Excess of K, Na, Ca, Mg... fact or myth?

[DudeFromPantanal]

Hi Mr. Michael… well 1ppm N you mean 1ppm N03 or 1ppm N (4,42NO3)? In 2 weeks is 14 days (0,32ppm daily mean if NO3) right?… I dont get the K ratio in your case though, it is from Marchner ratios?

Why major formulas have so much K in them so…? If K could compete with intake of other cations and ions, does they do this high loads of K in their formulas because they want to “suppress” chemically other things that may be present in user water or may be accumulate in the mid or long run in a small system like aquariuns (metals, etc)? This makes any sense?… Because I really don’t found a technical and sound enough explanation in these planted tanks foruns about why these K “excess” in formulas and regimes (in the hobby, or in hydroponics, etc.). ADA for example is “lean” but also delivers a sucker punch of K in the system. So if this will start heightening in the water saturation/TDS for example… this is not much of contribution to a more comercial-user-friendly maintenance routine, right (more water changes)? Just thinking out loud. Ignore my ignorance and be constructive, plse.

Thank you guys… well. I didn’t find any evidence of why comercial aquatic plants fertilizers use so much K and this could be a thread I think…. maybe this thread already exist (sorry new to this things). I noticed hydroponics fertilizers for example have a very high load of K in their formulations… but at the same time hydroponics systems 99,9% times waste a lot of water (drain to waste, of dump the solution and mix new batch that run trough the system… more water eficient systems like Deep Water Recirculation Systems (i have one in the backyard by the way) and Flood and Drain systems (like tropica nurseries and dennerlee) use much less water but have to be very precise and careful to not charge the water too much with salinity and TDS…. so to summarize one system have a management viewpoint where drain to waste and change water is normal and the other is necessary “at some delayed point in time”.

So… maybe the aquarium formulations are, in general more contaminated by the drain to wast management view point than a more conservative water saturation view point (?) BTW @dw1305 @_Maq_

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I noticed hydroponics fertilizers for example have a very high load of K in their formulations…

The simple answer is that it is because they "work" if they didn't the companies selling them would have gone out of business. Agricultural fertilisers are different from aquarium ones in that Tomato growers etc have a tangible (and measurable) end result, the bottom line is how many tomatoes you produce per M^2 of glasshouse, and nothing else really matters.

cheers Darrel

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Hi all,

The simple answer is that it is because they "work" if they didn't the companies selling them would have gone out of business. Agricultural fertilisers are different from aquarium ones in that Tomato growers etc have a tangible (and measurable) end result, the bottom line is how many tomatoes you produce per M^2 of glasshouse, and nothing else really matters.

cheers Darrel

Yes… but this must have a technical explanation or reasoning for that at agricultural levels…. then would be interesting to understand reasoning to why the aquarium fertilizers business have carried this “ratios” of higher K to our tanks after all. Think we have enough knowledgeable folks here to elaborate and debate (constructively) why this?… its these new K “ratios” loadings in the systems bound to new research and discovery… are traditional “ratios” like Marschner outdated or just simply not apply as standard to our aquatic plants? If so, what should be the best standard approach of “scale” to demanding, non-demanding, sensitive, weedy species? This is something interesting to think about, I think.

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Yes… but this must have a technical explanation or reasoning for that at agricultural levels…. then would be interesting to understand reasoning to why the aquarium fertilizers business have carried this “ratios” of higher K to our tanks after all. Think we have enough knowledgeable folks here to elaborate and debate (constructively) why this?… its these new K “ratios” loadings in the systems bound to new research and discovery… are traditional “ratios” like Marschner outdated or just simply not apply as standard to our aquatic plants? If so, what should be the best standard approach of “scale” to demanding, non-demanding, sensitive, weedy species? This is something interesting to think about, I think.

Just a side note: I always been dosing more K relative to N for example, with good observations too… but never minded Ca and Mg side point of view (this is a more recent thing for me). Water here is really soft (GH and KH are equal to 1 in the readings and very probably are less than that (because 1 in the scale are the minimum).

