john starkey
Fishaholic
HI can you tell me what other methods there are besides EI method for feeding your plants and do these other methods have a name 
Ferts
- Thread starter john starkey
- Start date
George Farmer
ad aqua
There's PPS, but is very complex and relies on accurate testing. I wouldn't recommend it personally, not at the early stage of the hobby anyway. If you think EI is complex.....
http
/www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...ion-system.html
There's the ADA system which works well but is relatively expensive. You need the ADA substrate system (Aqua Soil, Power Sand etc.), then there's the daily liquid ferts; Brighty K, Steps 1-3 (depending on how old tank is). For extra iron there's ECA and there's a host of other stuff too. For NPK there's Special Shade and Lights. Aqua Essentials stock the entire ADA fert range.
The ADA line is ideal for its user-friendliness, but cost is an issue for many.
The best possible combo is apparently ADA Aqua Soil for substrate and EI for water ferts.
http
/www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...ion-system.htmlThere's the ADA system which works well but is relatively expensive. You need the ADA substrate system (Aqua Soil, Power Sand etc.), then there's the daily liquid ferts; Brighty K, Steps 1-3 (depending on how old tank is). For extra iron there's ECA and there's a host of other stuff too. For NPK there's Special Shade and Lights. Aqua Essentials stock the entire ADA fert range.
The ADA line is ideal for its user-friendliness, but cost is an issue for many.
The best possible combo is apparently ADA Aqua Soil for substrate and EI for water ferts.
john starkey
Fishaholic
Thank you George you are a mind of information , I dont mind the exspense so much (im not rich by the way but i am retiring soon at 52 cool hey) i like the ADA stuff it comes across as straight forward and not to much hassle .
George Farmer
ad aqua
The ADA stuff is very nice, especially if you don't mind the cost. With your budget I would be tempted to go ADA all the way i.e. opti-white glass braceless tank, ADA glassware (lily pipe, inlet, diffuser etc.) For a 90x45x45cm complete set up, you're looking at around £2000 or thereabouts.
I can help you set it all up and maintain it, as we have discussed...
I can help you set it all up and maintain it, as we have discussed...
Dave Spencer
Gort! Klaatu barada nikto.
I run a full on EI tank with 3.4WPG which is a spectacular success growth wise, and I use it to try different types of plant.
My latest set up is ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia substrate and I am trying to run it without dosing EI and a lean water column, just for something different. I hope N and P will be sufficient from my tap water as the light levels are not as intense, so I only intend to dose K and Tropica for trace.
The plant mass will more or less be HC, so I hope this may work once the tank is established. My only problem at the moment is that there is a lot of fast growing weeds in there to combat early algae issues, so they are just sucking the water column dry of ferts, so I might have to dose EI on a temporary basis.
My latest set up is ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia substrate and I am trying to run it without dosing EI and a lean water column, just for something different. I hope N and P will be sufficient from my tap water as the light levels are not as intense, so I only intend to dose K and Tropica for trace.
The plant mass will more or less be HC, so I hope this may work once the tank is established. My only problem at the moment is that there is a lot of fast growing weeds in there to combat early algae issues, so they are just sucking the water column dry of ferts, so I might have to dose EI on a temporary basis.
plantbrain
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 0
ADA is more labor than EI.
It's not any simpler either.
You still do dosing frequently(daily to every other day etc).
You still need to do weekly 50% water changes.
The cost difference is massive.
The difference with ADA is you have a nice pretty bottle of very diluted ferts, it says add this much several times a week to this size tank. That's all EI suggest also. Bulk cheap ferts, dry dosing, 2-3x a week etc.
Adding 3-4 things, like ADA, but calling them KNO3 and what they really are, via a teaspoon is not any harder.
Why on earth assume that EI is "hard" I'm not sure.
I tell folks the truth and what is in things and they all freak out and get confused.
I suppose ignorance is bliss?
