Potassium overdose

[Henry Hatch]

I found that I had been making a large error in dosing potassium. I've been dosing roughly 80 ppm per week for about a month or so. Using EI dosing, I don't think I really need to dose much if any K. I'm doing water changes to get levels down.

Something else has been going on that I'm wondering if it is related. My plants have been apparently consuming very large amounts of iron . I dosed .4 ppm two days ago and my Lamotte test shows no measurable iron today 48 hours later. Plants do show signs of iron deficiency. When I dose things improve.

Is it possible that excess K or something else is causing the Fe to precipitate out so that the plants can't use it ? So when I test the Fe levels go down and it appears that the Fe is being used.

The only other thing I could think of is a possible Magnesium deficiency or maybe my plants are addicted to iron.

Henry Hatch

 

[Tom Barr]

KNO3 typically supplies enough K.
Rarely do you need more.

Fe test kits are well.......essentially worthless.
0.4ppm does not tell you anything that is really useful.
I can have great plants either way.
Main thing is to add some Fe every 2-3 days ina higher light tank, daily if you are really into it, but no less than 2-3 days for high light/CO2 etc.
High K and Fe will not preciptate one another.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Henry Hatch]

If my expensive Lamotte Fe test is useless how about my expensive Lamotte Nitrate and Phosphate test ?

 

[VaughnH]

Bingo!! You figured it out!

I'm just not much into testing except for experimenting, so don't mind me.

 

[Henry Hatch]

Let me see if I got this right. My lamotte tests are no good, kh/gh tables are no good, nobody seems to agree on even the most basic aspects of keeping a planted aquarium, most successful planted aquarium keepers seem to have a certain niceness of seeing so that they know what their plants need.

Is it any wonder why this is a niche hobby which may be destined to be populated by people with advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, or mysticism ?


Henry

 

[VaughnH]

All kidding aside, I wish I could just watch the plants and fish and know what I should do next. But, I don't. I follow EI as best I can, use the drop checker to be sure I have adequate CO2 in the water, try to get good water circulation in the tank, and, for enjoyment, try to understand more about how an aquatic plant garden grows. The best thing about Tom's efforts is that they seem to all be aimed at making life simpler for all of us, not making it more complicated.

My particular weakness (I think) is that I am too lazy to do as much cleaning of the tank as I should do. I would like to say I am getting much better at that, but if I said that I would be telling a little white lie.

And, my aversion to testing is based largely on laziness, but I welcome the fact that doing all of that testing seems to largely be unproductive anyway.

Hey, its a hobby, not a job!!

 

[AlgaeMaster]

KNO3 typically supplies enough K.
Rarely do you need more.

So you shouldn't dose K if dosing Kno3?

 

[Tom Barr]

So you shouldn't dose K if dosing Kno3?

Yes, unless yoyu derived more than say 60% or more of the N from the fish waste.
then you dose K2SO4, or if the NO3 in the tap is high etc.

There are many cases where K2SO4 is useful.
The gH booster is mainlty K2SO4 also BTW, so if that is added along with the KNO3, it's not likely you need to add K2SO4 on top of that.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

Let me see if I got this right. My lamotte tests are no good, kh/gh tables are no good, nobody seems to agree on even the most basic aspects of keeping a planted aquarium, most successful planted aquarium keepers seem to have a certain niceness of seeing so that they know what their plants need.

Is it any wonder why this is a niche hobby which may be destined to be populated by people with advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, or mysticism ?


Henry

No, the Lamotte PO4 and NO3 are good!
It's the Fe test method that's poor and it's not the test kit's fault, it's our assumptions about it.

We assume we can relate a residual Fe levels in the water column to plant health.
We cannot.

We can relate a good correct measure of PO4/NO3 to plant health though........

I think we as a hobby do agree, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The folks that have been at it a long long time tend to see things differently, scientists in the field of aquatic macrophytes are not in any conflict about all this.
Hobbyists? Yea, they are.

You lead them donw the right path, they often do not believe you anyway.
Same with many things.

But that's often how we learn sometimes

The big issue is folks that lack any control over algae, their nutrient levels, use very sad poor test methods, kits etc, lack the eye for good plant growth etc, you want to take their advice?

Now they are trying to help out best they can, but they cannot even help themselves and take their own advice, how can they help you?
Nothing wrong with trying to help, but when you have conflicts about why algae, say BBA, is forming(and they have a problem with it as well) and you tell me it's
PO4 excess, a type of algae I mastered 12 years or so ago......... well........