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Yes… but this must have a technical explanation or reasoning for that at agricultural levels…. then would be interesting to understand reasoning....If so, what should be the best standard approach of “scale” to demanding, non-demanding, sensitive, weedy species? This is something interesting to think about, I think.

I've always made the distinction between growing "orchids" and "tomatoes", and all crop plants are "tomatoes".

Cheers Darrel

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Hi all,

I've always made the distinction between growing "orchids" and "tomatoes", and all crop plants are "tomatoes".

Cheers Darrel

Sorry friend, I have not understand this (not so sharp english). Please be more descriptive than that...
When I mean technical explanation for the reasoning is more like what Cegg or Tom Barr currently do when they answer things (and here I am saying you not obligated to dispose time and effort to do that, but would be appreciated if someone did). This thing make me really curious, as I wonder ar this post:

Thank you guys… well. I didn’t find any evidence of why comercial aquatic plants fertilizers use so much K and this could be a thread I think…. maybe this thread already exist (sorry new to this things). I noticed hydroponics fertilizers for example have a very high load of K in their formulations… but at the same time hydroponics systems 99,9% times waste a lot of water (drain to waste, of dump the solution and mix new batch that run trough the system… more water eficient systems like Deep Water Recirculation Systems (i have one in the backyard by the way) and Flood and Drain systems (like tropica nurseries and dennerlee) use much less water but have to be very precise and careful to not charge the water too much with salinity and TDS…. so to summarize one system have a management viewpoint where drain to waste and change water is normal and the other is necessary “at some delayed point in time”.

So… maybe the aquarium formulations are, in general more contaminated by the drain to wast management view point than a more conservative water saturation view point (?) BTW @dw1305 @_Maq_

If K accumulates in the system, why the hec do we add so much of it? It would simply does not lower the time window we have for a water change in the system? and saturate the water faster? It really have nothing to do with a agricultural water management approach and rationale of just dry water to waste and replenish (the nutrient solution a.k.a. our planted aquarium?). For me, and again, although I had good results with higher K (higher K to N ratio to be more precise, although K would me more of a concern to Mg and Ca..?). I would be good if we could refine the edges of our fertilization protocols, right?

 

[Hufsa]

I've always made the distinction between growing "orchids" and "tomatoes", and all crop plants are "tomatoes".

Sorry friend, I have not understand this (not so sharp english). Please be more descriptive than that...

I will go out on a limb (sorry thats another expression I realize), I think what Darrel means is that an orchid is a plant that is a bit sensitive and it doesnt want "too much" nutrients. So if you grow an orchid, you can more easily have "too much" of a good thing.
While tomato in this example is a hungry kind of plant. It likes a lot of nutrients, and it would be much harder to give "too much" nutrients.
Then he says that all crop plants (like cereals, vegetables etc) are most like tomato, in that they like "a lot".

Please @dw1305 correct me if this is the wrong interpretation.

If I had to compare the "orchid and tomato" to aquarium plants, I could say that Ammannia pedicellata "Golden" is an "orchid" type of plant, while for example Hygrophila difformis is more of a "tomato" type plant.

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

I will go out on a limb (sorry thats another expression I realize), I think what Darrel means is that an orchid is a plant that is a bit sensitive and it doesnt want "too much" nutrients. So if you grow an orchid, you can more easily have "too much" of a good thing.
While tomato in this example is a hungry kind of plant. It likes a lot of nutrients, and it would be much harder to give "too much" nutrients.
Then he says that all crop plants (like cereals, vegetables etc) are most like tomato, in that they like "a lot".

Please @dw1305 correct me if this is the wrong interpretation.

If I had to compare the "orchid and tomato" to aquarium plants, I could say that Ammannia pedicellata "Golden" is an "orchid" type of plant, while for example Hygrophila difformis is more of a "tomato" type plant.

@Hufsa thank you for the kindness reply, now I catch it.