I suggest adding 4 things, PPS used the same model as EI without water change s+ lots of testing/calibrations. See Older article on SFBAAPS that I wrote suggesting testing + water changes 11 years ago. I since envolved past that knowing folks would not test generally.
ADA knows that also. But ADA does not start at the top level of dosingm, they suggest a more conservative approach, that's fine because you have some sediment sources, but that assumes that they have ADA substrates...........EI works with any sediment type and thus is more robust and applicable to any system regardless of lighting, PPS is as well, but relies heavily on testing to do so...........
PO4 via KH2PO4
K and NO3 via KNO3
Traces: TMG, Flourish etc
Ca/Mg: GH booster, Seachem eq etc
You only add 4 things(1-3x a week), you use a teaspoon, etc, it cannot get any easier and not any cheaper.
Why do folks question EI so darn much yet are so very accepting on ADA or assume that PPS is in anyway better? When the algae argument was disproven by myself over a decade ago, these groups of folks got mauled, even a newbie can disprove their best arguments, so they started suggesting fish health was an issue with eI, that too has proven to be incorrect. Sour grapes.
Some suggest that ADA's system is simpler, it's not, ands they have many different little additives and suggest daily dosing.
Look, I like to take off for the weekend without dosing my tanks!
EI is cheaper and simpler than either method and reduces labor.
I look at the trade offs from each method, I also do each method.
I think with high PO4/NO3 in the tap, ADA AS substrate and some K2SO4/Traces are about all you might need(GH also) + CO2 and moderate light.
Note, you can still use ADA products, but you do not need their fertilizers, just add the ADA aqua soil and dose EI, do the weekly water change, neither I nor Amano suggest otherwise there with water changes. So if you do those types of water changes anyways...........you may as well use EI...........
Why is K+ form ADA any better than K2SO4 or KCL?
How is that simpler?
Both are easily available and both come with dosing instructions anyone can read and follow.
If I call it "Tom's miracle snake oil for plants", would that be better?
Probably not...........
There is another method, one of the least appreciated, the non CO2 method and the Excel method.
Both are much simpler than any of these methods and much less labor as well as cheaper. You need more patience though. Once up and running well, they cannot be beat.
There is a low light CO2 enriched method, which is what most of ADA's tanks really are, they add some high light via HQI for 3 hours in the middle of the day, after the CO2 has built up, but otherwise ADA's tanks are fairly low light.
His photography lighting is what is so bright
Regards,
Tom Barr
It's not any simpler either.
You still do dosing frequently(daily to every other day etc).
You still need to do weekly 50% water changes.
The cost difference is massive.
The difference with ADA is you have a nice pretty bottle of very diluted ferts, it says add this much several times a week to this size tank. That's all EI suggest also. Bulk cheap ferts, dry dosing, 2-3x a week etc.
Adding 3-4 things, like ADA, but calling them KNO3 and what they really are, via a teaspoon is not any harder.
Why on earth assume that EI is "hard" I'm not sure.
I tell folks the truth and what is in things and they all freak out and get confused.
I suppose ignorance is bliss?
I suggest adding 4 things, PPS used the same model as EI without water change s+ lots of testing/calibrations. See Older article on SFBAAPS that I wrote suggesting testing + water changes 11 years ago. I since envolved past that knowing folks would not test generally.
ADA knows that also. But ADA does not start at the top level of dosingm, they suggest a more conservative approach, that's fine because you have some sediment sources, but that assumes that they have ADA substrates...........EI works with any sediment type and thus is more robust and applicable to any system regardless of lighting, PPS is as well, but relies heavily on testing to do so...........
PO4 via KH2PO4
K and NO3 via KNO3
Traces: TMG, Flourish etc
Ca/Mg: GH booster, Seachem eq etc
You only add 4 things(1-3x a week), you use a teaspoon, etc, it cannot get any easier and not any cheaper.
