Recommended ppm??

[LondonDragon]

What are the recommended ppm we should be dosing of each dry salt??

Just curious to know what we should be aiming at, I did some reading and I get various recommendations all over the place, what's the best way to calculate what ppm are we dosing into the tank??

KNO3 =
K2SO4 =
KH2PO4 =
MgSO4 =
Calcium Ca =
Iron Fe =

Thanks

 

[tel]

Hey LD,
Clive's article, http://www.ukaps.org/EI.htm, lists Ei to be

Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week
Magnesium (Mg) 10ppm per week
Iron (Fe) 0.5ppm per week

Which from my understanding is what is regarded as the maxium uptake of nutrients of plants (mind you I have only just started dosing EI).

However I do recall reading, and I can't remember where, that Clive dosed higher than 3ppm with PO4 and the plants really thrived(note I could be mistaken, I do a lot of reading and sometimes it gets a little blurry). I wish I could remeber as it was really interesting.
But if that is the case it then conflicts with maxium uptake which is where it gets confusing, at least for me.
Not sure whether that is a help or a hinderance.
cheers,
tel

 

[LondonDragon]

yeah just noticed that LOL where are my glasses!! thanks
So its the same values that Nutricalc uses to calculate amounts needed.

 

[ceg4048]

Hey Paulo,
There's only one real way to determine ppm and that is to use the molar weights as percentages of the weights you are using. Just google for the molar weight of the compound. Start with KNO3 for example. You'll find the following;
Element____# of Atoms____% by Weight
Nitrogen________1______________14%
Oxygen_________3______________47%
Potassium_______1______________39%

So Nitrate is NO3 right? this means 14% + 47% = 61% of the total weight of KNO3 is made up of nitrate.

So, if I add 1 gram of KNO3 to 1000 L of water that would give me 1ppm of KNO3, comprised of 0.6ppm of NO3 and 0.4ppm of K.

The concentrations are easier to manipulate if you work in multiples of 10. PPM is really 1/1,000,000th which is the same as milligrams of something dissolved into kilograms of something else. So 1 gram KNO3 to only 100 L of water gives me 10X the concentration (i.e. 10ppm KNO3) or 6ppm NO3 + 4ppm K.

If the numbers are not multiples of 10 then you have to use the brute force method and simply figure out how many miligrams you're adding to how many litres. Then divide the two, viola, instant ppm. The problem only becomes sticky for those wimpy people who dose pre-mixed solutions. They have to figure out what the ppms of their mixture is and then how much dilution is occurring based on adding the solution to the tank. But again, as long as you understand the concept, then this is only a minor annoyance. All dosing calculators, such as nutricalc as well as JamesC's Dosing Calculator have to use this same principle.

So lets say you made a macro solution using 33 grams KNO3 in 250ml water.
We know that 33 grams is really 33,000 mg and that 250ml water is 0.25L (0.25Kg).
Therefore that mixture is 33,000mg/0.25kg which is 132,000ppm KNO3. We also know that of that 132,000ppm, 61% of it is NO3, so this macro mixture has more or less 82,500ppm NO3.

OK, so lets say I went postal and dumped all of this 250ml solution into a 100L tank (I'll just assume there's 100L of water in it). Can you see that it would be the same as dumping all 33 grams of powder into the tank? So the concentration of the tank would be 33,000mg/100Kg, or 330ppm KNO3 (201ppm NO3).

So for a 100L tank, since adding all 250ml of this solution would add 201ppm NO3 then each 1ml of the solution would 1/250th of this, i.e. 201ppm/250ml = 0.8 ppm per ml. EI standard dosing is on the order of 20-30 ppm NO3 per week. For a 3 dose per week schedule you could add 10 ml per dose which would be 10ml x 0.8ppm/ml = 8ppm per dose. Dosed 3X per week would give you 24ppm per week. If you dosed daily, I'd pick a number like 28ppm per week, which means 28ppm/7days = 4ppm per day. To get 4ppm per day you'll need to dose 5 ml per day (nice round numbers).

If your head is spinning by now then it's just as easy to use either nutricalc or James' calculator because it does the same gymnastics within 0.33 milliseconds.

Cheers,

 

[tel]

Couldn't say about NutriCalc LD, I did try a link that George had on a thread, but I don't think it was Mac compatible or it was a pay for software, anyway it was something that I could not view it.

For dosing I am using James' Calc as I found it easy to understand .
cheers, tel

 

[tel]

Sorry LD, minor hijack.

Clive did I read correctly about dosing higher than 3ppm of phosphate ?
Cheers tel

 

[ceg4048]

Re:

Sorry LD, minor hijack.

