Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fertilator Conversion Factors

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fertilator Conversion Factors

    So I'm building my own databases right now to take care of fertilizer calculations. Since so many people use APC's Fertilator for their calculations, I decided to get the grams/teaspoon conversion for anything listed in dry weight. These numbers are rounded now and then, but not by very significant amounts:


    Nitrate NO3:
    KNO3: 5.2g/tsp
    Ca(NO3)2.4(H2O): 4.8g/tsp

    Phosphate PO4:
    KH2PO4: 5.6g/tsp
    K2HPO4: 4.5g/tsp
    NaH2PO4: 4.5g/tsp
    Na2HPO4: 4.5g/tsp

    Potassium K:
    K2SO4: 6.4g/tsp
    KH2PO4: 5.6g/tsp
    K2HPO4: 4.5g/tsp
    K2CO3: 4.5g/tsp
    KCl: 4.5g/tsp
    Seachem Equilibrium: 5.33g/tsp

    Calcium Ca:
    CaCO3: 1.2g/tsp
    CaCl2: 4.4g/tsp
    CaCl2.2H2O: 3.6g/tsp
    CaCl2.6H2O: 4.5g/tsp
    CaMg(CO3)2: 5.2g/tsp
    Ca(NO3)2.4(H2O): 4.8g/tsp
    CaSO4.2H2O: 3.1g/tsp
    Seachem Equilibrium: 5.33g/tsp

    Magnesium Mg:
    MgSo4.7H2O: 5.1g/tsp
    MgCO3: 4.5g/tsp
    Miller Microplex: 3.9g/tsp
    CaMg(CO3)2: 5.2g/tsp
    Seachem Equilibrium: 5.33g/tsp

    Iron Fe:
    CSM+B: 4.3g/tsp
    Miller Microplex: 3.9g/tsp
    Seachem Equilibrium: 5.33g/tsp
    10% DPTA: 4.4g/tsp

    If anyone has weighed these compounds and figured out their volume in a more accurate method, I wouldn't mind listing those numbers either. Fertilator density measurements are based on a bunch of different people's measuring cups and teaspoons that have obviously varying accuracy when one looks at the Fertilator threads.

    -Philosophos
    - Dan

  • #2
    Thank You!

    Thank you Philosophos. Nice work!

    I kind of always figured there was a bit of slop in the calculators, just really do not have the brains or inclination to do what you did.

    For all the folks who link to APC when someone recommends dosing half a gram more than the ‘Fertilator’ or some other ‘calculator’, have a good read.

    The great thing about EI is that with weekly water changes it gives a place to start. It is nice to have the quantitative analysis, lets us have a feel for the size of the 'ball park.'

    Biollante


    (This in no way should be construed as saying CO2 and good circulation are not important, without a doubt CO2 is more important by far than anything except lighting, which indeed drives the process.)
    The first sign we don't know what we are doing is an obsession with numbers. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    Disclaimer: I am not trying to make you mad, it is just what I am, an evil plant monster, 'nuf said.
    • I believe the information I am giving is sound, I am not a veterinarian, professional chemist or particularly bright and certainly not a "Guru.".
    • I assume you are of legal age, competent and it is legal for you to acquire, possess and use any materials or perform any action in your in your jurisdiction.
    • When in doubt "don't."

    Comment


    • #3
      This helped and is helping me a lot. Thanks.
      "Ich Hatte Einen Kameraden"

      "In the Shadow of Hermes"

      Comment


      • #4
        Couldn't you use their specific gravities and calculate the tsp weights?

        Comment


        • #5
          Specific gravity would presume that it's a solid block of one of these nutrients. These are powders; plenty of air, static, moisture, etc. to deal with. These numbers are also the fertilator average; if you dig back through some threads you'll find that the maker (can't recall his screen name) just took mass consensus from APC as to their weight of a compound per cup and averaged. Some measured with their lab equipment, many with their kitchen measuring cups. Some had scales accurate to .001 of a gram, others had balancing scales accurate to 1 gram. Some people kept their bags at zero humidity and took out what they'd use in a short period of time, others had them in things like 80% relative humidity and opened them daily.

          There's lots of room for error with fertilator, but so many use it that it's nice to have their conversion factors for dry dosing. It's also handy to check their numbers over. I put the values for some of the more common compounds above into a little spreadsheet just for checking over people's math who use fertilator but don't know how to make the calculations themselves. It's saved me countless hours of playing with a calculator.

          Personally though, I just try to convert people over to at least using a scale to measure out daily values for dry dose. Stock solutions are pretty handy too.
          - Dan

          Comment


          • #6
            I like stock solutions, thanks to you guys. The only ferts I dose dry are Equilibrium and K2SO4.
            "Ich Hatte Einen Kameraden"

            "In the Shadow of Hermes"

            Comment


            • #7
              Effect of RH

              The wt per tsp tables will be certainly be useful for administration of dry measures.