Why do folks question EI so darn much yet are so very accepting on ADA or assume that PPS is in anyway better? When the algae argument was disproven by myself over a decade ago, these groups of folks got mauled, even a newbie can disprove their best arguments, so they started suggesting fish health was an issue with eI, that too has proven to be incorrect. Sour grapes.
Some suggest that ADA's system is simpler, it's not, ands they have many different little additives and suggest daily dosing.
Look, I like to take off for the weekend without dosing my tanks!
EI is cheaper and simpler than either method and reduces labor.
I look at the trade offs from each method, I also do each method.
I think with high PO4/NO3 in the tap, ADA AS substrate and some K2SO4/Traces are about all you might need(GH also) + CO2 and moderate light.
Note, you can still use ADA products, but you do not need their fertilizers, just add the ADA aqua soil and dose EI, do the weekly water change, neither I nor Amano suggest otherwise there with water changes. So if you do those types of water changes anyways...........you may as well use EI...........
Why is K+ form ADA any better than K2SO4 or KCL?
How is that simpler?
Both are easily available and both come with dosing instructions anyone can read and follow.
If I call it "Tom's miracle snake oil for plants", would that be better?
Probably not...........
There is another method, one of the least appreciated, the non CO2 method and the Excel method.
Both are much simpler than any of these methods and much less labor as well as cheaper. You need more patience though. Once up and running well, they cannot be beat.
There is a low light CO2 enriched method, which is what most of ADA's tanks really are, they add some high light via HQI for 3 hours in the middle of the day, after the CO2 has built up, but otherwise ADA's tanks are fairly low light.
His photography lighting is what is so bright
Regards,
Tom Barr
john starkey
Fishaholic
WOW TOM PULL YOUR YOUR NECK IN SON I WAS ONLY ASKING FOR ADVICE, THANKS ANYWAY 
plantbrain
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 0
WOW TOM PULL YOUR YOUR NECK IN SON I WAS ONLY ASKING FOR ADVICE, THANKS ANYWAY
I'm afraid you thought I was directing that at you personally, not hardly, to folks generally.
Sorry if you took it that way. Other folks read the post also.
I hear folks complain about EI and that have neither tried nor tested their claims about it. I do not make hyperbole or talk BS about other methods, I test them and see if they work and why. Then evaluate the method and see how it might be improved and what can be learned from it.
ADA makes the claim, as does PPS, that excess nutrients are "bad" in the water column.
So has some other certain folks recently who shall remain nameless and thus less legally threatening.
I've challenge them both to verified and show that is true for both algae and fish and over what range. I'm not challenging you
I'm asking you and others the think.........you can and should question and see what trade offs are real and what is just banter.
Folks say things many times without any support, just generalized dogma, that gets old and does not help you nor anyone else in this hobby. Folks hear these various methods and then wonder which one is right for them. They are typically confused, one say this, another says that.
Some say do not add any ferts to the water column, others say only to the sediment.
Some say do not do any water changes, some say do lots of them.
Integrating each method and understand why each works rather than just looking at one that happens to work for you ............is far more powerful.
It's mainly what goal you have and want to achieve, if you want to spend more on a commercial brand, that is up to you. Likewise if you want to use a cheap test kit, never calibrate it and assume it's good enough, that's also up to you.
Some trade offs are just not worth it for most folk's goals.
Other folks besides yourself read these post, so knowing the trade offs and thinking about them and seeing that things are not quite as different as many like to suggest, it is helpful for the hobby and to you.
Take it easy, I most certainly ain't nearly as serious as some assume nor directed it personally towards you. It's just talking about plants.
Regards,
Tom Barr
ADA is more labor than EI.
It's not any simpler either.
You still do dosing frequently(daily to every other day etc).
You still need to do weekly 50% water changes.
The cost difference is massive.
The difference with ADA is you have a nice pretty bottle of very diluted ferts, it says add this much several times a week to this size tank. That's all EI suggest also. Bulk cheap ferts, dry dosing, 2-3x a week etc.