Okay… this made sense too. I have dried out almost all rotala especies in my little RDWCS hydroponics and at the same tame Ludwigias, Hygrophilas and almost 70%-80% of the plants really liked high levels of nutrientes… how high? I have walked the lines of 500, 600, 700, 800, 1000, 1200 ppm numbers. Read somewhere that some rotalas species may tolerate 200-300ppm maximum and then drop dead (literally as they where grown emersed).

BTW Have some H. Chai and Crypto Flamingo arriving here this week… almost 300$ BRL worth… if someone here is seasoned keepers of these species I would appreciate taggin then for private instructions and knowledge exchange (yeah being a aquatic plant collector feels like a cash blackhole sometimes, i am not rich guy i am financially irresponsable).

 

[Happi]

@DudeFromPantanal

The reason you see so much variation in fertilizer and their ratio for testerrial plants is simply because some are just leaves, some are vegetables, some are fruits. The fertilizer ratios and ppm of various nutrients are more designed for different purposes. For example:
You will almost always will find more Phosphorus in flowering fertilizer vs vegetables or grass. Grass is your closest candidate if you want to compare it with aquatic plants, even then it's still not exactly same as aquatic plants.

If you were to test the aquatic plant in dry form in the lab, you will see that N is present at much higher ppm compared to K. You can dose 30 ppm K weekly, but if your water is getting say 30 ppm NO3, which is about 6.8 ppm N, then your plant are only getting less than 7 ppm K, it's probably more like 3-5 ppm K.

 

[MichaelJ]

will go out on a limb (sorry thats another expression I realize),

An early example from an October, 1895 issue of the Steubenville Daily Herald reads: “We can carry the legislature like hanging out a washing. The heft of the fight will be in Hamilton county. If we get the 14 votes of Hamilton, we’ve got ‘em out on a limb. All we’ve got to do then is shake it or saw it off.”

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hufsa]

Could it be relevant to this discussion that tolerance for nutrient levels might be different if we are talking about feeding through roots, or if we are feeding through leaves?
There have been some indications in the hobby that certain plants seem to do better if it is set up to uptake nutrients primarily through its roots.
Not all our plants are like this, but I am still interested in the difference between root and leaf feeding.
A lot of Hydroponic solutions and their recommended concentration is meant for the roots of the plants, isnt it?
So we should keep in mind that many of us are feeding our aquatic plants in a different way than hydroponic or emersed plants (like growing in soil and air).
There are also some significant differences in leaf physiology between leaves meant for growing under water, and leaves meant for growing above water (if I recall correctly).
So do submersed leaves more easily uptake nutrients? And does that account for the lower concentration of the nutrients given? Im just thinking out loud.

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Could it be relevant to this discussion that tolerance for nutrient levels might be different if we are talking about feeding through roots, or if we are feeding through leaves?
There have been some indications in the hobby that certain plants seem to do better if it is set up to uptake nutrients primarily through its roots.
Not all our plants are like this, but I am still interested in the difference between root and leaf feeding.
A lot of Hydroponic solutions and their recommended concentration is meant for the roots of the plants, isnt it?
So we should keep in mind that many of us are feeding our aquatic plants in a different way than hydroponic or emersed plants (like growing in soil and air).
There are also some significant differences in leaf physiology between leaves meant for growing under water, and leaves meant for growing above water (if I recall correctly).
So do submersed leaves more easily uptake nutrients? And does that account for the lower concentration of the nutrients given? Im just thinking out loud.

@Hufsa what I know about this difference in hydroponics is that, for example, the strengh for nutrient solutions (root feeding) versus foliar feeding may be 100-1000 times less… the foliar feeding strengh is higher so much because the must “force” absorption though the leaf. (usually they do it with Mg, Ca, Fe+micros… but sometimes with Potassium Phosphite in the case of weakened plants or to increase immunity to pest and deceases… interestingly K is proportionally higher in every salt for almost any purpose @Happi … but I was theorizing above these systems “traditionally” dont care about water saturation because they do discharge or drain to waste all the solution in the system every 7 to 14 days. In aquarium maybe a more balanced ratio focusing less TDS/saturation would be a good thing.