tap water levels so there should always be at least more than plants need, the problem lies in that not everybody has Thames water nutrients out the tap (30+ yrs ago there were adverts on buses for Thames water feeling the pride that it’s recycled up to 20x before discharge), any extra supplementation to this water however and your unlikely to see any deficiency because the total amount of nutrition in the water is generally already relatively high.

Because both Zinc and Manganese can become plant unavailable due to the chemistry of water in the ranges to be found in general aquaria (pH 6-8) and depending on if and how they are chelated then supplementing a little more (either adding more of what’s already being dosed or in addition to) if the level out the tap is very low would be beneficial in most cases.

:)
 
Hi all,
Because both Zinc and Manganese can become plant unavailable due to the chemistry of water
I think you are unlikely to have much of either nutrient in tap water today. Zinc (Zn) will be precipitated out by the additional sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and orthophosphate (PO4---) added to <"remove heavy metals">.

In the case of manganese (Mn), it <"causes water taint"> (a bitter taste) so is usually removed by chlorine (Cl2) addition or oxidation etc.

cheers Darrel
 
I know this is an older thread, but I was brought back here again by one of @dw1305 's many links :geek:
I had another read through and there are some things which stick out to me 🤔

...
In the analysis of deficiency syndromes of plants it's important to realize where the limits of functionality are of individual elements. So for example, Deficiencies of the micronutrient metals should not result in structural degradation because they are not used to build structure and have no role in the maintenance of structure.
As far as I can see, this is downright wrong. Boron for example is very well known to play a huge role in plant structure, which is why terrestrial boron deficiencies often describe brittle plants, cracks and fissures and improperly formed structures as key symptoms.

All quotes following are from the book Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (Third Edition 2012) unless otherwise noted.
..the primary role of B in the cell wall biosynthesis and structure results in a cascade of metabolic disruptions that can explain most, but not all, observed effects of B deficiency.
A role of B in cell wall structure has long been recognized. In B-deficient plants, the cell walls are strongly altered which is evident at macroscopic (e.g., ‘cracked stem’; ‘stem corkiness’; ‘hollow stem disorder’) and microscopic levels (Loomis and Durst, 1992; Shorrocks, 1997). Most anatomical deficiency symptoms are associated with cell wall abnormalities (Loomis and Durst, 1992; Brown et al., 2002) and the numerous biochemical and physiological effects often observed under B deficiency have been interpreted to be secondary effects of cell wall damage (Goldbach, 1997; Blevins and Lukaszewski, 1998; Brown et al., 2002; Bolanos et al., 2004).
The most prominent symptoms of B deficiency are associated with primary cell walls and include abnormally formed walls that are often thick, brittle, have altered mechanical properties and do not expand normally (Brown et al., 2002).
There are a lot more details but I dont think its necessary to quote the entire book.

A typical function of Manganese, for example is used in the enzymes that are responsible for splitting the water molecule into it's constituents parts, Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses. The release of Oxygen is the function of The Oxygen Evolving Complex (OEC) and this is where Mn is used in the hydrolysis. Other uses of this metal is as an activator of many enzymes used in the metabolism of organic acids as well as the assimilation of some macronutrients such as Nitrogen leading to chlorophyll production. So although a deficiency in Mn can look identical to an Fe shortage, i.e. discoloration, paleness etc., and can certainly negatively affect growth due to it's importance in photosynthesis and the subsequent reduction in carbohydrate production, in no way should it's absence affect structure or be involved in any kind of necrotic symptoms.
As X3NiTH has already partially pointed out, this is not entirely correct.
A role of Mn in nitrate reductase activity was presumed because of an increase in nitrate concentration in Mn-deficient leaves. However, this accumulation of nitrate is the consequence of a shortage of (i) reducing equivalents in the chloroplasts and (ii) carbohydrates in the cytoplasm, as well as of negative feedback regulation resulting from lower demand for reduced N in the new growth of deficient plants. There is no evidence of a direct role of Mn in nitrate reductase activity (Leidi and Gomes, 1985).
Inhibition of root growth in Mn-deficient plants is caused by shortage of carbohydrates as well as by a direct Mn requirement for growth (Campbell and Nable, 1988; Sadana et al., 2002). The rate of elongation appears to respond more rapidly to Mn deficiency than the rate of cell division. As shown in Fig. 7.10 with isolated tomato roots in sterile culture and an ample supply of carbohydrates (but without Mn), there was a decline in extension of the main axis in less than 2 days. Resupplying Mn rapidly restored the growth rate to normal levels if the deficiency was not too severe. In Mn-deficient plants, the formation of lateral roots ceased completely (Abbott, 1967). Compared to Mn-sufficient plants, there was a greater abundance of small non-vacuolated cells in Mn-deficient roots, indicating that Mn deficiency impairs cell elongation more strongly than cell division, an observation also supported by tissue culture experiments (Neumann and Steward, 1968).
The lower lignin concentration in Mn-deficient plants (Table 7.8) is a reflection of the requirement for Mn in various steps of lignin biosynthesis
Brief information about Lignin (since we have many members with english as their second language, myself included)
"Lignin is a class of complex organic polymers that form key structural materials in the support tissues of most plants. Lignins are particularly important in the formation of cell walls, especially in wood and bark, because they lend rigidity and do not rot easily."

Another important example; Zinc is essential for plant growth because it controls the synthesis of a hormone called indoleacetic acid, which regulates plant growth. So, as with Mn, Zn is involve primarily with growth functions, not in structural issues and it's deficiency results in lower growth rate and chlorosis as opposed to necrosis. Deficiency also will show in new growth, not in mature leaves.
This is also partially incorrect :oops:

Zinc is required for maintenance of integrity of biomembranes.
Many of the most obvious symptoms of Zn deficiency such as leaf chlorosis and necrosis, inhibited shoot elongation and increased membrane permeability are expressions of oxidative stress brought about by higher generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and an impaired detoxification system in Zn-deficient plants.
The most characteristic visible symptoms of Zn deficiency in dicotyledonous plants are stunted growth due to shortening of internodes (‘rosetting’) and a drastic decrease in leaf size (‘little leaf’), as shown in Fig. 7.21. Under severe Zn deficiency, the shoot apices die (‘die-back’) as, for example, in forest plantations in South Australia (Boardman and McGuire, 1990). Quite often these symptoms are combined with chlorosis, which is either highly contrasting or diffusive (‘mottle leaf’).
In cereals such as wheat, typical symptoms are reduction in shoot elongation and development of whitish-brown necrotic patches on middle-aged leaves, whereas young leaves remain yellowish green in colour, but show no necrotic lesions (Cakmak et al., 1996a). Symptoms of chlorosis and necrosis in older leaves of Zn-deficient plants are often secondary effects caused by P or B toxicity, or by photooxidation resulting from impaired export of photosynthates.

I dont really see where the basis is for claiming that micronutrients are not used to build structure or have no role in it. They are clearly very involved in the process.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you define "used to build structure" and "the maintenance of structure".
I also dont really understand how you can readily separate growth functions and structure building?
To have new structure you need growth, so if growth functions are impaired then the structure being made can be impaired too?
 
Back
Top