Adding 3-4 things, like ADA, but calling them KNO3 and what they really are, via a teaspoon is not any harder.
Why on earth assume that EI is "hard" I'm not sure.
I tell folks the truth and what is in things and they all freak out and get confused.
I suppose ignorance is bliss?
I suggest adding 4 things, PPS used the same model as EI without water change s+ lots of testing/calibrations. See Older article on SFBAAPS that I wrote suggesting testing + water changes 11 years ago. I since envolved past that knowing folks would not test generally.
ADA knows that also. But ADA does not start at the top level of dosingm, they suggest a more conservative approach, that's fine because you have some sediment sources, but that assumes that they have ADA substrates...........EI works with any sediment type and thus is more robust and applicable to any system regardless of lighting, PPS is as well, but relies heavily on testing to do so...........
PO4 via KH2PO4
K and NO3 via KNO3
Traces: TMG, Flourish etc
Ca/Mg: GH booster, Seachem eq etc
You only add 4 things(1-3x a week), you use a teaspoon, etc, it cannot get any easier and not any cheaper.
Why do folks question EI so darn much yet are so very accepting on ADA or assume that PPS is in anyway better? When the algae argument was disproven by myself over a decade ago, these groups of folks got mauled, even a newbie can disprove their best arguments, so they started suggesting fish health was an issue with eI, that too has proven to be incorrect. Sour grapes.
Some suggest that ADA's system is simpler, it's not, ands they have many different little additives and suggest daily dosing.
Look, I like to take off for the weekend without dosing my tanks!
EI is cheaper and simpler than either method and reduces labor.
I look at the trade offs from each method, I also do each method.
I think with high PO4/NO3 in the tap, ADA AS substrate and some K2SO4/Traces are about all you might need(GH also) + CO2 and moderate light.
Note, you can still use ADA products, but you do not need their fertilizers, just add the ADA aqua soil and dose EI, do the weekly water change, neither I nor Amano suggest otherwise there with water changes. So if you do those types of water changes anyways...........you may as well use EI...........
Why is K+ form ADA any better than K2SO4 or KCL?
How is that simpler?
Both are easily available and both come with dosing instructions anyone can read and follow.
If I call it "Tom's miracle snake oil for plants", would that be better?
Probably not...........
There is another method, one of the least appreciated, the non CO2 method and the Excel method.
Both are much simpler than any of these methods and much less labor as well as cheaper. You need more patience though. Once up and running well, they cannot be beat.
There is a low light CO2 enriched method, which is what most of ADA's tanks really are, they add some high light via HQI for 3 hours in the middle of the day, after the CO2 has built up, but otherwise ADA's tanks are fairly low light.
His photography lighting is what is so bright
Regards,
Tom Barr
WOW TOM PULL YOUR YOUR NECK IN SON I WAS ONLY ASKING FOR ADVICE, THANKS ANYWAY
I'm afraid you thought I was directing that at you personally, not hardly, to folks generally.
Sorry if you took it that way. Other folks read the post also.
I hear folks complain about EI and that have neither tried nor tested their claims about it. I do not make hyperbole or talk BS about other methods, I test them and see if they work and why. Then evaluate the method and see how it might be improved and what can be learned from it.
ADA makes the claim, as does PPS, that excess nutrients are "bad" in the water column.
So has some other certain folks recently who shall remain nameless and thus less legally threatening.
I've challenge them both to verified and show that is true for both algae and fish and over what range. I'm not challenging you
I'm asking you and others the think.........you can and should question and see what trade offs are real and what is just banter.
Folks say things many times without any support, just generalized dogma, that gets old and does not help you nor anyone else in this hobby. Folks hear these various methods and then wonder which one is right for them. They are typically confused, one say this, another says that.
Some say do not add any ferts to the water column, others say only to the sediment.
