Weight mean that i should add for exemple 1g K: 3g Mg : 10g calcium not 1:3:10 ppm ? might sound dumb but it's to clarify, thanks you
-
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
Deficiency ?
- Thread starter eminor
- Start date
A google search goes a long way:
InitialSticks:
Osmocote:
InitialSticks is what I would call a conditioner or a soft fertilizer. It's meant for aquariums.
Osmocote is straight up pure highly concentrated fertilizer. Nitrogen in Osmocote is usually high in ammoniacal nitrogen. Osmocote is not meant for aquarium use although could be used if done properly.
I see, no ammonia spike risk with initial sticks, i imagine they did some research and development to be sure that the product is good for aquarium. osmocote indeed look loaded in nutrients.
tetra claim that stick have no no3/po4 so plant will need to get them from the leaves, right ? or maybe they can take from the humic nutrients in the sticks ?
_Maq_
Member
I mean 1 mg/L K ... 3 mg/L Mg ... 10 mg/L Ca, and its multiples. In fact, I always work with much softer water than you (Barr's water is also quite soft, by the way), so I haven't thoroughly tested these ratios in truly hard water (> 5°dGH). What is known for a scientifically described fact is
1. plants uptake potassium preferentially in regard to magnesium and calcium, and
2. these three metals (plus sodium and ammonium) are in competitive relationship, which means that a relative excess of one hinders uptake of the others.
You know, Barr's philosophy derives from a standpoint that if all nutrients are in excess, we are fine and don't have to bother much with their ratios (meaning one to another). I've demonstrated experimentally that ratios matter, at least in some instances. Yet I have to admit that (non)injection of CO2 possibly makes a difference. My reasoning is that dealing with nutritional imbalance always requires energy, one way or another. Plants supported by ample dose of CO2 have plenty of energy (= sugars gained through photosynthesis) for handling all kinds of adversities, including nutrient imbalances. I do not inject CO2 so I have to be more diligent with dosing, and other issues as well.
This may explain that individual results among hobbyists and various species can differ, yet the principle is generally valid.
Maq, where can i find more information regarding this ratio? was it ever published through article or books? I have a strong interest to learn more about this ratio but i struggle to find any information or article on it. please do share more information on this.
Hi,
GH does not declare water to be hard… it is the KH. I have many softwater plants in KH3 and GH 11…
My ammania pedicellata golden looked exactly the same. I just added 2ml /40L Easy Life Profito once a week and all problems were gone. I did not change anything else.
Regards Andreas
GH does not declare water to be hard… it is the KH. I have many softwater plants in KH3 and GH 11…
My ammania pedicellata golden looked exactly the same. I just added 2ml /40L Easy Life Profito once a week and all problems were gone. I did not change anything else.
Regards Andreas
Hi all,
cheers Darrel
We've been trying to differentiate between "hardness" (dGH) and "alkalinity" as a <"proxy for carbonate hardness (dKH)">. Have a look at <"Some handy facts about water"> .
@Roland also grows <"soft water plants"> in <"low dKH / high(er) dGH">.
cheers Darrel
What soil do you use ?
That change everything, cec of tropica is high, you can forget to dose a bit, sand is another story
Hi @_Maq_
Interesting. Do you have any idea, theories or hypotheses that might explain this particular ratio?
Thanks in advance.
JPC
VictoriaBurkhart
Seedling
Although Google has a different opinion from mine on the matter, I am still seeking for a solution.
_Maq_
Member
I began with Marschner - Marschner's mineral nutrition of higher plants. That's fundamental.
Unfortunately, almost all literature on mineral nutrition of plants deals with terrestrial plants. The difference is substantial. Terrestrial plants uptake nutrients primarily through roots. Such uptake is well regulated, often even active. Plants choose what they need.
On the other side, uptake through leaves is unregulated, and nutrients enter plants' tissues depending on their concentrations in the water column. Plants then struggle to exude what they do not want. This is an issue which is poorly described in scientific literature, and I suspect that a lot is yet to be elucidated in this field.
Aforementioned ratio is the result of my own observations and experiments. It works for me yet it does not need to be taken very rigidly. Par example, right now I'm experimenting with a K:Mg:Ca = 1:4:6 [molar] and it seems to work just fine (so far). Before that, I've tried 1:1:2 [molar] ratio, nine species, and the results were still quite satisfactory. Serious problems definitely appear when there is more K than Mg or Ca in the water column.
