Ferts

[zig]

I think these are good reasons to go forward with the PPS/EI "lean" version.

We did the "West coast lean" version about 10 years ago in our club.
We had a good debate long before Edward or APC etc.

In conjunction with ADA AS, you will have decent growth.

The problem with adding the "just enough" amount: at higher light levels and various plant species, this can be troublesome.

Generally it will work and will work obviously better with more nutrients, whether you add them to the sediment or the water column is of no consequence.....................

Many assume so, ADA has as well.

But if you are trying to sell something without freaking folks out(like I often do, but I'm not selling anything either), ADA's approach is good I think. I'm after helping folks and seek a deeper truth.

At issue in the debate of using leaner or higher levels in the water column(or sediments) is are they bad in some way?

Why is a leaner water column "better"?
From a management prespective it is not.
Daily dosing in a PITA, perhaps you will do it, I know I generally will not.

Both ADA and PPS suggest it.
Low lean residuals.

In SFBAAPS, Jeff, Steve, myself and others did this for a few years.
We added lower NO3 namely.

But by limiting PO4, you can slow growth down also without great negative effects on plants and algae(green spot, which is present in many ADA tanks I've seen running the full line).

Still, that slows NO3 uptake down a lot as well as CO2 demand.
But you still have some PO4 from the ADA AS, so it does not get too severe.

Rather than believing folks when they say or suggest that more is bad, I went out and tested it and pissed a lot of folks off.

I questioned folks including their God Amano. I do not care who you are what, you'd better look at both sides of things and weigh out why it's better and show that it really is more than merely a management issue.

To date, no one has shown otherwise.
I would suggest trying this without test kits.

Then try it with test kits but make a solution without PO4 and another with.
Use Lamotte Test kits and run a calibration for them to make sure.
Then note the dynamics for NO3 and PO4 push pull uptake dynamics.

Our club was far more advanced than Edward and we had several folks testing different systems at the same times, he's about 8-10 years behind the times, but argues as if it's something new. We also used much higher quality test kits/methods and had many differing types of tap water in a small region. We learned a lot that way. SFBAAPS is today the largest local plant club I know of.

Most of the folks that did the work years ago no longer post much, I'm one of the few still around posting actively. Erik Leung/Richard Sexton might here and there. I think Erik, Alan, Jeff who is rarely present are the only original local group and Erik was the only one beside myself that tested. Jeff did but more relatively, but he had a very very good eye.

He ran things lean and used lower light, about 1/2 what many use today.
If you think about uptake etc, then running at lower light will reduce the need for CO2/NO3 etc, you can get away with less/leaner.

So yes, you do not need CO2 at all if you reduce the light down, but "need" is a very relative word also.

ADA uses less/low light and perhaps a midday burst for 3 hours.
Makes any method more robust. As does no CO2 for dosing ferts............

But Edward and many others do not get the relationship.
It's really basic, but they focus on nutrients and micro manging that rather the real players:

CO2 and light.

I have a nice PAR light meter
I have an extremely accurate CO2 measurement method via Vaughn's KH reference solution +pH probe/membrane.

For all the banter and lack of algae knowledge, why haven't these issues been addressed more carefully?

They are the main inputs and drivers of all plant growth.
You cannot have nutrient uptake without these occurring first.

You have to address/integrate those and their variation prior to addressing any method for adding nutrients.

Try the two methods for this I've suggested, you should be able to confirm the dynamics.
If you have issues, try lowing the light by adding some brass screening between the light and tank inside the light housing.

Adding more layers = less light.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Thanks for the detailed reply Tom, I will give it a try anyway on the tank with aquasoil, doubt if I will try it on my other non aquasoil tank, as soon as I get low on NO3 in that tank I get problems associated with it, should be interesting though to see if I can pull reds a lot easier with this dosing routine, this is one area of EI I dont like, if I keep plenty of NO3 PO4 in the water column I find it difficult to get good reds in plants, I know, I know you will say there are other ways to get reds but this has been my experience so far with higher levels, the plants on the main stay several shades of green!

Thanks again

 

[plantbrain]

Very Red = stressed plants, not healthy plants.
Folks seem to think redder is better.
Slowing down the growth rate is how you get redder plants and can balance the low NO3 much easier.

If you reduce PO4, you can also slow NO3 demand which is less forgiving than PO4.
That's better as is less light or low/absent CO2.

Folks often say the same thing as you do, EI nor any method really can provide you with good management there, it's more about less light and slowing growth down so you do not have to try and maintain a low residual NO3.

Even older low light tanks have consistently produced nicer reds than the higher light/higher tech methods.

I just switch the plant if it's color variable and I want color.
L. peruinesis/granulosus is a nice red plant and looks great with EI, as does L pantanal:

Plain old EI there.


Regards,
Tom Barr