Some say do not do any water changes, some say do lots of them.
Integrating each method and understand why each works rather than just looking at one that happens to work for you ............is far more powerful.
It's mainly what goal you have and want to achieve, if you want to spend more on a commercial brand, that is up to you. Likewise if you want to use a cheap test kit, never calibrate it and assume it's good enough, that's also up to you.
Some trade offs are just not worth it for most folk's goals.
Other folks besides yourself read these post, so knowing the trade offs and thinking about them and seeing that things are not quite as different as many like to suggest, it is helpful for the hobby and to you.
Take it easy, I most certainly ain't nearly as serious as some assume nor directed it personally towards you. It's just talking about plants.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Good God Man! What is you WPM?
Were you a secretary before you became a plant guru? That is an interesting read, as always Tom.
Sorry, John Starkey, I just had to ask. Good luck with your choices, it seems that you'll have ample material to sift through.
llj
plantbrain
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 0
Good God Man! What is you WPM?
That is an interesting read, as always Tom.
Sorry, John Starkey, I just had to ask. Good luck with your choices, it seems that you'll have ample material to sift through.
llj
Hi, I do type a bit too fast
Fortunately I do not talk that way
I'm not particularly fast I think, I just make up for things with being tenacious.
I try and help folks get a sense of the trade offs each methods has to help achieve their goals.
When I defend a method, and it might be a non CO2 or a Marine method, I argue for it and then discuss the problems with it.
Often times, you can be clever and figure out a way to avoid cost, work etc with most methods.
Such arguments might seem directed at a person, however ........they are not.
I attack the idea, not the person.
This keeps the issue on topic and does not personalize it. It might seem combative, I do admit, but when reading text off the web vs hearing a discussion in person, it is far far less combative, it's much lighter in tone.
I would never go after anyone such as John here nor yourself personally. I do apologize to him for any misunderstandings there. That's not my goal and nor would it be right. Why would I attack him for such an innocent rather obvious common question? That would not make any sense. I'm nowhere near as onerous as many might think, but it takes a little time and action to see that about me. I try and not judge others for sometime either, I hope folks afford me the same, but I do understand, there are many hacks on the web
New folks should get a balanced notion of what the trade offs are so they can select.
See the arguments for a against and what the basal issues really are that separate the various methods.
They often seem very different, but the truth is, they are not.
The various proponents claim that they are of course...........
But that is not concerning any newbie, they wade into the mess all confused and frustrated.
I was myself. So I went about figuring out each and every method and developed several of my own. Lot of work, but I figured things out well.
I have not attacked other methods, but many enjoy attacking the various ones I've suggested as pure blasphemy.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw
So I tend lay out the argument before hand.
I know the arguments the other folks suggest already and have heard them 101 times, maybe more?
Many naysayers do a lot of talk and less.little, often if any testing.
Perhaps they should focus more on the points in their hypothesis and test those instead?
They would learn more, have less judgment and more objectivity.
And be much better able to compare and contrast the various methods so that they may offer the best method for a given goal for a newbie.
That seems to be a wise approach.
Regards,
Tom Barr
john starkey
Fishaholic
Good God Man! What is you WPM?
That is an interesting read, as always Tom.
Sorry, John Starkey, I just had to ask. Good luck with your choices, it seems that you'll have ample material to sift through.
llj
Hi, I do type a bit too fast
Fortunately I do not talk that way
I'm not particularly fast I think, I just make up for things with being tenacious.
I try and help folks get a sense of the trade offs each methods has to help achieve their goals.
When I defend a method, and it might be a non CO2 or a Marine method, I argue for it and then discuss the problems with it.
Often times, you can be clever and figure out a way to avoid cost, work etc with most methods.
Such arguments might seem directed at a person, however ........they are not.
HI Tom no offence taken my friend , I admire every thing you do in our hobby.
I attack the idea, not the person.