You Pirate!

Clive did I read correctly about dosing higher than 3ppm of phosphate ?
Cheers tel

Yep, here is what 60ppm NO3 + 10ppm PO4 per week + excellent CO2 can do...
This is why you should not fear PO4.

Cheers,

 

[gratts]

What amount of lighting was that dosing regime under, Clive?

Have you encountered any point at which overdosing EI has detrimental effects on plants/fish?

And even running nutrient levels at very high levels will have no effect on encouraging algae growth, providing CO2, flow and light are ample?

The reason I ask is that I'm running over 4WPG T5 on a 40L tank, and throwing in 2-3 times EI, so hopefully I'm not blindly walking into trouble further down the road!

 

[plantbrain]

I have been dosing 5ppm PO4 and 15ppm NO3 3x a week for about 2 years:

Bred fire shrimp, CRS, RCS
L011 red farowellas
Cory cats
Tetras etc
Discus
Angels
Apistos

This year............

Light is about 40 micro mols, or about 1.7-2.0 w/gal at 90-100cm above the plants using T5 or PC lightings.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[frothhelmet]

Hi LD. This thread over at Tom Barr's site may be interesting for you as well.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.ph ... sted-ppm-s

 

[LondonDragon]

Many thanks guys, feedback is really appreciated, I had an idea what was ok, since its been working in my tank for the last couple of years, just wanted to make sure everyone else's was the same, I am going to aim a little higher and see the effects.

Also my glosso is not doing so well, after some reading it states that glosso needs iron and soft water, my London water is hard so I brought some peat but it says that it tinges the water brownish so don't really want to use that, any other way?

Also purchased some Fe in the form of a powder 8% Chelat, what so I be starting with in terms of dosing it 3 times a week??

Cheers

 

[tel]

Methinks I shall amp up the PO4, thanks Clive, Tom
cheers, tel

 

[LondonDragon]

Methinks I shall amp up the PO4, thanks Clive, Tom
cheers, tel

I have told a few people to up their PO4 but they all are weary of doing it saying it will cause more algae!!

 

[tel]

As mentioned earlier I have only just started dosing, as in two days ago .
But from everything I have read and from what I can understand, Nutrients/dry ferts do not cause algae.

My aim is to follow what Tom and I think also Clive has suggested, that being, go high and work back over a series of weeks until plant growth or plant deficiencies make themselves known.

The method is basically charting and decreasing the dosing every two - three weeks. The end result should be I have the correct dosing amounts for my tank.

If you look at the response from Clive and Tom, Clive was 60ppm NO3 + 10ppm PO4 per week and Tom was 5ppm PO4 and 15ppm NO3 3x a week. So Clive is way over the suggested 20-30PPm for NO3, and Tom is well over the 20-30PPM, yet both have stunning tanks and plant growth as they have the right nutrients for the plant load.

The algae issues all seem to arise from light, Co2 and circulation /filtration/flow from what I can gather.

So to me the logical solution is to provide constants so as to rule out as many variables a possible.

So if my dosing is at max uptake, Co2 about 30ppm, and algae starts I think I can assume that it would be a light or filter/flow issue. Change one of the variables only and monitor if the algae increases, I probably chose the wrong variable


Having said all that I could be completely off track and have it all wrong :?
cheers, tel

 

[ceg4048]

What amount of lighting was that dosing regime under, Clive?

Well the PAR levels I used are probably a bit higher than Tom's. This was about 1/2 kilowatt Compact Fluorescent over 600L so that's over 3 WPG.

Have you encountered any point at which overdosing EI has detrimental effects on plants/fish?

Well biomass increase rate is so high that maintenance becomes tedious. Of course the CO2 levels required are so high that toxicity becomes an issue. There was never a point where the nutrient levels became toxic however. I've had Rams and Apistogrammas breed in the tank at various times. I use that behaviour as the ultimate test kit.

And even running nutrient levels at very high levels will have no effect on encouraging algae growth, providing CO2, flow and light are ample?

Correct! However, be very careful with your interpretation of this. The high nutrient levels cannot be "the cause" of algal blooms - but if you do induce algae for some other reason then yes, the high nutrient levels will encourage algae to grow faster just as it encourages the plants to grow faster. No surprise there. What the plant growing community has difficulty understanding is the subtleties of cause and effect versus exacerbation.

The reason I ask is that I'm running over 4WPG T5 on a 40L tank, and throwing in 2-3 times EI, so hopefully I'm not blindly walking into trouble further down the road!