              As mentioned previously, it is important to be mindful that many of the mentioned salts are hygroscopic, like calcium chloride Thus, the wt may vary by relative humidity and temperature.
              This is the best table i could find that includes one of the CaCl2 compounds.
              See Table 1 The critical RH of 31% means that it starts to soak up water above that humidity. Below that RH, the compound stays dry. I dont know how different is the more common "anhydrous" variety. The uptake also increases with higher RH.
              RH varies by season and across the county. Folks living in Tucson (dry) will likely have different in-house RH conditions than Atlanta (moist). Also, winter-time during the heating season is usually drier than summer. Even in a house, the RH can vary. The fish room will likely be the worst.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Philosophos View Post
                Specific gravity would presume that it's a solid block of one of these nutrients. These are powders; plenty of air, static, moisture, etc. to deal with. These numbers are also the fertilator average; if you dig back through some threads you'll find that the maker (can't recall his screen name) just took mass consensus from APC as to their weight of a compound per cup and averaged. Some measured with their lab equipment, many with their kitchen measuring cups. Some had scales accurate to .001 of a gram, others had balancing scales accurate to 1 gram. Some people kept their bags at zero humidity and took out what they'd use in a short period of time, others had them in things like 80% relative humidity and opened them daily.

                There's lots of room for error with fertilator, but so many use it that it's nice to have their conversion factors for dry dosing. It's also handy to check their numbers over. I put the values for some of the more common compounds above into a little spreadsheet just for checking over people's math who use fertilator but don't know how to make the calculations themselves. It's saved me countless hours of playing with a calculator.

                Personally though, I just try to convert people over to at least using a scale to measure out daily values for dry dose. Stock solutions are pretty handy too.
                Oh come the hell on............(jokingly).............you mean they do not measure down to the parts per billion and micromanage things with the upmost accuracy?
                While poo pooing EI for it's "estmaition"?

                Go on...........Do tell......

                Then there's the issue of light which few seem to bother testing or measure, doing 10X worse than any estimation EI may do..........then CO2 which is really hard to measure.
                It's practical management that is best suited for hobbyists' errors and habits.

                Calculators are good for those who cannot do chemistry.
                But as far as real usage, they are still very much "estimative".


                Test kits in the hobby are also extremely prone to human habits(lack of calibration), thus are often just as bad in terms of "estimation" of a true datum.
                But many claim they are still "required" even without calibration or with, and most of these blow hards that seem to poo poo EI for guessing, are doing no different.
                They are still guessing and often with the same error.

                No one has shown that EI fails in this regard.

                I know Dan is well aware of this, but I wanted to make it very clear, there are many who think differently and want to use semantics, fuzzy words, dogma and ignore reality of the human factor as well as the observed facts.
                Test kits are estimative as well.

                They are close "guesses" with associated errors ranges.
                That's how science works, same with mathmatical modeling that EI uses to guess the ranges also.

                Any dosing calculator will also guess and estimate just like EI.
                Perception plays a large role in how folks think and view these various models and methods.......but they all have the same traits.
                As far as practical matters, all methods work pretty well horticulturally, so the need for more precision seems mute to argue.
                Perhaps in some rare cases where you want to limit and ride ona razor's edge I suppose, but not otherwise.

                If you think/believe so, you need to go back and convince yourself that is not the case.

                Good points Dan.

                Regards,
                Tom Barr
                www.BarrReport.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Neil Frank View Post
                  The wt per tsp tables will be certainly be useful for administration of dry measures.

                  As mentioned previously, it is important to be mindful that many of the mentioned salts are hygroscopic, like calcium chloride Thus, the wt may vary by relative humidity and temperature.
                  This is the best table i could find that includes one of the CaCl2 compounds.
                  See Table 1 The critical RH of 31% means that it starts to soak up water above that humidity. Below that RH, the compound stays dry. I dont know how different is the more common "anhydrous" variety. The uptake also increases with higher RH.
                  RH varies by season and across the county. Folks living in Tucson (dry) will likely have different in-house RH conditions than Atlanta (moist). Also, winter-time during the heating season is usually drier than summer. Even in a house, the RH can vary. The fish room will likely be the worst.
                  Originally posted by Neil Frank View Post
                  The wt per tsp tables will be certainly be useful for administration of dry measures.

                  As mentioned previously, it is important to be mindful that many of the mentioned salts are hygroscopic, like calcium chloride Thus, the wt may vary by relative humidity and temperature.
                  This is the best table i could find that includes one of the CaCl2 compounds.
                  See Table 1 The critical RH of 31% means that it starts to soak up water above that humidity. Below that RH, the compound stays dry. I dont know how different is the more common "anhydrous" variety. The uptake also increases with higher RH.
                  RH varies by season and across the county. Folks living in Tucson (dry) will likely have different in-house RH conditions than Atlanta (moist). Also, winter-time during the heating season is usually drier than summer. Even in a house, the RH can vary. The fish room will likely be the worst.
                  But what of the theories held so dearly about the K+ Ca++ testing and dosing of some?
                  hahaha

                  Most aquarist have pretty high humidity in their homes where the salts are stored.
                  Mine are sealed, but the difference is less meaningful to me since it's estimative and non limiting. So while true, offers little practical difference, bu does add error to dosing calculators and test kit users.
                  It also makes a good size difference if you use those same salts to make up the calibration known reference solutions, if you are off there, then all the data will be skewed.

