I am going to the milky way!

[Biollante]

Hi Tom,

True the constituent make-up that gives us the TDS is more important than the number itself.

I guess I was assuming the conductivity based on fertz dosing.

The TDS difference in this case being principally attributable to sulfate, I am not convinced the sulfate difference is that big a deal… As opposed to something like Sodium.

Biollante

[Tom Barr]

You got it, Na vs SO4 are huge differences and the devil is in the details, but the devil is also in evidence that has long disputed the K+, Ca+ claims.

I had the 1st debate on excess K+ back in 1998, we just did not know and many folks were REALLY larding the K+ on for their dosing. Many use KCL also. No one could find an upper limit. This went on without ANY issues for about 3 years.

The 2nd debate someone around 2001 muddled up Ca/K+ intercelluar communication with basic whole plant horticulture. A myth was born.

They claimed that K+ should be less than 20ppm and that 10-20ppm is bad. They claimed it blocked Ca++ uptake in certain plants. I asked which plants: answer: Ammannia gracilus tops would stunt. I laughed but then showed them Erik's tank with 100ppm + of K+. Huge stand of the plant. Growign so well, they awarded him the AGA overall contest winner prize for that year. I confirmed this again at 50ppm and grew the plant and posted the pictures.

They would not let it go even after that, good lord.

Next was PPS and Edward's claim about balancing K+ and Ca and Mg by ratios (which really is all the entire Special N is all about, same stuff, repackaged and worded different), around 2003-2004.

Then I think the guy's name was Kevon who made similar claims

Then this.

Or "How history repeats and no one learn a damn thing"
I come off rather stifling and testy over this but after over adeacde of trying to explain the basic stuff, and HOW to test something, it's a croc of horse manure that these people just, do not understand the basics.
Then they poo poo me personally

I present the case and show the pictures where the ratios are all over the place, or the ppm's are at a much higher ppm than they claim is detrimental.
That's not good enough for them, they think their tank is "special", that somehow it has to mean something, and NEVER might it be something other than what they think it is, this is a extremely naive attitude to have.

It is only when you falsify something, do you gain any certainty/are able to rule something out, and that requires a reference of some sort, which are sorely lacking in most debates. All it takes is for 1-2 tanks to have those conditions without the problems. Then that entire hypothesis is tossed out the window. But many of these people will not let it go.........and the myth keeps coming back up like a weed you cannot kill.

[Biollante]

Hi Tom,

Okay I am in the same place as you on the ratio-fertilizing thing.

Pretty much all of my systems violate these rules, I tend to like too much of everything and not have to worry about anything.

My curiosity was piqued by yme’s post and really the only thing I could see reducing the conductivity was lowering the sulfates and I simply cannot fathom the sulfates bit.

All of these programs seem like “hitting the numbers,” without concern as what goes into the numbers.

I remember some years ago people thinking they could influence the amount of CO₂ in solution by adding HCl.

Biollante

[yme]

Salinity stress(which is what you are implying by suggesting Conductivity) really does not occur till it is much higher and then

yup... I don't know what they use at tropica, but something like a 1/3 hoagland solution?

but from observation: most GOOD tanks have a conductivity <500 uS. your tank included . Is this then circumstantial? I just don't know...

greets,

yme