Algae, plant growth can be complicated, but it does not have to be that way for the "How" part. I know Amano also tries and simplifies things for folks as well.
The "Why" he does not bother with nearly as much. I tend to focus more on that and less on scaping than he does and he runs ADA, that's a lot of work.

I go in depth for many reasons, and many as they learn more can reflect back and look at what I've said they did not understand 2-5 years ago and today it might make a lot of sense.

That's the hope anyway.
I will not understand everything certainly, but I will get things that much more closer and more evolved towards the truth and what is and is not occuring in our planted tanks.

I have resolved the model for why a non CO2 and CO2 enriched tank works well.

That bridges the gap between diverse methodologies.
Substrate vs water column dosing methods, I've also been able to bridge that gap and use the best characters of both to amplify growth.

It took awhile though
About 7-10 years and lot of time and test.


regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Henry Hatch]

Tom,

Thanks for youir comments. I always learn a lot from your posts. Keeping planted tanks can be very frustrating and some of that probably came out in my post. I like the EI method because it does not require the aquarist to constantly test in order to maintain narrow nutritional parameters.

My main reason for using the Lamotte tests is to use them as a learning tool in order to see if I can objectively confirm what I think is going on in my tank. To be honest, I have seen fe deficiency often enough now so that I don't think I need to test. I just don't think I trust my own observations yet after so many past failures.

I have always wondered why planted tanks seem to be so much more popular in Europe than the US. Do Europeans have green thumbs, better information, better products, more patience ?

That said, things really are going pretty well for me. My 30 gallon is about 6 mos old and is now very stable. I've been encouraged enough so that I set up two more tanks. I will post on my progress.


Henry Hatch

 

[Tom Barr]

Europeans have a lot of failures as well. Not everyone there is sucessful and has a green thumb. You see the successes, not the failures as a rule.

I think culturally, they and the Japanese tend to have difference from many in North America.

Plastic plants, cheesy sunken boats etc, not that popular there really.
Here? Still quite popular.

They also use less light than most folks in NA, at least these days(last 10 years or so). This allows the methods to be much more forgiving and also harder to pin point what is occuring.

I decided to ampify things dramatically and added lots of light and this worked out well in eulcidating uptake, algae, and nutrient concentrations.

Then taking the info from those test runs, I apply them to the lower light tanks and they make for a much more robust flexible method for everyone, regardless of light levels.

You can and should determine Fe/and traces in general, from a visual prespective.
Test kits will not do for that.

How?

Rule out the other nutrients and CO2.
EI will take care of that and good CO2 will address that.

From there you start high with the trace dosing, and work your way down.
Give 3 weeks for each routine of trace dosing.

Say start with 10mls 4x a week of TMG per 80 liters of tank.
Then reduce down to 7 mls, then 5, mls then 3, mls , then 1 mls for each dosing.

You may also consider varying the dosing 2x week, or 3x a week, or daily etc.

I came to about 5mls 3x a week for the best routine although daily say 2-3mls every day works well.

Note plant health and really keep up on nutrients/CO2 during the test.
That is must!

I have hacks telling me what I say is wrong etc etc, but they cannot even control their algae issues in their tanks , so telling me I lack control is quite hypocritical and shows they do not know what is required in the methods to do the test.

But I'm not around many weekends, so 3x a week works better for my routine.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Bartman]

VaughnH and all,

I may be getting a little off topic, but what about the accuracy of the CO2 tests? I’ve read several replies on different threads saying people are using the drop test for checking CO2 levels. I thought CO2 drop tests were notorious for being inaccurate (especially after they sit around for a while) and that testing KH and pH was a more accurate way to figure out CO2 levels? I’m now learning to be wary of tests, but there’s so much to learn…

Are there any good sites out there with examples of what various nutrient deficiencies look like?

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Frolicsome_Flora]

VaughnH and all,

Are there any good sites out there with examples of what various nutrient deficiencies look like?

Thanks,

Tom

Not so much pics, but good descriptions on deficiencies.

Plant Deficiences : Aqua essentials

 

[VaughnH]

VaughnH and all,

I may be getting a little off topic, but what about the accuracy of the CO2 tests? I’ve read several replies on different threads saying people are using the drop test for checking CO2 levels. I thought CO2 drop tests were notorious for being inaccurate (especially after they sit around for a while) and that testing KH and pH was a more accurate way to figure out CO2 levels? I’m now learning to be wary of tests, but there’s so much to learn…

Thanks,

Tom

The "drop checker" is just a KH/pH test for CO2, but it transfers the CO2 to a water sample that is known not to have anything in it that interferes with the accuracy of the test. That makes it much more accurate than just testing the KH and pH of the tank water. Read the threads here to find out more about it.