No need to apologize about APC here. I do not go there, but hold nothing against anyone that does.
I'm not sure what George meant by that comment either, I was there as well as several others.
GH Booster + baking soda or potassium carbonate works fine.
Cheaper too.
One for GH and that's better balanced than Eq and the other is certainly cheaper than Seachem alkaline buffer for KH.
That's what is used to reconstitute in labs or CaCl2/MgCl2 for GH etc.
Depends on the other ions involved and the test to be done.
Squirrley is not something I've noted nor had issues with going back about 8 years of wide ranging usage of SeaChem Eq by many members locally and abraod. I have no clue what they are talkign about nor is it wide spread/significant.
Seems to me, at leats in the context presented here, that they are blaming squirrley behaviors on the wrong defendent once again.
Would not be the first time they they over looked something certainly.
Given your case: add about 17.9 ppm of Ca from CaCl2 or CaSO4 after the water change would yield the range you seek.
I do not think it's worth messing with personally though.
I know you prefer lower CO2 and with harder water, I think the issue is more related to that rather than anything to do with hard GH's.
One is about 1% at best, the other is 45% of the plant biomass.
Here's why also:
You said:
I've had absolutely no success with Equilibrium, RO Right, or your GH Builder when used to reconstitute RO. Hence my interest in simply diluting the tapwater. And then letting whichever plant that grows best in the result take over the tank.
PS: Sorry about dragging stuff from APC over to here, but it's relevant and I wanted your opinion.
GH, Eq, RO right(bad stuff all the way around IMO/IME) all failed right? With RO + reconsituation?
That's very strongly suggest another causative agent for the issue you might have.
Why?
Because I've used these and do use them for RO on client's tanks and my own tanks over a very very wide range of GH ranges.
I've not seen anything I can relate to Ca or Mg.
Edward does a lot of talking about Ca/Mg and many look at the so called deficiences symtoms from agriculture crops that are used to apply to our aquatic plants.
CO2 is much more likely to cause such issues and it's presence is far more fleeting.
The Ca? if you have 20ppm of Ca++, it ain't going nowhere too soon, you add 10ppm 2x week, you can be sure that you have enough of that one.
CO2? Folks lack such confidence, some squawk to no end, but then the same ardent rigorous tester measures 171 ppm of CO2 and has happy fish and plants, it's hard to accept that all CO2 ppm measurements are correct.
I've approached the problem from another manner/prespective.
Try to actively induce and test rather than observe and only test after the problem appears.
Many times you miss the problem of cause if you approach it with the latter method most every aqaurist ascribes to.
Add a bit more CO2. Wait 2-3 weeks.
Next drop the CO2 and see if you might induce the plants to produce such a response.
Next drop the CO2 another notch down.
This way you have a good base line prior to starting and can see what and where things went wrong.
You may rule out the Ca++ theory in this manner by showing this alternative hypothese to be valid and often times even more valid than the original hypothese, Ca++ ratio imbalances, high Mg whatever.....was causing you the issue.
Scientist are clever because they look for all these possible alternatives and test them as well as the more traditional ones. Leave no rock unturned.
This allows you to get at truth, or at least much closer to truth, than the latter.
Logic and methods escape many hobbyist frustrated and wanting resolve.
I do try and point out such methods and simple alternative methods for hobbysist to try and test themselves to show such points. Many do not do such test sadly. This ends up with me being the only guy doing the test and I'd rather discuss things with folks that do the test etc. That gets weird and I'd rather have more folks test and prove things to themselves rather everything being based upon what I have done, yet while some may point this out, they do nothing to rectify it either
Tom Barr may not see the real cause and that may hold true no matter how hard I try.
So I leave post about how some rather simple methods and logic to illustrate this and a hobbyist can certainly do such test themselves and make the same observations and see that the alternative hypothese might be more valid.
So try the CO2 metrhod, you';ll elarn more and get a better handle on things no matter what by exploring CO2 and giving it a good revisiting, I've done this many times and gone back to square one. While I arrive at the same place, I always see something new
Make the assumption that the Ca/Mg are fine rather than bad.
Go after the CO2 and assume it's too low. See if you can measure a decline in Mg or Ca. See what the N drop is and if it correlates well with Ca and the ratios of N:Ca in many macrophytes.
Traces are yet another issue, switch to TMG etc vs Flourish.
That will be your next alternative hypothese or you can try and rukle that out now as well and add more, see how easy the nutrients are?
CO2 is more prickly.
Regards,
Tom Barr