potassium ?

Zeus.

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
3,222
Location
Yorkshire,UK
But what is the accuracy of the results ?
If the results are not accurate the results are meaning less which is what @ian_m was posting his link to!
Which is the whole ethos of EI dosing dont waste money on testing when the results are from poor quality test kits, Dose your ferts in excess with a WC regime that flushes the wastes/byproducts away and doesnt allow the ferts to get to toxic levels, its a win/win method that saves money
 

Jona$

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2019
Messages
46
Location
Sweden
Cant say JBL dropkit is any other then accurate ?!

Its give me some idea of whats going on then hearing everyones guessing.

Im satisfied and have some to go on.

As if anyone has any more to say on the testsnumbers itself i alllways listen.
 

Simon Cole

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2018
Messages
469
Location
Buckingham
I wouldn't worry about the phosphate level because the original PMDD method excludes the addition of phosphates, and you have found that some was present. It would appear from your results that magnesium is likely to be present, so you don't need to worry about this either. Why don't you drop the temperature down to 22 to 24 degrees Celsius to reduce the impact of pathogenesis on the leaves. The pH and hardness look broadly suitable for the species you are growing. As Darrel mentioned, if this is nutrient deficiency, the chlorosis should go away quite quickly after you dose. I would be tempted to check whether you are adding some kind of sodium salt as part of your dosing. I still feel that your problem is leaf burn associated with poor nutrient-root transportation.

With relation to the test kits and accuracy. I would say that it doesn't really matter. Plants don't like it when a nutrient completely runs out. When they are exposed to toxic levels of nutrients you actually get some very strange growth forms. Sudden shocks tend to cause the problems that you are experiencing. I used to run a UKAS and MCERTS accredited water testing laboratory, and I used to test surface water quality all day long, analysing same parameters that you have. It would take quite a lot of data to work out the long-term growth trends in your aquarium, before we could really link any nutrient parameter to an observed plant growth or decay pattern. When I had access to a laboratory with externally calibrated Hach Lange spectrophotometers, and the ability to verify my results externally with accredited laboratories it was fairly possible to make that deduction. But we were taking about equipment that was reliable to 0.01 ppm. With most dosing strategies, testing water quality parameters becomes redundant. Although it does help to have a good idea of local water quality, and notwithstanding that testing can help to resolve pH issues, generally speaking most macro and micro nutrient levels pose no challenge to plant health within a working and stable biological system. There is not a lot to say about the test numbers. They show that your dosing strategy is present. There is no ideal set of figures because all plants are different, and most nutrients tend towards Liebig's law of the minimum. I might wait a few weeks for your plants to adapt.
 

dw1305

Expert
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
10,504
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
Cant say JBL dropkit is any other then accurate
It is more likely to give you a ball-park figure for <"phosphorus (as phosphate PO4---)"> than it is for some of the parameters, because a lot of phosphate compounds are insoluble and some of them are coloured.
if anyone has any more to say on the testsnumbers itself i alllways listen.
QUOTE="Simon Cole, post: 561869, member: 17945"]I used to run a UKAS and MCERTS accredited water testing laboratory, and I used to test surface water quality all day long, analysing same parameters that you have. It would take quite a lot of data to work out the long-term growth trends in your aquarium, before we could really link any nutrient parameter to an observed plant growth or decay pattern. When I had access to a laboratory with externally calibrated Hach Lange spectrophotometers, and the ability to verify my results externally with accredited laboratories it was fairly possible to make that deduction. But we were taking about equipment that was reliable to 0.01 ppm. With most dosing strategies, testing water quality parameters becomes redundant.[/QUOTE]It really is what @Simon Cole says, plant health is likely to be more accurate descriptor of water conditions, when compared to test kits, unless you have access to a lab. with <"analytical grade equipment">.

My suggestion is always to use plant health and colour. Plants need all of the nutrients essential for plant growth, they just need them in <"widely different amounts">.

cheers Darrel
 

Jona$

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2019
Messages
46
Location
Sweden
So im gonna put in 40 jbl kugeln balls as said and doose the usual amount of pmdd since i dont have so much plants for now.

I was thinking about the NPK rule, as long as i keep that in mind and micro i should be good?

Im doing 26 since its the number that suits the fish. Would really going like 24-25 do a diffrence?
 