This keeps the issue on topic and does not personalize it. It might seem combative, I do admit, but when reading text off the web vs hearing a discussion in person, it is far far less combative, it's much lighter in tone.
I would never go after anyone such as John here nor yourself personally. I do apologize to him for any misunderstandings there. That's not my goal and nor would it be right. Why would I attack him for such an innocent rather obvious common question? That would not make any sense. I'm nowhere near as onerous as many might think, but it takes a little time and action to see that about me. I try and not judge others for sometime either, I hope folks afford me the same, but I do understand, there are many hacks on the web
New folks should get a balanced notion of what the trade offs are so they can select.
See the arguments for a against and what the basal issues really are that separate the various methods.
They often seem very different, but the truth is, they are not.
The various proponents claim that they are of course...........
But that is not concerning any newbie, they wade into the mess all confused and frustrated.
I was myself. So I went about figuring out each and every method and developed several of my own. Lot of work, but I figured things out well.
I have not attacked other methods, but many enjoy attacking the various ones I've suggested as pure blasphemy.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw
So I tend lay out the argument before hand.
I know the arguments the other folks suggest already and have heard them 101 times, maybe more?
Many naysayers do a lot of talk and less.little, often if any testing.
Perhaps they should focus more on the points in their hypothesis and test those instead?
They would learn more, have less judgment and more objectivity.
And be much better able to compare and contrast the various methods so that they may offer the best method for a given goal for a newbie.
That seems to be a wise approach.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Hi tom no offence taken
plantbrain
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks John, did not want you to think otherwise.
Zig, the no testing method of PPS is EI
If you add the ferts to a bottle of water and add mls instead of teaspoons etc, same stuff, same ferts, it's EI method which is also a simple extension of PMDD without the testing part and bad assumptions about algae. not Edwards, not anyone else's. Both of which pre date Edward about a decade.
How that's a "new" method is beyond me.
If he wants to say so, he needs to defend that claim, to date he's not ever done that once.
Running around saying you have a "new method" when it's just another name for the same old thing is really not new.................folks have longed used test kits and balanced their nutrients, but it's a PITA and few continue to do so.
I know that, Edward seems to realize that most will not either recently, so he suggest doing the water changes and doing away with the test kits, that is nothing Edward ever came up with. He whined and complained how bad that was when attacking EI to get folks to change to his new method/alternative, proof irony has no limit.
Rather than some silly name for a method, simply going to low light/non CO2/non Excel, low/med/high light w CO2 and ferts seems better.
There are really not many methods out there.
Some run lean, some run richer, some add stuff to the sediment, some don't and some do both, light drives the growth rate as can CO2.
But they all meet the plant's demands for a given rate of growth.
So considering what drives growth and uptake of nutrients is really all you need to know to decide which method is most useful for you.
Try the method out, but realize what it is doing and how it's doing it.
I'd suggest the test kit method of PMMD + PO4 dosing and simply do water changes and then try a few months without.
Then you can decide if PPS is for you. Look at PMDD and do search for that.
Tom Barr
Zig, the no testing method of PPS is EI
If you add the ferts to a bottle of water and add mls instead of teaspoons etc, same stuff, same ferts, it's EI method which is also a simple extension of PMDD without the testing part and bad assumptions about algae. not Edwards, not anyone else's. Both of which pre date Edward about a decade.
How that's a "new" method is beyond me.
If he wants to say so, he needs to defend that claim, to date he's not ever done that once.
Running around saying you have a "new method" when it's just another name for the same old thing is really not new.................folks have longed used test kits and balanced their nutrients, but it's a PITA and few continue to do so.
I know that, Edward seems to realize that most will not either recently, so he suggest doing the water changes and doing away with the test kits, that is nothing Edward ever came up with. He whined and complained how bad that was when attacking EI to get folks to change to his new method/alternative, proof irony has no limit.
Rather than some silly name for a method, simply going to low light/non CO2/non Excel, low/med/high light w CO2 and ferts seems better.
