yme;34600 said:
right.
but this way it means basically something different: adding lots and lots of traces, including iron, in their "normal" ratio does not induce algae. then you can say that high iron in itself does not cause algae. but that might not be the complete story.
Yes, that is correct.
what would happen when you have a "normal" EI regime but add on top off that an overload of iron. would that still give no problems? could very well be, but the conslusion can only be drawn when the experiment is done.
So basically, you forget to mention the context (high other traces) when you make this statement.
greets,
yme
Yes, but I do have plenty of examples where I did use Fe alone and in conjunction with a general trace. I have several Kgs of Fe with 4 different chelators sitting here.
I've taken several mixtures of the other trace elements and Fe alone and dosed to note effects. If you remove the other trace elements, these become limiting if you use the plain sand, with ADA AS or MS, this is not the case(this has some of these traces included).
We can spike Fe alone on top of any trace dosing routine.
Atlas, many have and do.
Dupla suggested this with Dupla's Daily Fe.
This led to PMDD since the cost was about 30$ for a tiny little bottle.
ADA ECA is similar(a little cheaper but not much).
Seachem's flourish Iron is also similar(much cheaper and the Gluconate is a weaker bond and they used Fe2+, not Fe3+, not that it matters much).
Many folks dose a spike of Added Fe on top of their normal routine with traces as being "sexy", not because it does anything great, but perhaps more to simply add non limiting amounts of Fe to help those red plants or the plants in general with this specific micronutrient.
This has been done for at least 20 years now, no one has found any ill or negative effects, algae relationships of any kind. Not one case where I, others can go back and and time and time again, at least 50-80-95% of the time reproduce those results where algae or other issues occur due to excess Fe at 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 2.0 ppm. I've run extra Fe on top of the normal traces, but if you only dose Fe alone, and do not dose the other traces...........
Then that's not fair either, since those other traces are now limiting as well and the test is not independent.
Do we dose just enough for those and then add non limiting Fe levels(such as those suggested above) and see? How might you suggest we test for Excess Fe and keep the other factors from being problematic? Adding it to the sediment or the water column does not matter.
You dose those other traces, and then spike the Fe.
This is easy and I've done that.
I know some people have dosed just Fe, but the other nutrients coming in from food, sediments, leaching also play a role and tracking trace micronutrients is very difficult. I know it's nearly impossible for hobbyist.
So we accept some of the other traces and then manipulate the Fe alone, going up and down. Then add it to an otherwise well run stable tank that's doing well.
If you lack the well run planted tank and cannot manipulate it much without issues(eg, it's fragile), this does little good.
There are other issues occurring.
But if not, then you can test and try and see how adding more Fe might or might not Tweak the tank better. These are more Erik's comment's than my own, he did a lot with spiking the Fe, I just reasoned I'd add more of a general mix rather than spiking just one.
However, I have all sorts of Fe and often mix it into the generla trace mix and then note results. I'll add some general trace with gluconate Fe that yields .5ppm Fe on top of the normal 0.1ppm. With the DTPA, I'll add .7ppm extra.
So I often end up with 1.0ppm in theory after dosing. This quickly drops in the tank itself however, and Fe testing of the water is a poor method. We do not do that in aquatic botany, we remove the plants and measure the uptake of the nutrients of whatever we add to see and confirm the uptake and % in the dry biomass.
That + biomass growth difference is far more telling that merely the ppm's in the water. But it more work and not something hobbyists might test for 10$ with their water column Fe kits.
Here is the reference that will interest you most.
Haller was an adviser and is a personal friend.
CSA
SpringerLink - Journal Article
As you can see, higher % of translocation from the water column to the sediment and at 6-8ppm of ETDA Fe, extremely high levels and the plants grew like mad.
Regards,
Tom Barr