Jona$

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2019
Messages
46
Location
Sweden
Perhaps i could amp the doose with kalium,no3,mg easy to do a double doose since i got aswell seachem nitrogen,kalium aswell can doose seperate from the pmdd.

My no3 never has a chance to go up due to the weekly waterchange.

Mg is a bit low and can as i see it be a cause of what ive been seeing?

And Kalium is just a bit on the low side... ?

I know you all say just doose.. but i have still not learned to see what the lack of nutrience the plants can show etc..

And im trying to learn by sometimes check it with dropkits.
 

Simon Cole

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2018
Messages
469
Location
Buckingham
Magnesium can be toxic at concentrations approaching natural background levels, but toxicity is dependent on Ca concentrations. You could calculate the magnesium:calcium mass ratio. I would try to hypothesise that a ratio of 9:1 could be suitable for the species that you are trying to grow. If you did not achieve these levels within you existing magnesium concentration then I could see some justification in adding calcium. You would not need to add any more magnesium because it would exceed the concentration of this trace mineral that is typically found in dried plant matter, and it is fully mobile in solution. Others research suggests that oligotrophic conditions, and low levels of magnesium, have no bearing on plant growth. It just needs to be present in very small amounts and the plant will decide how much it will use.

With relation to your potassium (kalium) and nitrate measurements, they are within the ranges recommended by estimative index dosing. This is some reassurance. As expected, your phosphate level is just below the recommended range. However, this too is a mobile mineral and the plant can happily use, and even store, as much of it as is required. Hypothetically, the single biggest factor affecting your nutrient deficiencies, you hinted to above when you mentioned PNK ratios. These ratios were actually developed by the Rothamsted Experimental Station for terrestrial crops. In those systems, potassium does play a big factor because it is easily leached from soils. It is less relevant to out hobby because potassium can easily be held in suspension. For aquatic systems, instead, we find that carbon is the biggest factor of plant nutrition. Wetzel gives overall values of 1000 C : 175 N : 25 P for nutrient cycling in river ecosystems. So if we were to take typical values and apply that to the ratio of nutrients in your tank, we would find that the ratio should be 1 P : 7 N : 40 C. Now its not fair to say that this must be the ratio between phosphate, nitrate and carbon dioxide - because there are many chemical species involved. But if you had low levels of carbon dioxide, then this limitation would probably contribute towards far lower rates of nutrient uptake (mineralisation) and slower growth. Apart from falling within estimate index ranges, this is further evidence to support that you have adequate nutrient ranges for your particular set up (notably phosphate). Deficiency is due to plant health and not water chemistry.

Nobody really bothers with studying how specific plants respond under specific conditions to specific level of nutrients because this is almost impossible to replicate. Even phenotypes of the same plants can behave radically different. All we can say is that you have broadly the right chemical conditions. If we must delve into assumptions on what nutritional parameters work, then the best evidence is anecdotal - that is - if you follow a dosing regime, then you have nutrients in abundance. You follow a dosing regime, and your nutrients are present. Go ahead and gradually increase these levels to see if this triggers the plant into recovering. If the chelates inside plant vascular tissue were missing or malfunctioning, then higher concentrations could help - it is unlikely you will do very much harm. Personally I would start with a little bit more phosphate. It is my belief however that immobile nutrients were more likely effected, because if your roots were no longer in a preferable environment, then the transportation of these nutrients could have shut down. Try increasing you oxygenation - this often benefits root conditions.
 
Last edited:

Jona$

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2019
Messages
46
Location
Sweden
Thanks for a well put post and good info, i know my biggest issue is lack of carbon.

And sinces its not costeffective to spend loads of money in "liquid" co2 and i still havent found a good source for filling co2 aswell reseable price in 6kg tube... Im stick without it.

Im planning on doing a double doose tomorrow when doing waterchange and see what i have for values before changing next waterchanges... or perhaps follow schedule to get a grip on the values.. as you say per the long run.. learn what plants uses most and perhaps need more of.

In the meantime i need to get going with co2.

I was thinking on these 2:

https://www.jbl.de/en/products/detail/7393/jbl-proflora-m2003

Nice with a digital kit that almost is selfgoing but expensive.

Or

https://www.co2art.eu/collections/c...uarium-co2-system-with-in-tank-flux_-diffuser

Perhaps just the regular one and skip pro, just want the pro for dual stage aswell can add more outlet, meaning more diffusers if their biggest wont do?
 
Last edited:
Top