There are really not many methods out there.
Some run lean, some run richer, some add stuff to the sediment, some don't and some do both, light drives the growth rate as can CO2.
But they all meet the plant's demands for a given rate of growth.
So considering what drives growth and uptake of nutrients is really all you need to know to decide which method is most useful for you.
Try the method out, but realize what it is doing and how it's doing it.
I'd suggest the test kit method of PMMD + PO4 dosing and simply do water changes and then try a few months without.
Then you can decide if PPS is for you. Look at PMDD and do search for that.
Tom Barr
Thanks John, did not want you to think otherwise.
Zig, the no testing method of PPS is EI
If you add the ferts to a bottle of water and add mls instead of teaspoons etc, same stuff, same ferts, it's EI method which is also a simple extension of PMDD without the testing part and bad assumptions about algae. not Edwards, not anyone else's. Both of which pre date Edward about a decade.
How that's a "new" method is beyond me.
If he wants to say so, he needs to defend that claim, to date he's not ever done that once.
Running around saying you have a "new method" when it's just another name for the same old thing is really not new.................folks have longed used test kits and balanced their nutrients, but it's a PITA and few continue to do so.
I know that, Edward seems to realize that most will not either recently, so he suggest doing the water changes and doing away with the test kits, that is nothing Edward ever came up with. He whined and complained how bad that was when attacking EI to get folks to change to his new method/alternative, proof irony has no limit.
Rather than some silly name for a method, simply going to low light/non CO2/non Excel, low/med/high light w CO2 and ferts seems better.
There are really not many methods out there.
Some run lean, some run richer, some add stuff to the sediment, some don't and some do both, light drives the growth rate as can CO2.
But they all meet the plant's demands for a given rate of growth.
So considering what drives growth and uptake of nutrients is really all you need to know to decide which method is most useful for you.
Try the method out, but realize what it is doing and how it's doing it.
I'd suggest the test kit method of PMMD + PO4 dosing and simply do water changes and then try a few months without.
Then you can decide if PPS is for you. Look at PMDD and do search for that.
Tom Barr
Hi Tom
I think what attracted me to PPS PRO was because its a one dose solution that covers all the bases of nutrients, or so Edward tells us, I agree though dosing any method is only going to be a variation of how much or little you dose macros and micros whether that be through EI ADA PPS PMDD or any other method, I just wanted to see if it worked or not, if you work out the dosing for pps the dosing levels are very low, for instance you would dose only 1ppm KNO3 per day and less than 1ppm PO4 per week, I wanted to try it in conjunction with ADA aquasoil where I believe it is probably most suitable IMO, I do not believe I will need to dose EI at the recommended levels with Aquasoil, maybe even less than half the recommended levels of NO3 and PO4, this is why I wanted to try the PPS formula, it may be closer to the ADA step series of fertilisers which seem to dose lean, the original PPS was overly complicated and required testing (still does) so I never tried it for that reason, although I will say that I have read of people having NO3 and PO4 deficiencies using this PPS PRO formula but I dont know if they used aquasoil or not, I suspect not, basically I want to dose leaner than EI but have a formula worked out that I am also dosing other nutrients at the same time, less complicated that way IMO, and yes it is basically the original PMDD concept with PO4 included.
Think its a pity you don't post over at APC any longer, but those are your reasons and not for me to question, I find Edwards posts to be thought provoking and sometimes trolling at the same time, some of the ideas he puts forward are interesting, its just a pity there is not a proper debate sometimes where your input is probably needed. Think his latest quest is to debunk the idea we need 30ppm of CO2 to avoid algae in highlight planted tanks, another interesting debate IMO.
Thanks for the reply Tom.
plantbrain
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 0
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
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
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
400 -
265 -
198 -
180
-
179 -
175 -
174 -
159 -
146 -
112 -
110 -
106 -
99 -
94 -
F
71