Well, again, there really ought not to be a need to use 2X-3X dosing levels unilaterally. I do it basically because I'm a nutter, and to prove a point - to explore the boundaries of what is possible. Those poor souls trapped in The Matrix are programmed to believe that NO3/PO4 are bad things to be eliminated, when in fact these are critical components to plant health. This would the equivalent of eliminating pasta from Italy.

The real object lesson is to become comfortable with dosing the correct levels and to disassociate algal difficulties or toxicity from NO3/PO4. So, depending on the PAR levels, and depending on your objectives, your tank may need more or less than the standard levels. But knowing that you can use high levels without toxic or algal consequences is freedom. As Tel has deduced, understanding the relationship between nutrient levels and algae/toxicity also allows you to be a better troubleshooter so that you don't draw irrational conclusions. That's more liberating than you can imagine.

Cheers,

 

[zig]

I dose 3x10ppm KNO3 and about 4ppm PO4 per week also dose Tropica plant nuitrition 5ml per 50 litre 3x per week, this is for a highlight tank.

 

[tel]

Following on, in a way...
What about increasing dosing amounts on micronutrients. Currently I am dosing a half teaspoon of chelated mix and a half teaspoon of chelated iron mix three times a week on a 400 litre tank. Is there dangers by increasing dosing amounts to fish/plants?
cheers tel

 

[ceg4048]

Hi Tel,
You could easily double those number without issues. The only component of the trace mix that anyone could argue about is possibly the Cu level, which is still very small. Any trace mix is mostly iron though, so why dose both iron mix and trace mix? A waste of money, especially on a large tank. Double the dose and see what effect you have over a three week period. If there are no detectable improvements then you are throwing money away.

Cheers,

 

[tel]

Thanks for the response Clive,
The reason for both Chelated mixes stems from when I first began delving into EI. I wasn't sure which one I needed or whether I needed both, so opted for both to be on the safe side.

Effectively I could combine them in the one container, correct ?

With double the dose, do you mean 2 teaspoons as with the dosing at the moment both traces amount to one teaspoon.

cheers, much appreciated
tel

 

[ceg4048]

...My aim is to follow what Tom and I think also Clive has suggested, that being, go high and work back over a series of weeks until plant growth or plant deficiencies make themselves known.

The method is basically charting and decreasing the dosing every two - three weeks. The end result should be I have the correct dosing amounts for my tank.

Yes this is Tom's suggested systematic approach I like to use, however, there is another nuance to this that you ought to be aware of;

As time goes on and you are making downwards adjustment to the dosing levels, please remember that your plants are growing and increasing their mass at the same time, therefore, in six weeks you could have easily doubled the mass (both above and below the sediment). A doubling of the plant mass has several significant effects on your dosing scheme adjustment:

1) Higher plant mass requires more nutrition to maintain the same growth rate and health.
2) Higher plant mass blocks more flow and in a way, lowers the "effective" nutrient availability.
3) As the plants increase their height, they enter regimes of higher PAR (because they get closer to the light) which increases the nutrient uptake demand.

So while there is a natural tendency on the part of the hobbyist to try an lower the dosing levels in order to "zoom in" on so-called optimal ppm levels, the dosing requirements are actually on the rise. So this is like trying to descend to the next lower floor by walking down the up escalator.

Naturally, this can be mitigated by constant trimming/pruning, but it's just something to be aware of. Also, you might be able to drop one nutrient by a certain percentage but not another. You can easily find for example, that if you unilaterally drop nutrient levels by 30% you get NO3 related algae but not PO4 related algae. You would have then found the "floor" for NO3 but still be able to continue dropping PO4. The following week, the situation could be reversed. These are not simple systems and they don't respond nice and neatly as we would fantasize. That's why EI is such a powerful tool, because of it's simplicity and it's ability to effectively "normalize" all these factors across the board. This is why I don't worry at all about determining optimal dosing levels. There are just too many biochemical variables to easily control.

Jack Middleton asked about optimizing nutrient level in the thread ideal values for NPK Might be worth a read.

...With double the dose, do you mean 2 teaspoons as with the dosing at the moment both traces amount to one teaspoon.

Typically, Fe is used as the proxy for the other elements. So you'd have, say, a 7% Fe in a chelated trace mix. All the trace dosing is based on these relative vales. What I don't like about mixing an Fe mix with the trace is you now have a much smaller percentage of the other elements in the combined mix. This takes you further away from the other elements, possibly risking shortages so you wind up dosing even more to avoid this. I just don't like the mathematical redundancy of Fe there, although this is probably not too big a deal. I'd just skip the Fe mix and double the basic trace mix to one teaspoon, which I just think is a more useful mix in the first place (this is more emotional than scientific, sorry. )

Cheers,