                  Bummer.............but we shall conveniently ignore that

                  Regards,
                  Tom Barr
                  www.BarrReport.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dan, I can offer up some Fe gluconate dry estimations for the teaspoons also for you.

                    Also, some EDDHA Fe 138 sequestrene.

                    I do a run of 20 samples and then send a error range associated(max/ min + mean is the reported).
                    I can do a error bar etc, but that would be best done using all the nutrient salts on a graph(this would be nice, but would require data entry for say 10-20 measures of each salt, then run a histogram with Y error bars).

                    Since it's estimative and for the hobby, the max/min + mean is a good range.

                    Regards,
                    Tom Barr
                    www.BarrReport.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Neil, thanks for the info. I hadn't been thinking about what %RH most compounds begin to saturate at. I had presumed it was 0%.

                      Tom, you're not kidding about humidity. I recently got a little weather station/atomic clock as a gift; lowest RH recorded was 60%, and it hangs around 70-80% most of the time.

                      I'd love to see any numbers you have for accurate dry weight measurements. I think it'd be worthy of a sticky as a separate thread; I'd be referencing it and passing the link around constantly. Having a comparison between fertilator and the values for properly handled/weighed compounds might cause more people to think about how they're handling their dry dosing.

                      Do people seriously bother you about EI being inaccurate while dry dosing by volume and fertilator themselves? I think I'd almost rather dose by numbers on the back of fortune cookies.

                      Was that Fe EDDHA an offer for the measurements or some of the compound its self?
                      - Dan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And before I forget...

                        Here's one of the averaging threads that I'm talking about:
                        http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...ut-needed.html

                        There were others, but I can't recall where.

                        I see a familiar face over there

                        Left C... is that you?
                        - Dan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Philosophos View Post
                          Here's one of the averaging threads that I'm talking about:
                          http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...ut-needed.html

                          There were others, but I can't recall where.

                          I see a familiar face over there

                          Left C... is that you?
                          Yep

                          It's me. It's me. It's Ernest T! I want an education too!!!!
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V25WglII1nI
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZyuAX4cD8
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABLrJfJb98


                          I weighed chemicals for days helping with the re-do of the fertilator. I even got me some fancy scales that measure to three decimal places.


                          I wasn't trying to drop a bomb when I mentioned SG.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You have accurate measurements for other compounds? Do share. The variations with your weights on that thread are exactly the sort of thing I've found for trying to dose dry with teaspoons.

                            Hmm at least the videos weren't all Rick Astley. I'm not sure Andy Griffith is any less punishment though
                            - Dan

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Philosophos View Post
                              Tom, you're not kidding about humidity. I recently got a little weather station/atomic clock as a gift; lowest RH recorded was 60%, and it hangs around 70-80% most of the time.
                              I have to use a Dehumidifier for about 3 monhths out of the year(Dec- Feb for the most part)
                              Otherwise the mold will come and it's particularly strong at night when there's the largest difference in temps. All that nice warm moist air hits the cool window or walls, or salts.........then condenses.
                              60% is fine, above 70% starts to cause some issues.


                              Do people seriously bother you about EI being inaccurate while dry dosing by volume and fertilator themselves?
                              Some use scales, some do not. Those that do not, which are many, still say this stuff.
                              Does a scale make it really any better?
                              What about the water issue?
                              What about the accuracy of the scale?
                              What about user errors?

                              So in either case, yes, I suppose deu to EI becoming so popular, it was the method to discredit... in effort to popularize the old Test kit method/thier methods.
                              So think up every poo poo you can and say it, whether it makes sense or not, then stick to that, never admit you took the idea from some pre existing method etc.
                              Some of these fools get personal when they cannot win and direct debate on the merits of the argument alone. Then you know they are done for, no point in further disccussion. I guess it's easier to attack some other method rather than defend your own based on the trade offs.

                              I make no defense of EI other than a general thing with "excess" and "algae", since I seem to be the only person who botheed the test independently what the upper ranges of non limiting values might be.
                              So much for using "test kits" to learn about Science and facts. Good frigging grief. Basic logic, chemsitry and test methods.

                              I go back to 1996 suggesting what someone else suggested to me, Steve Dixon, to us eLamotte test kits, Hach etc.
                              To check a known reference to make sure the test kit was correct.
                              We wanted to know because the PO4 thing was still a strongly held belief that it limited algae, yet my tanks had loads........

                              Likewise, with ADA aquariums that where well scaped, we measured light and the prediction was wayyyy off.
                              I do not get it, how can you complain about models and estimations that you use, but poo poo on other models that use the same estimations and error ranges?
                              Then poo poo on me personally or the method about not testing when I know I've done far more than any of these boho's?

                              I supported the usage of test kits, I long have, but I also know the trade offs. I know how to use them to answer larger questions, I also know that CO2 and light play a far more significant role and unless those are mastered, you cannot say much about nutrients.

                              Was that Fe EDDHA an offer for the measurements or some of the compound its self?
                              Measurement, if you want some, that can be arranged also.

                              Regards,
                              Tom Barr
                              www.BarrReport.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X